Every once in a while a film adaptation of a classic comes along and is so outstandingly good, so mind-blowingly awesome, so Academy Award-winningly superb that all other adaptations had better hang up their hat and call it a day. And every once in a while, say, 14 years later, another adaptation comes along that makes you stop and blink and think “Wait a second, this is pretty darn awesome too!”
Ladies and … who am I kidding, ladies, I give you:
My experience of seeing the 1995 Emma Thompson version of Sense and Sensibility is one of the three best movie-watching experiences of my life. I went with two dear, dear friends and my Mom. Each of us, me, my friend Adriane, and my friend Shawnne, fell hopelessly in love with a different man in the cast. I of course fell in love with Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon. The ride home from the theater when we each stood by our man and fought for their virtues is one of my favorite memories of the entire 90s. I cheered super loud when the movie won all those awards.
Last weekend I watched the 2008 Andrew Davies version of Sense and Sensibility while hanging out by myself, enjoying some peace after a busy week. Okay, I’ll confess that I got this version from Netflix because I’m currently super obsessed with Dan Stevens (also of Downton Abbey fame). I wasn’t expecting more than eye-candy. Wow! Yay for exceeding my expectations! This three-part mini-series, shown on Masterpiece Theater in America, was really, really good.
But which one is better?
Let’s break this down….
The Ladies:
In the 1995 version Emma Thompson plays Eleanor and Kate Winslet plays Marianne.
In the 2008 version Hattie Morahan plays Eleanor and Charity Wakefield plays Marianne.
At the time, Winslet was an unknown (to me at least) but I knew exactly who Emma Thompson was. That made her more accessible to me. Watching the 2008 version I had to get used to both actresses in the lead roles. I kept thinking “are they right for the parts?” “does this work?”. I did get used to them eventually and I really came to like Morahan’s performance. But who is better? Well, it all comes down to age. I remember thinking in 1995 that Emma Thompson seemed a little old to be playing Eleanor, try as they did to make her look younger. Hattie Morahan, on the other hand, looks exactly the right age to me. Eleanor is supposed to be in her early 20s. Marianne is 17. Both Mariannes look to be about the right age.
That said, I have to give this one to the 1995 cast. Thompson is way too old for the part, but she’s a brilliant actress. The way she comes apart when she finds out Edward is not married is classic. Kate Winslet is fresh and charming and a little mad as Marianne, which is exactly as things should be. She also gets points for singing. And for making me believe that she actually could love Colonel Brandon. Not so for Charity Wakefield. I bought Wakefield’s crazy teenager persona, but I didn’t think for one second that she would ever love Morrissey’s Brandon.
That being said, let’s tackle the easy ones for the men first.
In 1995 Colonel Brandon was played by Alan Rickman.
In 2008 Colonel Brandon was played by David Morrissey.
Alan Rickman wins this one hands down. HANDS DOWN! His Brandon had depth and passion. His eyes spoke volumes. He smoldered, he pined, and when he asked Eleanor to give him something to do or he would go mad you truly believed it. Rickman’s Brandon personified all the things Marianne was truly longing for in a man. When she realized it at the end it was only natural that a genuinely passionate love would develop.
David Morrissey, on the other hand, bless his heart, was just a big, brooding guy. I’ve liked him in other things, but here he was a pale comparison to Willoughby. His facial expression never seemed to change and his eyes did nothing. When Marianne agreed to marry him at the end I finally agreed with the assessment of one Jane Austen essayist who postulated that Marianne knew she would never be happy after Willoughby’s betrayal so she settled. Alan Rickman never made me feel that way.
Another no-brainer contest (at least for me – I expect to get arguments on this one)
In 1995 Edward Ferrars was played by Hugh Grant.
In 2008 Edward Ferrars was played by Dan Stevens.
I personally think Dan Stevens walks away with this one. He played Edward with an easy, honest charm that Hugh Grant just didn’t have. Even in 1995 I felt as though Hugh Grant was walking around in a waistcoat that was too tight with a stick up his butt. I just don’t buy him as a straight-laced, vicar-wannabe. To me his performance seemed stilted. I don’t think Grant understood how to play a man trapped by a foolish mistake and his own sense of duty and morality. He seemed lost in the clothes, lost in the sets, just lost.
Dan Stevens, on the other hand, was remarkable as a tortured soul who just wanted to do the right thing. He made you like him from the moment he walked on screen. You could totally understand how Eleanor was so attracted to him and how much he longed to be with her. I think part of the credit goes to Andrew Davies for giving Dan Stevens and Hattie Morahan an emotionally (and in a brilliantly stifled way sexually) charged scene while Edward is chopping wood for the Dashwoods.
He is in agony because no one is there to help the family. He is torn by his technical sense of duty to Lucy Steele and his visceral sense of duty towards the woman he truly loves and her family. It’s pure magic!
So yes, in the end Dan Stevens is the MUCH better Edward.
Now it gets a bit trickier.
In 1995 Willoughby was played by Greg Wise.
In 2008 Willoughby was played by Dominic Cooper.
I think I’ll call this one a draw. True, Dominic Cooper is a better age for Willoughby. But Greg Wise is equally as charming. I personally prefer Dominic Cooper (again with the eyes – he has delicious eyes). But the chemistry between Wise’s Willoughby and Winslet’s Marianne is great. And Wise feels a little more redeemable in the end to me. But his killer sideburns are annoying. Cooper gives me the feeling of being disreputable up until the end, but I also believed him when he said he genuinely loved Marianne. So this one is up to you. Take your pick.
Other players.
Okay, there’s no beating around the bush. Hugh Laurie has the best cameo appearance ever in his turn as Mr. Palmer in the 1995 version. For such a small, curmudgeonly character he has some of the best lines of the entire film. And I’m talking one-word lines. The scene where he responds to his wife, who states that she is so excited she can’t contain herself with a sharply drawled “try” had me in tears of laughter. His facial expressions are amazing.
On the 2008 production’s side, one of the most outstanding minor characters is a character that isn’t even in the 1995 version.
Daisy Haggard played the self-absorbed, obnoxious, mile-a-minute talker, can’t keep a secret to save her life, hysterical Miss Ann Steele, Lucy’s sister, so brilliantly that I looked forward to seeing her on screen. And I looked her up in imdb as I was watching to see what else she’s been in. She was so fantastic that she made the 2008 Lucy Steele look drab and stupid.
Which brings me to 1995’s Lucy, Imogen Stubbs. Stubbs made Lucy dumb as a post but conniving enough to convince you that she would throw Edward over for his brother the second he’d lost the money. She has a way of batting her eyes in such a way that makes you think there’s nothing in her head but the daggers she’s about to stick in your back. So understated, so brilliant.
As for the story, well, it’s the same story. In fact, I thought some of the lines were exactly the same. They probably were, considering they were Jane’s words. But even the staging felt the same in many places. I did like the cottage by the sea in the 2008 version much better as a way to show the level that the Dashwood women had sunk to. I liked the way the director used the incessant sound of the waves in the background to help drive home the point that that kind of exile was driving them crazy. Everything else was pretty much the same in terms of quality from one version to the other, costumes, music, scenery. To me it was the acting and casting that sets these two adaptations apart.
So which one do I think is better? Now you know I’m not going to answer that. I liked them both. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. But what do you think?
Here are the trailers for each to help you make up your mind:
Oh, and since, like I said, I’m currently obsessed with Dan Stevens (who is the template for the hero in my NaNoWriMo story), here’s another mouth-watering picture of him.
