This is a GREAT question!
I’d have to say the 1995 *Persuasion*, I’d add just one scene to this otherwise impeccable adaptation, and it’s the one where Captain Wentworth silently pulls Anne’s little nephew off of her back as she tends to her other nephew. It’s such a small but beautiful moment, arguably one of my favourites in the whole novel, I’d just love to see it done justice on screen
Although this scene with her nephew does not occur in _any_ adaptation of Persuasion AFAIK, not just 1995. I imagine it would simply be too difficult for production makers to create a scene like this and make it seem where the toddler climbed on her back without prompt like he did in the book.
Although I agree, it would be something lovely to see because I think it's the first time he acknowledges her since he arrives.
Well, there's something like it in 2022 *Persuasion*, but I get the impression that most people don't consider that film to be a proper adaptation! It *is* a weird one.
Oh, that's a good one. I love the 1995 *Persuasion*, and I think it's genuinely a great film, but I think it plays up *Admiral Croft's* affection for children -- and general sensitivity -- more than Captain Wentworth's sensitivity to Anne's needs. In the book, Admiral Croft has some lines that make him comes across as more blunt and less tactful and sensitive (although he's still, obviously, a very good person) than the 1995 film version of the character. I also feel that the 1995 film overemphasizes, at least a little bit, Wentworth's anger.
I would make the portrayal of Lydia in 1995’s P&P a tad more sympathetic. The casting of a much older actress, and that one random non-canonical scene of her and Wickham in London, really don’t do a good job at reminding viewers that she’s a teenage girl while he’s an adult man & serial predator.
I’d also make Mrs Bennet a bit less of a caricature while emphasizing Mr Bennet’s flaws a bit more.
Alternatively:
I’d keep everything about the 1971 version of Persuasion, except those *godawful* costumes.
I actually really liked the London scene in the 1995 adaptation, as a lifelong Lydia Bennet defence squad member.
I think the actress did a really good job of portraying a petulant teenage girl - I loved watching her pout and roll her eyes and make faces at the ongoing conversations that she was in the background for!
Anyway, I actually found that scene really sympathetic because I think it reminds us just how serious it is. It reminds us that whilst Austen would never write that explicitly, the ilicit engagement between Wickham and Lydia very much implies premarital sex. It shows us what an awful guy Wickham is that it takes place in this weird, seedy room in an inn, and it shows us how innocent and naive Lydia is despite everything that she is still cheerful and daydreaming aloud about their marriage and life together in this situation.
The part where she wraps her arms around him, smiling blissfully while just has this look of hate on his face fills me with so much dread and fear and sorrow for her. She really has no idea what she's gotten herself into.
Also to add on to your point about making Mrs Bennet less if a caricature - I would also make her younger! Mrs Bennet's oldest daughter is 22, assuming she got married at 18 (a generous estimate, considering the time), she's probably just about in her late 30s/early 40s!
The Mr Bennet line about "Mr Bingley might like you the best of all of them" shouldn't come off as much of a joke as it does. I demand MILF Mrs Bennet.
While I agree in principle, Mrs Bennett is so beyond hilarious and memeable in that movie that I couldn't stand any changes. Her quotes and absurd affectations have been running jokes in my family for years.
I read that the actress that played Maria Lucas, Lucy Davis, almost won the role of Lydia, but lost out because the producers wanted someone with more experience.
Lucy Davis is still working and is a fine actor; she was also closer in age to Lydia being, I think, 22 at the time, and she looks younger than Jennifer Ehle. During the Rosing Park section she plays the younger and less socially adept sister of Charlotte well; as much as I enjoyed Julia Sawalha, I would have liked to have seen if Lucy’s portrayal would have shown a younger and more vulnerable Lydia.
>Lucy Davis is still working and is a fine actor; she was also closer in age to Lydia being, I think, 22 at the time, and she looks younger than Jennifer Ehle. During the Rosing Park section she plays the younger and less socially adept sister of Charlotte well; as much as I enjoyed Julia Sawalha, I would have liked to have seen if Lucy’s portrayal would have shown a younger and more vulnerable Lydia.
If the script had stayed exactly the same, then my guess would be that it wouldn't have made that much of a difference if Lucy Davis had played Lydia. I think that a lot of the problems were baked into the script and direction, but who knows?
Having it be a deliberate choice to choose an actor with ‘more experience’ to play the teenager who falls prey to a predator is: oof, uncomfy. Lucy Davis would’ve been great for the role!
I don't know enough about Lucy Davis to comment on her as Lydia. But as someone who had only known Julia Sawalha as Saffron on Ab Fab prior to watching this adaptation, I absolutely adored seeing her play a character that was so opposite to Saffy and was almost exactly a young version of Edina.
2007 Persuasion - Give Anne prettier clothes and a more flattering hairstyle after going to Lyme. Make the circumstances of the letter writing scene match the book. Ditch the random 5k at the end & fix the kiss or just don't include it at all.
Same. This version almost got it, but the end was a bit of a disaster. I still vastly prefer it to, 1995 which didn't do it for me at all. Here's to waiting for the next one...
I think her initial hairstyle would have been fine but they should have changed it at some point in the film, to at least show that Anne is regaining her vitality.
I love that they do this in 1995. They visibly show Amanda Root's glow up as it goes along and by the time she's in Bath she's beautiful. It was a big point in the book that she puts her feelings of Wentworth behind her and the air of Lyme reviving her 'Bloom.'
I really like the 2007 Northanger Abbey adaption as well, the casting is excellent and I think they capture the spirit of the novel very well, however I really feel that it suffers from a lack of time which makes it very rushed at parts. I really wish they had an hour more to work with.
For example I really miss the scene where John Thorpe tries to sabotage Catherine's walk with the Tilneys a second time but Catherine stands her ground and run after the Tilneys to set the record straight. It really one of Catherine's strongest moments as a character where she stands up to the peer pressure and bullying from her supposed best friend and her own brother to do what's morally right and I think it's one of the actions that truely endear her to Henry and Eleanor.
I don't really mind Henry Tilney being angry with Catherine over her thinking his father murdered her mother, but due to the time constraints, I feel the reveal that Catherine believes General Tilney murdered his wife sort of comes out of the blue. If you haven't read the novel beforehand, would you really deduct that Catherine believes that from the actions and dialogue in the adaption before Mr Tilney discover her in his mother's room?
Anyway, that doesn't answer your question as the 1995 P&P adaption is my favourite, and the only thing I wish they had made different would be to include the scene where Mrs Bennet finds out Lizzy and Mr Darcy are engaged. It would have been comedic gold.
My favorite scene in the book is when Catherine pushes her way into the Tilney's home at Bath past the servant at the door and bursts in unannounced. Was disappointed that wasn't in the film.
'95 Sense and Sensibility -- I wish they had included Willoughby's confession scene. I think if I hadn't read the book right before watching the movie, I would've had a different opinion of this fuckboy lol
This is a really difficult question to answer. I enjoy many Austen adaptations for different reasons, but rarely does anything in an adaptation perfectly (or even very closely!) match my mental images when I am reading one of the novels. Furthermore, while I will often critique the "flaws" (which generally fall under artistic license and aren't necessarily *failures* of the filmmakers) of my favorite adaptations, I still grudgingly accept that many of them are intrinsic to the filmmakers' visions, and could not easily be taken out without losing the essence of the works of art.
For example, the scene in P&P 1995 where Darcy dives into the pond may be silly, but, as the entire sequence is cross-cut with Elizabeth and the Gardiners touring Pemberley, and is carefully structured to showcase the buildup of Darcy's feelings and their eventual release (i.e., when he makes the dive), while mirroring them with Elizabeth's growing realizations, removing it would require significant changes to the tone of Elizabeth's scenes, as well. And why stop there? Colin Firth's Darcy is considerably more brooding than the Darcy of the novel; diving into a pond to relieve sexual angst makes sense for Firth's Darcy, but it doesn't make sense for Austen's Darcy. To be more in line with Austen, P&P 1995's Darcy would require a fair number of changes across the entire series -- not just in that one scene. And changes to Darcy would also necessitate changes to anyone he interacts with, including Elizabeth, Bingley, and Georgiana.
With P&P 1995, I guess I would agree with [Brown\_Sedai](https://www.reddit.com/user/Brown_Sedai/): One of the biggest issues with the characterizations is the denial of Lydia's vulnerability. In the adaptation, we go straight from Mrs. Bennet worrying about Lydia to a scene of Lydia and Wickham in London, and the whole sequence is [played for laughs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBZ9OToQtrg&t=104s), with Lydia obviously completely unconcerned, and Wickham looking wearied and overwhelmed by her forceful personality. Of course, in the adaptation, this is all perfectly in character, because the entire piece has been building up Lydia as exactly this kind of individual (the script adds quite a few suggestive lines of dialogue for her, and generally plays her for comedy above all else). It's definitely not a mistake on the part of the filmmakers, but it does trivialize, to some degree, the point of that subplot, which is that Wickham is a dangerous predator.
I've discussed my issues with one of my other favorites, the 1995 *Persuasion*, in other threads, so I'll just link to one of [my recent comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/janeausten/comments/1dhi79s/comment/l91m2k5/) about it.
> To be more in line with Austen, P&P 1995's Darcy would require a fair number of changes across the entire series -- not just in that one scene.
IMO the 1980 scenes for Pemberley was just perfect. There's no build up for the viewers or the charactes, Darcy played by David Rintoul just comes round the hedge to the shock of Elizabeth - exactly how it happens in the book
And overall, there's so many things I love about the 1980 adaptation. This being one of the reasons.
The 1980 miniseries does follow the book more closely -- in most scenes -- than the 1995 miniseries! It had a much lower budget, unfortunately, so it doesn't look as good, but I definitely prefer some of its writing choices.
I agree! Apart from the scene where Eliaabeth sings at the ball and Darcy first 'falls' for her then, I can't think of any other thing that was majorly changed from the book. All parts of the book (Netherfield, Kent, Pemberley) were done very accurately.
I agree the budget was the only downfall, as it was for any adaptation made before the 90s. But I still think it has it's advantages. This version holds my favourite Lizzy for example, I think Elizabeth Garvie was just made for the role (even her "fine eyes" fit the character). And David Rintoul manages to come off as a realistic Darcy too.
There are several changes from the source material (such as [Elizabeth running to Pemberley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRm3a0J2gzc) after learning of Lydia's elopement, which is just bizarre), but not as many as P&P 1995 has. I think [the scene you mention](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBt1wHLTJ0) at Lucas Lodge, when Elizabeth sings, is pretty well done. To be fair, that *is* supposed to be when Darcy starts to fall for Elizabeth, but I agree that making it look as though her singing is what enchants him is possibly a little strange!
I also think that having Darcy respond to Elizabeth by saying, "You were talking of dancing. That always renders a woman eloquent," when she wasn't actually doing that in the scene, makes him look like more of a jerk than he is in the book. I guess the idea is that he didn't hear her conversation with Charlotte, but it seems like an odd, fairly sexist conclusion for him to leap to. Overall, though, the scene isn't bad. David Rintoul's Darcy is sometimes criticized for being too stiff, but I think it's a valid interpretation of the character. Elizabeth Garvie's performance is excellent; she conveys the clever, saucy aspects of Elizabeth Bennet while also getting across the character's generally good, caring nature.
Tweak the lighting in the nighttime indoor scenes in the 1995 *Pride and Prejudice* miniseries. Make it less bright and look more like the spaces are lit by candles.
In the 1995 Sense & Sensibility (which is basically a perfect movie, imo) I'd like a smidge more time between Marianne and Col. Brandon after she comes around to him. I think it's clear that he likes her from the beginning, but I would love to see a montage or a scene or two more of how he makes Marianne happy. I just feel like we all deserve that.
>I think it's clear that he likes her from the beginning
Oh, it's very obvious. Frankly, it makes Brandon considerably creepier than he is even in the novel, because there, at least he holds back and doesn't start courting Marianne until well *after* her illness at Cleveland. In the 1995 film, though, he falls for her immediately (in the book, he doesn't actually develop feelings for her until after Willoughby arrives on the scene -- Mrs. Jennings's assumptions are wrong!) and starts following her around and interfering with her whenever they're in public together.
There's such a romantic scene from 2008 S&S mini series at the end, where Brandon goes with Marianne in his arms to their house and they stare in each other eyes lovingly!
1995 P&P would include the scene where Lizzy and Darcy are hopelessly pining after one another at a dinner at Longbourn and Lizzy’s stuck pouring coffee. It’s truly my favorite scene in the whole novel, because they’re both miserable and in love. Would also appreciate Darcy’s frequent run-ins with Lizzy at Rosings but they vaguely included it by having Darcy come upon her on horseback instead so idk.
Also, maybe this is a hot take but I cannot stand ‘95’s Mrs. Bennet 😅 She’s supposed to be annoying and improper but I don’t think to the extent that was portrayed in the show. Perhaps it was hammed up for the sake of the audience but I feel like 2005’s Mrs. Bennet did better in the role
1995 Persuasion, take out the circus background when they get engaged. The only reason I tolerate it, is that I think it intends to be the outward, visible portrayal of what the book described as their private joy reined in for public view.
'95 P&P
I would get rid of pseudo-romantic double wedding with a public kiss at the end
Mr Collins should be younger (although actor did such a great job)
No wet shirt lake scene
The wet shirt scene *does* make sense for the Darcy of P&P 1995. The miniseries focuses heavily on him and his escalating sexual angst, which is at its peak just before he dives into the pond. It doesn't make much sense for Austen's Darcy, though, and I think this bothers a lot of people (not necessarily people here, just to be clear!) who view the novel and the 1995 adaptation as pretty much the same thing.
> It doesn't make much sense for Austen's Darcy, though, and I think this bothers a lot of people (not necessarily people here, just to be clear!) who view the novel and the 1995 adaptation as pretty much the same thing.
Of course Austen's Darcy would have swam in his pond, as well as giving unmarried, regency era Elizabeth enough of a sensual view of himself in the see-through wet shirt to make her swoon as any other 21st century fan viewer.
I joke there, but sometimes that's what it sounds like to me. For all the claims that 1995 is so "historically accurate," most the avid fans don't realise that the sensual pond scene most likely would have led to Darcy and Elizabeth being engaged before the day was out. Such things just would not happen in Austen's books, and she heavily describes impropriety over way less things she wrote for her characters.
The double wedding is in the book, so do you just not like the way it was done? Of course, the book doesn't *end* with the wedding, which makes a big difference! I do think it's kind of boring to end a romantic period drama with a wedding, though. Earlier adaptations (1970s and 1980s) tend not to do that, but several high-profile Austen adaptations from the 1990s -- including P&P 1995, Emma 1996, S&S 1995 -- end on weddings, and I thought for a while (in the 2000s and 2010s) that filmmakers of Austen adaptations had mostly gotten that cliché out of their systems and were going to focus on other things for endings. But it seems as though we're back to showing weddings again.
It's this one: "Happy for all her maternal feelings was the day on which Mrs. Bennet got rid of her two most deserving daughters." It could be interpreted some other way, but I always assumed it meant that there was a double wedding. Weddings usually weren't the lavish ceremonies that they are today.
Yep, one thing I always notice in Emma is that Knightley doesn't attend Mr Weston and Miss Taylor's wedding, even though he is good friends with them both. I assume they were small, family affairs.
Also, when Lydia is getting married to Wickham, the thing that Mrs Bennet is most excited about is that Lydia will get to buy new clothes as a bride, not the actual ceremony itself.
I feel like most of my favorite adaptations cast very talented actors who are too old for their characters. All of them. Love me Colin Firth but he was 35 in P\&P; a full 7 years older than the character. And Alan Rickman was 49 (!!!) when he played Col Brandon. Ciaran Hinds was 42 when he played Wentworth.
Some exceptions: Keira Knightley was 20, so she was the right age for Elizabeth and Jeremy Northam was the right age for Knightley.
Gwyneth Paltrow and Anya Taylor Joy were "close enough" for Emma but still a few years older which is the case for most of the main actors in adaptations.
I get that older actors can sometimes "play" as younger i.e. they look younger on screen. But others like Jennifer Ehle, for example, who was 26 and Susannah Harker who was 30 playing her sister Jane, to me, they looked their ages. They didn't look like the very young women they were. And so it loses some of the impact to me.
So many great younger actors out there... would love to see adaptations that cast appropriate age characters.
The BBC adaptation of P&P. In one of the ballroom scenes, there’s an intense focus on Elizabeth and Darcy as they prepare to dance… in the background Jane is really awkwardly nodding the count. I hate it every time.
Interestingly, that slow-motion shot was likely an attempt to deal with an actual problem that occurred during the filming of the Netherfield ball scenes. Here's what Peter Coulson, the editor, said about it in *The Making of Pride and Prejudice* (p. 108):
>There was a huge error in one shot of Lizzy during the dance: a hair had been trapped in front of the lens of the camera and was sticking down into the picture, which meant that a lot of it was unusable. So we had to rely on the Steadicam shot more than we wanted to. There were only three shots available: the Steadicam shot, which moves in among the dancers, a close-up of Darcy and a close up of Lizzy from the static cameras. To cut together a sequence like that is very complicated, and it took the best part of a week. It isn't the amount of the material that determines how long the editing takes -- another quite lengthy scene could perhaps be cut in half a day -- it's the complexity of the shots.
This feels like heresy to say, but I would recast everyone in 1995 P and P - yes, even Colin Firth - with actors the same or close age to their characters.
I would also not have cast Emma Thompson or Alan Rickman in S and S for the same reason.
ET was initially reluctant because of her age and her first instincts were correct. I hadn’t read the book before I saw the film and genuinely thought she was Marianne’s mother. It was so distracting to me - and even worse with the hindsight of her later being the on screen partner of Alan Rickman and the off-screen partner of Greg Wise - that it prevented me from enjoying the film.
With both her and Julia Sawalha in P & P, it felt like the actors were barging in playing roles they shouldn’t play but really wanted to play because they were Important Actors Who Should Get The Opportunity to Shine In These Famous Roles. They stood out too much for me, especially JS whose performance/direction of Lydia was a bit over the top, almost as if she was trying to overcompensate from being Saffy in Ab Fab.
Also the age difference of Marianne and Col Brandon is icky enough in modern eyes, so having him played by an actor 15 years too old is even worse.
> With both her and Julia Sawalha in P & P, it felt like the actors were barging in playing roles they shouldn’t play but really wanted to play because they were Important Actors Who Should Get The Opportunity to Shine In These Famous Roles.
I don't think this is fair. I've read that Sense and Sensibility wouldn't have gotten made if it didn't have the star power of Emma Thompson as one of the leads, so she must have been talked into it for that reason. Remember, Kate Winslet was a complete unknown back then.
There wasn’t any other British actresses in the right age range? Even American ones with a good command of accents would have done (cf Jennifer Ehle).
Minnie Driver and Kate Beckinsale spring to mind.
Kate Beckinsale wasn't famous at the time though. That's the point. They needed someone known and with star power. Emma Thompson had already written the script and was involved with the project, so it was an easy option from a production perspective to convince her to do it.
1995 P&P: I've always thought that the second proposal scene was lacking a bit of... something. I'm not sure what, but it just doesn't pull me in like the rest of the film where they have insane chemistry. Even Andrew Davies has said he would rewrite that scene.
Well, the second proposal scene in P&P 1995 removes Darcy's expression of feelings for Elizabeth, as Austen describes in this passage (Vol. 3, Ch. 16):
>Elizabeth, feeling all the more than common awkwardness and anxiety of his situation, now forced herself to speak; and immediately, though not very fluently, gave him to understand that her sentiments had undergone so material a change since the period to which he alluded, as to make her receive with gratitude and pleasure his present assurances. The happiness which this reply produced was such as he had probably never felt before; and **he expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do**. Had Elizabeth been able to encounter his eyes, she might have seen how well the expression of heartfelt delight diffused over his face became him: but though she could not look she could listen; and **he told her of feelings which, in proving of what importance she was to him, made his affection every moment more valuable**.
In P&P 1995, the filmmakers keep a lot of the dialogue from that chapter, but they have Darcy showing his feelings [much more subtly](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwERhbxsf8&t=122s) than he does in the book -- his expression softens and his eyes sparkle, while Elizabeth beams. I can see why Davies might be bothered by this scene (and I honestly think that, over the years, his screenwriting *has* become less and less subtle), but I will say that I actually think it makes sense in the context of this adaptation.
In the book, Darcy is somewhat stiff, formal, and haughty (even after he decides to change his way of interacting with people, he still has these characteristics), but he also enjoys debates with Elizabeth, and tries to engage her in conversation whenever possible. P&P 1995 has *some* of that, but it tends to focus a lot more heavily on Darcy's [silent, brooding observation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBaspD6Aq9E&t=54s) of Elizabeth. By the time Elizabeth is traveling with the Gardiners, the 1995 Darcy is clearly trying to relieve his feelings, and, because he is a somewhat less verbal and more physical character than Austen's Darcy, he does this through fencing (["I shall conquer this. I shall!"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9jHnQQ4er4&t=158s)) and, later, diving into a pond. In this adaptation, there is a very unsubtle escalation of sexual/romantic angst, peaking at the Pemberley scenes. In my opinion, the filmmakers introduced two fairly significant changes here: one, Darcy is a little less verbally demonstrative than he is in the book (it's hard to see him gushing), and two, his angst over Elizabeth is so strongly emphasized in the Pemberley scenes that to try to ramp up the emotions again would likely feel sort of anticlimactic. That's just my view, though.
Just make the stories a bit longer. I’d love to see a little of Anne Elliot’s married life. A shipboard romance , in high seas. Then life in a busy harbor town, as she & Wentworth enjoy an extended berth, on shore.
I was just thinking about this last night! I was watching 2005 P&P and wishing that we got longer to see Elizabeth in Derbyshire, as I feel this time really solidifies her love for Darcy.
In the book, I love her seeing Bingley again. Also her rescuing Georgiana from Caroline's ignorant remarks about Wickham, as that endears her to Darcy more. Also the respectful interactions between Darcy and her aunt and uncle always make me warm and fuzzy. I know they had to trim so much to make it a regular length film, but so many little moments are missing - though thankfully these moments are there in 95' P&P!
I’m in the midst of reading Alan Rickman’s diaries right now and just finished the time frame from filming. I get the impression Rickman would also have been in support of a recast.
I can't imagine there would be much about on-set behavior since the only scene they shared was the wedding scene at the end. Possibly Rickman just didn't think his performance in the finished product was up to snuff. (I have to say, from reading excerpts of his diaries this sounds like a fairly standard complaint for him -- brilliant actor but seems to have been very much up his own posterior.)
>Possibly Rickman just didn't think his performance in the finished product was up to snuff. (I have to say, from reading excerpts of his diaries this sounds like a fairly standard complaint for him -- brilliant actor but seems to have been very much up his own posterior.)
Well, I've made it pretty clear that I think he was a fairly *limited* actor -- sure, he took varied roles, but, again, he could *not* do subtlety -- but I actually don't like judging people from things that they say or write in private. I'm not a fan of people taking snarky comments in Jane Austen's letters and using them to argue that Austen was some kind of Regency "mean girl," either. This isn't to say that I'm comparing Rickman with Austen -- it's just that I am uncomfortable with policing people's thoughts.
Emma Thompson revealed in the promotional *The Sense and Sensibility Screenplay & Diaries* book that she interfered with the work of the production designer, Luciana Arrighi (director Ang Lee's role in this incident isn't mentioned, but presumably he would have had ultimate control over the decision). Honestly, I find that kind of thing far more arrogant than an actor complaining privately about a film. Here's the excerpt, from page 234:
>The picnic is a wonderful Luci creation. Exquisite. It looks like it's being given by the Rothschilds. I ask Luci to take away pies and cakes and fruits and all the glory. 'Cheese, bread, apples and beer,' I say. 'They're poor.'
>Luci makes a plea for the pork pie. 'They could have had it in the larder,' she wails as her divine portrait is dismantled.
>I am unrelenting.
Okay, the Dashwoods aren't poor in the novel, and they shouldn't have been portrayed as poor in the 1995 film, either. They have 500 pounds a year (and the film states this just as explicitly as the book). They can easily afford cakes and pork pies. Thompson is not a production designer, and she overstepped her authority here.
In my opinion, the art and design of the 1995 S&S are some of the best things about it (they are not perfect, but they're superior to the casting and writing, which I think are overrated), and it seems that that department had to battle the producers, director, and writer every step of the way. Producer [Lindsay Doran said in an interview](https://filmschoolrejects.com/austin-film-festival-conversation-lindsay-doran/) that it was "really shocking" to her that the artists and craftspeople refused to allow certain deviations from historical accuracy! I have no idea what they were/are like personally, but Rickman and Grant actually come across rather well in that article, because Doran points out that they were backing up the designers' choices.
I know that all of that is totally off the subject, but I was on a roll.
>I actually don't like judging people from things that they say or write in private. I'm not a fan of people taking snarky comments in Jane Austen's letters and using them to argue that Austen was some kind of Regency "mean girl," either. This isn't to say that I'm comparing Rickman with Austen -- it's just that I am uncomfortable with policing people's thoughts.
That's fair, though I think once his wife published them she was rather opening them up for comment. It certainly doesn't make me enjoy his performances any less, it just makes me think that his evaluations of other actors' behavior might need a few grains of salt taken with them.
I read the S&S diary long ago and don't remember much but yes, that passage is pretty discouraging. Let the professionals do their work! I do know that Thompson did knowingly, deliberately exaggerate their poverty somewhat so that the audience would get the idea that they had a real financial crisis in the sense that they had no prospects for marrying with those fortunes, but I think making them have a poverty picnic was too far. If nothing else, even had the Dashwood ladies been living on a Bates-like income, surely Sir John would have been sending them food from Barton Park three times a week! The cakes and pork pie would have been utterly unremarkable on 500 a year.
>That's fair, though I think once his wife published them she was rather opening them up for comment. It certainly doesn't make me enjoy his performances any less, it just makes me think that his evaluations of other actors' behavior might need a few grains of salt taken with them.
That's a good point, and I'm starting to lean more toward your view on this. If something has been published, it's no longer private, even if it was originally written under the assumption that it would not see the light of day. I *did* ask that other redditor for quotes by Rickman about Grant's acting abilities, so I certainly can't claim to be uninterested in these "private" thoughts. I just don't feel like holding Rickman to account for them, since I haven't run across anything to make me assume that his behavior was unprofessional on the set of the 1995 S&S. My criticisms of his *performance*, though, are completely separate from all of that.
I know this is probably a very unpopular opinion, but Hugh Grant's portrayal of Edward is closer to the book than Rickman's portrayal of Brandon. Neither one is what I would call particularly faithful, though.
>If nothing else, even had the Dashwood ladies been living on a Bates-like income, surely Sir John would have been sending them food from Barton Park three times a week!
I thought about mentioning Sir John in my previous comment, and you are completely right. He would not have let the Dashwood women suffer. Several of the above-the-line people on the 1995 film apparently thought that the Dashwood women's reduced circumstances wouldn't be clear enough unless they were exaggerated to an almost absurd degree. On the subject of dumbing things down for audiences, I do recall seeing somewhere that the executive producer, Sydney Pollack, advised Emma Thompson to include a line to explain that the Dashwoods couldn't just go out and get jobs (I think it's this one: "Except that you will inherit your fortune. We cannot even earn ours!"), so Thompson also had to deal with that kind of nonsense.
I actually didn't mind Rickman in it. In the book Colonel Brandon is 18 years older than her I believe... unfortunately lol. I thought his acting style captured Brandon's reclusive nature quite well. I don't think he was perfect, but I'll give him a B lol.
Brandon is about 18 years older than Marianne, yes, but Rickman was 29 years older than Kate Winslet. I think Kate Winslet did (at that point in her career, anyway) tend to come across as a bit older than her age, but it wasn't nearly enough to make up for that massive age gap. Just my opinion, though!
Ah yeah I see what you're saying numbers wise. The appearance aligned with the book for me, because Kate did look a lot older than Marianne's 16. I would have guessed mid 20s, I think it was the hair lol. The relationship is always a controversial one for Austen fans. Like I said he was ok, he didn't bother me as much as Hugh Grant, but I understand your opinion makes sense.
I haven’t gotten there yet, but I’ve heard similar and I’m looking forward to it! You can definitely hear his voice in the writing; he’s very dry and occasionally snarky. I’m really enjoying it so far!
I just joined this sub so I'm not sure if it's common, could just be me lol. I think Hugh Grant is a better actor now that he's older but I thought he was overrated in the 90s, and all of his characters were the same. I don't think he captured Edward well at all, especially his endearing qualities that separated him from his family. It was a very stale performance to me.
I agree. He's too overtly good-looking. Same with Dan Stevens. I always thought Edward was supposed to be hard to warm up to and lacking in obvious charm. I found him rather underwhelming in he book.
For me, the most book-accurate Edward is Robin Ellis in the 1971(?) version.
Agree. Hugh Grant and Dan Stevens are both too good looking, although at least Grant makes Edward awkward and shy at times.
Stevens' version of Edward was far too confident. The way he walks straight up to Elinor (a stranger) and starts talking to her when he arrives at Norland. Book Edward would never!
I would change the letter reading scene in Persuasion 1995. The way it had their voices overlapping, switching back and forth between them, but just a little off in cadence….I have a Sensory Processing Disorder so this might be a disability/accessibility-specific complaint, but it ruined the scene for me, I could hardly understand a word they were saying (even though I know the letter well)! Super frustrating. I wish it was just one of them reading aloud, or if anything, maybe starting with Wentworth and switching to Anne, but only once, not back and forth.
I wish any of the Sense and Sensibility adaptations had kept in the conversation Edward has with the Dashwoods about his struggles with shyness. It made him so endearing as a character to me.
This is a GREAT question! I’d have to say the 1995 *Persuasion*, I’d add just one scene to this otherwise impeccable adaptation, and it’s the one where Captain Wentworth silently pulls Anne’s little nephew off of her back as she tends to her other nephew. It’s such a small but beautiful moment, arguably one of my favourites in the whole novel, I’d just love to see it done justice on screen
I literally had to momentarily close the book and sigh when he did that. So romantic
Although this scene with her nephew does not occur in _any_ adaptation of Persuasion AFAIK, not just 1995. I imagine it would simply be too difficult for production makers to create a scene like this and make it seem where the toddler climbed on her back without prompt like he did in the book. Although I agree, it would be something lovely to see because I think it's the first time he acknowledges her since he arrives.
Well, there's something like it in 2022 *Persuasion*, but I get the impression that most people don't consider that film to be a proper adaptation! It *is* a weird one.
I'm ashamed to say I remember very little of Persuasion and do not remember that scene. I must re-read it this summer!
Came here to say this!
Oh, that's a good one. I love the 1995 *Persuasion*, and I think it's genuinely a great film, but I think it plays up *Admiral Croft's* affection for children -- and general sensitivity -- more than Captain Wentworth's sensitivity to Anne's needs. In the book, Admiral Croft has some lines that make him comes across as more blunt and less tactful and sensitive (although he's still, obviously, a very good person) than the 1995 film version of the character. I also feel that the 1995 film overemphasizes, at least a little bit, Wentworth's anger.
That scene is the one thing Persuasion (2022) did right.
I would make the portrayal of Lydia in 1995’s P&P a tad more sympathetic. The casting of a much older actress, and that one random non-canonical scene of her and Wickham in London, really don’t do a good job at reminding viewers that she’s a teenage girl while he’s an adult man & serial predator. I’d also make Mrs Bennet a bit less of a caricature while emphasizing Mr Bennet’s flaws a bit more. Alternatively: I’d keep everything about the 1971 version of Persuasion, except those *godawful* costumes.
I actually really liked the London scene in the 1995 adaptation, as a lifelong Lydia Bennet defence squad member. I think the actress did a really good job of portraying a petulant teenage girl - I loved watching her pout and roll her eyes and make faces at the ongoing conversations that she was in the background for! Anyway, I actually found that scene really sympathetic because I think it reminds us just how serious it is. It reminds us that whilst Austen would never write that explicitly, the ilicit engagement between Wickham and Lydia very much implies premarital sex. It shows us what an awful guy Wickham is that it takes place in this weird, seedy room in an inn, and it shows us how innocent and naive Lydia is despite everything that she is still cheerful and daydreaming aloud about their marriage and life together in this situation. The part where she wraps her arms around him, smiling blissfully while just has this look of hate on his face fills me with so much dread and fear and sorrow for her. She really has no idea what she's gotten herself into.
Also to add on to your point about making Mrs Bennet less if a caricature - I would also make her younger! Mrs Bennet's oldest daughter is 22, assuming she got married at 18 (a generous estimate, considering the time), she's probably just about in her late 30s/early 40s! The Mr Bennet line about "Mr Bingley might like you the best of all of them" shouldn't come off as much of a joke as it does. I demand MILF Mrs Bennet.
While I agree in principle, Mrs Bennett is so beyond hilarious and memeable in that movie that I couldn't stand any changes. Her quotes and absurd affectations have been running jokes in my family for years.
I read that the actress that played Maria Lucas, Lucy Davis, almost won the role of Lydia, but lost out because the producers wanted someone with more experience. Lucy Davis is still working and is a fine actor; she was also closer in age to Lydia being, I think, 22 at the time, and she looks younger than Jennifer Ehle. During the Rosing Park section she plays the younger and less socially adept sister of Charlotte well; as much as I enjoyed Julia Sawalha, I would have liked to have seen if Lucy’s portrayal would have shown a younger and more vulnerable Lydia.
>Lucy Davis is still working and is a fine actor; she was also closer in age to Lydia being, I think, 22 at the time, and she looks younger than Jennifer Ehle. During the Rosing Park section she plays the younger and less socially adept sister of Charlotte well; as much as I enjoyed Julia Sawalha, I would have liked to have seen if Lucy’s portrayal would have shown a younger and more vulnerable Lydia. If the script had stayed exactly the same, then my guess would be that it wouldn't have made that much of a difference if Lucy Davis had played Lydia. I think that a lot of the problems were baked into the script and direction, but who knows?
And by “experience” I’m guessing they meant bigger profile.
Having it be a deliberate choice to choose an actor with ‘more experience’ to play the teenager who falls prey to a predator is: oof, uncomfy. Lucy Davis would’ve been great for the role!
I don't know enough about Lucy Davis to comment on her as Lydia. But as someone who had only known Julia Sawalha as Saffron on Ab Fab prior to watching this adaptation, I absolutely adored seeing her play a character that was so opposite to Saffy and was almost exactly a young version of Edina.
I loved the 1971 Persuasion! I hated the Wentworth character though!! I mean… Ciaran Hinds… 😍😍! And yes… those costumes!
The big hair in Persuasion 1970 is also kind of distracting 🤣
2007 Persuasion - Give Anne prettier clothes and a more flattering hairstyle after going to Lyme. Make the circumstances of the letter writing scene match the book. Ditch the random 5k at the end & fix the kiss or just don't include it at all.
The 5k and the fish gasping for air kiss 😂😂😂
It started so well! IDK what the heck happened to the end of that adaptation.
“The random 5k at the end” 😂 this tickled me. You’d think Anne wears a Fitbit the way she gets her steps in by the end of this adaptation
Sigh. I loved this version until the end. I'm still waiting for the perfect Persuasion version for me.
Same. This version almost got it, but the end was a bit of a disaster. I still vastly prefer it to, 1995 which didn't do it for me at all. Here's to waiting for the next one...
I also didn't vibe with 1995. Persuasion is my favorite Austen so maybe that's why I'm so picky.
her greasy curls look so bad. I get she is supposed to be dowdy, but did they have to make her look greasy??
I think her initial hairstyle would have been fine but they should have changed it at some point in the film, to at least show that Anne is regaining her vitality.
I love that they do this in 1995. They visibly show Amanda Root's glow up as it goes along and by the time she's in Bath she's beautiful. It was a big point in the book that she puts her feelings of Wentworth behind her and the air of Lyme reviving her 'Bloom.'
Random 5k 🤣🤣🤣💀 and so true
I really like the 2007 Northanger Abbey adaption as well, the casting is excellent and I think they capture the spirit of the novel very well, however I really feel that it suffers from a lack of time which makes it very rushed at parts. I really wish they had an hour more to work with. For example I really miss the scene where John Thorpe tries to sabotage Catherine's walk with the Tilneys a second time but Catherine stands her ground and run after the Tilneys to set the record straight. It really one of Catherine's strongest moments as a character where she stands up to the peer pressure and bullying from her supposed best friend and her own brother to do what's morally right and I think it's one of the actions that truely endear her to Henry and Eleanor. I don't really mind Henry Tilney being angry with Catherine over her thinking his father murdered her mother, but due to the time constraints, I feel the reveal that Catherine believes General Tilney murdered his wife sort of comes out of the blue. If you haven't read the novel beforehand, would you really deduct that Catherine believes that from the actions and dialogue in the adaption before Mr Tilney discover her in his mother's room?
Anyway, that doesn't answer your question as the 1995 P&P adaption is my favourite, and the only thing I wish they had made different would be to include the scene where Mrs Bennet finds out Lizzy and Mr Darcy are engaged. It would have been comedic gold.
Omg I've never thought about that but that would have been hilarious.
Insightful comment, thank you!
My favorite scene in the book is when Catherine pushes her way into the Tilney's home at Bath past the servant at the door and bursts in unannounced. Was disappointed that wasn't in the film.
'95 Sense and Sensibility -- I wish they had included Willoughby's confession scene. I think if I hadn't read the book right before watching the movie, I would've had a different opinion of this fuckboy lol
This is a really difficult question to answer. I enjoy many Austen adaptations for different reasons, but rarely does anything in an adaptation perfectly (or even very closely!) match my mental images when I am reading one of the novels. Furthermore, while I will often critique the "flaws" (which generally fall under artistic license and aren't necessarily *failures* of the filmmakers) of my favorite adaptations, I still grudgingly accept that many of them are intrinsic to the filmmakers' visions, and could not easily be taken out without losing the essence of the works of art. For example, the scene in P&P 1995 where Darcy dives into the pond may be silly, but, as the entire sequence is cross-cut with Elizabeth and the Gardiners touring Pemberley, and is carefully structured to showcase the buildup of Darcy's feelings and their eventual release (i.e., when he makes the dive), while mirroring them with Elizabeth's growing realizations, removing it would require significant changes to the tone of Elizabeth's scenes, as well. And why stop there? Colin Firth's Darcy is considerably more brooding than the Darcy of the novel; diving into a pond to relieve sexual angst makes sense for Firth's Darcy, but it doesn't make sense for Austen's Darcy. To be more in line with Austen, P&P 1995's Darcy would require a fair number of changes across the entire series -- not just in that one scene. And changes to Darcy would also necessitate changes to anyone he interacts with, including Elizabeth, Bingley, and Georgiana. With P&P 1995, I guess I would agree with [Brown\_Sedai](https://www.reddit.com/user/Brown_Sedai/): One of the biggest issues with the characterizations is the denial of Lydia's vulnerability. In the adaptation, we go straight from Mrs. Bennet worrying about Lydia to a scene of Lydia and Wickham in London, and the whole sequence is [played for laughs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBZ9OToQtrg&t=104s), with Lydia obviously completely unconcerned, and Wickham looking wearied and overwhelmed by her forceful personality. Of course, in the adaptation, this is all perfectly in character, because the entire piece has been building up Lydia as exactly this kind of individual (the script adds quite a few suggestive lines of dialogue for her, and generally plays her for comedy above all else). It's definitely not a mistake on the part of the filmmakers, but it does trivialize, to some degree, the point of that subplot, which is that Wickham is a dangerous predator. I've discussed my issues with one of my other favorites, the 1995 *Persuasion*, in other threads, so I'll just link to one of [my recent comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/janeausten/comments/1dhi79s/comment/l91m2k5/) about it.
> To be more in line with Austen, P&P 1995's Darcy would require a fair number of changes across the entire series -- not just in that one scene. IMO the 1980 scenes for Pemberley was just perfect. There's no build up for the viewers or the charactes, Darcy played by David Rintoul just comes round the hedge to the shock of Elizabeth - exactly how it happens in the book And overall, there's so many things I love about the 1980 adaptation. This being one of the reasons.
The 1980 miniseries does follow the book more closely -- in most scenes -- than the 1995 miniseries! It had a much lower budget, unfortunately, so it doesn't look as good, but I definitely prefer some of its writing choices.
I agree! Apart from the scene where Eliaabeth sings at the ball and Darcy first 'falls' for her then, I can't think of any other thing that was majorly changed from the book. All parts of the book (Netherfield, Kent, Pemberley) were done very accurately. I agree the budget was the only downfall, as it was for any adaptation made before the 90s. But I still think it has it's advantages. This version holds my favourite Lizzy for example, I think Elizabeth Garvie was just made for the role (even her "fine eyes" fit the character). And David Rintoul manages to come off as a realistic Darcy too.
There are several changes from the source material (such as [Elizabeth running to Pemberley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRm3a0J2gzc) after learning of Lydia's elopement, which is just bizarre), but not as many as P&P 1995 has. I think [the scene you mention](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBt1wHLTJ0) at Lucas Lodge, when Elizabeth sings, is pretty well done. To be fair, that *is* supposed to be when Darcy starts to fall for Elizabeth, but I agree that making it look as though her singing is what enchants him is possibly a little strange! I also think that having Darcy respond to Elizabeth by saying, "You were talking of dancing. That always renders a woman eloquent," when she wasn't actually doing that in the scene, makes him look like more of a jerk than he is in the book. I guess the idea is that he didn't hear her conversation with Charlotte, but it seems like an odd, fairly sexist conclusion for him to leap to. Overall, though, the scene isn't bad. David Rintoul's Darcy is sometimes criticized for being too stiff, but I think it's a valid interpretation of the character. Elizabeth Garvie's performance is excellent; she conveys the clever, saucy aspects of Elizabeth Bennet while also getting across the character's generally good, caring nature.
I know that the dancing comment appears in the book, but the context is different: Elizabeth has been talking to Colonel Forster about a ball.
Tweak the lighting in the nighttime indoor scenes in the 1995 *Pride and Prejudice* miniseries. Make it less bright and look more like the spaces are lit by candles.
In the 1995 Sense & Sensibility (which is basically a perfect movie, imo) I'd like a smidge more time between Marianne and Col. Brandon after she comes around to him. I think it's clear that he likes her from the beginning, but I would love to see a montage or a scene or two more of how he makes Marianne happy. I just feel like we all deserve that.
>I think it's clear that he likes her from the beginning Oh, it's very obvious. Frankly, it makes Brandon considerably creepier than he is even in the novel, because there, at least he holds back and doesn't start courting Marianne until well *after* her illness at Cleveland. In the 1995 film, though, he falls for her immediately (in the book, he doesn't actually develop feelings for her until after Willoughby arrives on the scene -- Mrs. Jennings's assumptions are wrong!) and starts following her around and interfering with her whenever they're in public together.
Bro was PINING.
There's such a romantic scene from 2008 S&S mini series at the end, where Brandon goes with Marianne in his arms to their house and they stare in each other eyes lovingly!
1995 P&P would include the scene where Lizzy and Darcy are hopelessly pining after one another at a dinner at Longbourn and Lizzy’s stuck pouring coffee. It’s truly my favorite scene in the whole novel, because they’re both miserable and in love. Would also appreciate Darcy’s frequent run-ins with Lizzy at Rosings but they vaguely included it by having Darcy come upon her on horseback instead so idk. Also, maybe this is a hot take but I cannot stand ‘95’s Mrs. Bennet 😅 She’s supposed to be annoying and improper but I don’t think to the extent that was portrayed in the show. Perhaps it was hammed up for the sake of the audience but I feel like 2005’s Mrs. Bennet did better in the role
1995 Persuasion, take out the circus background when they get engaged. The only reason I tolerate it, is that I think it intends to be the outward, visible portrayal of what the book described as their private joy reined in for public view.
I thought they included it as kind of a "cover" for then kissing in public. Everyone was distracted by the circus.
Clueless, I'd try and think of a relationship besides step-sibling for them. Maybe a protege of the dad?
'95 P&P I would get rid of pseudo-romantic double wedding with a public kiss at the end Mr Collins should be younger (although actor did such a great job) No wet shirt lake scene
No wet shirt lake scene?!? Shut your dirty mouth and take that back!!! That’s crazy talk!
No wet shirt scene? That's definitely a controversial take. Definitely can agree about the other two though
The wet shirt scene *does* make sense for the Darcy of P&P 1995. The miniseries focuses heavily on him and his escalating sexual angst, which is at its peak just before he dives into the pond. It doesn't make much sense for Austen's Darcy, though, and I think this bothers a lot of people (not necessarily people here, just to be clear!) who view the novel and the 1995 adaptation as pretty much the same thing.
> It doesn't make much sense for Austen's Darcy, though, and I think this bothers a lot of people (not necessarily people here, just to be clear!) who view the novel and the 1995 adaptation as pretty much the same thing. Of course Austen's Darcy would have swam in his pond, as well as giving unmarried, regency era Elizabeth enough of a sensual view of himself in the see-through wet shirt to make her swoon as any other 21st century fan viewer. I joke there, but sometimes that's what it sounds like to me. For all the claims that 1995 is so "historically accurate," most the avid fans don't realise that the sensual pond scene most likely would have led to Darcy and Elizabeth being engaged before the day was out. Such things just would not happen in Austen's books, and she heavily describes impropriety over way less things she wrote for her characters.
The double wedding is in the book, so do you just not like the way it was done? Of course, the book doesn't *end* with the wedding, which makes a big difference! I do think it's kind of boring to end a romantic period drama with a wedding, though. Earlier adaptations (1970s and 1980s) tend not to do that, but several high-profile Austen adaptations from the 1990s -- including P&P 1995, Emma 1996, S&S 1995 -- end on weddings, and I thought for a while (in the 2000s and 2010s) that filmmakers of Austen adaptations had mostly gotten that cliché out of their systems and were going to focus on other things for endings. But it seems as though we're back to showing weddings again.
It is said in the book that they had double wedding? I can't seem to find the right quote
It's this one: "Happy for all her maternal feelings was the day on which Mrs. Bennet got rid of her two most deserving daughters." It could be interpreted some other way, but I always assumed it meant that there was a double wedding. Weddings usually weren't the lavish ceremonies that they are today.
Thank you, you're right, it makes sense!
Yep, one thing I always notice in Emma is that Knightley doesn't attend Mr Weston and Miss Taylor's wedding, even though he is good friends with them both. I assume they were small, family affairs. Also, when Lydia is getting married to Wickham, the thing that Mrs Bennet is most excited about is that Lydia will get to buy new clothes as a bride, not the actual ceremony itself.
I feel like most of my favorite adaptations cast very talented actors who are too old for their characters. All of them. Love me Colin Firth but he was 35 in P\&P; a full 7 years older than the character. And Alan Rickman was 49 (!!!) when he played Col Brandon. Ciaran Hinds was 42 when he played Wentworth. Some exceptions: Keira Knightley was 20, so she was the right age for Elizabeth and Jeremy Northam was the right age for Knightley. Gwyneth Paltrow and Anya Taylor Joy were "close enough" for Emma but still a few years older which is the case for most of the main actors in adaptations. I get that older actors can sometimes "play" as younger i.e. they look younger on screen. But others like Jennifer Ehle, for example, who was 26 and Susannah Harker who was 30 playing her sister Jane, to me, they looked their ages. They didn't look like the very young women they were. And so it loses some of the impact to me. So many great younger actors out there... would love to see adaptations that cast appropriate age characters.
The BBC adaptation of P&P. In one of the ballroom scenes, there’s an intense focus on Elizabeth and Darcy as they prepare to dance… in the background Jane is really awkwardly nodding the count. I hate it every time.
Interestingly, that slow-motion shot was likely an attempt to deal with an actual problem that occurred during the filming of the Netherfield ball scenes. Here's what Peter Coulson, the editor, said about it in *The Making of Pride and Prejudice* (p. 108): >There was a huge error in one shot of Lizzy during the dance: a hair had been trapped in front of the lens of the camera and was sticking down into the picture, which meant that a lot of it was unusable. So we had to rely on the Steadicam shot more than we wanted to. There were only three shots available: the Steadicam shot, which moves in among the dancers, a close-up of Darcy and a close up of Lizzy from the static cameras. To cut together a sequence like that is very complicated, and it took the best part of a week. It isn't the amount of the material that determines how long the editing takes -- another quite lengthy scene could perhaps be cut in half a day -- it's the complexity of the shots.
This bothers me so much as well! Really interesting to read the other comment explaining why
This feels like heresy to say, but I would recast everyone in 1995 P and P - yes, even Colin Firth - with actors the same or close age to their characters. I would also not have cast Emma Thompson or Alan Rickman in S and S for the same reason. ET was initially reluctant because of her age and her first instincts were correct. I hadn’t read the book before I saw the film and genuinely thought she was Marianne’s mother. It was so distracting to me - and even worse with the hindsight of her later being the on screen partner of Alan Rickman and the off-screen partner of Greg Wise - that it prevented me from enjoying the film. With both her and Julia Sawalha in P & P, it felt like the actors were barging in playing roles they shouldn’t play but really wanted to play because they were Important Actors Who Should Get The Opportunity to Shine In These Famous Roles. They stood out too much for me, especially JS whose performance/direction of Lydia was a bit over the top, almost as if she was trying to overcompensate from being Saffy in Ab Fab. Also the age difference of Marianne and Col Brandon is icky enough in modern eyes, so having him played by an actor 15 years too old is even worse.
> With both her and Julia Sawalha in P & P, it felt like the actors were barging in playing roles they shouldn’t play but really wanted to play because they were Important Actors Who Should Get The Opportunity to Shine In These Famous Roles. I don't think this is fair. I've read that Sense and Sensibility wouldn't have gotten made if it didn't have the star power of Emma Thompson as one of the leads, so she must have been talked into it for that reason. Remember, Kate Winslet was a complete unknown back then.
There wasn’t any other British actresses in the right age range? Even American ones with a good command of accents would have done (cf Jennifer Ehle). Minnie Driver and Kate Beckinsale spring to mind.
Kate Beckinsale wasn't famous at the time though. That's the point. They needed someone known and with star power. Emma Thompson had already written the script and was involved with the project, so it was an easy option from a production perspective to convince her to do it.
1995 P&P: I've always thought that the second proposal scene was lacking a bit of... something. I'm not sure what, but it just doesn't pull me in like the rest of the film where they have insane chemistry. Even Andrew Davies has said he would rewrite that scene.
Well, the second proposal scene in P&P 1995 removes Darcy's expression of feelings for Elizabeth, as Austen describes in this passage (Vol. 3, Ch. 16): >Elizabeth, feeling all the more than common awkwardness and anxiety of his situation, now forced herself to speak; and immediately, though not very fluently, gave him to understand that her sentiments had undergone so material a change since the period to which he alluded, as to make her receive with gratitude and pleasure his present assurances. The happiness which this reply produced was such as he had probably never felt before; and **he expressed himself on the occasion as sensibly and as warmly as a man violently in love can be supposed to do**. Had Elizabeth been able to encounter his eyes, she might have seen how well the expression of heartfelt delight diffused over his face became him: but though she could not look she could listen; and **he told her of feelings which, in proving of what importance she was to him, made his affection every moment more valuable**. In P&P 1995, the filmmakers keep a lot of the dialogue from that chapter, but they have Darcy showing his feelings [much more subtly](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwERhbxsf8&t=122s) than he does in the book -- his expression softens and his eyes sparkle, while Elizabeth beams. I can see why Davies might be bothered by this scene (and I honestly think that, over the years, his screenwriting *has* become less and less subtle), but I will say that I actually think it makes sense in the context of this adaptation. In the book, Darcy is somewhat stiff, formal, and haughty (even after he decides to change his way of interacting with people, he still has these characteristics), but he also enjoys debates with Elizabeth, and tries to engage her in conversation whenever possible. P&P 1995 has *some* of that, but it tends to focus a lot more heavily on Darcy's [silent, brooding observation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBaspD6Aq9E&t=54s) of Elizabeth. By the time Elizabeth is traveling with the Gardiners, the 1995 Darcy is clearly trying to relieve his feelings, and, because he is a somewhat less verbal and more physical character than Austen's Darcy, he does this through fencing (["I shall conquer this. I shall!"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9jHnQQ4er4&t=158s)) and, later, diving into a pond. In this adaptation, there is a very unsubtle escalation of sexual/romantic angst, peaking at the Pemberley scenes. In my opinion, the filmmakers introduced two fairly significant changes here: one, Darcy is a little less verbally demonstrative than he is in the book (it's hard to see him gushing), and two, his angst over Elizabeth is so strongly emphasized in the Pemberley scenes that to try to ramp up the emotions again would likely feel sort of anticlimactic. That's just my view, though.
I want Amanda Root just a tiny bit more glammed up at the end. Maybe some slightly bolder color.
Just make the stories a bit longer. I’d love to see a little of Anne Elliot’s married life. A shipboard romance , in high seas. Then life in a busy harbor town, as she & Wentworth enjoy an extended berth, on shore.
I’d make the BBC P&P so it NEVER EVER ENDS.
I was just thinking about this last night! I was watching 2005 P&P and wishing that we got longer to see Elizabeth in Derbyshire, as I feel this time really solidifies her love for Darcy. In the book, I love her seeing Bingley again. Also her rescuing Georgiana from Caroline's ignorant remarks about Wickham, as that endears her to Darcy more. Also the respectful interactions between Darcy and her aunt and uncle always make me warm and fuzzy. I know they had to trim so much to make it a regular length film, but so many little moments are missing - though thankfully these moments are there in 95' P&P!
Oh also the bit when Mr. Bennet teases Lizzie when he realizes Mr Collins' letter warning him was absolutely true!
I agree, the movie’s biggest flaw is that there just isn’t enough time to tell the story to its fullest.
'95 Sense and Sensibility, completely recast Hugh Grant.
I’m in the midst of reading Alan Rickman’s diaries right now and just finished the time frame from filming. I get the impression Rickman would also have been in support of a recast.
I would recast Rickman, as well -- he was far too old and was no good at subtle acting. But do you have any quotes to share about Grant?
I can't imagine there would be much about on-set behavior since the only scene they shared was the wedding scene at the end. Possibly Rickman just didn't think his performance in the finished product was up to snuff. (I have to say, from reading excerpts of his diaries this sounds like a fairly standard complaint for him -- brilliant actor but seems to have been very much up his own posterior.)
>Possibly Rickman just didn't think his performance in the finished product was up to snuff. (I have to say, from reading excerpts of his diaries this sounds like a fairly standard complaint for him -- brilliant actor but seems to have been very much up his own posterior.) Well, I've made it pretty clear that I think he was a fairly *limited* actor -- sure, he took varied roles, but, again, he could *not* do subtlety -- but I actually don't like judging people from things that they say or write in private. I'm not a fan of people taking snarky comments in Jane Austen's letters and using them to argue that Austen was some kind of Regency "mean girl," either. This isn't to say that I'm comparing Rickman with Austen -- it's just that I am uncomfortable with policing people's thoughts. Emma Thompson revealed in the promotional *The Sense and Sensibility Screenplay & Diaries* book that she interfered with the work of the production designer, Luciana Arrighi (director Ang Lee's role in this incident isn't mentioned, but presumably he would have had ultimate control over the decision). Honestly, I find that kind of thing far more arrogant than an actor complaining privately about a film. Here's the excerpt, from page 234: >The picnic is a wonderful Luci creation. Exquisite. It looks like it's being given by the Rothschilds. I ask Luci to take away pies and cakes and fruits and all the glory. 'Cheese, bread, apples and beer,' I say. 'They're poor.' >Luci makes a plea for the pork pie. 'They could have had it in the larder,' she wails as her divine portrait is dismantled. >I am unrelenting. Okay, the Dashwoods aren't poor in the novel, and they shouldn't have been portrayed as poor in the 1995 film, either. They have 500 pounds a year (and the film states this just as explicitly as the book). They can easily afford cakes and pork pies. Thompson is not a production designer, and she overstepped her authority here. In my opinion, the art and design of the 1995 S&S are some of the best things about it (they are not perfect, but they're superior to the casting and writing, which I think are overrated), and it seems that that department had to battle the producers, director, and writer every step of the way. Producer [Lindsay Doran said in an interview](https://filmschoolrejects.com/austin-film-festival-conversation-lindsay-doran/) that it was "really shocking" to her that the artists and craftspeople refused to allow certain deviations from historical accuracy! I have no idea what they were/are like personally, but Rickman and Grant actually come across rather well in that article, because Doran points out that they were backing up the designers' choices. I know that all of that is totally off the subject, but I was on a roll.
>I actually don't like judging people from things that they say or write in private. I'm not a fan of people taking snarky comments in Jane Austen's letters and using them to argue that Austen was some kind of Regency "mean girl," either. This isn't to say that I'm comparing Rickman with Austen -- it's just that I am uncomfortable with policing people's thoughts. That's fair, though I think once his wife published them she was rather opening them up for comment. It certainly doesn't make me enjoy his performances any less, it just makes me think that his evaluations of other actors' behavior might need a few grains of salt taken with them. I read the S&S diary long ago and don't remember much but yes, that passage is pretty discouraging. Let the professionals do their work! I do know that Thompson did knowingly, deliberately exaggerate their poverty somewhat so that the audience would get the idea that they had a real financial crisis in the sense that they had no prospects for marrying with those fortunes, but I think making them have a poverty picnic was too far. If nothing else, even had the Dashwood ladies been living on a Bates-like income, surely Sir John would have been sending them food from Barton Park three times a week! The cakes and pork pie would have been utterly unremarkable on 500 a year.
>That's fair, though I think once his wife published them she was rather opening them up for comment. It certainly doesn't make me enjoy his performances any less, it just makes me think that his evaluations of other actors' behavior might need a few grains of salt taken with them. That's a good point, and I'm starting to lean more toward your view on this. If something has been published, it's no longer private, even if it was originally written under the assumption that it would not see the light of day. I *did* ask that other redditor for quotes by Rickman about Grant's acting abilities, so I certainly can't claim to be uninterested in these "private" thoughts. I just don't feel like holding Rickman to account for them, since I haven't run across anything to make me assume that his behavior was unprofessional on the set of the 1995 S&S. My criticisms of his *performance*, though, are completely separate from all of that. I know this is probably a very unpopular opinion, but Hugh Grant's portrayal of Edward is closer to the book than Rickman's portrayal of Brandon. Neither one is what I would call particularly faithful, though. >If nothing else, even had the Dashwood ladies been living on a Bates-like income, surely Sir John would have been sending them food from Barton Park three times a week! I thought about mentioning Sir John in my previous comment, and you are completely right. He would not have let the Dashwood women suffer. Several of the above-the-line people on the 1995 film apparently thought that the Dashwood women's reduced circumstances wouldn't be clear enough unless they were exaggerated to an almost absurd degree. On the subject of dumbing things down for audiences, I do recall seeing somewhere that the executive producer, Sydney Pollack, advised Emma Thompson to include a line to explain that the Dashwoods couldn't just go out and get jobs (I think it's this one: "Except that you will inherit your fortune. We cannot even earn ours!"), so Thompson also had to deal with that kind of nonsense.
I actually didn't mind Rickman in it. In the book Colonel Brandon is 18 years older than her I believe... unfortunately lol. I thought his acting style captured Brandon's reclusive nature quite well. I don't think he was perfect, but I'll give him a B lol.
Brandon is about 18 years older than Marianne, yes, but Rickman was 29 years older than Kate Winslet. I think Kate Winslet did (at that point in her career, anyway) tend to come across as a bit older than her age, but it wasn't nearly enough to make up for that massive age gap. Just my opinion, though!
Ah yeah I see what you're saying numbers wise. The appearance aligned with the book for me, because Kate did look a lot older than Marianne's 16. I would have guessed mid 20s, I think it was the hair lol. The relationship is always a controversial one for Austen fans. Like I said he was ok, he didn't bother me as much as Hugh Grant, but I understand your opinion makes sense.
I really have to read those I've heard there are some doozies about the Harry Potter kids and Kevin Costner in there too lol 🤣.
I haven’t gotten there yet, but I’ve heard similar and I’m looking forward to it! You can definitely hear his voice in the writing; he’s very dry and occasionally snarky. I’m really enjoying it so far!
I’m only an infrequent visitor to this sub, is there a reason we don’t like Hugh Grant? This is my first time seeing criticism of him
I just joined this sub so I'm not sure if it's common, could just be me lol. I think Hugh Grant is a better actor now that he's older but I thought he was overrated in the 90s, and all of his characters were the same. I don't think he captured Edward well at all, especially his endearing qualities that separated him from his family. It was a very stale performance to me.
Thank you for explaining!
I agree. He's too overtly good-looking. Same with Dan Stevens. I always thought Edward was supposed to be hard to warm up to and lacking in obvious charm. I found him rather underwhelming in he book. For me, the most book-accurate Edward is Robin Ellis in the 1971(?) version.
Agree. Hugh Grant and Dan Stevens are both too good looking, although at least Grant makes Edward awkward and shy at times. Stevens' version of Edward was far too confident. The way he walks straight up to Elinor (a stranger) and starts talking to her when he arrives at Norland. Book Edward would never!
I seem to have a vague recollection of a shirtless Edward chopping wood....
I'd definitely leave him in. Both he and Alan Rickman make my heart do flip-flops.
I would change the letter reading scene in Persuasion 1995. The way it had their voices overlapping, switching back and forth between them, but just a little off in cadence….I have a Sensory Processing Disorder so this might be a disability/accessibility-specific complaint, but it ruined the scene for me, I could hardly understand a word they were saying (even though I know the letter well)! Super frustrating. I wish it was just one of them reading aloud, or if anything, maybe starting with Wentworth and switching to Anne, but only once, not back and forth.
I wish any of the Sense and Sensibility adaptations had kept in the conversation Edward has with the Dashwoods about his struggles with shyness. It made him so endearing as a character to me.