What's with the women? - Sense and Sensibility (1996) Discussion

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

You are not wrong in one way and very wrong in another. You simply have to understand that Elinor and Marianne had no choice in life except to get married. There was nothing else for them. S&S was written in a pre-Industrial Revolution world and in this world there was literally no work for them, nothing. There was only family inheritance and charity from their male relatives. The only respectable option they have is marriage to a man who can work or a man who has an estate that brings in an income.

If you are really interested in learning about th he harsh realities for women of this class I would suggest P&P, and the character voice I would pay attention to is Charlotte`s. What Charlotte says is very much to the point you are posting about. Read her speeches`s carefully and remember the harsh realities of that world.

As for Marianne, This is in many ways the first romantic novel ever written, of course there is going to be a case of severe love at first sight. But Marianne pays for high price for her foolishness. This is made quite clear in this adaptation and in the novel. In this adaptation and the novel we see her mature into a wise and compassionate adult. This adaptation is the only one I've seen where this happens as it does in the novel.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] saraleite-1 10 years ago

I've seen P&P, and I found it great, as the characters were more developed imo. I am aware of their social status and non-existent opportunities in that era, but in S&S the women seemed stupid, rather than limited. Thanks for the response btw! :)

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

We are all entitled to our own opinion. I found S&S extremely realistic. You think theyr were stupid for not getting work, what work would you recommend they send their resumes into?

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] saraleite-1 9 years ago

I don't believe I said anything specific about work (if anything at all). My question doesn't have anything to do with women's social and economical status in those times, but rather with their behaviors. I specifically said I was annoyed throughout the movie because every single dialogue they had amongst each other revolved around men and who they are going to marry. I was annoyed that Kate's character was so desperate that she almost died because of a man. To answer another question directed at me - no, I did not read Jane Austen's novels. However, that is besides the point, as I am not disputing the fact that women were in unfavorable positions in that era. I'm simply saying I hated they all seemed like they had nothing smart to say. For example, I've seen Becoming Jane, and I liked her personality. She was smart, ambitious, and she loved - but that love didn't make her stupid (if I remember correctly). I hope I explained myself better (English is not my first language.. :/)

reply

[–] summeriris 9 years ago

You have explained yourself very well. If I understand you correctly you are annoyed because the women don't talk about anything but getting married instead of interesting things. But they do, Marianne speaks about literature and music, Elinor about her budgets and the lack of money to buy sugar. If they seem preoccupied about getting married that's because it was very important. If a young woman without means did not marry a man with an income she would end up in poverty. It really was that simple. This is a fact that sometimes the modern woman just doesn't get. Getting a husband was their job. Now if you were to say that this did not lead to interesting discussions about life, I would agree with you. But then when I was working I sometimes thought that the preoccupation with the business and profit margins wasn't that interesting either.

As for Marianne's illness, Marianne was a romantic child who thought dying for love was wonderful. She learnt the hard way that it wasn't. You have to remember she was barely seveteen and like a lot of modern girls today, thought the world well lost for love. We can be impatiant with that train of thought, but I don't think we should really be impatient with te young women. We all have to learn the hard way at some point in our lives.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 9 years ago

Of course the women talk about men and getting married. But this isn't really excessive romanticism. it's also hard-headed practicality. They have to get marred or live in poverty. We have to remember that when Mrs Dashwood dies her income dies with her and for three women to live on whats left would be difficult. What they talk about more than men is money. The plot circles around money. Who has it, who doesn't, who loses out and who gains. In Jane Austen's world money certainly makes that world go around.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 9 years ago

No, I said excessive romanticism. And there is quite a lot of conversations between the women characters. Their conversations reveal the realities of their world. Now you may find the topic of conversation to be simply about men, but what I heard was conversations about their lives. And their lives are dominated by the fact that these girls have to marry. It's a fact, one that they are all to well aware of. Are they supposed to talk about books, music and painting instead of the frightening future they face is they don't marry?

As for the characters they cut, in the book Lady Middleton's sole topic of conversation is her children, Anne Steele's about the young men she knows and meets, and Mrs Ferrers, her domination over her sons. And as that domination is quite clearly demonstrated in the film her presence is not really needed. I have read the books and that is what these characters talk about. And Anne Stelle's mouth runs away with her, but in the film Lucy's disclosure of her engagement to Edward is just as funny.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] saraleite-1 9 years ago

I want to thank both of you for this discussion - it's very civil, unlike many others I come across on IMDB MB's. I think I should read the novel to fully understand the characters :)

reply

[–] Julie-30 9 years ago

Reading the novel a film is based on is generally a far more satisfying experience. I really do try to read the books first but, in this case I didn't. Unlike Sassafrass, I do love this movie, but the book is better. Way, way better.

As is the 2008 adaptation. It's much closer to the book than this one is. The characters are more fleshed out, as are their motivations.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

[–] fatpie42 8 years ago

I think Kate Winslet's character is SUPPOSED to be a bit foolish. Young and foolish, as the other commenter stated. She is obsessed with gothic literature and is unimpressed with more rational viewpoints. Emma Thompson's more practical approach seems like a lack of passion to Winslet.

Thompson's character is the sense, while Winslet's is the sensibility. And I think it shows Austen's own side of the argument, that Winslet goes from being obsessed with gothic literature, then moves for a romantic passionate very-near-fatal mope in the fields, before finally becoming a little more sensible and realistic.

Austen apparently has another novel where she pokes fun at gothic literature. Her protagonist becomes convinced that her hosts in the house she has moved into have committed a murder, follows her suspicions and starts to investigate, only to realise that, well... *spoiler?* there wasn't a murder.

reply

[–] Julie-30 8 years ago

You're thinking of Austen's posthumous novel, Northanger Abbey.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 9 years ago

You mentioned that you hated the women's preoccupation with men and marriage, what preoccupation would you suggest they have instead?

reply

[–] angelosdaughter (158) 6 years ago

Women were not valued for their intelligence in the period of this story. Their education was limited to accomplishments that made them decorative and marriageable.There was a term, 'bluestocking' with negative connotations applied to intelligent well-educated women. In some times and places, it equated to spinster.
Women's main value was in their ability to provide heirs, which is the reason for the emphasis on women's remaining virgins until marriage, before DNA testing, the only surety that a man had that the children were his,and even that wasn't ironclad. Married women did sometimes have affairs and pass any resulting children off as the husband's, so men didn't have everything their way.

reply

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

webrowser, thank you for posting this. I didn't know you had Japanese heritage - how interesting! Of course, growing up in New York City, as I did, one had great exposure to the maelstrom-beauty of widely diverse cultures. One girl I was at school with was Japanese on her mother's side, like yourself; her father was half black, half white. Her features were not "regular" enough for traditional "prettiness," but she was acknowledged by everyone to be the most beautiful girl in the entire school. No argument anywhere, it was so much an obvious fact. She was so very arresting that even the rest of us adolescent girls could not be nastily jealous - we just marveled. She was not at all stuck on herself, and very nice.

I read the discussion and summeriris' comments - while it is perhaps risky to interpret others' very short comments, I thought they were meant rather as joking takes-downs of some extremely silly posting than as Japan-bashing. IMO, that is consistent with summer's general approach, while genuine culture-bashing would not be.

On David Morrissey, I can't quite agree with summer that he was wholly wasted, his performance was excellent, IMO. Unfortunately, the character he played so well was maybe 10% Jane Austen at most, and 90% Andrew Davies' Frankenstein creation, jerry-rigged from bits of romance-novel-hero cliches. I can see her point, and from one view, it IS a waste, but I am always glad, at least the first time around, to see a really well-acted performance. Too bad the most recent viewing made me cringe so.

I've been doing a bit of reading - and quite a few Austen scholars were troubled, if often resigned to the necessity from a film-making standpoint, by Alan Rickman's Brandon; he was considered far too attractive, much too sexy, and certainly too romantic. !!!!!

So, one needn't go within light-years as far afield as Davies did, apparently, to make an attractive Brandon.

Thank you again for the beautiful wallpaper! I put it up on my TV for a while, stared at it, and thought about the film, that beautiful scene, those exquisite performances. And vowed to carve some time this weekend for a rewatch!

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

Hi Locus, thank you for your kind comments. I'm going to try and clear up my opinion on David Morrissey for the benefit of all. I think he is a very fine actor who gave as good a performance as he could with the material he was given. As did all the other actors in the 2008 production of Sense and Sensibility. The failures of that production IMO was not the cast, but rather the script, production values and the direction IMO. I don't apologise for feeling that way. I think the Davies script was beyond terrible and the direction lacklustre. That's it. He is a good actor who did his best, but not even his considerable talent and presence could redeem the short comings of the production. That's all I'm going to say in this matter. As for the unpleasantness of being accused of racism, I refuse to dignify that with a reply. It's not worth it.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

More than welcome, summeriris! I think you have shown extraordinary forbearance with respect to this entire situation, and I salute you for it!

While the 2008 has too many good performances, quite reasonably conformable with Austen's intent, IMO, for me to dismiss it in every aspect, I agree that, as you have noted before, the cutting out of Brandon, as conceived by Jane Austen, and replacing him with "And Now For Something Completely Different," WHAT that different character was made into, and the resulting distortion (and diminution) of important character arcs, completely skews the whole out of drawing. I have intended to go back and watch it again, with the intention of fast-forwarding through Colonel-Regency-Action-Figure, yet I somehow don't watch it, I shrink, fastidiously, as one might from picking up a dead rat. I wish I didn't, but I do.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

More than welcome, summeriris! I think it very likely that this incendiary (and inexcusable) accusation is a violation of the rules of posting, and reportable, should you care to do so.

I just felt that it would be better to ignore it Locus. I don't have Sassy on ignore but I am pretty much ignoring her posts. If she is trying to get a rise out me, well it's not going to work. It's entirely possible that at sometime I stepped over the line, I have a temper. If I have ever offended anyone, I am sincerely sorry. But I don't think I am bigoted. Anyway that's it for me on the subject.

I have intended to go back and watch it again, with the intention of fast-forwarding through Colonel-Regency-Action-Figure, yet I somehow don't watch it, I shrink, fastidiously, as one might from picking up a dead rat. I wish I didn't, but I do.

I can't do it either. I did try but I can't subject myself to it again.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

Your apology is accepted.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

webrowser, thank you for posting this.

You're welcome locus. Thank you for your reply. Sass has since, thankfully, deleted her incendiary accusation against Summer, and in return, I agreed to delete my reply to it.

I didn't know you had Japanese heritage - how interesting!

I mentioned it somewhere on the boards, but I think it was in reply to a post by summer - it's been a long while back. It's been a wonderful experience to have ties to two separate cultures. I've been so fortunate to have have traveled Japan as recently as 2010 with my mother to visit relatives. It's a stunning country, and the people are amazingly generous, and kind. It's a beautiful society, IMO. My family there are so close to my heart, though they are so far away. I felt so very welcome and warmly loved during my recent time there, though it had been over 30 years since they'd seen me. The regard that they showed me, was so special and wonderful, that it moved me to tears at times.

Thank you again for the beautiful wallpaper! I put it up on my TV for a while, stared at it, and thought about the film, that beautiful scene, those exquisite performances. And vowed to carve some time this weekend for a rewatch!

You're so very welcome!! I'm glad you're enjoying it. Thank you again for the DVDs too!!

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

I used "incendiary," too, in description! Unfortunately, while posts can be deleted, they cannot be un-written nor un-read. As the poet has it:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

You are more than welcome, in turn, for the DVDs; I hope they will work and play correctly, and give you pleasure!

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

Let toast some marshmallows with the heat that comment generated. S'mores anyone?

Unfortunately, while posts can be deleted, they cannot be un-written nor un-read.

That is very true, and yes...unfortunate. It goes to show, that it's it best to think carefully before hitting that "post" button. I guess in the IMDB world, being more like Elinor and less like Marianne, is the wisest course...as it is in many other situations.

I may kick myself later, hard. But I'm going to give the kinder, gentler poster, previously known as incendiary another go.

reply

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

OK, dear Charlie Brown, another run at the football for you. You're much more generous than is deserved here, but I cannot discourage the exercise of that quality; the world needs more of it.

S'mores! I'm hungry!

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

OK, dear Charlie Brown, another run at the football for you. You're much more generous than is deserved here, but I cannot discourage the exercise of that quality; the world needs more of it.

I'm not the brightest bulb in the box apparently. It's a good thing I'm cute!

*runs at football* *hopes I won't end up flat on my back, again*

*wow, the sky sure is pretty...that cloud looks just like a puppy*

reply

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

No, no, you're Jane Bennet. Excellent good sense, only so very generous of heart.

I hope so, too.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] webrowser 10 years ago

You're welcome Sass. I honestly would enjoy discussing various items of interest with you. I find that fun, and enlightening. I'm just gun-shy from all of your previous negativity. And it took me a while to get past the bashing accusation. I do thank you for your sincere apologies on that matter, btw. As much as you wish to delete all the nastiness, I wish none of it had ever happened at all.

I sent your request to both locus and summer, but also let them know it's entirely up to them if they choose to edit their posts titles.

They might be more so inclined if you offered a sincere apology as you did with me when things crossed the line. That is completely up to you, however.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

Breaking silence for this: Sass, you really, really need to learn how to make an apology without adding the "In my own defense" part. At least, if you want to be seen as an adult. It is juvenile, defensive, and unattractive in the extreme.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]