MovieChat Forums > Sense and Sensibility (1996) Discussion > What's with the women?

What's with the women?

posted 10 years ago by saraleite-1
79 replies | jump to latest

I don't know if this was already discussed, but don't you think this whole piece portrays women as one-dimensional characters whose only goal in life is to get married. I understand that it was written in such a time when this was considered normal, but while I was watching the film, the whole time I wanted to punch all of the women in the face. Kate Winslet's character kept weeping for a man she'd only been with for a very short period of time. Geez, she almost died for him. For god sakes, did they think about absolutely nothing else in their whole existence? I love romance movies, but I really dislike it when women are portrayed as needy, stupid, and gossipy. The whole movie is about a bunch of women scheming into getting men to marry them. And being so desperate when they don't succeed.

[–] rmontro 8 years ago

If you don't want to make a movie true to the times it was set in, why make a movie set in that time? Make it about swinging London in the 1960s or whatever, if you want to depict different "sensibilities".

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

i know right, women back then were pathetic, well maybe it wasn't entirely their fault as they couldn't go to college or pursue a career

i saw this movie and Pride & Prejudice in the same day, and the female characters are basically the same, they're just waiting for some men to come and propose to them, and afterwards acting as if they've achieved a great goal when it happens

what a sad little life women must have led back then

so many movies, so little time

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

What’s with the women? What’s with everyone in 18th century landed gentry England? They all led extremely narrow, pre-determined lives, unless they wanted to rebel, be an outcast shunned by their families. Daughters of landed gentry had two options: get married or live with their parents or some aging aunt for life. A few lucky ones (re - Emma) who received generous inheritances could be less desperate about marriage. I wonder if the OP paid attention to the start of S&S, or better yet read the book. The Dashwood sister’s wicked sister in law and spineless brother cut their inheritance down to poverty level. The sisters had other “dimensions” but in a world of polite manners and tight social circles, they were only able to express their skills and talents in the household and at rigid social gatherings. In modern times, Eleanor could run a company with her budgeting skills, Marianne could be a poet or musician, and little sister Margaret would make an excellent journalist or historian. Austen is being honest in portraying them as needy and desperate because they didn’t have those choices.

[–] Furienna (3322) 6 years ago

Alas, it is very common for modern people to miss what the life of the landed gentry was like back then.
I would say that the Dashwood sisters really did as much as they could with their limited possibilities.
Okay, it was of course possible for a young lady to become a governess or perhaps a lady's companion.
But most ladies chose to not even enter these professions unless they were poor orphans.
(Like for example Jane Eyre, who could be a teacher until she too got married).
People believed that it was much better to be someone's wife or to just stay with your family and live off them.
Some women had their own fortunes though and could be more independent.

[–] liscarkat (16530) 3 years ago

Austen's characters have more going on than obsessing over marriage, but these stories focus on points in their lives when that was what they were concerned about and dealing with at the moment.

[–] liscarkat (16530) 2 years ago

That's the Jane Austen universe. Accept it if you want to enjoy these movies and books.

[–] punkrockgirl (1153) 2 years ago

It's sad, but that's the way life was back then. both men and women were expected to marry. well, it isn't a sad reality that people want to get married, but the sad part is they feel like they have to. function in society and climb up a social ladder. anyways, I think it was just specifically a big part of the plot in this story. It isn't like they would be talking about marriage all the time. we just see the scenes when they do.

[–] snepts (11123) 2 years ago

To me, the thesis of the OP is completely flawed and pointless, (although understandable and worth discussing, if that's possible).
The whole point of the movie is the dilemma of finding the proper relationship/marriage.
Right from the start, characters are discussing how a MALE character needs to wed properly, and later we see the well-off couple completely enraptured with the romantic/marriage possibilities of everyone around them. It's the premise for the whole story. (I liken it to seeing a film about race car drivers and complaining all they talk about is racing.)
And how much tertiary dialog are we supposed to endure to show these people have other thoughts on their minds?
I have no doubt Elinor and Mrs D are pragmatic and thoughtful concerning other areas, but that's not what the movie is about. I find nothing distracting about how this film portrays the women.

But I love this film and had to chime in with something.

[–] punkrockgirl (1153) a year ago

That was just life back then.

Yeah, I agree with you completely. I like that the topic was brought up to discuss, but the OP basically already answered the question. I didn't see the movie as "scheming into getting men to marry them." I think a lot of the story is a social commentary on marriage and society in general of that time. That's the amazing thing about Jane Austen novels. She portrays her characters as intelligent, pretty, driven, and perhaps reserved or outgoing.

[–] snepts (11123) a year ago

Thanks for saying this. I often wonder if I'm on some island, completely out of touch.
I feel a little better now, and I love this movie for sentimental reasons, but I also hope it's worthy of thoughtful discussion. Such a subtle charmer.