..But, Marianne, the horse is still yours..
And with these words (or that one word), Elinor knows that Willoughby is getting a bit too friendly with her sister.
I just love that those who love Austen and that era knows and others don't.
[deleted]
Another thing I love - which is somewhat related to your observation - is that S&S 2008 does not "dumb down" Austen's story to appeal to modern audiences; instead, it respects audiences' intelligence and assumes that they will understand the intricacies of the plot and the characters' motivations without having to be beaten over the
No it doesn't. It insults the audience's intelligence every chance it gets. Are we supposed to be happy seeing such a caricature of Brandon as this production presents us with? Are we supposed to be happy seeing Willoughby as a callous seducer in the very first shot, thus spoiling the big reveal? Are we supposed to be happy with 'Female Empowerment' rhetoric being parroted by a child? Are we supposed to be happy with the wholesale ditching of the plot? And are we supposed to be happy with seeing Marianne being trained like a dog to come to her master's heel? I could go on and on but listing the stupid and downright ridiculous elements inserted into the story is simply a downer.
I for one am not that happy with this production's elements. And 'not that happy' is an understatement.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. share
[deleted]
Morrissey's Brandon is not a caricature by any stretch of the imagination. Andrew Davies emphasized Brandon's decisive, masculine, military qualities more than any other S&S adaptation has done, and Morrissey is a very appealing actor, but that doesn't mean that the portrayal is any more unfaithful to the novel than any other portrayal. In fact, considering that Brandon's backstory is intact and faithful to the novel in S&S 2008, I would argue that this gives S&S 2008's version of the character a huge advantage over a couple of other adaptations' versions.
Col Brandon had no decisiveness or military qualities on display ever in the 2008 production. They are products of your imagination, not Andrew Davies. Davies gave him rudeness/ boorishness and a good dose of bad manners and you are choosing to call the qualities Davies gave the character 'masculine' because you like the actor. It's as simple as that. Col Brandon doesn't need these fake qualities to be an appealing character. He is masculine as well as being a gentleman. If I could have seen one element of the soldier in Morrisey's Brandon it would have been different. But unfortunately all the former soldiers I know have good manners. So that doesn't wash with me. See taking over someone's house isn't military behaviour. It's rudeness and bullying.
If you have read the book, then you know that Willoughby is the one seducing the young girl in the opening scene. However, if you are watching S&S 2008 for the first time and have never read the novel, then you will not know who the characters are, and Willoughby's wickedness will come as a surprise. The opening shot of S&S 2008 is very subtly done and almost impressionistic, as the faces are never completely revealed, and the voices are low enough that they are unlikely to be recognized later (except, perhaps, by very astute observers).
Unfortunately that line of excuses doesn't help the 99.99% of the audience who did know what Willoughby did.
What's wrong with that? I assume that you must also have a problem with S&S 1995's Margaret whining about how women can't inherit (). I will agree with you that it's interesting that S&S 2008 is actually more feminist than S&S 1995, even though the latter had a female writer.
What on earth are you talking about? I never once said that I think Margaret's behaviour can be excused in book, film or series. And as Margaret did know about the problems caused by her brother inheriting instead of her mother, that she could reasonably talk about. She knew about her brother getting everything and that she was being turfed out of her home. Get real and find something else to try me with, not something I have already discussed with you.
Doesn't it seem odd and inconsistent that you previously commented on S&S 2008's "Female Empowerment," but you are now claiming that the adaptation shows Marianne being "trained"? IMO, S&S 2008 does not show Marianne being trained. It shows Morrissey's Brandon being gentle, careful, and attentive in the manner of a horse trainer, but there is nothing to indicate that he is meant to be viewed as training Marianne as if she were a horse.
You really do have reading problems. You must have. I said the Margaret was spouting the Female Empowerment crap, and in the scene Marianne is nowhere to be seen. Unlike the scenes where she is being trained by Morrisey's Brandon. I know you have a hard time dealing with me saying this, unfortunately I am not the one you should be bringing it up with. Complain to Andrew Davies.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. share
[deleted]
Morrissey's Brandon is very decisive and DOES have military qualities. As far as military qualities are concerned, Williams's Sir John refers to his friend as a military hero (and this is before he has even made his first appearance in the adaptation),
No, Morrisey's Brandon is not decisive and DOES NOT have military bearing! He is pushy and bad mannered. And just because you say something doesn't make it so. Just because Andrew Davies put in a passing line doesn't mean he wrote this Brandon as always acting in a military way. For one thing Davies knows full well that Brandon had no military training. You are acting like Brandon is supposed to ba a graduate of West Point or Sandhurst. Gentlemnen's sons had their commissions bought for them by Daddy. We know this is what happened to Brandon because we are told that is what happened with Brandon. Daddy had him put in the Army. We know nothing of his 'military career', because apart from Davies' line there is nothing in the series or book that ever refers to his 'military career'. I do know a little bit about this, my shelf of Wellington and his army books are all there, do you want some actual quotes about the quality of Wellington's officers from Wellington himself? We know as much about that career as we know about Sir John's, who you know also served with him. This 'military experience' baloney you have started to spout seems to be your way of desperately trying to find some kind of an excuse for having this Brandon's constant interfering and bullying actually in the series.
Calling Morrissey's Brandon rude and boorish is quite a stretch, IMO. He is very masculine and certainly more assertive than Rickman's Brandon, but at the same time he is sensitive, gentle, protective, polite, and kind.
And that is just your opinion. We all have opinions, some of us prefer to actually back up our opinions with some facts. Like how Brandon is !995 was not pushed around by anyone and how he acts decisively...When There Is a Reason to do so. You of course do not want to admit this, you prefer your fairy tale of Rickman's poor performance. You don't want to admit how badly the 2008 Brandon is written because then the would have to face the fact that the only person who says that he acts wonderful is you. You can worship at the alter of Morrisey's Brandon all you like Sassy. Just don't try and say how great his Brandon is because we have all seen the production.
But if you already know that Willoughby seduces Eliza, then why would that scene bother you? As I pointed out, I don't think that viewers unfamiliar with the story will be able to recognize those characters, so, really, it shouldn't bother any viewers, unless they have a problem with sex in Austen adaptations (and as this seduction is both book canon and VERY subtly and tastefully presented in S&S 2008, it is odd to me that anyone would hate it so much).
We didn't/don't need our faces rubbed in it.
But if Davies deliberately put "Female Empowerment" in S&S 2008, then doesn't that negate your claim that he intended for Marianne to be "trained" in a very male chauvinistic manner? I don't think that Wakefield's Marianne is being trained at all.
You are acting like there is some degree of consistency in this production's storyline, there isn't. And as Margaret and Marianne are actually two different characters, with two different ways of looking at things, this shows your great propensity for assumptions. Marianne in this production has already been shown to be a silly young girl, who leaps into infatuations at the drop of a hat (well proven by her declaration of falling in love in the spur of the moment with Brandon). Margaret is just mouthy. And I didn't say that Davies promoted Female Empowerment, I said he had Margaret spout some lines that sounded like they had been lifted from a Feminist Tract. Like Brandon's 'military' past, it's not mentioned before or after the line has been unfortunately said.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. share
[deleted]
Really? How is he not decisive? I thought that you agreed with me on this one point, at least.
He is shown doing one decisive thing, he leaves the picnic party. That's it. And as Rickman did that to in more style frankly, I'm not that impressed. See being domineering is not being decisive. They are two different things.
I am certainly NOT the only person who likes Morrissey's Brandon and thinks of him as a caring, considerate gentleman. Look at some of the many posts on this board, or search for reviews from Austenites who love this miniseries and appreciate Morrissey's performance.
I have looked at the posts on this board, and yes there are those that agreed with you. That was before I started posting and pointed out some of the things I noticed about Morrisey's Brandon. I wonder how many of those posters would agree with you now? Maybe some, but I rather think that there might not be that many. A bit egotistical there, I know I'm not that influential.
No, Sir John did not serve with Brandon. That is an invention of Emma Thompson's for S&S 1995, and there is no basis for it in the novel.
Then Sir John has no idea of what Morrisey's Brandon did. He wouldn't know if he was a hero or not. As Sir John knows what his reputation was, it has to be assumed he was in a position to know. Such things were nor written up in the papers of the time. There has to be some explanation for what Sir John says. Unless you think Morissey's Brandon told him how brave he was?
Bullying? What does Morrissey's Brandon do that could possibly be construed as bulling? He is assertive in many scenes, but he is never a bully.
He is bullying. Bad manners is bullying. And he consistently steps over the line in his behavior in other people's houses. You might see that as simply being assertive, I see it as someone who is isn't on getting his own way. And that is bullying.
IMO, the production is internally consistent. And yes, Margaret and Marianne are different characters, but Davies wrote dialogue for both of them. Besides, Elinor is the one who makes the comment about horse trainers, and she is the most rational, reasonable Dashwood sister. I doubt that she would say something meant to be insulting to her younger sister.
Yes Davies wrote the dialogue for both sisters and he seems to have forgotten how to keep track of what he wrote. He also wrote Elinor's lins, and missed the fact that he was putting words in her mouth that would lead to Marianne's character being denigrated. I'm not impressed with that line of argument. Mainly because I'm not impressed with the script in the first place.
Actually, S&S 2008 shows the developing relationship between Brandon and Marianne, and this happens AFTER Marianne has matured.
The 2008 production shows Marianne being put through her paces by Brandon and then her mooning over him like a schoolgirl, within days of her nearly dying of pneumonia. Again, not an impressive argument.
Well, Davies apparently IS a feminist, so I think it is highly unlikely that he intended for the falcon scene and dialogue about horse tamers to be viewed as male chauvinism. I see plenty of evidence that they are NOT. Wakefield's Marianne is learning that she is comfortable around Morissey's Brandon, because he is caring, attentive, and allows her the freedom to be her own person.
I have no idea of what Davies is, all I am sure about is that this script was not good. And that is putting it mildly. And if telling someone what to do and how to do is being caring and attentive, give me someone uncaring and inattentive. It couldn't be any worse.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. share
I have looked at the posts on this board, and yes there are those that agreed with you. That was before I started posting and pointed out some of the things I noticed about Morrisey's Brandon. I wonder how many of those posters would agree with you now? Maybe some, but I rather think that there might not be that many. A bit egotistical there, I know I'm not that influential.
Summeriiris, don't sell short the effect of others' revisiting the mini-series in light of your comments - certainly, I had blocked the howler of the bedroom tete-a-tete, and sort of drawn a veil in my mind over much of the Brandon-Marianne arc - though I definitely recalled being made uncomfortable by bnoth the alacrity of Brandon thrusting music on Marianne (I have said, if I were she, I would have felt this was both indelicate and insulting, as well as none of his bloody business), and the double-whammy of the animal-training suggestions was a bit much.
Then, last week, I rewatched, and I do find a lot to admire - Elinor, Edward, and their story (I know you disagree on at least the latter, but I do think Edward here was pretty nicely done, and I do like Dan Stevens). Mrs. Dashwood - I think Thompson wrote her better, by a bit, but Janet McTeer is so extraordinary an actress, her Mrs. Dashwood just sings (not taking away anything from Gemma Jones' superb work, but McTeer is also, and maybe just a hair more, truly outstanding here - I'd give the characterization about equal success, because of the writing being a bit better, IMO, for Jones). The Steele sisters - Lucy is perhaps a bit too sweet, not hard enough for my vision, and I though Imogen Stubbs' work superb (when is it otherwise?), but she isn't bad, and Anne is priceless - she isn't even too very over-the-top.
Most of the rest of the characters are at leas passable or better. Willoughby is at the low end, and I also hate the opening scene. I have less confidence than Sassy-girl that audiences will not recognize him, and have his villainy toward Marianne come as a horrible disappointment, as it should. We see that nose, that mouth, and that hair, and the nose is a real giveaway.
Charity Wakefield's acting, given what is written for her, is quite good, though IMO nowhere near providing the richness and depth Kate Winslet, years younger, displayed so magnificently. A problem, for me, on viewing 5 years after a gap, is that I have become more sensitized to vocal production in the interim, and Wakefield's voice is not supported from her diaphragm (we have agreed, you and I, on the difference a well-trained, well-used voice can bring to the weight of a performance). It's pretty, bu tnot merely young, it's a bit babyish. Papery, even, like silver wrapping tissue, no true resonance.
But I cannot get past Brandon, nor Brandon-Marianne. It's almost as if Davies is thumbing his nose at Austen, in his total re-imagining of that character and that arc. As if he is telling the author, "see, you got it wrong, and I'm going to show you how it's done properly." That makes me both queasy and extremely annoyed.
I know for a certainty I am not the only person on these boards who has re-visited the mini-series, and found that, as you have been noting since you began, Brandon here is an f-ing PROBLEM. You, unlike Sass, have been at pains to acknowledge the excellence of the actor's work - the issue is the production's take, which, again, seems to me to insult the original author and her intent.
So, for my part, I thank you for 1) the recently-informed posts, which brought back questions I had suppressed or forgotten, and 2) the tacit encouragement to revisit and draw my own conclusions, which are very similar to your own, as it turns out.
Isn't it nice to be grown up?
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies. share
Thank you for the compliment Locus. I do think the production has a lot going for it. And I get angry with myself for letting the catastrophe of the Brandon/Marianne arc spoil what is good about the production.
Dan Stephens as Edward. Well I'm not an Edward fan as you know, but apart from clumsily trying to chop wood, he was as good as Edward could be. I really didn't think Grant was that bad as Edward, again what can anyone really do with the part? Edward is simply not a character that a lot can be done with.
I agree with you about Janet McTeer. Again she was written as a complete departure from the novel, but she brought such warmth to the part it would be churlish to pick on it.
I thought Anna Madeley played Lucy, (Imogen Stubbs was in the 1995 film.) She was so sweet, wasn't she. She could have given you a toothache. Anne Steele was a scream, although I did wonder why she had such a strong accent when Lucy had a fairly innocuous city one. I though all the actors delivered good to great performances. They earned their paycheques, even David Morissey earned his. He did what was asked. I can't help but think that what he and Wakefild was asked to do was such a catastrophe. They looked like they should have been in a 70's bodice ripper instead of Jane Austen. All that 'chemistry' and no place to put it.
I quite like being grown up. It means I can enjoy a film and not defend it's defects.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
I agree that Hugh Grant was also a quite good Edward in the 1995 film - I think both adaptations, by different methods, did very good jobs making Edward less of a dull stick. The 1995 gave us a very shy, rather awkward man, but clearly observant, caring, and - nice touch - with a dry sense of humour. The 2008 gave us a very kind, decent man of no particular gifts but solidity of character. Both Edwards matched their Elinors very well indeed.
And, of course, I did not word myself clearly - I had meant, with regard to Lucy, to contrast the sweet-sweet portrayal in the 2008 version (Anna Madeley, you are right - I had not bothered to look it up before) with Imogen Stubbs' pointed, very conniving Lucy in the 1995 film (I didn't forget which Lucy Miss Stubbs was!).
I rather wondered whether Lucy, who is clever, had begun working on her speech (somewhere about the time she decided she intended to catch Edward) in preparation for her hoped-for future station in life - it seemed a reasonable supposition to me. FWIW, both my parents, by the time I was born, had worked very hard to rid themselves of regional American accents.
I quite like being grown up. It means I can enjoy a film and not defend it's defects.
Indeed. And, conversely, dislike a film without treating it as a personal affront when anyone else enjoys the work.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies. share
I like Hugh Grant's display of humour in this film. I think that's why I found Dan Stephen's a little wanting. Not much humour from Dan.
Locus if I had a pound for every time I've messed up and actor's name, I could afford a vacation in New York City...on my own.
Oh I could see Lucy weighing up the pros and cons and figuring she could sway Fanny. After all she did manage toi sway her mother-in-law. She reminds me so much of Becky Sharp.
As far as accents go. When my parents emigrated to the US I was a young girl and I never lost my Scottish accent. I got a job in a cinema chain in Baton Rouge. It was my job to liaise with the booking offices in Los Angeles and Houston. Nobody knew what I was saying. So I went to a speech therapist and I after while learned to speak without it. I was 23 at the time, I still speak like that. No one believes her in Scotland that I am Scottish. I just don't have an ear for accents.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
No, you are right. Dan Steven's Edward isn't much on humour, but then, neither is Hattie Morahan's Elinor. I did miss that, a bit, myself, but they were sweet together, I thought - a good pairing.
You are right about the ear for accents - it's like an eye color, or hair - you are born with it. It does help, if one learns a different language, at least some, while quite young - infants make all the vowel sounds, but no language uses them all, and as children grow, they lose the sounds, to a greater or lesser degree, that they are not accustomed to using in speech. It helps to keep some of the sounds going.
One of my current favorite comediennes is Michelle Gomez - I think she is howlingly funny, and love the Scots accent (when she cares to use it - her ear for American - and other - accents is excruciatingly spot-on).
Odd that your US adventures include Baton Rouge - I am currently in New England, but my husband and I maintain a base in New Orleans.
My mother's New York friends always swore she retained the South in her speech (a bit, perhaps), but when she went home to visit, she was derogated for "talking like a Yankee."
It is a matter, still, of extreme (if slightly guilty) pride to me that, when our French neighbor took me to visit her family when I was 10, and we also hit England before returning to New York, the English folk we met were always astonished to find I wasn't one of them. My father had made me practice pronouncing words roundly, from early youth, eventually graduating to having to do so with a matchbook held lengthwise between my lips. I don't think it was so much that I sounded English as that I didn't sound identifiably American.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
Morahan was good in this, but I am still puzzled over her thing for Edward. Not even Hugh Grant made me like him. And as for Dan Stephens, well maybe it's best if I don't venture into that territory. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything.
My ear for accents is definitely tin.
I've actually never watched Michelle Gomez in anything. I really have to start watching more TV. There is more on than Game of Thrones,The Big Bang Theoty, Last Tango in Halifax and Strictly Come Dancing. Well there is also Downton Abbey and the Great British Bake Off. I don't even watch Dr Who anymore.
New Orleans is beautiful.
She should come to the North of Scotland, they talk the 'Doric up here. It's fun.
My mother was the same. I wasn't allowed to talk like a 'toonser' growing up. That didn't help much in Baton Rouge.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
Here is a quick clip of a Michelle Gomez stand-up routing:
WARNING - if four-letter words offend, don't watch, this clip rather centers on one of the more touchy ones at ;least, this side of the pond. Doesn't bother me, I laugh and laugh at this, time and again, but your mileage may vary . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6YIEjDhjls
If you are looking for a really intriguing new viewing experience, have you heard of "Orphan Black?" We get it on BBC America, it's mostly a Canadian production. The lead actress, Tatiana Maslany, delivers jaw-dropping acting - unbelievably good. I won't say more, to avoid spoilage. All the cast is very fine, including the beautiful and wonderful Maria Doyle Kennedy. The second season just concluded a couple of weeks ago, I am hoarding the finale to watch some time, but I don't want it over quite yet.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
Four letter words don't offend me. I find profanity boring to tell the truth and I never use it myself. There are so many words in the English language, why limit yourself to four or five as adjectives?
No, I haven't hear of 'Orphan Black'. I'll check out Netflix and YouTube. You should check out 'Edge Of Darkness'. if you haven't seen it. The BBC TV production, not the film.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
I'm not much on obscenities either - and the humour here is not based on the word, it's just a point-up, and a sort of touchstone. The real humour is Gomez and her wickedly funny takes on the Americans she's encountered.
I agree, too, English is an extremely rich and various language, and if you look for them there are almost always better words than the easy obscenities.
I'll look out for "Edge of Darkness," thank you!
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
locus, you and summer (or rather, y'all - lol) should hear my southern accent. It's deeply ingrained despite the fact that my mother is Japanese and has a strong Asian accent.
shareI do love the charm of a Southern drawl! And Southern manners, too. My husband has finally had his eyes opened on that score, although it took years of the occasional remark. I don't say Southerners are better people than, say New Englanders, I don't particularly think they are (or worse, either) but good manners make life so much easier. Not to mention more pleasant.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
but good manners make life so much easier. Not to mention more pleasant.
Very true locus. Good manners are the butter on the bread of life.
share
[deleted]
That's what I meant. She was overly sweet. And as for Edward falling for her, well he's Edward. Cynicism doesn't seem to be his forte. I don't mean cynisim really, but expecting him to be street smart seems a little too much to ask of him.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
[deleted]
He was supposed to be young and dumb. Well he lost the youth. As for Lucy, she was young as well. Maybe she got manipulative after being kept on a string for four years. I know, I'm hard on Edward. It just too easy to be hard on Edward.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
[deleted]
Lucy would have been in her very early teens at the time of her engagement. Now I'm not saying a fourteen or fifteen year old girl couldn't be manipulative, but I highly doubt her skill at it. Either way Edward comes off looking like an idiot. Well it's Edward, what more does anyone need to say.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
[deleted]
Hello Summer & Locus!
I enjoyed Grant's Edward more because of the humor he brought to the part. Hugh Grant is pretty much lovable in every part he plays, IMO. Dan Stevens, I like him well too. I adored him in Downton Abbey - and he plays Edward with such a sweet earnestness, and those blue eyes. He was more serious, but still a nice portrayal.
I enjoyed both Mrs. Dashwoods. Both ladies did wonderful jobs with their parts.
Ah, Lucy Steele. She's as cunning as an alley cat in S&S 95, nasty piece of work! I love to hate her, which is quite a compliment to Stubb's acting. When she had her nose pinched by Fanny, I actually cheered! Lucy in S&S 2008 wasn't villainous at all IMO, she was appropriately sweet-tempered - though still self-serving in transferring her affections to Robert. She, however, did not grate my nerves like Stubb's vastly passive-aggressive Lucy.
Anne Steele was a scream
She certainly was! I ADORED her. She brought so much humor to the part! Wonderful job with a small part.
They looked like they should have been in a 70's bodice ripper instead of Jane Austen.
Oh my goodness! This is funny, because I'd mentioned to locus that Davies could have written Morrissey as a Desert Sheik kidnapping Wakefield, and riding off into the sunset to "claim her" - falcon flying as co-pilot...and Sass would still love it, and defend it with vigor. As I said to locus, Kidnapping Desert Sheiks have their place and appeal, but they don't belong in an Austen adaptation. Clearly, great minds think alike. share
The nose-pinching is a bit of a stretch for behavior in the period, but it's so funny. It's appealing, because we cannot help being pleased at the mutual distress of these two differently horrible women.
And you and summeriris are so right about the "bodice-ripping" quality of the Brandon-Marianne arc in 2008 S&S. It's almost spelled out in day-glo letters a foot high - Brandon actually does start to unlace Marianne's bodice, after all.
And Sassy-girl complains that Rickman's Brandon is "creepy," and "leering." Sheesh. At least he doesn't attempt to have a look at Marianne's naked breasts. Would Morrissey's Brandon have stopped, if Elinor wasn't in the room? We'll never know . . .
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
The nose-pinching is a bit of a stretch for behavior in the period, but it's so funny. It's appealing, because we cannot help being pleased at the mutual distress of these two differently horrible women.
Yes! It was a small taste of long-awaited comeuppance for me! I relished every moment.
I cannot fathom how anyone could honestly perceive Rickman's Brandon as "creepy" and "leering"...while at the same time embrace with enthusiasm Morrissey's complete, and repeated lack of propriety in regards to his behavior towards Marianne.
Four that blare out at me from S&S 2008...and I know you and summer noticed these too.
1. Morrissey's intense smoldering stare whilst rubbing his finger against his lips no less!! As he watched Wakefield's Marianne play the piano. I'm surprised her skin didn't blister from the heat of his gaze. And this was the first time he'd ever clapped eyes on her. It was as if he were a starving man, and he saw her as a filet mignon he wanted to devour. That scene gave me a very "historical bodice-ripping romance" vibe.
2. Brandon's sudden visit upon the Dashwood's when he'd only just made their acquaintance. They were still in the process of settling in to the cottage too. The time line seemed to be the very next day after he met them. It was as if he couldn't restrain himself from getting another stare at Marianne. No wonder she ran out the back door for the Longest Walk Ever (tm).
3. Brandon confronting Willougby about his intentions towards Marianne, when she was not under his protection, she is not his family, nor is she even interested in Brandon as a suitor at that time. He completely overstepped social boundaries with this scene. To me it came across as possessiveness.
4. Brandon's 2 bedroom scenes with Marianne. Unlacing her bodice when he brought her in out of the rain - as Dr. McCoy from Star Trek would say..."D@mmit Jim! He's a Colonel, not a Doctor!!" Then and sitting on her bed, in his shirt sleeves...completely alone with her - door closed to boot.
Now these scenes don't drive me completely up a wall like they do you and summer - I can see that Davies intention was to make Morrissey the romantic, heroic, alpha-male. He's handsome and striding, and all...but I'm not swept off my feet by him like Sass is either. I do agree, with you and summer, that this Brandon does not mesh with the Brandon that Austen intended - and he doesn't fit in with my idea of how a well-bred gentleman of that era would behave, because of the strict standards of propriety during that time.
IMO ignoring Morrissey's Brandon's extremely forward, and somewhat sexually charged behaviors towards Marianne, while harping relentlessly on Rickman's restrained attraction for her as creepy is a complete double-standard. It's like complaining that a candle is too bright, and at the same time insisting blinding sunlight is dim mood-lighting.
share
I haven't complained about #1 much, because, while his gaze is certainly enough to make anyone uncomfortable, it is textually defensible; he is listening with silent attention while the others talk.
#2 - of course.
#3 - in addition, he is challenging Willoughby in Sir John's home, not his own. Sir John really is a relation, he is the host; if there is any challenging to be done, the right is his, not Brandon's.
#4 - and, in the second of the two scenes he clasps his hand over her two hands, folded on her abdomen. The touch is unconscionably intimate.
Contrast this with the emotional intimacy we see develop between Brandon and Marianne in the 1995 film - and we never see their fingers so much as touch, after he has brought her in from the rain at Cleveland.
It's like complaining that a candle is too bright, and at the same time insisting blinding sunlight is dim mood-lighting.
I once wrote it was "to strain at a gnat, having swallowed Leviathan," but we agree here.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies. share
I haven't complained about #1 much, because, while his gaze is certainly enough to make anyone uncomfortable, it is textually defensible; he is listening with silent attention while the others talk.
I'm sure my perception is colored by the fact that I'm a fan of smolder, and if I get a hint of it...I'm all over it. A prime, and I do mean PRIME, example is Richard Armitage in the adaptation of Gaskell's North & South. Oh. My. Not to mention his role as Guy Gisbourne in BBC's Robin Hood. That man could set ice on fire. Whew!!! *fans self*
I once wrote it was "to strain at a gnat, having swallowed Leviathan," but we agree here.
Ha! Yes, I recall you saying that. So much truth. I think that that sort of topsy-turvy reasoning proves that love is indeed blind.
share
[deleted]
Sass,
Holding his finger against his lips does not make him look creepy. It makes him appear to be deep in thought
Eh, I say tomato, you say tah-mah-toe. It's a matter of different perceptions. Finger against the lips didn't strike me as creepy at all, but I also didn't get deep in thought. I got "Hmmm, I'd like to gobble her up." - and you might find this amusing, I'm a fan of smolder. I think Morrissey did it quite well - but I also don't think well-mannered Brandon should smolder, especially upon first making an acquaintance. On the other hand, where you find Rickman's "staring" as leering...I see a man enchanted, almost in awe of Marianne - which isn't as thrilling as a good smolder, but it's very sweetly romantic, and falls completely in line with my idea of how Brandon would behave. Again, I say potato, you say pah-tah-toe. The end.
Morrissey's Brandon forgets himself momentarily and begins - but only begins - trying to undress her because it is what he would have done for a fellow soldier.
Remember when you countered my perception of Marianne falling in love with Brandon as being "imagined" because it (in your opinion) wasn't properly shown on screen? Aren't you also completely imagining that Brandon would undress a fellow soldier - since there is NO scene showing him doing such a thing. This is where your obvious bias shows - and quite a blatant double-standard as well. You can quite easily fill in vast blanks with Morrissey's Brandon's thoughts/feelings/actions - even if they aren't spelled out in dialog or on screen....but don't understand at all how I, locus or summer can fill in between the lines of what Rickman's Brandon is thinking/feeling/doing in the same instance. Try to comprehend that we are as passionate, and certain, about what we like about Rickman's portrayal as you are about Morrissey's. E-m-p-a-t-h-y.
Believe me, I understand that you will never see the faults that stand out to me in 2008's Brandon. I know that he's the epitome of your ideal of who Brandon should be. Good for you. And I hope you realize, that though I see and acknowledge his faults, I don't dislike him - I wouldn't throw the man out with the bathwater (unlike how you treat poor Rickman). I just find Morrissey's version straying from MY idea of how Brandon should behave, and in turn I find Rickman's Brandon much more in line with my expectations - therefore Rickman is MY preference. It's very simple, IMO. And all the debating in the world isn't going to change it. share
[deleted]
Sass,
Having to spoon-feed you every miniscule facet of what I say is so tiresome. Here you go, and then I'm done. I was referring to Rickman's Brandon, and the depth of your dislike for him - and yes, I think it's sad that you find NOTHING of merit in his portrayal. You feel confused, about my sympathy for Rickman's Brandon, and feel it's "rather misdirected"? Well, that pretty much sums up my feelings regarding your bashing of Rickman's Brandon, Thompsons's Elinor, and her script, and Ang Lee's directing of S&S 95.
I don't dislike Rickman
The intensity of your dislike for his role of Brandon gives the impression that you have something against the actor himself. Especially, since you weren't content to just disparage his performance on the S&S 95 board, but you ALSO went directly to Rickman's actor message board to express your very negative opinions of his portrayal of Brandon. You've even gone so far to say he's too old to play Snape, when Rowling WROTE him with Rickman in mind. Again it gives the impression that you have something against the actor. And you have no idea why people might think you don't like Rickman. Uh huh.
Rickman's portrayal of Brandon that you are referring to, he is a fictional character, so there is no harm done in criticizing him.
Is he really a fictional character??? ZOMG and all this time I thought he was real!!1!! For heaven's sake, I KNOW that. And yet, I still find it sad that you find nothing of value in his portrayal. Just as you find no harm in criticizing the fictional character of Rickman's Brandon, I find no harm in feeling sympathy for him. Amazing how that works. share
[deleted]
Hi again Sass,
Hi, webrowser. You've explained everything very thoroughly
Thank goodness.
the fact of the matter is that Snape was not written to be a 60-year-old.
I'd read in an article that Rowling wrote Snape with Rickman in mind - the article did not make it clear if it was referring to the books or to the writing of the film. I've also read that Rowling hand-picked Rickman to play Snape. What I'm trying to say is if the CREATOR of a character says that Rickman is her perfect ideal of her character - and his actual age doesn't concern her in the slightest - that pretty much kills any argument of him "being too old for the part". share
[deleted]
Hi Sass,
In Rowling's case, I respect her opinion that Rickman was the ideal actor to portray Snape. However, I do not have to completely agree with her. IMO, Rickman was a couple of decades too old, and actually a bit too large and tall, as well
And this goes back to my original point, when I explained why people get the impression you have something against Alan Rickman. Even when you know that Rowling has stamped Alan Rickman with the royal seal of approval as her embodiment of Snape, you still have issues with him. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you don't have to agree with Rowling, but she IS the one person on the planet that knows better than anyone who Snape is and who should play him. So when you don't agree with her VERY expert opinion that Rickman was perfect for Snape - and point out your problems with age, size, etc., it appears that you have prejudices against the actor himself.
But it seems that these physical differences didn't bother Rowling, so what else can I say?
Exactly! She knows her character better than anyone, so it makes sense to follow her lead in her choice of Alan Rickman. Thank you for saying this.
I do agree that Rickman was excellent in that particular role
It is so nice to see you praise Rickman's work as Snape. I agree with you completely. share
[deleted]
Sass,
I refuse to accept that Rowling actually believes that Rickman is a perfect match for her own description of the character, because he is very obviously not.
I've never read anywhere where she's complained or been concerned about the age/build differences between the Snape she wrote in the books, and Rickman. You seem to be hung up on it, even though the creator herself obviously isn't. I'm not arguing that you "should get over it". Matter of fact, I'm not arguing at all. Let it bother you, bug you, annoy you, stand out at you, for all time if that's the way you feel. It really doesn't matter to me - BUT don't be surprised that it makes you appear to have a prejudice against Rickman. The ENTIRE point I was trying to make...that you somehow seem to have lost...is that BECAUSE you seem to insist on pointing out Rickman's wrong age or wrong build, or wrong etc. - not only as Snape...but as Brandon too, it's NOT SURPRISING that it gives people the impression that you have something against Alan Rickman the actor.
Even though you LIKE Rickman's portrayal of Snape you insist on his age, build, etc. being WRONG. The negative practically overshadows the positive - and YES, that gives people the impression that even when he does an excellent job in a role, you STILL have something against Rickman.
You seemed puzzled by that assessment, and I, for some insane reason, decided to try to help you understand that about 3 posts ago. I'm so done.
share
[deleted]
Calm down.
Oh please. I am calm. I simply get sick of mincing words to dust. I should have known it would turn out this way, but I thought it would be simple...but it rarely is if discussed w/you. You tend to miss the entire point of what I'm saying, or completely misunderstand my meanings, and I honestly can't tell if it's on purpose or not - regardless - the back and forth it creates is not something I enjoy. Hence, my being done. share
[deleted]
I didn't intend to sound bossy, webrowser, but I apologize for telling you to "Calm down."
Thank you, I appreciate that.
In my previous posts, I have said numerous times that I do NOT hate Rickman, and that I really enjoy his portrayal of Snape. I can't force you to believe me, of course, but I really wish you would not assume - as you appear to be doing, at least from my perspective - that I am being dishonest about my own preferences. I know my own opinions.
See, it's clear you completely misunderstood me. I never meant you to think I don't believe you, and I'm not assuming anything. I really do believe you enjoyed Rickman's portrayal as Snape. Of course you know your own opinions, just as I know mine. I was only trying to help you see how all the negative things you've posted in regards to Rickman's roles make it APPEAR to other posters that you have something against Rickman - I'm not saying that I KNOW you have something against him. And the only reason I was even explaining to you in the first place is because you said you didn't know WHY people would think you felt that way. I was only trying to help you understand the WHY, nothing else.
share
[deleted]
Rickman's age and build do NOT bother me when I watch his performance in the Harry Potter films. I hope that clears things up.
Yes, this does clear it up. I had the impression, and I'm sure other posters did too, that his age and build DID bother you when you watch his performance as Snape. Thank you for explaining that it doesn't bother you. That does make a big difference. share
I DO understand your point, though. No further explanation is necessary.
Thank you! I'm so glad. share
[deleted]
Sass,
Austen describes Brandon this way in the book, so it makes sense that he would have these qualities in the film, even though I think S&S 1995 exaggerates his reserve and melancholy to the point of making him cold and and morose.
I understand that you feel this way. I didn't. His air of melancholy was appropriate to me, considering the back story he'd been through in the film. I felt sympathy for his character.
It is also a good thing that Rickman isn't good-looking in this role,
He's not conventionally handsome, but I do find him attractive. Especially in this role.
You are correct that I can't find anything else of value in Rickman's portrayal of the character, but I'm not sure why that should be sad.
Two very simple reasons:
1. Because I'd much rather someone be blessed enough to derive enjoyment from a role rather than not. I wish everyone could glean a bit of positive from every role played. It's more fun for them that way. If you didn't get any enjoyment from Rickman's role, then I feel sad for you, because of your disappointment.
2. Two parts to this one. I felt sympathy for his character in the film, so you could say I have a soft spot for his Brandon. If someone dislike's the character - heck, even when Marianne disliked him - I feel sadness on his behalf. I also feel sympathy for Rickman the actor in that, I'm sure he gave his best to the role, and tried to perform it to the best of his ability. IMO he did a wonderful job. It pleases me to see someone else enjoy his work in this film, because I enjoyed it. If they don't enjoy it, it makes me feel a bit of disappointment (for myself, in not having another person with whom to discuss positive aspects of his role)- and a bit of sadness (for Rickman) in that his efforts didn't measure up for someone. It has nothing to do with him being upset by a bad review, I guess I just empathize in how I'd feel if I did my best, and it didn't please on any level.
I hope that makes it clear.
P.S. I have an important question I've posed to you on my "contrasts" thread, that I hope you'll try to answer. share
In the 1995 film, we see Brandon lend Marianne his knife, we see them together at playing bowls, they are conversing as they return to the house. Brandon doesn't just stare at Marianne. Now, none of this is spelled out in 5-foot high letters for us, but it is there, it is shown. Of course, none of that "counts" for you, and you will invent anything necessary to defend the 2008 version.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But not to their own "facts."
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
During the sword fight scene with Brandon and Willoughby, I wanted Brandon to strike Willoughby twice. After the first strike, say: "That's for Eliza." And after the second strike, say: "That’s for Marianne."
shareCol. Brandon is a gentleman. A gentleman would never mention a lady's name during a duel. Willoughby knew why Brandon challenged him, none better.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, "I Shine, Not Burn".