Was that Willoughby?

@ShannonTrimphant:
Thank you. I felt the need to defend S&S, and then you do it for me perfectly. Yes to everything you said.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

Emma didn't "cast herself" as Elinor, ANG LEE DID! She was hesitant about it, as she felt she was too old, and I agree, but her performance was amazing. Greg Wise and she were not an "item", I'm pretty sure, when filming began, so there goes the idea that she caset him too. Or if she did, I think he was perfect fo rthe role. Generally, actors do NOT "cast themselves" unless they're on Warren Beatty's plane.

True, but this was really a "special case" where Ms. Thompson was involved from beginning to end.

In the first place, she wrote the screenplay. (Not a particularly arduous task, just a matter of "editing" Jane Austen, but she took it upon herself to actually do the job, which gives her credit.) HOWEVER, for someone with her ego, to go to the work of producing a screenplay AND NOT DRAW HERSELF AS THE HEROINE would be an act of tremendous self-sacrifice that Ms. Thompson has NEVER been known for.

The production went to Columbia/Tri-Star of which Sydney Pollack was the Executive Producer. He was also personal friends with Emma's mother, Phyllida Law. He was instrumental in hiring Ang Lee and the rest of the production looks like it could have come out of Emma's personal phone book. It is unusual that so many roles are directly attributed to a personal friendship with the screenwriter. And, as screenwriter, it is doubtful she didn't exert personal influence. After all, this film was "her baby." Sydney Pollack was a "hands on producer" and would have given credence to her opinion. This was the beginning of Ang Lee's career here and he would have appreciated having advice with someone of Emma Thompson's status; she was not a "run of the mill" screenwriter, but a seasoned member of a prestigious British acting family. [Just because I think her work is crap doesn't mean she didn't do it! She did and "took credit" for every effort.]

Her character (Elinor Dashwood) is supposed to be a shy girl who has never been kissed; there is no way in the world that Emma Thompson at age 36, could carry that off. And, her character's sister, Marianne Dashwood, is played by Kate Winslet who is only 20. Jane Austen's characters of Elinor and Marianne were not 16 years apart.

In contrast, the 2008 version had Charity Wakefield at 28 playing Marianne Dashwood, and Hattie Morahan at 30 playing Elinor Dashwood. More importantly, Hattie LOOKED young and naïve; Emma was old and hard. Charity looked young and sweet and naïve; Kate looked "experienced."

Then there is Willoughby: Emma's version had Greg Wise at 35 as the evil Willoughby. He merely looked tired, morose, and somewhat secretive (or shy). In contrast, the 2008 version with Dominic Cooper (who was 30) as the wicked Willoughby looked adorable and behaved absolutely evil).

Then came the "good guy" for the Elinor Dashwood character. Who is the more "sweet and innocent?" Dan Stevens at 26 years of age as Edward Ferrars or Hugh Grant at 35, as Edward Ferrars. That's easy. Hugh Grant looks like a seasoned rounder (as he is in every role he plays) and Dan Stevens is a blue-eyed, baby-faced sweet innocent (just like he was in Downton Abbey).

Then there is the choice of Colonel Brandon; who has to be older and well established. The 2008 version has David Morrissey at 44 years old playing Col. Brandon, and who is tall, strong, and silent. A moody character who suffers with the burden of "secrets." The Emma Thompson version has Alan Rickman at 49 years old playing Col. Brandon, who is also "tall." He certainly isn't handsome, or strong, or silent. He is jowly, looks like a frog, and wants nothing more than to "express" himself. IOW, he is nothing like Austen's character for Marianne Dashwood's deep lover.

Look at the parents; Mr. and Mrs. Dashwood! The 2008 version has Janet McTeer and Simon Williams as inspired choices. The Emma Thompson version cast Gemma Jones and Tom Wilkinson; Jones does not seem to “enjoy” her daughters as McTeer appears to do. Very much a "phoned in performance."

The heirs: John and Fanny Dashwood. The 2008 version cast the SUPERB actors of Mark Gatiss (age 42) and Clair Skinner (age 43) and they were excellent as the weak son and rat daughter-in-law. In Emma Thompson's version, James Fleet (age 41) and Harriet Walter (age 45) were simply inferior. Whereas Harriet is "depressing and stern" and James Fleet is "morose" (or just bored) they are not the petty, self-sanctified stinkers of the Austen novel.

Mark Williams was a superb Sir John Middleton. As is Linda Bassett as Mrs. Jennings (his impetuous mother-in-law). Jean Marsh as Mrs. Ferrars is always a rare treat! (I did not see a listing for Mrs. Ferrars, or remember her from the 1995 version.) The 2008 version has a “parlor scene” with the Misses Steele, where Edward is announced as engaged to Lucy and his mother disinherits him while James finds his mother’s favor; I do not remember that from the 1995 version.

Other Emma Thompson characters seemed to "phone it in" (Robert Hardy and Hugh Laurie come to mind).

While she "only met Greg on the set" (which is their story and they are sticking to it) I find it interesting that she was busy divorcing Kenneth Branagh during the production of this huge movie (that she won an Oscar for). It seems very convenient that her personal life would work "in conjunction" like this, since she had just tried to have a baby with Branagh the year before. Very odd!

The casting of the 2008 version SEEMED as if it was done to match the characters in the novel (because the end product was excellent). The casting of Emma Thompson's screenplay seemed to "employ her friends." (Alan Rickman, Hugh Laurie, Robert Hardy, Imelda Staunton, Hugh Grant, Gemma Jones, and Greg Wise (who she married in 2003, after having a child in 1999 and a miss in 1997). And, those are just the ones I know. There could be more.

Just looking at the "ratings" in IMDb, the 2008 version rates an 8.3. The Emma Thompson version ranks a 7.7. I believe that is a direct result of her sacrificing excellence for "friendship." If you want to believe that Ang Lee was casting the roles independently, it is AMAZING that he hired SO MANY of Emma Thompson's personal friends. In fact, it is a gosh-darn miracle. I can see her PUSHY finger on every aspect of this film. I also believe that there would have been MORE Oscar wins if she had let some things take their course instead of wanting to control so much of it. Actually, there is something about the 1995 Emma Thompson version that I appreciate very much; it showed how much better the 2008 version was. I suspect that some Jane Austen purists saw her version and were not satisfied; otherwise, why such a different version just 13 years later.

reply share

add reply

formatting help