Sense and Sensibility: I Prefer the Film

In the second stage of my Jane Austen reread, I found myself zipping through Sense and Sensibility, but not with the same fervor that I read Northanger Abbey.  Northanger Abbey still entertains me with sexy, snarky Henry Tilney, the mocking of Gothic conventions, and one of my favorite scenes in all of Austen’s novels – when John Thorpe tries to drop hints to Catherine that he wants to marry her.  (I still can’t tell if she is oblivious to his innuendos or if she understands him perfectly but is completely brushing him off – either scenario is hilarious to me.  “I’d like to stop by your house!” “Great!  My parents would be happy to see you.” “I hope YOU won’t be unhappy to see me?” “No, I’m never unhappy to see anyone – company is always welcome!”  HAHAHA).  But I did not get the same joy out of rereading Sense and Sensibility. In fact, I wanted to zip through it and watch the 1995 Ang Lee version, written by and starring Emma Thompson.

Yes, I’ve come to the conclusion that Sense and Sensibility is one of the few books where I prefer the film version.  Why?  Let’s count the ways:

1. We get to see Elinor and Edward fall in love.  In the book, Elinor and Edward’s falling in love can be summed up in this description told from the point of view of Mrs. Dashwood: “This circumstance was a growing attachment between her eldest girl and the brother of Mrs. John Dashwood, a gentlemanlike and pleasing young man, who was introduced to their acquaintance soon after his sister’s establishment at Norland, and who had since spent the greatest part of his time there.”  That’s about it.  We don’t see any of their interactions, hear any of their conversations.  This type of brief, summed-up description works when discussing Jane Bennet and Mr. Bingley’s courtship in Pride and Prejudice, because Jane/Bingley isn’t the central romance of the novel.  Elinor is the main character, Edward is the man she loves, and that’s all we get?  Come on.

In the film, though, we have this:

They don’t exactly set the screen on fire, but then again, both Elinor and Edward are of a reserved, careful disposition.  Their little glances with each other, his comforting her after seeing her cry about her father, is enough to make me care.  In the book, I sympathize with Elinor but I have a hard time getting invested in her romance with Edward. 

2. Characters are judiciously cut or fleshed out.  One of the most amusing characters in the book (to me) is Lady Middleton, and she doesn’t appear in the movie at all.  I enjoy her in the book because of passages like these: “Conversation, however, was not wanted, for Sir John was very chatty, and Lady Middleton had taken the wise precaution of bringing with her their eldest child, a fine little boy about six years old; by which means there was one subject always to be recurred to by the ladies in case of extremity, for they had to enquire his name and age, admire his beauty, and ask him questions which his mother answered for him, while he hung about her and held down his head, to the great surprise of her ladyship, who wondered at his being so shy before company, as he could make noise enough at home. On every formal visit a child ought to be of the party, by way of provision for discourse. In the present case it took up ten minutes to determine whether the boy were most like his father or mother, and in what particular he resembled either, for of course every body differed, and every body was astonished at the opinion of the others.”  I love moments like these because they support my point that Jane Austen was a social critic first, a romance writer second, and many mothers today act the same way Lady Middleton did two hundred years ago.

But, strangely, I don’t miss her in the movie.  I don’t miss Mrs. Ferrars or Miss Steele, either.  Instead, Emma Thompson decides to develop the character of Margaret Dashwood, Elinor and Marianne’s little sister, and the movie is better for it.  In the book, she has next to no personality – even Kitty Bennet had more to do.  The book mentions Margaret returning from some trip and how the family was finally reunited, and I can’t bring myself to care because Margaret barely seems to exist.  In the movie, however, Margaret is a feisty little girl who has her own treehouse, likes atlases, and enjoys sword-fighting with Edward.  She’s a character, not an extra, and adds to the comedy in the film. 

3. Here are my feminist buttons.  Go ahead and push them. In the book, Elinor and Mrs. Dashwood start to think of Marianne as Colonel Brandon’s “reward.”  They feel sorry for Colonel Brandon for all the pain he’s been through, they’re grateful to him for helping save Marianne, and therefore, they think Marianne owes him her love.  I hate that.  I feel sorry for Colonel Brandon, too, because he’s a good man who’s had a hard life, but Marianne should not be obliged to love him because of that.  In the movie, I get a sense that she becomes truly attached to him, and that her family wants the engagement because they think it would make her happy.

I always think of Sense and Sensibility as one of my favorite Austen novels.  I’ve realized that it’s one of my favorite stories, but I prefer the film, not in the least because it has my two favorite actresses playing the lead roles.

And here’s a fun bit of trivia: not only is Emma Thompson married in real life to Greg Wise (Willoughby), but her sister, Sophie Thompson, is married to the actor who played Robert Ferrars!  In real life, Elinor is married to Willoughby, and Robert Ferrars is married to Miss Bates from Emma! Just like in the movie Possession, with Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle playing lovers, with Mr. Knightley having sex with Elizabeth Bennet.  This is too much Austen incest (Austcest?) for me to handle.