beijingpearl2003
I was looking forward to seeing another version of this, having just read the book again. Yes, it is pretty close, though I think the decision to leave out Margaret was unwise and spoiled the family dynamics. Overall, the acting seemed to me to be pale and rather lifeless, as though many characters simply read their lines with little true feeling at all. The addition of Lucy Steele's older sister and Lady Middleton added nothing--in the book they were amusing in their way, but here, no; Miss Steele's goofiness was not really shown, which would be the only reason to include her. Also, Fanny was annoyingly low key & snotty, but didn't really come off as the haughty bitch she does in the book. I think part of the problem is that the actors, to be honest, were simply not skilled enough to give the roles the subtle interplay and depth they should have: I found their faces to be stiff, the gestures muted, just NO liveliness, and very little humor. The costumes were very disappointing: I'm sorry but if you have the money and prestige to have lived at Norland, your clothes are going to reflect that somewhat--maybe not fancy but of better quality! Half the time Eleanor was dressed in the dull colors of a nun, and even many of Mary Ann's dresses looked ill-fitted and sloppily made, like something in a high school play! The older ladies clothes had not the least bit of charm, even though they had money, they dressed in simply hideous dresses with a bit of trim down the center. I know the clothes of that era, and these were NOT well done, were badly made and designed and looked cheap.John Middleton was nicely humorous and red-cheeked, though he reminded me constantly of a leprechaun!His mother-in-law came off far too low-key for what she should have been. Though Lucy was catty in her way, she lacked the force of character of the conniving bitch she was in the book--she was MUCH more interestingly played in Ang Lee's film! The relationship between the sisters seemed pallid until right at the last. Willoughby...eh, not impressed--pretty boy blonde with not much more to recommend him. Brandon was so colorless and dull, racing through speeches that SHOULD have had more depth of feeling and subtle play of emotion. Alan Rickman was warm, subtle, likable- -his face was mobile, yet delicately conveying the depth of his feelings, and his voice! OH so much more convincing than anything in this film's version of Brandon!As for the general direction, it was rather dull--at least in Ang Lee's film they did something besides sit around and sew! He actually showed the relationship between MaryAnn an Willoughby developing, gave time to that beginning of intimacy, so that when she loses it in London, you have good idea WHY. The director lost many chances for dramatic play, and ended up with a so-so production. See it if you're a fan of Austen, if nothing else, just for comparison. Ang Lee's version, for all it's faults, has far better acting, a more lively cast, more interesting interplay between the characters, far better costumes, and honestly....I may have to watch it yet again, just to get the bland taste of this one out of my mind!
chris ludlam
Having watched the 1995 movie for the first time a few days ago,I decided to watch this fine BBC production again,and found it the more satisfying of the two.The acting was of a good standard;Tracey Childs splendid as Marianne,and Bosco Hogan's interpretation of Edward Ferrers far exceeded Hugh Grant's peculiar effort in the Ang Lee film.The direction and location filming in Dorset/Somerset and the authentic early 1800's feel more than compensated for the budget constraints.Also,Willoughby's telling confession to Eleanor as Marianne lay seriously ill upstairs was,thankfully,retained,unlike the 1995 version.A good miniseries,more Jane Austen than it's "grander" successor!Nine out of ten!
Caledonia Twin #1
I have to disagree that the male performances were bland. Bosco Hogan did a very good job as the self-effacing Edward, and Douglas' portrayal of Sir John Middleton was so lively that as far as the interpretation of this character is concerned, the later S&S actor seems to have borrowed heavily from prior precedent. And Peter Woodward makes a dashing Willoughby, every bit as convincing as the more recent Willoughby. Woodward's voice and elocution are fantastic, and he sings remarkably well. I also enjoyed Marianne's performance in particular. In many ways, this adaptation is more faithful to the novel. The only flaw is that it begins in medias res rather than at the beginning, and it begins with a strangely stilted introduction, but that can be overlooked due to the brilliant performances, which improve with every minute of the film.
