Denise Hill
Instructor Hill
ENG111-56
9 September 2008
Lacking in Sense and Sensibility
I am a confessed Jane Austen addict. As a film aficionado, this is doubly dangerous: not only have I the books to read (and listen to), I now have my choice of numerous film adaptations of her works. One I have seen most recently is the 1995 version of Sense and Sensibility, directed by Ang Lee, screenplay by and starring Emma Thompson.
I have long been familiar with and admired Thompson’s work. From her comedy show on BBC decades ago, to her rise up through the Hollywood acting circuit, to eventually writing screenplays. This particular script adaptation of Austen’s Sense and Sensibility, in, fact, won an Oscar. And it is for that, I can say with utmost certainty, that I pronounce Thompson’s work completely unworthy.
By comparison, I would say that the BBC TV 2008 mini-series version is one of the closest to the original by Austen, with the 1981 BBC TV version pulling in a close second. I understand that filmmakers, beginning with the screenwriters, have license to create their own versions of the story. However, with respect to the originating author, as well as the expectations of the viewing audience, I believe there have to be some limitations.
The BBC mini-series is probably most at leisure to follow Austen’s original because of time allotment (267 minutes vs. Thompson’s 136 minutes). Even so, the BBC version takes liberties with the story line, changing relationships between some characters, representing characters differently, and leaving out events. I expect some of this. Thompson’s version, however, does the unthinkable: she completely eliminates one of the characters from the story. Perhaps not a major character, but to set this clear: the story is about a widow and her three daughters forced from their family home to live in near poverty. Thompson completely eliminates the youngest of the three daughters. Is she essential to the story? In other versions, including the original, she is responsible for moving plot points forward and adds complexity to the family dynamics and their situation.
Another shift in Thompson’s version is a focus away from the middle sister and her struggles with coming of age to the older sister. In Austen’s story, the elder sister was pretty much the subtle center around which all other characters and their stories revolved. The elder sister’s own undercurrent of a plight is not resolved until the very close of the story. In Thompson’s version, the elder sister becomes the focal point of the story, not only in plot and narration, but in the filming and editing as well. Numerous shots are given to her, more dialogue than was originally hers (perhaps that of the missing sister), and she is continually the one responsible for moving the plot forward rather than moving along with it. And who, might you guess, plays this character? Thompson. It is as though she rewrote Austen to best suit her own acting ego. Perhaps not unthinkable in having never being done before, but in my opinion, inexcusable, and certainly not the thing to be encouraged with an award. An Oscar, indeed.
(Original 605 / Final 512)