Sense and Sensibility

I saw this movie in a cinema back in 1996 and since that June I have seen it about a dozen times. It is true, that being an ardent lover of the so-called Romantic (as if the 13th century couldn't be Romantic or 17th, but these things are academic nonsense) period I can enjoy even minor pieces of period cinema, however this is most probably the best film set in the early 19th century. Although it centers on the relationship of the two sisters and their respective romantic relationships, it also seems to be a salute to the period itself in its precise description of the English country society. It is truthful to Jane Austen's novel, but Emma Thompson's script is fine in its own right, with many omissions and additions to the novel. The acting is superb, Kate Winslet as the typical Romantic dreamer (sensibility) is breathtaking (try not to be moved when her character wanders in the rain to see the house of her beloved and when she whispers half-deranged: 'Willoughby, Willoughby, Willoughby.') is perfect as is Emma Thompson as the rational but equally tormented older sister(sense). Greg Wise is perfect as the dashing semi-Byronic hero Willoughby and Allan Rickman as the mellow Brandon. To say nothing of the art direction, the music or the fantastic image composition. I would recommend everyone with some sort of emotional subtlety to see this film, for the story, the wit, the period and the imagery.

Whoever says they just don't make the quality of pictures today that they used to hasn't seen or is ignoring this film.

That Emma Thompson is one of the greatest actresses working is no secret. But who would have expected such a miracle from her in the screenwriting department? Some of the most dramatic moments in 'Sense and Sensibility' come from her pen, not Jane Austen's, difficult as that may be to believe. For instance, the scene in which Col. Brandon (Alan Rickman) carries in the ill Marianne Dashwood (Kate Winslet), echoing the earlier scene where Willoughby (Greg Wise) brought the injured young woman home was Thompson's doing. Marianne's illness also is responsible for much more drama in the movie than in the book. And I'm an Austen fan! I can't recall another writer bringing so much good of his or her own to a classic like this.

I suppose the director, cinematographer, production designer, etc. deserve to share the credit when a movie is this outstanding, but with such a super group of actors on the screen (from top to bottom) it's easy to heap all the praise on them. I had unconsciously (and unfairly) pigeonholed Alan Rickman based on the other role I'd seen him in, the villain in 'Die Hard,' so he was quite a surprise to me. The real bombshell, however, was my first exposure to Kate Winslet. After seeing this movie and Kenneth Branagh's 'Hamlet' I can say I can't remember another young actress who has impressed me so much. And she played these difficult roles by the time she was 20! Many of the other cast members are a part of an excellent group that Thompson and Branagh have often worked with in the past.

I realized that 'S&S' had become one of my all-time favorite movies when I found myself watching it every chance I got when it came on TV. I think it's bumped 'Raging Bull' off my personal top 10 list.

It's not easy to get seniors to do anything, even watch a movie and when you mention Jane Austen, they zone out. Yet each year when we do this film in class, about 80 percent end up loving it and that includes the guys. It's wonderful to watch them respond to the characters and get into a film that is so "talky" when they have been used to high action. To hear the girls call Willoughby a jerk and applaud Brandon at the end is great, but to listen to the boys comment on the behavior of the various characters is even better. How they respond to a society so filled with strict manners and codes of behavior also makes this film worthwhile and it generates much discussion about the importance of money in life; well, even Thompson in the commentary said the film is about money, who has it and who does not. I love showing this film to my students; after the groans when I start it on the first day, it's wonderful to hear their comments on day five when we finish. As one senior male said this year, "I wouldn't have rented this or wanted to see it, but now that I have, I admit it was pretty good, so I'm glad you showed it." This is why they are classics, kiddies.

I haven't read the book (yet), but concerning the film as it is, I can assure you that it is very well made. You'll get one of the best period dramas (I wouldn't go all the way with "best ever", but then again, I don't often use extremes to describe a movies) that you have seen!

Of course you have to be open to this kind of movie. Meaning, that if you're more likely to watch Bruce Willis in Die Hard or can't wait for the next Steven Seagal movie, this might not be your cup of tea! There is a strong possibility that you won't like (to watch) this movie at all.

So if you have seen period dramas and like them, than watch this one too, if you haven't watched one yet, than this can be a perfect movie to start with (although some might say, it's downhills after that ;o) )

Normally period adaptations need at least a few hours to do proper justice. And so it is usually the television versions that are better for those who like things faithful to text. Film versions usually truncate and romanticise/Hollywoodise which can be frustrating. However, films have bigger budgets and better production values so are easier on the eye. However, this is a shining example of 2.5 hour film which packed so much detail in for a real complete sense of the novel, but also with great faithful performances, at the same time as being great to watch with all the production values and cinematography or a big budget movie. One of the better film adaptations of period pieces ever.