Chels
The new Sense and Sensibility comes out next Friday, and while most people seemed to be excited about it, especially at the beginning of the promotional cycle, there’s been a growing discourse about whether we need another adaptation of the novel. I’m a big fan of film adaptations of classic novels, but I’ve also spent the last few years complaining about the lack of original stories being told in cinema, so my thoughts on the matter are quite hypocritical.
The main argument online seems to be that we should prioritise other, less popular Austen adaptations, or adaptations from other classic authors. This one is interesting to me, because the most recent major adaptation of Sense and Sensibility is the BBC’s 2008 miniseries, and before that, the iconic 1995 film. Austen’s second biggest title (at least that we generally assume), Pride and Prejudice, was similarly last adapted in 2005 (although a new miniseries is currently in the works). I think the popularity of those adaptations, and the fact that they’re still watched to this day, make them feel much newer and more prevalent than they are. People have suggested that other Austen novels should be prioritised for adaptation, naming Emma, which was adapted for the cinema in 1996 and 2020, and for television in 2009, or Persuasion, which was brought to the screen in 1995, 2007, and 2022. Even Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park were filmed in 2007. We often champion the underdog, and for some reason, that leads to opposing bigger names, when really, the bigger names are equally in need of a refresh.
The great thing about adapting classic novels is that the stories and messages within them are evergreen. It only takes small shifts to highlight contemporary issues within a centuries-old story. Sense and Sensibility satirises and critiques two worldviews – practicality and propriety, and spontaneity and emotion. In Austen’s lifetime, the sisters’ attitudes reflected the two prevalent cultural movements – Neo-Classicism and Romanticism, but there’s always a social dichotomy to examine. So many countries have elected right wing governments in the last few years, with many voters citing a wish to return to ‘traditional values’, but equally, people are seeking a break from the values that no longer reflect modern society. There’s also the debates surrounding AI, with some urging us to embrace new technology, and others cautioning against it. Of course, Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, in the 18th century, aren’t about to start debating the ethics of AI, or 21st century politics, but the way that their differences are portrayed can speak to modern sensibilities.
Adaptations cannot represent a novel exactly as written – if they did, many would be far too long to capture our attention. Scenes are cut or changed, narration may be told in voiceover, or implied through character conversation, or even removed completely. Scenes or lines can be added, and characters shifted. All of this tells us about the circumstances of an adaptation’s production. Often, it is a personal choice by the director, or a reflection of popular filmmaking conventions of the time, but they can also tell us a lot about the wider cultural conversations happening. Take Frankenstein, for example. Early film adaptations were strictly horror films – the creature was primarily a monster and a source of fear, he represented the unknown, or stranger danger, or a cautionary tale about not pushing science too far. Later, adaptations started to engage with some of the secondary layers of the novel – the feminine horror, the fear of childbirth and reproduction, and responsibility. 21st century adaptations tend to explore the queer themes of the novel, bringing subtext to the forefront that would previously have been censored.
It would seem that I’m all for making multiple adaptations of a novel. How am I a hypocrite?
For years I’ve lamented the trends in film – particularly Hollywood cinema. Most mainstream films in the last few years have been sequels, remakes, or franchise installments. It’s becoming rarer and rarer for a film to emerge from a completely original story. Adaptations, unfortunately, fall into the same category of film. The problem is that films are expensive to make, and filmmakers want to ensure they’ll profit. The easiest way to do that is to utilise an existing story, and an existing fanbase will be drawn to the film. Adaptations of classic literature essentially saved the British film industry in the 80s and 90s (which is probably why I tend to let adaptations slide when I criticise the current film climate), but adaptations can do so much with their source material. A lot of the modern sequels and remakes simply recreate the film that was popular in the first place, changing very little, and often becoming increasingly self referential.
So, do we need another Austen adaptation? I think a new Sense and Sensibility film, thirty years after the last, is hardly oversaturating the film industry. I do agree, though, that filmmakers should take risks with other classic authors – perhaps Middlemarch or Moll Flanders would make good 2020s viewing?
