Esther Denham (Charlotte Spencer) and Lord Babbington (Mark Stanley) enthusiastically tie the knot (Sanditon Episode 8)
Mary Parker (Kate Ashcroft) and Charlotte’s adieu (Episode 8) — they had a real friendship
Mary: Despite everything, I do hope you don’t regret coming to Sanditon.
Charlotte: How could I? It’s been the greatest adventure of my life
Pleased and exasperated readers,
I follow on from my first blog review of this series.
Since Esther and Lord Babbington do marry and we see them making love in bed, it’s not quite true that Episode 5 through 8 take us through a series of ratcheted up climaxes as the character zig first this way to no purpose. There is a slender skein of satire and sensible human feeling spun through the second half, with again an attempt at showing us, the viewers, a joyous time in the natural and romantic worlds:
Episode 5 gives us yet another repeat of Georgiana Lambe (Crystal Clarke) defying Sidney (Theo James) and her governess, Mrs Griffiths (Elizabeth Berrington), with the help of Charlotte (Rose Williams) and a decoy novel, Mary Brunto’s Self Control, more crises over money, ending in all down to the beach for a rousing game of cricket, with Charlotte taking Tom Parker’s [Kris Marshall] place as he characteristically lets everyone down and then tries to cover up and lie, demanding the referee take back a decision
Tom Parker as sore loser demanding a re-decision (Episode 5)
(5)
With good-natured Charlotte taking over and ever compromising decent James Stringer (Leo Suter) accepting the injust recall (Episode 5)
Episode 6 is zag again as Georgiana flees to London, with Sidney and Charlotte hastening after (in hot pursuit? arguing all the way, he Sherlock, she Girl Friday); they rescue Georgiana in a wild high speed chase of coaches from a brothel where she was improbably captured by a unscrupulous man to whom Georgiana’s gambling suitor, Otis, (Jyuddah Jaymes) was in debt and to whom Otis seems to have sold Georgiana! After which all who count return to Sanditon (Otis is out), where again we have a repeat of near bankruptcy (the now utterly disillusioned embittered Mr Stringer still trying to get Tom to pay him and his men), staved off this time by Charlotte’s idea “let’s have a regatta!” to make money, with time out along the way for Babbington and Esther to take a walk by a waterfall. The episode ends with a ball so we can watch Sidney and Charlotte enacting falling in love through elegant dancing:
During the coach chase, Sidney swings his body from one coach to another (Episode 6)
Dancing falling in love — another extravaganza of a ball, the 2nd of the series (Episode 6)
Then Zag in the divagating circles of Episode 7 as we begin move into various water antics, while the subplot of the fierce competition between Edward Denham (Jack Fox) and Clara Brereton (Lily Sacofsky) over who will inherit Lady Denham’s (Anne Reid) wealth as she seems truly to be on the edge of death, becomes absurdly melodramatic: the two fuck on the floor, they frantically seek the will and bargain and burn it. All to no avail, as Lady Denham suddenly gets better, after which she is seen in her usual nagging way commanding Esther to please (and this time marry) Lord Babbington. I have been omitting various walks and drives on the beach for Esther and Babbington (among others), and Sidney and Charlotte’s growing friendship, suddenly cut off by the appearance of Mrs Eliza Campion, now widow, once engaged to Sidney and come to fetch him back …
One appealing scene has Arthur (Turlough Convery) once again being kind to (talking sensibly as no one else does) to Georgiana (Episode 7)
From the water race (Episode 7)
I will not attempt to follow the zigzagging of the great crises of Episode 8, which include yet another extravagant ball, interrupted by a vast fire destroying all Tom Parker’s buildings, the death of old Stringer (caught in said fire), Sidney rushing once again to London for money, only to return to say he got some in the one way left – he has engaged himself again to Eliza. Vic Sanborn’s blog covers this episode step-by-hurried step.
Sidney now adding to all his hero’s deeds, frantic fire-fighting (Episode 8)
Stringer looking up at the fire and realizing his father has died beyond one of the upper windows(8)
Charlotte facing going home, trying to accept that Sidney now cannot marry her
As to the content of the stories, the only thing I regret is the sense Tom has he’ll be all right. He does not deserve to be all right. As written, it seems Charlotte may after all marry Mr Stringer, and he will be her reward as Esther’s is the Babbington as good husband material (she is rescued from the pit of incest and seething envy of Clara) and maybe Sidney will marry Eliza — all pragmatic. Diana Parker is for a moment desolate as all Arthur’s kindness to Georgiana begins in her mind to add up to love, until Arthur reassures her he has no desires for women (is homosexual) so will not marry Miss Lambe. Arthur with his money will go home with his faithful side-kick sister, Diana, so the comic spinster too will now not be alone — as she feared.
Diana and Arthur: she to him: “Home’s best. You’re so right, Arthur!” —
I dislike happy endings unless I am made to believe in them. Most of the time Austen qualifies her happy ending by ironies and other astringent comments or a downright melancholy possibility in the future (as in Persuasion‘s final paragraph). Sentimentality such as in the scene between Tom and his wife, and then Sidney and Charlotte on the cliff grates on me by its untruthfulness. You might say I so long for joy that meretricious substitutes depress me. In life this ending seems to me just what might happen. I can hope that after all Charlotte marries Mr Stringer and, like Esther, learns to love her worthy kind consistent tender hard-working husband (Stringer can still take up the offer of an apprenticeship to an architect in London once he recovers from his grief over his father’s death).
I wouldn’t mind if there was another season, but would be very unhappy if Charlotte did not marry Stringer as I find Sidney has shown himself to be a volatile, difficult and often tyrannizing violent man. As I feel that at no point did the writers make me truly believe in Georgiana or Otis (they were not created as portraits of African people as they really might have been snatched from their environment, given little security, disdained for their race), I don’t know what I want for her. I’m glad Edward is ejected (poetic justice there). I would hope Clara comes back and is reconciled with her aunt (though who would want to live with such a harsh bully?), but if we are to be treated again to these seething melodramatic absurdities I’d just as soon skip Clara doing more hand-jobs and Sidney exposing himself (low points in the series).
*****************************
This remains the best edition for the money — the editor is Margaret Drabble
This edition has a long full introduction (history, interpretation, text)
Again, the important questions to ask are, is this a good movie series? how does it relate to Austen’s Sanditon, its source (with or without continuations). To take the questions in reverse order: as opposed to the first four episodes (and perhaps some of what was planned) just about nothing from these 4 episodes comes from any Sanditon. All that could be taken was taken and now they are trying for further character development, changes and story matter. Much that is developed is melodramatic, cliched, and when written with some attempt at human truth, not given enough time for development. Continuity and smoothness of transition were ignored. The scenes between Sidney and Charlotte as they begin to try to get to know one another and seem to be much attracted needed much more time and words. Charlotte Spencer’s acting of Esther a difficult role was effective, and, given the number of swiftly juxtaposed scenes she was in, there was enough for the actress to convey a miserably abused young woman. Rose Williams’s Charlotte made sense and if more quiet time had been granted to Theo James as Sidney, not so much rapid switching back and forth, he might have conveyed a man whose masculinity and self-respect was threatened as he watches his family go broke. Tom suggests Sidney was in some before time jilted by Eliza; Sidney hints at remorse over his life in Antigua. But so little time was given for any development or nuanced dialogue.
Two of four shots of Charlotte walking along grieving … (Episode 8)
One sign of haste is the Deus ex machina of Lady Susan. She is suddenly there, is never explained. Why should a high society woman, or (if she) a prince’s mistress take an interest in the obscure Charlotte and help her?
A shot from Chris Brindle’s Sanditon material
A dull fairy tale shot from this series
Perhaps the film-makers (writers, directors) didn’t trust their viewing audience for a moment not to be bored. Its dramaturgy reminded me of the new Poldark. I find the Outlander series vastly superior: why? they will sometimes spend (really) 10 minutes on a interlude; they give time to dialogues to develop and we get real thought from the characters. Not enough time or money was spent on the Sanditon sets: the buildings were uninteresting, shot from afar, with the same stills used over and over again. It was clear a minimum of what was suggestively needed inside was created; the best “sets” were the beaches and water.
It’s a shame since it did seem to me that the conception of the series suggested experimentation. Could they build another kind of Austen adaptation, one which took in contemporary attitudes towards family life, sex, money, and new film-making techniques and audience acceptance of lives not lived according to some narrow set of norms? They did not manage it because the series is not the careful work of art it needed to be – and I have seen many a Jane Austen adaptation have. There is a companion volume. It does not say much about the movie series. Why break a butterfly upon a wheel?
Ellen
Reveries Under the Sign of Austen, Two 
The World of Sanditon by Sara Sheridan is an unusual companion volume for the series as it does not tell much about the way the series was made. It retells Austen’s life from the point of view of what heterosexual romances we can ferret out; it tells of her excursions to the seaside; of her later years at Chawton cottage with her mother, sister — and Martha Lloyd is not forgotten. The photos from the Chawton house museum are well chosen. I wish Davies’ introduction had been longer, for he does discuss his view of the book as he was conceiving the movie. I’d find a used copy ….
Laura Kennelly: “I’m afraid they are just setting us up for season two. Miss Lamb is still looking at her love’s photo, Charlotte has left, etc. I think It’s best they stop…The stopping might be the one original touch.
My reply: It was said they would not have a second season after the poor reception in the UK; the US audience, though, has been far more favorably impressed.
“I agree that I would be fine if the series ended the way the season did. I was rather disgusted by Sidney Parker in the end – I know he’s doing what he’s doing for his family, but I still think it is wrong. He should have followed his heart. They could have looked for new investors. There are other possibilities. However, none of Jane Austen’s novels end without a marriage. In a sense, this is truer to real life and perhaps to Jane’s life itself.
I suspect the plan was that for the second season Sidney would have a long engagement and then eventually break it off and marry Charlotte, but I agree she would still be better off with Stringer.
Tyler”
“The production team said words to the effect that they left many unfinished stories so that they could pick them up in a potential series two.
My worry is that a poor production of Sanditon may prevent someone else attempting it in future, hopefully with better success.
Rory”
Yes, I agree with Rory: this being the first Sanditon to come out professionally and commercially. It may influence others. But I think the first Jane Austen movie was awful: that 1941 P&P just got most of the novel wrong, crucial turning points bad, missing important sequences — two stars with an angry love scene does not make it. But the 1979 P&P seemed blithely unaware this comedy ever existed, and its influence is first seen again in Clueless in that we see “Hollywood” takes the appropriate genre for Austen to be screwball comedy. It’s not.
In response to Tyler, my sense is that the character of Sidney just doesn’t make sense. In a way the film-makers make the same mistake as Austen in P&P: we are expected to believe in a near full turnaround for Darcy’s character and almost so here. If they have in mind a long engagement with Eliza, I can’t see how his betraying one woman instead of another compensates for anything.
What bothers me too is both Sanditons let Tom Parker off. Why should his irresponsibility be sancrosanct? He is rescued in Brindle’s play by Sidney too. I was very irritated when the referee changed his mind and declared for the upper class team. Tom was out. Stringer accepts Miss Heywood as substitute because he so likes her. But then the upper class can win and unfairly.
We did have a marriage: Esther to Lord Babbington, which rescued her from incest. I like the secondary couple brought forth this way. I would love to see James Stringer as an apprentice architect in London, Miss Heywood somehow come to town and the two fall in love fully. They do like one another, and James Stringer is everything a young woman would want in a husband: reasonable, not full of himself, intelligent, with sincere emotion, real ability, sense of responsibility and he’s handsome too.
Ellen
This is in reply to a comment offlist comparing Sidney and Charlotte to complex characters in Trollope (Small House at Allington).
As I recall, in Austen in Mansfield Park when Maria Bertram marries Rushworth, and then betrays him, Austen asks us how much can be we feel for a man who knew she was marrying him for his money. So in Small House, Alexandrina knows she is buying Crosbie. In her case, she is so cold as not to care – she is one of those characters whose real punishment is to be their mean selves. They will never know deep human joy because they are incapable of it. They can only triumph over being envied. Eliza sold herself and her husband died (that’s what’s implied but we are told so little), and now she is buying another
How much we lost by the program not being done well — all the comparisons are implicitly in the series but never developed. We are not given time with Sidney alone ever; he has the briefest lines and all we see of Eliza is her smirking. Davies imitates a scene from S&S where he has Eliza look round at Sidney talking to Charlotte at the ball: the same angle, the same focus on her craning neck. Davies can quote but he cannot make a new adaptation with its own rich inner life. I agree that even if Eliza knows she is buying him, what are we to think of Sidney doing this — it is too much to ask of anyone to sell themselves in marriage, and that’s why I felt not enough was done to bring out Tom Parker’s guilt and he was given too much slack, from not paying men, not providing tools, not even winning cricket fairly. But all that is not sufficiently brought out. They needed 13 episodes. Trollope’s character who married a rich woman for her rank and money did lack self-respect; we are shown how he over-worships rank, but the character of Sidney is merely inconsistent. He walks about autocratically; he appears to have a very high view of himself, yet will degrade himself to be dependent on a woman. I can’t think they do mean to make this marriage come off because it would immediately end in fierce quarrels — but then it doesn’t quite make sense. Nor Lady Susan as the dea ex machina in London to come.
I concentrated more on Charlotte, Esther and didn’t believe in Mary as a character either. Charlotte did have the most screen time of any of the characters.
[…] « Andrew Davies & Co’s Sanditon, Episodes 5-8: Zigzagging into a Conclusion in which Nothing… […]
[…] « Andrew Davies & Co’s Sanditon, Episodes 5-8: Zigzagging into a Conclusion in which Nothing… […]
[…] this paradigm in three of the heroines (see my exegesis of Episodes 1-4, By the Sea …; and Episodes 5-8, Zigzagging). It is central to why Jane Austen has meant so much to me. This is not all she offers, but this is […]
[…] interrupted and fragmentary. I will provide full notes from their paper in my comments on my second blog-essay on this adaptation. The second was Douglas Murray’s “The Female Rambler Novel & […]
[…] Of course the real interest in finding all this out is what were Jane Austen’s attitudes, and it seems from Looser’s account (on my own reading of the letters) on the whole Austen was quietly anti-slavery. The evidence consists of her admiration for Thomas Clarkson’s writings (not specified, it must be admitted, what she admires Clarkson for). In Mansfield Park there is Fanny Price’s famous question to her exhausted uncle home from Antigua where the “slave trade” was central to extracting wealth; his answer is not told but rather our attention is directed to how silent his children become, and we are to see them as arrogant, ignorant or indifferent about slavery or their father’s hard work, or uncomfortable that such a subject is brought up — or perhaps showing off in front of her uncle (a suspicion her girl cousins feel about her when younger). Looser also mentions Austen’s “mixed race West Indian heiress named Miss Lambe” in the unfinished Sanditon: who gets a lot of attention nowadays since the TV serial adaptation. […]
[…] It resembles the first (see Episodes 1-4: by the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea; and 5-8: zigzagging into a conclusion in which nothing is concluded) by its use of a too many stories at once, one of which is over-the-top melodrama: centered again […]