Slate Money: Movies: Sense and Sensibility

Podcast: Slate Money
Episode Title: Sense and Sensibility (Slate Money Goes to the Movies)
Date: August 10, 2021
Host: Felix Salmon, with Emily Peck and guest Taffy Brodesser-Akner

Episode Overview

This episode of Slate Money Goes to the Movies features a deep dive into Ang Lee's acclaimed adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, with an unusual pairing: the 2002 romcom Maid in Manhattan. Hosts Felix Salmon and Emily Peck are joined by Taffy Brodesser-Akner to discuss both films, focusing on their themes of class, money, gender, and the enduring narrative device of "marrying up." The group debates the ways both films portray women’s agency (or lack thereof), social climbing, and the economic realities that underpin romantic stories across centuries.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Why Pair Sense and Sensibility and Maid in Manhattan?

[Timestamps 01:51–04:47]

• Thematic Connection:
  • Taffy pairs the films to explore the idea of "marrying up" and how stories about women seeking economic security through relationships remain unchanged between 18th-century England and early 2000s New York.
  • Sense and Sensibility is seen as a "good" movie, Maid in Manhattan as a "bad" movie, but both show women navigating systems where romance and financial advancement are entwined.
• Quote:
  • Taffy Brodesser-Akner [04:02]:
    “The theme is marrying up. The theme is trying to maintain your dignity as you find a strata in the world that you aspire to.”
• Felix's Skepticism:
  • Felix is initially incredulous at the comparison, finding Maid in Manhattan "the worst movie [he has] ever seen" [02:09].

2. Class, Money, and Gender Across Both Movies

[Timestamps 05:37–11:20]

• Shared Narrative Structure:
  • Both films focus on impoverished or less wealthy women seeking to maintain dignity while climbing the social ladder, culminating in “marrying up” as a "righteous" path—not gold-digging, but a noble, love-justified leap into a new class.
  • Sense and Sensibility showcases the Dashwood women, rendered powerless by inheritance laws, left with only marriage as a viable future. Maid in Manhattan presents J.Lo's character as a hardworking single mom in a rigid hospitality hierarchy, striving for advancement but ultimately relying on romance for escape.
• Quote:
  • Emily Peck [07:51]:
    “It’s a movie about class as much as it is about, like, money, circumstances... The only option they have is this weird tightrope where they have to fall into noble love. Only noble love. They can’t be gold diggers, because that’s bad.”
  • Taffy [07:37]:
    “Those women were just as impoverished as J.Lo is in the Bronx... because of the way their society is set up. In Sense and Sensibility, those women are rejected because they have no dowry and they’re too rich to drop to the next level.”

3. The Illusion and Reality of Social Mobility

[Timestamps 10:58–13:42]

• Plausibility Gaps:
  • The hosts question the believability of Maid in Manhattan: Is J.Lo truly invisible or powerless? Does her job actually restrict her life as much as the Dashwoods’ class status does?
  • Sense and Sensibility is praised for "clear" parameters—viewers instinctively understand the stakes due to well-established period conventions.

4. Marriage, Money, and "Noble Love”

[Timestamps 13:42–20:46]

• Dirty Money, Pure Love:
  • Felix notes a common Hollywood theme: “money is dirty, but love with a rich person is only pure if it is truly noble love.”
  • Taffy argues that these narratives deliver a specific message, especially to women, about the “forgivable” paths to economic advancement.
• Quote:
  • Taffy [15:11]:
    “Making money by falling in love with a rich man is not dirty, but you have to do it in the right, noble way. And if you marry a rich man without being nobly in love with him, then that’s very bad.”
• Emma Thompson’s Adaptation Choices:
  • Discussion about how the adapted screenplay modernizes Sense and Sensibility with "20th-century lines," like, "We can’t even earn ours," which wouldn't have been uttered in the 1790s but makes the women's predicament legible to modern audiences.

5. Inherited Wealth vs. Self-Made Success

[Timestamps 19:25–22:30]

• Lack of Meritocracy:
  • All “winning men” in both movies (Hugh Grant, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes) are wealthy by inheritance rather than by work—highlighting structural class barriers and the futility of bootstrapping.
• Women’s Ages & Hollywood:
  • Emily notes the vexing topic of ageism: Emma Thompson was criticized for being "too old" for Hugh Grant’s character (she was only one year older).

6. Modern Feminism, Work, and Compound Inequality

[Timestamps 22:33–25:59]

• Parallels to Today:
  • Taffy expresses a new, middle-aged perspective: Watching her peers’ advantage through inherited wealth and down payments, she now better appreciates the grim realities expressed in these films about how hard it is to “catch up” without family money.
  • Reference to Thomas Piketty’s work on wealth inequality.
• Quote:
  • Taffy [24:57]:
    “Part of the disappearing middle class was... the message that you can get ahead by working and that even when you do get ahead, you won’t land at the ‘ahead’, only to find that everybody else is so far ahead of you.”

7. Romantic Fantasy, Power, and Gender in Society

[Timestamps 25:59–34:00]

• Marriage as Social Mobility:
  • The movies propagate the idea that marriage is an effective, if not the only, means for women to change their social standing.
• Women’s Agency or Lack Thereof:
  • In both films, female protagonists are expected to wait passively for men to pursue and choose them, limiting their agency and reinforcing patriarchal norms.
  • Emily calls both movies "horror movies" for their depiction of women’s lack of options.
  • Taffy observes how these stories were internalized by generations of women, including her own immigrant mother, who believed marrying well was a woman’s best chance.
• Quote:
  • Emily [27:14]:
    “Honestly, to me, [Sense and Sensibility] was a horror movie... They had absolutely no power. Completely washed up. Their only option is to find men to marry. But if they seem just anywhere on the edge of desperate about it... they will be shamed and thrown out of good society, like, forever. Total fucking horror movie.”
  • Taffy [34:36]:
    “She [my mother] could not see how working could ever be fair to a woman. And she’s right... we talk about this all the time, and through a pandemic where women gave up their careers or lost their jobs at a disproportionate rate to men.”

8. The “Bad Women”: Gold Diggers and Socialites

[Timestamps 35:22–39:32]

• Villainous Women:
  • In both films, the “bad” female characters are those who “try too hard” to marry up—Natasha Richardson’s socialite in Maid in Manhattan, and the manipulative sister-in-law in Sense and Sensibility.
  • Taffy points out these are women who actively scheme for wealth, as opposed to the heroines who supposedly “back into it” by accident, which films frame as virtuous.
  • Quote:
    • Taffy [39:18]:
      “The only way to marry money and not be a villain is to back into it, to resist it, and to eventually find it. Because these movies are ultimately, they may be written by women, they’re made by men, and they’re greenlit by men.”
• Passivity as Virtue:
  • The idea persists in pop culture, as highlighted by modern shows like Bridgerton.

9. Genre and Tone

[Timestamps 33:53–34:36]

• Are These Rom-Coms?
  • The hosts debate whether Sense and Sensibility and Maid in Manhattan qualify as romantic comedies. Taffy argues that “comedy” here is Shakespearean—meaning a marriage at the end, regardless of actual jokes or levity.

10. Hollywood Adaptation and Patriarchy

[Timestamps 30:18–32:04]

• Emma Thompson’s “Sugarcoating”:
  • Emily suggests Sense and Sensibility hides its horror beneath Hollywood gloss—unlike recent films (e.g. Frozen) that break with the traditional endgame of marriage.
  • Taffy reframes Maid in Manhattan as a potential horror story if told differently (e.g., the exploitative nature of J.Lo’s employment, scene with sexual harassment by the head of security).

11. Final Rankings and Reflections

[Timestamps 43:38–47:05]

• The hosts give their grades:
  • Taffy: Admits Made in Manhattan is bad but “culturally relevant”; would rank Ice Storm higher.
  • Emily:
    • “Sense and Sensibility is... a B-minus. I’d rather watch Bridgerton at this point... Maid in Manhattan wasn’t a fun bad movie, just pretty bad.”
  • Felix:
    • “I’m going to be nicer... I think [Sense and Sensibility] does stand up... I’m going to give it an A-minus. For Maid in Manhattan: F. Do not watch it.”
• Notable Quote:
  • Taffy [43:43]:
    “What I always say is, when life shuts one door, it opens a window. So jump.”

Notable Moments and Quotes (with Timestamps)

• Snobbery Labelled:
  • [03:31] Felix: “My snobbery is showing revolution.”
• Hollywood's Double Standard:
  • [17:34] Emily: “The message that you can marry for money, but you have to also love... seems crafted by the patriarchy, right?”
• On Modern Wealth Inequality:
  • [24:57] Taffy: “The amount of money that has been doubling itself while they quietly live this what appears to be the same life as us... I came out pretty shocked about that stuff.”
• On Women’s Passive Power:
  • [36:30] Taffy: “It’s about women being manipulative. That’s not matriarchal. That’s women using manipulation because they have no power.”
• Emily’s Horror Movie Take:
  • [27:14] “To me, this is all a total, absolute nightmare... and it doesn’t really change.”

Episode Timeline (Major Segments)

• [00:10]–[04:47] – Introduction of guests and the film pairing, rationale for the comparison
• [04:47]–[13:42] – Class, dignity, and survival strategies in both films
• [13:42]–[22:30] – Love, money, and the myth of the righteous marriage
• [22:30]–[25:59] – Wealth inheritance, the vanishing middle class, and the reality of social mobility
• [25:59]–[34:00] – Gendered power, agency, and the passive heroine archetype
• [34:00]–[39:32] – “Bad women,” gold-digging, and the persistent moral divide
• [39:32]–[47:05] – Modern contextualization, genre debate, final opinions and rankings

Conclusion

This episode uses the unlikely pairing of Sense and Sensibility and Maid in Manhattan to spark a rich conversation about gender, power, class, and money across time. The hosts and their guest peel back cultural expectations about work, marriage, and economic survival for women, finding surprising connections within pop culture tropes—even as they gleefully deride (Maid in Manhattan) or defend (Sense and Sensibility) the cinematic merits of each film. The discussion is lively, at times caustic, and peppered with dry humor—true to the Slate Money tone.