One down, five to go
Persuasion has been broadcast here on the east coast, and we know not everyone ordered Region 2 DVDs or caught stray satellite signals last year *cough*, and we’re very interested to know what those who are seeing it for the first time thought. Or even if you’re not seeing it for the first time.
Please let us know if you’ve read the book–we won’t make fun of you, we’re just interested to compare reactions between those who have read the book and those who have not.
Our most immediate thoughts: they didn’t do a bad job with exposition of the Year Six romance nor of setting up the Anne-Wentworth-Weasel Boy love triangle, it certainly ticked along at a breathless pace, the Cobb scene was much too quick for the importance of that scene, Tony Head is a scream, we liked Mary better this time, the ending is a disaster, THEY MESSED UP THE LETTER OMGBBQ, and really it should have been two episodes.
<pedant> And that’s the Royal Crescent, not Camden Place. </pedant>
<pedant> And that concert was NOT at the Pump Room. That was rather obviously the Upper Rooms, exactly where it was located IN THE NOVEL. Which the location managers seemed to figure out. Sheesh. </pedant>
A note: We’re getting slammed today, so please be patient if you’re caught in the spam filter–we are keeping an eye on things and we’ll get you out, never fear!
January 13th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Is it ok to say “It stinks!”?
I’m sitting here just kind of numb. It was like the Lifetime network got hold of it, somehow, and sucked all the life out of it. And that was THE most disgusting onscreen kiss I have ever seen that didn’t involve space aliens or zombies.
Well, space aliens, maybe.
I like to try to look for the positive, so I will just say that I thought they probably portrayed people promenading around the Pump Room pretty accurately. And there was a lot of good shrubbery and some neatly-trimmed hedgerows in the background of some of the scenes, which was a good thing, anyhow, as it gave me something to look at other than the insipid actors.
I would hate the very thought of Jane Austen if this were my first exposure. It would surely be the last.
Too harsh for Austenblog?
January 13th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I have read the book, several times. I thought the casting, clothing, and sets were nice. I thought the script and direction were very bad. There seemed to be little awareness of the nature of the subject and the time period. I kept thinking ( as I did with the recent movie version of P&P) “Have they read the book”?
I could have lived with some of the changes, but they tried to smoosh too much into too short a time period. I can’t imagine what it must be like to try to follow all the action and the people without the benefit of having read the novel. And what’s with all the running? I guess even the characters felt the sense of urgency to get it over with in 1.5 hours.
Oh ick!
January 13th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Oh, and I have read the novel, several times.
I don’t know what my usual posting name here has been. I forgot. I tried Karen Lee but there’s already one here who posts a lot more often.
I guess that now that I’ve vented, I would say that other than completely robbing the letter “scene” (actually there WAS no scene) of all it’s heartwrenching beauty and poignancy, my biggest complaint was that they turned Anne Elliot into a more mousy version of Fanny Price, IMO. They gave you very little reason to see why Wentworth would have seen her as superior and seen her quality other than that she knew how to treat a head injury and she wasn’t as bad as either of her sisters, which is scant reason to love and admire someone for six years. Every version I’ve seen of this I have been able to see what he sees in her, but not this one.
Karen
January 13th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I forgot to say- where is the funny? By speeding it up they left out most of the humour that JA is so good at, and which lighten the story considerably.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I’ve read the book several times.
The movie was OK as far as adaptations go, but I don’t think it was the best that they could have done. The pacing seemed either dreadfully slow or very rushed. I got frustrated over the letter scene, too. That scene in the book is so symbolic. (The discussion about men having hold of the pens & then Wentworth dropping the pen, etc) It broke my heart that it was scrambled into the beginning.
The thing that got on my nerves about the movie was the constant use of closeups on Anne where she’d look up at the camera with a pensive look. Every time that they did that I became very aware that I was watching a movie.
Maybe seeing the cut scenes will help the movie out?
Tony Head was really adorable, though…A little too young, but adorable none-the-less.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I blogged my first reactions on my own blog tonight but suffice it to say that I am underwhelmed.
I guess I should confess that I thought the 1995 Amanda Root version was a really good adaptation and I just watched at Christmas so I’m probably judging them against each other. Oh, yes, I’ve also read the book enough times that I’ve lost count.
I especially disliked the staring at the camera, Sally Hawkins’ constantly open mouth and greasy hair, and the rushed pace.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
i saw the movie through other means than the masterpiece theatre, so no scenes were cut out, which was good. surrey hill, do you mean they literally cut the letter scene out or do you mean that it was badly done?
THEY CHANGED THE LETTER. THEY CUT ALMOST HALF OF IT OUT AND CHANGED THE ORDER OF IT.
Yes, there was quite a bit of running…a little too much running…
Like other people, I thought their first kiss onscreen was…well…terrible. The second one, though-the one at the end where Captain Wentworth shows Anne their new house- that kiss isn’t bad, it’s just a normal kiss, though-no heart-sweeping kisses in this movie.
The music was quite pretty, though, and I liked the beginning of the movie a lot, but if I hadn’t read the book before I would’ve been so confused as to what was happening with all the running around the house in everything.
My biggest complaint, though, is that it was too short and brisk. The scene where Louisa Musgrove falls off the steps? AKA quite a big scene of the story - was way too rushed.
I generally liked the casting, but I didn’t quite like Mary- when I read the story I imagined her more like a Mrs Bennet except complaining about her health and illnesses instead of her nerves. I found she twittered and tattered and figided too much. She just seemed like a person with a strong personality, even if she wasn’t strong health-wise. This Mary was too quite.
All in all, though, it was a pleasing movie. I was quite content after watching it. The clothes were very nice, so was the cinematography and the lighting and casting and all that. And Captain Wentworth and Anne are EXACTLY as I imagined them to be. =)
January 13th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Karen, I would like to read your blog!!!
I thought Tony Head was pretty good in the role. I kept losing track of which one was Elzabeth Elliot and which one was Mrs. Clay.
And ditto thoughts on Sally Hawkins. Do modern young actresses take some sort of special class in drama school nowadays that teaches you that the way to convey that you are in the grip of some strong emotion is to stand their slack-jawed, with your mouth open and gaping like a Nassau grouper?
Signed, Another Karen
January 13th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Persuasion is my 2nd favourite book after Pride & Prejudice (& a close 2nd). The movie was simply too short & was, I felt, reduced to chick-flick status, racing us past the various signposts of the plot. There was hardly any conversation to illustrate the developing relationships e.g. between Anne & Benwick, Mr Elliot, or Wentworth, bare minimum & little substance. The Letter- the most beautiful letter written, was barely read given its due weight. It was half agony half hope watching it sometimes, that they wouldn’t foul it up even more. Bravo to Sally Hawkins though, getting her emotions across in the least amount of time alloted to her. But I’m sorry that the wonderful story was so painfully crammed into a corset.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I,too, am very upset about the letter scene being cut out. I have read the book several times and have watched the 1995 version numerous times. To me that scene makes the book. I can’t help but wonder what the screenwriter was thinking.
I think it would be very interesting to see a Persuasion mini-series.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Austen never treats her satirical targets as contemptible, as this adaptation did. In her novels, characters like Sir Walter aren’t villians; they are always tied to their families, and are motivated by a sense of virtue and duty towards family. The irony and comedy come from the fact that their actions and attitudees are misguided, bigotted, etc…Although Austen resorts more than once to a blackguard like the Young Mr. Eliot, not everyone in her novels is out to persecute the heroine. This seemed more like Cinderella than like Persuasion. (Poor Anne!)
This treatment did make Sally Hawkins pretty attractive as Anne, especilly at the denoument. I liked the kiss, but I was close to not caring by then.
I think the problems are a result of packing the story into 90 minutes. There was definitely not enough time to fully develop all the characters and the subtle relationshipsbetween them. Austen does it with economy; so much so that it is easy for a plot oriented sciptwriter to overlook. It shows her genius and exposes the shortcomings of those who would adapt her novels.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I have read the book a few times and I count it among my favorites. First of all, I agree - I was sort of stunned to find that they were doing it all in one go. I expected that all of the new adaptations of Austen’s novels would be treated with a few episodes. I thought it was rushed and there wasn’t much to recommend it. The bits where Anne looked into the camera (was it meant to be conspiratorial? Mostly it creeped me out, sort of breaking the fourth wall like that…) and the whole shaky camera thing got on my nerves (film major, guilty as charged). I think the characters were represented pretty well (except Anne!), but as was mentioned major points of the story weren’t elaborated on enough and I hate how the ending was extended!
January 13th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I hated it so much! I have read the book many many times and taught it many many times. I do like the 1996 Amanda Root version, so I am not opposed to film versions of one of my favorite novels, in principle. But, as others have already said here, it seemed like the people responsible for this film didn’t read the book, or didn’t get it. I agree with all the criticism posted in the above comments, so I won’t go on except to reiterate: THE LETTER, OMG. Why screw with that beautiful scene?
January 13th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
It should be noted that the letter scene was not cut from the original (at least, I don’t think it was), it was just badly handled all around. The conversation between Anne and Harville about the constancy of women was time-shifted to Lyme and character-shifted to Benwick, and the letter was handed to her by Harville, and she read it while running the Bath 5K (thus all the jokes about marathons around here lately). The big emotional touchstone moment of the story, totally ruined.
Up to the concert, I liked it well enough. I wanted to like this, I really did. Comparing the stuff said by the filmmakers and director last year to the stuff that came out from the group who did MP and NA, they seemed to really want to do right by the book, they said all the right things, they didn’t complain about the Austen Police (except Rupert Penry-Jones and his “those Austen people” comment), but…no. Very sad.
I don’t like to compare adaptations, because each should be considered on its own merits, but this seemed almost more like a remake of 1995 than a new adaptation. Did anyone else notice that they took an awful lot of stuff that wasn’t in the book verbatim from the 1995 film? Elizabeth talking about getting a letter from “Sister Mary, and no one will want ANNE,” is right out of the movie–and not in the book. And the addition of the Commission From My Admiral scene, which is from the cancelled chapters, and was a fun addition to the 1995 film but with the time constraints in this one should not have been included at the expense of the real ending.
One thing–when they were doing the Commission From My Admiral scene, when Lady Russell came in, the look on her face was HIGH-larious! I yelled at the TV, “Run, Captain! It’s the Borg Queen!”
January 13th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Fanny! You’re alive! Have you been tended by Nurse Rooke, too? IT’S A MIRACLE! She must be importing water from Lourdes and pouring it in the Hot Bath.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I’ve read the book several times, and consider it one of my favorites. Sadly, I was disappointed tonight. On the good side, it was lovely to see England again. I really, really MUST go to Lyme. I also thought Wentworth’s early snubs of Anne, and pointed comments were done well. As in film, I adored the Crofts.
On the down side, Anne was so weepy! I missed her strength in this adaptation. I also agree with the short shrift given to both the letter and Louisa’s fall scene. The worst part for me though was near the end with Anne running all over Bath without regard for the actual geography.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I read Persuasion for the third time this past week in preparation for the movie tonight. I thought the movie was weird, like Persuasion in fast forward or something. I think I said out loud, “you have got to be kidding me” when Anne popped her nephew’s collar bone back in place and then again when she fell and apparently sprained her ankle on the walk to the Hayters. By the time the movie ended with her running back and forth through Bath like a chicken with her head cut off, I was simply bewildered. Perhaps if I wasn’t SO familiar with the novel, I might have enjoyed the movie more, but then again, perhaps not. My sister-in-law, who has not read the novel, called me confused out of her mind immediately afterwards.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
You knew they would reconcile and kiss—ohhhh, kiss him—oh for the love of God kiss him already- was it me or was that the most anticlimatic kiss EVER??? Not Masterpiece Theater caliber, maybe that’s why they have abbreviated the title to just Masterpiece??
January 13th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Yes, well, I always thought Benwick was a bit of a sap, so I faked my death and ran off to have an exciting life in Jamaica. I am sorry he suffered so much and everything, but it all worked out, right?
Just wanted to say that yes I also noticed lots of direct quotes from the previous film version that are not in the book — so lazy of them! Confirms my sense that this was, as you say, less an adaptation of the novel than of the previous film. One could say the same about the recent P & P film with Kiera K. as well…
January 13th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
It was prettily filmed, and Sally Hawkins does a nice job conveying what Anne surely must have felt. But the sprinting through the streets of Bath was absurd, and of course, there was the obligatory public kiss. (Couldn’t they at least step off into a side street?) In terms of endings, I thought we had hit bottom with the “Sixteen Candles” ending of P&P 2005, but apparently not. Where would he have found the money, and how would it have been possible anyway?
January 13th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I have read Persuasion many times. It is my favorite JA novel. P95 is far and away my favorite JA adaptation. I happen to like P&P05 (but P&P1980 remains my favorite P&P adaptation), but I hope you can all manage to refrain from calling me a blithering idiot for holding that opinion.
That said, I have said before that I don’t hate this movie. I was fully prepared to like it. Indeed, I like the fact that (when I saw it last spring via “interesting” means) they had a scene where the Crofts remove Sir Walter’s mirrors. I like Anthony Head and Alice Krige.
But I just didn’t like much else. The Bath Marathon was absurd. They butchered the most romantic love letter in the history of literature. I happen to love Sophie Thompson as Mary, and thought that Amanda Hale was trying to be just like her, but she failed miserably. I thought she did a terrible job. I couldn’t even stand to watch her walk. She looked spastic. And what was with Charles Musgrove? Note to writer/director/actor: nice guy doesn’t have to mean “twit.” Paging Simon Russell-Beale!
I hated, HATED the scene where Wentworth dumps Anne on the back of the gig like a sack of potatoes. In the book and in P95, that scene is swoon-worthy. This was pitiful. I think that RPJ is a fine actor (he’s FAB in MI-5/Spooks), but he’s just wasted here. He just stands around smoldering and really doesn’t look weathered enough to be a sailor (remember, that’s one of the things that Sir Walter dislikes about sailors). Sophy is supposed to be 8 years older than Frederick, not 28. One of the many things I like about P95 is that Fiona Shaw and Ciaran Hinds can pass for brother and sister.
Last, but certainly not least, the kiss was cringe-worthy and ridiculous, and that’s just inexcusable.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
San Diego’s PBS station kept announcing it as ‘Charlotte Bronte’s epic Persuasion‘. AHAHAHAHA.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Did anyone ever play a party game as a kid where they would hang an apple by a string at about nose height, and you had to try to take a bite out of it with both hands tied behind your back?
Well, that’s what she looked like she was doing when she was trying to kiss him in the street.
Except maybe not so much an apple on a string, as a corn dog.
I can forgive a lot in a flick if they give me a lovely first kiss, even it’s not terribly appropriate.
But EWW!!
January 14th, 2008 at 12:07 am
While Mags is absolutely right that this felt like a rehash of the last film, and a far inferior one at that, I don’t think the run about Bath is quite as bad as all that. I saw it as an attempt to portray the idea that Anne is comming full circle - the whole theme of second chances dramatised in one symbolic run.
But that could just be me. And it was filmed in that annoying handheld way.
As for the rest, I thought the leads fine, Gilies, er, Sir Walter excellent, and most everyone else very subpar. And the kiss was agonisingly long.
At least S&S has entertained me and given me something to look forward to in April. And NA.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Anne Elliot, stop looking at me! Just stop it!!
January 14th, 2008 at 12:56 am
San Diego’s PBS station kept announcing it as ‘Charlotte Bronte’s epic Persuasion‘. AHAHAHAHA.
NO WAAAAAAY!!!! *falls over laughing*
*passes Brian a tinfoil hat*
January 14th, 2008 at 1:04 am
I was so excited to see this adaptation, as Persuasion is my favorite of JA’s novels (can’t count how many times I’ve read them all). I tried, I really tried hard to like it. It started out OK, when I didn’t realize what they were going to do with it. To be fair, many of the actors did a fine job with the material they were given, and I liked much of the background music. I could even forgive the rushed plot, to some extent. But the problems far far outweighed any pleasure I got in seeing some of my favorite characters. I have to add my aghast voice to the others: The worst was butchering the Letter. Next comes Mary, played as genuinely mentally ill, rather than a mild hypochondriac. It hurt to watch her. Makes you wonder what Charles saw in her. And speaking of that, I couldn’t see at all what Anne and Fredrick saw in one another. The only thing positive that Anne said about Wentworth was that he was rich, and everyone else just said how nice he is. Makes Anne look like a people-pleasing gold-digger. And they had Wentworth mention only one ideal- the anti-Anne, rather than listing all the Anne-like qualities he wanted. Although maybe this would have been lost on us, since the Anne we were given didn’t really show any qualities at all. Even remaining calm in a crisis was denied her, as the other ladies seemed to have no problem with Henrietta’s fall (unless I missed the fainting and hysterics?). Basically, the movie stripped away character development and plot, leaving only breathless romanticism, which was then brutally dashed by the gaping-fish kiss. Making Anne wait was one of the cruelest things I’ve seen from someone we are supposed to admire. If I had cared by then, I would have wanted her to run away! Overall, this movie was even more disappointing than I had expected, unfortunately.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Before I read EVERYBODY’S reviews, I’d better give my own. I read the book the first time in hours, and re-read it a few months later, more slowly pondering the precious story. I did not like the Root/Hinds version.
At the beginning of this new version I was disappointed by the made-for-tv staleness quite unlike P&P. But I reconciled quickly, acknowledging they were setting a somber tone for the beginning.
They said everything only once except for how unmarriageable Anne was, and then inexplicably everybody’s after her. So we had to remember the Mrs. Russell relationship to everything, and that Anne was responsible (demonstrated by nursing and inventory skills).
What did I like? Anne. I think that except for the end, she was perfect. I liked Capt. Wentworth ok. Mr. Musgrove was nice (felt sorry for his depiction of Edmund Bertram). Mr. Elliot was well-cast. And I really liked the widowed friend.
I so wish they’d had Andrew Davies do this one instead of Sense and Sensibility. We already had a really good version of Sense and Sensibility. That is to say, the writing was horrible.
Knowing the book was the only key to what was going on. They left out or destroyed all the conversations (isn’t that most of what makes Jane Austen so great - her wit?).
There were a lot of awwww! moments, appreciation for seeing the tender and uncertain love come alive.
However, in the book I was made to believe Anne might settle for Capt. Benwick or Mr. Elliot. At least she cared about Capt. Benwick, and had scruples about how to deal with Mr. Elliot, which the movie entirely omits. In the movie I was never convinced that Capt. Wentworth loved Louisa, or that Anne was truly despairing and desperate expecting her beloved’s constancy to Louisa no matter what. Louisa got better too quickly. Capt. Wentworth’s reluctant “entanglement” with Louisa wasn’t even addressed. Everything happened too quickly, with no suspense. They seemed set on telling the end of everything from the beginning. At the end they told almost nothing.
The title represents the theme of the story, and the movie seems to have forgotten to bring it to resolution. The end was incredibly choppy and ridiculous. What was wrong with Anne? She’s supposed to be this quiet, thoughtful, patient woman, and she takes off running, alone, all over the city pursuing a man whom she has every reason to believe with effect an opportunity to see her soon anyway? She doesn’t even read the whole letter in the horrible revision of the letter scene. And then they don’t finish the story.
In all fairness, Jane Austen did write an alternate ending, and they rather mixed the two and added parts of their own. I much prefer the standard, “letter” ending.
My family came in just as it was getting ridiculous, and made excessive fun of the kiss.
There was no depth in this movie, rarely was there subtlety, and yes, they rushed through an outline of a beautiful story. But I like some parts still better than the 1995 version. Mary was a little more believable, I think. The dowager was less disturbingly ugly.
Yes. I think that about sums it up.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
January 14th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Persuasion is my favorite of JA’s works & yes, I have read it. Because I have read it, I am peculiar about how Anne is cast in the various adaptations. The book states she had been beautiful at the time of the (1st) engagement, but had lost her bloom. So the Amanda Root version didn’t satisfy me on this point (with apologies, no offense meant). This version was *incermentally* better in that respect, and fairly well cast beyond that.
Incredibly fast-paced….Hello! People have waited 7-8 years here, so what’s the rush?? And, the Lyme scene & the letter are two of the most absolutely crucial and pivotal points, and they missed them both….
And what was with the ending? No explanation of how? Huh? You invest the time to watch, and feel robbed!
And what is with the obligatory “Elizabeth must eat with her mouth wide open” scenes? This one and the Root/Hinds versions both have this well-bred woman snacking like a piggy!
The macking (snogging to you Brits) in public … Whaaaat? Don’t think that would have been done in JA’s time.
I could deal with a few of the liberties they took (mostly done in the interests of time). Anne, narrating much of the set-up…her journaling…all okay.
Harriet Smith wasn’t set up very well - she seemed much more a plot device (which she is, but in the book, because she is seen a bit more, you don’t totally *feel* “moved along”…)
During the conversation that *should* have occurred at the end with Captain Harville right before The Letter, I was distracted thinking that…whoa, wait, isn’t this supposed to be at the end, and with Harville, not Benwick? I was a little disoriented by it…
I actually liked this Mary, but not as much as the Root/Hinds version. Charles was so bland as to be indistinguishable. Sir Walter was cast perfectly, as were Mrs. Clay, William Elliot and Lady Russell.
I liked the scenery/cinamatography…but what is that compared to getting the essence of the story right?
Let’s hope the rest of Jane’s work fares better treatment!
January 14th, 2008 at 2:11 am
I must say, Persuasion has always been my second favorite Austen novel (behind Pride & Prejudice). I feel some sort of a connection with Anne.
I watched tonight with my mother, who has never read the book. She kept trying to ask me questions about what was going on, who was with whom, etc. She was very confused.
And I found myself spending much of the last twenty minutes pounding the arm of the couch and saying “This is not how it’s done in the book!”
But all of that aside, it wasn’t terrible. Just not what I would have expected (or done).
January 14th, 2008 at 2:13 am
PS: Like Beth said, Captain Wentworth’s early snubs were a great set-up for the rest of the story, but then, well…
The best thing about this movie? It inspired me to read the book again.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
January 14th, 2008 at 6:23 am
At the risk of offending a whole lot of people, the thought of Andrew Davies getting his filthy hands on my beautiful Persuasion makes me queasy.
Davies changed the book in NA from Udolpho to the Monk — not insignificant to people who know about both books (and, if it’s NOT significant, then why did he make the change?). NA’s plot mirrors Udolpho’s, but The Monk’s is about sado-masochism, incest, rape and Devil worship. Not a book an innocent, totally sheltered 17-year-old would be reading. He wrote scenes where Catherine appears orgasmic and another scene where she is completely nude and fantasizing about Henry. How can I possibly want someone who’d do that to sweet little Catherine Morland to get his paws on Persuasion. I can only imagine what havoc he’d wreak. He’d make sure to find a way to have Mrs. Clay and Mr. Elliot knowing each other in the Biblical sense on screen. Bleagh.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Best lines in the movie…
Anne: The Admiral has been utterly misinformed!
Wentworth: Misinformed? Utterly?
Who would stick to (heaven forbid!) the original Austen dialogue when they’ve got a writer who can come up with THAT gem?
OK, in all seriousness…ouch. I have to agree with most of the other reviewers’ assesmment of the bad times - the letter, the public kiss, and the 10K through Bath being the most egregious offenses. I also agree that the movie was incredibly rushed, especially the part when they’re all at Uppercross. That section of the novel is so important because it’s where Anne and Wentworth first meet after the 8-year separation, where Anne realizes she’ll never stop loving him, and where Wentworth realizes he’s still in love with her. When all those scenes were removed, the last half of the movie was very choppy and confusing. Also, what was with that scene where Anne was playing the “Moonlight” sonata in some sort of hallway, and Wentworth was gazing at her? Um, NEVER happened, and it made Wentworth seem stalker-y.
I basically sat through the movie in the desperate hope that it would somehow get better. I thought all the principal actors were horribly miscast…Rupert Penry-Jones is adorable but too shy and soulful-looking to be Captain Wentworth. He would have made a better Benwick, or perhaps an Edmund Bertram or an Edward Ferrars. And Sally Hawkins…try not to look like a spastically twitching fish when the love of your life leans in for a kiss. Just a little tip from me to you.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I was so disappointed! Re-read the book for this occasion - Amanda Root film from 1997 was much better - truer to the book and acting was better.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Agree with Lisa of Longbourn. I liked Sally as Anne (Not as much as I liked Amanda Root, but we are talking about this movie.) In my review on Remotely Connected I first mentioned Ann ran through the Royal Crescent, then changed it to Camden Place because that’s where Sir Walter settled, then, knowing I would be wrong, deleted my words and simply said she sprinted through Bath. I deleted Banshee out of hell and a lot of other tongue in cheek observations, but that whole ending stink, stank, stunk. Why oh why these writers and directors insisted on changing Jane’s words and plot in order to make the movie trite and mediocre is beyond me.
There are a few other hiccups. In the book Lady Russell was instrumental in trying to help Sir Walter economize, but in the movie she seems clueless. Why? Her caring but interfering nature was firmly established by Jane, but quickly glossed over in this rendition. And Captain Wenworth’s two friends were given short shrift. I did not like Amanda Hale as Mary in this movie. I thought her portrayal was cartoonish and over the top. And Julia Davis as Elizabeth is not only all wrong for the part, but she is introduced in a rather vulgar way, stuffing her mouth with food. If anything, Elizabeth is as concerned with proprieties as Sir Walter. She would not be talking and eating at the same time.
Despite the awful camera work (why such tight close ups of Sally, whose long face really couldn’t take them?), I thought Sally gave a finely rendered performance, Rupert Penry-Jones is yummy, and it was fun to see Anthony Head inhabit his role as Sir Walter with such panache.
Having said this, all they needed to do to make me happy last night was to show the 1995 version of Persuasion.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Christina wrote: “Also, what was with that scene where Anne was playing the “Moonlight” sonata in some sort of hallway, and Wentworth was gazing at her? Um, NEVER happened, and it made Wentworth seem stalker-y.”
Christina, what I got from that was that they were paying “homage” to the really lovely sexy scene in Davies P&P where Darcy gazes at Elizabeth while she is playing the piano at Lady Catherine’s.
Of course, after that scene in P&P, witty badinage full of romantic tension ensued. In this version, he just disappeared as if he were a figment of her overwrought imagination and was never there at all.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Surrey Hill, Jane wrote that Anne lost herself in music. She played for her own pleasure. In the book, also, Anne suspects Captain Wentworth of looking at her while she plays, but this is while they are in company, certainly not while they are alone. In their earlier relationship, Wentworth and Anne had enjoyed their mutual fondness for music. I think in this one scene our rushed director is attempting in his inept way to show all of these qualities at the same time.
I agree with you, however. One can’t help but contrast the witty sparkling dialog between Lizzie and Darcy as she plays the pianoforte, and the silent, brooding scene with Anne and Captain Wentworth. Wit and sparkle win hands down.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:12 am
A few things that HAVEN’T been said. I’m in total agreement with what everyone has said.
The trip through the house at the beginning made me feel like I was back at the beginning of the current movie ‘Atonement.’ I almost thought it was the same house!
No uniforms for the Navy men. That would certainly have helped distinguish them for those not familiar with the novel.
Elizabeth seemed way miscast–she seemed as old as her father.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Before I review *cough* rant *cough* I saw the uncut version already as well as read the book in it’s entirety… and for good measure I even read the “cancelled chapter” that involved Wentworth informing Anne about rumours of her “upcoming marriage” to Mr. Elliot.
That being said, from the book to the movie… I could kind of live with some of the changes that were made. Granted I was greatly disappointed when the letter scene at the end of the book was chopped up and changed around in the movie. The running around Bath to hunt down Wentworth was bizarre, but understandable…. almost. I could kind of see why the final scene (from the book) was changed around due to Wentworth informing Anne about the rumours he heard about her supposed engagement. It made the letter a bit of a moot point… however this scene was also done in the 1995 version and definitely done far better.
I preferred some of the acting in this adaptation as opposed to the 1995 version, though the 1995 version is definitely truer to the book. I like the chemistry between Wentworth and Anne, and I rather enjoyed the scene when Anne was playing on the piano and Wentworth was watching…. you could interpret it in two ways: 1) She was playing and imagining him watching her, so when she looks up she realizes that he’s not or 2) he was watching her because he is yearning for her (duh). It’s a nice touch of romanticism that can’t always capture in the book. There were some actors that I didn’t like, but aside from Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones, Anthony Head and Alice Krige stole the show for me (when Lady Russell walked in all I could think of was ‘Run Captain! Run from the Borg Queen’ much like Mags (comment #14).
From the original UK presentation to the Masterpiece presentation… I was absolutely horrified. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. There were some scenes that were obnoxiously cut (Wentworth’s return to Lyme and hearing of Benwick’s engagement to Louisa, and the final ‘letter scene’), all to fit the adaptation in a not even 90 minute time slot. The movie wasn’t even 90 minutes, it was more 80 minutes and a commercial at the end for the Jane Austen Masterpiece…. if the producers were smart they would have had the entire movie and the additional commercials EASILY fill two hours.
But I digress… I’m disappointed, I’m shocked, and definitely not pleased with what Masterpiece had done. As for the adaptation nee cut scenes… it’s liveable, there is much that I liked (the first 80 odd minutes being a big portion of it) but there are some that I disliked….
*le sigh* I’m going to watch the 1995 adaptation again, read the book again and may go so far as to watch the original uncut version of this adaptation just to purge my mind of the Masterpiece presetation.
I hate the ADD generation. =P
January 14th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I have read the book many times. In fact, I read the last four chapters as soon as the movie was over just to put the right images back into my head.
I love Persuasion because of the mood. There is this beautiful, sweet, calming feeling I get every time I read the book. I loved the mid-90s movie because it captured that so well, right from the beginning. I think that this movie crossed the line into Bronte, which is why I laughed so hard at the post above which said it was being called Charlotte Bronte’s Persuasion.
I felt this movie was too rushed and I was never given the chance to get to know the characters, let alone care about any of them.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I agree with all the negative comments and wish to add one not yet mentioned, which that, in Austen’s version of *ahem!* HER book, by the time Anne arrives in Bath, she has recovered almost all her old “bloom,” and appears as a neat and elegant little woman, whom many in Bath prefer to her older sister. This Anne still looked as if she were drug thru a shrubbery backwards.
But enough with the complaining! We need a call to action! First of all, we need to vote with our purses and refuse to purchases dvds of such slop! Second, we need to petition PBS, “who relies on viewers like us,” to satisfy our viewing wishes by showing uncut slop.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Sally dear, please learn to close your mouth. Seeing you stand there practically drooling in every scene was most unbecoming and, not to mention, quite distracting. Especially when you’re about to kiss the love of your life. It is not romantic to look like you can’t figure out if you would rather lick his nose or bite his chin when going in for that smooch we viewers have been waiting for since the beginning of the production.
I have read Persuasion many times…I rank it as my favorite Austen novel (next to NA of course) and was severely disappointed in P3. Anthony Head ruled. As for the rest…not so much. There were things I liked, such as seeing all of the Naval Officers out of uniform and in civilian clothes. But the letter scene, and all of that running through Bath (since when was Mrs. Smith well enough to chase down Anne?), and Captain Wentworth practically flinging Anne onto his sister’s carriage instead of “placing” her there gently, and the butchered letter scene, and the “you forget us long before we forget you” scene happening too early, and DID I MENTION THE AWFUL LETTER SCENE?!?!?! Oh, it made my head hurt. I also still have an issue with Wentworth giving Anne Kellynch Hall as a wedding present. Um….can he do that? I know he couldn’t afford to buy it so is he just leasing it until Mr. Elliot gets a hold of it? Ugh. (Sorry if this has been discussed before but I must confess I have no read through all of the postings here).
Anyway, I did enjoy seeing the real Bath. That was a nice touch to not have to see the same stone archway in Ireland over and over again like in another production that has yet to air *cough* Northanger Abbey *cough*. And Rupert Penry-Jones made a lovely looking Wentworth and probably would have been superb had he been given a decent script. But it wasn’t enough to make me love it.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I’m so glad someone else noticed how Masterpiece cut so much from the show. It was already crammed as it was. I watched the ITV version again last night and was surprised at how much was left out on PBS. The crazy running at the end doesn’t seem half so absurd after you’ve seen two men, fully clothed in regency attire, walking down the Cobb and getting pummeled by water. It gives everything a ridiculous quality that makes running through the streets of Bath and kissing men in public almost reasonable. Anyway, back to the adaptation itself. Persuasion is my favorite book. The change that offended me most was Anne discussing the constancy of women with Benwick and Wentworth not hearing any of it. I did like the awkward moments and stolen glances between Anne and Wentworth (some which were cut for Masterpiece) and I like Penry-Jones as Wentworth.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I also thought this version was way too frenetic. Compared to this Persuasion, the Keira Knightley P & P, which I previous considered “frenetic.” Compared to this, that P&P is slow-moving.
I am screening all the Masterpiece Jane Austen productions before showing them to my 10, 7 and 4 year olds, who have all inherited from their mom a Janeite sensibility. Because of the late time it is on and concerns for content (not exactly wanting little ones to see movies like that creepy Mansfield Park adaptation from a couple years back, for instance), I taped it and watched it after their bedtime. I don’t have any problems showing this one to them (and thanks for the comment about NA problems for next week), but it is way, way, too condensed. And some of the changes are too frustrating for words.
I have read Persuasion, and all of Austen, multiple times since my English major days back in the 1980s. Our family listened to the unabridged Audio Literature Odyssey podcast of Persuasion last fall and then watching the Amanda Root version, and all enjoyed talking about the slight differences (except for 4 yo boy, who was just interested in the Navy men and when they were going to go to war….at least it got him to watch!) It will be interesting to see what they think and how we will compare it.
This Persuasion reminded me of another PBS show for kids that is actually quite good–Wishbone. The dog Wishbone imagines himself as main characters in classic literature, Tom Sawyer, the Odyssey etc. They have actually done P&P (Wishbone is Darcy) and Northanger Abbey (Wishbone is Tilney). The show is only 25 minutes, so the plots are very condensed, but you kind of get the picture of whatever classic it is, and you don’t expect too much of it but enjoy it for what it is worth.
I guess that’s what I take away from the Persuasion. Ninety minutes is just not long enough to do justice to it, and we can laugh about the funny parts (I love the comment about the 10K and marathons through Bath–my husband and I couldn’t stop laughing at all the running!). But as long as it’s reasonably close to it, enjoy it for what it is worth. And hope for a good Wishbone “Persuasion” in the near future.. And also I want to re-read the book, as many have suggested.
By the way, thanks for this great blog–I’ve gotten so much good Jane info since my husband discovered this for me some months back.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Rumor has it a certain “wet” scene was cut from NA for broadcast…may make it more palatable for the kiddies.
P.S. Wishbone!Tilney FTW!
January 14th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I hate to see what they cut from P & P and S & S (though S & S was hard to watch at times).
January 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Must concur with the posting above about Capt W buying Kellynch Hall for Anne as a wedding present–impossible! It remains, falling down or not, in the Elliot male family forever or until they can break the entail. He could lease it, I suppose, but how weird is that? “Here, dear, here’s your house, but as soon as your father dies, your creepy cousin can turn us out post-haste?”
Grr! This is all making me cross!
January 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Have read the novel several times.
Should also say that I LOVE the Michell version of the film, and made the mistake of watching it as a sort of Jane Austen “pre-game” shortly before this one came on.
Positives:
*I think the actors were pretty good given how little time they were given to play out their arcs, though often I felt like the actress playing Mary was imitating Sophie Thompson. (And she looked like a toothier Kate Beckinsale.) In particular I like the sly Elliot the Younger. That actor would make a good Wickham.
*The main characters (i.e. all the Elliots, Lady Russel, and Cpt. Wentworth) were more or less what they were supposed to be, though most of the side characters made very little impression — several scenes with the Musgroves before I could tell which was Lydia and which was Henrietta.
The film was pretty enough without being over the top (*cough* P&P’05).
Negatives:
*The ending was completely bogus and a disaster.
*What was with all the running? An no bonnet?
*As Mr. Sonce (who is a US Navy vet) pointed out, why were the sailors not in uniform?
*Not enough social and financial contrast between the Musgroves/Uppercross and the Elliots/Kellynch.
*Tone down the mood music! We don’t need to be beaten over the head with it to tell us how we’re supposed to feel about the scene.
*I was disconcerted by the rearrangement of several bits of dialogue and events.
*The made-up stuff about Elliot the Younger trying to cultivate Mrs. Clay as his mistress, though I can understand why the movie did not attempt to explain all the financial stuff from the novel (the Michell version made that wise choice as well).
Things I’m still thinking about but think I like:
*This Anne was more overtly emotional than the one in the Michell version. Not sure how I feel about her looking at the camera in those journal scenes, though.
*Stronger evidence of true intimacy and friendship between Wentwoth and Harville. It was clear Harville knew all about Anne and Frederick’s history.
Despite the drawbacks, I am still happy to have another film interpretation out there, and I look forward to watching this again at some point. At this time I don’t think it’s worth $19.95 on DVD, though!
-Sonce
January 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Hello,
Just joining my voice to the Austen fans.
We all have our mental image of how novels should looks when brought to the screen and can be generous in accepting different visions.
However, I fear the screenplay here was so manipulated as to remove the motivations of the characters completely. The need to retrench motivates the Kellynch departure and triggers the rest. The transposition of the Harville-Jane chat in Bath to Benwick-Jane in Lyme motivates the letter writing: Wentworth no longer overhears. The Lyme voyage loses its motivation, Wentworth needs to be present at the Elliot-Jane encounter to see the admiration she arouses. There is a reason why the concert at the upper rooms has Italian love songs. Key players in conversations are absent and momentum is lost. There is a reason why Mrs Smith is an invalid.
The whole subtlety of the relationships is lost here (Elizabeth-Clay-Father triangle, (Clay-Elliot)(Musgroves-Jane)and reduces the episode to little. The relationships in the texts and the social context are what make Austen relevant today, not just the love story.
The 1995 version remains definitive, although the use of Chopin music is anachronistic yet mood appropriate. I question the use of Mozart and Beethoven’s sonatas in the provinces around 1815-1816. Were they published in England at that time?
January 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
In regards to the wedding present… it could be that they were trying to make it more “romantic” or whatnot, I don’t particularly agree with it unless some unforseen off story event happened to Mr. Elliot… =P i prefer the ending of the 1995 version where Anne is on the boat with Wentworth… that was done right.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
The letter writing at the end wasn’t terrible, the motivation behind it differs a bit. I think the production team was trying to set it up that Wentworth wrote the letter after realizing that 1) he truly loves Anne (which was why he came to Bath in the first place, 2) she was going to reject another offer of marriage during a time of her life when it would have been prudent to marry rather than stay in spinsterhood.
In Wentworth’s mind, he learned that Anne has already rejected Charles Musgrove’s proposal in her early twenties… and now she’s approaching spinsterhood and another proposal would have saved her from that only to learn she intends to reject it? Granted he could believe that she could be persuaded into the marriage, but I think Mrs. Smith’s last ditch effort (totally unnecessary at this point) to talk Anne out of the marriage would have prevented that persuasion from happening… So he writes the letter thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, he has a chance (considering how she makes a point of talking to him in front of her family, etc) and takes a risk once more.
At least that’s how I understood the motivation of this changed ending.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Re: The naval uniforms: Wentworth, Harville, and Benwick were not on active duty and therefore would not have worn their uniforms. In Mansfield Park Jane refers to the “cruel custom” when William Price cannot show his new lieutenant’s uniform to Fanny when he comes to Mansfield Park to visit, but she sees it in Portsmouth before he sets off on the Thrush. But I missed them, too; it’s an anachronism I can forgive. As another commenter said, it’s a visual that makes you feel the closeness between the three officers in Lyme, that little band of naval brothers.
Re: Wentworth buying Kellynch: They do sort of set that up in the beginning of the script when Anne mutters to Lady Russell that moving to Bath is better than selling. In itself, to make a sale possible is a somewhat-forgivable bit of shorthand for the modern viewer. But then to bring in the whole entailment thing with Elliot screws that up. It sets up the whole Elliot subplot–that he’s plotting to keep his inheritance, and his interest in Anne, while genuine, is part of that.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:43 am
In referring to the Musgrove daughters, meant to say Louisa, not Lydia, in my earlier post! (It’s because I feel like Anne running around like that is something Lydia B. might do, so it was on my mind.)
January 14th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Oooh, just thought of something — did anyone else feel ooky when Wentworth was going on about how to catch him and what kind of woman he wanted to marry in front of the Musgroves? That worked as a conversation with his sister, but…dude, TMI for the neighbors.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Mags (in regards to #54): I think he was half-joking half-serious about it. It can be construed as TMI, but I think he was originally joking then it turned into him saying that more out of spite and anger towards Anne. I think he did that to “call Anne out” and let her know what he thought of her.
Granted, if it were in more polite company I’d be happier.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Private not Polite company…. sorry =(
January 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am
One of the things I love about the novel is the way its happy ending is entirely untethered from the landed estate that anchors nearly all endings in eighteenth-century novels. There is no Pemberley for Anne and Wentworth, only the “threat of future war.” Their happy ending is made possible by a brief interlude of peace in the Napoleonic wars, but soon after the novel ends, Napoleon will escape from Elba. The narrator explicitly highlights the contingency of their future happiness in the novel’s final paragraph. So that’s why I really object to this film’s ending, in addition to the legal near-impossibility of Wentworth being able to purchase Kellynch. By the end of the novel, Anne has more or less cut her ties to the cold, selfish landed society of her father and sister in favor of the warmth of the naval band of brothers. Why would she want the house, even if Wentworth could have bought it?
January 14th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I completely agree with you, Fanny H. Also, the point that my favorite feminsit critics make is that the sea, in Persuasion, becomes this kind of sacred space which is free of the usual hierarchies of the landed gentry and where there is a hierarchy of merit, and Anne and Wentworth can live on the kind of equal terms that they couldn’t necessarily live on back at Kellynch.
At my blog, I couldn’t help comparing the “blindfold” wedding-present scene to a Ford commercial.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am
My opinion of this particular adaptation couldn’t be better expressed than in the words of the grand diva, Lady Catherine deBourgh. “I am most put out!” The Bath marathon. The chopping up of Wentworth’s letter. The allusion to Wentworth purchasing an entailed estate.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I’ve read the book several times and now I’ve see the new movie, and I am left to wonder…how HOW can you possibly mess up The Letter, the whole climax of the book? Aso, because I’ve read the book, I found it odd that the wrong people were saying lines in the wrong place but I would have been okay with that if they didn’t mess up THE LETTER!!
On the shallow (er ;)) side, I was distracted by Anne’s super tight, greasy looking hair and the kiss scene at the end made Anne look like a guppie searching for elusive food.
I did think the actor playing Anne’s father did a great job.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Haven’t seen it since it was broadcast in Britain (and don’t particularly want to) but all I can say is that if your reactions are this generally negative to Persuasion you are going to LOVE MP. (Spoken with maximum sarcastic effect.)
Also, to Nancy (44) regarding NA. I think there are more than one way the so-called problematic scenes in NA were done. The nudity is marginal and nothing above PG rating, I would say (back and neck only) and not titillating at all. The so called orgasmic scene is really rather funny and young children would probably not pick up on that aspect of it. The adaptation over all in my opinion is very lovely and sweet and full of “growing up” messages (but not sledgehammer) that children might appreciate. I know Mags disagrees with me on NA and obviously you must make up your opinion on what is appropriate for your children to see (quite right too) but I thought you should get another point of view.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
What is it with these distortions in the space/time continuum that keep popping up in Austen adaptations? Wet Darcy zips to his room and back out in the same time that it takes Lizzy to walk to the carriage? Wentworth gets back home, writes his letter, gets the letter to Harville, finds the Crofts and then find Charles Musgrove in the same time it takes Anne to chase him around Bath - and they never cross paths. Or maybe it’s the flux capacitor?
It was indeed as bad as I remembered watching it all on youtube, but at least that time I didn’t have my husband next to me humming Chariots of Fire while Anne was dashing around Bath.
January 14th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
#32 has major spoilers about Northanger Abbey! Not everyone in Canada has TVO
January 14th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I have not yet read the book, and I really enjoyed the film last night. I think the trouble with reviewing the film when you’ve not read the book, is that you’re having to analyze the story AND the film together as a whole. Whereas, if you’ve read the book, you’re not really analyzing the story so much as the quality of the adaptation between the novel and the movie.
So, from my “whole package” perspective, I really loved it. It came across as being a little bit darker than the previous four novels I am familiar with (Emma, P&P, S&S, MP). It was definitely the most agonizing of the love stories. Unlinke some of Austen’s other heroines, Anne seemed so humble and almost entirely without flaw. It was hard to blame her for a mistake she made when she was young and easily manipulated. That made her suffering all the more torturous, I thought. I am definitely looking forward to reading the book now.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
P.S. I am SOOOOO happy to see I am not the only one who was completely and utterly horrified by that kiss. =\
January 14th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
P.P.S. After reading everyone else’s reviews, I feel kind of bad for “loving” it, and I must say, it’s disappointing to see that what I loved about the film is totally without merit. Had I rad the book before seeing the movie, I probably would have liked it a whole lot less. However, I still might have enjoyed it just as being a film depicting my favorite era. I will also say that the reviews reminded me of a lot of trouble I did have, especially concerning confusion about where things were taking place and why, and how everyone was related to one another. But, as someone else said earlier on, the beauty is that now I’m even more inspired to read the book.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I forgot it was on last night. I turned on the television (prior to slipping in a DVD of Buffy the Vampire Slayer to watch Tony Head as he is meant to be seen) in time to catch the inordinately long scene of Sally Hawkins catching her breath after her jog through Bath. I saw the whole thing last year in England; I’m not upset that I forgot to watch it again this time.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Well, the running around was surprising… A bit too Blair Witch for my tastes… But I throughly enjoyed the show. And no, I haven’t read a single Jane Austen book, though I’m a fan of the movies. I do own a collection of her works, and I have tried to get through P&P, but alas, I find the language doesn’t hold my interest like language + visuals does.
Anyway, I own the Amanda Root version, and I like it very much, but I’m also thinking I’d like to own this BBC version. I liked it. It’s a good story.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Was the woman playing Mary doing a Ruth Buzzi impersonation? With that walk, I was thinking Ruth Buzzi as Igor, but maybe she really has leg braces or something, and I am being horribly insensitive.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I haven’t seen this version of Persuasion since it came out in the UK, but there were several key issues I remember having, issues that prevent me from ever wanting to rewatch it/buy the DVD, issues that made me pick up the book and re-read it several times:
The ending…the whole of it. a) the 10K run through Bath….What the Frank Churchill was that??? b) The kiss was disgusting, not ‘the most steamiest on-screen kiss’, as Penry-Jones put it in one interview, c) THE LETTER!! My favourite scene from ANY of Austen’s books! They butchered it…:’(. I feel like crying all over again just from the memory. Why….why could they not use the letter scene as it was bloody written. It wouldn’t have taken any more time and would have added SO much d) Wentworth buying Kellynch ruins the whole feel of the story. Persuasion is the darkest of Austen’s well-known novels, mainly because she was ailing with, we suppose, Addison’s, whilst penning it. Anne is not supposed to end up with Lizzy’s happiness…she gets the man she wants but at a sacrifice. This ending was equivalent to what Peter Jackson did to LOTR by eradicating the Scouring of the Shire. The ending is the most important aspect to any story, and if you change it, you change the whole meaning of the story.
For the first hour or so, I was actually enjoying this adaptation…well maybe not enjoying per se, but it was pretty decent.
I’m sure there were other problems but it has been a fair while since I saw it.
I did like the portrayal of Lady Russell, Sir Walter, and Mr Elliot.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I have read the book (tied for favorite with P&P) and seen both the 1970’s and the 1995 adaptations. Unfortunately I stand NOT impressed with this latest adaptation. It was ok but no more than ok. There was no real character development for most of the principle characters. And it was all just a bit too angsty for me. All the crying! Sheesh! And what reason did they have for taking a very important conversation between Anne and Capt Harville and relegating to dinner conversation with Anne and Benwick?? It was only the conversation that sets up the letter scene in the first place! They ruined the most beautifully written love letter in English lit and manage to make it ordinary. And I have never been more disappointed in a movie ending than I was with this one. How on earth did Wentworth pull of doing away with the entail in order to purchase Kellynch with only 20,000 pounds???? I honestly think that the whole thing was a supreme waste of a talented cast because they weren’t given much at all to work with.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I’ve read Persuasion many times, and I’ll admit to watching the whole thing on youtube last summer…and from what I remember, in its entirety, this adaptation was actually palatable. Not so after Masterpiece Theater got its greedy little hands on it. My husband was also laughing out loud while Anne ran the marathon around Bath, and even louder during the lead-up to the ever-so-anti-climactic kiss. Blah. I have yet to see the 95 version. I’ll be getting it sooner rather than later just to change my husband’s perception of Anne, who he sees as more of (what I would call) a Fanny Price after this viewing.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Having recently happened upon this most excellent blog (and currently going through its archives with much pleasure), I feel this is as good a moment as any to “come out” and join a distinguished group of like-minded persons. Please be gentle, for I am a shy, retiring creature…
That said, I was far from being shy about expressing my dismay at the appaling spectacle to which we were treated yesternight. “Oh, what have they done to my precious ‘Persuasion’?” I cried repeatedly, till I had such a horrible sore-throat. That ridiculous, breathless conversation between Anne and Lady Russell, Mary Musgrove channeling Professor Trelawney (as played by Emma Thompson), the botched letter scene — it all went from bad to worse!
Alas, even Captain Wentworth’s swoon-worthiness could not save this terrible mess from joining the far too numerous awful adaptations of Jane Austen’s delighful books.
What are we to anticipate from the weeks to come? I can think of no stronger inducement to always keep one’s vinaigrette at hand. One never knows when relief may be wanted… and not everyone has a faithful Dorothy!
January 14th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I have read the book as well and it is just about tied with P&P as my favorite. The pleasantries first: I thought the visuals were quite lovely by and large — the scenery and buildings and pretty/handsome actors.
I was upset, as most everyone was, by the ending. I hated seeing Anne’s beautiful, quietly impassioned speech about lasting love given during a noisy dinner where it had little to no emotional impact (and certainly none on Captain Wentworth). The wonderful intensity of the letter in it’s proper setting — as the only means a fervent Wentworth has to respond to the overheard speech — is of course missing (along with some of the letter itself) and that was so disappointing.
I didn’t like how improper Anne was — running about (outdoors and in), kissing in public, grabbing Wentworth aside in front of everyone… Anne is elegant. She is eminently proper (stiflingly so at times). One of the most defining characteristics of “capable Anne” is that she knows what must be done at all times and she does it.
The whole thing felt rushed. The 1971 version, while full of historical inaccuracies and stilted acting, was able to show so much more with its much longer running time. I was hoping that this much trumpeted season of Jane Austen would mean that we would get a historically accurate, beautifully filmed Persuasion with the detail and run time only able to be found in a mini-series.
We missed many shades of meaning but I realize that there wasn’t time in less than two hours to address things like the real evil behind Mr. Elliot’s character (the new explanation need not have been announced in the street by a very healthy looking Mrs. Smith however) but there were several scenes that seemed crammed in purely because someone thought we needed the nuance but then forgot to add it.
For instance, I felt we didn’t get to see Anne blossom and I missed the vindicated feeling you get when Mr. Elliot takes interested notice of her in Lyme, in preference to the Musgrove sisters and in front of Wentworth. Also by having Anne sprain her ankle on the visit to the Hayter’s, it wasn’t that Wentworth was noticing her flagging energy despite ostensibly being focused on Louisa, instead tossing her up on the chaise was necessitated by her being noticeably lame. The scenes where we are warned of Mrs. Clay’s possible influence were laughable due to her being far and away too pretty to not have the fear that Sir Elliot might marry her on the forefront of everybody’s mind. In contrast, elder sister Elizabeth did not have the looks that might make Sir Elliot “excused … in forgetting her age.”
Of final note, the kiss scene may have been difficult to watch at home but let me tell you watching it in a room of 100+ people on a big screen there was collective squirming all about.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I disliked it intensely! It strayed way too far from the book, seemed too rushed, minimized the importance of Lady Russell and frankly was nonsensical. The chasing after Capt. Wentworth was ridiculous even by today’s standards. In that era, it was unthinkable behavior. I was disappointed in the movie from the beginning to the end. I did like the casting, though.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I agree with the “this was horrific” camp. I’ve read all of Austen’s books too many times to count. I know the plots and the key dialogue better than anyone should who isn’t a tenured Austen professor. This production left me cold. Anne was portrayed as hunch-backed idiot with some strange muscular disorder that left her mouth hanging open all the time. I kept waiting for Wentworth to move in with a drool cup. As others have pointed out, her loss in bloom was temporary and she never lost her personality or wit in the book, but here she was practically lobotomized. There was absolutely nothing that would suggest why Wentworth would still be in love with her rather than thanking his stars for the lucky escape he had made. Even more preposterous was the thought that William Elliot would have found her worth spending any time with at all. I won’t re-hash the ridiculous Bridget Jones-style race through Bath or many of the other offenses committed last night. But I do have to comment on two things: 1) I don’t understand the attempts to rationalize why they changed parts of the plot. That would be fine if it were “based on Jane Austen’s Persuasion”, but we were led to believe that this was The Complete Jane Austen. That assumes those watching it like Austen and her plots and characters. Why would we want some writer re-arranging things for us? 2) In general, despite the anachronistic impropriety, I don’t mind a quick snog at the end of an Austen adaptation. After all, if you haven’t imagined the key characters going at it in your mind after finishing the books, then you have one cold heart, but oh God! That kiss was so disgusting. It was uncomfortable and unattractive and there was no chemistry. Where there should have been gentleness with underlying passion, there was just saliva and it almost felt like the actors couldn’t bear to get any closer to each other. I insisted my husband turn off the NFL play-offs to watch that?
January 14th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
hi deleilan
I agree with much of what you said, and feel it my duty to warn you about MP…all I can say is make sure you have your vinaigrette near…you’re gonna need it!!
I agree with your point Rita in the insignificance of Lady Russell’s character but I still maintain that the actress did pretty well with the dodgy script she was given.
I agree that a talented cast was wasted, and thank you Anne Marie for pointing out two other big issues with this adaptation, those being the non existant ’second bloom’ for Anne, and oh God I now remember the ‘new’ explanation for Mr Elliot’s behaviour. The explanation given in the book was highly interesting, made him about ten times more evil and just generally made the reader feel Mrs. Smith’s ill-usage.
I have to admit, just reading all these comments and re-evalulating the adaptaton, I know see it in a much worse light. the first time I saw it, I didn’t like it, and I disagreed with the whole of the end, but I now see the problems were there all along….grrr….
January 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
LOL Paddydog, that truly made me laugh..Anne Elliot, the poor lobotomised athlete with a tragic muscular weakness…I don’t know about anyone else but now THAT’s most definately the Anne Elliot I imagined whilst reading Austen’s beautiful words…
January 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Was the woman playing Mary doing a Ruth Buzzi impersonation? With that walk, I was thinking Ruth Buzzi as Igor, but maybe she really has leg braces or something, and I am being horribly insensitive.
Ruth Buzzi? OMG! That’s perfect! I think that’s better than comparing her with Professor Trelawney. I hope you don’t mind if I share that with other people. People who are, of course, old enough to know who Ruth Buzzi is…
As for leg braces, I thought she was applying for a position with the Department of Silly Walks.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Okay, I’ll bite, since you asked. I just found this blog thru the PBS site. I have NOT read Persuasion. I have read only Emma and Pride & Prejudice. That being said, I LOVED this movie and it made me want to read the book. I really enjoyed the moments when Anne looked directly at the camera. It hooked me. I thought the range of expressions that were conveyed in those moments really captured the story. I loved Anne’s run through the rain. To me, it captured that desperation she felt to get it right this time. And, the fact that this only ran an hour and a half made me very happy. As the mother of a 4 yo who works full time, I am lucky if I can stay awake until 10:30pm!
January 14th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Persuasion is my favorite novel, and I was just heartsick at how this TV adaptation handled it. Did the adapter actually ever READ the novel? I find it hard to believe her or she did anything but read the Cliffs Notes, and then not very carefully at that.
First, I was amazed that a pivotal line was wasted halfway through…when Anne talks about women loving longest when all hope is gone. I thought, “Well…what will they do at the end of this thing now?”
January 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
LOL, Fanny Harville! Alive! I always suspected that the clever little minx ran away to Jamacia with another officer! Hah!
You all have expressed many of my same opinions presviously, so I will just throw in some tidbits of observation.
Shocking, shocking lack of naval uniforms. Unpardonable choice, even if it was correct to the regulations. The 1995 version was gleefully a sea of blue and brass! Bad, bad costume designer. Lydia & Kitty Bennet would be particularly disappointed.
No disrespect to actress Julia Davis, but she was way too old for the part of Elizabeth Elliot. In the novel she is only two years (age 29) older than her sister Anne (age 27), but she looked twenty years older! Was it her ill fitting wig, or her pale, pale costumes that sucked every ounce of life out of her?
Mary Stockley as Mrs. Clay, and about 30 (widow with two children), looked far younger by a coons age. She would have made a better Elizabeth Elliot. She showed promise in a role that was cut to ribbons.
Anne Elliot’s clothes and hair! I don’t know how any costume designer could have made her more unattractive. This could have been on purpose to make her look like little orphan Annie, but give the poor girl more than one ill fitting frock, and soften that hair please. Pulling Sally Hawkins hair tightly back, flat against her, er um, egghead, ahem, made her unrefined features stick out as prominently as the cobb at Lyme-Regis.
I will say that I like the wood paneling in the stairway at Kellynch very much. The fountain in the opening garden scene at the Kellynch grounds was defintely Victorian era, but pretty, and granted my eyesight may be failing, but where the heck was the estate of Winthrop,(Hayter residence),when a Musgrove sister asks the walking group “isn’t it a fine view”? Looked all trees and shrubs to me!
Small points, but they are all part of a larger disappointment. All my hope rest on the upcoming Northanger Abbey. We shall see.
Cheers, Laurel Ann
January 14th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Laurel Ann, the NA adaptation (if we’re talking about the one AD directed in this series…I don’t know if there’s an upcoming new adaptation) was, I think, better than this…well maybe. The characterisation was better, but there was a distinct lack of humour. Catherine Morland was acted well, except for the shocking direction (I don’t want to give anything away)….needless to say AD raped the book and pillaged it for ANY sexual referances, as is his way. But all in all there was less to hate. Although, this opinion is based on old memories, and will probably change when I see others’ snarking reviews
January 14th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Persuasion is my favorite novel, and I was just heartsick at how this TV adaptation handled it. Did the adapter actually ever READ the novel? I find it hard to believe he or she did anything but read the Cliffs Notes, and then not very carefully at that.
First, I was amazed that a pivotal line was wasted halfway through…when Anne talks about women loving longest when all hope is gone. I thought, “Well…what will they do at the end of this thing now?”
The characters of the nurse and Mrs. Smith were completely wasted. Didn’t the screenwriter know Anne’s friend was an invalid? All of a sudden she comes flying up the sidewalk to fill Anne in on all the dastardly deeds of Mr. Elliot. Not even out of breath!
There was very little evidence of Anne’s capability and gift for friendship with the Musgroves. We do get to hear her stumble through one fairly simple piano piece, but then she magically does well with a dance piece. Anne isn’t Mary Bennett, for Pete’s sake!
Someone’s already commented on the lack of Anne’s second bloom. No kidding! I would have been happy if she’d taken a bath (and washed her hair) once she got to Bath.
I dislike it when screenwriters and directors ignore historical niceties. Anne running around Bath, pulling Wentworth aside, etc. etc. showed an awful ignorance of mores and manners of the era.
And the kiss! Yikes! Was she hoping to kissed…or in need of CPR!
Elizabeth looked old enough to be Anne’s mother.
The only sort of bright spot was Wentworth, who cut quite a dashing figure on horseback…but it wasn’t enough.
Give me the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds anytime.
Hinds isn’t as dashing as this latest Wentworth…but the whole thing was truer to the book, struck just the right note, had a beautiful sound track…and I’m convinced that screenwriter actually DID read the book!
January 14th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
What more can I say? I was sad that I wasn’t thrilled with this adaptation. I love the book and the 1995 version. The anticipatory pleasure at the thought of seeing Persuasion was perhaps just unrealistic. The camera work was awful and the run through the house, in the beginning, and the streets of Bath, at the end, made me crazy. Also, the scene of Anne running through the streets of Bath and her breathless heaving was just annoying. The letter was diminished and the kiss was just sily. The ending? Sigh. I guess the one good thing about this is that Jane Austen is being adapted for the screen in 2007? My friend in England said that NA is just awful. Lower expectations may be a good thing.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Laurel Ann: I didn’t even want to touch the hair, but since you’ve gone there….We get it that Anne wasn’t overly concerned with appearances, but when did that translate into she wears her greasy, badly curled hair scraped across her skull? I mean the man you’ve loved for 8 years comes back into town and you don’t bother to wash your hair and change out of your sack cloth dress? Yes, I know they only bathed occasionally back in the day, but she looked like a sodden mess the whole time. For heaven’s sake, the servants looked cleaner and more refined than her.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
KG, comment #80. You appear to possess all the demographic qualities that the writer and director aimed this production at; 1.) Hasn’t read the novel yet, but knows of, and likes Jane Austen. 2.) Appreciates being acknowledged by the heroine while viewing that you are indeed watching out there. 3.) Enjoys running in the rain in her limited free time(or watching others run). 4.) Female, hard working mother who appreciates the condensed version because that extra half hour of entertainment time is not possible.
I am so glad that you enjoyed it and that the movie has inspired you to read the book. If that is the only thing that many viewers will take with them from this production, then it is a sucess.
Cheers, Laurel Ann
January 14th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I only hope that, if someone is taken with this adaptation they also learn to like the book because it is quite different. I’m not a purist, but this is just too different for my tastes.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Slightly O/T, but where can I find the “cancelled chapter” of Persuasion? I would love to read it!
January 14th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I’m in the UK and saw this when broadcast on the BBC last spring. Enjoyed it on a certain level, but it always annoys me when adaptations mess with the book for no good reason - all these examples have been mentioned by others (running about Bath with no hat, messed up letter scene etc etc). For that reason it is never going to be my favourite - the 1995 version will always be that. When the UK series of new JA adaptations was broadcast we got MP first, followed by NA and then this one last. We definitely got the worst one first and by the time Persuasion was screened it was in hope rather than expectation that I watched it. On that level I was happy (miles ahead of MP) but not a patch on the 1995 version. I am not sure when MP is planned for broadcast in the US - but you have been warned!!!!
On a more positive note I loved the NA adaptation - over-egging of gothic bits aside - and hope you all enjoy it.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I can see I’m going to be a bit odd here…I liked it.
Yes, I did. I really liked the casting of Wentworth (even my little sister said he was ‘very handsome’ *grin*.
Anne was rather lovely as well, (though she did cry a wee bit much).
The kiss was weird…I mean, come on and kiss her already! And it was altogether too fast, the film on a whole. If they had filmed an hour more of true Austen dialogue and a bit less running…it would have been much better!
But otherwise it was very sweet…and from what I’ve heard and seen, probably the best of the ITV adaptations. I shall be watching the rest, but am not looking forward to NA…
January 14th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Baboshika, here you go:
Cancelled Chapters
January 14th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I am definitely in the minority here: I really enjoyed the film. AND Persuasion alternates with Pride and Prejudice as my favorite novel. I most certainly did not love the film as I did the 1995 adaptation; however, I was impressed by the performances and what the filmmakers were able to accomplish with a small budget and a limited amount of screen time. I tend to give film adaptations more latitude than a lot of my fellow Janeites, and perhaps that’s because I used to work in film and TV. Yes, this film should have been a miniseries or at the very least, a two-hour film, but the adapters took a near-impossible task and, in my opinion, did a good job. What’s most important to me is hearing that people who have not read Persuasion are now interested in doing so. If this film brings more readers to Austen, then that makes me very happy. And what treasures await readers of the book, i.e., THE LETTER as it was written and introduced, and more.
With all that said, the one thing that really bugged me was the directorial choice to have Sally Hawkins look directly into camera, thus breaking the “this is a movie” spell for me every time. Go figure.
And I’m with you, Laurel Ann: Where are all those uniforms??? Historically inaccurate it may be to include them, but that omission seriously reduced the eye candy factor.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Errm, Anna: I agree with Wentworth being lovely… Anne, I’m not so sure, but I think that was more due to Sally Hawkins being given bad direction…well I hope so anyway.
I think, all things considered, NA is probably the best of the adaptations, but it really is a case of ‘the lesser of three evils’…MP was the worst…and I just can’t forgive the ruined end of Persuasion…the letter scene was just too dear to my heart…
January 14th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Thank you so much, Mags!
January 14th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Two questions, please, that I hope may be appropriately asked here and feel certain many of you will be able to answer with ease:
First, I reread the concert scene last night and have been poking around online to clarify in which “room” the concert should have been set; and because I didn’t notice the faux pas in last night’s movie, which room was used for the concert?
Second, I watched last night’s Persuasion, a book I adore, with the “disposition to be pleased”; now isn’t that a line (dreadfully paraphrased, I’m afraid–bad, bad me) from Pride and Prejudice? Either in reference to Bingley or Darcy after his transformation? Poked around for that one this morning before work but couldn’t find that line either. Many thanks!
January 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Right. I’ll at least start with what I liked about the new version. Costumes - lovely. Scenery - lovely. Music - extra lovely. Acting - respectable; I hardly recognized Anthony Stewart Head.
There. I’ve done my duty. I didn’t hate it, but it didn’t do the story justice, and it’s not nearly as good as the 1995 version.
The writing. It felt like the screenplay raced through the story, and it’s a short novel as it is. Her books are not a fast read, you miss all the good stuff if you race through