Film: Persuasion - with Sally Hawkins - 2007 version

[sciencefan]

Last night, Masterpiece Theatre began a 3 months presentation of the works of Jane Austen on film.

Last night was a new version of Persuasion with Sally Hawkins - dated November 2007.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844330/

I read Persuasion 8 years ago, so I did not remember the plot. However, I read Pride and Prejudice twice last year and spent over 30 hours watching several film versions, so I am familiar with Jane Austen's style and the time period in which she places her stories.

Unfortunately, shortly after the beginning of the film, our heroine, Anne, writes in her diary that she is sure that Captain Wentworth has not forgiven her. I say unfortunately because the naughty Austen did not catch me unawares of her tricks. I knew most certainly from that point on that he had indeed forgiven her and so the rest of the film was less intriguing for me.

My overall impression of the film is that we kept racing from place to place, never stopping long enough to get to know anybody. I did like Sally Hawkins' acting. I found Captain Wentworth quite handsome and likable. The overall plot was good, and the script was probably well-written for what it was, but as seen with Pride and Prejudice, it is incredibly difficult to cram a Jane Austen story into 2 hours, or 93 minutes, as in this case. While I acknowledge it is a typical innocuous Jane Austen story, I can't help but believe the film did her no justice at all. Based on the film, I would never be tempted to read the book. And though I cried at the happy ending, I have no desire to see the film again.

I can't help but feel the film had no depth. An analogy escapes me. I guess maybe it was like reading the Cliff Notes. We just got a basic overview of the story without being invited to know the characters.

I suppose if I knew the book intimately, I would have enjoyed the film more because my memory would have filled in the gaps that were lacking.

[Newcomer]

I saw a pre-concert talk of a conductor with a world renowned pianist. He pointed to the score and asked her: How do you see this passage relating to the following? What is the tempo that you will adopt? Where will you place the emphasis? I may disagree with you but I want you to have a strong opinion!
The director of an adaptation has a similar relationship with the dramatist when interpreting a classic. And with Austen the task is even harder. We have the words in the text, the objective notes, but the meanings in phrases and especially the play of one phrase against another is not objective, we have to depend on our intuition. I'll attempt to compare the 2007 adaptation directed by Adrian Shergold, dramatization by Simon Burke with the 1995 visualization by Roger Michell and Nick Dear, not so much to fidelity to the novel as to the emotional truth achieved by the director/dramatist reinterpreting Austen. It's a very subjective opinion so I hope that you will disagree and tell me so.
The 2007 adaptation, begins with Sally Hawkins as Anne Elliot running. Toward the end she is still running and the film ends with Anne blindfolded. Sally does not seem to have time to catch her breath and reflect what Anne is all about. Austen had very definite views of propriety and one was that young ladies should not run. But such rules are meant to be broken as when Wright in P&P has the two sisters run across the lawn to the father who has received a letter about Lydia. The running has the emphasis of how much the news matters To Elizabeth and Jane. In the 2007 adaptation of Persuasion, Anne's running does not seem to have any purpose. The reading of Captain Wentworth's letter is done much better in the 1995 adaptation. We have time to see the emotions play across Anne's face and her run into the street to intercept Wentworth is short and with a easily understood purpose.
The autumnal theme of Persuasion is captured in the drab dresses and face of Anne by Sally Hawkins. However she fails to give us a hint of the “Anne, with elegance of mind and sweetness of temper, which must have placed her high with any people of real understanding,”. And “A few years before, Anne Elliot had been a very pretty girl, but her bloom had vanished early;”.This is important if one is to appreciate the transformation in Anne's looks at Lyme. Shergold's addition of a touch of rouge to Sally's cheeks is not sufficient of my expectations of a director.
Generally I was disappointed in the casting of the supporting women; Julia Davis as Elizabeth Elliot, Mary Stockley as Mrs. Clay, Alice Krige as Lady Russell, they looked too much alike and were costumed too alike. The 1995 version had the characters more sharply differentiated. The men in the 2007 version were adequate with the exception that the naval men were in civilian closes. This decision by the director lost the emphasis that the period was of the Napoleonic Wars and the sentiments “that Anne felt her spirits not likely to be benefited by an increasing acquaintance among his brother-officers...."These would have been all my friends," was her thought;” was a personal sentiment of Austen's reflecting that her brothers Frank and Charles fought in the British navy during the Napoleonic wars, and both eventually rose to become admirals.
The sequence of the concert at Bath, as scripted by Simon Burke, is a disappointment when compared to the 1995 version. The symphonic program vs. the recital of Italian love songs, eliminates Anne's “ elegance of mind” where she is able to extemporaneously translate and catch the sense of the song as well as her question to Wentworth, if he would not return to the hall to hear the rest since the love song is so beautiful, an indirect indication of her own feelings.
These are only the most prominent points of disappointment in the Shergold/Burke attempt at visualizing Persuasion. I think that the 1995 version was much better.

[sciencefan]

I saw a pre-concert talk of a conductor with a world renowned pianist. He pointed to the score and asked her: How do you see this passage relating to the following? What is the tempo that you will adopt? Where will you place the emphasis? I may disagree with you but I want you to have a strong opinion!
The director of an adaptation has a similar relationship with the dramatist when interpreting a classic.

Excellent analogy!

...
The 2007 adaptation, begins with Sally Hawkins as Anne Elliot running. Toward the end she is still running...

No wonder I had the feeling we kept racing from place to place!

... The reading of Captain Wentworth's letter is done much better in the 1995 adaptation. We have time to see the emotions play across Anne's face and her run into the street to intercept Wentworth is short and with a easily understood purpose.

That would have been MUCH better!

The autumnal theme of Persuasion is captured in the drab dresses and face of Anne by Sally Hawkins. However she fails to give us a hint of the “Anne, with elegance of mind and sweetness of temper...

You're right. I did not get any impression that her countenance had improved.

... they looked too much alike and were costumed too alike.

I agree. I actually turned on "closed captioning" so I might get help discerning who was who.

...
her question to Wentworth, if he would not return to the hall to hear the rest...

I was wondering, "How in the world can he return to hear the rest when he rudely stomped out making all that noise just after the conductor tapped his baton, and before a single note was played?"

... I think that the 1995 version was much better.

I haven't seen it, but I don't doubt that you are right.

[sciencefan]

Even though I didn't think the film was great, I did have a favorite scene. It was the one where Anne and Benwick have the intimate conversation about loss, over dinner, and she encourages him.

Sally Hawkins is an excellent actress. The failure of the film is certainly not on her shoulders.

[aeroport]

Unfortunately, shortly after the beginning of the film, our heroine, Anne, writes in her diary that she is sure that Captain Wentworth has not forgiven her. I say unfortunately because the naughty Austen did not catch me unawares of her tricks. I knew most certainly from that point on that he had indeed forgiven her and so the rest of the film was less intriguing for me.

Likewise.

I am glad to see that I was not the only one who didn't find this particularly satisfying. I haven't read any Austen (though I did begin Mansfield Park a long time ago, never to finish), so I'm really uncertain what to make of her based on the adaptations of her novels. I really do not like her stories, but I like to think that maybe the quality of her prose will in some way make up for this. In this one, I have to say the whole thing just felt kind of inevitable. It was like, "Oh, they used to wanna hook up, eh? And they were prevented by outside influences; but now he's all rich and stuff, and she obviously isn't going to be dissuaded by her fussy, pretentious, really rather goofy father... HMM, WONDER WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN!"

[Lost Arts]

[QUOTE=Newcomer;514358] In the 2007 adaptation of Persuasion, Anne's running does not seem to have any purpose. QUOTE]

Newcomer - you're analysis is spot-on. I thank you for expounding on the one word answer I gave my husband who asked when I turned in for the night how "Persuasion" had been. The only response I could give him was "Breathless".

[Niamh]

You can find a bit of a dicsussion of the new austen adaptations in the thread linked below
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=24060&page=3

[Newcomer]

A more wide sampling of opinion can be had at PBS Discussions Forum Index -> Masterpiece: The Complete Jane Austen http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic...628737&t=93372

the general consensus seems to be : Absolutely wretched adaption of Persuasion

reference courtesy of Sciencefan.

[charliejonz]

Last night, Masterpiece Theatre began a 3 months presentation of the works of Jane Austen on film.

Last night was a new version of Persuasion with Sally Hawkins - dated November 2007.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844330/

I read Persuasion 8 years ago, so I did not remember the plot. However, I read Pride and Prejudice twice last year and spent over 30 hours watching several film versions, so I am familiar with Jane Austen's style and the time period in which she places her stories.

Unfortunately, shortly after the beginning of the film, our heroine, Anne, writes in her diary that she is sure that Captain Wentworth has not forgiven her. I say unfortunately because the naughty Austen did not catch me unawares of her tricks. I knew most certainly from that point on that he had indeed forgiven her and so the rest of the film was less intriguing for me.

My overall impression of the film is that we kept racing from place to place, never stopping long enough to get to know anybody. I did like Sally Hawkins' acting. I found Captain Wentworth quite handsome and likable. The overall plot was good, and the script was probably well-written for what it was, but as seen with Pride and Prejudice, it is incredibly difficult to cram a Jane Austen story into 2 hours, or 93 minutes, as in this case. While I acknowledge it is a typical innocuous Jane Austen story, I can't help but believe the film did her no justice at all. Based on the film, I would never be tempted to read the book. And though I cried at the happy ending, I have no desire to see the film again.

I can't help but feel the film had no depth. An analogy escapes me. I guess maybe it was like reading the Cliff Notes. We just got a basic overview of the story without being invited to know the characters.

I suppose if I knew the book intimately, I would have enjoyed the film more because my memory would have filled in the gaps that were lacking.

I just finished reading the book, but haven't seen the film. I was actually checking online to see if a film version HAD been made, so thanks for that info. Based upon your description of the film, it seems that the overall "feel" matches that of the book -- moving around a lot, not getting to know the characters too well, a Cliff Notes version. It was definitely predictable, not only with the ending, but also with the story's "wrap-up". For some reason, it seems that her books do end rather quickly and tidily, in my opinion. They have nice backgrounds & buildups, and the climaxes are satisfying , but the endings seem to always have very little dialogue and a lot of explanation. I understand that, at the time these books were written, it was far more popular to have happy endings than not, so maybe I'm a bit jaded, in that respect. I did, however, enjoy the book, as I've enjoyed her others. The reason I'm drawn to them is that they are so proper and pure. It's a wonderful change from all the blatant sexuality & violence in books & films today (I like love stories to be about love and not about sex). I can't really suggest that you take the time to re-read the book, though, unless you're planning on taking a cross-country flight or need some light reading while at the beach. It's not a page-turner, but it is a good, solid read when you want something calm & quiet to help pass the time.

[sciencefan]

I just finished reading the book, but haven't seen the film. I was actually checking online to see if a film version HAD been made, so thanks for that info. Based upon your description of the film, it seems that the overall "feel" matches that of the book -- moving around a lot, not getting to know the characters too well, a Cliff Notes version. It was definitely predictable, not only with the ending, but also with the story's "wrap-up". For some reason, it seems that her books do end rather quickly and tidily, in my opinion. They have nice backgrounds & buildups, and the climaxes are satisfying , but the endings seem to always have very little dialogue and a lot of explanation. I understand that, at the time these books were written, it was far more popular to have happy endings than not, so maybe I'm a bit jaded, in that respect. I did, however, enjoy the book, as I've enjoyed her others. The reason I'm drawn to them is that they are so proper and pure. It's a wonderful change from all the blatant sexuality & violence in books & films today (I like love stories to be about love and not about sex). I can't really suggest that you take the time to re-read the book, though, unless you're planning on taking a cross-country flight or need some light reading while at the beach. It's not a page-turner, but it is a good, solid read when you want something calm & quiet to help pass the time.

I agree with you about the "innocuous" nature of Austen's books. That's why I like them.

Emma is on PBS tonight at 9 PM eastern time!

[MARIANNE M]

I also read the book before wayching the film and the part of Cap. Wentworth's letter was amazing.
I love her other novels and in a whole my favorite is P&P but this part caused a real impact on me.
All films show Anne somewhat melancolic, sad and sometimes boring. I know she's shy but although I like these films I don't think they really showed her character.

[kiki1982]

This adaptation doesn't cease to amaze me... I am at part 5 of 10 (?) on YouTube and I was already induced to switch off twice. Nevertheless I want to watch it.

It totally passes me how they made it a drama/tragedy rather than a satirical acccount where you laugh your head off with the Elliots and with the Crofts (no, no, we'll hit the post! ).

That book was so sparkling with wit, and this... Mary is too sad, not funny enough, Mr and Mrs Musgrove not gay enough. The two Miss Musgroves are too annoying and not lovely enough, and Anne, well... She is supposed to be someone strong, someone who keeps her head cool in all circumstances, who does not shrink from Wentworth once the worst is over. Once she knows that he is indifferent. She was persuaded by Lady Russell because she saw the foly of what sh was going to do. Until the las conversation between Mrs Croft and Mrs Musgrove on long engagements, both Anne and Wentworth do not understand why people did not wat hem to be together. When they are both hearing it, they suddenly see that it was for the best that Lady Russell acted. He though her weak, but in fact she was a very determined girl, and still is 8 years later. In this version she just wallows in self-pity. This Anne would be the Anne Wentworth would truly despise. This Anne lets her happiness depend on others, not on herself and she does not display any strength.

1995 was the adaptation, everything that was in the book, was there, or nearly. (Apart from the scheme of Mr Elliot)

They also totally destroyed the end. Where that was in the book and in the adatation of 1995 the most profound and symbolical, they decided to put it in the Lyme-section. They also stole two scenes of the 1995-adaptation: the commission of Admiral Croft and the kiss in the end. Although Hinds as Wentworth did that same kiss of normality much better than this Wentworth.

Austen is no tragedy, Austen is fun. How can you possibly make such a boring piece of drama out of it?