Anne is Austin’s most sincere and soft hearted heroine, you don’t go heavy handed with the snark and entitlement when playing her. Seeing the trailer was a real, “show me you don't understand Persuasion without telling me you don’t understand Persuasion” moment. At least we have the 1995 adaptation which I adore.
Please ACTUALLY watch the movie. she might have a few humorous or quipped line but she was so refreshingly sweet and kind to people. She was selfless and caring and that wasn’t villainized like all the “strong female character” roles that come out today. I really don’t understand how people are so quick to form an opinion on something if they haven’t taken the time to actually know what they’re talking about. Watch it first. Then you can have any opinion you want.
@octaviawinter9768 I've seen it. Anyone who has read the novel feel a bit put out by the characterisation in this adaptation. However, I loved the costuming and don't agree with the reviewer on that account.
@@9000ck i think the conversation becomes dull when people start to compare the source material with the story given. The show Wednesday for example is completely different than previous adaptions but its entirely self contained and well done. Different doesn’t mean bad, and i think its already a losing game once you begin a movie with a comparison. I watched the movie without reading the book which I’m certain is great. My not having that other story in my mind was what was able to make my viewing solely on the merit of the movie. I’m someone who often likes the source material more so i totally understand that point, but once i go into an adaption i try to erase the original from my mind, which is something i think people need to do more. I’m sure that when those adaptions were made, they were met with the same pushback. It always happens that way.
modern entertainment media seems to want to erase gentle characters. Especially if the character is female. But that's the charm of Austin's work is that most of us ladies aren't so confident in ourselves, and seeing that kind of character still come out the other side with a happy ending is encouraging.
That is a very sweeping statement and one that can be countered with numerous examples. Lets start with Ted Lasso, visit Hagrid for a while, Buddy the left, Belle from Beauty and the Beast, Amelie, Ada from Cold Mountain, any of the Little Women, Sabrina, Tara from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. A plethora of gentle characters exist in film and TV, it's just seems that you are the one erasing their existence, not modern entertainment.
This is true only if you have a strict diet of Disney (MCU, Star Wars) and DC Warner Brothers products. I understand where you're coming from, but Waymond from Everything Everywhere All At Once is a gentle hero. Even the daughter sought out gentleness before turning into Jobu Tupaki. Every one of the Little Women's most recent adaptation by Greta Gerwig. Marriage Story's Nicole is neither physically nor emotionally strong, she's very humane, but she's a hero. Millie Rusk in Free Guy has her power fantasy as Molotov Girl, but in real life, she's just a normal person who happens to be good at programming. She doesn't kick ass like Trinity in The Matrix, but she's her own kind of awesome. I understand where you're coming from, but look away from the franchises and you'll see gentle and kind people doing heroic things, even in Hollywood movies.
I have to make a slight cultural correction, Anne Elliot does not make her own living not because she has no practical skills or no skills at all, she's extremely educated given her station, she wouldn't be doing labored work but she has the skills to be a governess or tutor of some kind or a paid "lady's companion", the problem lies with her station, she is a Baronet's daughter, and back then, a daughter from that station, meaning a daughter of a nobleman, was NOT ALLOWED to make an independent living,
Yes, she would have no marketable skill except probably spinning (literally the reason behind the term "spinster" being applied to old single ladies). But also, it's not that she is "not allowed" but that it s socially unacceptable. Labor, work, is undignified and demeaning. The rich (even men) only receive incomes from their lands and investments. They do not work for pay.
A baronet is, technically, not a noblemen (peer), but a gentleman (landed gentry), even though it is hereditary. The title in his present form was invented in the 17th century by King James I. to raise funds, because he sold those titles. It is one of the subtle jokes of Jane Austen, that Sir Walter (not Lord Walter) is so infatuated with the grandness of his title, even though it is not even a peerage and was just bought by one of his ancestors. (Dr. Octavia Cox has a great video about this "What is a Baronetcy") But, yes, the rest of your post of course applies to the gentleman's daughter just as it does to the nobleman's, you are totally right.
@@i.b.640Thanks for pointing this out. This explains the line that says that Anne had never seen her father in contact with the nobility and was disgusted by his fawning over the Hon Lady Darlymple. And yes, I love Dr Octavia Cox!
@@sweetnighter72 In the book, it's obvious it's all about money, you may have have a title, a large house with no money, and be a snob. Anne, is the spare, not expected to have the great match, but a navel officer with no money and perhaps ordinary manners and no connections to society is not good enough. If you can find it Jullian Fellows (Downtown Abbey) book Posh gives a modern take on the English upper classes. As a maiden aunt you would be expected to be useful, to earn your keep, but at the same time working, unless you were a novelist, usually in secret, was just not the done thing if you had a social station to keep. Most of JA plots are based on money, usually the lack of, because that is what she saw in real life.
In my opinion, they tried to recreate the magic of Emma (2020), but it didn't work because Emma is a satire and Persuasion is not. All of Austen's books have elements of satire of course, and there are plenty of those present in Persuasion. But the heart of the book is one of the most serious and least satirical books Austen wrote. Anne, in particular, is not a satirized protagonist. There's nothing funny about her or her situation. The same cannot be said of Emma and her rich girl antics. It's why Clueless works, and why Emma 2020 works, but this Persuasion fell flat on its face. (That and poor writing...)
Netflix's depiction of strong female characters: women are awesome just by being women, they can do no wrong, they need no one, they can do anything just by being women, they always know what to do, they have no weaknesses
The 1995 version of Persuasion is my favorite. Amanda Root IS Anne Elliot. After watching Dakota Johnson TRY to be Anne Eliot, I had to watch the Amanda Root film to try to unsee the monstrosity of the Netflix version.
actually mine is 2007. It even got me intrested in the story and Persuasion is now my top JA story next to PP. Dont want to and wont watch the netflix one.
I stopped watching the Netflix version after five minutes. You can’t get time back after all. And like Kelly Reilly as Caroline Bingley wearing a sequined dress without sleeves in the 2005 P&P, a failure to be faithful to the basics of character and era is just the kiss of death to a period drama. It’s why the “sequel” to P&P (Death Comes to Pemberley) was ghastly. Elizabeth was reduced to a rumpled mess riddled with self-doubts. Awful, just awful.
Yes, the admiral line is what got me, too. As a woman who has served at sea, I really don’t think someone with this character’s temperament would be well suited for life at sea (let alone a command position), even in the modern day - which is, needless to say, much less difficult than it would have been in the 19th Century. The problem is that the writers of this type of heroine tend to confuse sassiness with strength. Those two things are not the same - and, in my experience, it is the quiet and dutiful people who often make the best officers.
Completely agree! In any command or management position, someone who's always having to assert their own personality & rightness like Netflix!Anne & who has that few constructive coping strategies is, in my own personal experience, just a complete pain in the neck! 😬
@@i.b.640 that is such a good observation. I see a bit of myself in that too. I mean, there is a lot of sass in me and I like it, but at the same time I know that I'm much more vulnerable and soft inside than most people think. So the sass is a bit of a cover to hide behind in social circumstances.
@@AW-uv3cb I like my sass, too, and as long as I live in an imperfect world with an imperfect psyche, it is and will be my greatest ally. I just... know where it comes from.
I only made it about 20 minutes into the Netflix version. Persuasion is my favorite Austen story. What struck me with the Netflix version is that it appeared to me that they were trying to give Anne the personality of Elizabeth Bennet, which of course changes Anne at a fundamental level. After viewing this and seeing how the entire thing played out, I owe Elizabeth Bennet an apology.
I haven’t watched it because I feared it might be like that: a warped, 21st-century caricature of Elizabeth Bennet stuck in the Persuasion storyline because the creators don’t actually like Anne Eliot. Which is such a shame-both women show amazing strength, but in very different ways. Anne’s strength is more interior and subtle, and it is insulting to hear how it has been dismissed within her own story.
@@Echo-mg5em Exactly! I had that feeling too, that the writers didn't actually like Anne. Characters with subtle strength and gentle personalities are so rarely protagonists and as a writer myself I understand why it can be difficult to have a story led by such a character. What I don't understand is why you would choose to adapt Persuasion if you don't think you can write a character like Anne without completely overhauling her personality. Boggles the mind!!
I made it ten more minutes than you. I stopped when she was insensitive to Charles Musgrove in front of their family and friends. That is just not what Anne is like, and with that drastic alteration, I couldn't handle seeing them destroy anything else.
My favorite is "Clueless". I read "Emma" and saw the movie with Gweneth Paltrow. What folks miss or forget about Jane is much of what she wrote was commentary on the social environment of the time. Much of her writing was tongue-in-cheek...poking fun, ribbing. Clueless caught the ridiculousness of Emma's basic premise and the unpredictability of humans in love. Take Jane too seriously and you miss the fun.
Omg i forgot about that. Really loved that movie. And i watched it before i read emma. And then i rewatched after reading it and it was even more delightful
you're one of the only people who has actually been bold enough to call anne an alcoholic (which she is) and that was one of my major gripes with this adaptation. the wine-guzzling one-liner dropping snarky heroine being seen as #relatable is so concerning particularly for the normalization of this kind of drinking. idk why but it feels like the complete lack of self awareness of the director (especially in interviews) is the exact thing jane austen would make fun of if she were writing today and I mean that with full offense
If I was to go by what this movie sounds like, (and the other movies your video invokes in my mind) I think this mess comes from the evolution of what "virtue" is now, especially amonst people who consider themselves to be witty and sophistocated. A lot of us insist that we don't go in for old-fashioned morality, as it's too religious and tied to corrupt systems, but still want to be validated constantly for just doing whatever the bare minimun is and sharing the same opinion as everyone else. "Are you a hot mess who gets drunk everyday just to cope with a comfortable middle-class life? How relatable! Are you non-social and condescending? Well, it must be because everyone around you is an insufferable fool! Do you do absolutely nothing to change your life for the better? Don't panic, you just haven't met 'The One' yet! Have you often told yourself that, if you lived in the past, you would've been inexplicably woke? We bet you're right!" When movies and television try to validate an audience they don't understand by adapting material they understand even less, they can be very awkward and irrational. The only virtue one need have in such a film is the virtue of being modern.
All this, plus the sad and depressing fact that all the hysterical self-affirmation that passes for ethics today, and prides itself to have overcome the need for 'virtue', is perfectly compatible with the utter corruption of the present world, something 'virtue' never was with (and within) its own corrupt world. This is what annoys me the most about these awful 'updated' versions of 19th c. novels. They are simply affirming present narcissistic attitudes (i.e., 'our world is the best possible world') by completely eliminating the language and ideas (the profound flesh) of the novel and replacing them with some shallow miming of present attitudes in costume. I, for one, was very happy to see that the Netflix version did not even appeal to those the makers of this annoying, silly, clueless anti-Austin version of 'Persuasion' thought it would.
They wanted Anne to be cool and quippy like Elizabeth Bennet, but like you say Lizzie Bennett was wrong about everything and had to be humbled in order to move forward. Makes for a uninteresting character if she is snarky and virtuous at the same time, never having to learn or change.
To be fair, in Pride and Prejudice, both Elizabeth and Darcy went through character development. He realised that his behaviour towards her had been ‘ungentlemanlike,’ and apologised unreservedly.
On the subject of wentworth's point about his wife having to struggle with his absence because of his job, that's a valid concern. My man has the kind of job where he's often away, and it is a struggle. I have friends who can't/won't go more than a week without seeing their partner, and mine is sometimes gone months on end. Wentworth acknowledged the sacrifice his future wife would have to make and attempted to sympathize with that sacrifice.
They had to redo Persuasion because the original had people who looked like normal people and not movie stars, and you can't have people looking like normal people anymore.
I feel like it’s especially sad they chose to do this for Persuasion. Written by Austen because of her niece’s own circumstances at being unmarried in her late 20s and the man she loved being a self made man. To me it always felt so personal to the author and is really about Austen’s own change in attitudes towards class differences. My favourite adaptation will always be 1995’s Pride and Prejudice. I consider it one of the most faithful book to screen adaptations of all time. So many stumble trying to balance Austen’s sincerity, her flair for the dramatic and her humour.
i wish i could be a fly on the wall for the production meetings that decide on all these reboots, adaptations and franchises lately.. it seems like the people responsible for them are deliberately trying to destroy and besmirch everything they touch.. I wonder if in their conversations the people responsible openly plot how denigrate the original work, or if in their hubris and lack of self awareness they truly believe they are improving the originals
@@GuillhezI have been in these meetings (for other shows) as a subordinate, so I can speak to this. Your second point hit the nail on the head: hubris, lack of self awareness, incompetence about story-crafting and the interiority of humans, along with an obsession with surface level details of what they “think” is popular while also appearing virtuous. And the extra kick in the face regarding the Persuasion adaptation? The “lesson” they would take if it fails to meet their projected number of viewings is that Jane Austen is not profitable- *not* that their bulldozing changes to strip the character of who she fundamentally was the problem that caused the audience to dislike it. Time and time again they prove that they don’t understand character, which my fellow subordinate colleagues and I find bizarre since this whole industry is about characters. The approach of network executives in American media is so much more depressing than the general public realizes. The things this video excellently points out? The sad thing is that it probably didn’t cross their minds at all that the executives didn’t get it, that they’re butchering the character.
What was lost? Intelligence, brilliant language, subtle humor, beauty, thoughtful self reflection, I just don’t love any of the newer adaptations. There’s no depth and the idea we truly understand people from this era is just silly. I feel the same about the newer iterations of Poirot by Agatha Christie as well. Why fix what isn’t broken?!
Absolutely agree! I’ve been a Christie fan for years, and was so disappointed to see the newer adaptations of Murder on the Orient Express and-oh the horror-Death on the Nile. It’s an utter slap in the face to the masterpieces that are those two novels.
Please ACTUALLY watch the movie. she might have a few humorous or quipped line but she was so refreshingly sweet and kind to people. She was selfless and caring and that wasn’t villainized like all the “strong female character” roles that come out today. I really don’t understand how people are so quick to form an opinion on something if they haven’t taken the time to actually know what they’re talking about. Watch it first. Then you can have any opinion you want.
The historical context is a fundamental aspect of the appeal. Jane Austen was a realist, which you can't miss in her writing, simply changing stuff randomly doesn't usually bode well for any production. *You need to respect the source material*
@@Echo-mg5em counterexample, the lizzy bennet diaries! They changed the setting compleatly, but they kept to what the story actually is about better then most adaptions out there. Like they do not try to go for a marriage proposal that would make no sense nower days, but thought about what it actually ment and did at that time to come up with something that does make sense nowerdays. Pride and prejudice is like all of her writings a morality tale and they kept true to those morals and even found ways to have it make even more of an impact. Everyone knows she is wrong about darcy, but while focusing on that one might miss, she is also wrong about lydia. It is so easy to fall into the trap of Lydia being just her annoying younger sister she is right to loath . . . . until its to late. In the book and most adaptions, Lydia and what happens between her and wickham is an obstacle, and inconvinience to others . . . but in lbd it is a tragedy! Lizzys pride and prejudice does not just cost her a good man there, it almost costs her her sister which makes it hit so much harder and its the exact same flaws that lead to both and overcoming them prevents it in the end. one can really tell, that the maker of lbd, did respect and apriciate jane austens writing!
@@SingingSealRianaYES!!! I was terrified when I first heard of LBD because of the combination of American *plus* modern. But it was done SOOOO well. They really thought about the core of Austen's lessons, and translated those into a modern setting. Like instead making it about marriage with Mr Collins, it was about a job and about that Lizzy had the privilege of being able to hold out and not be a "sell out", but Charlotte didn't have that privilege, and she took the offer and made it work for the best for her.
If they wanted to do a modern version of Persuasion, why did they not do what they did with "The Taming of The Shrew" when they made "Ten Things I Hate About You." That's basically the Taming of the Shrew, modernized. They even used the same character's names. WHY does Shakespeare receive that kind of respect, but not Austen? Why?
Maybe because Ten Things and Clueless had the flawed heroines instead of the virtuous heroines. Is it uncomfortable for us now to have this kind of heroine?
My view of this adaptation of Persuasion is basically in the "uncanny valley" of movie adaptations. It's not like Clueless or Bridget Jones, where they did a full on modern setting, and changed the characters and situations accordingly. Instead, this persuasion kept the time period, but still altered the characters to fit the modern view of how women should be, so it ended up just looking jarring and unpleasent. It's like it tried to do too many things and ended up not doing anything well.
One of the strengths in Austen’s body of work is the wide range of heroines she has created for us to admire: many of her readers can see themselves and the people they know in the protagonists, the love interests, and the people they encounter. If you don’t see yourself in Elizabeth Bennet, you might find a sense of connection in her sister Jane’s forbearance; in Marianne Dashwood’s passions; in Catherine Morland’s wayward instincts. Her ability to create such interesting women without sacrificing nuance or falling into archetypes is remarkable. And it is exactly that talent which some recent adaptations are unwilling to honor. This modern insinuation, bordering on insistence, that every classic literary heroine must be reimagined as an increasingly unvaried variation of 21st-century girl boss sensibility flattens Austen’s intricate storytelling. I think they are making the mistake of assuming that all of her protagonists would be better if they were more like the most famous one, Elizabeth Bennet-they must all be witty and sharp in their remarks, bold in their challenges. The reality is that not all women are like that, or want to be like that, and that there is more than one way to be a great heroine. I appreciate your singling out Anne Eliot and Fanny Price for defense-the recent craze for making these women a shade snarkier, more athletic, less quiet, seems to diminish the idea of a quiet strength. It’s almost as if these filmmakers dislike these heroines and, thinking they know better than Austen, are endeavoring to fit these very different ladies into a more familiar mould. We can only ask why they would bother with material they’re unsatisfied with, why they don’t just come up with their own stories (the cynical reason being that they’re trading on Austen’s name, even if they aren’t honoring her letter). And we can only hope they’ll get bored with this unsustainable system and move on, leaving Jane Austen alone and to people who don’t feel like they have to change her stories utterly in order to appeal to the modern crowd.
Jane Austin's outstanding dialogue gets lost, and this story is nothing without it. Her wit was the lightning they aren't even trying to catch in a bottle.
Not sure why this video appeared on my homepage, but I'm glad it did. Your analysis is spot on, and perfectly exemplifies the disease in modern screenwriting: characters without character. This is especially true of female protagonists, who apparently just need to discover their own greatness and have it acknowledged by everyone else - as if this is some kind of crowning conclusion to a character arc. It's so boring, and so ubiquitous that I simply don't bother watching new adaptations of classics any longer (or any new mainstream films or series at all for that matter). What strikes me about Austen's characters - both women and men - is that they are so thoroughly relatable, despite the difference in historical context. Her observation and analysis of humans as social beings is, IMHO, why she is firmly lodged in the literary canon. By diluting the richness and complexities in her characters, one dulls the illumination by which we recognise ourselves... and therefore nullify Austen's genius.
Northanger Abbey 2007 with JJ Feild and Felicity Jones is my favorite Jane Austen adaptation. To me, this movie captures the spirit of Jane's young, naive heroine. JJ Feild as Mr. Tilney falls for Catherine's genuine good nature, even though she has some wild imaginings. Both Catherine and Henry grow and come to necessary realizations. This story is simple and sweet and this couple is delightful! I fall in love with Mr. Feild each time I watch this movie!
Thank you - you not only captured the spirit of one of my favourite authors, you saved me from the horror of one day stumbling over this Netflix abomination and thinking "Eh, I'll give it a go - how bad can it be?" I look forward to watching more of your work.
your lucky that you skipped it. I watched this absolute dumpster fire of a"film" and I will never recover. I had to rewatch the 1995 Amanda Root film in order to cleanise my soul again.
I watched this yesterday and vented to my poor husband (who has learned to love Pride and Prejudice, but not the other Austen books... yet) and he asked if we could finish dinner now lol 😅
The thing is, it looks like the kind of movie that some people probably would have enjoyed just fine....if it wasn't being marketed as an adaptation of Persuasion. They so clearly wanted to make something that ISN'T Persuasion. And that's fine. But then they should have just....made something other than Persuasion. People aren't going to enjoy an adaptation that fails to convey what it claims to be adapting.
I think exactly the same. Thank goodness I watched this video before stumbling across the Netflick. Thank you a million times for saving me from that. As said above, make a film as a film please please do not attempt an adaptation which flies in the face of everything my favourite author conveyed in this splendid novel... It is truly one of her best and characters are such a great part of JA writings, don't change what is so so well written already. Just don't do that! There is absolutely no need
Wow, you explained this So Well. You captured the essence of Anne and Elinor and Fanny: quiet endurance. This was a virtue much needed by disadvantaged women in Austen's time, and is much denigrated now. Why is fortitude dismissed currently? All modern heroines have the feisty, rebellious nature that is currently fashionable, which results in 21st-century women being forced into 18th-century stories. And the result is always a mess.
OMG! I had no idea they did this! Thank you. I don't even need to watch now. Comparing to this 'Anne' even Lidiya Bennet looks like calm, collected, sensible and well mannered.
I love your analysis. The thing that stood out the most to me about the Netflix Anne was the heavy alcohol consumption. They portray Anne as basically an alcoholic, drinking wine by herself from the bottle and wallowing in self pity. It's almost as if Netflix is promoting and normalising heavy drinking to young women. Dodgy af.
This is especially bad when you realize consuming alcohol excessively is extremely dangerous. We should teach both men and women temperance. It is a virtue I've noticed most neglect despite it being one of the best if not *the* best virtue since it teaches self-restraint and balance
I agree with your hypothesis. If you've ever seen Cuties or Black Mirror, we're being indoctrinated with every single programme we watch. Society is changing because the writers do this. That's why it requires great discernment. I have had to remove indoctrination from my university years and from reading and watching things at school. It's insidious ❤
This seems to be an insightful look into Jane Austen's actual writing as opposed to whatever that is Netflix attempted to do in 2022. I haven't seen it myself. I couldn't get past the trailer. Persuasion is one of my favorites of her stories, and I couldn't see the character in the trailer as Anne Elliot, even in the small glimpse that provides. I think I'd rather just read the book again, or watch one of the older adaptations.
Now everyone can see how opera lovers feel when they encounter a weird contemporary production that lays an idiotic interface over a traditional libretto and music.
There’s nothing wrong with making a character witty, sly, clever, and openly fed up with society and how they treat her due to her social class and family without turning her into an angry feminazi - just like there’s nothing wrong with a character being compassionate, kind, soft, gentle, while also fed up with how society treats her without looking like a doormat. In turning Anne into a mixture of Bridget Jones and Elizabeth Bennett, they missed the point of who Anne is as a person and what she grew to be and why the book had the introspection of someone who has grown older.
It's my favourite JA, I managed to watch 1Ep, and they completely missed out that she was a put upon maiden aunt, even in some countries now you're on the shelf at 25yrs,or not expected to marry well. Appeared too sharp, too clever, the asides to camera to knowing. JA observations are pointed and sharp, but it's more Miss Marple, than The Office. The sweetness of the whole JA plot is she is chosen over younger more vibrant young women, he sees her value and caring, even though she had let him go before due to family pressure.. The BBC 1991 version with , Amanda Root, Ciarn Hinds, Susan Fleetwood, Corin Redgrave, is my favourite.
That BBC's 1991 film of 'Persuasion' is a lesson on how to 'do' Austin. The spirit and heft of the novel was very well fleshed out. Amanda Root set the mould for all subsequent Anne Elliots. I simply bow to her interpretation (and would have also loved to have seen her play Jayne Eyre). Ciáran Hinds is the definitive Wentworth (and eye-candy without being Hollywoodified). And is if those two were not enough, we have the two 'monstres sacrés', now both sadly gone, Susan Fleetwood and Corin Redgrave who manage to shine brightly within an amazing and razor-sharp accurate (in understanding and interpreting the novel) acting cast. Netflix could have done with a study of this film since the novel seems to be so beyond their reach.
@@allegory6393 If you want to delve in to the mists of time, there is a 1971 version with Anne Firbank and Brian Marshal, he looks like he has been in the navy and as a teenager he was my crush, so much I can still remember whole scenes. It's dated directing wise but still worth a look on the 'tube.
I love Ann’s growth too. She doubts her own self but because she hold firm to her values she finds value in herself and you see that in her confidence affect her physical beauty. She realizes she still has something to offer. She still can be a partner to the love of her life.
Thank you for vocalizing what I felt when I watched the Netflix Persuasion. The Netflix Anne was not Anne Elliot. The Netflix Persuasion felt like someone was trying to satire Austen rather than try to actually share the story. For example, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" compared to Shakespeare's "Hamlet". The Netflix version was more like "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" in that the screenwriter and director turn the story on its head and tell an entirely different one with caricatures instead of people. Jane Austen created believable people which is evidenced by how her books have continued to live through the centuries. The Netflix Persuasion played like fan fiction. Austen's Anne Elliot was not the self-centered, sarcastic, mentally weak woman that was the Netflix Anne. Anne Elliot had quiet strength and patient endurance. Austen's heroines each demonstrate different kinds of strength. Anne Elliot had tremendous inner strength. She was surrounded by selfish narcissists and she did not become like them or bitter from their treatment of her. She was not a victim. She worked with what she had in the world she lived in.
My favorite line in 1995 Persuasion is after all the people are telling Anne their problems, and she finally sits down, presumably to have a spot of tea and a moment to herself, and Charles sits next to her, turns to her with a sigh, and says, "Oh, Anne." I burst out laughing. It was so perfect! And, of course, I love Anne Elliott. I love all of Jane Austen's heroines. However, my favorite is actually Fanny Price. I love the way she survives years of abuse, as well as a more-than-usual fragile body, all while maintaining a heart of gold and a spine of steel, when it comes to doing what is RIGHT. She'll bend over backward, she'll take the heat to protect her cousins from the consequences of their own folly, but she will NOT marry a man whom she knows is a philanderer. The only reason she does not tell her uncle her reason (his philandering) is because that would make her cousins look bad, and she won't betray them like that, even though they'd throw her under the bus in a heartbeat. And, if Mr. Crawford had been true, and patient, and waited for Edmund to win over Miss Crawford, he would have won her heart, at last, because, as a Christian, she knows about redemption and forgiveness, and would have supported the man in his redemption arc, once her heart was no longer free to hope. She would have given up all hope of Edmund, once he was married, and she was not free even to dream of him (it would have been a mortal sin, and she would have exerted her mind over her heart, because of that). And without the dream of Edmund, and with some proof of constancy and moral improvement in Mr. Crawford, she would have learned to love Mr. Crawford with all her heart. Unfortunately, the egos of Mariah and Mr. Crawford got in the way.
It's not so much as she WON'T throw Maria and Julia under the bus...it's mostly because she CAN'T. Class and rank mattered during that era. She's the poor relation. She literally has no power, thus is compelled to walk on eggshells whilst living with her wealthy relatives. Mansfield Park not only explores manners vs morality, but also class disparity.
Great analysis. I love your three favorite Jane Austen films. Also the four-part Emma with Romola Garai and Jonnie Lee Miller. As an example of updating Austen while keeping the spirit and sense of the book I like Clueless.
I love the 1995 Persuasion and also the one with Sally Hawkins. I barely got through the trailer for the Netflix version. I’m such a purist though, I gave up on P&P with Kiera Knightly when Lady Catherine came in the middle of the night. Her character would’ve NEVER done that.
Same here. I *DESPISED* P&P 2005. I facepalmed when Darcy yells at Lizzy about her family's impropriety, but in the following scene proceeds to barge into her room IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT whilst she's in HER NIGHTGOWN...displaying a complete LACK OF PROPRIETY! And she just stands there completely unconcerned! JFC!! 🙄🤦♀The 2005 version was such a train wreck.
Completely agree with you. I watched the movie and by the end knew something was wrong when I was hoping Captain Wentworth would marry Louisa Musgrove or that Charles Musgrove had been fortunate to have married Mary.
This adaptation was trying to capitalize off of the popularity of Bridgerton. What the producers did not understand is that what makes Bridgeton popular was that it is built on anachronistic tropes, wardrobes, and social mores. It was clearly a fantasy set in an alternate universe Regency England where black people were common in the British aristocracy, contemporary music exists, and there are even poly-blend dress fabrics. Persuasion was watchable if you don't compare it to its source material. I didn't have high expectations for it. But I have to say this was one of the worst Austen adaptations
I came for the movie critique and stayed for your wonderful insights on Jane Austen’s writing and heroines. I only ever read Pride and Prejudice but am now going to pick up her other novels.
I'll admit that I never clicked with Anne (or Fanny), but even I couldn't stomach more than 20 minutes of the Netflix version. It's astounding how they managed to get rid of the thing that makes Austen's novels timeless. Namely being well-written and relatable. My favourite adaptions are '95 Pride and Prejudice and '87 Northanger Abbey
Wonderful analysis. You did the Netflix version justice. I hated it. I do think they were trying to do a modern rom com using Jane Austen's characters. I would have much rather they did a completely new version like Clueless.
With Austen adaptaions, I find the biggest clue to its faithfulness to source material is the leading lady's hairstyle. While historically accurate hair isn't necessary, I have yet to see a decent adaptation where the heroine is running around with her hair down or loose for a substantial amount of time. Netflix's 'Persuasion' follows this trend as well.
Great video! One of the things that annoyed me the most about the 2022 attempt at a movie adaptation of Persuasion is that it displayed a basic misunderstanding of all human interactions. I will never understand how anyone working professionally with storytelling can have gotten by in the industry without understanding that interactions between people rest completely on who those people actually are and how they behave. For the people behind the 2022 Netflix adaptation to treat a story that has been carefully put together by a master of storytelling with the level of contempt they did is embarrassing. How could they not understand that you can't just change the entirety of the main character and simply claim that everything would still happen in the same way around them? I have no problem accepting that this happens when teenagers start dabbling with writing fanfiction but that professional screenwriters/directors/producers can make the same mistakes with a multimillion dollar production is thoroughly absurd.
I love the (book) Persuasion. It might be my favorite Austen. But I never expect modern adaptations to treat their source materials properly. Modern "sensibilities" are so arrogantly convinced that they are right that they never seem to ponder the perspectives of the past properly, and they seem so complacent that they don't recognize the error. Thank you for this brilliant analysis and correction. I tend to watch modern adaptations just for fun and try to forget that they are trying to be adaptations.
Austen has withstood the test of time because while she has so many character arcs and that clever, scathing wit, but her characters are still GOOD. Fanny is a virtuous hero, but she still has a character arc (honestly my favorite of her books) in maturing and growing more confident, self-assured, and certain of her values, without ever betraying them or losing her soft spoken personality. Anne has already gone through this before the novel. And fundamentally, Darcy and Elizabeth are both good people, but flawed, and have to face their flaws before they are ready to love and be loved. It’s a distinction we often lose in more contemporary fiction. Often characters who are supposed to be morally gray still fall into pretty black and white boxes, and no one’s actually a good person, and the Good characters are unrealistic, unchanging paragons you can’t relate to. Jane Austen never went the “gray” route. Her characters are colorful in the best and worst ways and that’s why I’ll always love her.
I tried to give the netflix version a go, before this essay I might add, and I couldn't make it through. Anne was instantly unlikable as a character, however I would've enjoyed following along on a redemption arc with character growth, as you mention at the end - then she would've become very much relatable. We all know how it feels when we would rather lash out and be cruel, then be compassionate or at least stick to your own values on who you want to be and how you want to treat others. Great video!
TRUE! I watched the Amanda Root's version and LOVED IT! Then I tried watching Netflix's Persuasion and I couldn't make it through after 15 mins. The Anne's character is annoying and trying to be the 'Ms Know-It-All' and a crybaby. A far cry of what she should be. She thinks that she has it worse than every one.
In the 90’s, when they actually cared about proper costuming and interpreting nuance in historical films…(cough cough…Little Women….) I thought they’d get better in time but….they’ve started just dumping on every historical drama.
I'm not sure if you've ever heard of "A Little Princess". It was one of my favourite books as a child. I learned they made a movie of it, so I watched it and it has almost all of the issues you talk about in this video. The main character is called Sara Crewe. She's just a child and incredibly wealthy, indulged by her loving father. Most other children who see her feel jealous when they look at her extravagant wardrobe. But they love her too soon when they speak to her. She's gentle, smart, clever, humble, generous, hardworking, persistent, optimistic, and extremely elegant, especially for a child. Ignoring the storyline, the movie is almost opposite when it comes to her personality. Movie Sara is loud, seems spoiled, is a bully, and just very dislikable. I was so disappointed in this movie (1995) for portraying her in this manner. I can only guess that the people who like it have never read the book.
What an interesting insight on Mansfield Park, that the other characters represent the 7 deadly sins to Fanny's virtue! Now I have to figure out who is who; we have pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth. As you mentioned, Dr. Grant is gluttony, Lady Bertram is sloth. I guess Sir Thomas would be pride, and Maria and Julia have a lot of that, too. Sir Thomas and his son Tom could be greed, Sir Thomas greedy for more money, and Tom for drink, gaming, any pleasures. Henry Crawford and Maria are lust, Fanny's parents have several--lust (all those children!), sloth, and envy, wrath for her dad. Mrs. Norris is wrath and envy (and probably a couple more). Mary Crawford is too proud to marry a lowly minister, and is greedy for more money and position in society. Rushworth is pride (stupidity isn't one of the 7 deadly sins, LOL), and I guess we have to say that Edmund is temporarily lust? Fanny's siblings are a mixed bag, with Betsy being greed and envy, Susan wrath, and William? He's pretty perfect, like Fanny!
I’m always baffled by people who hate Fanny Price because she’s “too good.” Sir Thomas and Edmund are mixtures of vice/virtue, and therefore redeemable, as ultimately they both are, by coming to understand Fanny’s steadfastness against the potential marriage.
Easy: Sloth- Lady Bertram Wrath- Sir Thomas. He was furious when coming back he found out about rehearsal for the play. He got angry when Fanny rejected Henry Crawford’s proposal. Lust - Henry Crawford Envy - Julia. She was jealous of her sister Maria who had an affair with Henry Crawford. Greed - Ms Norris. It’s described in the book. Gluttony - Tom Bertram. Had a drinking problem. Pride - Maria. She didn’t call off her wedding with a man she didn’t love out of pride.
I don’t think that Fanny’s parents having lots of children is evidence of lust. People back then didn’t really have effective contraceptive methods and some couples are naturally more fertile than others. Also, back then it was illegal for a woman to refuse her husband his “conjugal rights”. Yeah, that’s why women needed to the right to vote.
I love Persuasion with Amanda Root. I love Anne's story. I love the time, manners, culture, etc... that Jane Austen gave us. Having said that...I absolutely hated the netflix version of Persuasion. If they wanted to put it in a modern setting, I may have liked it more but the dialogue, costumes, hair, etc...the way they walked and talked and then putting some - wonderful - actors here where if they were modern it would be ok but in 18-- England??? Very strange and off looking. I just found this channel today. Very good. I subscribed.
Nah but see, Clueless was a great adaptation of Emma because it kept to the soul of the novel, it kept all the traits and humor that were the most important. The new Persuasion was just…like did they even /read/ the novel?
A well made video I stumbled upon. Thank you for helping me expand my own line of argument, why this version was a disaster, so eloquently! I really like this idea of balancing out the picture through her friend Mrs. Smith. After watching the Netflix version, my first thought was, how they wanted to modernize her character so desperately (such a mediocre standard move nowadays) that they completely forgot that a story also needs to make sense. :D As you said, it's really more of a wish-fullfillment thing now. For what the creators think modern women daydreaming of gentlemen sweeping them away are like, I guess.
Fabulous video. As a historical romance author, I see a real danger in failing to see the subtly of Austen's character development and the drive to make heroines 'modern' and as a result makes them come across as overbearing and false.
I agree. Why do folks think they have to change so much of what the author wrote and intended in order to appeal to "modern" audiences? Where is the challenge of reading historical fiction and interacting with the story just as it is? The same thing holds true for film as it annoys me when I see current 'tropes' being employed.
This was such a good video. I haven’t seen the Netflix “Persuasion” yet, so I can’t comment on that, but I did love the 1995 film. My first introduction to Austen was “Emma”; I think I saw a TV adaptation and then read the book. At the time I was a shy and socially awkward teen, and I loved the mannered world depicted in the novel, where there was a right way and a wrong way to do practically everything. I found that so comforting, having had a tendency to OCD all my life. It’s hard to say which is my favourite Austen movie, but I do think the 1996 version of “Emma” starring Gwyneth Paltrow and drop-dead-gorgeous Jeremy Northam, deserves an honourable mention.
I love your analysis ..you are the few people who really says the truth ...the thought that just there is a female protagonist , that does not means she is not flawed and does not need to introspect or called out for her own shortcomings.. this is one of the reason that we have such bad written female characters in hollywood in comparison to male characters its not only limited to Hollywood, I have seen this nature of writing in novels , manhwas and series targeted towards young female audience , mostly written by women. I feel writers self insert themselves in protagonist in the the story that they forget to self introspect themselves , justified their own mistakes , their flaws through female protagonist. All Male characters out of nowhere fell in love with FL head over heels , or fight for FL ..they have no character of their own , they have no story ..they are just there to simp for female protagonist and other female characters are just dumb or vilain or side kick of Female lead. Female lead show questionable behavior but it never received critical gaze by author Jane Austen , Bronte sisters , Elizabeth Gaskell are totally different ..they chose to treat female characters as humans first with their own character arcs that's why they were heroines . They had their own journey of self discovery yet they have sympathetic gaze and not ended with cautionary tales but lead audience to look them with empathy and sought deeper connection with them
Really well explained. I loved the older films. All the remakes are seriously lacking everything that made the old ones good. Especially because my favourites were the virtuous heroines. Anne and Fanny Especially...
Actually, I always considered Mansfield Park a bit of a monster story. Everyone is duplicitous, and Fanny is the most duplicitous; disgusted by her family and judgemental of all comers, she clings like a limpet to her favorite cousin until she wears him down to a nub. She marries him and gains possession of the style of living she enjoys. Mary Challoner speaks of self-interest. Well!
I think I might agree. I don't find Fanny a very likeable character. She doesn't want to act in the play because she is always acting in real life. Any thoughts?
@@Carol-sj1lc Oh, yes, there is Fanny secure in her priggish refusal to have anything to do with the play and then fuming inside with anger at "the affront" of being offered a part for days afterward. She sees any gesture of friendliness as "insulting" and settles down to this line of navel-gazing: "She alone was sad and insignificant; she had no share in anything; she might go or stay, she might be in the midst of their noise, or retreat from it to the solitude of the east room, without being seen or missed." Then the little hypocrite watches everything and memorizes every line of the offensive play. Surely Austin did not expect us to like the nasty Fanny.
I agree wholeheartedly! I thought I was alone in my dislike of Fanny . I loved Mansfield Park when I first read it and liked little Fanny, too. But the more I read it the more I saw Fanny as a passive aggressive and judgmental little prig. She and her cousin were a good match, however. I still love the book, though. My favorite character is the much maligned lady of the house who catches the truth and says it out loud.
This is terrific analysis, but one small correction: Anne Elliott is not a noblewoman. She's the daughter of a baronet, so she's an aristocrat but not a noblewoman.
This was a cogent analysis. I think your commentary could apply to many recently-made films and tv shows. They lack self-awareness, and the time they spend foisting lessons on the audience with exposition would be much better spent in storytelling so that the audience could find their own lessons.
Except for the iconoclastic, lazy writers and directors nowadays, the worst problem is the miscategorisation of Jane Austen's work as romance novels. While relationships are the vehicle for her stories, they are obviously *not* romance novels! But trying to market them to young girls as a sort of chick flick (in a very derogatory manner, imo), defeats their purpose and thus true, literary beauty.
This portrayal speaks so much to the women of today. I think with so many women in the position of mid 30s not married, nostalgic and heart broken over the one that got away they sought to tell her story in this character. She’s awesome and bright and really all of these wonderful men are in love with her but she drinks to drown her loneliness etc. we live in a time where only straight men need to reflect and be better. Everyone else gets to be what they are and the world that doesn’t accept them is at fault. It’s just a waiting game to find the people that see your flawless ness.
I love the way you talk and explain things! Especially regarding Jane Austen's works. I always appreciate it when I find someone who really understands the workings of Austen's mind, it's so fascinating😊🌸
I had already decided not to watch the Netflix version after Karolina Zebrowska's video about it, but seeing Anne's hairstyle and the emoji on the note in this just reaffirmed my decision. Thank you for this insightful video!
I really enjoyed your take on Persuasion. While my favorite book is Northanger Abby, my daughter's is Persuasion and we came to so many conclusions like yours. My daughter and I end up discussing Austen a lot. In the past month we came across a rather interesting observation when she recommended I watch the newer adaptation of the manga "Fruits Basket." I was about halfway through when she asked what I thought of the protagonist and I told her she felt like a modern Fanny Price to me. Amazingly, that was the one book my daughter had never read so we set aside a day to binge the 80's series. It didn't take long for us to begin to assign animals from the manga to the various characters in the book. Clearly Edmund is the cat, Mrs Norris is the broken god, Mr Rushworth (the poor guy who we adore) is the monkey, Henry is the dog, Mary is the horse... We couldn't help but wonder if the parallels were intentional or if the story is simply so true to human nature, it reemerged. If you're interested in checking that out, I'd love to watch a video on your thoughts.
I tried watching that “vlog” series based on Pride and Prejudice and quickly realized that a too-direct modern adaptation of Austen doesn’t work; most of her main characters were not working class, so all women had to marry into a comfortable life. They also consequently had loads more free time than most women today. And getting married super young was an achievement. Society has changed so much that the modern adaptations that work just have some Austen flavor.
I haven’t read Persuasion yet but one problem I can see as a disabled person, especially in a modern adaptation is Mrs. Smith’s character is that she seems to be a long held stereotype a lot of disabled characters fall into, inspiration p*rn. This is where the disabled character usually only exists to inspire an able bodied character to be more appreciative of their own life or struggles, bc it’s not like their struggles are anything compared to having a disability (often not going into how some of the biggest struggles is usually society not willing to accommodate for those of us with disabilities), and usually the disabled character will only ever be optimistic and/or happy, and never express any anger/frustration at their suffering struggles. Hopefully I’m wrong and that’s not the case with her character.
I don't think it's even that, from the description characters are extremely flat and boring to me. Virtue and sin as described are very stale depictions(kind woman must struggle to be kind in a cruel world but she doesn't actually struggle, also gluttony as a fat guy being bad... Ugh). No wonder I can never remember any of her work.
Great assessment and thank you very much for you commentary. One point I think I disagree; the Netflix Persuasion had to dispose of Mrs Smith because that relationship would have highlighted how far they had strayed from Austens characters. Both Anne and Captain Wentworth would have appeared lesser characters if Mrs Smith, as portrayed by Jane Austen had been included. Thanks.
I hated this movie from start to finish. Very good analysis. I think the scene I hated the most was the reading of the letter. Instead of being overwhelmed and "taken" by it, she's looking at us making faces. That was ridiculous and it really showed how much she's vain : she has to show us what she think, still trying to be witty.
i think the octopus scene has to take the cake as the worst scene. i had to pause three times to get through that scene. But you are right, the supposedly highly emotional scenes are complete duds
@@sophielegay4104i googled the dialogue, it was: "Sometimes I have this dream that a giant octopus is sucking my face, and, as I struggle to get free, I realize that my hands are tentacles and I can’t push it off. And then I realize, of course, that I am the octopus, and I am sucking my own face… " Just one of the atrocities in the movie
this is why Emma 2020 is my favorite adaptation. Not only does it understand that Austen's Emma is satirical, unlike the 90s version, shes deeply flawed and has to atone for her actions before she can have her happy ending.
This video came at a perfect time as I am reading Persuasion for the first time currently and really enjoyed your perspective! I will note I really liked Netflix's version when I watched it last year as I had no insight on the story but now as I'm half way through reading I can see the strong differences now between them. As for my favorite Austen film it is without a doubt 2005's Pride and Prejudice; I just love all the visuals, music, acting, etc. I was also reading Pride and Prejudice for the first time in school during that time and I think it just holds such a very special place in my heart.
Amanda Root's Persuasion is my favorite Austen! It captures the tone and is faithful to the material without losing anything despite how much has to get culled to fit movies. Thanks for this analysis!! You were even more generous with Netflix's version than i would have. I stopped watching after Wentworth's beach scene (with the admiral line) and have not been able to finish since
Thank you for such an enlightened and well-argued analysis. I remember watching Persuasion 2022 and absolutely hating it but without taking the time afterwards to figure out why, because I just wanted to erase it from my memory. Hours of my life I'll never get back.
Brilliant analysis. The connection to Fleabag and Bridget Jones was jaw dropping. I can't believe I missed it! So obvious once you point it out. Understanding the brilliance and strength of Jane Austen characters is something I wish modern Hollywood writers understood. They should realize: Jane Austen fans like her heroines; just the way they are. btw, I'd love to see your analysis of the 2020 Emma film. Despite it's beautiful sets, they also made changes to minor characters and situations that irked me. (Miss Smith being angry at Miss Woodhouse; Mr Knightley about to declare his love after the party; Emma getting a nosebleed when she and Knightley declare their love; and a few others) The are minor changes, but they are driving me crazy. I'd love to see a video like this one, discussing that one. Am I wrong? Is it better than I think? Is the worm niggling in my brain just nitpicking, or did these changes actually mean something bigger?
I so, so agree with the sentiments of the author of this video. I feel the best way to deal with adversity is to rise above with discretion, rather than to go screaming in with your fists raised, no matter how you feel inside.
I love the the Kate Beckinsdale adaptation of Emma more than any of the other Emma's. To me it seems the most faithful to the book. Also, I think the acting is amazing!
Great analysis. That's the essence of modern-day thinking: heroines (or anyone, for that matter) don't need to work on themselves to be worthy, and they're just worthy by default. Nobody is interested in working on themselves these days!
I remember watching the Frances O'Connor version of Mansfield Park, and being so struck, not only how they made Fanny Price into a writer, like Jane Austen, but also gave her SPUNK and SNARK. Seems like they decided to do the same with Anne Elliott, only without the pen in hand. She still had the "writer" part of the personality, where she talked to the camera, as if she were writing things down for her readers. And the snark. You know, if they had showed Fanny and Anne as behaving all meekly and demurely, as they had in the book, and then showed them scribbling away in their diaries at the end of the day, and saying all the things they WANTED to say, but would never have dared to do, because they knew such snark was UNACCEPTABLE in ladies of their station, age, and marital status (an old married woman was allowed to be a dragon, but that was earned with time and experience), that would have been a whole different thing, I believe. They could have given the heroine the "modern sensibilities" and spin, if they had simply framed it as "This is the story, I'm telling to my journal, from my perspective," and let her THINK the snark, while never, EVER letting her SAY it. But Anne Elliott, Fanny Price, and Elinor Dashwood were all paragons of Georgian female virtue and propriety, at least in how they behaved in front of the world. What happened in their secret hearts was between them and the Lord.
I really liked what you had to say in this video. I love the book so much. I have come to the conclusion that the writers and adapters for this movie are the exact same narcissists that ignored and refused to look at Anne for who she is. I have friends who are soft spoken and patient with whatever life gives them and I adore them because they are just so good. I love Anne for the same personality traits. The adaptation team is just one more group of people underestimating and undervaluing genuine and kind people. One more note: when Netflix’s Anne embarrassed her family at her first dinner party with Wentworth, I almost threw something at the tv. Anne would have died rather than humiliate her family like that. Ugh. They substituted trash for gold.
![POLYCAT - ข้อความรูปยิ้ม [Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lBhIgPGCgbI/mqdefault.jpg)
Anne is Austin’s most sincere and soft hearted heroine, you don’t go heavy handed with the snark and entitlement when playing her. Seeing the trailer was a real, “show me you don't understand Persuasion without telling me you don’t understand Persuasion” moment. At least we have the 1995 adaptation which I adore.
Yeah, the snark might have fit with Lizzie or Emma, but it just sucks all the tension out of Anne's story.
She is also the most mature of Austen's heroines.
Please ACTUALLY watch the movie. she might have a few humorous or quipped line but she was so refreshingly sweet and kind to people. She was selfless and caring and that wasn’t villainized like all the “strong female character” roles that come out today. I really don’t understand how people are so quick to form an opinion on something if they haven’t taken the time to actually know what they’re talking about. Watch it first. Then you can have any opinion you want.
@octaviawinter9768 I've seen it. Anyone who has read the novel feel a bit put out by the characterisation in this adaptation. However, I loved the costuming and don't agree with the reviewer on that account.
@@9000ck i think the conversation becomes dull when people start to compare the source material with the story given. The show Wednesday for example is completely different than previous adaptions but its entirely self contained and well done. Different doesn’t mean bad, and i think its already a losing game once you begin a movie with a comparison. I watched the movie without reading the book which I’m certain is great. My not having that other story in my mind was what was able to make my viewing solely on the merit of the movie. I’m someone who often likes the source material more so i totally understand that point, but once i go into an adaption i try to erase the original from my mind, which is something i think people need to do more. I’m sure that when those adaptions were made, they were met with the same pushback. It always happens that way.
modern entertainment media seems to want to erase gentle characters. Especially if the character is female. But that's the charm of Austin's work is that most of us ladies aren't so confident in ourselves, and seeing that kind of character still come out the other side with a happy ending is encouraging.
That is a very sweeping statement and one that can be countered with numerous examples. Lets start with Ted Lasso, visit Hagrid for a while, Buddy the left, Belle from Beauty and the Beast, Amelie, Ada from Cold Mountain, any of the Little Women, Sabrina, Tara from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. A plethora of gentle characters exist in film and TV, it's just seems that you are the one erasing their existence, not modern entertainment.
@@wwaxwork lol nice cope
This is true only if you have a strict diet of Disney (MCU, Star Wars) and DC Warner Brothers products. I understand where you're coming from, but Waymond from Everything Everywhere All At Once is a gentle hero. Even the daughter sought out gentleness before turning into Jobu Tupaki. Every one of the Little Women's most recent adaptation by Greta Gerwig. Marriage Story's Nicole is neither physically nor emotionally strong, she's very humane, but she's a hero. Millie Rusk in Free Guy has her power fantasy as Molotov Girl, but in real life, she's just a normal person who happens to be good at programming. She doesn't kick ass like Trinity in The Matrix, but she's her own kind of awesome.
I understand where you're coming from, but look away from the franchises and you'll see gentle and kind people doing heroic things, even in Hollywood movies.
It's not erase (they exist on the page) but Hollywood sees Strong woman as one who talks a lot.
It is happening in books as well. This overly confident woman, I cannot relate to them.
I have to make a slight cultural correction, Anne Elliot does not make her own living not because she has no practical skills or no skills at all, she's extremely educated given her station, she wouldn't be doing labored work but she has the skills to be a governess or tutor of some kind or a paid "lady's companion", the problem lies with her station, she is a Baronet's daughter, and back then, a daughter from that station, meaning a daughter of a nobleman, was NOT ALLOWED to make an independent living,
I agree. Whenever there was a problem, it seems like everyone turned to her.
Yes, she would have no marketable skill except probably spinning (literally the reason behind the term "spinster" being applied to old single ladies). But also, it's not that she is "not allowed" but that it s socially unacceptable. Labor, work, is undignified and demeaning. The rich (even men) only receive incomes from their lands and investments. They do not work for pay.
A baronet is, technically, not a noblemen (peer), but a gentleman (landed gentry), even though it is hereditary. The title in his present form was invented in the 17th century by King James I. to raise funds, because he sold those titles. It is one of the subtle jokes of Jane Austen, that Sir Walter (not Lord Walter) is so infatuated with the grandness of his title, even though it is not even a peerage and was just bought by one of his ancestors. (Dr. Octavia Cox has a great video about this "What is a Baronetcy") But, yes, the rest of your post of course applies to the gentleman's daughter just as it does to the nobleman's, you are totally right.
@@i.b.640Thanks for pointing this out. This explains the line that says that Anne had never seen her father in contact with the nobility and was disgusted by his fawning over the Hon Lady Darlymple. And yes, I love Dr Octavia Cox!
@@sweetnighter72 In the book, it's obvious it's all about money, you may have have a title, a large house with no money, and be a snob. Anne, is the spare, not expected to have the great match, but a navel officer with no money and perhaps ordinary manners and no connections to society is not good enough. If you can find it Jullian Fellows (Downtown Abbey) book Posh gives a modern take on the English upper classes. As a maiden aunt you would be expected to be useful, to earn your keep, but at the same time working, unless you were a novelist, usually in secret, was just not the done thing if you had a social station to keep. Most of JA plots are based on money, usually the lack of, because that is what she saw in real life.
In my opinion, they tried to recreate the magic of Emma (2020), but it didn't work because Emma is a satire and Persuasion is not. All of Austen's books have elements of satire of course, and there are plenty of those present in Persuasion. But the heart of the book is one of the most serious and least satirical books Austen wrote. Anne, in particular, is not a satirized protagonist. There's nothing funny about her or her situation. The same cannot be said of Emma and her rich girl antics. It's why Clueless works, and why Emma 2020 works, but this Persuasion fell flat on its face. (That and poor writing...)
Right. Persuasion could never work as a 'romantic comedy'. It is a work of maturity, introspection.
Netflix's depiction of strong female characters: women are awesome just by being women, they can do no wrong, they need no one, they can do anything just by being women, they always know what to do, they have no weaknesses
I know. Are we supposed to find characters like that inspiring or admirable? Sighs.
Austen is awesome because her characters have growth. The Netflix version was not relatable or inspiring.
and they have no virtues and nothing to engage our sympathies.
Yes and sadly I couldn’t figure out how to put air in my tires today.
I don't understand this specific criticism on the new movie. the main character was deeply flawed, much more so than the original.
The 1995 version of Persuasion is my favorite. Amanda Root IS Anne Elliot. After watching Dakota Johnson TRY to be Anne Eliot, I had to watch the Amanda Root film to try to unsee the monstrosity of the Netflix version.
You are so right. Amanda Root doesn’t get enough credit, but that movie is amazing.
actually mine is 2007. It even got me intrested in the story and Persuasion is now my top JA story next to PP. Dont want to and wont watch the netflix one.
I actually prefer Sally Hawkins (and Rupert Penry-Jones) version…
The Netflix one is an abomination
I stopped watching the Netflix version after five minutes. You can’t get time back after all.
And like Kelly Reilly as Caroline Bingley wearing a sequined dress without sleeves in the 2005 P&P, a failure to be faithful to the basics of character and era is just the kiss of death to a period drama. It’s why the “sequel” to P&P (Death Comes to Pemberley) was ghastly. Elizabeth was reduced to a rumpled mess riddled with self-doubts. Awful, just awful.
I had to watch the 1995 version to cleanse my palette too. I hated what the 2022 version did to Anne and Captain Wentworth.
Yes, the admiral line is what got me, too. As a woman who has served at sea, I really don’t think someone with this character’s temperament would be well suited for life at sea (let alone a command position), even in the modern day - which is, needless to say, much less difficult than it would have been in the 19th Century. The problem is that the writers of this type of heroine tend to confuse sassiness with strength. Those two things are not the same - and, in my experience, it is the quiet and dutiful people who often make the best officers.
Completely agree! In any command or management position, someone who's always having to assert their own personality & rightness like Netflix!Anne & who has that few constructive coping strategies is, in my own personal experience, just a complete pain in the neck! 😬
Agree. At least in my case, sassiness is a coping mechanism whenever I LACK strengh. Otherwise I am calm or kind.
As a fellow seafarer (and female) I fully agree with you. Especially the drinking problem would be a big issue.
@@i.b.640 that is such a good observation. I see a bit of myself in that too. I mean, there is a lot of sass in me and I like it, but at the same time I know that I'm much more vulnerable and soft inside than most people think. So the sass is a bit of a cover to hide behind in social circumstances.
@@AW-uv3cb I like my sass, too, and as long as I live in an imperfect world with an imperfect psyche, it is and will be my greatest ally. I just... know where it comes from.
I only made it about 20 minutes into the Netflix version. Persuasion is my favorite Austen story. What struck me with the Netflix version is that it appeared to me that they were trying to give Anne the personality of Elizabeth Bennet, which of course changes Anne at a fundamental level. After viewing this and seeing how the entire thing played out, I owe Elizabeth Bennet an apology.
I haven’t watched it because I feared it might be like that: a warped, 21st-century caricature of Elizabeth Bennet stuck in the Persuasion storyline because the creators don’t actually like Anne Eliot. Which is such a shame-both women show amazing strength, but in very different ways. Anne’s strength is more interior and subtle, and it is insulting to hear how it has been dismissed within her own story.
@@Echo-mg5em Exactly! I had that feeling too, that the writers didn't actually like Anne. Characters with subtle strength and gentle personalities are so rarely protagonists and as a writer myself I understand why it can be difficult to have a story led by such a character. What I don't understand is why you would choose to adapt Persuasion if you don't think you can write a character like Anne without completely overhauling her personality. Boggles the mind!!
I made it ten more minutes than you. I stopped when she was insensitive to Charles Musgrove in front of their family and friends. That is just not what Anne is like, and with that drastic alteration, I couldn't handle seeing them destroy anything else.
I only lasted a few minutes , you lose so much when you try to put Austin in 2023 .
It's Elizabeth Bennett without accountability. Lizzie understands she was wrong at the end
My favorite is "Clueless". I read "Emma" and saw the movie with Gweneth Paltrow.
What folks miss or forget about Jane is much of what she wrote was commentary on the social environment of the time. Much of her writing was tongue-in-cheek...poking fun, ribbing. Clueless caught the ridiculousness of Emma's basic premise and the unpredictability of humans in love.
Take Jane too seriously and you miss the fun.
exactly!
Omg i forgot about that. Really loved that movie. And i watched it before i read emma. And then i rewatched after reading it and it was even more delightful
absolutely love Clueless 😂😂 it's hilarious and it captures the essence of Emma while being it's own "modern" thing
A pretty good movie except it made the heroine just another druggie.
@@patnor7354 Cher didn't do drugs in "Clueless"....too busy shopping and being a busy body. I loved Cher's relationship with her father, Dan Hedaya.
you're one of the only people who has actually been bold enough to call anne an alcoholic (which she is) and that was one of my major gripes with this adaptation. the wine-guzzling one-liner dropping snarky heroine being seen as #relatable is so concerning particularly for the normalization of this kind of drinking.
idk why but it feels like the complete lack of self awareness of the director (especially in interviews) is the exact thing jane austen would make fun of if she were writing today and I mean that with full offense
I dont see alcoholism as funny or clever.
If I was to go by what this movie sounds like, (and the other movies your video invokes in my mind) I think this mess comes from the evolution of what "virtue" is now, especially amonst people who consider themselves to be witty and sophistocated. A lot of us insist that we don't go in for old-fashioned morality, as it's too religious and tied to corrupt systems, but still want to be validated constantly for just doing whatever the bare minimun is and sharing the same opinion as everyone else.
"Are you a hot mess who gets drunk everyday just to cope with a comfortable middle-class life? How relatable! Are you non-social and condescending? Well, it must be because everyone around you is an insufferable fool! Do you do absolutely nothing to change your life for the better? Don't panic, you just haven't met 'The One' yet! Have you often told yourself that, if you lived in the past, you would've been inexplicably woke? We bet you're right!"
When movies and television try to validate an audience they don't understand by adapting material they understand even less, they can be very awkward and irrational. The only virtue one need have in such a film is the virtue of being modern.
Exactly!
Does away with virtue, replaces it with the unquestionable inherent worth of the protagonist, based on no virtue or accomplishment whatsoever.
All this, plus the sad and depressing fact that all the hysterical self-affirmation that passes for ethics today, and prides itself to have overcome the need for 'virtue', is perfectly compatible with the utter corruption of the present world, something 'virtue' never was with (and within) its own corrupt world. This is what annoys me the most about these awful 'updated' versions of 19th c. novels. They are simply affirming present narcissistic attitudes (i.e., 'our world is the best possible world') by completely eliminating the language and ideas (the profound flesh) of the novel and replacing them with some shallow miming of present attitudes in costume. I, for one, was very happy to see that the Netflix version did not even appeal to those the makers of this annoying, silly, clueless anti-Austin version of 'Persuasion' thought it would.
YES YES YES
Well put.
They wanted Anne to be cool and quippy like Elizabeth Bennet, but like you say Lizzie Bennett was wrong about everything and had to be humbled in order to move forward. Makes for a uninteresting character if she is snarky and virtuous at the same time, never having to learn or change.
exctly!!! as fun as Lizzy is, it is pointless if she is not humbled
To be fair, in Pride and Prejudice, both Elizabeth and Darcy went through character development. He realised that his behaviour towards her had been ‘ungentlemanlike,’ and apologised unreservedly.
I wouldn't say Elizabeth was wrong about everything.
On the subject of wentworth's point about his wife having to struggle with his absence because of his job, that's a valid concern. My man has the kind of job where he's often away, and it is a struggle. I have friends who can't/won't go more than a week without seeing their partner, and mine is sometimes gone months on end. Wentworth acknowledged the sacrifice his future wife would have to make and attempted to sympathize with that sacrifice.
They had to redo Persuasion because the original had people who looked like normal people and not movie stars, and you can't have people looking like normal people anymore.
I feel like it’s especially sad they chose to do this for Persuasion. Written by Austen because of her niece’s own circumstances at being unmarried in her late 20s and the man she loved being a self made man. To me it always felt so personal to the author and is really about Austen’s own change in attitudes towards class differences. My favourite adaptation will always be 1995’s Pride and Prejudice. I consider it one of the most faithful book to screen adaptations of all time. So many stumble trying to balance Austen’s sincerity, her flair for the dramatic and her humour.
i wish i could be a fly on the wall for the production meetings that decide on all these reboots, adaptations and franchises lately.. it seems like the people responsible for them are deliberately trying to destroy and besmirch everything they touch.. I wonder if in their conversations the people responsible openly plot how denigrate the original work, or if in their hubris and lack of self awareness they truly believe they are improving the originals
@@GuillhezI have been in these meetings (for other shows) as a subordinate, so I can speak to this. Your second point hit the nail on the head: hubris, lack of self awareness, incompetence about story-crafting and the interiority of humans, along with an obsession with surface level details of what they “think” is popular while also appearing virtuous. And the extra kick in the face regarding the Persuasion adaptation? The “lesson” they would take if it fails to meet their projected number of viewings is that Jane Austen is not profitable- *not* that their bulldozing changes to strip the character of who she fundamentally was the problem that caused the audience to dislike it. Time and time again they prove that they don’t understand character, which my fellow subordinate colleagues and I find bizarre since this whole industry is about characters. The approach of network executives in American media is so much more depressing than the general public realizes. The things this video excellently points out? The sad thing is that it probably didn’t cross their minds at all that the executives didn’t get it, that they’re butchering the character.
It takes some balls for the writers to think they can improve on Austen.
Honestly, I doubt improving on Austen had anything to do with it. Capitalizing on Austen is likely the motive
Similar to Amazon thinking they can improve Tolkien in The Rings of Power. Eeurgh.
What was lost? Intelligence, brilliant language, subtle humor, beauty, thoughtful self reflection, I just don’t love any of the newer adaptations. There’s no depth and the idea we truly understand people from this era is just silly.
I feel the same about the newer iterations of Poirot by Agatha Christie as well. Why fix what isn’t broken?!
Absolutely agree! I’ve been a Christie fan for years, and was so disappointed to see the newer adaptations of Murder on the Orient Express and-oh the horror-Death on the Nile. It’s an utter slap in the face to the masterpieces that are those two novels.
Please ACTUALLY watch the movie. she might have a few humorous or quipped line but she was so refreshingly sweet and kind to people. She was selfless and caring and that wasn’t villainized like all the “strong female character” roles that come out today. I really don’t understand how people are so quick to form an opinion on something if they haven’t taken the time to actually know what they’re talking about. Watch it first. Then you can have any opinion you want.
@@AmoebaInk Same. Suchet, forever!
@@octaviawinter9768 I did watch the entire movie. She WAS kind to everyone. That is very true.
The historical context is a fundamental aspect of the appeal. Jane Austen was a realist, which you can't miss in her writing, simply changing stuff randomly doesn't usually bode well for any production. *You need to respect the source material*
Agreed-sometimes these “reimaginings” watch as if the creators didn’t even like the book or the characters they claimed they were trying to adapt.
@@Echo-mg5emunfortunately this is becoming more common in movies and shows today
@@Echo-mg5em counterexample, the lizzy bennet diaries! They changed the setting compleatly, but they kept to what the story actually is about better then most adaptions out there. Like they do not try to go for a marriage proposal that would make no sense nower days, but thought about what it actually ment and did at that time to come up with something that does make sense nowerdays. Pride and prejudice is like all of her writings a morality tale and they kept true to those morals and even found ways to have it make even more of an impact. Everyone knows she is wrong about darcy, but while focusing on that one might miss, she is also wrong about lydia. It is so easy to fall into the trap of Lydia being just her annoying younger sister she is right to loath . . . . until its to late. In the book and most adaptions, Lydia and what happens between her and wickham is an obstacle, and inconvinience to others . . . but in lbd it is a tragedy! Lizzys pride and prejudice does not just cost her a good man there, it almost costs her her sister which makes it hit so much harder and its the exact same flaws that lead to both and overcoming them prevents it in the end.
one can really tell, that the maker of lbd, did respect and apriciate jane austens writing!
@@SingingSealRianaYES!!! I was terrified when I first heard of LBD because of the combination of American *plus* modern. But it was done SOOOO well. They really thought about the core of Austen's lessons, and translated those into a modern setting. Like instead making it about marriage with Mr Collins, it was about a job and about that Lizzy had the privilege of being able to hold out and not be a "sell out", but Charlotte didn't have that privilege, and she took the offer and made it work for the best for her.
If they wanted to do a modern version of Persuasion, why did they not do what they did with "The Taming of The Shrew" when they made "Ten Things I Hate About You." That's basically the Taming of the Shrew, modernized. They even used the same character's names. WHY does Shakespeare receive that kind of respect, but not Austen? Why?
Keep in mind 10 Things I Hate About You was made in the 90s not now. They still had respect for source material back then
Well, "Clueless" is also a well-modernized version of "Emma", the modern 'recreation' of Emma is good too even though it is made into more of a comedy
Maybe because Ten Things and Clueless had the flawed heroines instead of the virtuous heroines. Is it uncomfortable for us now to have this kind of heroine?
My view of this adaptation of Persuasion is basically in the "uncanny valley" of movie adaptations. It's not like Clueless or Bridget Jones, where they did a full on modern setting, and changed the characters and situations accordingly. Instead, this persuasion kept the time period, but still altered the characters to fit the modern view of how women should be, so it ended up just looking jarring and unpleasent. It's like it tried to do too many things and ended up not doing anything well.
One of the strengths in Austen’s body of work is the wide range of heroines she has created for us to admire: many of her readers can see themselves and the people they know in the protagonists, the love interests, and the people they encounter. If you don’t see yourself in Elizabeth Bennet, you might find a sense of connection in her sister Jane’s forbearance; in Marianne Dashwood’s passions; in Catherine Morland’s wayward instincts. Her ability to create such interesting women without sacrificing nuance or falling into archetypes is remarkable.
And it is exactly that talent which some recent adaptations are unwilling to honor.
This modern insinuation, bordering on insistence, that every classic literary heroine must be reimagined as an increasingly unvaried variation of 21st-century girl boss sensibility flattens Austen’s intricate storytelling. I think they are making the mistake of assuming that all of her protagonists would be better if they were more like the most famous one, Elizabeth Bennet-they must all be witty and sharp in their remarks, bold in their challenges. The reality is that not all women are like that, or want to be like that, and that there is more than one way to be a great heroine. I appreciate your singling out Anne Eliot and Fanny Price for defense-the recent craze for making these women a shade snarkier, more athletic, less quiet, seems to diminish the idea of a quiet strength. It’s almost as if these filmmakers dislike these heroines and, thinking they know better than Austen, are endeavoring to fit these very different ladies into a more familiar mould.
We can only ask why they would bother with material they’re unsatisfied with, why they don’t just come up with their own stories (the cynical reason being that they’re trading on Austen’s name, even if they aren’t honoring her letter). And we can only hope they’ll get bored with this unsustainable system and move on, leaving Jane Austen alone and to people who don’t feel like they have to change her stories utterly in order to appeal to the modern crowd.
💯💯💯
Completely agree! ❤
Jane Austin's outstanding dialogue gets lost, and this story is nothing without it. Her wit was the lightning they aren't even trying to catch in a bottle.
I think it was Louisa May Alcott who originally argued against women being inherently virtuous (a very anti-Christian idea anyway-we’re all fallen).
Not sure why this video appeared on my homepage, but I'm glad it did. Your analysis is spot on, and perfectly exemplifies the disease in modern screenwriting: characters without character. This is especially true of female protagonists, who apparently just need to discover their own greatness and have it acknowledged by everyone else - as if this is some kind of crowning conclusion to a character arc. It's so boring, and so ubiquitous that I simply don't bother watching new adaptations of classics any longer (or any new mainstream films or series at all for that matter).
What strikes me about Austen's characters - both women and men - is that they are so thoroughly relatable, despite the difference in historical context. Her observation and analysis of humans as social beings is, IMHO, why she is firmly lodged in the literary canon. By diluting the richness and complexities in her characters, one dulls the illumination by which we recognise ourselves... and therefore nullify Austen's genius.
Well said!
Hear hear!!
Northanger Abbey 2007 with JJ Feild and Felicity Jones is my favorite Jane Austen adaptation. To me, this movie captures the spirit of Jane's young, naive heroine. JJ Feild as Mr. Tilney falls for Catherine's genuine good nature, even though she has some wild imaginings. Both Catherine and Henry grow and come to necessary realizations. This story is simple and sweet and this couple is delightful! I fall in love with Mr. Feild each time I watch this movie!
Same! I adored the use of gothic horror, it was very unique for Austen.
Also my favourite adaptation! This version of Catherine is just so sweet!
I love Anne Elliot because she is the calm strength that I would like to be myself.
Thank you - you not only captured the spirit of one of my favourite authors, you saved me from the horror of one day stumbling over this Netflix abomination and thinking "Eh, I'll give it a go - how bad can it be?" I look forward to watching more of your work.
your lucky that you skipped it. I watched this absolute dumpster fire of a"film" and I will never recover. I had to rewatch the 1995 Amanda Root film in order to cleanise my soul again.
Yes, I wish I had found this before I watched the Netflix version. I'm glad you were spared that monstrosity.
I watched this yesterday and vented to my poor husband (who has learned to love Pride and Prejudice, but not the other Austen books... yet) and he asked if we could finish dinner now lol 😅
The thing is, it looks like the kind of movie that some people probably would have enjoyed just fine....if it wasn't being marketed as an adaptation of Persuasion. They so clearly wanted to make something that ISN'T Persuasion. And that's fine. But then they should have just....made something other than Persuasion. People aren't going to enjoy an adaptation that fails to convey what it claims to be adapting.
I think exactly the same. Thank goodness I watched this video before stumbling across the Netflick. Thank you a million times for saving me from that.
As said above, make a film as a film please please do not attempt an adaptation which flies in the face of everything my favourite author conveyed in this splendid novel... It is truly one of her best and characters are such a great part of JA writings, don't change what is so so well written already. Just don't do that! There is absolutely no need
Wow, you explained this So Well. You captured the essence of Anne and Elinor and Fanny: quiet endurance. This was a virtue much needed by disadvantaged women in Austen's time, and is much denigrated now. Why is fortitude dismissed currently? All modern heroines have the feisty, rebellious nature that is currently fashionable, which results in 21st-century women being forced into 18th-century stories. And the result is always a mess.
OMG! I had no idea they did this! Thank you. I don't even need to watch now. Comparing to this 'Anne' even Lidiya Bennet looks like calm, collected, sensible and well mannered.
I utterly agree with you about how Hollywood seems to portray a strong woman nowadays, and you have explained it very eloquently.
I love your analysis. The thing that stood out the most to me about the Netflix Anne was the heavy alcohol consumption. They portray Anne as basically an alcoholic, drinking wine by herself from the bottle and wallowing in self pity. It's almost as if Netflix is promoting and normalising heavy drinking to young women. Dodgy af.
This is especially bad when you realize consuming alcohol excessively is extremely dangerous. We should teach both men and women temperance. It is a virtue I've noticed most neglect despite it being one of the best if not *the* best virtue since it teaches self-restraint and balance
I agree with your hypothesis. If you've ever seen Cuties or Black Mirror, we're being indoctrinated with every single programme we watch. Society is changing because the writers do this. That's why it requires great discernment. I have had to remove indoctrination from my university years and from reading and watching things at school. It's insidious ❤
This seems to be an insightful look into Jane Austen's actual writing as opposed to whatever that is Netflix attempted to do in 2022. I haven't seen it myself. I couldn't get past the trailer. Persuasion is one of my favorites of her stories, and I couldn't see the character in the trailer as Anne Elliot, even in the small glimpse that provides. I think I'd rather just read the book again, or watch one of the older adaptations.
Now everyone can see how opera lovers feel when they encounter a weird contemporary production that lays an idiotic interface over a traditional libretto and music.
There’s nothing wrong with making a character witty, sly, clever, and openly fed up with society and how they treat her due to her social class and family without turning her into an angry feminazi - just like there’s nothing wrong with a character being compassionate, kind, soft, gentle, while also fed up with how society treats her without looking like a doormat. In turning Anne into a mixture of Bridget Jones and Elizabeth Bennett, they missed the point of who Anne is as a person and what she grew to be and why the book had the introspection of someone who has grown older.
It's my favourite JA, I managed to watch 1Ep, and they completely missed out that she was a put upon maiden aunt, even in some countries now you're on the shelf at 25yrs,or not expected to marry well. Appeared too sharp, too clever, the asides to camera to knowing. JA observations are pointed and sharp, but it's more Miss Marple, than The Office. The sweetness of the whole JA plot is she is chosen over younger more vibrant young women, he sees her value and caring, even though she had let him go before due to family pressure.. The BBC 1991 version with , Amanda Root, Ciarn Hinds, Susan Fleetwood, Corin Redgrave, is my favourite.
That BBC's 1991 film of 'Persuasion' is a lesson on how to 'do' Austin. The spirit and heft of the novel was very well fleshed out. Amanda Root set the mould for all subsequent Anne Elliots. I simply bow to her interpretation (and would have also loved to have seen her play Jayne Eyre). Ciáran Hinds is the definitive Wentworth (and eye-candy without being Hollywoodified). And is if those two were not enough, we have the two 'monstres sacrés', now both sadly gone, Susan Fleetwood and Corin Redgrave who manage to shine brightly within an amazing and razor-sharp accurate (in understanding and interpreting the novel) acting cast. Netflix could have done with a study of this film since the novel seems to be so beyond their reach.
@@allegory6393 If you want to delve in to the mists of time, there is a 1971 version with Anne Firbank and Brian Marshal, he looks like he has been in the navy and as a teenager he was my crush, so much I can still remember whole scenes. It's dated directing wise but still worth a look on the 'tube.
@@lgate8634 Thank you very much for the suggestion. I did not know of the 1971 version.
@@allegory6393 I thought it was 1995; is there also a version from 1991?
@@coloraturaElise My mistake, it is, of course, the 1995 BBC film.
I love Ann’s growth too. She doubts her own self but because she hold firm to her values she finds value in herself and you see that in her confidence affect her physical beauty. She realizes she still has something to offer. She still can be a partner to the love of her life.
Thank you for vocalizing what I felt when I watched the Netflix Persuasion. The Netflix Anne was not Anne Elliot. The Netflix Persuasion felt like someone was trying to satire Austen rather than try to actually share the story. For example, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" compared to Shakespeare's "Hamlet". The Netflix version was more like "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" in that the screenwriter and director turn the story on its head and tell an entirely different one with caricatures instead of people. Jane Austen created believable people which is evidenced by how her books have continued to live through the centuries. The Netflix Persuasion played like fan fiction.
Austen's Anne Elliot was not the self-centered, sarcastic, mentally weak woman that was the Netflix Anne. Anne Elliot had quiet strength and patient endurance. Austen's heroines each demonstrate different kinds of strength. Anne Elliot had tremendous inner strength. She was surrounded by selfish narcissists and she did not become like them or bitter from their treatment of her. She was not a victim. She worked with what she had in the world she lived in.
My favorite line in 1995 Persuasion is after all the people are telling Anne their problems, and she finally sits down, presumably to have a spot of tea and a moment to herself, and Charles sits next to her, turns to her with a sigh, and says, "Oh, Anne."
I burst out laughing. It was so perfect!
And, of course, I love Anne Elliott. I love all of Jane Austen's heroines. However, my favorite is actually Fanny Price. I love the way she survives years of abuse, as well as a more-than-usual fragile body, all while maintaining a heart of gold and a spine of steel, when it comes to doing what is RIGHT. She'll bend over backward, she'll take the heat to protect her cousins from the consequences of their own folly, but she will NOT marry a man whom she knows is a philanderer. The only reason she does not tell her uncle her reason (his philandering) is because that would make her cousins look bad, and she won't betray them like that, even though they'd throw her under the bus in a heartbeat.
And, if Mr. Crawford had been true, and patient, and waited for Edmund to win over Miss Crawford, he would have won her heart, at last, because, as a Christian, she knows about redemption and forgiveness, and would have supported the man in his redemption arc, once her heart was no longer free to hope. She would have given up all hope of Edmund, once he was married, and she was not free even to dream of him (it would have been a mortal sin, and she would have exerted her mind over her heart, because of that). And without the dream of Edmund, and with some proof of constancy and moral improvement in Mr. Crawford, she would have learned to love Mr. Crawford with all her heart.
Unfortunately, the egos of Mariah and Mr. Crawford got in the way.
It's not so much as she WON'T throw Maria and Julia under the bus...it's mostly because she CAN'T. Class and rank mattered during that era. She's the poor relation. She literally has no power, thus is compelled to walk on eggshells whilst living with her wealthy relatives. Mansfield Park not only explores manners vs morality, but also class disparity.
Great analysis. I love your three favorite Jane Austen films. Also the four-part Emma with Romola Garai and Jonnie Lee Miller. As an example of updating Austen while keeping the spirit and sense of the book I like Clueless.
Oooohhhh I love that mini-series! It’s one of my favorite Jane Austen versions. ❤
Yes it was wonderful
Good point, the Romola Garai one is a very good example of "modernizing" without losing the spirit of the original.
I love the 1995 Persuasion and also the one with Sally Hawkins. I barely got through the trailer for the Netflix version. I’m such a purist though, I gave up on P&P with Kiera Knightly when Lady Catherine came in the middle of the night. Her character would’ve NEVER done that.
Lol, thank you! someone who agrees with me on the 2005 P&P... "no thanks." 🤨
Same here. I *DESPISED* P&P 2005. I facepalmed when Darcy yells at Lizzy about her family's impropriety, but in the following scene proceeds to barge into her room IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT whilst she's in HER NIGHTGOWN...displaying a complete LACK OF PROPRIETY! And she just stands there completely unconcerned! JFC!! 🙄🤦♀The 2005 version was such a train wreck.
Completely agree with you. I watched the movie and by the end knew something was wrong when I was hoping Captain Wentworth would marry Louisa Musgrove or that Charles Musgrove had been fortunate to have married Mary.
This adaptation was trying to capitalize off of the popularity of Bridgerton. What the producers did not understand is that what makes Bridgeton popular was that it is built on anachronistic tropes, wardrobes, and social mores. It was clearly a fantasy set in an alternate universe Regency England where black people were common in the British aristocracy, contemporary music exists, and there are even poly-blend dress fabrics.
Persuasion was watchable if you don't compare it to its source material. I didn't have high expectations for it. But I have to say this was one of the worst Austen adaptations
I came for the movie critique and stayed for your wonderful insights on Jane Austen’s writing and heroines. I only ever read Pride and Prejudice but am now going to pick up her other novels.
That's great!! Hope you enjoy!! What am I saying? It's Austen! It's highly likely you will!
Netflix didn’t ‘change a lot’ of Austen’s work. They annihilated it.
I'll admit that I never clicked with Anne (or Fanny), but even I couldn't stomach more than 20 minutes of the Netflix version. It's astounding how they managed to get rid of the thing that makes Austen's novels timeless. Namely being well-written and relatable.
My favourite adaptions are '95 Pride and Prejudice and '87 Northanger Abbey
Wonderful analysis. You did the Netflix version justice. I hated it. I do think they were trying to do a modern rom com using Jane Austen's characters. I would have much rather they did a completely new version like Clueless.
With Austen adaptaions, I find the biggest clue to its faithfulness to source material is the leading lady's hairstyle. While historically accurate hair isn't necessary, I have yet to see a decent adaptation where the heroine is running around with her hair down or loose for a substantial amount of time. Netflix's 'Persuasion' follows this trend as well.
Great video!
One of the things that annoyed me the most about the 2022 attempt at a movie adaptation of Persuasion is that it displayed a basic misunderstanding of all human interactions. I will never understand how anyone working professionally with storytelling can have gotten by in the industry without understanding that interactions between people rest completely on who those people actually are and how they behave.
For the people behind the 2022 Netflix adaptation to treat a story that has been carefully put together by a master of storytelling with the level of contempt they did is embarrassing. How could they not understand that you can't just change the entirety of the main character and simply claim that everything would still happen in the same way around them? I have no problem accepting that this happens when teenagers start dabbling with writing fanfiction but that professional screenwriters/directors/producers can make the same mistakes with a multimillion dollar production is thoroughly absurd.
I love the (book) Persuasion. It might be my favorite Austen. But I never expect modern adaptations to treat their source materials properly. Modern "sensibilities" are so arrogantly convinced that they are right that they never seem to ponder the perspectives of the past properly, and they seem so complacent that they don't recognize the error.
Thank you for this brilliant analysis and correction.
I tend to watch modern adaptations just for fun and try to forget that they are trying to be adaptations.
Austen has withstood the test of time because while she has so many character arcs and that clever, scathing wit, but her characters are still GOOD. Fanny is a virtuous hero, but she still has a character arc (honestly my favorite of her books) in maturing and growing more confident, self-assured, and certain of her values, without ever betraying them or losing her soft spoken personality. Anne has already gone through this before the novel. And fundamentally, Darcy and Elizabeth are both good people, but flawed, and have to face their flaws before they are ready to love and be loved. It’s a distinction we often lose in more contemporary fiction. Often characters who are supposed to be morally gray still fall into pretty black and white boxes, and no one’s actually a good person, and the Good characters are unrealistic, unchanging paragons you can’t relate to. Jane Austen never went the “gray” route. Her characters are colorful in the best and worst ways and that’s why I’ll always love her.
I tried to give the netflix version a go, before this essay I might add, and I couldn't make it through. Anne was instantly unlikable as a character, however I would've enjoyed following along on a redemption arc with character growth, as you mention at the end - then she would've become very much relatable. We all know how it feels when we would rather lash out and be cruel, then be compassionate or at least stick to your own values on who you want to be and how you want to treat others. Great video!
TRUE! I watched the Amanda Root's version and LOVED IT! Then I tried watching Netflix's Persuasion and I couldn't make it through after 15 mins. The Anne's character is annoying and trying to be the 'Ms Know-It-All' and a crybaby. A far cry of what she should be. She thinks that she has it worse than every one.
In the 90’s, when they actually cared about proper costuming and interpreting nuance in historical films…(cough cough…Little Women….)
I thought they’d get better in time but….they’ve started just dumping on every historical drama.
Great analysis of the flawed vs virtuous character arc, and how foil characters should balance the narrative ✨🌙✨
I'm not sure if you've ever heard of "A Little Princess". It was one of my favourite books as a child. I learned they made a movie of it, so I watched it and it has almost all of the issues you talk about in this video.
The main character is called Sara Crewe. She's just a child and incredibly wealthy, indulged by her loving father. Most other children who see her feel jealous when they look at her extravagant wardrobe. But they love her too soon when they speak to her. She's gentle, smart, clever, humble, generous, hardworking, persistent, optimistic, and extremely elegant, especially for a child. Ignoring the storyline, the movie is almost opposite when it comes to her personality. Movie Sara is loud, seems spoiled, is a bully, and just very dislikable. I was so disappointed in this movie (1995) for portraying her in this manner. I can only guess that the people who like it have never read the book.
Yes it's a classic, watched the older version as a child
I loved the book A Little Princess growing up ❤
Which adaptation of A Little Princess are you talking about? I'm curious to know
@MissChloeCampbell
There are a few versions, as a kid I watched bbc version made in 1973, then another TV version in 1986 came out also the 1995 film.
@@ladyangelsongbird the 1995 film. It was horrible
What an interesting insight on Mansfield Park, that the other characters represent the 7 deadly sins to Fanny's virtue! Now I have to figure out who is who; we have pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth. As you mentioned, Dr. Grant is gluttony, Lady Bertram is sloth. I guess Sir Thomas would be pride, and Maria and Julia have a lot of that, too. Sir Thomas and his son Tom could be greed, Sir Thomas greedy for more money, and Tom for drink, gaming, any pleasures. Henry Crawford and Maria are lust, Fanny's parents have several--lust (all those children!), sloth, and envy, wrath for her dad. Mrs. Norris is wrath and envy (and probably a couple more). Mary Crawford is too proud to marry a lowly minister, and is greedy for more money and position in society. Rushworth is pride (stupidity isn't one of the 7 deadly sins, LOL), and I guess we have to say that Edmund is temporarily lust? Fanny's siblings are a mixed bag, with Betsy being greed and envy, Susan wrath, and William? He's pretty perfect, like Fanny!
I never spotted the 7 deadly sins either!
I’m always baffled by people who hate Fanny Price because she’s “too good.” Sir Thomas and Edmund are mixtures of vice/virtue, and therefore redeemable, as ultimately they both are, by coming to understand Fanny’s steadfastness against the potential marriage.
Edmund’s flaw is a lack of judgment, not just lust. He’s flattered by her attention.
Easy:
Sloth- Lady Bertram
Wrath- Sir Thomas. He was furious when coming back he found out about rehearsal for the play. He got angry when Fanny rejected Henry Crawford’s proposal.
Lust - Henry Crawford
Envy - Julia. She was jealous of her sister Maria who had an affair with Henry Crawford.
Greed - Ms Norris. It’s described in the book.
Gluttony - Tom Bertram. Had a drinking problem.
Pride - Maria. She didn’t call off her wedding with a man she didn’t love out of pride.
I don’t think that Fanny’s parents having lots of children is evidence of lust. People back then didn’t really have effective contraceptive methods and some couples are naturally more fertile than others. Also, back then it was illegal for a woman to refuse her husband his “conjugal rights”. Yeah, that’s why women needed to the right to vote.
I love Persuasion with Amanda Root. I love Anne's story. I love the time, manners, culture, etc... that Jane Austen gave us. Having said that...I absolutely hated the netflix version of Persuasion. If they wanted to put it in a modern setting, I may have liked it more but the dialogue, costumes, hair, etc...the way they walked and talked and then putting some - wonderful - actors here where if they were modern it would be ok but in 18-- England??? Very strange and off looking. I just found this channel today. Very good. I subscribed.
Nah but see, Clueless was a great adaptation of Emma because it kept to the soul of the novel, it kept all the traits and humor that were the most important. The new Persuasion was just…like did they even /read/ the novel?
I watched about 10 minutes of this version and switched channels. I can’t agree with you more.
A well made video I stumbled upon. Thank you for helping me expand my own line of argument, why this version was a disaster, so eloquently! I really like this idea of balancing out the picture through her friend Mrs. Smith. After watching the Netflix version, my first thought was, how they wanted to modernize her character so desperately (such a mediocre standard move nowadays) that they completely forgot that a story also needs to make sense. :D As you said, it's really more of a wish-fullfillment thing now. For what the creators think modern women daydreaming of gentlemen sweeping them away are like, I guess.
Fabulous video. As a historical romance author, I see a real danger in failing to see the subtly of Austen's character development and the drive to make heroines 'modern' and as a result makes them come across as overbearing and false.
I agree. Why do folks think they have to change so much of what the author wrote and intended in order to appeal to "modern" audiences? Where is the challenge of reading historical fiction and interacting with the story just as it is? The same thing holds true for film as it annoys me when I see current 'tropes' being employed.
So true! We have the ahistorical Bridgerton series as a modernist ballgowns and bling fantasy.
This was such a good video. I haven’t seen the Netflix “Persuasion” yet, so I can’t comment on that, but I did love the 1995 film.
My first introduction to Austen was “Emma”; I think I saw a TV adaptation and then read the book. At the time I was a shy and socially awkward teen, and I loved the mannered world depicted in the novel, where there was a right way and a wrong way to do practically everything. I found that so comforting, having had a tendency to OCD all my life.
It’s hard to say which is my favourite Austen movie, but I do think the 1996 version of “Emma” starring Gwyneth Paltrow and drop-dead-gorgeous Jeremy Northam, deserves an honourable mention.
I love your analysis ..you are the few people who really says the truth ...the thought that just there is a female protagonist , that does not means she is not flawed and does not need to introspect or called out for her own shortcomings.. this is one of the reason that we have such bad written female characters in hollywood in comparison to male characters
its not only limited to Hollywood, I have seen this nature of writing in novels , manhwas and series targeted towards young female audience , mostly written by women. I feel writers self insert themselves in protagonist in the the story that they forget to self introspect themselves , justified their own mistakes , their flaws through female protagonist. All Male characters out of nowhere fell in love with FL head over heels , or fight for FL ..they have no character of their own , they have no story ..they are just there to simp for female protagonist and other female characters are just dumb or vilain or side kick of Female lead.
Female lead show questionable behavior but it never received critical gaze by author
Jane Austen , Bronte sisters , Elizabeth Gaskell are totally different ..they chose to treat female characters as humans first with their own character arcs that's why they were heroines . They had their own journey of self discovery yet they have sympathetic gaze and not ended with cautionary tales but lead audience to look them with empathy and sought deeper connection with them
Persuasion is my fav Austin story and Netflix TOTALLY RUINED IT…I was so devastated at the butchery…SHAME ON YOU Netflix
They didn’t ruin anything, the book is still intact. You can read it whenever you want
Really well explained. I loved the older films. All the remakes are seriously lacking everything that made the old ones good. Especially because my favourites were the virtuous heroines. Anne and Fanny Especially...
A beautiful, well-structured review. Thank you.
Actually, I always considered Mansfield Park a bit of a monster story. Everyone is duplicitous, and Fanny is the most duplicitous; disgusted by her family and judgemental of all comers, she clings like a limpet to her favorite cousin until she wears him down to a nub. She marries him and gains possession of the style of living she enjoys. Mary Challoner speaks of self-interest. Well!
I think I might agree. I don't find Fanny a very likeable character. She doesn't want to act in the play because she is always acting in real life. Any thoughts?
@@Carol-sj1lc Oh, yes, there is Fanny secure in her priggish refusal to have anything to do with the play and then fuming inside with anger at "the affront" of being offered a part for days afterward. She sees any gesture of friendliness as "insulting" and settles down to this line of navel-gazing: "She alone was sad and insignificant; she had no share in anything; she might go or stay, she might be in the midst of their noise, or retreat from it to the solitude of the east room, without being seen or missed." Then the little hypocrite watches everything and memorizes every line of the offensive play. Surely Austin did not expect us to like the nasty Fanny.
I agree wholeheartedly! I thought I was alone in my dislike of Fanny . I loved Mansfield Park when I first read it and liked little Fanny, too. But the more I read it the more I saw Fanny as a passive aggressive and judgmental little prig. She and her cousin were a good match, however. I still love the book, though. My favorite character is the much maligned lady of the house who catches the truth and says it out loud.
@@Ravencall Actually, the scene with the guy practicing on the stage being caught by the owner of the house was laugh-out-loud funny.
Mr. Knightley comes to mind - "badly done, Dakota! Very badly done!"
I adore the Emma Thompson penned 1995 adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. I also really liked Clueless as Emma was the first Austen book I had read.
I'll make one date a holiday where I watch the Pride and Prejudice miniseries 😂
This is terrific analysis, but one small correction: Anne Elliott is not a noblewoman. She's the daughter of a baronet, so she's an aristocrat but not a noblewoman.
This was a cogent analysis. I think your commentary could apply to many recently-made films and tv shows. They lack self-awareness, and the time they spend foisting lessons on the audience with exposition would be much better spent in storytelling so that the audience could find their own lessons.
Mansfield Park with Jonny Lee Miller is my favorite but that BBC Pride & Prejudice is pretty stellar too. Then Sense & Sensibility, of course.
Except for the iconoclastic, lazy writers and directors nowadays, the worst problem is the miscategorisation of Jane Austen's work as romance novels. While relationships are the vehicle for her stories, they are obviously *not* romance novels! But trying to market them to young girls as a sort of chick flick (in a very derogatory manner, imo), defeats their purpose and thus true, literary beauty.
This portrayal speaks so much to the women of today. I think with so many women in the position of mid 30s not married, nostalgic and heart broken over the one that got away they sought to tell her story in this character. She’s awesome and bright and really all of these wonderful men are in love with her but she drinks to drown her loneliness etc. we live in a time where only straight men need to reflect and be better. Everyone else gets to be what they are and the world that doesn’t accept them is at fault. It’s just a waiting game to find the people that see your flawless ness.
I love the way you talk and explain things! Especially regarding Jane Austen's works. I always appreciate it when I find someone who really understands the workings of Austen's mind, it's so fascinating😊🌸
I had already decided not to watch the Netflix version after Karolina Zebrowska's video about it, but seeing Anne's hairstyle and the emoji on the note in this just reaffirmed my decision. Thank you for this insightful video!
Pride and Prejudice 1995 is 6 perfect hours of television.
I really enjoyed your take on Persuasion. While my favorite book is Northanger Abby, my daughter's is Persuasion and we came to so many conclusions like yours. My daughter and I end up discussing Austen a lot. In the past month we came across a rather interesting observation when she recommended I watch the newer adaptation of the manga "Fruits Basket." I was about halfway through when she asked what I thought of the protagonist and I told her she felt like a modern Fanny Price to me. Amazingly, that was the one book my daughter had never read so we set aside a day to binge the 80's series. It didn't take long for us to begin to assign animals from the manga to the various characters in the book. Clearly Edmund is the cat, Mrs Norris is the broken god, Mr Rushworth (the poor guy who we adore) is the monkey, Henry is the dog, Mary is the horse... We couldn't help but wonder if the parallels were intentional or if the story is simply so true to human nature, it reemerged. If you're interested in checking that out, I'd love to watch a video on your thoughts.
I tried watching that “vlog” series based on Pride and Prejudice and quickly realized that a too-direct modern adaptation of Austen doesn’t work; most of her main characters were not working class, so all women had to marry into a comfortable life. They also consequently had loads more free time than most women today. And getting married super young was an achievement. Society has changed so much that the modern adaptations that work just have some Austen flavor.
I haven’t read Persuasion yet but one problem I can see as a disabled person, especially in a modern adaptation is Mrs. Smith’s character is that she seems to be a long held stereotype a lot of disabled characters fall into, inspiration p*rn. This is where the disabled character usually only exists to inspire an able bodied character to be more appreciative of their own life or struggles, bc it’s not like their struggles are anything compared to having a disability (often not going into how some of the biggest struggles is usually society not willing to accommodate for those of us with disabilities), and usually the disabled character will only ever be optimistic and/or happy, and never express any anger/frustration at their suffering struggles.
Hopefully I’m wrong and that’s not the case with her character.
I don't think it's even that, from the description characters are extremely flat and boring to me. Virtue and sin as described are very stale depictions(kind woman must struggle to be kind in a cruel world but she doesn't actually struggle, also gluttony as a fat guy being bad... Ugh). No wonder I can never remember any of her work.
Yes! Your video is spot on. Thank you telling everyone about the junk some of these Austen movies in the last few years are. They are NOT Austen!
Great assessment and thank you very much for you commentary. One point I think I disagree; the Netflix Persuasion had to dispose of Mrs Smith because that relationship would have highlighted how far they had strayed from Austens characters. Both Anne and Captain Wentworth would have appeared lesser characters if Mrs Smith, as portrayed by Jane Austen had been included. Thanks.
I hated this movie from start to finish. Very good analysis.
I think the scene I hated the most was the reading of the letter. Instead of being overwhelmed and "taken" by it, she's looking at us making faces. That was ridiculous and it really showed how much she's vain : she has to show us what she think, still trying to be witty.
i think the octopus scene has to take the cake as the worst scene. i had to pause three times to get through that scene. But you are right, the supposedly highly emotional scenes are complete duds
@@DADA-ir6kq oh I don't remember that scene at all. Which is a good thing it seems ^^'
@@sophielegay4104i googled the dialogue, it was: "Sometimes I have this dream that a giant octopus is sucking my face, and, as I struggle to get free, I realize that my hands are tentacles and I can’t push it off. And then I realize, of course, that I am the octopus, and I am sucking my own face… "
Just one of the atrocities in the movie
@@DADA-ir6kq ohhh right! I don't know why they thought it would be good to have this line.
this is why Emma 2020 is my favorite adaptation. Not only does it understand that Austen's Emma is satirical, unlike the 90s version, shes deeply flawed and has to atone for her actions before she can have her happy ending.
agreed. and speaking of Emma: th-cam.com/video/0hyGyXQNWgw/w-d-xo.html
A friend and I watched the Netflix version and, as some others have commented, both felt that we had to watch a well made British version as a remedy.
Thank you for showing yet another side
of Jane Austen's writing!!
This video came at a perfect time as I am reading Persuasion for the first time currently and really enjoyed your perspective! I will note I really liked Netflix's version when I watched it last year as I had no insight on the story but now as I'm half way through reading I can see the strong differences now between them.
As for my favorite Austen film it is without a doubt 2005's Pride and Prejudice; I just love all the visuals, music, acting, etc. I was also reading Pride and Prejudice for the first time in school during that time and I think it just holds such a very special place in my heart.
I am not a jane austen fan but can sympathize with your frustrations. What amazon has done with the wheel of time and RoP is just vandalism
can't have flawed heroins anymore, much less a female character being humbled
Amanda Root's Persuasion is my favorite Austen! It captures the tone and is faithful to the material without losing anything despite how much has to get culled to fit movies.
Thanks for this analysis!! You were even more generous with Netflix's version than i would have. I stopped watching after Wentworth's beach scene (with the admiral line) and have not been able to finish since
Thank you for such an enlightened and well-argued analysis. I remember watching Persuasion 2022 and absolutely hating it but without taking the time afterwards to figure out why, because I just wanted to erase it from my memory. Hours of my life I'll never get back.
Brilliant analysis. The connection to Fleabag and Bridget Jones was jaw dropping. I can't believe I missed it! So obvious once you point it out. Understanding the brilliance and strength of Jane Austen characters is something I wish modern Hollywood writers understood. They should realize: Jane Austen fans like her heroines; just the way they are.
btw, I'd love to see your analysis of the 2020 Emma film. Despite it's beautiful sets, they also made changes to minor characters and situations that irked me. (Miss Smith being angry at Miss Woodhouse; Mr Knightley about to declare his love after the party; Emma getting a nosebleed when she and Knightley declare their love; and a few others) The are minor changes, but they are driving me crazy. I'd love to see a video like this one, discussing that one. Am I wrong? Is it better than I think? Is the worm niggling in my brain just nitpicking, or did these changes actually mean something bigger?
I so, so agree with the sentiments of the author of this video. I feel the best way to deal with adversity is to rise above with discretion, rather than to go screaming in with your fists raised, no matter how you feel inside.
Jane Austen has been my favorite writer since I was a teenager too, my favorite movie adaptation is Emma Thompson’s Sense and Sensibility.
I love the the Kate Beckinsdale adaptation of Emma more than any of the other Emma's. To me it seems the most faithful to the book. Also, I think the acting is amazing!
I agree. Beckinsale is by far the best Emma to date.
I love your commentary on setting the bar too low for heroines. That was something I had not thought about or considered, what a witty remark.
Great analysis. That's the essence of modern-day thinking: heroines (or anyone, for that matter) don't need to work on themselves to be worthy, and they're just worthy by default. Nobody is interested in working on themselves these days!
I remember watching the Frances O'Connor version of Mansfield Park, and being so struck, not only how they made Fanny Price into a writer, like Jane Austen, but also gave her SPUNK and SNARK.
Seems like they decided to do the same with Anne Elliott, only without the pen in hand. She still had the "writer" part of the personality, where she talked to the camera, as if she were writing things down for her readers. And the snark.
You know, if they had showed Fanny and Anne as behaving all meekly and demurely, as they had in the book, and then showed them scribbling away in their diaries at the end of the day, and saying all the things they WANTED to say, but would never have dared to do, because they knew such snark was UNACCEPTABLE in ladies of their station, age, and marital status (an old married woman was allowed to be a dragon, but that was earned with time and experience), that would have been a whole different thing, I believe.
They could have given the heroine the "modern sensibilities" and spin, if they had simply framed it as "This is the story, I'm telling to my journal, from my perspective," and let her THINK the snark, while never, EVER letting her SAY it.
But Anne Elliott, Fanny Price, and Elinor Dashwood were all paragons of Georgian female virtue and propriety, at least in how they behaved in front of the world. What happened in their secret hearts was between them and the Lord.
I love that you included this version of Mansfield Park and Persuasion. ❤
Brilliant analysis. The Netflix persuasion annoyed me so much and your analysis explained why. Thank you.
I really liked what you had to say in this video. I love the book so much. I have come to the conclusion that the writers and adapters for this movie are the exact same narcissists that ignored and refused to look at Anne for who she is. I have friends who are soft spoken and patient with whatever life gives them and I adore them because they are just so good. I love Anne for the same personality traits. The adaptation team is just one more group of people underestimating and undervaluing genuine and kind people.
One more note: when Netflix’s Anne embarrassed her family at her first dinner party with Wentworth, I almost threw something at the tv. Anne would have died rather than humiliate her family like that. Ugh. They substituted trash for gold.