The greatest tweet to come out of this whole adaption was “Dakota Johnston has the face of someone who knows what an Iphone is”. Nothing will ever top that.
@@misamisa3987 The problem is that this 2022 Anne is not the Anne from the book. "Persuasion" is my favorite Austen novel, and I relate most to Anne out of all of Austen's heroines. We don't want to see our character changed to something she is not.
Book-Anne's tragedy is that she's virtuously doing everything "right" -- being a dutiful daughter, listening to aged counsel, putting others before herself, taking care of the demanding members of her family, being everyone's servant -- and she gets nothing for it. The implicit promise to "good girls" is that they'll be cherished in return for their submission. Instead, she gets put on the shelf. When we meet her at the start of the book, she is aching for love, yet reconciling herself to the life of the unwanted spinster aunt. And even then, she's trying to do it "right"... of course the spinster aunt plays music at parties, so the young people who still have chances in life can dance. Of course the spinster aunt stays home with the injured child so the respectable marrieds can fulfill their social obligations. Of course the lonely "older" woman tries to fill her heart with the affection of children, when she'll never have any of her own. NetFlix-Anne is not book-Anne. She has no tragedy, so I wasn't invested in her triumph.
And the ironic thing is that book-Anne is still relatable! How many women are doing everything they're "supposed to" and still not getting what they want or need? How many single, childless women are expected to fulfill obligations to serve others? How many people hit their thirties and struggle with "I'm not really young anymore"? This could still be such an interesting modern story that stays true to the original. But Hollywood isn't good at showing those kinds of women as protagonists.
I've really never said it before, but underrated comment, right here. You just elevated the experience of the book for me. Also, I always felt that while Anne did crave some affection, because that's just a basic human need, she never actually wanted it conciously, because she recognized the scam of the "good girl". Basically from the get go she was expected to give up her everything to the service of others in return for the implicit promise of being everyone's darling, and she did do that right up until the moment she turned away her first love, and then she suddenly became disillusioned with the system. She suddenly realized how inadequate her rewards for being such a "good girl" are, and she kind of resented it from that point, and while she did do good stuff in future simply because of her morals, she actively avoided that recognition and appreciation that would have been such poor compensation for the price of her heart and soul and agency.
Ohh oof. This really touches on why I relate to Anne so much. The wonderful thing about her is that she doesn't become bitter and resentful. She keeps her caring and sensitive nature instead of rejecting it.
Making Anne a "girl boss" is kind of like telling introverts to be more extroverted. Just because Anne isn't a Lizzie or an Emma doesn't mean she isn't strong in her own way.
This! This is the thing. Because I haven't yet watched Bridgerton, and I'm curious why people are so much more into that one- and of all of the reasons on this video I think that is the key aspect so off.
the worst thing about the adaptation was that the tone is COMPLETELY off. the book persuasion is drenched in sadness and melancholy, the protagonist is actually devastated and yearning by her lost love. in the movie, anne looks baaaarely upset, like she's gonna pull out her iPhone at any time and tweet 'bruh kinda miss my ex lol'
Especially since it's regarded as one of Jane Austens most sorrowful works, the tone in the movie completely got rid of the books original message, and all of the actors looked like they were trying to go for a character on Bridgeton rather than a genuine portrayal of who they were.
But it is not a self proclaimed adaptation. Yes it is technically and adaptation of the book but the movie did not outwardly express that it was attempting to create an accurate adaptation but instead a movie based off the book. Surface level they seem like the same thing and there is a fine line between the two. I completely agree with you, I simply wanted to add my thoughts to the conversation !
@@nyladevaras2183 even if it was just based on the book rather than not adaption. Changing an important aspect of the book still hurts the movie. You cannot say something is based on x and then completely change everything about it but keep the name and else thing attached to it. If they wanted to make something loosely based on it, they could have done that. But this movie just came across as an insult to the book tbh
The idea that they thought a snarky Anne is modern, makes it even worse. Anne is many of us now. She is sensitive, vulnerable , depressed , lonely yet she is caring and graceful. She doesn’t roll her eyes at insults to her appearance , she takes them to heart, and we hurt with her. Pride and prejudice was my favorite JA book as a teenager, but persuasion is my favorite through my late twenties and now in my thirties. It is mature and melancholic even with its “happy ending”. It is not easy to translate it into a movie because it centers around two characters longing and suffering in silence. But this was just atrocious and disrespectful to the young people they say they want to bring in as audience.
I think a good writer/director could portray longing very well visually. Just show long gazes in the midst of other people chatting and socializing. Quiet the music and background and push in on the face...then a quick turn away as the other person turns to look. It is more subtle than this in-your-face, girl-boss version, of course. It would take time and patience to let the melancholy longing build.
@@Andreamom001 yes! The 1995 adaptation did most of what you described. And even if I hadnt read the book before, I believe I could still fully feel the characters' pain without the need for any narration. I think it's my favourite film adaptation of persuasion.
I've seen movies show characters suffering in quite silence. The stolen glances , the shy shrugging and running away is to painful to bear. This doesn't sound like they did anyone in the book justice to their characters
Why Clueless killed it is because it went fully modern, it didn’t dance around it. But also it matched with Emma, the creator fully read Emma and understood her to translate that gossipy to honest personality into a 1995 teenager! Because Emma is a gossipy teenager, and so is Cher. It’s clear Persuasion was made without reading Persuasion, and like you said, spark notes like
There is something about this girlbossification of female protagonists that feels paradoxically weak to me. They are too absorbed with whether or not they are fitting the image of what strength should look like that they have no identity of their own. I love how every single one of Jane Austen's protagonists were completely distinct people in their personality, flaws, struggles and desires. They all feel stronger to me because they all grow and evolve on their own terms, not trying to flex and pose to live up to what some marketing exec thinks "strong female protagonist" should look.
Exactly right. "Girlboss-ification" is regressive, bc it perpetuates the patriarchal concept of power as masculinity. Women have wielded great power throughout history (Cleopatra, the Chinese Empresses, Queen Elizabeth, etc) but through feminine strength from social skills & family ties rather than masculine might. These means of power are what most of us care about & relate to. For these reasons, "girl boss" characters often come across as unrelatable to women audiences as women superheroes with physical strength. The majority of women don't usually exercise power in masculine ways, & we don't share men's power fantasy. We don't generally think yo ourselves, "I can't wait to watch a woman beat up bad guys in this film." Damages & Scandal are good examples of TV where women exercise power in relatable ways. Of course, Austen isn't about power. Her works are about love & identity, which a woman should be able to pursue without being pressured to obtain some level of power to feel worthy
@@scarletsletter4466 I do think there are women who wield masculine strength and their stories deserve to be told (and that the distinction between masculine and feminine is itself fluid and culturally biased). I think many people blend the two including "girlbosses" - feminine makeup mixed with power suits, social media presence mixed with dominating ambition, etc. I don't mind it on individuals who seem to be pursuing it as an authentic self-expression, but when it is treated as the only expression of strength, it is regressive.
instead of actually writing strong women in their stories, movies now just want to slap the same girlboss stereotype onto the screen and call it progressive for easy money
@@ketaminepoptarts yeah but that's almost every heroic movie protagonist, male or female, flat unrealistically perfect characters with no discernible flaws. that's why anti heros became such a huge trend.
I find it insulting how little credit Netflix give their audience of younger viewers. I first saw pride and prejudice at 9 years old, the language was barely modernised and yet I was utterly drawn in and hooked by the story. Learning about the culture and attitudes of the period was fascinating and offered escapism. No one wants a period drama when everyone acts like it happened yesterday. Persuasion was anachronistic and jarring and just left me completely cold.
Yes Thank you! Saw it in HS and had no problem relating or getting pulled in by the predicament of the sisters and the social pressures. Sense and sensibility was and is still a favorite Austin adaptation.
Same! Exactly the same. There were definitely some phrases I didn't catch at first, but even so, it was absolutely beautiful watching it. And I *learned* more thanks to watching the movie as a kid.
we had the same issue in the gaming community when netflix made their resident evil series just under a month ago. that's how I heard about their massacar of Jane Austen. netflix is just really bad at writing. they need an overhaul in their marketing and writing teams because they are NOT doing a good job.
right!? like i find it so odd. especially with how much people have been loving old timey aesthetics, it's all back in trend and that's why they created this movie. it's so weird that they'd go with a mediocre modernised version. i also just can't picture dakota in said time, she has such a modern face and the way they've styled her doesn't help. what a flop
Historical fiction done well is my favorite genre. Anything that makes me drift from the real world and takes me to a place I haven't been, and teaches me new things or simply makes me forget about my existence in order to focus on the story is the best. The majority of movies done in modern times don't do that. They don't make me experience something new, and they're often very obnoxious. I want escapism, not a reminder how boomers see us gen z as
and the funniest thing is they had no chemistry, i felt nothing when anne and wentworth finally reuinted because there was nothing going on between the actors
I’m sorry but this is actually what people want now : to not think. People are more and more stupid everyday and it’s gonna be worse and worse. Netflix is food for the stupid, not surprised with all that at all, people got what they deserved in the end 🤷🏻♀️
Directions and Producers really have a massive ego to try to change the original and to try to make the og story "their own" only to piss off the OG fans of that story and then the new people that watch it for the first time that they are trying to get but they don't even like it because the OG fans drag the adaptation through the gutter of hell. Why can't producers just do the bare minimum to stick to the original source material, it's not that hard. Netflix has also ruined so many franchises doing exactly this with their adaptations of games, childhood cartoons, animes, books. They are so blatantly disrespectful to the main source material and og fans of it.
I just don’t understand how they are gonna act like Jane Austen is too hard for people to understand- she is like Shakespeare once you hear it out loud you understand it even if you need to use context to figure things out. Not to mention there are countless adaptations that retain her use of language that people seem to understand perfectly
Austen's books are constantly in the top 100 most popular novel lists. I work in the literaly field, and they still sell like BESTSELLERS around the world. It's not like Netflix took some obscure author who nobody really knows, lol. Millions of people already are fans, esp. young women.
its so funny when directors are like "ohhh i made these weird modernizing choices to distance myself from the source material bc i just hate that era soo much i cant relate to those characters" like girl no ones forcing you to make a period piece just make a contemporary movie then
theyll be like "NO ONE can relate if we don't modernize her with bold lipstick and self aware wine aunt tumblrisms" like bestie..... some of us actually like period pieces and can put ourselves in that mentality but you have to surrender your fucking ego and earnestly commit to the story you're telling. if you're embarrassed by the piece you're making it shows and the whole "oh i'll make fun of myself before anyone else can!!!" doesnt WORK.
Why they don't simply put these stories in the modern times? Instead of being movie of periods, if they are not going to respect a classic novel and the period of time, they can just made a free modern adaptation in our times, they did with Pride and Prejudice with that bollywood movie. Couldn't they just simply reapeted that with Persuasion?
This is why I'm certain that the director and writers are lying. It was an artistic choice to butcher the language because they thought they were being clever and funny. Then when the jokes didn't land and when (what should have been) the main target audience critiqued their choices, it was easier for them to say "we were trying to be accessible!" instead of owning to the fact that their choices didn't have their desired effect.
@@roseliketheflower13 good point honestly. i think a movie that made period dramas more “accesible” was The Favourite. Even my friends who disliked historical/period flicks enjoyed that one.
All of Jane Austen's work can be adapted to any era, including the "modern" one. E.g., Pride & Prejudice = CEO falls in love with Administrative Assistant
@@kaliko5245 the most annoying Bennet sister from Pride and Prejudice, runs off with unsuitable man and is very ‘me me me’ basically - hard to summarise just how annoying she is 😂
@@kaliko5245 A self-centered teenager who loves drama and whatever's popular simply because it's popular and fails to realize they're the problem in the situation.
When will costumers and directors understand that the reason we watch period dramas is so that we can enjoy all of those “trappings of the era” that they think won’t appeal to us smh
As a child pride and prejudice was my favourite. I would watch the 1980s version a lot LMAO so how they've treated the audience in the delivery of the story gravely underestimates the appreciation we have of the periodic details we will never live in
@@eurydice5890 Not even that apparently as they completely re-wrote the tone. I'm not willing to give them any credit here, ai think this was. "We need some Austen, which one hasn't been done in a while?"
This is why I so often can't actually watch historical films. If the dresses are wrong or the hair is wrong or there are a lack of hats and there is modern makeup I'm completely pulled out of the world. It also goes for non historical attitudes, as soon as I see corsets being villanised or stays being called corsets and being tightlaced I'm done (I could really get way more into detail but I might have already gone too much).
When Anne Elliot turned to the camera and said "we're EXES" I felt like someone literally punched me in the face🤣 like where the hell did that come from?! And WHY?!
yes what a way to ruin perhaps one of the most accurate, succinct and poignant expressions of regret over lost love in the whole of English-language literature... all for the sake of a cheap wink at the audience which doesn't even land that well.
They should have done a Mansfield Park or Vilette film tbh, leaning and faithful to the classic or like any other classic books to screen again being faithful to the story..instead of modernizing an already timeless tale
Just a little rant...Making Anne a character with exceptional physical strength and spunk totally ruins one of the most romantic scenes from the book. When the Uppercross party takes a long walk together, in the book, Anne begins to flounder a bit from all the exertion. However, being the unselfish person that she is, she uses every method to hide it from her companions. Despite this, Wentworth notices and privately asks his sister and brother-in-law to take her home in the carriage. It is such a deliciously painful scene. Wentworth, even though he still resents Anne, is so in tune to her. Even when he is trying to ignore her and treat her with only cold civility, he is so focused in on her that he notices that she is struggling despite her suppressing any signs of her fatigue. And he takes care of her in such a discreet way, without drawing attention to his own kindness. Now in the movie, the impact is minimal. In order to introduce the scene with a newly physically able character, Anne instead trips and falls, twisting her ankle. She proceeds to obviously limp along a good distance behind the rest. Of course, Wentworth notices her limping. Everybody noticed. He would be stupid if he didn't notice. This new setup up totally nullifies the tension of the scene and the chemistry between the two characters.
I've got a hormonal condition (PCOS), and due my body making more testosterone than a normal female body, I put on muscle easily. That combined with years of on/off weight lifting, I am much stronger than the average female. Even then my husband, who is not a big imposing weightlifting guy, still can easily overpower me (we horse around and do strength competitions for fun). So you can understand how I want to vomit when I see a scene in a movie where a woman who is much tinier than me somehow is able to suckerpunch guys. It's unbelievably unrealistic.
It also ruins the entire premise of the story. This Anne could have never been talked out of marrying Wentworth. The movie goes out of its way to show Anne going "I'm NoT LiKe OtHeR GiRlS!!!!" She wears mens clothers, has her hair unstyled and rolls around the dirt with the kids. She constantly judges and thinks less of her family and flouts societies rules. So .... WHY didn't she marry Wentworth? Family and Society? I don't think so.
A friend of mine works in hair in film and tv and worked on this Persuasion. She said that the hair department intended to do a period accurate hairstyle but Dakota Johnson straight up refused, gestured towards her normal hair and said 'I'm not being funny, but no one messes with this' ...... why even AGREE to do a period film... why even be an actress if you're not committed towards transforming into a character
Same thing happened when Emma Watson refused to wear a corset and get involved in the desing of the dress. That's how we ended up with that hideous dress
I think the big issue with "woman wearing men's clothes to show how progressive she is" is that not only does it do a disservice to progressive feminine women, it never commits and makes the character fully butch or masculine, because then people would actually be uncomfortable and question what it means to be a woman. Instead, she's still a conventionally-attractive and feminine woman with perfect hair and makeup, but this time she wears a man's shirt, how quirky!
Anne with an E did a much better job of that, to me it avoids the first thing because it’s in no way shown or implied that it’s because she’s progressive, if anything it’s more implicitly because she’s neurodivergent. And w/r/t the second point, she is genuinely tomboyish if not quite butch, but real-tomboy-ish, not first act of miss congeniality tomboyish
I WAS GOING TO SAY THIS - hollywood is perpetually afraid of truly masculine women, or hell even women who sometimes are masculine. they want all women protagonists to fit a mold of both beauty and personality - quirky and different, but still conventionally attractive and ultimately feminine in both attire and behavior.
I don't think there's anything wrong with feminine women wearing masculine clothing, as a butch person myself. I'm kind of confused as to why is would be a disservice to feminine women.
Anne Elliot never seemed like a character who would break the fourth wall, and was more reserved and mature. This technique would be a better fit for one of Austen's more spirited, youthful heroines, such as Lizzy Bennett, Emma Woodhouse or Catherine Morland.
Exactly. Like that kind of comedic 4th wall breaking would have been fine with other Austen heroines. It was just so iut of place in this one. Which is probably Austen's most sombre and serious novel
Exactly. I read persuasion during quarantine when COVID hit and was my first Jane Austen book I’ve ever read. I loved that book and I can relate a bit to Anne. It kind of baffles why these screenwriters hate reserve, shy, and introverted characters very much.
Agreed! The 2007 version had Anne looking into camera during intense emotional moments that conveyed her feelings better than a narration or explanation. It was only done a couple of times as well so it deffs wasn’t overdone. But I couldn’t even imagine someone like Anne writing in a diary anything gossipy, frustrated or exasperated. That bitch bottles it UP! She doesn’t realize how self-sacrificing she really is. This new version is more like the girl in a social group who is always so disdainful about everyone else’s drama and claims she hates it, but you eventually realize she thrives on it all.
i read this and went "i swear i've heard this exact comment before" and so i went on the moderngurlz video and you commented the exact same thing there!! no shade, love it, just made me giggle
My biggest disappointment is that now that we “have” a recent Persuasion adaptation, no one will work on a new one soon. Only if us Persuasion fans could get what the Emma fans got 😢
This is what really upsets me too. I don't really care that one of the writers is working on P&P, even if it means he'll butcher it because we'll always have the 1995 and 2005 adaptations to go back to. But Persuasion hardly gets the credit it deserves. I do enjoy the 1995 version, but the budget and resources thrown into the 2022 one could have made something so beautiful and I can't help but mourn that.
There’s also the 2007 Persuasion, which I don’t like nearly as much as 1995 but it still has its charm and the music is BEAUTIFUL (and so is Captain Wentworth 😋)
What reeeeeaaaally irked me was all the times she jokingly referred to the French Revolution, playing around with the little nephews and quoting the infamous “let them eat cake” (which Marie Antoinette never said anyway). It’s not only that the creators/script writers didn’t understand Anne, they have no clue about the Regency period - or any period in the history of the English gentry and aristocracy. Nobody would joke about the French Revolution. It was a very scary moment in England and everybody hated the terror that ensued. Many families and aristocratic houses actually took in French exiles. Furthermore, even if we consider this was some decades later … Napoleon was the number 1 enemy of Britain and depending on the year the creators want us to believe this is set in, Britain would be under comercial blockade. So people didn’t really joke about the revolution and its aftermath.
That shows how Netflix doesn't get Persuasion, because the ending of the novel hints that Wentworth might be called up to fight France again, and that makes Anne's choice bittersweet, she chose the man she loved accepting full well, she could lose him. That's why it works as a love story, because Anne doesn't choose a happy fairy tale ending, she chooses love, despite the fact she might lose her beloved to war.
I worked in an historical archive cleaning, organising, and archiving personal letters from nobles from this exact period. I read a lot of them letters of French nobles asking Spanish ones to lend them money or a place to stay in another country to remain there until things were back to normal.
Thank you. All her novels were written in a period of war. Also the Irish were despised by the Brits at the time and treated worse than slaves. No tree high enough to hang a man. No water deep enough to drown a man. No rock soft enough to bury a man. That is what the Brits did to the Irish at the time.
It's not just that, sometimes a character needs to be unattractive. Take Jane Eyre for example. Readers would hardly feel bad for Jane if she was a great beauty, because part of her her character is how belittled she feels by her looks. When Jane tells Rochester "Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong!-- I have as much soul as you,--and full as much heart! And if God had gifted me with some beauty and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you." it hits because we know that her appearence is an issue for Jane, and we relate to her because most people struggle with self-esteem. The thing I like about Mia Wasikowska as Jane is that although she is a beautiful woman, she was styled to look plain in the movie, and at least for Mia it works, because she looks plain!
I don’t think Jane looked that plain in the 2012 adaptation because the actress is still so cute, but they did very much try to style her properly. Also the leads have chemistry and do such a great job to show the absolute pain imbued in Jane Eyre; there were none of that in Persuasion 2022
I think they did a very good job with casting and styling Ruth Wilson in the 2006 version where the director has some quote about they needed someone who you could understand might be seen as plain but who was also still pretty enough to watch for 4+ hours. You do have to balance it.
@@happyjellycatsquid Indeed, Mia is still very pretty, but they did make an effort to make her look pale and sickly, or at least "normal" looking. And the same thing was done for Michael Fassbender, who is a very handsome man. Of course he doesn't look like an ugly man in the movie, buyt boy, did they make him look as displeasing to the eye as they could! My point is, if you're gonna have attractive actors (which I get it), at least make an effort to style them appropiately.
It's important also because Charlotte Bronte herself was considered the "plain" one. So you're robbing the book of it's soul. I don't understand why every woman has to be considered beautiful these days, but then again I'm male, so ..
@@sarahnunez318 I mean they did style the leads in Persuasion in a way I found quite ugly but it was less of a conscious decision so much as bad styling choices. Still not over the 2012 hair, ngl.
One reason why people loved To All the Boys I've Loved Before was because FINALLY a main character could be SOFT and LOVED. It has narration that fits to explain the inner world of an introvert. Persuasion should've looked to it rather than fleabag for inspiration
MINA NAILED IT: “There are just some roles that require a different look. And I think when every single female role is given to a conventionally attractive woman who looks just like another conventionally attractive woman in Hollywood, it’s a disservice because we’re not getting the diverse and in-depth types of womanhood that exist in the real world.” 16:56 Absolutely. I think about one of my very fave movies, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, and how perfect Frances McDormand is in it. Even Nomadland for that matter. Wouldn’t have been nearly as perfect without her. Makes me wonder how many movies out there would’ve shined if they had just given an unconventionally pretty, highly talented woman that matched the role a shot?
This is a great point. Nowadays there is a narrative being pushed that seems to be, "Every single creature on Earth is beautiful and model material, and if you don't agree, you're wrong". Yet I think it would be so much more liberating to embrace that everybody doesn't have to look like an Instagram model all the time. I just had this discussion about Cynthia Nixon and many people were perplexed as to why Miranda Hobbes wasn't treated as "prettier". Because she wasn't supposed to be a glamour queen; that was the whole point. She was meant to be relatable to women who are more practical and aren't as focused on looks and style, and that's totally fine. Her character would have been a different person if she looked like a classical movie star, but few people participating in that discussion seemed to grasp that. I felt the same way watching the Mary Queen of Scots movie. I like Margot Robbie, but instead of giving her an entire fake nose, I wish they would have just cast an actress with an actual big nose. Those still aren't considered attractive in today's world and it would have been more meaningful as well as accurate...not to mention saved on prosthetics.
I would go further and say that *most* roles should be portrayed by non-conventionally pretty women, since most roles should be about the character and not how they look. Sadly, only conventionally beautiful women who genetically comply with hardly achievable standards get any chance of doing anything, regardless of what that character is and needs. Ageism, racism, diet culture, impossible beauty standards… those have been the metrics to declare an actress worthy of a role, way beyond their actual talent. Frances MacDormand is for me a tiring exception that just confirms this rule, in a Hollywood where most lead men are not required to look half as “good” as any average female extra. And then, if you need someone “normal”, here come the fat suits, the “she ate burgers for six months to look drab(!)”, and the hours in a make up chair… that’s twisted in and of itself, since looking less than perfect is deliberately linked in movies with being “not at their best”, being lazy, “letting yourself go”, being down on their luck, etc. This has such an immense impact on how people perceive themselves in real life, and it has been poisoning the waters way before Snapchat filters came along.
I'm still waiting for the day when Zoe Kazan gets to be the leading role in a movie. Well, 'She Said' is coming out soon but she's in a co-starring role with Carey Mulligan.
Perhaps it is sombre, but there is still comic relief in the admiral and his wife, the entire Musgrove tribe is a delight as is nurse Rooke and her tales of airhead patients.
Directions and Producers really have a massive ego to try to change the original and to try to make the og story "their own" only to piss off the OG fans of that story and then the new people that watch it for the first time that they are trying to get but they don't even like it because the OG fans drag the adaptation through the gutter of hell. Why can't producers just do the bare minimum to stick to the original source material, it's not that hard. Netflix has also ruined so many franchises doing exactly this with their adaptations of games, childhood cartoons, animes, books. They are so blatantly disrespectful to the main source material and og fans of it.
I wish making period pieces would note that in 1800s literature, when the word "thin" was used to describe a woman's appearance, it was as a negative, and when she was described as "plump" it implied the opposite. Not that I expect actresses to gain weight to embody historical beauty ideals, but they COULD stop writing plot points in period pieces where women are being fat shamed and continually reinforce the current ideal as one that was as much or more so in the past. It wasn't.
I can understand trying to make a Jane Austen book into an experimental comedy like Northanger Abbey and Emma because those books were mostly satire, but instead they chose to use one of Jane Austen’s most serious books, which made it no longer a surprise that it would flop. Ps. I am in love with your dress.
What saddens me most is how these producers underestimate its audience. We don’t need to be spoon-fed. They think by dumbing down the content they’re doing people who aren’t usually attracted to classic literature and period dramas a favor, but they’re actually making it lose its charm. There’s a reason why people love Jane Austen’s work, even if it is from 200 years ago. They’re entirely human, and should be treated with care. Younger audiences deserve good media too.
I grew up watching 1995's Pride and Prejudice - I actually owned the 6 tape VHS set, haha. Me and my younger cousins (who were under 10 years old at the time) loved it, watched it periodically, quoted it frequently, and fully understood the plot. We didn't need more modern clothing or dumbed down dialogue to appreciate the story. Film makers need to give their audience more credit.
Directions and Producers really have a massive ego to try to change the original and to try to make the og story "their own" only to piss off the OG fans of that story and then the new people that watch it for the first time that they are trying to get but they don't even like it because the OG fans drag the adaptation through the gutter of hell. Why can't producers just do the bare minimum to stick to the original source material, it's not that hard. Netflix has also ruined so many franchises doing exactly this with their adaptations of games, childhood cartoons, animes, books. They are so blatantly disrespectful to the main source material and og fans of it.
Another thing that is detrimental is that: for a young person who doesn’t know Jane Austen, this is their introduction to her. They think « nice movie, I’ll check out the books ». And then they might be disappointed cause it’s not what they expected and ditch the books. Or they might réalise how much better the books are. Could go either way.
OOOFFFF here for the "younger audiences deserve good media too" comment because it applies to literally EVERYTHING that is coming out on movie theaters streaming services. Sure, there are still studios putting gems out there, but they're getting harder to find between marvel movies, reboots and tired biopics.
I hope Autumn de Wilde adapts more of Jane Austin’s books because Emma was just WOW. Im always at loss for words on how much I love that adaptation SO MUCH
I wholeheartedly agree! Emma (2020) did a great job portraying the essence of the characters in the book. It also showed the ridiculousness and playfulness of their situation without having to dumb it down or modernize it even more. The characters really feel like they came straight out of the book (well there may be a few exceptions but it's not really that big of a deal). I can tell the director really loved Emma and has a passion for it cause everything in the movie is so well thought out
It's such a disappointment, you could definitely update Anne's character for modern women. Many of us are tired, disappointed in life, oppressed, and far too busy taking care of other people. I think if they had kept the true spirit of Anne, it would have been a much more effective film.
Tiktok is full of twenty somethings lamenting that all their friends are married and/or having babies while they feel like they don't have their lives sufficiently in order, the sense of being 'left behind' could definitely still translate
The biggest upset for me is that there was another Persuasion in pre-production and it was shelved because Netflix announced this trash fire! We don't know what the other adaptation would have been like but in light of this disaster, one has to wonder if that one would have been the better of the two. *sigh* it'll be the one that got away now...
right??? what bothered me was that it felt like they were embarrassed of anne and as if her personality was not “feminist” or “modern” enough to be left as it was
Listen I'm not saying they should adapt Persuasion as a Chinese period piece about being trapped by your parents' and the matchmaker's decisions and the crushing rigidity of Confucian standards especially pertaining to a woman's role in society BUT--
I love Emma 2020's Knightly, and the fact that it understood that the whole appeal of Emma and Knightly's relationship is that they are equally clever and capable of proving each other wrong.
Ok, so Persuasion is my favorite Austen novel. Anne is a middle child and spinster; she’s complicit with being her family’s punching bag and wall flower, frustrated with herself that she can’t stand up for herself, and yearns for the secret betrothal she rejected when she was younger that led her to being this sad creature. Now the guy is back in her life, worldly and cool, and she knows he outpaced her so she has no claim to him no matter how much she wants it. …. Basically, Dakota Johnson being quirky, confident, flirty and smug IS NOT ANNE!
Exactly, I relate to book Ann so much being a middle child myself. I'm so sad about this adaption 😭, I'm just reading the book again to cleanse my palate lol
Hands down the most popular adaptation is 1995 Pride and Prejudice. AND it is almost word for word like the book. You'd think that would give movie makers a clue.
Yeah, I know it isn't really fair to compare movie to miniseries cause of all those extra hours but stupid 2005 choices like having the aunt and uncle present when Lizzy gets the bad news about Kitty....WTF? One of the most ICONIC scenes between Darcy and Elizabeth...and she only TELLS him because he happened to call at just the right time when she was so upset.. a weird choice that baffled me.
@@saragsoswift They turned Sanditon into a series- & _still_ managed to f*ck it up- for crying out loud, they added an entirely unnecessary sex scene into it...
Colin Firth hands down the best Darcy 😩 He nails that awkward aristocrat vibe so well and he has great chemistry with Jennifer Ehle (Lizzie). And yes, the series definitely did the book justice.
Dakota breaking the fourth wall with a constant stream of eye rolls was annoying and modernising the dialogue was quite disappointing. But I thought her sisters in the film where a delight x
Omg this ruined the letter reading scene which is the most romantic thing in the original story! Rather than just have a voiceover they just had to have her read aloud to the audience while glancing at us every 2 seconds. It really sucked out all the romance.
Dakota is a dry ass actress and her breathy tone of voice has always been flat and annoying. There isn’t a single movie she’s played in that did her character service… I genuinely wonder how she continues to get cast in big movies when her attractiveness is best reserved for still photographs… not scripts
I love how "updating Anne Elliot to appeal to young millennials and Gen Z" meant making her rude and self-involved. Glad to know that it wasn't effective -- makes me feel better about young people. (Just for future reference, "anachronistic" has the emphasis on the 2nd syllable, not the first.)
I hated what they did to Anne in this version. Even though her heart was broken and she was in a turbulent period of her life, she never lashed out at others due to her unhappiness, or snuggled with a bottle of wine every night. She was defined as the true aristocrat compared to the rest of her family.
Just for future reference anachronistic has primary stress on "nis" in both main dialects of English: UK /əˌnæk.rəˈnɪs.tɪk/ US /əˌnæk.rəˈnɪs.tɪk/. The secondary stress is indeed on the second syllable.
I love how they completely gloss over their blatant disrespect to us gen z women! Did they think we would like a snarky selfish Anne because we are selfish snarky and rude? I am an extrovert yes, but i am also kind and introspective and sad like Anne. I loved her character and he inner turmoil but the film just butchered her.
Honestly, I think a depressed woman pining for the love her life for eight long years before finding love requires little adaptation. I mean, plain depressed loners are kind of the style of the time. Gen z and young millennials can relate.
This has a similar vibe to when disney re-did Beauty and the Beast but couldn't stop themselves from adding in a bunch of out-of-touch girlboss dialogue and literally changing the story so she's more independent. Like no one is upset when a woman is a strong character, but when they ruin the story to over-emphasize what a "queen" the main protagonist is they completely miss the point.
Agree. Belle in the cartoon has a heart and she is very relatable, she's brainy and sympathetic (and she also clearly spoke to me bc of being also bookish and having strong relations with my father). And, what is more, she was "not-like-other-gals" in a good way, not in an on-the-nose way, if you will. As someone who wathced the story, I did understand that she was different but never had a reason to complain about that, simply because the story didn't spoonfeed me with it. And then they casted Hermione... Oh, did I mention they gave Gaston PTSD, too? THaaank you, movie, now I totally care about your actual villain!
@@darthtepes Yeah. I actually felt bad for Gaston in the first part of the movie. He came back from war, looking to settle down, doesn't read (but it open to try), and even tried to help Maurice find Belle.
oh my god I cannot believe the director said she did all this modern makeup and anachronisms to remove the barrier between the audience and the characters as if being transported to a different location/time period isn't *literally* the point of film/tv. what happened to 'you can say much about the present in a display of the past'? why does she have no faith at all in the audience to understand that they're in a different era??? this is so exhausting and frustrating nobody watching is going to cry about how unrelatable a character in the 1810s is bc they haven't got liquid lipstick on and they have curls at the side of their head.
Directions and Producers really have a massive ego to try to change the original and to try to make the og story "their own" only to piss off the OG fans of that story and then the new people that watch it for the first time that they are trying to get but they don't even like it because the OG fans drag the adaptation through the gutter of hell. Why can't producers just do the bare minimum to stick to the original source material, it's not that hard. Netflix has also ruined so many franchises doing exactly this with their adaptations of games, childhood cartoons, animes, books. They are so blatantly disrespectful to the main source material and og fans of it.
I guess the thing that most annoyed me from the trailer alone is just this feeling of MOCKERY almost. The character I know and love from the book was almost unrecognizable. This was one of my favorite books from Austen and I guess I'm a little protective of it.
The other issue is that Dakota Johnson has such a modern look that she doesn’t look like she belongs in the era they are trying to portray. This makes me constantly aware that she’s an actress from our time.
I have to disagree, unless someone has had very obvious modern cosmetic surgery (which she hasn't), it's not really possible to look too modern, they too have ancestors who looked like them and lived in that time period after all... It's just an issue of styling, imho
The irony about what they did to the dialogue is it guarantees the movie won't age well. Once people move on from this kind of slang it will just feel embarrassing to hear it in movies.
Dakota Johnson saying “worse than strangers; we’re exes” genuinely threw me into such turmoil. I only saw that bit out of context, so I was so confused as to how Jane Austen had used the word ‘exes’ and if that was just a normal thing to say during her time period. Only for me to find out it was modernised lol
I just want to say that Northanger Abbey is so underrated, and would also probably be the best Jane Austen novel to adapt if you want it to be fun and relatable for young people without going full Bridgerton with it.
@@LadyAhroThat's exactly that! Catherine and Isabella listening to truth crime podcasts inside of sleeping :D General Tilney has this old white van exactly the same that pedo were using in Europe in the 80's 90's. He use it for when he goes hunting btw
okay but if Fleabag was one of the inspirations, they should have realized that in that show, when things get real or intense, Fleabag turns AWAY from the audience, in one case even physically pushing us, the audience away.
The writer/director would've had to have actually _watched_ Fleabag for that. This feels like they just heard about the talking to the camera bit and ran with it 🥲
Yes, I hated the “breaking the fourth wall” while I’ve seen it done before, it’s always appropriate to the character, and the swigging wine from the bottle was just plain silly. Poor Jane, turning over in her grave
Fleabag works because it's Fleabag. It's baffling how they borrowed the style without considering the tone and personality of our pov. Fleabag appears to be desperate and on the brink of a mental breakdown using sarcasm + imaginary friend to cope while Anne is supposed to stir in melancholia, yet still has dignity and a kind gentle heart left. Again, they don't commit to anything. It's fine to change Anne's charater drastically but then you need to change the story and supporting cast to match up the new interpretation. Leaving the girl boss Anne in the story structure of original Anne fundamentally breaks the themes and mood of Persuasion. A result of copying a style without understanding the substance: ill-fitting gimmick tacked on to a incoherent story.
Full disclosure, I have not watched Persuasion, but I'm getting just a tiny bit tired of people making period dramas and then modernizing the attire completely because they don't like the clothes that come with the period. I totally get changing a waistline or something, that's not going to take away from the experience for the vast majority of the audience because the vast majority of the audience isn't that attuned to the specific details of each decade's fashion. But when I see someone wearing a blazer I could've picked up last year at H&M, I don't feel like I'm watching a period drama. If you hate old fashioned fashion so much that you can't even stay within the same century, then maybe don't do period dramas.
I mean I tend to think that literally anything can be done well or done poorly, and anachronistic choices I don’t think are inherently bad. But I’d say the creator should know why they’re making these choices, the anachronisms should have a purpose, conveying something to the audience or otherwise having a reason to be there.
If you want to make modern adaptation of period drama, make it modern. The costumes, the settings all tell a story about the world the characters live in. It tells the rules to the audience. If you muddy those rules, it becomes a bad experience because you can't figure out how people are expected to act.
I agree Yang. I love that movie. A lot like the 1995 version better but I prefer the 2005 one myself. The 1995 one is good, just preferred Kiera as Elizabeth rather than Jenniffer. I felt like Kiera’s Elizabeth was truer to the book:
I really hate how Hollywood think there is only one type of female lead , very limiting. I think seeing someone like Anne Elliot onscreen, a woman easy to well, persuade, and melancolic would add some variety and potential for character development. Netflix’s Anna doesn’t have the essence at all, not even on a paused frame
if they made Dakota Fanning less attractive, less foundation, less eye makeup etc it would've been believable as the movie progressed if she looked healthier and glowing because she was interacting with Wentworth again like in the 1995 version 🤷♀️
I did utter a "Seriously? WTF and almost shut it off when Anne is going through mementos of their love and pulled out the small stack of music scores and called it a "playlist".
The feeling of missed opportunities and watching other people have life milestones while you feel like you're falling behind is so... Personally relatable to me. Annes sadness and anger felt so real when i read Persuasion the first time. Her shame, her embarrassment, her resentment, her anger, her sadness, her stoicism despite it all, It was such a disappointment that the film didnt think i could relate to that. One of the best things about Jane Austen is how characters have all these deep feelings and yet cant find the words to express them to other people. Its relatable!! Its relatable 200 years later!! I dont think its all that alien from modern audiences either, I think its pretty normal to feel like youre constantly making bad decisions in your 20s and living with the consequences, or that everyone you know is getting married and having kids and you're falling behind. There are all sorts of ways you can adapt that to a modern audience. Persuasion is a novel of sincere deep and complicated emotions, and the girl bossification is just... Look how they massacred my boy.
@@sin3358 If research means reading the books, I wholeheartedly endorse this idea! I hope that you love them. I find them to be so very lovely. 🥰 Jane Austen's books are so incredibly interesting because of the subtle commentary that she makes. In Persuasion it's more thoughtful and internal because this book was written towards the end of her life and reflects the sorrow of "what could have been". But many of the others she wrote are satires and social commentaries on how ridiculous society is. They are all very good, and speak to our everyday experiences as people, regardless of the differences in time period. ☺️ I hope you like them. ❤️
Right, when the audiences for period dramas have always been modern…it’s as though those of us who grew up with these movies in the 90s believe there’s “something different about young people these days.”
I think rather that they don't trust they want to stir youth towards shallowness...instead of depth and discernment. Dumbing down, really, a tik tok approach to life, lol
my forever favorite Austen adaptation is Sense and Sensibility. it’s not perfect, but Thompson’s script combined with Winslet’s performance and super strong supporting performances plus Ang Lee’s lush visuals … i think i’ve seen it 100 times and could watch it 100 more. Close 2nd place to the PBS Pride and Prejudice.
Yes! Beautiful movie. When Emma's character finds out her love interest is not married and releases all of her pent up emotions in relief and joy at the knowledge. One of my favorite scenes
You mean to tell me that they had HENRY FREAKING GOLDING in their "Persuasion" adaptation, yet completely missed the opportunity to cast him as the male lead?! 🤦🏽♀️
Yeah, instead they used a perpetually constipated looking actor who sounds like he's about to cry every time he speaks and has absolutely no chemistry with Dakota Johnson.
@@mopixies4196 Omg Ikr ? I was so turned off by Jarvis’ constant face of painful constipation when looking at Anne, I died inside more each time. I rooted for Henry Golding’s character the whole time, like his charm hid the red flags I can’t 😆
Dakota Johnson has the face of someone who knows what twitter is. I'm paraphrasing, I've read this somewhere, but I really do think it's true. Some people's appearances are too "modern" or anachronistic to the time period and that breaks immersion of the story.
it's interesting that the actors in mr malcolm's list look more at home in the regency era than dakota johnson in persuasion...and yet mr malcolms list is a more modern story....
I think it’s also because they made her hair and makeup so modern! It took me out of it so many times because I was like, wait this hairstyle could have been in fifty shades of grey
If you want to update a character, just set the story in modern times. There are so many exciting ways to do that, the Lizzy Bennet diaries being a perfect example. You get an excellent feeling for what the characters would be like if you set them in a modern context. If I watch a period piece, I want a period piece. Also, Anne was never supposed to be snarky or "quirky". She was thoughtful, serious, responsible, kind, and mature. She didn't need to be in your face, she had a quiet dignified kind of strength.
YES! Someone else who knows and likes The Lizie Bennett Diaries. That series was a perfect example of how to modernize a piece without stealing it of all its personality and charm. My hat is off to you Random Internet Stranger. You have good taste.
The Lizzie Bennet diaries are rarely mentioned but was actually surprisingly good. You would have guessed the vlog format would limit what they could do but it was actually the other way around. And the casting was great! The payoff at the end was one of the best of any adaptions.
Hearing about new adaptations these days feel more like threats than something to look forward to. If Jane Austen and Tolkien don’t rise from their graves then we can safely assume ghosts don’t exist.
When I saw the Mulan remake in the works, I initially got SO EXCITED... Then immediately realized that my favorite childhood story would be completely ruined. This gross modern feminism and an apparent dearth of creativity has ruined cinema.
As an Anne Elliot fan, I would not have been mad at her being Anne. I rather a newer actress only because it is Jane Austen and Jane Austen fans are huge despite what entertainment industry thinks.
The entire movie is giving “Emily in Paris” for some reason. And yes, we have to 1) allow women to be beautiful enough “for that time period” and 2) show women that aren’t necessarily gorgeous at all. We can’t be fooled that this woman that is considered attractive in the real world is somehow the ugly duckling 300 years ago.
It less the beauty part (her family thinks she's not pretty due to her being dark haired and having gentle features instead of blonde with strong features - sort of like comparing a Kardashian to Emma Watson. Very different but still pretty.) but I just can't by the starting point of this story. This Anne could have never been talked out of marrying Wentworth. The movie goes out of its way to show Anne going "I'm NoT LiKe OtHeR GiRlS!!!!" She wears mens clothers, has her hair unstyled and rolls around the dirt with the kids. She constantly judges and thinks less of her family and flouts societies rules. So .... WHY didn't she marry Wentworth? Family and Society? I don't think so.
@@kittikats Ah, that’s an interesting observation. I agree with you there. She does seem like the type who would have met him in the dark of night on a horse, and told him to get on, while they elope to a new life of their own somewhere else.
@@kittikatsThat's so obvious that no one see it. This is the biggest plothole. And I guess why the not a Jane Austen fan crew disliked this movie too.
@@kittikats Frankly, a girl who behaved like this Anne did would have been locked away somewhere by her family, end of story. Flouting society in Regency England had very dire consequences. Especially for young women.
Anne Elliott was an introvert and gentle and everyone took advantage of her and spoke over her with only a handful of her acquaintences seeing what a true gem she is. like that’s what made her relatable and loved. Like even having freddy prince junior discover the arty girl (and make her hot by removing her glasses); or having some family of mansplainers who just don’t get you (maybe like matilda) would have been a better route for the adaptation. like if you only stay true to one thing, stay true to the heroine’s character
One of the best things about the Emma adaptation is how it builds on the text in its visual media via its depiction of servants. In the book, they aren't ever mentioned (and not a servant, but Austin plays with this "never mentioned but there" bit with how the Woodhouses invoke their different doctors without the doctors ever being present), but obviously the servants are THERE. So the movie adds: what would these servants be doing? How would they react to these ridiculous characters? They never speak, but because it's a film, we get to see how they react. So the movie does not change the text, but it builds on it in a thoughtful way that only works in a visual medium.
This is an S tier observation and take! Autumn De Wilde is a genius and she speaks about how much fun she had directing the servants in the audio commentary of the film!
I adore the 1995 Amanda Root version. My husband and I first watched it for a class in college and both remember thinking to ourselves, "we have to watch 2 hours with this woman?" And by the end her grace, her quiet strength of character, her goodness, and so many other wonderful qualities made her beautiful to us and probably our favorite Jane Austen character. They changed so much about Anne Elliot in this netflix version that it might as well have been a different story, and they destroyed such a phenomenal and, in my opinion, underrated character. Who, after watching this adaptation, will be tempted to pick up the novel? Anne Elliot deserves so much better.
So Anne came into beauty for you as you spent time with her, the same way she rebloomed for herself and Wentworth as the movie went on. Was it the sea air or just being busy and needed and loved as she was at Mary's and at the Musgrove home? Love it, thank you.
This adaptation reeks of the writers and director thinking audiences are too stupid to understand Jane Austen’s work unless it’s “#relatable.” The fact that the director literally said they made the modern references to make it “more accessible” just confirms it
And do you not think that they considered their main demographic for an adaptation such as this would be female (why else cast Dakota - 50 Shades - Johnson?) It absolutely infuriates me that the directors/producers think women cannot connect with a time period without inserting jarring modern day tropes. THIS WAS NOT Anne from the novel. Quiet, plain women who choose to hide their inner feelings actually do exist and their stories are still interesting and relatable.
One of the problems i had with it was that they clearly didn't know who their audience was supposed to be. It feels like in some moments there was an attempt to bring in the teens to early 20 year olds, (ie. the empath line) but then goes off in another direction to appeal to a slightly older audience, perhaps in their 30s (the wine drinking for example) its like they looked at the trend for everything 2000s coming back and tried to make something that fit the 2000s style but was modern and ended up in no mans land.
I think they also made a mistake in thinking that they were going to hook watchers who would discover Jane Austen via Bridgerton. Like Jane Austen isn't an indie novelist, they should have had more confidence in the audience not expecting it to have a modern twist.
Pride and Prejudice (2005) and Emma (2020) both change certain parts of their books but the difference between them and this version of Persuasion is that they both kept the feeling of the original novels. Pride and Prejudice changed a lot of the settings (both of Darcy's proposals happen outside in the movie) but this is clearly done to make the story more visually appealing to the audience and it uses these changes to show the beautiful countryside and giving the movie an individual and recognisable aesthetic. It managed to get the romantic feel of the book across perfectly. Emma stayed quite close to the book and manged to make it more relatable while keeping the witty, clever and academic feel of the novel. The reason sarcasm worked in this movie and not in Persuasion is that the original Emma had a sarcastic, funny feel while the Persuasion novel was much sadder and more demur so the changes felt as if they were trying to copy the feel of Emma and the aesthetic and main character of Pride and Prejudice while doing none of them justice
Hope I'm not coming too late! The thing with this film is that while being a bad adaptation most "creative" decisions felt borrowed from recent movies. Every time a new location was introduced I was distracted by the shot having the name written in the same font as Bridgerton, Anne breaking the fourth wall felt like Enola Homes' "too feminist for this time period" comments to the public, the masculine pieces of clothing and the way Anne plays with her nephews felt like 2019 Jo March... This movie is not Persuasion and is not it's own thing.
Jane Austen was able to be a transcend throughout the ages because she was able to critique the shallowness and superficialness of a society that only valued appearance and status. I think that describes the writing team at Netflix who thought this was acceptable.
i know it was only in a couple scenes, but it bothered me how sometimes dakota johnson wore her hair down in public settings in this movie. during this time it was really only considered appropriate for grown women to wear their hair totally loose in a private setting like the bedroom.
To me Sally Hawkins was a great cast for Anne. She is a beautiful woman, but she has that frailty and delicacy that can (and was) turn(ed) into palor and wistfulness. I could see her former beauty, and her actual melancholy and listlessness, and she truly made me see her as Anne. Much as I love the first adaptation (I just really enjoy Ciaran Hinds), the 2007 adaptation holds a special place in my heart and is one of my favorite adaptations overall.
I happened to see this version late one night. I hadn't read the book at that point, but I could still follow the story and enjoy it. I have seen only two other versions since then, but I think it is still my favourite.
The makeup was actually what took me out of the story the most 💄Also I felt all the clothes felt to new and “off the rack” - they should have looked more lived in.
So many close ups of Dakota Johnson with a full face of makeup, including lipstick and eyeshadow… and everyone else had much more natural looks, it was so weird
I feel like the difference with Bridget Jones not being like Elizabeth is that Bridget feels like the epitome of me watching pride and prejudice wishing I was like Elizabeth while crying and being a hot mess. She's not actually supposed to be an aspirational character, she's a normal person attempting to become an aspirational character. And then finding out that, while that's not possible, her mr Darcy loves her anyways, and that's what makes the story sweet and good for audience self insertion.
Joe Wright also chose to change the setting of P&P from the 1810s to the 1790s to both justify his costuming changes (he found a nice loophole around it cause Austen started writing the novel in the 1790s. Bless him, cause I dislike the empire waistline too) and also to make a nice explanation as to why people from Darcy and Bingley's social status might've wanted to go to middle-class or peasant-ish dances (French revolution putting the fear of the proletariat in the bourgeoisie). Caroline Bingley is seen in empire waist dresses in the movie, implying that she's more fashion forward than the Meryton folks, like the other Elliot sisters that you mentioned here. I really like the artistic changes Joe Wright made where he didn't just change things willy nilly based on what he personally liked or didn't, a lot of thoughts and research went into them to justify these decisions to the audience who might be a little ???? at the changes. This "Persuasion" straight up insults its audience, as if we wouldn't like or understand Austen unless it is strained and pureed and sugarred and then spoon-fed to us. (Awesome video, BTW. P&P05 stan too! The taste!)
I was about to make the exact same comment re: 2005 P&'s costumes. The waistlines are fine for that transitional period between the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th Centuries. From this point and from the long stays vs short stays comment ("short stays" that we see people making today are a reenactorism and not accurate for the vast majority of women in the period. The extant examples of literally shorter stays were exceptions for people with physical issues. Stays in the Regency period extended down the whole torso (you couldn't comfortably wear petticoats otherwise), the "short" refers to waist length, ie stays of the 18th century were "long" stays in that they created a long waist, and Regency stays created a "short" waist, hence short stays) in the Bridgerton costume video, it shows this just isn't a costume period Mina is super familiar with, and fair enough, it's really not a particularly flattering one!
They could also have argued with the fact that most of the time they were in the middle of nowhere in the early XIX century, and not in London. Fashion (and transportation) was way slower at those times and you wouldn't buy a new wardrobe every couple years with the lattest trents unless you were royalty living in the big cities.
I don’t understand the attempt to “draw a new audience to Austen” as justification for the modernization (cringe-fication) of the writing. there’s no need to draw an audience to the author if this audience wouldn’t be interested in her writing in the first place. these adaptations should be aimed to those who enjoy this type of story
@@NoOne-wn9ju Yes, but in order to do that, the original fan base needs to be considered. You have to make it popular before it's seen by people who might not be interested in the original source material. By alienating the people who were actually looking forward to this adaptation, you've already lost half the battle.
This is why I'm certain that the director and writers are lying. It was an artistic choice to butcher the language because they thought they were being funny and clever. Then when the jokes didn't land and when (what should have been) the main target audience critiqued their choices, it was easier for them to say "we were trying to be accessible!" instead of owning to the fact that their choices didn't have their desired effect.
What’s funny to me about Dakota being too attractive for the role (which- she is) when Kiera Knightley was cast in pride and prejudice there’s an interview where they said that Kiera was too pretty to be Lizzie, throughout the book Lizzie is basically told “yeah she’s pretty but” like she’s pretty but not as hot as her sister or hot enough to go down a class etc but apparently the director changed his mind upon meeting Kiera in person, which she joked about after 😂
There's also the fact that dark hair and dark eyes weren't considered pretty then (when PnP came out) because they were considered inferior features (racially and ethnically) compared to the European blond hair and blue eyes benchmark. But they are supposed to be hot now. So by those days' standards, even if she were stunning by today's standards, a dark haired and dark eyed woman would be considered less pretty than her blond and blue eyed sister
The early 2000s were obviously a terrible time for body-shaming of a particular 'Real Women Have Curves' variety, because I remember a not-insignificant number of people saying Knightley was too flat-chested to be an Austen heroine and Jennifer Ehle's admittedly more generous rack shows to advantage in the neckline cuts of the empire gowns; but they could not see the irony in them complaining about a more lean, angular body type which WOULDN'T have been the Regency feminine ideal...actually suiting the character of Elizabeth Bennet, who is outright and immediately dismissed by her own eventual love-interest on their first meeting as not being pretty enough to dance with before he begins to realize she has features he actually finds attractive. It just makes more sense for Elizabeth Bennet to be a revelation and awakening in Darcy that narrow standards of beauty ain't shit and his unconquerable attraction will not conform to his or anybody's expectations and misguided ideals. (I mean of course we're still casting from a pool of beautiful actresses so it's always gonna be skewed we are never going to have Actually Average Elizabeth in my lifetime, but Keira's 'too modern' type of beauty actually really worked for the casting because yeah she's not the type you find in old-timey portraits of historical beauties but she's got big alluring eyes and a cute chin and a lil swagger in her step and oh damn of course Darcy is doomed.)
@@GotLostProductions can I just say I love this explanation- I always considered Elizabeth to be conventionally hot by the standards of the day just not hot enough to go down a class and not as hot as Jane because it’s all Mrs Bennett tells them every time they’re in the same room together. But I like the idea of her as beautiful the more you look and the more you know and not just the standard of the day and how that ties in with the other comment about why she’s often cast having darker hair or eyes compared to Jane because of that societal view about brown hair and brown eyes. Idk it’s just cool to see a reading on an old book and a story you thought you were super familiar with rephrased in a different way that makes you appreciate it more and even casting of Kiera Knightley more. Who, btw, we stan Kiera Knightley in this house
@@MrTwentington Yeah, I see Elizabeth as a character who becomes more attractive the more you spend time in her presence--her wit and ballsy nature are stand-out elements of her personality and while that might rub some people the wrong way and someone like Caroline can find plenty to pick on in superficial terms, everyone seems aware of her appeal over time. Like it seems widely accepted that Jane is the Beauty and while Elizabeth isn't 'plain' in the way Charlotte Lucas is, her intelligence and the fire of her personality seem to win people over among her friends and neighbours, and it's only people who have only just met her or who are determined to dislike her despite her appealing personality (rival Miss Bingley, snobby Lady Catherine, and even her own mother from time to time--and all these women see Elizabeth and her charms and her strength as some sort of threat to their own plans,) who try to write her off by picking on her looks by comparing them to the ideal of the era.
The chemistry of the main couple was so lacking. Like the whole point of the story relies heavily on the inate tragedy of the relationship and how it affects them and more, but the movie absolutely failed in that department. The lead romance of a the romantic story sucked, nothing can compensate for that
I loved most of your commentary, I just have a slight modification to your characterization of Wentworth and Anne's relationship: Anne is pining for her lost love but doesn't feel worthy of having a relationship with him after she relented to influences in her life. Wentworth on the other hand starts out a bit bitter and wanting to prove that he was over her by flirting with all the marriageable ladies except for Anne. He only begins to entertain a thought of pursuing her when he hears that she hasn't chosen anyone else regardless of how it would have made her relations happy. This shift is one of the most human shifts in Austen because after you've been rejected by someone you truly loved, it is incredibly difficult to open yourself back up to that person. Anne realized she was worthy, Wentworth realized he could try again and hopefully get a new result.
What`s funny is that the whole `trying to make Anne relatable to Gen Z` shtick actually made this adaptation more dated than the ones before.Anne Elliot is already plenty relatable to Gen Zs.Introspective,with chances she regrets not taking and somewhat anxious all around.
I don't mind them taking artistic licence and all that but I do find it really sad that Anne Elliott isn't considered a Strong Female Character ™, like a woman can only be strong and relatable if she's snarky and rolls her eyes at everything.
I think is kind of what happens with Cinderella. They don't think it's strong to act with kindness and diligence instead you have be a bad bish. Unless you're not a "strong" woman.
Honestly this is why I just go for the “stuffy” bbc mini series for classics adaptations. The production and attention to the details and accuracy are unparalleled. (I respect your opinion to prefer 2005 P&P hahaha but I’m sorry Colin Firth just IS Darcy. He IS a stuffy awkward guy who has the windows blown open on him by a girl in like 80% of his movies.) That being said I LOOOOVED 2020 Emma and it’s weird to me that it has such a low rating on IMDb. The clue to me that this Persuasion is not great comes from the fact that no one can seem to agree if it was too much wrong or not enough right, what those right or wrong things were, and what specifically would need to be done to “fix” it. No one seems to be able to put their finger on it.
True. I love the 1995 Persuasion, but I was excited about possibly getting a more "cinematic", aesthetically pleasing film. Emma 2020 is just so beautiful to watch, as is P&P 2005. I wanted the ✨vibes✨ but not in detriment to the story.. now I'm mourning what the other canceled adaptation could've been
Absolutely agree. 05's adaptation is aEsThEtIcaLlY pleasing but some changes to Elizabeth's personality and behaviour just scream first decade of 21st century, and that's a huge drawback. Jennifer Ehle's Elizabeth is THE LIZZIE BENNETT because despite being very restrained, polite, cheerful and ladylike (as demanded from a genteel *womAn in 19th century) she still makes weird faces, jumps in dirt and doesn't seem to be perfectly pretty every second she's on screen. Jennifer's Elizabeth is a living woman and not someone's ideal period drama aesthetic fantasy
I cant speak for others, but to me 2020 Emma was awful. I mean, it's entertaining, but... while watching the movie I was aware all the time that I am NOT watching a period drama, but a movie that tries to pass itself for period. As a history lover, I just couldn't look at it and feel it genuine. People didn't behave as they did in 1800s.
as a jane austen stan, this movie was the worst thing ever but the worst thing was the lack of chemistry between the two leads. I don't agree with people saying Dakota J. doesn't fit/or looks too modern but my god the couple was so off. Not to mention how they made the adaptation to be a comedy or whatever that was supposed to be.
I still have yet to see Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightly. I have heard good things about it but I’m sorry my gold standard is the BBC mini-series with Colin Firth 🤣
Dakota J. doesn't even seem like a bad fit for the character _from the books_ tbh, she might just be too pretty. I'm sure if the movie gave the character the melancholy they had in the book, she would have nailed it. But for that they would need to like the source material, which they clearly don't.
I thought Dakota was a good fit cos she does the shy soft spoken thing well, but if you don’t feel miserable for her then you don’t feel elated when she finally gets what she wants.
I just have to say- “unleashing mr. Darcy” is absolutely hilarious, and the plot beats actually match P&P pretty closely. It’s not a good movie but I enjoyed it way more than the new persuasion!
I agree entirely. The trap film makers fall into is thinking all main female characters these days NEED to be quirky, loud and modern in order to not get rioted on for making their female characters weak and plain. Women have multiple personalities and sometimes having a female lead who is back to being quiet, emotional, shy and wanting a man for her happiness is okay. Don’t mix modern girl language and tropes in with period dramas, especially ones written authenticity at the time, it breaks the story, historical accuracy and it’s giving a middle finger to the author.
Agreed, I think Keira Knightley is actually a little too modernised as well, (meeting Darcy alone outside with her hair loose for instance). The film is beautifully romantic and I love Matthew Macfadyen, but the Jennifer Ehle version is just so perfect.
Persuasion is my favorite Jane Austen book, (and one of the first books to make me ugly cry)Anne is still very relatable even to people today, because she is very vulnerable in the book and we come to have fellow feeling for her, the way she upheld herself and her values even when feeling embarrassment and guilt is inspiring. Her dignity and cool headedness in an emergency is what drew Wentworth’s attention back to her because he could see how she had grown by her ability to take control of herself and others in the situation. She wasn’t some sloppy Mess, it’s a story of a woman who overtime became Self assured and confident in making her own decisions, that was her entire character growth in the book. When she was younger she was able to be persuaded by others to make a decision opposed to what she thought was right, but by the end of the book we see a confident young woman who is self-assured. Anne is a great role model to show how we can overcome obstacles in our lives and use them as a learning experience that can cause personal growth and become stronger later on.
Exactly. And in the novel her "weakness" is contrasted by Louisa's "weakness" (foils - super Jane Austen) who is too obstinate and "not easily persuaded" with detrimental effect. At the end of Persuasion (novel), Anne actually tries to convince Wentworth that she was right to listen to Lady Russel, who was a replacement mother to her. The growth is in the balance: follow your heart, but not blindly; she decides (for herself) to choose Wentworth and, quite brazenly for the milieu, assert what she wanted. In the movie she is just angry she ever listened to Lady Russel. Which seems to be the sum total of her character growth in the movie - giving Lady Russel a piece of her mind. Really?!
Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility will forever be my favorite Jane Austen adaptation. Followed closely with BBC's Pride and Prejudice mini-series. All other adaptations of all other novels fall so short for me. Even the Kira Knightley Pride and Prejudice (but mainly because of the stupid, walking in their nightshirts scene and the "Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy..." ending- bleh)
Have you seen the 2009 Emma mini series? I refuse to believe there's anyone who likes Austen who can't love it. Romola Garai is perfection as Emma. It's just ridiculous how good she is, and with Johnny Lee Miller as Mr Knightly... It's so beautiful! Sense and Sensibility is great, and so is the BBC Pride and Prejudice. There's a special place in my affections for Bride and Prejudice and the 2005 Pride and Prejudice. And the only "modern" Austen adaptations I like are Clueless and Lost in Austen (an ITV mini series where a modern woman accidentally ends up replacing Lizzie in Pride and Prejudice. It's ridiculous but very sweet and sincere).
@@bubblewrapstargirl OMG thank you! I still think that Romola the best choice for Emma. The whole series just in right place. BBC won this with P&P and Emma for being genuine and close to book arcs of heroes. In my opinion one and the biggest problem with the new adaptations is problems with hero arc and their changes throughout story line
although I think the 2007 ITV production is untouchable, Northanger Abbey really is RIGHT THERE. The book is literally a satire on Gothic and has so much room for fourth-wall breaking and anachronisms that it genuinely baffles me that netflix would try so desperately to mould Persuasion into something it isn't.
I keep thinking of baz luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet while watching this, as an example of a movie that successful modernized the story for a newer audience, but didn’t think the audience was so stupid that they couldn’t handle the original dialogue Edit: obviously not Jane Austen but a good example of a modernization of an older text
I also really enjoyed 10 Things I hate about you: Modern time and dialogue, but stayed true to the characters (most importantly the main leads) I found myself enjoying the supporting characters in this adaptation more than Anne and Wentworth, and that is not a good thing when we are supposed to be rooting for them.
BBC/A&E Pride and Prejudice, hands down is my favorite. I think its the most accurate to the book, i love the actors and setss/locations, and I think Lizzies "eyebrow work" did some serious heavy lifting, but in a non-corny way. Back then women didnt really get to say how they felt in public but the actress for that film said it all silently, with her eyes. And what fine eyes they are!
Yes, I quite agree! It's an excellent production all around, but I have always thought that Lizzie's "eyebrow work," expressions, and voice inflections are what make it so exceptional as to be the "universally acknowledged" definitive adaptation.
The greatest tweet to come out of this whole adaption was “Dakota Johnston has the face of someone who knows what an Iphone is”. Nothing will ever top that.
HAHAHA right i wheezed when i saw that tweet
Yes. Nothing can top it. Once you see it you can't unsee it
That’s do fucking true tho damn
The tweet is true though, I think some actors and actresses have these "modern faces" and aren't suitable for historical movies at all.
i thought the same!!!
Anne was our introvert representation and they turned her into a quirky sarcastic girl boss cliché 😭
İ think it's not a problem or something, i like it
as a fellow introvert, i couldn't stand what they did to her. 😉
they tried to make her funny and failed miserably
They turned her into a whisper girl ☠️☠️
@@misamisa3987 The problem is that this 2022 Anne is not the Anne from the book. "Persuasion" is my favorite Austen novel, and I relate most to Anne out of all of Austen's heroines. We don't want to see our character changed to something she is not.
Book-Anne's tragedy is that she's virtuously doing everything "right" -- being a dutiful daughter, listening to aged counsel, putting others before herself, taking care of the demanding members of her family, being everyone's servant -- and she gets nothing for it. The implicit promise to "good girls" is that they'll be cherished in return for their submission. Instead, she gets put on the shelf. When we meet her at the start of the book, she is aching for love, yet reconciling herself to the life of the unwanted spinster aunt. And even then, she's trying to do it "right"... of course the spinster aunt plays music at parties, so the young people who still have chances in life can dance. Of course the spinster aunt stays home with the injured child so the respectable marrieds can fulfill their social obligations. Of course the lonely "older" woman tries to fill her heart with the affection of children, when she'll never have any of her own. NetFlix-Anne is not book-Anne. She has no tragedy, so I wasn't invested in her triumph.
And the ironic thing is that book-Anne is still relatable! How many women are doing everything they're "supposed to" and still not getting what they want or need? How many single, childless women are expected to fulfill obligations to serve others? How many people hit their thirties and struggle with "I'm not really young anymore"? This could still be such an interesting modern story that stays true to the original.
But Hollywood isn't good at showing those kinds of women as protagonists.
I've really never said it before, but underrated comment, right here. You just elevated the experience of the book for me.
Also, I always felt that while Anne did crave some affection, because that's just a basic human need, she never actually wanted it conciously, because she recognized the scam of the "good girl". Basically from the get go she was expected to give up her everything to the service of others in return for the implicit promise of being everyone's darling, and she did do that right up until the moment she turned away her first love, and then she suddenly became disillusioned with the system. She suddenly realized how inadequate her rewards for being such a "good girl" are, and she kind of resented it from that point, and while she did do good stuff in future simply because of her morals, she actively avoided that recognition and appreciation that would have been such poor compensation for the price of her heart and soul and agency.
Ohh oof. This really touches on why I relate to Anne so much. The wonderful thing about her is that she doesn't become bitter and resentful. She keeps her caring and sensitive nature instead of rejecting it.
Making Anne a "girl boss" is kind of like telling introverts to be more extroverted. Just because Anne isn't a Lizzie or an Emma doesn't mean she isn't strong in her own way.
Exactly!
This! This is the thing. Because I haven't yet watched Bridgerton, and I'm curious why people are so much more into that one- and of all of the reasons on this video I think that is the key aspect so off.
Spot on
100% this right TF here
Toda la razón!!!
the worst thing about the adaptation was that the tone is COMPLETELY off. the book persuasion is drenched in sadness and melancholy, the protagonist is actually devastated and yearning by her lost love. in the movie, anne looks baaaarely upset, like she's gonna pull out her iPhone at any time and tweet 'bruh kinda miss my ex lol'
Especially since it's regarded as one of Jane Austens most sorrowful works, the tone in the movie completely got rid of the books original message, and all of the actors looked like they were trying to go for a character on Bridgeton rather than a genuine portrayal of who they were.
I agree, her emotion wasn’t very palpable and as the viewer she seems meerly disappointed
But it is not a self proclaimed adaptation. Yes it is technically and adaptation of the book but the movie did not outwardly express that it was attempting to create an accurate adaptation but instead a movie based off the book. Surface level they seem like the same thing and there is a fine line between the two. I completely agree with you, I simply wanted to add my thoughts to the conversation !
@@nyladevaras2183 even if it was just based on the book rather than not adaption. Changing an important aspect of the book still hurts the movie. You cannot say something is based on x and then completely change everything about it but keep the name and else thing attached to it. If they wanted to make something loosely based on it, they could have done that. But this movie just came across as an insult to the book tbh
100%. I just started rereading the book, and it makes me want to cry, you can feel Anne's sadness so much, but the movie didn't have any of that.
The idea that they thought a snarky Anne is modern, makes it even worse. Anne is many of us now. She is sensitive, vulnerable , depressed , lonely yet she is caring and graceful. She doesn’t roll her eyes at insults to her appearance , she takes them to heart, and we hurt with her. Pride and prejudice was my favorite JA book as a teenager, but persuasion is my favorite through my late twenties and now in my thirties. It is mature and melancholic even with its “happy ending”. It is not easy to translate it into a movie because it centers around two characters longing and suffering in silence. But this was just atrocious and disrespectful to the young people they say they want to bring in as audience.
I completely agree with you. It's really a pity because I think Dakota would have portrayed well Anne's charachter as it is described in the book.
Thanks for the really insightful comment!
I think a good writer/director could portray longing very well visually. Just show long gazes in the midst of other people chatting and socializing. Quiet the music and background and push in on the face...then a quick turn away as the other person turns to look. It is more subtle than this in-your-face, girl-boss version, of course. It would take time and patience to let the melancholy longing build.
@@Andreamom001 yes! The 1995 adaptation did most of what you described. And even if I hadnt read the book before, I believe I could still fully feel the characters' pain without the need for any narration. I think it's my favourite film adaptation of persuasion.
I've seen movies show characters suffering in quite silence. The stolen glances , the shy shrugging and running away is to painful to bear. This doesn't sound like they did anyone in the book justice to their characters
Thinking teens and people on their 20's can't relate to characters unless they talk exactly like them is insulting.
I'm 24 and I relate to a lot of anime characters even though I'm not Japanese or don't speak Japanese
It is very much a misogynist idea that we are stupid. It’s really irritating.
I will say it's more ageism than anything else, because you see it in all of media, not just the ones aimed at women.
Agreed. It would be interesting to see someone keep the original text but update the visuals and mannerisms (ex like Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet)
@@hannahm5513 exactly!
Why Clueless killed it is because it went fully modern, it didn’t dance around it. But also it matched with Emma, the creator fully read Emma and understood her to translate that gossipy to honest personality into a 1995 teenager! Because Emma is a gossipy teenager, and so is Cher. It’s clear Persuasion was made without reading Persuasion, and like you said, spark notes like
but Emma wasn't a teenager, she was like 26 or 27
@@sofiandolga Emma was actually about 21 in the book
@@sofiandolga emma was 21, I recommend you the book :) it's fun to read
It had a well-written script and the character's personalities were faithful to the book, unlike this abomination.
yess!! I absolutely love Clueless. It was on TV a few days ago and I just had to watch it
There is something about this girlbossification of female protagonists that feels paradoxically weak to me. They are too absorbed with whether or not they are fitting the image of what strength should look like that they have no identity of their own. I love how every single one of Jane Austen's protagonists were completely distinct people in their personality, flaws, struggles and desires. They all feel stronger to me because they all grow and evolve on their own terms, not trying to flex and pose to live up to what some marketing exec thinks "strong female protagonist" should look.
Exactly right. "Girlboss-ification" is regressive, bc it perpetuates the patriarchal concept of power as masculinity. Women have wielded great power throughout history (Cleopatra, the Chinese Empresses, Queen Elizabeth, etc) but through feminine strength from social skills & family ties rather than masculine might. These means of power are what most of us care about & relate to.
For these reasons, "girl boss" characters often come across as unrelatable to women audiences as women superheroes with physical strength. The majority of women don't usually exercise power in masculine ways, & we don't share men's power fantasy. We don't generally think yo ourselves, "I can't wait to watch a woman beat up bad guys in this film." Damages & Scandal are good examples of TV where women exercise power in relatable ways. Of course, Austen isn't about power. Her works are about love & identity, which a woman should be able to pursue without being pressured to obtain some level of power to feel worthy
@@scarletsletter4466 I do think there are women who wield masculine strength and their stories deserve to be told (and that the distinction between masculine and feminine is itself fluid and culturally biased). I think many people blend the two including "girlbosses" - feminine makeup mixed with power suits, social media presence mixed with dominating ambition, etc. I don't mind it on individuals who seem to be pursuing it as an authentic self-expression, but when it is treated as the only expression of strength, it is regressive.
@@scarletsletter4466 using sex to wield power isn't particularly feminist or powerful and strategic wit and intellect doesn't have a gender
instead of actually writing strong women in their stories, movies now just want to slap the same girlboss stereotype onto the screen and call it progressive for easy money
@@ketaminepoptarts yeah but that's almost every heroic movie protagonist, male or female, flat unrealistically perfect characters with no discernible flaws. that's why anti heros became such a huge trend.
I find it insulting how little credit Netflix give their audience of younger viewers. I first saw pride and prejudice at 9 years old, the language was barely modernised and yet I was utterly drawn in and hooked by the story. Learning about the culture and attitudes of the period was fascinating and offered escapism. No one wants a period drama when everyone acts like it happened yesterday. Persuasion was anachronistic and jarring and just left me completely cold.
Yes Thank you! Saw it in HS and had no problem relating or getting pulled in by the predicament of the sisters and the social pressures. Sense and sensibility was and is still a favorite Austin adaptation.
Same! Exactly the same. There were definitely some phrases I didn't catch at first, but even so, it was absolutely beautiful watching it. And I *learned* more thanks to watching the movie as a kid.
we had the same issue in the gaming community when netflix made their resident evil series just under a month ago. that's how I heard about their massacar of Jane Austen. netflix is just really bad at writing. they need an overhaul in their marketing and writing teams because they are NOT doing a good job.
right!? like i find it so odd. especially with how much people have been loving old timey aesthetics, it's all back in trend and that's why they created this movie. it's so weird that they'd go with a mediocre modernised version. i also just can't picture dakota in said time, she has such a modern face and the way they've styled her doesn't help. what a flop
Historical fiction done well is my favorite genre. Anything that makes me drift from the real world and takes me to a place I haven't been, and teaches me new things or simply makes me forget about my existence in order to focus on the story is the best. The majority of movies done in modern times don't do that. They don't make me experience something new, and they're often very obnoxious. I want escapism, not a reminder how boomers see us gen z as
seems like the writers tried to make period drama for people who don't like period dramas and then made everyone hate it instead
I hate it, they do the same with fantasy
It was so obvious that the writers thought the audience would be too stupid to understand basic human interactions and chemistry
That’s what I felt. It’s like they made it so people don’t think.
and the funniest thing is they had no chemistry, i felt nothing when anne and wentworth finally reuinted because there was nothing going on between the actors
I’m sorry but this is actually what people want now : to not think. People are more and more stupid everyday and it’s gonna be worse and worse. Netflix is food for the stupid, not surprised with all that at all, people got what they deserved in the end 🤷🏻♀️
Directions and Producers really have a massive ego to try to change the original and to try to make the og story "their own" only to piss off the OG fans of that story and then the new people that watch it for the first time that they are trying to get but they don't even like it because the OG fans drag the adaptation through the gutter of hell. Why can't producers just do the bare minimum to stick to the original source material, it's not that hard. Netflix has also ruined so many franchises doing exactly this with their adaptations of games, childhood cartoons, animes, books. They are so blatantly disrespectful to the main source material and og fans of it.
and they think we are too stupid to understand the dialogues too...
"we want to draw people to Austen" oh by absolutely murdering her writing? perfect
Especially when Pride & Prejudice (2005) is still a very much loved movie 🥲 an iconic one if i can add
I just don’t understand how they are gonna act like Jane Austen is too hard for people to understand- she is like Shakespeare once you hear it out loud you understand it even if you need to use context to figure things out. Not to mention there are countless adaptations that retain her use of language that people seem to understand perfectly
The Lizzie Bennet Diaries did a great job. They didn't have to do that LOL
Austen's books are constantly in the top 100 most popular novel lists. I work in the literaly field, and they still sell like BESTSELLERS around the world. It's not like Netflix took some obscure author who nobody really knows, lol. Millions of people already are fans, esp. young women.
The more I hear "Modern audiences eont understand it." The more I want to say "No, you don't understand it, producer, that's the difference."
its so funny when directors are like "ohhh i made these weird modernizing choices to distance myself from the source material bc i just hate that era soo much i cant relate to those characters" like girl no ones forcing you to make a period piece just make a contemporary movie then
theyll be like "NO ONE can relate if we don't modernize her with bold lipstick and self aware wine aunt tumblrisms" like bestie..... some of us actually like period pieces and can put ourselves in that mentality but you have to surrender your fucking ego and earnestly commit to the story you're telling. if you're embarrassed by the piece you're making it shows and the whole "oh i'll make fun of myself before anyone else can!!!" doesnt WORK.
Why they don't simply put these stories in the modern times? Instead of being movie of periods, if they are not going to respect a classic novel and the period of time, they can just made a free modern adaptation in our times, they did with Pride and Prejudice with that bollywood movie. Couldn't they just simply reapeted that with Persuasion?
This is why I'm certain that the director and writers are lying. It was an artistic choice to butcher the language because they thought they were being clever and funny. Then when the jokes didn't land and when (what should have been) the main target audience critiqued their choices, it was easier for them to say "we were trying to be accessible!" instead of owning to the fact that their choices didn't have their desired effect.
@@roseliketheflower13 good point honestly. i think a movie that made period dramas more “accesible” was The Favourite. Even my friends who disliked historical/period flicks enjoyed that one.
All of Jane Austen's work can be adapted to any era, including the "modern" one.
E.g., Pride & Prejudice = CEO falls in love with Administrative Assistant
Leena Norms described this as “an adaptation only Lydia Bennett would like” and if that doesn’t show you how horrendous it is then nothing will.
Context for non-Austen fans please
Oh dear god hahaha
oh my god that’s so accurate
@@kaliko5245 the most annoying Bennet sister from Pride and Prejudice, runs off with unsuitable man and is very ‘me me me’ basically - hard to summarise just how annoying she is 😂
@@kaliko5245 A self-centered teenager who loves drama and whatever's popular simply because it's popular and fails to realize they're the problem in the situation.
When will costumers and directors understand that the reason we watch period dramas is so that we can enjoy all of those “trappings of the era” that they think won’t appeal to us smh
THIS!
As a child pride and prejudice was my favourite. I would watch the 1980s version a lot LMAO so how they've treated the audience in the delivery of the story gravely underestimates the appreciation we have of the periodic details we will never live in
They be like « We’re making a period drama. But we don’t vibe with the period. We just want the drama »
@@eurydice5890 Not even that apparently as they completely re-wrote the tone. I'm not willing to give them any credit here, ai think this was. "We need some Austen, which one hasn't been done in a while?"
This is why I so often can't actually watch historical films. If the dresses are wrong or the hair is wrong or there are a lack of hats and there is modern makeup I'm completely pulled out of the world. It also goes for non historical attitudes, as soon as I see corsets being villanised or stays being called corsets and being tightlaced I'm done (I could really get way more into detail but I might have already gone too much).
When Anne Elliot turned to the camera and said "we're EXES" I felt like someone literally punched me in the face🤣 like where the hell did that come from?! And WHY?!
Ugh
Who is talking to!!? She talked about their broken engagement to no one! And the bitchy Charles liked me first 💅
I agree. I said WTF through the whole movie.
yes what a way to ruin perhaps one of the most accurate, succinct and poignant expressions of regret over lost love in the whole of English-language literature... all for the sake of a cheap wink at the audience which doesn't even land that well.
I can't believe netflix thought they had to yaasify Jane Austen, as if the books aren't well-loved classics.
They should have done a Mansfield Park or Vilette film tbh, leaning and faithful to the classic or like any other classic books to screen again being faithful to the story..instead of modernizing an already timeless tale
There is always someone out there who thinks they can put their own spin on a production and improve a classic.
American audiences have goldfish memory. This movie is proof.
You mean like Clueless? Lol. I get that the movie is terrible but it's not because they modernized it, it's because they did it wrong
Just a little rant...Making Anne a character with exceptional physical strength and spunk totally ruins one of the most romantic scenes from the book. When the Uppercross party takes a long walk together, in the book, Anne begins to flounder a bit from all the exertion. However, being the unselfish person that she is, she uses every method to hide it from her companions. Despite this, Wentworth notices and privately asks his sister and brother-in-law to take her home in the carriage. It is such a deliciously painful scene. Wentworth, even though he still resents Anne, is so in tune to her. Even when he is trying to ignore her and treat her with only cold civility, he is so focused in on her that he notices that she is struggling despite her suppressing any signs of her fatigue. And he takes care of her in such a discreet way, without drawing attention to his own kindness.
Now in the movie, the impact is minimal. In order to introduce the scene with a newly physically able character, Anne instead trips and falls, twisting her ankle. She proceeds to obviously limp along a good distance behind the rest. Of course, Wentworth notices her limping. Everybody noticed. He would be stupid if he didn't notice. This new setup up totally nullifies the tension of the scene and the chemistry between the two characters.
I've got a hormonal condition (PCOS), and due my body making more testosterone than a normal female body, I put on muscle easily. That combined with years of on/off weight lifting, I am much stronger than the average female. Even then my husband, who is not a big imposing weightlifting guy, still can easily overpower me (we horse around and do strength competitions for fun). So you can understand how I want to vomit when I see a scene in a movie where a woman who is much tinier than me somehow is able to suckerpunch guys. It's unbelievably unrealistic.
Dude! I didn't even notice that! That's a really good point!!!
It also ruins the entire premise of the story. This Anne could have never been talked out of marrying Wentworth. The movie goes out of its way to show Anne going "I'm NoT LiKe OtHeR GiRlS!!!!" She wears mens clothers, has her hair unstyled and rolls around the dirt with the kids. She constantly judges and thinks less of her family and flouts societies rules. So .... WHY didn't she marry Wentworth? Family and Society? I don't think so.
@@kittikats exactly!! that’s what pissed me off so badly…they changed anne so much that the plot does not make sense at all.
Another true fan of Persuasion ❤
A friend of mine works in hair in film and tv and worked on this Persuasion. She said that the hair department intended to do a period accurate hairstyle but Dakota Johnson straight up refused, gestured towards her normal hair and said 'I'm not being funny, but no one messes with this' ......
why even AGREE to do a period film... why even be an actress if you're not committed towards transforming into a character
Oh god ugh
I like Dakota but... that seems kinda unprofessional.
Are u kidding me?? Wow that’s insane. I guess nepotism does win
Same thing happened when Emma Watson refused to wear a corset and get involved in the desing of the dress. That's how we ended up with that hideous dress
If you think about it Dakota’s hair looks the same in every movie
I think the big issue with "woman wearing men's clothes to show how progressive she is" is that not only does it do a disservice to progressive feminine women, it never commits and makes the character fully butch or masculine, because then people would actually be uncomfortable and question what it means to be a woman. Instead, she's still a conventionally-attractive and feminine woman with perfect hair and makeup, but this time she wears a man's shirt, how quirky!
Anne with an E did a much better job of that, to me it avoids the first thing because it’s in no way shown or implied that it’s because she’s progressive, if anything it’s more implicitly because she’s neurodivergent. And w/r/t the second point, she is genuinely tomboyish if not quite butch, but real-tomboy-ish, not first act of miss congeniality tomboyish
I WAS GOING TO SAY THIS - hollywood is perpetually afraid of truly masculine women, or hell even women who sometimes are masculine. they want all women protagonists to fit a mold of both beauty and personality - quirky and different, but still conventionally attractive and ultimately feminine in both attire and behavior.
ding ding ding!
I don't think there's anything wrong with feminine women wearing masculine clothing, as a butch person myself. I'm kind of confused as to why is would be a disservice to feminine women.
💯
Anne Elliot never seemed like a character who would break the fourth wall, and was more reserved and mature. This technique would be a better fit for one of Austen's more spirited, youthful heroines, such as Lizzy Bennett, Emma Woodhouse or Catherine Morland.
Exactly. Like that kind of comedic 4th wall breaking would have been fine with other Austen heroines. It was just so iut of place in this one. Which is probably Austen's most sombre and serious novel
Exactly. I read persuasion during quarantine when COVID hit and was my first Jane Austen book I’ve ever read. I loved that book and I can relate a bit to Anne. It kind of baffles why these screenwriters hate reserve, shy, and introverted characters very much.
Agreed!
The 2007 version had Anne looking into camera during intense emotional moments that conveyed her feelings better than a narration or explanation. It was only done a couple of times as well so it deffs wasn’t overdone. But I couldn’t even imagine someone like Anne writing in a diary anything gossipy, frustrated or exasperated. That bitch bottles it UP! She doesn’t realize how self-sacrificing she really is.
This new version is more like the girl in a social group who is always so disdainful about everyone else’s drama and claims she hates it, but you eventually realize she thrives on it all.
Ooh, I could see a great Northanger Abbey adaptation like that.
i read this and went "i swear i've heard this exact comment before" and so i went on the moderngurlz video and you commented the exact same thing there!! no shade, love it, just made me giggle
My biggest disappointment is that now that we “have” a recent Persuasion adaptation, no one will work on a new one soon. Only if us Persuasion fans could get what the Emma fans got 😢
We did get it. Back in 1995 with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds
This is what really upsets me too. I don't really care that one of the writers is working on P&P, even if it means he'll butcher it because we'll always have the 1995 and 2005 adaptations to go back to. But Persuasion hardly gets the credit it deserves. I do enjoy the 1995 version, but the budget and resources thrown into the 2022 one could have made something so beautiful and I can't help but mourn that.
There’s also the 2007 Persuasion, which I don’t like nearly as much as 1995 but it still has its charm and the music is BEAUTIFUL (and so is Captain Wentworth 😋)
I love this version too!!!
What reeeeeaaaally irked me was all the times she jokingly referred to the French Revolution, playing around with the little nephews and quoting the infamous “let them eat cake” (which Marie Antoinette never said anyway).
It’s not only that the creators/script writers didn’t understand Anne, they have no clue about the Regency period - or any period in the history of the English gentry and aristocracy. Nobody would joke about the French Revolution. It was a very scary moment in England and everybody hated the terror that ensued. Many families and aristocratic houses actually took in French exiles. Furthermore, even if we consider this was some decades later … Napoleon was the number 1 enemy of Britain and depending on the year the creators want us to believe this is set in, Britain would be under comercial blockade. So people didn’t really joke about the revolution and its aftermath.
That shows how Netflix doesn't get Persuasion, because the ending of the novel hints that Wentworth might be called up to fight France again, and that makes Anne's choice bittersweet, she chose the man she loved accepting full well, she could lose him. That's why it works as a love story, because Anne doesn't choose a happy fairy tale ending, she chooses love, despite the fact she might lose her beloved to war.
@@justincheng5241 exactly, very good point.
I worked in an historical archive cleaning, organising, and archiving personal letters from nobles from this exact period. I read a lot of them letters of French nobles asking Spanish ones to lend them money or a place to stay in another country to remain there until things were back to normal.
Thank you. All her novels were written in a period of war. Also the Irish were despised by the Brits at the time and treated worse than slaves.
No tree high enough to hang a man. No water deep enough to drown a man. No rock soft enough to bury a man. That is what the Brits did to the Irish at the time.
@@brumella I would love to read such letters. I am very interested in how the exiled from the Reign of Terror adapted and found refuge.
It's not just that, sometimes a character needs to be unattractive. Take Jane Eyre for example. Readers would hardly feel bad for Jane if she was a great beauty, because part of her her character is how belittled she feels by her looks. When Jane tells Rochester "Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong!-- I have as much soul as you,--and full as much heart! And if God had gifted me with some beauty and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you." it hits because we know that her appearence is an issue for Jane, and we relate to her because most people struggle with self-esteem. The thing I like about Mia Wasikowska as Jane is that although she is a beautiful woman, she was styled to look plain in the movie, and at least for Mia it works, because she looks plain!
I don’t think Jane looked that plain in the 2012 adaptation because the actress is still so cute, but they did very much try to style her properly. Also the leads have chemistry and do such a great job to show the absolute pain imbued in Jane Eyre; there were none of that in Persuasion 2022
I think they did a very good job with casting and styling Ruth Wilson in the 2006 version where the director has some quote about they needed someone who you could understand might be seen as plain but who was also still pretty enough to watch for 4+ hours. You do have to balance it.
@@happyjellycatsquid Indeed, Mia is still very pretty, but they did make an effort to make her look pale and sickly, or at least "normal" looking. And the same thing was done for Michael Fassbender, who is a very handsome man. Of course he doesn't look like an ugly man in the movie, buyt boy, did they make him look as displeasing to the eye as they could! My point is, if you're gonna have attractive actors (which I get it), at least make an effort to style them appropiately.
It's important also because Charlotte Bronte herself was considered the "plain" one. So you're robbing the book of it's soul. I don't understand why every woman has to be considered beautiful these days, but then again I'm male, so ..
@@sarahnunez318 I mean they did style the leads in Persuasion in a way I found quite ugly but it was less of a conscious decision so much as bad styling choices. Still not over the 2012 hair, ngl.
One reason why people loved To All the Boys I've Loved Before was because FINALLY a main character could be SOFT and LOVED. It has narration that fits to explain the inner world of an introvert. Persuasion should've looked to it rather than fleabag for inspiration
But was she soft tho?
@@AstarionWifeyyes???
Ohh you're so right
Just the first one though right?😢
MINA NAILED IT: “There are just some roles that require a different look. And I think when every single female role is given to a conventionally attractive woman who looks just like another conventionally attractive woman in Hollywood, it’s a disservice because we’re not getting the diverse and in-depth types of womanhood that exist in the real world.” 16:56
Absolutely. I think about one of my very fave movies, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, and how perfect Frances McDormand is in it. Even Nomadland for that matter. Wouldn’t have been nearly as perfect without her.
Makes me wonder how many movies out there would’ve shined if they had just given an unconventionally pretty, highly talented woman that matched the role a shot?
This is a great point. Nowadays there is a narrative being pushed that seems to be, "Every single creature on Earth is beautiful and model material, and if you don't agree, you're wrong". Yet I think it would be so much more liberating to embrace that everybody doesn't have to look like an Instagram model all the time. I just had this discussion about Cynthia Nixon and many people were perplexed as to why Miranda Hobbes wasn't treated as "prettier". Because she wasn't supposed to be a glamour queen; that was the whole point. She was meant to be relatable to women who are more practical and aren't as focused on looks and style, and that's totally fine. Her character would have been a different person if she looked like a classical movie star, but few people participating in that discussion seemed to grasp that.
I felt the same way watching the Mary Queen of Scots movie. I like Margot Robbie, but instead of giving her an entire fake nose, I wish they would have just cast an actress with an actual big nose. Those still aren't considered attractive in today's world and it would have been more meaningful as well as accurate...not to mention saved on prosthetics.
Frances McDormand is the GOAT
I would go further and say that *most* roles should be portrayed by non-conventionally pretty women, since most roles should be about the character and not how they look. Sadly, only conventionally beautiful women who genetically comply with hardly achievable standards get any chance of doing anything, regardless of what that character is and needs. Ageism, racism, diet culture, impossible beauty standards… those have been the metrics to declare an actress worthy of a role, way beyond their actual talent.
Frances MacDormand is for me a tiring exception that just confirms this rule, in a Hollywood where most lead men are not required to look half as “good” as any average female extra.
And then, if you need someone “normal”, here come the fat suits, the “she ate burgers for six months to look drab(!)”, and the hours in a make up chair… that’s twisted in and of itself, since looking less than perfect is deliberately linked in movies with being “not at their best”, being lazy, “letting yourself go”, being down on their luck, etc. This has such an immense impact on how people perceive themselves in real life, and it has been poisoning the waters way before Snapchat filters came along.
I'm still waiting for the day when Zoe Kazan gets to be the leading role in a movie. Well, 'She Said' is coming out soon but she's in a co-starring role with Carey Mulligan.
Did you know this actress also auditioned for the role of Marilyn Monroe in movie Blonde th-cam.com/video/3Equ6AWyP9I/w-d-xo.html
They took one of her most serious and sombre story and tried to make it a comedy, is anyone even surprised that it turned out terrible
Perhaps it is sombre, but there is still comic relief in the admiral and his wife, the entire Musgrove tribe is a delight as is nurse Rooke and her tales of airhead patients.
Directions and Producers really have a massive ego to try to change the original and to try to make the og story "their own" only to piss off the OG fans of that story and then the new people that watch it for the first time that they are trying to get but they don't even like it because the OG fans drag the adaptation through the gutter of hell. Why can't producers just do the bare minimum to stick to the original source material, it's not that hard. Netflix has also ruined so many franchises doing exactly this with their adaptations of games, childhood cartoons, animes, books. They are so blatantly disrespectful to the main source material and og fans of it.
I wish making period pieces would note that in 1800s literature, when the word "thin" was used to describe a woman's appearance, it was as a negative, and when she was described as "plump" it implied the opposite. Not that I expect actresses to gain weight to embody historical beauty ideals, but they COULD stop writing plot points in period pieces where women are being fat shamed and continually reinforce the current ideal as one that was as much or more so in the past. It wasn't.
👍
I can understand trying to make a Jane Austen book into an experimental comedy like Northanger Abbey and Emma because those books were mostly satire, but instead they chose to use one of Jane Austen’s most serious books, which made it no longer a surprise that it would flop.
Ps. I am in love with your dress.
i love her dress too lol
What saddens me most is how these producers underestimate its audience. We don’t need to be spoon-fed. They think by dumbing down the content they’re doing people who aren’t usually attracted to classic literature and period dramas a favor, but they’re actually making it lose its charm. There’s a reason why people love Jane Austen’s work, even if it is from 200 years ago. They’re entirely human, and should be treated with care. Younger audiences deserve good media too.
I grew up watching 1995's Pride and Prejudice - I actually owned the 6 tape VHS set, haha. Me and my younger cousins (who were under 10 years old at the time) loved it, watched it periodically, quoted it frequently, and fully understood the plot. We didn't need more modern clothing or dumbed down dialogue to appreciate the story. Film makers need to give their audience more credit.
Directions and Producers really have a massive ego to try to change the original and to try to make the og story "their own" only to piss off the OG fans of that story and then the new people that watch it for the first time that they are trying to get but they don't even like it because the OG fans drag the adaptation through the gutter of hell. Why can't producers just do the bare minimum to stick to the original source material, it's not that hard. Netflix has also ruined so many franchises doing exactly this with their adaptations of games, childhood cartoons, animes, books. They are so blatantly disrespectful to the main source material and og fans of it.
Another thing that is detrimental is that: for a young person who doesn’t know Jane Austen, this is their introduction to her. They think « nice movie, I’ll check out the books ». And then they might be disappointed cause it’s not what they expected and ditch the books. Or they might réalise how much better the books are. Could go either way.
OOOFFFF here for the "younger audiences deserve good media too" comment because it applies to literally EVERYTHING that is coming out on movie theaters streaming services. Sure, there are still studios putting gems out there, but they're getting harder to find between marvel movies, reboots and tired biopics.
I hope Autumn de Wilde adapts more of Jane Austin’s books because Emma was just WOW. Im always at loss for words on how much I love that adaptation SO MUCH
I never wanted the movie to end! The decor and the accuracy of the time period and the actors… wowee
@@bibichillieblue Oh please!!! I would see Emma over and over and over. 🥰
I wholeheartedly agree! Emma (2020) did a great job portraying the essence of the characters in the book. It also showed the ridiculousness and playfulness of their situation without having to dumb it down or modernize it even more. The characters really feel like they came straight out of the book (well there may be a few exceptions but it's not really that big of a deal). I can tell the director really loved Emma and has a passion for it cause everything in the movie is so well thought out
It's such a disappointment, you could definitely update Anne's character for modern women. Many of us are tired, disappointed in life, oppressed, and far too busy taking care of other people. I think if they had kept the true spirit of Anne, it would have been a much more effective film.
Tiktok is full of twenty somethings lamenting that all their friends are married and/or having babies while they feel like they don't have their lives sufficiently in order, the sense of being 'left behind' could definitely still translate
The biggest upset for me is that there was another Persuasion in pre-production and it was shelved because Netflix announced this trash fire!
We don't know what the other adaptation would have been like but in light of this disaster, one has to wonder if that one would have been the better of the two.
*sigh* it'll be the one that got away now...
@@blissclair9743 Joel Fry would for sure have been a better Wentworth 😭
right??? what bothered me was that it felt like they were embarrassed of anne and as if her personality was not “feminist” or “modern” enough to be left as it was
So true! They didn't understand Ann and they have zero idea about the target group for Persuasion, at any time.
Listen I'm not saying they should adapt Persuasion as a Chinese period piece about being trapped by your parents' and the matchmaker's decisions and the crushing rigidity of Confucian standards especially pertaining to a woman's role in society BUT--
Omg that’s brilliant
Yes! Maybe set in 1920's-1940s period of painful modernization & upheaval? Ang Lee as director.
That sounds so good.
I love Persuasion in its regency era, but this would be a great adaption of the story and I wouldn't be mad.
I'm in. It would be a better fit than what we got.
I love Emma 2020's Knightly, and the fact that it understood that the whole appeal of Emma and Knightly's relationship is that they are equally clever and capable of proving each other wrong.
I really liked how he portrayed Mr. Knightley, but my god I couldn’t stop staring at the train wreck of his disgusting dead fish lips *shudders*
tbh, it's the only jane austen adaptation so far i've seen that was faithful to the book
then you should watch the 1995 pride and prejudice mini series
Ok, so Persuasion is my favorite Austen novel. Anne is a middle child and spinster; she’s complicit with being her family’s punching bag and wall flower, frustrated with herself that she can’t stand up for herself, and yearns for the secret betrothal she rejected when she was younger that led her to being this sad creature. Now the guy is back in her life, worldly and cool, and she knows he outpaced her so she has no claim to him no matter how much she wants it. …. Basically, Dakota Johnson being quirky, confident, flirty and smug IS NOT ANNE!
wow reading your synopsis it sounds like a perfect start to an interesting movie... why didn't they make it that?!?
Exactly. If it ain't broke, *don't "fix" it.*
👏
Exactly, I relate to book Ann so much being a middle child myself. I'm so sad about this adaption 😭, I'm just reading the book again to cleanse my palate lol
Yep - they made a different “novel”
I'm 65% sure nobody was strolling around with curtain bangs during Jane Austen's time💀💀💀
And no hats or caps for married women in sight. They would have combed their hair and put in soft paper or fabric curlers.
You are never gonna see Dakota without bangs
hahaha lolled at 65%
Hands down the most popular adaptation is 1995 Pride and Prejudice. AND it is almost word for word like the book. You'd think that would give movie makers a clue.
Yeah, I know it isn't really fair to compare movie to miniseries cause of all those extra hours but stupid 2005 choices like having the aunt and uncle present when Lizzy gets the bad news about Kitty....WTF? One of the most ICONIC scenes between Darcy and Elizabeth...and she only TELLS him because he happened to call at just the right time when she was so upset.. a weird choice that baffled me.
And it is so good! I love both 2005 and 1995 equally
doesnt have to be word for wordby the book to be a good adaptation
@@saragsoswift
They turned Sanditon into a series- & _still_ managed to f*ck it up- for crying out loud, they added an entirely unnecessary sex scene into it...
Colin Firth hands down the best Darcy 😩 He nails that awkward aristocrat vibe so well and he has great chemistry with Jennifer Ehle (Lizzie). And yes, the series definitely did the book justice.
Dakota breaking the fourth wall with a constant stream of eye rolls was annoying and modernising the dialogue was quite disappointing. But I thought her sisters in the film where a delight x
Her sisters carried the film!
Omg this ruined the letter reading scene which is the most romantic thing in the original story! Rather than just have a voiceover they just had to have her read aloud to the audience while glancing at us every 2 seconds. It really sucked out all the romance.
It's like she is insulting us as the viewers, like girl I get what is going on, I don't need you to narrate it for me.
@@patriot121317 That scene killed me inside.
Dakota is a dry ass actress and her breathy tone of voice has always been flat and annoying. There isn’t a single movie she’s played in that did her character service… I genuinely wonder how she continues to get cast in big movies when her attractiveness is best reserved for still photographs… not scripts
You forgot the Bollywood adaptation, “Bride and Prejudice”. It’s hysterical, stylistic and actually follows the story well. Oh, it’s also a musical.
And it goes so well with the setting!
But that's Pride and Prejudice not Persuasion though lol?
@@pagesinked I think they meant at the beginning when Mina is recalling the historical revival of Austenmania
I love it so much
@@Lolzadoodle8484 exactly 😊
I love how "updating Anne Elliot to appeal to young millennials and Gen Z" meant making her rude and self-involved. Glad to know that it wasn't effective -- makes me feel better about young people.
(Just for future reference, "anachronistic" has the emphasis on the 2nd syllable, not the first.)
I hated what they did to Anne in this version. Even though her heart was broken and she was in a turbulent period of her life, she never lashed out at others due to her unhappiness, or snuggled with a bottle of wine every night. She was defined as the true aristocrat compared to the rest of her family.
Yea she was so self-involved! She was so self-pitying that it left the audience no reason to pity her
Just for future reference anachronistic has primary stress on "nis" in both main dialects of English: UK /əˌnæk.rəˈnɪs.tɪk/ US /əˌnæk.rəˈnɪs.tɪk/. The secondary stress is indeed on the second syllable.
I love how they completely gloss over their blatant disrespect to us gen z women! Did they think we would like a snarky selfish Anne because we are selfish snarky and rude? I am an extrovert yes, but i am also kind and introspective and sad like Anne. I loved her character and he inner turmoil but the film just butchered her.
Honestly, I think a depressed woman pining for the love her life for eight long years before finding love requires little adaptation. I mean, plain depressed loners are kind of the style of the time. Gen z and young millennials can relate.
This has a similar vibe to when disney re-did Beauty and the Beast but couldn't stop themselves from adding in a bunch of out-of-touch girlboss dialogue and literally changing the story so she's more independent. Like no one is upset when a woman is a strong character, but when they ruin the story to over-emphasize what a "queen" the main protagonist is they completely miss the point.
Agree. Belle in the cartoon has a heart and she is very relatable, she's brainy and sympathetic (and she also clearly spoke to me bc of being also bookish and having strong relations with my father). And, what is more, she was "not-like-other-gals" in a good way, not in an on-the-nose way, if you will. As someone who wathced the story, I did understand that she was different but never had a reason to complain about that, simply because the story didn't spoonfeed me with it. And then they casted Hermione... Oh, did I mention they gave Gaston PTSD, too? THaaank you, movie, now I totally care about your actual villain!
@@darthtepes Yeah. I actually felt bad for Gaston in the first part of the movie. He came back from war, looking to settle down, doesn't read (but it open to try), and even tried to help Maurice find Belle.
@@reikun86 there! The whole premise is broken!
They do the same thing in all the live action remakes apparently! Both Mulan and Jasmine in Aladdin got girl-boss-ified
@@ellelee6912 I don't think the problem with the Aladdin adaptation was Jasmine, personally, I thought she was about the only good thing in that mess
oh my god I cannot believe the director said she did all this modern makeup and anachronisms to remove the barrier between the audience and the characters as if being transported to a different location/time period isn't *literally* the point of film/tv. what happened to 'you can say much about the present in a display of the past'? why does she have no faith at all in the audience to understand that they're in a different era??? this is so exhausting and frustrating nobody watching is going to cry about how unrelatable a character in the 1810s is bc they haven't got liquid lipstick on and they have curls at the side of their head.
It's condescending af, really.
Directions and Producers really have a massive ego to try to change the original and to try to make the og story "their own" only to piss off the OG fans of that story and then the new people that watch it for the first time that they are trying to get but they don't even like it because the OG fans drag the adaptation through the gutter of hell. Why can't producers just do the bare minimum to stick to the original source material, it's not that hard. Netflix has also ruined so many franchises doing exactly this with their adaptations of games, childhood cartoons, animes, books. They are so blatantly disrespectful to the main source material and og fans of it.
I guess the thing that most annoyed me from the trailer alone is just this feeling of MOCKERY almost. The character I know and love from the book was almost unrecognizable. This was one of my favorite books from Austen and I guess I'm a little protective of it.
The other issue is that Dakota Johnson has such a modern look that she doesn’t look like she belongs in the era they are trying to portray. This makes me constantly aware that she’s an actress from our time.
Totally agree
like looking at Mr Malcolm's list...the actors in that movie actually carry themselves as people would back in the regency era...
Tbh the issue isn't her looks, it's the fact that she's in extremely modern makeup
I think they styled her that way on purpose to make it easier to self-insert😞
I have to disagree, unless someone has had very obvious modern cosmetic surgery (which she hasn't), it's not really possible to look too modern, they too have ancestors who looked like them and lived in that time period after all... It's just an issue of styling, imho
Netflix’s girlboss trope is suffocating and outdated at this point.
No one wants a stereotype. They want to be understood.
The irony about what they did to the dialogue is it guarantees the movie won't age well. Once people move on from this kind of slang it will just feel embarrassing to hear it in movies.
Emma 2020 is my absolute favourite. Everything is stunning there - acting, costumes, chemistry, mood. I have no criticism there.
Agreed. For me, it is the current gold standard for Jane Austen adaptations.
💯 sooo good
@もりこ Oh god, the dance scene is sooo hot
Dakota Johnson saying “worse than strangers; we’re exes” genuinely threw me into such turmoil. I only saw that bit out of context, so I was so confused as to how Jane Austen had used the word ‘exes’ and if that was just a normal thing to say during her time period. Only for me to find out it was modernised lol
I just want to say that Northanger Abbey is so underrated, and would also probably be the best Jane Austen novel to adapt if you want it to be fun and relatable for young people without going full Bridgerton with it.
Agreed, totally.
It's so easy to do both a fun period twist and a modern version of some gal who likes true crime too much 😅
@@LadyAhroThat's exactly that! Catherine and Isabella listening to truth crime podcasts inside of sleeping :D
General Tilney has this old white van exactly the same that pedo were using in Europe in the 80's 90's. He use it for when he goes hunting btw
okay but if Fleabag was one of the inspirations, they should have realized that in that show, when things get real or intense, Fleabag turns AWAY from the audience, in one case even physically pushing us, the audience away.
The writer/director would've had to have actually _watched_ Fleabag for that. This feels like they just heard about the talking to the camera bit and ran with it 🥲
@@TheMotherofTacos Exactly!
Yes, I hated the “breaking the fourth wall” while I’ve seen it done before, it’s always appropriate to the character, and the swigging wine from the bottle was just plain silly. Poor Jane, turning over in her grave
Fleabag works because it's Fleabag. It's baffling how they borrowed the style without considering the tone and personality of our pov. Fleabag appears to be desperate and on the brink of a mental breakdown using sarcasm + imaginary friend to cope while Anne is supposed to stir in melancholia, yet still has dignity and a kind gentle heart left.
Again, they don't commit to anything. It's fine to change Anne's charater drastically but then you need to change the story and supporting cast to match up the new interpretation. Leaving the girl boss Anne in the story structure of original Anne fundamentally breaks the themes and mood of Persuasion.
A result of copying a style without understanding the substance: ill-fitting gimmick tacked on to a incoherent story.
Full disclosure, I have not watched Persuasion, but I'm getting just a tiny bit tired of people making period dramas and then modernizing the attire completely because they don't like the clothes that come with the period. I totally get changing a waistline or something, that's not going to take away from the experience for the vast majority of the audience because the vast majority of the audience isn't that attuned to the specific details of each decade's fashion. But when I see someone wearing a blazer I could've picked up last year at H&M, I don't feel like I'm watching a period drama. If you hate old fashioned fashion so much that you can't even stay within the same century, then maybe don't do period dramas.
Yeah, totally. Like why even do a period drama if you feel the need to "update" so much of it?
I mean I tend to think that literally anything can be done well or done poorly, and anachronistic choices I don’t think are inherently bad. But I’d say the creator should know why they’re making these choices, the anachronisms should have a purpose, conveying something to the audience or otherwise having a reason to be there.
If you want to make modern adaptation of period drama, make it modern. The costumes, the settings all tell a story about the world the characters live in. It tells the rules to the audience. If you muddy those rules, it becomes a bad experience because you can't figure out how people are expected to act.
the fact that Mina's stamp of approval is on the 2005 Pride and Prejudice makes me feel incredibly validated
why? it is objectively a good movie. you are strange needing validation to like a good movie
I agree Yang. I love that movie.
A lot like the 1995 version better but I prefer the 2005 one myself. The 1995 one is good, just preferred Kiera as Elizabeth rather than Jenniffer. I felt like Kiera’s Elizabeth was truer to the book:
I really hate how Hollywood think there is only one type of female lead , very limiting. I think seeing someone like Anne Elliot onscreen, a woman easy to well, persuade, and melancolic would add some variety and potential for character development. Netflix’s Anna doesn’t have the essence at all, not even on a paused frame
if they made Dakota Fanning less attractive, less foundation, less eye makeup etc it would've been believable as the movie progressed if she looked healthier and glowing because she was interacting with Wentworth again like in the 1995 version 🤷♀️
@@bleachedrukia Johnson*
This movie was a step away from having Anne say "hashtag relatable"
When she said "exes" i felt like someone slapped me in the face🤣
I did utter a "Seriously? WTF and almost shut it off when Anne is going through mementos of their love and pulled out the small stack of music scores and called it a "playlist".
@@KITTY10171 I cracked up
@@cindye5285 🤣🤣🤣 right!? A regency era burned CD of love songs? Like wtf🤣🤣🤣
The feeling of missed opportunities and watching other people have life milestones while you feel like you're falling behind is so... Personally relatable to me. Annes sadness and anger felt so real when i read Persuasion the first time. Her shame, her embarrassment, her resentment, her anger, her sadness, her stoicism despite it all, It was such a disappointment that the film didnt think i could relate to that. One of the best things about Jane Austen is how characters have all these deep feelings and yet cant find the words to express them to other people. Its relatable!! Its relatable 200 years later!! I dont think its all that alien from modern audiences either, I think its pretty normal to feel like youre constantly making bad decisions in your 20s and living with the consequences, or that everyone you know is getting married and having kids and you're falling behind. There are all sorts of ways you can adapt that to a modern audience. Persuasion is a novel of sincere deep and complicated emotions, and the girl bossification is just... Look how they massacred my boy.
coming in with the godfather quote...awesome!!!
The thing is Jane Austen is already relatable, that’s why her stories are still popular. No need to dumb it down 🤷🏼♂️
Best comment 🎉
I haven't read enough books of hers to see just how they're relatable ngl. You're making me wanna do research on thus topic
💯!!!
Well, dumb people do need to dumb it down so they can "relate" to it in their ignorance.
@@sin3358 If research means reading the books, I wholeheartedly endorse this idea! I hope that you love them. I find them to be so very lovely. 🥰 Jane Austen's books are so incredibly interesting because of the subtle commentary that she makes. In Persuasion it's more thoughtful and internal because this book was written towards the end of her life and reflects the sorrow of "what could have been". But many of the others she wrote are satires and social commentaries on how ridiculous society is. They are all very good, and speak to our everyday experiences as people, regardless of the differences in time period. ☺️ I hope you like them. ❤️
It's so annoying that producers don't trust a modern audience to understand period dramas
Right, when the audiences for period dramas have always been modern…it’s as though those of us who grew up with these movies in the 90s believe there’s “something different about young people these days.”
It's Netflix writers mostly.
I think rather that they don't trust they want to stir youth towards shallowness...instead of depth and discernment. Dumbing down, really, a tik tok approach to life, lol
If the creators do not believe that their audience will understand the value of period dramas the product just becomes an obvious cash cow.
@@thebidding.870 They are Clueless I don't know if anyone here remembers their Death note adaptation.
If you dont like doing period dramas, and dont like the period’s clothing… DONT DO A PERIOD DRAMA???
Exactly!
my forever favorite Austen adaptation is Sense and Sensibility. it’s not perfect, but Thompson’s script combined with Winslet’s performance and super strong supporting performances plus Ang Lee’s lush visuals … i think i’ve seen it 100 times and could watch it 100 more. Close 2nd place to the PBS Pride and Prejudice.
☝️This!
Yes! Beautiful movie. When Emma's character finds out her love interest is not married and releases all of her pent up emotions in relief and joy at the knowledge. One of my favorite scenes
I loved that version!
So divine Alan rickman was my roman empired
You mean to tell me that they had HENRY FREAKING GOLDING in their "Persuasion" adaptation, yet completely missed the opportunity to cast him as the male lead?! 🤦🏽♀️
Yeah, that was mistake # let's say 2.
Yeah, instead they used a perpetually constipated looking actor who sounds like he's about to cry every time he speaks and has absolutely no chemistry with Dakota Johnson.
He was offered Captain Wentworth first. Henry Golding wanted to played the villain
@@mopixies4196 Omg Ikr ? I was so turned off by Jarvis’ constant face of painful constipation when looking at Anne, I died inside more each time. I rooted for Henry Golding’s character the whole time, like his charm hid the red flags I can’t 😆
Dropped all the balls they did.
Dakota Johnson has the face of someone who knows what twitter is. I'm paraphrasing, I've read this somewhere, but I really do think it's true. Some people's appearances are too "modern" or anachronistic to the time period and that breaks immersion of the story.
it's interesting that the actors in mr malcolm's list look more at home in the regency era than dakota johnson in persuasion...and yet mr malcolms list is a more modern story....
I think it’s also because they made her hair and makeup so modern! It took me out of it so many times because I was like, wait this hairstyle could have been in fifty shades of grey
I agree with Kelly Nanea here ; there's no such things are "a too modern face", everything's in the hairdo, makeup and posture.
@@SauleNewell Just, the lipstick. Why.
I think her face looks classical enough, but it was the hair/costuming that made dakota look too modern
If you want to update a character, just set the story in modern times. There are so many exciting ways to do that, the Lizzy Bennet diaries being a perfect example. You get an excellent feeling for what the characters would be like if you set them in a modern context. If I watch a period piece, I want a period piece. Also, Anne was never supposed to be snarky or "quirky". She was thoughtful, serious, responsible, kind, and mature. She didn't need to be in your face, she had a quiet dignified kind of strength.
YES! Someone else who knows and likes The Lizie Bennett Diaries. That series was a perfect example of how to modernize a piece without stealing it of all its personality and charm. My hat is off to you Random Internet Stranger. You have good taste.
@@codykirchner9606 Always love to find a fellow Lizzie Bennett fan!
The Lizzie Bennet diaries are rarely mentioned but was actually surprisingly good. You would have guessed the vlog format would limit what they could do but it was actually the other way around. And the casting was great! The payoff at the end was one of the best of any adaptions.
LIZZIE BENNET DIARIES MENTIONED?!?!
SUCH A WELL DONE ADAPTATION AND I LOVE IT
Hearing about new adaptations these days feel more like threats than something to look forward to. If Jane Austen and Tolkien don’t rise from their graves then we can safely assume ghosts don’t exist.
When I saw the Mulan remake in the works, I initially got SO EXCITED... Then immediately realized that my favorite childhood story would be completely ruined. This gross modern feminism and an apparent dearth of creativity has ruined cinema.
@@threearrows2248 NO. People that think that feminism is making the character modern and masculin IS.
After you mentioned Jane Eyre, I seriously feeling that Mia Wasikowska might've made a good Anne. She's good at emulating that depressed sort of vibe
that's kinda her thing IMO😄
As an Anne Elliot fan, I would not have been mad at her being Anne. I rather a newer actress only because it is Jane Austen and Jane Austen fans are huge despite what entertainment industry thinks.
👍🏽❤
omggg would like to see mia in another period masterpiece
Or Saorise Ronan
The entire movie is giving “Emily in Paris” for some reason.
And yes, we have to 1) allow women to be beautiful enough “for that time period” and 2) show women that aren’t necessarily gorgeous at all. We can’t be fooled that this woman that is considered attractive in the real world is somehow the ugly duckling 300 years ago.
It less the beauty part (her family thinks she's not pretty due to her being dark haired and having gentle features instead of blonde with strong features - sort of like comparing a Kardashian to Emma Watson. Very different but still pretty.)
but I just can't by the starting point of this story. This Anne could have never been talked out of marrying Wentworth. The movie goes out of its way to show Anne going "I'm NoT LiKe OtHeR GiRlS!!!!" She wears mens clothers, has her hair unstyled and rolls around the dirt with the kids. She constantly judges and thinks less of her family and flouts societies rules. So .... WHY didn't she marry Wentworth? Family and Society? I don't think so.
@@kittikats Ah, that’s an interesting observation. I agree with you there. She does seem like the type who would have met him in the dark of night on a horse, and told him to get on, while they elope to a new life of their own somewhere else.
@@kittikatsThat's so obvious that no one see it.
This is the biggest plothole. And I guess why the not a Jane Austen fan crew disliked this movie too.
@@kittikats Frankly, a girl who behaved like this Anne did would have been locked away somewhere by her family, end of story. Flouting society in Regency England had very dire consequences. Especially for young women.
Anne Elliott was an introvert and gentle and everyone took advantage of her and spoke over her with only a handful of her acquaintences seeing what a true gem she is. like that’s what made her relatable and loved. Like even having freddy prince junior discover the arty girl (and make her hot by removing her glasses); or having some family of mansplainers who just don’t get you (maybe like matilda) would have been a better route for the adaptation. like if you only stay true to one thing, stay true to the heroine’s character
Yeah this is why one questions if the writers even read the book at all
Exactly that!
One of the best things about the Emma adaptation is how it builds on the text in its visual media via its depiction of servants. In the book, they aren't ever mentioned (and not a servant, but Austin plays with this "never mentioned but there" bit with how the Woodhouses invoke their different doctors without the doctors ever being present), but obviously the servants are THERE. So the movie adds: what would these servants be doing? How would they react to these ridiculous characters? They never speak, but because it's a film, we get to see how they react. So the movie does not change the text, but it builds on it in a thoughtful way that only works in a visual medium.
This is an S tier observation and take! Autumn De Wilde is a genius and she speaks about how much fun she had directing the servants in the audio commentary of the film!
I adore the 1995 Amanda Root version. My husband and I first watched it for a class in college and both remember thinking to ourselves, "we have to watch 2 hours with this woman?" And by the end her grace, her quiet strength of character, her goodness, and so many other wonderful qualities made her beautiful to us and probably our favorite Jane Austen character. They changed so much about Anne Elliot in this netflix version that it might as well have been a different story, and they destroyed such a phenomenal and, in my opinion, underrated character. Who, after watching this adaptation, will be tempted to pick up the novel? Anne Elliot deserves so much better.
So Anne came into beauty for you as you spent time with her, the same way she rebloomed for herself and Wentworth as the movie went on.
Was it the sea air or just being busy and needed and loved as she was at Mary's and at the Musgrove home?
Love it, thank you.
This adaptation reeks of the writers and director thinking audiences are too stupid to understand Jane Austen’s work unless it’s “#relatable.” The fact that the director literally said they made the modern references to make it “more accessible” just confirms it
it's very sad because there are gonna be even more movies like this made
By making the 'modern' references they also made the movie age badly, because in 2 years' time it'll seem extremely outdated
@@yumengz5501 it's already outdated!
And do you not think that they considered their main demographic for an adaptation such as this would be female (why else cast Dakota - 50 Shades - Johnson?) It absolutely infuriates me that the directors/producers think women cannot connect with a time period without inserting jarring modern day tropes. THIS WAS NOT Anne from the novel. Quiet, plain women who choose to hide their inner feelings actually do exist and their stories are still interesting and relatable.
One of the problems i had with it was that they clearly didn't know who their audience was supposed to be. It feels like in some moments there was an attempt to bring in the teens to early 20 year olds, (ie. the empath line) but then goes off in another direction to appeal to a slightly older audience, perhaps in their 30s (the wine drinking for example) its like they looked at the trend for everything 2000s coming back and tried to make something that fit the 2000s style but was modern and ended up in no mans land.
I think they also made a mistake in thinking that they were going to hook watchers who would discover Jane Austen via Bridgerton. Like Jane Austen isn't an indie novelist, they should have had more confidence in the audience not expecting it to have a modern twist.
Pride and Prejudice (2005) and Emma (2020) both change certain parts of their books but the difference between them and this version of Persuasion is that they both kept the feeling of the original novels.
Pride and Prejudice changed a lot of the settings (both of Darcy's proposals happen outside in the movie) but this is clearly done to make the story more visually appealing to the audience and it uses these changes to show the beautiful countryside and giving the movie an individual and recognisable aesthetic. It managed to get the romantic feel of the book across perfectly.
Emma stayed quite close to the book and manged to make it more relatable while keeping the witty, clever and academic feel of the novel. The reason sarcasm worked in this movie and not in Persuasion is that the original Emma had a sarcastic, funny feel while the Persuasion novel was much sadder and more demur so the changes felt as if they were trying to copy the feel of Emma and the aesthetic and main character of Pride and Prejudice while doing none of them justice
Hope I'm not coming too late! The thing with this film is that while being a bad adaptation most "creative" decisions felt borrowed from recent movies. Every time a new location was introduced I was distracted by the shot having the name written in the same font as Bridgerton, Anne breaking the fourth wall felt like Enola Homes' "too feminist for this time period" comments to the public, the masculine pieces of clothing and the way Anne plays with her nephews felt like 2019 Jo March... This movie is not Persuasion and is not it's own thing.
so well said!!
Jane Austen was able to be a transcend throughout the ages because she was able to critique the shallowness and superficialness of a society that only valued appearance and status. I think that describes the writing team at Netflix who thought this was acceptable.
Agreed!
Ong yes! I just rewatched LW (2019) and you’re right
i know it was only in a couple scenes, but it bothered me how sometimes dakota johnson wore her hair down in public settings in this movie. during this time it was really only considered appropriate for grown women to wear their hair totally loose in a private setting like the bedroom.
To me Sally Hawkins was a great cast for Anne. She is a beautiful woman, but she has that frailty and delicacy that can (and was) turn(ed) into palor and wistfulness. I could see her former beauty, and her actual melancholy and listlessness, and she truly made me see her as Anne. Much as I love the first adaptation (I just really enjoy Ciaran Hinds), the 2007 adaptation holds a special place in my heart and is one of my favorite adaptations overall.
I happened to see this version late one night. I hadn't read the book at that point, but I could still follow the story and enjoy it. I have seen only two other versions since then, but I think it is still my favourite.
the music was also so perfect, it's iconic, unique, melacholic.. ugh but there still a hope in the note
The makeup was actually what took me out of the story the most 💄Also I felt all the clothes felt to new and “off the rack” - they should have looked more lived in.
So many close ups of Dakota Johnson with a full face of makeup, including lipstick and eyeshadow… and everyone else had much more natural looks, it was so weird
stanning mina le isn’t just a hobby, it’s a lifestyle, a reason to breathe, an escape from this cruel world filled with thieves. it’s art
agreed she’s an icon
Agreed :)
totally agree
shes an icon, shes a legend, she is the moment
Precisely, Mina is an effortless fashion icon! ❤️
I feel like the difference with Bridget Jones not being like Elizabeth is that Bridget feels like the epitome of me watching pride and prejudice wishing I was like Elizabeth while crying and being a hot mess. She's not actually supposed to be an aspirational character, she's a normal person attempting to become an aspirational character. And then finding out that, while that's not possible, her mr Darcy loves her anyways, and that's what makes the story sweet and good for audience self insertion.
Joe Wright also chose to change the setting of P&P from the 1810s to the 1790s to both justify his costuming changes (he found a nice loophole around it cause Austen started writing the novel in the 1790s. Bless him, cause I dislike the empire waistline too) and also to make a nice explanation as to why people from Darcy and Bingley's social status might've wanted to go to middle-class or peasant-ish dances (French revolution putting the fear of the proletariat in the bourgeoisie). Caroline Bingley is seen in empire waist dresses in the movie, implying that she's more fashion forward than the Meryton folks, like the other Elliot sisters that you mentioned here. I really like the artistic changes Joe Wright made where he didn't just change things willy nilly based on what he personally liked or didn't, a lot of thoughts and research went into them to justify these decisions to the audience who might be a little ???? at the changes. This "Persuasion" straight up insults its audience, as if we wouldn't like or understand Austen unless it is strained and pureed and sugarred and then spoon-fed to us.
(Awesome video, BTW. P&P05 stan too! The taste!)
I was about to make the exact same comment re: 2005 P&'s costumes. The waistlines are fine for that transitional period between the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th Centuries. From this point and from the long stays vs short stays comment ("short stays" that we see people making today are a reenactorism and not accurate for the vast majority of women in the period. The extant examples of literally shorter stays were exceptions for people with physical issues. Stays in the Regency period extended down the whole torso (you couldn't comfortably wear petticoats otherwise), the "short" refers to waist length, ie stays of the 18th century were "long" stays in that they created a long waist, and Regency stays created a "short" waist, hence short stays) in the Bridgerton costume video, it shows this just isn't a costume period Mina is super familiar with, and fair enough, it's really not a particularly flattering one!
They could also have argued with the fact that most of the time they were in the middle of nowhere in the early XIX century, and not in London. Fashion (and transportation) was way slower at those times and you wouldn't buy a new wardrobe every couple years with the lattest trents unless you were royalty living in the big cities.
Honestly, them altering the dialogue to be more "trendy" and modern is such a degrading insult to the intelligence of the audience.
Just ends up being cringe anyway, even if you modernize the dialogue, no one irl uses twitter/tiktok phrases and buzzwords
I don’t understand the attempt to “draw a new audience to Austen” as justification for the modernization (cringe-fication) of the writing. there’s no need to draw an audience to the author if this audience wouldn’t be interested in her writing in the first place. these adaptations should be aimed to those who enjoy this type of story
@@NoOne-wn9ju Yes, but in order to do that, the original fan base needs to be considered. You have to make it popular before it's seen by people who might not be interested in the original source material. By alienating the people who were actually looking forward to this adaptation, you've already lost half the battle.
This is why I'm certain that the director and writers are lying. It was an artistic choice to butcher the language because they thought they were being funny and clever. Then when the jokes didn't land and when (what should have been) the main target audience critiqued their choices, it was easier for them to say "we were trying to be accessible!" instead of owning to the fact that their choices didn't have their desired effect.
What’s funny to me about Dakota being too attractive for the role (which- she is) when Kiera Knightley was cast in pride and prejudice there’s an interview where they said that Kiera was too pretty to be Lizzie, throughout the book Lizzie is basically told “yeah she’s pretty but” like she’s pretty but not as hot as her sister or hot enough to go down a class etc but apparently the director changed his mind upon meeting Kiera in person, which she joked about after 😂
There's also the fact that dark hair and dark eyes weren't considered pretty then (when PnP came out) because they were considered inferior features (racially and ethnically) compared to the European blond hair and blue eyes benchmark. But they are supposed to be hot now. So by those days' standards, even if she were stunning by today's standards, a dark haired and dark eyed woman would be considered less pretty than her blond and blue eyed sister
@@Stonytude well to paraphrase the book Kiera does have fine eyes indeed
The early 2000s were obviously a terrible time for body-shaming of a particular 'Real Women Have Curves' variety, because I remember a not-insignificant number of people saying Knightley was too flat-chested to be an Austen heroine and Jennifer Ehle's admittedly more generous rack shows to advantage in the neckline cuts of the empire gowns; but they could not see the irony in them complaining about a more lean, angular body type which WOULDN'T have been the Regency feminine ideal...actually suiting the character of Elizabeth Bennet, who is outright and immediately dismissed by her own eventual love-interest on their first meeting as not being pretty enough to dance with before he begins to realize she has features he actually finds attractive. It just makes more sense for Elizabeth Bennet to be a revelation and awakening in Darcy that narrow standards of beauty ain't shit and his unconquerable attraction will not conform to his or anybody's expectations and misguided ideals. (I mean of course we're still casting from a pool of beautiful actresses so it's always gonna be skewed we are never going to have Actually Average Elizabeth in my lifetime, but Keira's 'too modern' type of beauty actually really worked for the casting because yeah she's not the type you find in old-timey portraits of historical beauties but she's got big alluring eyes and a cute chin and a lil swagger in her step and oh damn of course Darcy is doomed.)
@@GotLostProductions can I just say I love this explanation- I always considered Elizabeth to be conventionally hot by the standards of the day just not hot enough to go down a class and not as hot as Jane because it’s all Mrs Bennett tells them every time they’re in the same room together. But I like the idea of her as beautiful the more you look and the more you know and not just the standard of the day and how that ties in with the other comment about why she’s often cast having darker hair or eyes compared to Jane because of that societal view about brown hair and brown eyes.
Idk it’s just cool to see a reading on an old book and a story you thought you were super familiar with rephrased in a different way that makes you appreciate it more and even casting of Kiera Knightley more. Who, btw, we stan Kiera Knightley in this house
@@MrTwentington Yeah, I see Elizabeth as a character who becomes more attractive the more you spend time in her presence--her wit and ballsy nature are stand-out elements of her personality and while that might rub some people the wrong way and someone like Caroline can find plenty to pick on in superficial terms, everyone seems aware of her appeal over time. Like it seems widely accepted that Jane is the Beauty and while Elizabeth isn't 'plain' in the way Charlotte Lucas is, her intelligence and the fire of her personality seem to win people over among her friends and neighbours, and it's only people who have only just met her or who are determined to dislike her despite her appealing personality (rival Miss Bingley, snobby Lady Catherine, and even her own mother from time to time--and all these women see Elizabeth and her charms and her strength as some sort of threat to their own plans,) who try to write her off by picking on her looks by comparing them to the ideal of the era.
The chemistry of the main couple was so lacking. Like the whole point of the story relies heavily on the inate tragedy of the relationship and how it affects them and more, but the movie absolutely failed in that department. The lead romance of a the romantic story sucked, nothing can compensate for that
Yes because even if you divorce it from the novel it still doesn’t hold up as a romantic period drama cause the chemistry is just not there
@@alanadoueihi1438 exactly.
I loved most of your commentary, I just have a slight modification to your characterization of Wentworth and Anne's relationship: Anne is pining for her lost love but doesn't feel worthy of having a relationship with him after she relented to influences in her life. Wentworth on the other hand starts out a bit bitter and wanting to prove that he was over her by flirting with all the marriageable ladies except for Anne. He only begins to entertain a thought of pursuing her when he hears that she hasn't chosen anyone else regardless of how it would have made her relations happy. This shift is one of the most human shifts in Austen because after you've been rejected by someone you truly loved, it is incredibly difficult to open yourself back up to that person. Anne realized she was worthy, Wentworth realized he could try again and hopefully get a new result.
What`s funny is that the whole `trying to make Anne relatable to Gen Z` shtick actually made this adaptation more dated than the ones before.Anne Elliot is already plenty relatable to Gen Zs.Introspective,with chances she regrets not taking and somewhat anxious all around.
Wait, you're telling me Gen Z don't always knock gravy on their heads after screaming through windows? Just me?
Yeah the script sounds like boomers trying to speak to teenagers
I don't mind them taking artistic licence and all that but I do find it really sad that Anne Elliott isn't considered a Strong Female Character ™, like a woman can only be strong and relatable if she's snarky and rolls her eyes at everything.
I don’t think that’s why she’s not a strong female character
I think is kind of what happens with Cinderella. They don't think it's strong to act with kindness and diligence instead you have be a bad bish. Unless you're not a "strong" woman.
I was 19 when Sense and Sensibility came out (1995) and I still love it. Notably also because of Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon...
He is wonderful in it.🤗
Honestly this is why I just go for the “stuffy” bbc mini series for classics adaptations. The production and attention to the details and accuracy are unparalleled. (I respect your opinion to prefer 2005 P&P hahaha but I’m sorry Colin Firth just IS Darcy. He IS a stuffy awkward guy who has the windows blown open on him by a girl in like 80% of his movies.) That being said I LOOOOVED 2020 Emma and it’s weird to me that it has such a low rating on IMDb. The clue to me that this Persuasion is not great comes from the fact that no one can seem to agree if it was too much wrong or not enough right, what those right or wrong things were, and what specifically would need to be done to “fix” it. No one seems to be able to put their finger on it.
True. I love the 1995 Persuasion, but I was excited about possibly getting a more "cinematic", aesthetically pleasing film. Emma 2020 is just so beautiful to watch, as is P&P 2005. I wanted the ✨vibes✨ but not in detriment to the story.. now I'm mourning what the other canceled adaptation could've been
Absolutely agree. 05's adaptation is aEsThEtIcaLlY pleasing but some changes to Elizabeth's personality and behaviour just scream first decade of 21st century, and that's a huge drawback. Jennifer Ehle's Elizabeth is THE LIZZIE BENNETT because despite being very restrained, polite, cheerful and ladylike (as demanded from a genteel *womAn in 19th century) she still makes weird faces, jumps in dirt and doesn't seem to be perfectly pretty every second she's on screen. Jennifer's Elizabeth is a living woman and not someone's ideal period drama aesthetic fantasy
I cant speak for others, but to me 2020 Emma was awful. I mean, it's entertaining, but... while watching the movie I was aware all the time that I am NOT watching a period drama, but a movie that tries to pass itself for period.
As a history lover, I just couldn't look at it and feel it genuine. People didn't behave as they did in 1800s.
as a jane austen stan, this movie was the worst thing ever but the worst thing was the lack of chemistry between the two leads. I don't agree with people saying Dakota J. doesn't fit/or looks too modern but my god the couple was so off. Not to mention how they made the adaptation to be a comedy or whatever that was supposed to be.
I still have yet to see Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightly. I have heard good things about it but I’m sorry my gold standard is the BBC mini-series with Colin Firth 🤣
Yeah, the actor playing Wentworth was awful. My husband kept saying he looked concussed
Dakota J. doesn't even seem like a bad fit for the character _from the books_ tbh, she might just be too pretty. I'm sure if the movie gave the character the melancholy they had in the book, she would have nailed it. But for that they would need to like the source material, which they clearly don't.
@@LunaWitcherArt I agree, I think she could’ve been a great Anne with a better script, direction and costar! (And a less glamorous look)
I thought Dakota was a good fit cos she does the shy soft spoken thing well, but if you don’t feel miserable for her then you don’t feel elated when she finally gets what she wants.
I just have to say- “unleashing mr. Darcy” is absolutely hilarious, and the plot beats actually match P&P pretty closely. It’s not a good movie but I enjoyed it way more than the new persuasion!
Persuasion is like ‘fleabag’ meets ‘emma’ meets ‘bridgerton’, and it’s a big mess
plus like 13 going on 30??? she was so childish
and can you believe it was how they advertised it?? it's a literal recipe for disaster
"Actresses with big names... or who have parents with big names..." GIRL I WAS NOT READY FOR THIS SHADE 💀💀💀
I agree entirely. The trap film makers fall into is thinking all main female characters these days NEED to be quirky, loud and modern in order to not get rioted on for making their female characters weak and plain. Women have multiple personalities and sometimes having a female lead who is back to being quiet, emotional, shy and wanting a man for her happiness is okay. Don’t mix modern girl language and tropes in with period dramas, especially ones written authenticity at the time, it breaks the story, historical accuracy and it’s giving a middle finger to the author.
While Colin Firth was a great part of the 1995 adaptation, I’m always drawn in more by Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet. She’s my favourite
She's my favorite too!
The "subtle" eye rolling kills me every time ahahahah
I recently started watching Jennifer Ehle reading Pride & Prejudice on her TH-cam channel. It's so adorable and addictive.
@@pinkunicorn8794 nice! I'm going to look that up!
Agreed, I think Keira Knightley is actually a little too modernised as well, (meeting Darcy alone outside with her hair loose for instance). The film is beautifully romantic and I love Matthew Macfadyen, but the Jennifer Ehle version is just so perfect.
Persuasion is my favorite Jane Austen book, (and one of the first books to make me ugly cry)Anne is still very relatable even to people today, because she is very vulnerable in the book and we come to have fellow feeling for her, the way she upheld herself and her values even when feeling embarrassment and guilt is inspiring. Her dignity and cool headedness in an emergency is what drew Wentworth’s attention back to her because he could see how she had grown by her ability to take control of herself and others in the situation. She wasn’t some sloppy Mess, it’s a story of a woman who overtime became Self assured and confident in making her own decisions, that was her entire character growth in the book. When she was younger she was able to be persuaded by others to make a decision opposed to what she thought was right, but by the end of the book we see a confident young woman who is self-assured. Anne is a great role model to show how we can overcome obstacles in our lives and use them as a learning experience that can cause personal growth and become stronger later on.
Exactly. And in the novel her "weakness" is contrasted by Louisa's "weakness" (foils - super Jane Austen) who is too obstinate and "not easily persuaded" with detrimental effect. At the end of Persuasion (novel), Anne actually tries to convince Wentworth that she was right to listen to Lady Russel, who was a replacement mother to her. The growth is in the balance: follow your heart, but not blindly; she decides (for herself) to choose Wentworth and, quite brazenly for the milieu, assert what she wanted. In the movie she is just angry she ever listened to Lady Russel. Which seems to be the sum total of her character growth in the movie - giving Lady Russel a piece of her mind. Really?!
Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility will forever be my favorite Jane Austen adaptation. Followed closely with BBC's Pride and Prejudice mini-series. All other adaptations of all other novels fall so short for me. Even the Kira Knightley Pride and Prejudice (but mainly because of the stupid, walking in their nightshirts scene and the "Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy..." ending- bleh)
Have you seen the 2009 Emma mini series? I refuse to believe there's anyone who likes Austen who can't love it. Romola Garai is perfection as Emma. It's just ridiculous how good she is, and with Johnny Lee Miller as Mr Knightly... It's so beautiful!
Sense and Sensibility is great, and so is the BBC Pride and Prejudice. There's a special place in my affections for Bride and Prejudice and the 2005 Pride and Prejudice.
And the only "modern" Austen adaptations I like are Clueless and Lost in Austen (an ITV mini series where a modern woman accidentally ends up replacing Lizzie in Pride and Prejudice. It's ridiculous but very sweet and sincere).
@@bubblewrapstargirl OMG thank you! I still think that Romola the best choice for Emma. The whole series just in right place. BBC won this with P&P and Emma for being genuine and close to book arcs of heroes. In my opinion one and the biggest problem with the new adaptations is problems with hero arc and their changes throughout story line
although I think the 2007 ITV production is untouchable, Northanger Abbey really is RIGHT THERE. The book is literally a satire on Gothic and has so much room for fourth-wall breaking and anachronisms that it genuinely baffles me that netflix would try so desperately to mould Persuasion into something it isn't.
This makes me want to see a new adaption of Northanger Abbey with Henry Golding playing Mr. Tilney
Yes!! To both of you.
@@missstripedsocks Henry Golding would actually make a really good Mr. Tilney. He could play the sincerity and the mischievous side!
@@missstripedsocks that would be GOLD
Omg I would love this!
I keep thinking of baz luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet while watching this, as an example of a movie that successful modernized the story for a newer audience, but didn’t think the audience was so stupid that they couldn’t handle the original dialogue
Edit: obviously not Jane Austen but a good example of a modernization of an older text
100% agree
True!
Gold standard, definitely
I also really enjoyed 10 Things I hate about you: Modern time and dialogue, but stayed true to the characters (most importantly the main leads)
I found myself enjoying the supporting characters in this adaptation more than Anne and Wentworth, and that is not a good thing when we are supposed to be rooting for them.
I just want Mina to talk about Emma more. Any video with Emma commentary is a win for me.
BBC/A&E Pride and Prejudice, hands down is my favorite. I think its the most accurate to the book, i love the actors and setss/locations, and I think Lizzies "eyebrow work" did some serious heavy lifting, but in a non-corny way. Back then women didnt really get to say how they felt in public but the actress for that film said it all silently, with her eyes. And what fine eyes they are!
that’s a great way to look at it, i agree with you completely ☺️
Yes, I quite agree! It's an excellent production all around, but I have always thought that Lizzie's "eyebrow work," expressions, and voice inflections are what make it so exceptional as to be the "universally acknowledged" definitive adaptation.
Me too