Persuasion

Okay, if you discount the production value, the ugly outfits, and the big hair, this adaptation is still far inferior to the 90's version. First Ann Firbank (playing Anne Elliot), is literally ten years too old to play this role and her acting leaves much to be desired. Amanda Root (playing the same role in the 90's version) can express more in her big, brown eyes than Firbank can with her entire face in a four hour production. Anne is turned into a peevish, whining, boring character (and what was with the scene during the `long walk' where she stops to spout off poetry?). Henrietta and Louisa looked so much alike that the only time I could tell them apart was when they stood next to each other (Henrietta was taller). And Louisa! Never was there a more obnoxious character! It was ridiculous to think that Wentworth was supposed to be interested in her. She is supposed to be high spirited and pretty and charming, not stupid and silly with her ridiculous laugh that's like nails on a chalkboard. When she starts to chant, `to Lyme, to Lyme, to Lyme,' I started yelling, `shut up, shut up, shut up!' The best part of the movie was when Louisa falls those three feet at the cobb because I knew I wouldn't have to see her anymore in the movie. Speaking of the fall at the cobb scene; it was the mose poorly acted, badly directed and edited scene of the entire film. How does a person fall three feet down, land on her feet, and still be knocked unconscious?

On the plus size, the character of Elizabeth was much closer to the book than in the 90's version. They also put in many more scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end.

I'll admit, I have bought this movie, even though I knew how sub par it was, but I'm a huge Austen fan, so I'll buy any movie adapted from one of her novels. Watch this move if you're morbidly curious, or to appreciate the 90's version even more.

The bottom line is, this version may follow the letter of the novel, but the 90's version follows the spirit.

It is the best adaptation of Persuasion that I have seen. It balances all the key plot points so well.

When it comes to most movies made about classic novels, most people complain that it wasn't true to the novel. You can't say that about this. That's the one (and only) good point about this movie. I couldn't stand the woman who played Anne. I know she was supposed to be older, but not THAT old! She looked like she was 40! Anne's only supposed to be 27 or something like that. And I could NOT stand how she did her hair. Captain Wentworth was ok, but no where near as dashing as you imagine him when you read the book, and Captain Benwick was just plain frightening. I thought the girl who played Louisa Musgrove was really good, the same with the woman who played Mary. I don't remember having any specific complaints with any of the other characters, so I suppose they did well enough. The script was very close, sometimes word for word, with the book. However, this did make the movie rather boring. I thoroughly enjoyed the book...every time i read it. I never was bored at all throughout the entire novel, so I'm blaming my boredom on the movie's direction and acting. The character of Anne was supposed to be calm, not completely dull...which is what this actress was. Overall I must say i was disappointed with this movie. Compared to the newer version I preferred the newer one, mainly because of the actress who played Anne. This movies wasn't completely terrible, but it wasn't any good either.

Anne: played the part well enough. However, she looked near 40 instead of 27 and had the look of a heavy smoker about her. Her hair also looked like a weird hair helmet the first half of the show and did not fit regency style in the slightest.

Wentworth: enjoy his portrayal for the most part but disliked some of the directing choices they gave him. He too seemed rather old for the part but not as old as Anne.

Sir Walter: seemed more angry than annoyed and snobby. He too seemed much much older than than early 50's.

Admiral & Mrs. Croft: Mr. Croft was downright elderly looking and sounding. Though the acting was good. The screen writers and directors made him come across as a tiresome elderly man.

Mrs. Croft was acted well enough and neither here or there as memorable.

Mary: cast very well though they had her sounding VERY harsh.

Elizabeth: perfectly cast and acted. She played the part of oblivious snob quite well.

Charles: very well cast and acted. He portrayed the good natured and jovial character with ease.

Henrietta: also perfectly cast as a sweet, happy girl with pleasant manners and an open countenance.

Louisa: very poorly cast, acted and directed. She practically shouted all her lines, even her incessant giggling. She comes across as ditsy rather than just good humoured.

Mrs. Clay: perfectly smarmy and

Mr. Elliot: very charming. Too charming. Just as this character is intended. This was so well acted that he was the best casting choice for the whole movie. My new favourite Mr. Elliot across all 4 adaptations.

Lady Russel: acted just fine though not very memorably on the whole.

Mrs. Smith: also acted well and seemed a good choice for the role.

This adaptation is the most book accurate as far as story goes. Typical stiff aching transitions of the 70's and very 70's styled regency decor for the sets. Many of the dress fabric patterns were also very 70's feeling. None of this is a negative as it IS '71 BBC! I still prefer the '95, but this is a close 2nd! Leaps above '07. Leaps AND bounds above '22 which was trash.

How unfortunate for this 70's effort that it's been eclipsed by the superior 1995 Roger Michell film. So OK, this TV dramatisation was made nearly 40 years ago (practically TVs infancy in the grand scheme of things). That duly said, really, the sheer murky brown 1970's-ness of it seriously detracts from the drama. "Persuasion" was the autumn of Jane Austen's sadly short writing career. Both the book and its central character, Anne Eliot, are her most mature, thoughtful and wise, in poignant contrast to the vivacity and spirit of her early work "Pride & Prejudice". This dramatisation certainly echoes that more sedate pace, but they failed to understand in 1971 that pace is everything, even in a story as gentle as this.

A motherless, unloved Anne Eliot, unmarried at 27, is forced into renewed acquaintance with the man she rejected at 18, on the advice, the 'persuasion,' of her older family friend. Her lasting affection is tried to the utmost as she must watch him court the attention of younger, prettier girls, while she herself has lost her bloom. Then, an accident shifts the balance of the drama.

This 1971 BBC TV drama takes its ample – perhaps too ample – time to tell the story. This allows for the characters to be very true to the original, but paler, less rich in tone than the 1995 film, which made considerable, but intelligent, time cuts. Despite suitably lavish sets, the costumes are a fright: each unfortunate lady is enveloped in typically high 70s sludge-coloured over-patterned vileness (highlights have to be Mrs Clay in a green velvet and slimy GOLD dress, I ask you! – and Anne Eliot's Jackson Pollock of a green, brown and yellow curtain or whatever sofa it was ripped from). This may sound trivial but with such understated fare as this, the look of the piece is important. Don't get me started on the mad towering bouffant hairdos. Of course each age loves to revile the taste of the previous, but emerging from that dark decade myself, I'm quite sure that the 70's will continue to linger on in people's minds as a benchmark for the very, very bad.

Still, Anne Firbank's somewhat too old Anne Eliot is subtle and elegant, and her slightly haughty ripostes are very much in keeping with her station - this I've never seen before, and I think Austen would approve. Emma Thompson was too old to play Elinor Dashwood in Ang Lee's "Sense & Sensibility", but her extraordinary ability to portray pathos overcame that single defect, while Firbank isn't quite as good as that. But Louisa Musgrove is a triumph of hammy overacting; and Mr Eliot is utterly unlikeable. The leads generated no chemistry whatever – quite unlike Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root in the 1995 film.

One for the Austen fans only, who won't mind any of the above in the sheer pleasure of hearing those wonderful lines again and again.