Persuasion

This is one of the earlier extant BBC period adaptations. The production value is very low. However, what is great about these adaptations is that their mission was to make thorough and faithful screen versions of the novels. Creative licence is very rarely made and frowned upon. So it is very slow and clunky but if faithful is what you are after then this is the best version of Persuasion that there is so far. It runs at 3 hours and 40 mins in total with a couple minutes of credits. The acting was actually pretty decent, it felt very much like watching a theatre performance. Indeed this is how television of this time was made. It was pretty much recorded theatre in a television studio. The casting perhaps is what lets this one down. Anne is way too old and some of the family members are too similar looking so you have to keep reminding yourself who is who. Overall 6/10.

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.

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.

Here is one of Jane Austen's movies that I found very delightful. I read the book first then listened to it on CD and was captivated by how a young Victorian girl could be persuaded against marrying the man she loved due to his lack of a fortune or education. The joy of knowing that Anne is evidently reunited with a lost love. The fact that her godmother tries to marry her off to a good for nothing cousin who's only out for money. Looking at the snobbery that comes from the upper classes and how class distinctions can divide couples from following their hearts. Captain Wentworth realization that he still loves Anne after seven years. His final understanding that Anne's love was constant all that time and they she wasn't going to let her family interfere with her true happiness and eventual marriage to one she truly loved.

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.