Persuasion 2022 ¦ What went wrong with the Netflix adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion?

In this video, I unpack the many problems with Netflix' recent adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion.

WHERE TO FIND ME

MUSIC USED

[JoshuaJClarkeKelsall]

What did you think of this train wreck? :P

[lucypeace]

Ellie Dashwood described it, on her YouTube channel, as changing the deep culture, without changing the surface culture. So, they changed all of the morals and social beliefs, without changing how those changes affects the world we're presented with. The two clashed, and it made absolutely zero sense.

[sackmet]

The main problem with Netflix's Persuasion is that it's not Jane Austen's Persuasion. I don't mind modernising or interpretations but they just failed. They misunderstood Anne and therefore misunderstood the entire plot.

[francescarroll]

Have you seen the movie "Modern Persuasion?" It is written the way you are describing. I enjoyed it but I understand some do not.

[mistressmozart]

this movie was absoutely dreadful. I agree with all of your points. But bothered me the most is that they just didn't capture the essence of Anne or the story. All the pain and tragedy were missing. There was no chemistry between the main characters. Costumes and hair sucked. Even if I'd never read the book (or seen the superior 1995 and 2007 adaptations) this would not be a good movie. there was no real payoff at the end. it was just all wrong. i knew it would be bad from the trailer but i was bored and curious. ugh what a waste of time! i came onto youtube to find others who feel like me and found your video!

[LanaCelebic]

I absolutely hated this movie, it was so cringey. You made some excellent points on Lady Russell. I though they made her too modern, but you explained what didn't work with her so well. Anne is a drunkard, and Wentworth, was he even in this movie? I didn't even notice him, I though the actor was cast as Anne's pet who got lost a few years back and now he's back home.
One of the things that also bothered me was that they completely erased the character of Mrs. Smith. She was instrumental for discovering Mr. Elliot's scheme. In this movie he just says he's here because he doesn't want Anne's father to marry and have a son, in which case he'd lose his inheritance. The whole point of that part of the story is that Anne is not aware of his motivations.
I like both, the faithful adaptations, as well as modern, if it's done right. Have you seen Clueless? It's a great adaptation of Emma.
And yes, Mary was the only character that was well cast and made sense.

[sackmet]

Also regarding Lady Russell it's not just that she travels to the continent to find boytoys it's that she is travelling to the WAR TORN continent to find her boytoys.

[sarahgopats]

The main problem is the writers did not understand Anne Elliot. Or they just thought the people wanted an Elizabeth Bennet. The comments about her family comes off as snobbish. I agree, just make it modern like they did with Bridget Jones and Clueless.

[AW-uvcb]

My biggest pet peeve about this adaptation is the climax scene with the letter, which hangs on Wentworth's listening on the conversation between Anne and Harville. For the life of me I cannot understand why they decided to take out Harville's wonderful lines about a sailor's feeling when he looks forward to seeing his wife and children after months at sea. It's such a beautiful conversation with both sides making good points and presenting their own lived experience. In the movie he just says: I'm not going to argue with you. In which case Anne continuing to make her point, which is lifted directly from the book, doesn't even make much sense, it's almost a non-sequitur. Why, why, WHY? It feels a bit like they didn't want to present Harville as having any ability to have subtle feelings, just so Anne can look deeper in comparison and dominate the conversation more than she does in the book.

[tezzag]

It was just an awful movie. It should never have been called Persuasion. The only way to enjoy his movie, if possible, is to know nothing about the book at all. It seems that the film makers decided not to read it. They turned a dignified novel into a smutty, silly film with a jerk as the main character.

[Elisacr]

Persuasion is my favourite Austin novel and they butchered it. Anne Elliott is a much more realistic character to me than Elizabeth Bennett. Jane Austin was just as subversive as Charles Dickens for her time. Without a good context it’s hard to see that.

[smilexlovexlive]

Your suggestion about a modern retelling with the conflict of young marriage vs career focus is actually so interesting and now I wish they went that route themselves

[karinrankin]

Fun fact! There is a “story telling” adaptation version of Persuasion. It’s called “modern persuasion” (yeah…not a great title, but whatever).
The thing that separates them is that he’s got an online startup, and her mom’s friend encourages her to pursue higher education and her own career instead (because startups don’t always work). It made sense for a modern story. The acting is 😬, and some of the dialogue isn’t the greatest, but the modern story adjustments make sense.
It was easier to watch than this train wreck of a film. By making Anne a “girl boss”, it makes it unbelievable that she could be persuaded out of anything. Wentworth even says something like “you’ve never had problems expressing your opinions”! If that’s true, buddy, than what is the plot of this story?!

I don’t know that I’ve ever hated a film this much…well, I can think of one, but this was a very close second.

[margaretkurek]

I don't think I've ever seen Dakota Johnson in a movie I liked, but I really feel she could have made a good Anne. So much wasted potential. What a shame.

[truth.beauty.and.goodness]

Please watch Persuasion 1995. It's perfection! At keast we Persuasion fans have that.

[Bluespiral]

So nobody has the balls to talk about race... When you have a story set in a time when all or most of the characters would have been the same race and you make half the characters a different one, that should be a flaw that matters. Nothing racist about pointing that out.

[winstonsmith]

The changing of the characters Race was just ridiculous and not warranted.

[Carolinagirl]

This movie was all over the place. I didn't care for it at all and I really tried to keep an open mind. I don't mind adaptations that make changes to fit the screen, appeal to a broader audience, even see a character through a slightly different lens but remain set in the time period, i.e. 2005 Pride and Prejudice, 2020 Emma, etc. I also don't mind adaptations that change large parts of the source material to make a modern day retake, i.e. Bridget Jones Diary, Clueless, etc. However it's the toeing of both lines and the inability to even understand the main crux of the novel that ruins this film. This Anne Elliot was so out of character she was almost a foil of the novel's Anne Elliot. And because her character is changed into a sassy, outspoken character it is hard to believe she was ever persuaded to give up Wentworth to begin with. It's even harder to believe once they meet back up she isn't able to express herself to him. Wentworth likewise doesn't seem jilted as he is in a large chunk of the book rather he is a simpering, lovesick puppy the majority of this film. It just doesn't work, none of it. Forget the modernization, the fourth wall breaking, etc and you still have a adaptation that doesn't work on even the most basic of levels.

[LizzieJaneBennet]

I think you're too kind with that 💩.
I have never seen such a bad writing, such a bad adaptation. What on earth did they think they were doing ? What crossed in their mind ??
I can't understand. And you explain very well the main problem : the stupid choices they made (or didn't) between faithful and "modern". Yuki ! 🤮

[luminousmoon]

I like your points about Wentworth's character. In the novel, he's very interesting as a match for Anne, because while Anne is somewhat meek and quiet, Wentworth is really the opposite of that. He's charming, witty, and kind of the life of the party, not in an obnoxious way, but people gravitate to him and want to hear his stories and jokes. And really, I think it's meant to be an opposites attract situation (Austen was very fond of that trope), where you can imagine that when he and Anne met, he kind of brought her out of her shell a bit and likewise, he was impressed with her dignity and quiet intelligence. Instead, the film just makes him kind of a drag and it's impossible to see what these two people actually liked about each other.