Persuasion 2007 Review

Persuasion is my favorite Jane Austen novel and just one of my favorite books of all-time. The 1995 version is one of my favorite movies. When I heard about the new ITV version coming out in 2007, I had really high hopes and couldn’t wait to see another spin on the story. And then it came out and I watched it and…let’s just say, I was not impressed.

I wanted to like it. I really did. I just watched this for the third time for the review. I was hoping that I would find more to like with each rewatch but unfortunately they had the opposite effect. I just found more things that I hated! What do I hate? Just the script, the cast, and the direction. So yeah, um…pretty much everything. Was there anything I liked about it? Well, the music was nice and the cinematography was pretty (aside from the overuse of shaky cam). And a couple of the side characters were well-acted. Hmm…that’s about it!

The adaptation suffers first of all from being too short. It just feels so truncated and rushed and so many of my favorite bits from the book were left out or just ruined. It didn’t seem like the creators cared about the story at all. With only a couple exceptions, I hated the cast. I don’t know if the actors or the writing or directing are to blame, but the performances left a lot to be desired. Everything just felt off. I tried not to compare it too much to the 1995 version and even though I couldn’t help but do that at some points, I just hate this version on its own. Whatever you do, don’t accuse me of disliking it only because of the 1995 version. While it certainly pales in comparison to that version, my hate stems from this just being a poor adaptation of the book, and a poor movie in itself.

The Characters

Sally Hawkins as Anne Elliot

A huge disappointment. First of all, her hair was always tightly slicked back with a thick layer of grease. You can’t make the “historically accurate” argument because NONE OF THE OTHER CHARACTERS HAS GREASY HAIR. And at first I thought it would be like this to be a big contrast for when she gets back her bloom after Lyme, but she doesn’t! She finally has a better hairstyle at the very end but it’s too late. Anne is supposed to be pretty and Sally Hawkins is usually good-looking, but they made her look gross in this for some reason! She also played the character as a total wimp who was always crying over Wentworth. For heaven’s sake,  Anne was not THAT depressed! She also writes in a diary as a way to tell the viewers her thoughts and often looks right at the camera. That reminded me of MP 99 and I’m not a fan!

Rupert Penry-Jones as Frederick Wentworth

He’s really good-looking, but I can’t believe with that perfect, pale, unblemished complexion, he was at sea for the last eight years. Right…His character also was given pretty much nothing interesting to do in this. Pretty flat and boring so I’m not sure why everyone was crazy over him. Dull as dishwater, if you ask me.

Alice Krige as Lady Russell

One of the few decent performances in the whole movie! For some reason it comes as a total surprise to her in the beginning that Sir Walter is in debt and the Elliots will have to leave Kellynch.

Anthony Head as Sir Walter Elliot

They did something different with his character from the usual foppish buffoon. He was actually a bit more menacing. He’s still vain but he shouts a lot and I think I would be really afraid of him if I were Anne!

Julia Davis as Elizabeth Elliot

This actress’s performance was by no means bad (certainly an improvement from the way the 1995 character) but she was just way too old. She looked almost as if she could be Anne’s mother rather than an older (by only two years!) sister. And she was in a terrible wig too.

Mary Stockley as Penelope Clay

Who is this pretty young woman? Surely not Mrs. Clay? You’ve gotta be joking, right?

Tobias Menzies as William Elliot

He was actually another decent one. While I think Sam West gave a good performance, he didn’t have the right look. This guy is much more attractive.

Nicholas Farrell and Stella Gonet as Mr. and Mrs. Musgrove

Thankfully the line about their largeness was left out, as they’re both so slim. I actually liked the little bit of them we saw in this. But it was just a little bit.

Sam Hazeldine and Amanda Hale as Charles and Mary Musgrove

I hope this picture gives a good idea of the impression I got from them. Mary was easily the worst performance out of the lot. In fact, probably one of the worst acting performances I’ve ever seen. She made Mary seem mentally deranged in some way, always twitching and jerking her body about. Her delivery was horrible- like a warped imitation of Sophie Thompson. I don’t know what they were going for here. And Charles just seemed like a dunderhead. I doubt he even realized Mary was only faking sick!

Rosamund Stephen and Jennifer Higham as Henrietta and Louisa Musgrove

These two were okay, but they didn’t come to life for me the way they did in 1995. Henrietta seemed to like Wentworth but there was never any question of her wavering on her understanding with Charles Hayter (he’s never seen).

Joseph Mawle as Harry Harville

Yes, they gave him the name Harry in this one. (Just wait till you see what they named another character!) He is entirely in Wentworth’s confidence here and already knows about Anne when they first meet. Wentworth indeed makes all his intentions absolutely clear to Harville throughout the story so nothing comes as a surprise. For some reason he appears to be a bachelor in this, so I was surprised none of the ladies went after him, given how handsome he was!

Finlay Robertson as James Benwick

This is one of the few bits of casting I preferred to 1995. He is more age appropriate to the character. His part was really small and unfortunately the majority of it was in one great butchering of a scene. Namely, the constancy conversation. Yes, for some reason in this version, Anne has the talk with him at Lyme and Wentworth is clearly out of earshot. WTF???

Marion Bailey and Peter Wight as the Crofts

Are those Wentworth’s parents in there? Oh, those are the Crofts…hmmm. The Crofts here never seem to get as close to Anne as they do in the book or other versions and not as much emphasis is made on their happy marriage.

Maisie Dimbleby as Harriet Smith

Yes, you read that right- they actually called her Harriet Smith in this. Was that supposed to be an in-joke? I certainly didn’t laugh at that or the incomprehensible scene she has at the end either. Just you wait. Her backstory with Mr. Elliot was cut as well.

WTF? Scenes, AKA Stuff I Hated

This version is full of several scenes that just made me cry out WTF or scratch my head in confusion. I’ve already mentioned the constancy conversation at Lyme, but there are plenty more!

The Opening Scene

Anne is rushing around Kellynch apparently taking inventory of items that the servants are packing up. She doesn’t really seem to be writing anything though, just scratching the pen on the page at random intervals. She runs out of ink and there just happens to be a servant conveniently standing in the corner with an inkwell for a refill. WTF? Was the servant just made to stand there all day, hoping that someone would walk by in need of ink? I don’t understand.

Anne the Surgeon

When little Charles dislocates his collar bone, Anne rushes to help, despite being in the middle of changing for the party. She doesn’t seem to be the least bit embarrassed to be seen in her underwear in front of Charles and his father and none of them seems to care either! Then the worst happens: with Mr. Musgrove’s assistance, she sets little Charles’s collar bone, in her underwear! WTF? Since when has Anne had medical training? They couldn’t wait for the apothecary? She couldn’t have put some clothes on?

Rest Assured, Charles is not a Bigamist

When Wentworth asks Louisa when Charles proposed to Anne, she can only reply, “I do not exactly know, but before he married Mary.” Wow, thanks for clearing that up, Louisa! I’m sure Wentworth was thinking that it was AFTER he married Mary and that sneaky Charles was trying to commit bigamy. WTF?

Wentworth “Helping” Anne into the Carriage

The scene where Wentworth helps Anne into the Crofts’ gig is supposed to be a really touching moment and makes Anne think that perhaps he still notices and cares for her a bit after all. Not here. He doesn’t covertly tell them to take Anne, they just ask to take her for some reason. Then he plops her down “like a sack of potatoes,” to quote Julie. It looks quite uncomfortable for both parties and not romantic at all! Also for some reason, she’s behind the Crofts and so it doesn’t feel like she’s quite included to me.

Louisa’s Fall

The whole direction of this scene was off. You don’t see the fall at all. The helplessness and desperation the other characters besides Anne exhibit in the book is gone and everyone rushes to her aid, even Mary. It seems that Anne’s cool head in a time of crisis was not even really needed. She does tell Benwick to get the surgeon and Wentworth to press his cravat against the wound, which is actually bleeding. However, he was already in the process of doing that, so I don’t know why she needed to tell him. Afterwards, there is no crying or hysterics and everyone only seems mildly upset by the situation. WTF?

Mrs. Smith’s Miraculous Recovery!

Yes, that is Mrs. Smith walking with Anne. Wow, either Mrs. Rooke is a miracle worker or the Bath waters really do have healing powers! She made it just in time to tell Anne of Mr. Elliot’s devious plans. He even planned to make Mrs. Clay his mistress after being married to Anne!

The Bath Marathon

Probably the worst scene in the whole adaptation is the Bath Marathon. They truly butchered the ending. First Anne tells Wentworth that she is not engaged to Mr. Elliot and he leaves the house. Anne is interrupted by Mrs. Musgrove and Henrietta. Despite being only FEW SECONDS behind, Wentworth is nowhere to be seen when she goes outside. Naturally Anne thinks the logical thing to do is to run all over the city like a chicken with her head cut off and just happens to run into Mrs. Smith (see above). Wentworth is no longer at his lodgings when she gets there, but somehow had time to stop and write THE LETTER, which he entrusted to Harville. Anne reads the letter as she runs to find the Crofts, because Wentworth left to take the waters with them. Yet when she reaches the Crofts, they say he’s gone back to her house! She finally reaches him outside the house where he’s casually chatting with Charles. WTF????? Never mind how out of character and inappropriate Anne running all over the streets of Bath is, the scene just doesn’t make any sense! How did Anne not bump into Wentworth anywhere? How did he have time to go home, write the letter, go out with the Crofts, and make it back to Anne’s house without breaking a sweat while Anne is running for her life? Does he have super-human speed? Then to top things off, he and Anne come to an understanding and share a disgusting, drawn-out kiss as Anne is sweaty and panting from the run and Wentworth won’t even bend down all the way to kiss her. WTF??

The Ending

Wentworth BUYS KELLYNCH as a wedding present for Anne. WTF? Kellynch is entailed on Mr. Elliot! And there’s no way Wentworth’s fortune was enough to pay off Sir Walter’s debts and buy the estate. You’ve got to be kidding me! If we put all the WTF-ness aside, it would actually be a sweet scene. Anne has finally washed her hair and it looks much more flattering. The two share a nice kiss this time and then dance. I don’t know if it was period correct for them to waltz or not, but it would have been really a romantic ending, since Anne had given up dancing. Except wait, they never included the lines about Anne giving up dancing! What an opportunity they missed!

Conclusions

RAWR! This last viewing made me want to turn into the Hulk almost as badly as MP 1999. It had such potential but it was all wasted. In some parts it seemed like they were copying 1995, and in others it was as if they were trying too hard to be different. I just don’t understand. I would actually rank this in my bottom five Austen adaptations, sadly. Even the 1971 version, dull as it was, was better than this.

My Rating:  4/10, for the few decent performances and good music.

Persuasion 1995 Review

The 1995 Persuasion movie is not only my favorite adaptation of that particular book, it’s one of my top five Jane Austen adaptations. And one of my favorite period movies. And just one of my favorite movies! It’s just that good. The cast is excellent. I love the look and feel of realism it has too, similar to the 2005 Pride and Prejudice and Bright Star movies- realistic lighting, no makeup, messy  hair, etc.

Every adaptation has its flaws, and I guess I should just get them out of the way beforehand. This film contains one big historical error! The sailors often go about in their naval uniforms. While this looks really nice on screen, it is actually not accurate. As we know from Mansfield Park, these uniforms could only be seen while the officers were on duty. Probably most casual viewers wouldn’t know this and it’s cool to see them though. Another issue that doesn’t really bother me in particular is the somewhat lacking exposition. I feel a little bit, that this movie was written with book fans in mind. If you weren’t already familiar with the story, you might find it a bit confusing, especially in the beginning, what was going on between Anne and Wentworth. As I said, I had no problem following anything but since I had already read the book that doesn’t really mean much.

The casting is admittedly not perfect. Many of the actors are a bit too old, but nothing jarring like in 1971. Their brilliant performances more than made up for this- with one big exception. I’ll get into it below. Both the canceled and actual ending of the book were used. Some liked the addition, but I could take it or leave it, personally. Some of the other changes from the book may have worked as just a movie, but were lacking for me as an adaptation. Actually, I can say that about pretty much everything- there’s nearly nothing in this movie that I don’t like as just a movie. The one exception is the letter scene- it’s very well done but for one thing- it’s so hard to hear it! First it’s Wentworth’s voice, and then Annes, and overlapping, and it’s just hard to make out. The letter still makes me swoon and if I hadn’t read it so many times already, I would be very annoyed with these scene!

The Characters

Amanda Root as Anne Elliot (before)

I loved Amanda Root as Anne. She’s still my favorite to have played the part. In the beginning she was a bit more timid and quiet and it reflected in her look. She was a bit worn-out. When she sees Wentworth again for the first time, she makes no signs of her nervousness except for gripping the back of a chair. I love all the understated moments like that in this film!  Then as her confidence grew, she developed more of a healthy glow. This follows the book and I love how subtly and gradually it was done.

Anne After

There was no drastic makeover yet you can see the difference in her hairstyle and wardrobe, the way she carries herself, and the sparkle in her eyes. One negative I have is making her a bit too outspoken. She says the line about Mrs. Smith not being the only widow in Bath with no surname of dignity out loud, to her father. In the book she tactfully refrained from speaking these words! I guess they felt this was the only way to get the message across, but I felt it was out of character.

Ciaran Hinds as Frederick Wentworth

He wore that uniform so well; it’s a shame it’s not true to period. He is also my favorite Wentworth. He’s not conventionally handsome by any means but he’s attractive in a rugged sort of way (you could buy him as a sailor!). He also has charm and charisma that made him appealing to everyone. He played Wentworth’s love for Anne beautifully- he tries to hide it and act indifferently in the beginning but eventually he can’t suppress it anymore. Even as early on as Uppercross, he can’t help but notice her lagging behind during the long walk and so quietly asks the Crofts to give Anne a ride the rest of the way back. The scene with him helping her into the gig is another of those “swoonworthy” moments.

Susan Fleetwood as Lady Russell

She gave a good performance as Lady Russell- she showed her loving side to Anne yet she still was actually a bit of a snob, valuing rank and position much more than Anne does. Unfortunately she died of cancer shortly after filming.

Corin Redgrave as Sir Walter Elliot

This adaptation also has my favorite Sir Walter! He is perfectly proud, vain, and buffoonish. He’s such a joke but he doesn’t realize it. His outfit in the screencap looks like upholstery! One thing I did not like was the ending when Wentworth announced their engagement, he stupidly asks “Whatever for?” A bit over the top, even for Sir Walter.

Phoebe Nicholls as Elizabeth Elliot

Well, I said there was one big exception to the wonderful cast- and this is it. Let me just get one thing out of the way- I have nothing against Phoebe Nicholls’ s actual acting of the role- she does a great job with what she’s given. The problem is, what she was given was not the character of the book! Elizabeth is supposed to be proud, haughty, and cold- yet proper, fitting her position. This Elizabeth is rude, slouches, shouts, and is just waaaay over the top. The film-makers just went too far in trying to show what an awful character she is. It works as just a film, but not as an adaptation.

Felicity Dean as Mrs. Clay

I loved this Mrs. Clay. She was not very good-looking and especially dowdy in the beginning, yet after Bath she began to dress more carefully and wear evening gowns that showed off her “assets” to attract Sir Walter. You also see signs of her with Mr. Elliot but it’s never explained. The scene from the screencap is hilarious. The Elliots and Lady Russell are presented to Lady Dalrymple and Miss Carteret (ridiculous caricatures) and Mrs. Clay is tacked awkwardly on the end, a little too eager apparently.

Samuel West as Mr. Elliot

Many people don’t seem to be fans of his portrayal but I thought he did a pretty good job. He’s a fine actor, but I do have to admit that he hasn’t quite the look for the role. Mr. Elliot is supposed to be really good-looking and while West is by no means unattractive, there’s something about his look that bothers me. His rat-like features make him look automatically suspicious. His backstory was unfortunately changed, and it didn’t really make much sense, honestly. Instead of being rich  but wanting to make sure he got the title and position, he’s poor and wants the money. Just one problem…what money? The film makes it clear the extent of Sir Walter’s debts! It doesn’t really make any sense.

Sophie Thompson as Mary Musgrove

Sophie Thompson as Mary is one of my favorite performances in any Jane Austen adaptation. She so perfectly plays the whiny hypochondriac. 1971’s Mary was good too but Thompson’s acting is more natural. I love the scene where she’s telling Anne how ill she is and yet feasting on a huge ham.

Simon Russell Beale as Charles Musgrove

My favorite as the long-suffering Charles Musgrove. 1971 wasn’t bad, but again, he’s a better actor. He clearly cares for all his family and seems like a really nice guy, but he’s also obviously not Anne’s type (I sometimes wonder “what if” she hadn’t refused him).

John Woodvine and Fiona Shaw as Admiral and Mrs. Croft

I think the Admiral was a bit too old but other than that, I loved them, especially Mrs. Croft. She looked even more weather-beaten than the men! They were such a happy, cheery couple, just like in the book. For some reason they gave Sophy the line of Frederick accepting any woman between 15 and 30, which I don’t quite understand, but no big deal.

Emma Roberts as Louisa Musgrove

Her hair probably got the messiest out of anyone. She was more confident and wild than Henrietta but not quite so immature as in 1971 so it was more believable that Anne (and the other characters) would actually think she and Wentworth would end up a couple. He did seem to admire her youthful spirit. I thought the slow motion of her fall was a bit weird even though I know what they were going for.

Victoria Hamilton as Henrietta Musgrove

She was so cute in this with her girlish curls. I feel so bad for the disparaging remarks about her looks in Mansfield Park. Although Henrietta is the elder sister, Louisa is clearly the one “in charge” and helps get Henrietta and her Hayter cousin back together. He is renamed Henry in this, probably because there are so many Charleses  in this story already and as a complement to “Henrietta.”

Richard McCabe as Captain Benwick

His fiancee’s name was also changed, from Fanny to Phoebe. I kind of got the reasoning for Charles Hayter, but this I’m just confused about. Is it because of the modern dirty meaning for “fanny” in Britain? He was almost humorous with all the melancholy verses he would spout, and then seemed on the verge of even proposing to Anne, and saying he would never get over Phoebe…until we find out he gets engaged to Louisa.

Helen Schlesinger as Mrs. Smith

Her character is completely different from the book. She is a very cheerful and happy woman with no connection to Mr. Elliot. Instead, she finds out the truth about his motives through Nurse Rook, who knows all the gossip. I guess they wanted to simplify it for the limited time they had. I actually didn’t mind that, only the fact that Mr. Elliot’s motives don’t make sense!

Others

Captain and Mrs. Harville are both obviously  in it and do a good job. The Musgroves are jolly and appropriately large. The Musgrove boys are quite a bit older than in the book, where they’re only toddlers. It’s not a perfect cast, but it’s really close and I love it!

Final Thoughts

Before I say again how much I love this movie (I ended up rewatching it 3 times!), I remembered another scene that bothered me. Anne is taken to Upper Cross in a farmer’s cart instead of Lady Russell’s carriage. Really? That was stretching it quite a bit. I know Sir Walter doesn’t pay much attention to her, but he would never allow his daughter to be seen traveling in that way! And Lady Russell would never have allowed it! She couldn’t spare her carriage to go 3 miles away??

All in all, admittedly, this movie is not perfect. But it’s still a darn good movie and it’s the closest to perfection any of the adaptations of Persuasion have gotten so far.

My Rating: 10/10

Persuasion 1971 Review

I intended to have this miniseries watched and the review written by Sunday night, but I didn’t even get to finish watching it until last night. Oopsies. It’s “only” about four hours long but I guess I underestimated how long it would take me.

I’ve seen this adaptation twice before now. The first time I just found it a dead bore. Other than Anne’s ridiculous bee hive hairdo and green plaid dress, it didn’t leave much of an impression. The second time I tried to pay closer attention and I did find a couple things to like. This time, my opinion remained pretty much unchanged, except I was able to notice some of the changes made from the novel. You’d think with such a long run-time, it would be extremely faithful. Is it? Well, yes and no. It does follow the novel pretty closely for the most part. Unfortunately, sometimes this can lead to really boring and dull scenes that are good on paper but don’t translate that well to the screen. For example, the adaptation starts with Sir Walter reading aloud from The Baronetage as it introduces the characters he mentions. I found this a bit awkward. Who was he supposed to be reading to? Himself? And on the other hand, this version still managed to cut some things out- such as little Charles breaking his collar bone and the whole aftermath with Anne having to miss the party. I thought that was a somewhat important scene, so I was really confused when I noticed it was cut altogether.

The Characters

Ann Firbank as Anne Elliot

The only things that stood out about her were that horrible hair style and dress. None of the costumes were really that great, yet for some reason the main character has to get stuck with the worst one! And none of the other women had such a horrible hairstyle either. Definitely 1970s, not 1810s!  Her acting left something to be desired as well. For one thing, she was about ten years too old for the character and looked it. I laughed in the beginning when Lady Russell mentioned that Anne kept her good looks and figure by not marrying….Um, what? She looks like the oldest sister here. She had a little bit of Anne’s inner strength, but most of the time she just looked…maybe complacent is a good word for it. She had a slight smile, like in the above picture, all the time. Like she could never show too much emotion. So not a horrible performance, but not great either.

Bryan Marshall as Frederick Wentworth

He was decent but nothing special. He was good-looking and charming enough so you could understand why all the ladies were charmed with him. I don’t get those huge sideburns though.

Basil Dignam as Sir Walter Elliot

I found his performance (aside from the reading of the Baronetage) to be fine, but I was confused by his appearance. Wasn’t Sir Walter supposed to be a very good-looking man who doesn’t look his age? This guy was in his 60s and looked it.

Valerie Gearon as Elizabeth Elliot

She was the best thing about this adaptation for me. She gave a great portrayal of the cold, haughty, proud Elizabeth of the book. She’s beautiful and full of herself and oblivious to Mrs. Clay’s true intentions.

Morag Hood as Mary Musgrove

Her performance was pretty good. We got to see both the whiny hypochondriac side of her as well as some scenes were she’s a bit more cheerful. Thanks to the extended length of the miniseries, this lets us understand a bit more how Charles can tolerate her (compared to the later, shorter adaptations).

Marian Spencer as Lady Russell

Her acting was perfectly adequate- but I don’t remember Lady Russell being old enough to be Anne’s grandmother! She also tells Anne that she only accepted Wentworth’s proposal 8 years ago because he was the first man who had paid her such attentions. Um, what? I don’t remember anything like that in her reasoning in the book!

David Savile as William Elliot

He was okay. I really have to strain my memory to even remember him. He probably made the least impression on me than any other character in this, even the really minor ones.

Rowland Davies as Charles Musgrove

He really looked like an immature boy to me. I don’t know how old Charles was supposed to be in the book but maybe it was just Davies’ pudgy baby face.

Zhivila Roche and Mel Martin as Louisa and Henrietta Musgrove

Henrietta was pretty good, but the actress for Louisa was just a bit too over the top. She was just too immature and girlish that it was really a stretch to think that anyone would take her seriously as a potential partner for Wentworth.

Noel Dyson and William Kendall as Mrs. and Mr. Musgrove

They were both fine in their small roles but I have to mention one thing. Look at how slender Mrs. Musgrove is. Mr. Musgrove does have a bit of a gut, but is still not that huge. Yet Mary’s complaint about being squashed in the carriage with the girls because these two are apparently so large and take up too much room was left in. Um, what?

Polly Murch as Mrs. Smith

Her acting was okay, but her scenes were too drawn out.

Charlotte Mitchell as Mrs. Clay

She was just too old for the role. I don’t think Mrs. Clay is supposed to be in her 40s. I did like the addition of the scene of her and Mr. Elliot eloping- the night Elizabeth was holding a party too, haha!

Michael Culver as Captain Harville

He was adequate but I just included his picture because I thought he was good-looking.

Georgine Anderson and Richard Vernon as Sophia and Admiral Croft

The actors weren’t actually that old, but they looked older and therefore more like Wentworth’s parents than sister and brother-in-law.

?? as Captain Benwicke

Who is this mysterious man? He’s not even in the cast list on IMDB! Anyway, I thought he looked weird, like a mannequin or something, with the orange skin, weird bone structure, and the hairstyle.

Final Thoughts

I don’t know if you could tell by my less than enthusiastic comments, but this adaptation did not leave much of an impression on me. I thought it was a bit of a bore, despite liking other older adaptations. Some of the actors were good, others were bla. Some of the scenes were good, others went on too long.

My Rating: 6/10

Northanger Abbey Awards

I haven’t been able to post any reviews lately because I’ve been so busy but I thought I’d tide you over with another “awards” edition! This one is so easy- NA 2007 wins on all counts except for Eleanor. The end!

Northanger Abbey 2007

After 20 years with the horrible 1987 version as the only adaptation of Northanger Abbey, many fans were eagerly anticipating the new 2007 version. I was a little nervous about Andrew Davies writing the script, given his tendency to sex things up, but the cast looked really good. And then I saw it…

Suffice it to say- I was totally right! Most of the cast was really good…but it was really sexed up. Most of this was in the form of Catherine’s dreams, but there was something else too. One scene in particular was just plain wrong! Why, Andrew Davies, why? He seemed to interpret the story to be Catherine’s sexual awakening. Sorry, I didn’t see any of that in the book- it was a comedy! This version has funny moments too, but it’s really all the sexed up scenes that bothered me. Davies seemed to have missed the point, but at least not as badly as the 1987 creators did.

The Characters

Felicity Jones as Catherine Morland

She looked perfect for the part. She was sweet and innocent in some ways, but in others Andrew Davies had to ruin her. Like the 1987 Catherine, she is constantly having lurid dreams and nightmares. Rather than being drug-based, however, she seems to be sexually frustrated. They’re all on the “racy” side- in quotes because we wouldn’t really consider them racy today, but they’re nothing Jane Austen would have written about! In one she is taking a bath and Henry gets her to stand out of the tub, naked, in front of him. This scene was cut from the PBS version. She also seems initially displeased to hear that Henry is a clergyman- I guess that profession isn’t sexy enough for her? I thought that was weird. She does read Udolpho in this but then Isabella gets her to read The Monk. This book was mentioned by John Thorpe very briefly in the novel, but it was not something appropriate for a girl like Catherine to read. It also misses the point- Davies was trying to focus on sexiness but seemed to forget that Northanger Abbey parallels a lot of Udolpho. Other than the sexing up, I actually like what they did with her character. She wasn’t quite as dim-witted as in the book or 1987, and she had chemistry with Henry, so you could see why he fell for her.

JJ Feild as Henry Tilney

I absolutely loved him as Henry! I like him even more than the book character (who, God knows, I love ardently already). He has such a beautiful deep voice and always seems to have a twinkle in his eye as he teases Catherine or Mrs. Allen. He is a bit more flirtatious with Catherine,  as in you can tell that he is romantically interested in her. In one scene he even refers to John Thorpe as his rival. He actually told Catherine this, which I did not like. Still, I would have loved to be Catherine in this movie, at least to be able to dance with him…swoon!

Sylvestra Le Touzel as Mrs. Allen

I liked her much better in this than as Fanny Price, that’s for sure! She played a really good, flighty Mrs. Allen and was actually the right age for the part, unlike Googie Withers. Mr. Allen had a few nice comedic moments as well.

Carey Mulligan as Isabella Thorpe

She was an excellent Isabella. Unfortunately her necklines were always a bit too low, as you can see from the picture. They obviously wanted the audience to know that she was not innocent like Catherine. I didn’t think it was necessary, because her acting did the trick well enough! We could tell that she was obviously sly and artificial, but unlike the 1987 Isabella, she was not so obviously evil that Catherine wouldn’t be fooled by her. What I really did not like was stupid Andrew Davies deciding to make her sleep with Captain Tilney, thinking that he would marry her if she did. WHAT? Isabella in the book was not a dumb bimbo who got carried away by her passions. She was a devious gold-digger who set her sights on Frederick when James’ fortune did not live up to her expectations. She would never compromise her chances of making a good match by sleeping with him! What if she got pregnant? What if someone found out? She knew she would be a ruined woman and all hopes of a good marriage after that would be lost.

For shame, Andrew Davies!

William Beck as John Thorpe

Well, he was a bit too good-looking for the part and not quite obviously repulsive, like in the book. Book John is not artificial like Isabella- he’s a stupid, rude oaf. Catherine only puts up with him for the sake of James and Isabella. Here she doesn’t seem quite as bothered by him. He says “damn” quite a bit, and while he did say it a couple times in the book, I don’t think it was quite as much.  He wasn’t bad with what he was given though. After James proposes to Isabella, he tries to hint to Catherine that they should get engaged as well. She is confused and doesn’t know what he’s talking about but he thinks she’s all for it. It was quite a funny scene. I also like the bit where he tricks Catherine into riding with him when she wanted to go on a walk with the Tilneys. He brags about his gig as he almost runs over Mr. Allen crossing the street on his crutches.

Liam Cunningham as General Tilney

I don’t know what they were thinking here. Like 1987, they made him purposely “evil” looking, whereas in the book he is not. The character is not really nice, obviously, but come on! He really looked like a villain and if I were Catherine I would not want to stay at his house!

Catherine Walker as Eleanor Tilney

Sadly another less than stellar bit of casting. Her performance was very good and she could have been perfect for the role-about ten years ago. She was 32 but I would have guessed even older than that. I always feel like a horrible person when I blast an actor for being too old, but I can’t help how I feel! It just wasn’t believable for me.

Mark Dymond as Captain Frederick Tilney

The Tilney brothers must have gotten their good looks from their mother in this one! I could see why Isabella would be taken with him, even if he weren’t the heir. He was a bored, jerkish character, but at least he was kind enough to hide his and Isabella’s little “affair.” Gah, even thinking about that scene makes me upset.

Others

The Morland parents have a pretty small part but were pretty good. Mrs. Morland actually sensed that Henry wanted to propose to Catherine and sent them outside to be alone, whereas in the book she had no idea. I thought it was kind of funny. James was really good and obviously nearly as nice and naive as Catherine. Mrs. Thorpe looked like what Isabella would become when she got older- and thankfully she and her daughters were not covered in garish makeup like in 1987.

Similarities with 1987

I don’t know if it’s just me, but I feel like a lot of the Andrew Davies adaptations I’ve seen recently have borrowed elements from earlier adaptations that were not from the books. I already mentioned in my S&S 08 review what I noticed, plus there were things from Bleak House as well. Davies admitted in his commentary that he deliberately copied John Jarndyce giving a speech that was part of the omniscient narration, but he also changed the circumstances of Esther getting sick- to be just like the 1985 version. I also noticed a few things in this version of Northanger Abbey. Like in 1987, the Abbey itself does not disappoint Catherine by being decorated in the modern style- it’s all dark and Gothic, just like she hoped. Mrs. Tilney’s room is even in a totally separate area from the rest of the house. She never finds out Henry is not mad at her after she sneaks into the room either, and thinks that is why the General kicked her out. They never reconcile with him, either. Not only is Catherine constantly having weird dreams in both, but there were a couple other scenes as well. When Mrs. Allen and Catherine first go to the Lower Rooms in Bath, Henry brushes past them and accidentally knocks a pin out of Mrs. Allen’s gown. He then happens to meet them by chance. This combines several scenes from the book and I just thought it could not be coincidence that it happened the same way in both. Catherine also burns her copy of The Mysteries of Udolpho in both versions. I thought it was especially odd for Davies to have copied that, since it was really The Monk that was given greater focus in this one.

Oops, 1987

And again in 2007

Burning 1987

Burning 2007

Final Thoughts

I wouldn’t call this adaptation terrible, or anything. It just wasn’t as great as it could have been. It was filmed in Dublin, because I guess they were too cheap to actually go to Bath (yet somehow the 1987 version could afford it? And even Persuasion that was filmed at the same time?) I did like that we got a nice little introduction that was close to what was in the book. There was even an epilogue- but it was so short, blink and you’ll miss it! At least there was no Marchioness, or Roman bath scene, or singing scene! And the laundry lists were really laundry lists- at least Davies got that bit right. Yet he did have Catherine hear about Eleanor’s lover while they were still in Bath, and Henry told her to keep it a secret. Okay…

The movie ends with a shot of the General walking all alone at Northanger while everyone else is happy at Henry and Catherine’s new baby’s christening. Because he was just so evil that they could never talk to him again, I guess. Gah, I think what annoys me so much about this movie is not how “bad” it was, but how bad it was compared to how good it could have been! With such a great cast, it could have been really excellent. Instead it was a disappointment.

My Rating: 7/10

Northanger Abbey 1987

The year 1987 brought some good things into the world- like me, for instance! It also brought some really crappy things- like a bizarre TV adaptation of Northanger Abbey! I just found it that originally aired only two days after I was born. This was the first adaptation of the book (it’s just not as popular as her others, probably for the same reasons I listed in my review) and it was the only one for another twenty years. It was scripted by Maggie Wadey, who also wrote the 2007 version of Mansfield Park….yeah, there’s your first hint that it isn’t going to be great.

I like to call this version “Northanger Abbey on acid. ” That’s the only explanation I can think of for this tragedy. The creators were high. Catherine, at least, was clearly on hallucinogens to be having all her weird dream sequences. Because this version is just weird! The only good thing I can think of was that it was actually filmed on location in Bath. And…that’s about it. Okay, a couple of the actors were decent (and only a couple!) but that wasn’t enough to save it! The script is horrible, Catherine’s fantasies are horrible, a lot of the acting is horrible, and the music is horrible- weird 80s stuff trying to lend a “spooky” atmosphere. This version also invents a really…odd character, the Marchioness, which I’ll go into more detail about below. Did they not realize that this was supposed to be satire? Because it seemed to take itself seriously- unless we’re all wrong and it actually was supposed to be a parody of the book… then the joke’s on us!

The Characters

Katharine Schlesinger as Catherine Morland

The problem begins here. She was terrible- first of all, the writing for her character was bad. Catherine from the book was innocent and naive and liked to romanticize, but this Catherine really seems to have a hard time separating fantasy from reality. She is constantly having bizarre daydreams of being kidnapped, tied up, and implied to be tortured and raped. She even has a dream about the General before she even meets him or even hears of him! She is beyond stupid and I’m seriously wondering if she cooked some of the wrong mushrooms in her food or something and that’s the reason she’s having such hallucinations. Her acting is also terrible- most of the time, when she doesn’t appear to be in a drug-induced stupor, she just bugs her eyes out. Would Henry Tilney really fall for her? WOULD ANYONE?

Peter Firth as Henry Tilney

This performance upset me even more than Schlesinger, because while I don’t care that much about Catherine in the book, Henry Tilney is one of my favorite Austen characters! He’s just hilarious- I love a guy with a sense of humor. But Peter Firth’s Tilney is not amusing at all (unless you count the singing scene where I was laughing AT him). For one thing, he’s about ten years too old for the part. He’s also a bit on the effeminate side. And his delivery just seemed so fakey to me, with his “posh” accent and rolled r’s. Would Henry really talk like that? I don’t think so.I also don’t remember any mention of him being a clergyman.

Googie Withers as Mrs. Allen

She gave one of the very few good performances in this travesty of an adaptation. She captured Mrs. Allen’s kind but superficial and vapid personality very well. Unfortunately, she looked rather too old for the role. (Isn’t she supposed to be the same age as Mrs. Thorpe?)

Cassie Stuart as Isabella Thorpe

She could have been okay, but she was just so obviously evil and devious that I found it hard to believe that even Catherine would be taken in by her charms. With all the gaudy makeup she (and her mother and sisters) were wearing, they looked almost like prostitutes. Then again, this Catherine went beyond naive to just plain stupid, so maybe she would be fooled after all.

Jonathan Coy as John Thorpe

Like Isabella, he was also too over the top. He was definitely a cad, but he was almost creepy. I thought he was a jerk in the book, sure, but I wasn’t creeped out by him.

Ingrid Lacey as Eleanor Tilney

One if the film’s few high points. She was beautiful, sweet, elegant, and refined, like the Eleanor of the book. I don’t know how she managed to put up with this Catherine, though. When talking about her mother’s death, Catherine actually asks if she saw the “corpse” and how it looked. Way to have some tact! Eleanor took it in stride.

Robert Hardy as General Tilney

The general in the book is supposed to be quite fit and good-looking, despite his age. He was also always Mr. Manners towards Catherine (until he found it she wasn’t an heiress, that is). I love Robert Hardy and all, but there’s no way he would be considered attractive. And he was so gruff throughout pretty much the whole thing that I can’t believe Catherine would want to stay at his house.

Geoffrey Chater as Mr. Allen

He was perfectly adequate in his small role. I don’t have much to say. I’m just trying to spare any readers the pain of seeing the Marchioness.

Greg Hicks as Frederick Tilney

Like Mr. Allen, he was fine in his limited role. You didn’t get to see all that much of him in his scenes with Isabella…Are you sure you want to see the Marchioness? I guess, if you really insist…

Elaine Ives-Cameron as the Marchioness de…whatever

Good heavens! What the hell is this thing? No, it’s not another of Catherine’s hallucinations. She is supposedly General Tilney’s friend and confidante (mistress?) who in this version, is the one to tell him that Catherine is not an heiress. (Where did she find that out, by the way? John Thorpe?) Other than that she serves no purpose but to look scary as hell! What were they thinking with that makeup? And the weird crescent-shaped mole thing by her mouth. I just don’t understand.

More Madness

I really don’t know what they were thinking with this version. They completely missed the point. Was it supposed to be an over the top parody? Because I wasn’t laughing. Northanger Abbey itself also misses the point-in the book it’s supposed to be a nice, modern building. Here it really is a dilapidated old castle, which Catherine and the Allens actually first spot on the way to Bath. The laundry lists Catherine finds hidden in the book really are secret letters- between Eleanor and her beau (only mentioned at the end of the book). Henry and Catherine never make up after he catches her in his mother’s old room. She still believed him to be angry at her, and actually burns her copy of Udolpho. In the book Henry was not still angry and Catherine realized that she was projecting the fantasy of novels onto real life, and that was that. We never see the General consent to Henry and Catherine’s marriage. In the book, he gives in when he finds out that John Thorpe was lying- she was not a rich heiress, but she was not destitute. And it helped that Eleanor’s suitor came into money (aka his brother died, not mentioned because it’s supposed to be a “happy” ending) so they could marry. This movie ends with Henry and Catherine kissing in her yard. From the mood of the scene, it looks at first like it’s another one of her fantasies, but then her brother runs up and you realize it’s real. I actually thought that scene was okay, but this adaptation was still just crap.

I think the worst scene of all was the singing scene. The Tilneys, Catherine, and the Marchioness watch Henry and some girl (the Marchioness’s daughter? She must be, but she’s normal-looking so I couldn’t tell) sing and perform some songs. The girl is okay, but Henry’s singing is dreadful! Was that really Peter Firth? Wasn’t he embarrassed? During this performance, a little page boy leads Catherine outside and does cartwheels for her while she watches with a glazed expression, as if in a drug-induced stupor. Then it turns out to be another dream. I guess Henry’s singing was so awful she zoned out!

My ears!

That was the only scene I laughed at. It didn’t seem like it was meant to be funny, unfortunately. I’d say watch this movie if you really want…but be warned. And only buy it if you want to have a complete collection. That’s why I did.

My Rating: 3/10

Modern Emmas- Clueless and Aisha

I’ve really been procrastinating on finishing up my Emma adaptation reviews, I know. I wasn’t sure if I should review these two modern versions or not. For one thing, though I found both enjoyable, I’m not the biggest fan. And I don’t have a copy of either right now to rewatch and take screencaps from. (I did buy Aisha on DVD but lent it to a friend and haven’t gotten it back yet!). But I really want to get Jane Austen over with so I don’t forget even more, so I decided to just go from memory! I’ll try the best I can.

Clueless (1995) stars Alicia Silverstone as Cher Horowitz. Like Emma, she is rich and lives with her single father (IIRC, her mother died during plastic surgery, but I may be wrong). Here she is only 15 and already has her own car (before she even has a license!) and spends most of her time with her best friend, Dionne (no book equivalent). The Mr. Knightley character is played by her ex step-brother, Josh, played by Paul Rudd. The movie loosely follows a lot of  Emma‘s plotlines. Cher hooks up two of her teachers and from there gets it into her head to be a matchmaker. She decides to give this version’s Harriet Smith, new girl Tai (Brittany Murphy), a makeover and to hook her up with Elton. She convinces Tai that her crush, stoner Travis, is no good. Things backfire for her when her matchmaking plans not only fail but Tai eclipses her as the most popular girl. She goes after Christian (Frank Churchill), and although he’s not a cad like Frank in the book, he has other reasons for not going for Cher.

Some people think Clueless is the best adaptation of Emma, but I’d have to disagree. I did quite enjoy it and even used to watch the TV spinoff…I was in grade school, okay! I blame this movie for popularizing Valley Girl speak throughout the country, but that’s another story.  I really liked the characters of Cher and Josh and their sibling-esque rivalry that blossomed into love and a lot of the parallels with the book were funny, but this isn’t one of my favorite movies or even adaptations. I found many of the characters just annoying and not charming at all. I also think this movie treated some inappropriate behaviors too lightly. Maybe I’m just too traditional, but all of the references to sex and pot smoking (Cher disapproves of Travis constantly being stoned but feels no qualms about occasionally smoking a joint at a party) made me a bit uncomfortable. Cher also seemed to think she was the last virgin left at her high school, and tried miserably to seduce Christian. Tai, despite being a “loser”, oddly has had plenty of sexual experience. The characters were only 15 years old, for Christ’s sake! I suppose stuff like this is more realistic (or even not realistic enough!) but part of the reason I watch period films is to escape from reality. I suppose that’s why this updated version bothered me a bit. My Rating: 7/10.

Aisha, which just came out last summer, is Bollywood’s version of a modern Emma. Set in the high society of Delhi, it follows Aisha in her misguided matchmaking attempts. Like Emma and Cher, Aisha is a spoiled rich girl who means well but is really clueless. This one follows the book a little more closely than Clueless did and includes more characters, like the John Knightleys and Jane Fairfax (Aarti). Here, the Miss Taylor character is Aisha’s aunt. This version’s Knightley (Arjun) is still her childhood friend and brother-in-law’s brother, but younger this time. Emma dislikes Aarti, his colleague from America, but she doesn’t realize it’s because she’s jealous. Dhruv (Frank Churchill) is her new uncle’s son and they flirt for a little bit but she’s just not that into him so he goes for Aarti instead. There is an Elton character, but he’s not a pompous jerk at all, just a bit dorky.

I thought this version borrowed too many elements from Clueless rather than Emma. Maybe that’s inevitable in a modern setting, but I’m not sure. Aisha has a best friend, Pinky, who’s only equivalent is Dionne. She disapproves of Pinky’s love interest (I won’t give away who it is!), like Cher did to Dionne. Like Cher, Aisha loves to shop till she drops. The Harriet Smith character, Shefali, comes from out of town and Aisha gives her a makeover….sounds pretty familiar! Emma never gave Harriet any sort of makeover. She liked Harriet because she was very pretty and sweet already. I dunno, maybe I’m reading too much into it.

For anyone hesitant about seeing this film because they don’t like Bollywood, I just want to say- don’t let that stop you. This movie is very, very Westernized. At least half the dialogue is in English, possibly a bit more. There are some “musical” scenes but the music is Western-style, not the typical Bollywood singing. The characters don’t break into song either- rather the music highlights what’s going on onscreen. These characters behave very much like rich Westerners would (I’ve read criticisms that it was trying too hard to be American, even) and there are even a couple kissing scenes.

I thought this was a good movie, but not great. The production values were obviously very high- everything looked great. Unfortunately, I think that was part of the problem- they focused too much on style over substance. The script needed a bit of work. The whole Jane/Frank story was handled very poorly in particular. Still, it was a fun movie, even though, like Clueless, it’s not going to go down as one of my favorites. My Rating: 6/10

Emma “Awards”

I really am bored tonight. This is going to be the last one.For clarification purposes, the two 1996 versions will be referred to as 1996 (Gwyneth Paltrow film) and 1997 (Kate Beckinsale TV version), respectively (since I believe the latter didn’t come out in America until 1997.

Emma Woodhouse: BEST: 1996, WORST: 1972

George Knightley: BEST: 2009, WORST: 1997

Mr. Woodhouse: BEST: 2009, WORST: 1972

John Knightley: BEST: 1997, WORST: 1972

Isabella Knightley: BEST: 1997, WORST: 1972

Harriet Smith: BEST: 2009, WORST: 1996

Mr. Elton: BEST: 2009, WORST: 1972

Mrs. Elton: BEST: 2009, WORST: 1997

Frank Churchill: BEST: 2009, WORST: 1996

Jane Fairfax: BEST: 1997, WORST: 1996

Miss Bates: BEST: 1996, WORST: 1972

Mrs. Bates: BEST: 1996, WORST: 1972

Mrs. Weston: BEST: 2009, WORST: 1997

Mr. Weston: BEST: 2009, WORST: 1997

Robert Martin: BEST: 2009, WORST: 1997

Totals:

1972: BEST: 0, WORST: 7

1996: BEST: 3, WORST: 3

1997: BEST: 3, WORST: 5

2009: BEST: 9, WORST: 0

Yay, my favorite version, 2009, wins. I think I need to find something else to do tonight.

Mansfield Park “Awards”

I’m on a roll tonight. Maybe I will post my next review tomorrow. Mansfield Park is a tough one. In some cases, the acting was good, but the characterization was wrong. Or in other cases, the reverse was true. I tried to go for characterization first, and acting second. Or in the few instances where all the characters were written well, I picked the best actor.

Fanny Price: BEST: 1983, WORST: 2007

Edmund Bertram: BEST: 1999, WORST: 1983

Henry Crawford: BEST: 1999, WORST: 2007

Mary Crawford: BEST: 2007, WORST: 1999

Sir Thomas Bertram: BEST: 1983, WORST: 1999

Lady Bertram: BEST: 1983, WORST: 1999

Tom Bertram: BEST: 1983, WORST: 1999

Maria Bertram: BEST: 1983, WORST: 1999

Julia Bertram: BEST: 1983, WORST: 1999

Mr. Rushworth: BEST: 1983, WORST: 2007

Susan Price: BEST: 1983, WORST: 2007

William Price: BEST: 1983, WORST: 1999

Mrs. Norris: BEST: 1983, WORST: 2007

Dr. Grant: BEST: 1983, WORST: 1999 and 2007

Mrs. Grant: BEST: 1983, WORST: 1999 and 2007

Mr. Price: BEST: 1983, WORST: 2007

Mrs. Price: BEST: 1999, WORST: 2007

Totals:

1983: BEST: 13, WORST: 1

1999: BEST: 3, WORST: 9

2007: BEST: 1, WORST: 8

Wow, 1983 is ahead by a landslide…what a surprise…NOT!

“Awards”: Pride and Prejudice Edition

Here I am again, counting up my least favorite actors in Jane Austen adaptations, this time for Pride and Prejudice.

Elizabeth Bennet: BEST: 1980, WORST: 1995

Fitzwilliam Darcy: BEST: 1980, WORST: 1940

Mr. Bennet: BEST: 1980, WORST: 2005

Mrs. Bennet: BEST: 2005, WORST: 1995

Jane Bennet: BEST: 2005, WORST: 1995

Mary Bennet: BEST: 1980, WORST: 1940

Kitty Bennet: BEST: 2005, WORST: 1980

Lydia Bennet: BEST: 1980, WORST: 1995

Charles Bingley: BEST: 1980, WORST: 2005

Caroline Bingley: BEST: 2005, WORST: 1995

Louisa Hurst: BEST: 1995, WORST: 2005

Mr. Hurst: BEST: 1995, WORST: 2005

Mr. Gardiner: BEST: 1980, WORST: 1940

Mrs. Gardiner: BEST: 1980, WORST: 1940

George Wickham: BEST: 1980, WORST: 2005

Colonel Fitzwilliam: BEST: 1980, WORST: 1940

Charlotte Lucas: BEST: 1980, WORST: 1995

Georgianna Darcy: BEST: 1995, WORST: 1940

Lady Catherine DeBourgh: BEST: 1980, WORST: 1995

William Collins: BEST: 1980, WORST: 1995

This one was hard as several were very close. Once again, I counted a portrayal as “worst” if the character was cut.

Totals:

1940: BEST: 0, WORST: 6

1980: BEST: 13, WORST: 1

1995: BEST: 3, WORST: 8

2005: BEST: 4, WORST: 5

So the winner in terms of the cast is 1980! 2005 was a close second in many cases. The loser is 1940 but no one takes that version seriously anyway.