Persuasion makes its case for updating a Jane Austen classic
Carrie Cracknell's skillful Netflix adaptation masterfully captures the subversive wit and charm of Austen’s strident heroine
Film Reviews Unknown
Director Carrie Cracknell’s Persuasion opens on what we’d expect to see in a Jane Austen-penned period piece: a beautiful, love-struck couple canoodling in a field, breeze blowing the wild wheatgrass ever so gently as the camera captures their loving embrace. But as quickly as that swoon-worthy Regency-era vision is established, it’s playfully upended by star Dakota Johnson gazing with dissatisfaction directly into the camera, taking a big swig of wine straight from the bottle, as her narration attempts to convince us she’s thriving. Suffice it to say that Cracknell wants audiences to know that their impending journey isn’t going to be like any of the film’s stuffy, slavish predecessors. And yet, thoroughly in line with the novel’s vibrant, jocular tone and adroit structure, her Persuasion combines the classic and the contemporary with innovative, resonant craftsmanship.
Unlike Austen heroines before her (in Sense And Sensibility and Pride And Prejudice), the Regency-era Anne Elliot (Johnson) doesn’t particularly like her snooty sisters, vapid beauty Elizabeth (Yolanda Kettle) and insufferable, hilarious Mary (Mia McKenna-Bruce). She also despises her vain father Sir Walter Elliot (Richard E. Grant), but tolerates the rudeness of all three, poking fun at them under her breath. Her marriage prospects have vanished since she was persuaded eight years prior to dump her one true love, low-ranking Naval officer Frederick Wentworth (Cosmo Jarvis). Because their union would’ve been solely for love, it was frowned upon by Anne’s family and closest confidant, Lady Russell (Nikki Amuka-Bird), whose transactional view of marriage has left Anne despondent and remorseful.
However, Anne’s outlook changes upon news of Wentworth’s impending return. Now a wealthy Captain and considered a hero for saving a beached whale, he’s got single ladies’ hearts a’ flutter. Anne is holding out hope that he’s open to rekindling their romance, but quickly discovers that Wentworth is more awkward and aloof than ever. Further complicating matters is the discovery that Louisa Musgrove (Nia Towle), Anne’s sister-in-law—whom she adores—has developed a crush on Wentworth. Yet once Anne’s shady cousin Mr. Elliot (Henry Golding) arrives and begins competing for her attention, she begins to develop more complicated feelings about the friendship that Wentworth proposes in lieu of a proper courtship.
Heretical as it may seem to Austen’s source material, breaking the fourth wall not only adds a contemporary edge to the female characters’ discussions of their social standing and worth, but also offers a brilliant way for the filmmakers to channel the source material’s use of a narrator. It grants us a window into Anne’s psyche, guiding us through internal and external conflicts. Whether it be her Fleabag-esque, Enola Holmes-like or her Ferris Bueller-lite expository dialogue and reactions, Johnson adeptly holds the audience’s attention, letting them in on the joke—or at least hinting at her despair. Cracknell mines these moments to showcase her heroine’s willfulness, wit and wisdom. Quick cutaways where Johnson’s glances mimic Jim from The Office serve to pull us in further. The actress is radiant, capably handling tonal shifts as well as the nuances that Cracknell cleverly tucks into the narrative’s margins.
That said, even though this is very much “Not Your Mother’s” Jane Austen adaptation, the filmmakers wisely don’t alter the source material’s portrayals of class and character. Screenwriters Ron Bass and Alice Winslow retain much of the subversive, fundamental elements that made the original text so beloved, cheeky and subversive far beyond the boundaries of the time in which it was written. Anne’s perspective is always centered in the prose, but also in the juxtaposition between the nobility she ribs—folks like the insufferably arrogant, boorish Elliots, Musgroves, and Dalrymples—and those she considers having genuine merit, self-made men like Wentworth, Captain Harville (Edward Bluemel), and widower Captain Benwick (Afolabi Alli).
Universal themes of regret, grief, and second chances reach across time providing transcendent, heartrending touchstones. While the bulk of the complications arise out of “comedy of errors” style scenarios, the filmmakers make time for emotional resonance to land properly. Anne’s deep, albeit brief, connection with Benwick is woven through to her pivotal chat with Harville about love persevering. The poetic, handheld shots following Anne and Wentworth’s talk on the Lyme shoreline increase the immediacy and intimacy of their stunted romance—one we know is still burning, but both characters are too prideful to admit it.
Where its narrative qualities excel, the film’s aesthetic appeal is slightly shakier. Unlike other recent Austen-based features (such as 2020’s Emma, and even 2016’s Pride And Prejudice And Zombies), it lacks a necessary dimensionality in its imagery, doing a disservice to the below-the-line crew’s wonderful work. A dreaded, all-too-noticeable flatness, prevalent in many Netflix original films, keeps us from feeling totally immersed in this world. Joe Anderson’s cinematography, with its saturated tones and warm glow, cries out for a softer images with greater depth of field. John Paul Kelly’s production design and Marianne Agertoft’s costume designs, both of which photograph with a noticeable tactile feel, appear too crisp and new.
Despite these modern constraints, Cracknell’s adaptation crackles with life. Especially with an effervescent actress and hunky actor delivering compelling performances—in Johnson’s case, sometimes directly to the camera—this funny, poignant and enrapturing film gives ingenious new power to some of the Jane Austen’s greatest hits.
70 Comments
This is the only positive review of this film out there and even this doesn’t endear me to it. I’m all for revamping source material (Clueless is a masterpiece!) but Persuasion should have zero comedy of errors. Anne Elliot shouldn’t be girl-bossing her way around Bath, if she is then no one on this film understand the character at all.
This. I’ve been reading reviews since yesterday and it sounds really, really bad – not even sure if I want to hate-watch it
i don’t like rom coms but i adore the bbc 1995 version.
That’s the one with Ciaran Hinds, right? That is, I think, my favorite Austen adaptation.
yes! so much gentle humor!
“Only squares and toxics like that slavish and racist adaptation anymore, grandma! Geez!” – this reviewer, probably
I probably would have caught this eventually but Richard E. Grant cut loose in a Jane Austen story? I’m in.
“The vibrant, jocular tone of the book?” Persuasion is easily Austen’s most thoughtful, even downbeat novel. There are some elements of humor, but treating it like a breezy Regency lark is exactly the wrong approach, and it’s why pretty much everywhere else hates this movie.
I haven’t read it, but it seems like there is an argument people are making that our heroine’s internal dialogue is quite vibrant, so it’s an approach that is both relevant to the Fleabag era we’re in and a good medium to show the audience that her thoughts and the way she moves through the world are at odds. I’m just floating this by you to see someone’s perspective that actually read the book.As a non-book reader the trailer definitely pulled me in.
Vibrant, OK, Austen’s writing is always vibrant. But “jocular” gives entirely the wrong idea. Persuasion is witty, but it’s a more heavy-hearted affair than usual. That doesn’t necessarily preclude the Fleabag approach, but if one were to do that then there’d have to be the appropriate tone, and not “ohh goodness me isn’t this fun and quirky that we’re doing this with a Jane Austen novel”
that’s a fair assessment, thanks.
The monologues to the camera aren’t so much the problem as what is said in it. Anne’s meekness and introvertedness was a catalyst for the story as she let her family convince her to reject the courtship of the man she loved. We see how lonely she is at the start of the story and we see her resentment towards her family slowly simmering. The trailer showed us a character who disdainfully rolls her eyes at her family right from the start. Also, I could be mistaken, but I got the impression that even outside the 4th-wall-breaking scenes she was not introverted.It seemed like the creators wanted a witty, lively and impertinent heroine like Elizabeth from Pride and Prejudice, but they got stuck with timid, sweet and humble Anne instead. They decided to just put the character they wanted in the story, even if it wouldn’t make sense for a character like that to be in this same situation. It’s trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
And how would that be portrayed onscreen?No actress would be able to do exactly what’s in the book without looking robotic.
As if Persuasion hasn’t been adapted multiple times and Sally Hawkins and Amanda Root hadn’t both interpreted that very well thank you very much.
Yes, conveying complex internal thoughts and emotions without literally declaring how they feel is an impossible task that no actor has ever attempted or accomplished.
Anne’s very smart and perceptive…but she’s also *deeply sad*. All the time. Because she turned Wentworth down.
Came here to say this! Strident?? Anne Elliot? This word salad makes me think that the reviewer has never even read a summary of the novel. Talk about failing to make a case.
Counterpoint: treating it as a breezy Regency lark is the only way a lot of people (myself included) would consider watching it. Rating a movie based on its slavish adherence to the source material is poor criticism.
Well, not every book and story throughout history was crafted with an aim to appeal to you personally.
There’s a difference between slavishness and respect. If you’re going to adapt a book for a film then don’t throw the book out of the window entirely and ignore it’s key tenets and themes. Otherwise you could just make a breezy Austen rom com. Or even better, remake Northanger Abbey – that book would suit this tone perfectly.
Listen, I’m not fussed about slavish adherence. I’m not a purist, I love it when movies and theater get weird and anachronistic. But if you’re gonna do it, you need to understand what makes the source material work so well. Persuasion works because it’s thoughtful and introspective; if it’s gonna go the Fleabag route, there should be real soul-searching, not this glib how-do-you-do-fellow-kids routine.
Okay, but let’s say I don’t really care if it adheres to the source material in this case; I want a breezy, lively thing. Since you’ve actually seen the movie, will it give me what I want?
Meh. Johnson’s likable enough, as is Richard E. Grant as her dad, but it’s not as visually interesting as, say, 2020’s Emma.
I love the book, watched the movie this morning, and I really liked it. I understand all the criticism and sure, it doesn’t really adhere well to the book . . . but it’s still a fun movie to watch.
If that’s what you’re looking for, stick with the 2020 Emma. It’s good.
Exactly – Persuasion’s very much in the vein of Before Sunset.You can’t tell the story well if you’re afraid of how sad it is.
Quite a few “tell me you’ve never read Persuasion without actually saying you’ve never read Persuasion” moments in this review.
I’m a traditionalist when it comes to period literature and yet this review makes me want to check it out. Thanks, Courtney.
37% on RT and 41 on Metacritic… you appear to have a much different experience watching this Also, the fleabag thing, it’s a narrative device that has been around forever. What ultimately made it interesting to me was when the Priest could/hear her breaking the fourth wall, so it became less about it being an easy way to portray a character’s internality and more about what it was about her that made her feel like she needed to do that.
“Priest could/hear her breaking the fourth wall,”I got goosebumps even reading that reference. that message of Fleabag finally having someone that understands her was beautifully done, and made the 4th wall device such a deep experience.
The moment when the priest makes eye contact with the camera is the most thrilling piece of television I’ve seen this century.
I actually have read and enjoyed the novel, which it sounds like this reviewer hasn’t, as there’s nothing “subversive” about it. And Slate’s Dana Stevens, whose feminist bona fide are impeccable, says that this is an awful movie even apart from its drastic adaptational liberties. If you read just one review of this movie, read hers.
It’s also simply incorrect to say that the protagonists of Sense and Sensibility or Pride and Prejudice don’t particularly like their sisters. The complicated yet undying love between sisters is just central to the books’ plots as marriage (and probably more central to the books’ enduring appeal). The reviewer doesn’t seem to have much familiarity with Jane Austen (in book or movie form), which in fairness might be why this review focuses on the movie as a 2022 comedy rather than an adaptation. Also, I like the paradox of posting in the comments of a movie review that if people are only going to read one review, it should be a different one than the one they just read. I would love to take your advice, but it’s literally impossible!
The reviewer is saying that unlike P&P and S&S (where sisterly affection is deep), Anne doesn’t like her sisters who are vapid and insufferable.
If you’re implying that I just took to the internet and wrote 2 paragraphs of meaningless critique because I misread “Unlike” as “Like,” then… I don’t know how to finish this sentence.
Her sisters ARE vapid and insufferable, and I don’t think Anne likes them much. But the thing is, in the book, that actually causes her pain, not disdain. Her family doesn’t make her smirk—they make her cringe. If the film had Anne breaking the fourth wall with an apologetic face? Or looking miserably and desperately at the camera when she has to face Wentworth? THAT would work.
The reviewer doesn’t specify whether she’s read the book: her words imply that she has, but her lack of comprehension suggests she hasn’t.
I skipped the review because, “subversive wit… of Austen’s strident heroine” is just ignorant. So I was helped!
And Courtney is allowed to have her opinion and like it unlike your idol Dana Stevens. A lot of you Austen stans are sounding very Karen Austen and gatekeeping a dead woman’s story.
Permission to just post about how pretty I think Dakota Johnson is?
Denied.
The reviews have been dramatically all over the place. The LA Times gave it the lowest possible rating. I haven’t read the book so I can’t judge why it would be a spectacular mess but I’m curious.
The vibe I’m getting sounds like the movie answers the question “What if Mike Mitchell remade Before Sunset?”
I still can’t figure out why, of all the actors out there, they decided, “You know who we need to play this British character? Dakota Johnson.”
She does great with what she’s given. This is not a ‘Armie Hammer is Maxim DeWinter?’ situation.
Honestly, I think she’s the best part of the movie.
Honestly, I think she’s the best part of the movie.
But it sounds like that’s not much of an accomplishment.
I disagree, I think she’s the next Melanie Griffith
You couldn’t be more wrong. If anything, she’s the next Tippi Hedren.
I don’t know how anyone who’s familiar with the novel could say that this adaptation is faithful to the characters, especially Anne. They gave her the Fanny Price treatment.
I assume you’re referring to the 1999 Mansfield Park movie. Personally, I’d argue that movie improves on the book. Fanny Price is one of the least interesting of Austen’s heroines, and by giving Fanny more of Austen’s own voice, the movie also gives us a more compelling heroine. Movie Fanny has all of book Fanny’s virtues but with the bonus of Austen’s own cleverness. Other than the change to make Fanny wittier, it’s actually a fairly faithful adaptation.Now, I would NOT argue that’s the case with this adaptation of Persuasion. It seems like they have changed far more than just Anne’s character. In general, it feels like someone was trying to make a generically Jane Austen movie that uses the framework of Persuasion, but is much more like Austen smoothie – throw a bunch of different elements into the blender and see what comes out. For example, Anne Elliot is a lot Elizabeth Bennett, but there is also some Elinor Dashwood. (All that said, I did find it an enjoyable watch. Just not a good adaptation of Persuasion.)
Slate.com gave it an F. Who is right?
Just finished watching it. It is not at all a faithful adaptation, so if that’s going to bother you, skip this. Louisa and Henrietta are much more likeable/sensible in this adaptation, which makes Louisa’s major plot point truly inexplicable when it happens. Dakota Johnson is good. Cosmia above isn’t wrong. This character is what would have happened if Lizzy Bennet had become jaded. Don’t get me wrong, that’s entertaining as a new character, but it’s not Anne Elliot, so it’s jarring when you have that expectation. I understand people had the same complaint about Mr Darcy in Joe Wright’s P&P, but Darcy wasn’t the POV character. Anne is the POV character and much of the book takes place in her head. Changing her personality this much is a pretty big risk. Whether that works for you is going to very much be an individual reaction. But boy did they make Elizabeth into a bitch. It was borderline in the book, but this relationship is like Mary and Edith from Downton Abbey except they’re both Mary. I did like the fact that the peripheral characters are not ignorant of how awkward the interactions between Anne and Wentworth are and quickly connect the dots. That was a change I was ok with. I struggle to say that I didn’t enjoy it, because I did on it’s own merit, but not as a “faithful’ adaptation.
They are both Mary made me go oh no that’s miserable. I know exactly what you mean.
They mercifully don’t interact much.
Oh good.
Dakota Johnson has become a really great actress, that Cha Cha movie would have been dreadful without her. This sounds like a fun movie that I can picture people liking more with time.
I felt exactly the same way. I think it captures the tone of Jane Austen in general very well (which is one of its strengths), but as an adaptation of Persuasion, it misses a lot. It’s like it uses the plot and characters of Persuasion as a template to make a generically Austen story. I think Johnson is the best part of it. Her charisma carries the whole movie. And there are even moments where I think the movie does tap into the beautiful melancholy of the novel. But it’s also kind of hard to imagine that this Anne Elliot would have allowed herself to be persuaded not to marry a man she loves. (From a personal perspective, I could have done without the moments of cringe humor.)
How did you feel about the rabbit having more screen time than Lady Russell? At first I thought it was going to be an exposition device, like how people talk to their dogs when they think no one is listening. But then she’s never talking to the rabbit. I understand why novel version of Anne would identify with a rabbit, but this is not that Anne, so it was just distracting to me.
That is a really astute observation. I can totally see Anne from the novel having a quiet pet like a bunny that serves as the only living thing she can regularly talk to who isn’t a raging asshole. This Anne would have fit better with an energetic, friendly dog.
It sounds kind of like the makers of this film turned Anne Elliot into Elizabeth Bennett. Which you can if you want, I guess, but the question then becomes “why?”, since the whole point and USP of Persuasion is that Anne is not Elizabeth Bennett, or Austen’s other confident, witty heroines. A Fleabag infused take on Austen sounds interesting in theory, but it sounds like they picked exactly the wrong book to try it on.
It’s not even Lizzie Bennet, it’s Bridget Jones ~ the adorkable functional alcoholic who says really inappropriate things that sometimes land as hilarious jokes and sometimes just make everyone go “yikes”
Yes! I hadn’t seen it but you are SO right!
If they wanted to adapt an Austen with fourth wall breaks and a “vibrant” heroine, why would they choose a story with a heroine who is explicitly learning to find her own voice and filled with regret over how easily persuaded she was in the past? It’s literally in the title. Also, has the reviewer ever read Jane Austen? In Northanger Abbey, for example, the narrator regularly addresses the reader with witty asides, lightly mocking her story and characters. It’s so weird that they’d pick Jane’s most quiet and interior story, when NA exists and has been adapted very often.
. . . did we watch the same film?
This film fails as an adaptation of Persuasion (no, there’s no faithfulness to anything other than some broad plot outlines, which no longer make sense because the characters have all been parachuted in from some other story and act in ways that don’t fit the actual plot) AND it fails as a piece of good filmmaking – it cannot comprehend itself, nor the better things it’s trying to crib from. It’s breaking the fourth wall like Fleabag but without the wit or the really devastating sorrow and grief that the device illuminates. It’s Austen’s plot but without Austen’s characters. It wants to be sweeping historical filmmaking with gorgeous sets and serious title pieces but also to be Bridgeton with its blithe disregard of the same. Nobody behaves rationally, because it’s trying to make entirely invented characters (sassy disaster Anne! apologetic Lady Russell! considerate Louisa! charming and not a financial villain Mr. Elliot!) that would never allow the story to develop in the first place. This Anne definitely married Wentworth the first time he asked (although who knows why, because Jarvis does absolutely nothing except kind of gaze into the middle distance with vague sadness and not have chemistry with Johnson).
I’ve read dozens of reviews of Persuasion 22, professional and not. Yours says the most true things with the fewest characters. Thanks for your brief, cogent insights!
If you are looking for a good adaptation of Persuasion, watch the 1995 or 2008 BBC adaptations. This will disappoint you.If you are a fan of Jane Austen in general and want something that does a decent job of capturing Austen’s wit and is an enjoyable watch, and you are able to look past the many ways in which this gets Persuasion wrong, you will probably enjoy this. Johnson is extremely charming. It’s mostly her performance that makes this work, to be honest. I’d say give it a shot if you like Austen, and try to ignore the voice in your head screaming, “THIS IS GETTING PERSUASION ALL WRONG,” so that you can enjoy this on its own merits.
In all seriousness: what are its own merits? No one can tell me! I’ve watched it twice and setting aside the original Austen novel I found it very dull and utterly pointless. Johnson may be good when she has an intelligent script (never seen her in anything before) but here she is completely bland and insipid.
Slotharian4d situs slot4d gacor dan terpercaya : https://rebrand.ly/slotharian4d
Thank you for actually liking this, unlike so many others! I consider myself a true Austen fan, and I loved it!