Customer Reviews

Persuasion (BBC, 1971)

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

I saw the review above and thought that I should offer another opinion to anyone thinking of buying this video. I felt that the 1995 version was extremely shallow and the characters not faithfully suited to Austen's intended personalities at all. This version's Anne shows extremely well the reactions and feelings of a mature woman who is remembering a distant past. She remembers more and more as the story continues just how afflicted she has been and how lowly she has felt over the previous years. She tries to keep her feelings in check but they slowly overwhelm her. I found this version very touching despite the 1971 production. The Anne of the 1995 version seems to be always pouting. Her unmarried sister is shown more as being rude and apt to throwing tantrums even though Austen protrayed her as indifferent, selfish and conceited. That is just the beginning of the incorrect portrayals of Austen's characters in the 1995 version. If you loved the novel, see this movie.

This is the best version of Persuasion that I've seen, and I've seen them all. It follows the book almost perfectly, without any unnecessary, aggravating modern day innovations. This is Persuasion as Jane Austen wrote it. Attitudes and opinions were different in the early 1800's and it is absurd to force the attitudes of today onto characters from the past, as so many modern movies do. I hope this version is produced on DVD soon.

If you've seen the 1995 movie starring Hinds and Root enough times, read the book and want to see another execution of the story and that's all, then this isn't too bad. It's very length is satisfying; it's about four hours in all, enough time for a little more shading of character and manner. We see the Musgroves and Anne arriving at the inn at Lyme for example, and the character of Sir Walter is a little less obvious and hilarious, though equally narcissistic. What is remarkable is how much alike the two versions are; they really both are very accurate adaptations. And it's good to see the Italian concert scene as executed by different actors. There are different production values of course, this version is much more cheaply done, perhaps that is why the sailors are in civvies throughout the show. And this version does delve into the connection between Mrs. Smith and young Mr. Elliot, a connection which was entirely ignored in the film, but at least makes more sense than his chasing after his broke cousins for their money. And if you're an afficionado you may notice that this Mrs. Smith entirely lacks the charm of the film one. Lady Russell is also quite different, a sweet old lady, rather than a society queen and fashion plate with philosophical inclinations. This version doesn't capture at all the dull depression and cruel neglect experienced by Anne Elliot that the 95 film does so well. And I'm sorry to say that the actress playing Anne seems rather more like a model than a great lady with a warm heart. Still it's fun if you can't get enough Persuasion, but read the book and see the movie a bunch of times before attempting the miniseries.

I think that this version of Persuasion is very underrated. Reading the reviews for the '95 version you would think that no one had seen this one or any other before it. I can understand why this might be undervalued, the setting is very "stagey", it does not have the overall beauty and rich settings that newer versions can offer. The sound is very weak as well, the audio pick-up makes it difficult to hear all the lines. (British movies, especially older ones, are notorious for bad sound. I can't understand why new DVD releases do not automatically include subtitling, and I don't mean merely close-captioning, because they really need it.) Further, there is the effect of the fabrics and styles which are so obviously from the 70's and can detract somewhat from the experience. Anne is wearing a plaid dress at one point! Finally, as has been pointed out the actress playing Anne is obviously quite a bit older then her 20 something role requires. However, all that being said, this is still one of my favorite productions so far. The reason? Despite all of these drawbacks I still feel that it captures the spirit of the novel better than any other I have watched. I love this Anne. She has a dignity and maturity combined with a sweetness of spirit that almost seems too good to be true at times, but is balanced by a subtle but wry sense of humor that prevents her from becoming inhuman and cloying. No other Anne that I have seen captures this to my satisfaction. In fact I found Amanda Root a very sad Anne indeed. She played her as a timid little mouse of a person beaten down by circumstance and victimized by her family. I couldn't respect her.

To my mind one of the things that raises Persuasion above a mere Cinderella story is Ann's personality. Although her family does not value her she is someone who has such a capacity to love and such a desire to be loved in return that she rises above their pettiness and negligence and refuses to become bitter and hateful or pitiful and depressed in response to their lack of concern. Instead she tries to set an example and behave with the caring and consideration that she would like to receive. Her firmness of purpose and ability to value herself is clear in her every action and although she has her disappointments and doubts, she is certainly not a victim. Her ability to forgive and do what she feels is right despite so many obstacles is a clear contrast to Captain Wentworth's pride driven anger which prevents him from understanding the reasons for her earlier rejection of his proposal.

I wish that more people could appreciate this Anne. I think she is closer to Jane Austen's original character in many respects and that even the actress's age only helps emphasize the maturity of her character. The cover doesn't do her justice for although she is not especially beautiful she is a very handsome woman with a nice smile and I think that too is more like the original Anne who is never described (except by an obviously biased Captain Wentworth) as being especially pretty.

Aside from Anne the other casting is all excellent. Her father and elder sister are the epitome of vanity and false pride. Her younger sister, the attention seeking Mary, is played superbly. Everyone else, from the solicitous but class-conscious Mrs. Russell, the bluff Charles Musgrove, the droll and somewhat eccentric Crofts, the obsequious Mrs. Clay and her lawyer father to the hospitable Hargraves, the dour Captain Benwick and the oily Cousin Elliot are very well cast. Louisa is very well done. Her lack of maturity contrasts Anne nicely showing both the self-centered forcefulness and the fearless sweetness of someone who has not yet experienced the disappointments of life and love. It is possible to envy her youthful vitality and pity her lack of awareness without disliking her personally which I think is a very difficult effect to achieve. In that regard I find that it rings very true to life.
Captain Wentworth also has a boyish charm combined with a hint of that forceful and passionate personality which makes him a good leader on board ship and which made him so temperamental when faced with Anne's refusal. Both his hurt and anger and his later warmth and respect for Anne are played with equal spirit and verisimilitude. Even when he is angry you can see his kindness and strength of character. I don't think that Ciaran Hinds can match that given that he plays aloof and angry characters best. I found him too severe in the beginning and not quite believable when he later relents. It's just not his role. He did a better job as the bitter and more forceful Mr. Rochester in the A&E version of Jane Eyre.

Lastly, the scenery may seem a bit washed out, but that is due to both the location and climate in Britain and the style of filming at the time. Perhaps I am biased in this but I found the length of the film, rather than being off putting, instead allowed me more time to immerse myself in the world and to savor the nuances of the interactions that occur in each scene. I also found the scenery added to this effect and enjoyed the views of Lyme and the walks in the countryside very much for their realism rather than for the larger than life beauty found in more modern films. To my view many of the very things which might be considered negative in this film in contrast with newer ones were what attracted me to it. It doesn't have the polished quality of more recent offerings, but it does have a realism (despite the sound and 70's influence) that makes the experience more immediate. This is a favorite to watch when feeling ill or on a rainy day when something comfortable and non-demanding is required. It isn't especially steamy and passionate, but it is very intimate and warm-hearted.

This version of Persuasion has small gems of introspective thought and analysis throughout. Anne's character develops physically and mentally into a woman who now believes that she can correct the terrible mistake of taking bad advice in her youth. All of the virtues that Austen attributes to Anne Elliot are fully realized as Anne goes from an "insignificant person" to a woman who learns that she is competent, caring, poetic, and understanding. She is determined to not make the same mistake again, and this production delves into the maturation of Anne from a doormat to a woman of great depth and wisdom. The version with Amanda Root is an excellent production also, but the length of that movie does not allow for the time to show these incidences of insight and poetic imagination that Anne brings out in this older Persuasion version. I would highly recommend this slower yet deeper version of Persuasion, and I recommend the newer version for its sheer beauty of production, acting, and cinematography.

The following is from my review on this production which is posted on [...]

I'm just getting the chance to dig into past Austen films, and I picked this up because Persuasion is, has been, and always will be, my favorite work by Jane Austen, and Anne Elliot my favorite Austen heroine. So it was with great anticipation that I popped the disc into my player.

I wasn't disappointed, either. I knew there were bound to be some draw-backs, so I'll state them, and try not to be too thick about them. Anne Elliot is the most introverted of Austen's characters; she is the least talkative and the least witty. There are passages in the book where Anne says nothing - only her feelings are described. This works fine in print, but how to successfully transfer this to the big screen? Short of doing thoughtful voice overs (which would grow tedious over four hours) you're left with a long succession of shots where the heroine says little or nothing, and must communicate all by her facial expression. This can leave the feeling that the film is slow, and lacking in purpose. If you need a more overt style of Austen, then certainly this film is not for you; but if subdued is more your style, and you tend to pick up on unspoken 'vibes', this will fulfill all expectations.

Anne Firbank (as Anne Elliot), is, thankfully, an actress whose face can convey much. She looked as I had always imagined Anne Elliot would look: not a knockout - Anne wasn't supposed to be the elegant one of the family - nor in her first youth - which is also highlighted occasionally by the lighting and make-up. What you see is someone who is very like Austen's character: someone whose appearance you might pass over once; but hear her speak, and look more closely, and she grows more attractive the better you know her. This is Anne Elliot, as brought to life by Anne Firbank.

Captain Wentworth's portrayal is ably handled by Bryan Marshall. The bitterness is never apparently obvious (save at the concert scene); and, yes, I found it hard to believe he wound find Louisa Musgrove interesting as she was shown. But that is another point of Austen's book: he did not find her interesting, he TRIED to find her interesting, and, ultimately, failed (sigh of relief). So this, too, fits with Austen's original story.

I especially liked the portrayal of Lady Russell, who I thought in the book was not portrayed as TRULY bad; this also comes out in this adaptation.

So this is one film which closely followed the book; I could write much more about how faithfully everything was reproduced, but I'd run out of space here. Charles Musgrove remained one of the most buoyant characters (good fun), Mary the most annoying (I was dying to have her just shut up - but I had that feeling when I read the book, too), captains and the admiral I thought charming.

The cinematography I thought a trifle stiff. There was little or practically no fade from one screen to another - perhaps this is due to it being a TV movie. One scene - CHOP! - the next scene, the actors enter from right, proceed left, and - CHOP! - another scene, where the same thing happens. This was the only part of the movie which I felt cheated me a little. A Low Budget has to show itself somewhere, I suppose.

And, as I said earlier, if you like some pace to go with Jane Austen, don't bother with this one, as you'll find it way too slow. I enjoyed it enormously, though, as it brought a wealth of detail (the sets were richly elegant!) to an excellent adaptation of my favorite Austen novel. I highly recommend it!

My family bought the entire BBC Jane Austen collection through Amazon.com for Christmas and decided to first watch the only video we had not previously seen - "Persuasion." Let me first say that the "Pride and Prejudice" of this series is marvelous, "Mansfield Park" we love, and "Northanger Abbey" and "Sense and Sensibility" are good. I will reserve comment on "Emma" until later. However, this adaptation of Jane Austen's great novel "Persuasion" is just one step above completely hideous. The only excuse we can give is that it was BBC's first attempt at a Jane Austen novel.

There is so much wrong it is hard to know where to begin. The script itself is coarse and insensitive, sometimes crudely spelling out the jokes or medical conditions for a presumedly ignorant modern audience. The book by comparison is witty, elegant and subtle. Most of the actors were atrocious. It looked like amateur hour tryouts. Some sets were anachronistic as were the costumes and characters, and the production was crudely directed and badly edited.

First, the casting was generally horrid. The exceptions were Sir Walter Elliot who was played with charm and wit, but the star, Ann Fairbank, is not much of an actress and certainly not as Anne Elliot. She presents herself as a 40 year old ex-glamour queen with a forward personality and a grotesque hair piece. She constantly gazes into the distance, completely spaced-out, but then the hair piece enlarged her head to the point she could have been mistaken for a space alien. She is totally unconvincing as she "reads her lines" and has not the slightest spark of electricity with the sadly cast Captain Wentworth. Charles Musgrove is much better as an actor, but although he is supposed to be Anne's age, he looks 25, more like son to mother. Louisa Musgrove is a frivolous girl and a better actress than the star, but the famous accident at Lyme is a bomb. Elizabeth Elliot is far too nice, and the ambitious, pretty Mrs. Clay is portrayed by an overweight, lazy and homely middle-aged woman who could hardly be thought to lure either Sir Walter or his sinister heir by her beauty and wiles. Worst of all was Admiral Croft. He could not act the part, and he wore a full beard unlike any Royal Navy officer of the Regency period. He should have been on the Titanic and gone down with the ship. He kept flubbing his lines, and the director must have been too lazy to reshoot the scenes. We have honestly never seen acting this poor in community theater or even most high school productions. Most sets were appropriate; however, the scene at Lyme showed pink front attached apartments with wrought iron trim that looked like they had been built in the 1920s or later. The costumes were laughable. (Did anyone do any research?) Most of the costumes, you would think, were more more fitting for the 1840s through the American Civil War, except for the fact that the fabrics, patterns and bright aniline dyes had the suspicious look of the late 1960s. For example, Anne often wore a bright green plaid day dress with puff sleeves that gave the impression of a cheap costume rental used for "Anne of Green Gables." If the director didn't shoot himself, he certainly should have considered it.

The video did provide our family with hours of entertainment as we made fun of the production. Now that we are in the mood, we can watch "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes."

Persuasion is my favourite Austen novel. I have read and loved Austen for 30 years, and while I appreciate all the humour, cleverness, tempered cynicism, irony and fun of novels such as Pride & Prejudice and Emma, the note struck by Persuasion is the longer lasting and the sweeter feeling.

Jane Austen's writing was strongly informed by drama and the theatre of the 18th century. Her books demand the stage and film adaptations that have been made. To me, Austen's novels are like plays, although plays with a difference - something like a script with the author's and character's thoughts intermingled.

The books are readily adaptable, therefore, to performance as a series of scenes in a play, or episodes in a series. This adaptation of Persuasion closely fits my idea of how to present Austen. What lets it down is poor production. The later 70s and early 80s efforts were all much better produced, including Emma (which was really good) just a year later than this.

Lovers of Jane Austen's work admire it for its wit, humour, subtlety and burlesque. It sets a tone highly amenable to the humorous/cynical mind, and Austen's use of free indirect speech and other clever devices create a very satisfying inside and out view of the story and its characters.

Translating these devices to film and television would seem a very tall order, but the efforts mentioned above, and this one, were really quite (sometimes very) good. The later adaptations, starting with Northanger Abbey in 1986, have been disappointing for me. Too lush and shallow - too unlike Austen.

In this adaptation, the early 19th century in rural England comes to life, in all its slow pace, class restrictions, insularity and prejudice. This feels like an accurate portrait of of the time and the story.

So why only 4 stars (3.5, really)?

1. Poor production values - atrocious editing, poor continuity, poor quality video and film, shocking sound, bad makeup, insufficiently researched dress and other style values - the list goes on. It says much for the acting of the principals that these problems may be ignored once you get used to them

2. Low budget has meant that many scenes retain mistakes such as missed words, cues, long silences.

3. Poor direction, particularly the Lyme fall scene and that part of the Uppercross walk scene where the Crofts are met and Anne taken up

4. Several awkward revisions, in particular the scene near the beginning where the uncomfortable silence between Lady Russell and Anne with regard to Wentworth is dropped in favour of a highly artificial direct discussion.

5. Several omissions, the worst of which was the scene at Uppercross cottage with young Charles climbing on Anne's back, and being removed by Wentworth, a scene pivotal to Anne's feelings in every way.

I thought Ann Firbank's performance particularly good - Ann's range of facial expressions beautifully supply the externals of the internal monologue of her feelings.

Bryan Marshall's Wentworth is very true to the book. He is rather stately and somewhat Shakespearean in places - but I like his interpretation.

I thought that Mary and Charles were both well acted, with Morag Hood doing an excellent job as Mary - possibly the best acting in the film. Just as annoying as in the book.

Henrietta was well played and the scene with Charles Hayter early in the piece was well done. I found Louisa just as she was in the book, and as truly unattractive as Wentworth finally found her. The supporting characters at Lyme were all well played, in particular Benwick.

I thought Admiral Croft very ordinarily played, although his sloppiness did introduce some burlesque, which my 11 year old thought hilarious. One of the few performances I really loathed was Mrs Croft - entirely unlike the character in the book. Her longest speeches were a burden.

Basil Dignam's Sir Walter was very good, but a little patchy. I found Elizabeth not true to her character. Shepherd was quite well played, as was, as far has her role could go, the sycophantic Mrs Clay. The danger to Sir Walter from Mrs Clay was not clear enough - the direction too passive to bring this out either at Kellynch or at Bath.

Mr Elliot was suitably oily, and Mrs Smith played well if a little stiffly. For these two, the dialogue curtailment rendered their roles less pivotal in the plot. As Elliot was a real driver in the novel, and Mrs Smith pivotal in all the changes that occurred in Bath, this was disappointing.

The Uppercross walk scene was well done - not too long as so many reviewers have thought. It contains, for the close watcher, many of the charged dialogues and clashes of spirit and personality depicted in the novel. The worst of this sequence was the very ordinary handling of the scene where the Crofts are met and Anne is taken up - an unforgivably badly directed scene.

The Lyme episode, with the exception of the fall scene, was well done. I found the scene where Mary expresses her disappointment with the Cobb very funny. The fall scene was abysmally bad.

The Bath segment of the movie was well done, although the studio sets are glaringly obvious. The letter scene was somewhat awkward, I thought - this is a direction issue, once again - I thought the acting was as good as the very ordinary direction would allow. The final scenes were modified and curtailed to finish the film cleanly - not too badly done.

What strikes me about this film is its authenticity. It really tries to marry the acting to the book, not just in dialogue, but in characterisation, movement, circumstance and most of all atmosphere. It depicts the rigidity and repressiveness of rural England and its society with telling accuracy, and does reasonable justice to the mileage Austen was able to make from her subject.

For all its obvious faults, I think that this adaptation of Persuasion is the most accurate, sympathetic and satisfying, and one to which I will return often.

The comparisons between the 1995 version and this one are inevitable. Sadly, this version falls far short.

The casting is uninspired and the acting wooden. One gets the impression the director did not read the book let alone understand the characters.

Sir Walter Elliot is portrayed as pompous but his inadvertent silliness which Redgrave brilliantly captured (in the 1995 version) is nowhere to be found.

The Musgrove sisters are so unlikable, one doesn't understand why Wentworth or anybody else would give them a second glance.

The relationship between Wentworth and Anne is devoid of feeling.

In the 1995 version, Hinds and Root managed to convey the depth of emotion the two of them felt towards each other with their body language and facial expressions. In this version, it is hard to understand Anne spent years mired in regret unless one has read the book.

This production does not capture the emotional complexity of the main characters' relationship at all.

In the scene where Wentworth walks in on Anne and Mary having breakfast (the first time he sees her in 8 years), it seems to the viewer, as Mary thinks, they are only slight acquaintances.

In the 1995 version, when Wentworth walks in, the tension is thick. Resentment is coming off Wentworth in waves, while Anne is almost overcome.

In this version, while Wentworth is courting Lousia, it is as if he is truly invested, the undercurrents are missing. In the 1995 version, the viewer senses Wentworth's anger at Anne. He is flaunting his courtship in front of her, as if to say, "see what you gave up, I don't need or want you anymore".

Yet he still cares if she suffers, as the scene where he asks his sister and the Admiral to take Anne back to house illustrates. In the 1995 version the viewer feels Anne's shock that he would care if she was tired, we also feel Wentworth's discomfort that he still does care. In this one, he just continues on with Louisa as if nothing happened.

The pivotal scene where Anne is conversing with Harville about who loves longest, man or woman, is totally botched. The actors are just reciting lines with no emotional investment.

When Anne reads the letter from Wentworth, it is as if she is reading a grocery list.

Contrast this to the 1995 version, where the viewer feels Anne's joy at her second chance. We are there with her as she reads the letter. The director had both actors reading the letter and you hear both their voices. Wentworth is full of frustration, passion and hope, while Anne's is at first incredulous then evolves in to joy.

This production has more scenes after the revelation between Wentworth and Anne. While the book has a chapter or two more, it felt tacked on in this production, as if the director needed to explain what had just happened to the characters.

The 1995 version didn't need to include more dialog, we understood and rejoiced for the characters.

The only thing this production has in it's favor is it kept the Mrs. Smith sub plot intact, while the 1995 version did not.

The 1995 version however did include part of Austen's original ending (which she thankfully changed to include one of my favorite love letters in literature!). The scene where Wentworth is commissioned by the Admiral to find out if Anne and Mr. Elliot will want to move back to her house (which he & Mrs. Croft are renting) after they marry.

Unless you have hours of time to waste, this is a production to avoid.

My favourite Persuasion is still this 1971 old tv series. Initially, the 1971 filming was a bit startling, but by the end of the series, I loved this Persuasion the most. The production value reminds me of watching a play, as the tv technology was not so advanced 37 years ago. So be warned, the visual and audio are not like what is available today. However, this is still my favourite Anne Elliot. She is dignified, composed, ladylike and kind. It's a long tv series, so almost nothing is cut out from the book. I loved this Anne, although the actress was a bit older. She was exactly what she was in the book, sweetly dignified, kind to everyone, practical and it was easy to imagine her being very pretty in her bloom. Unlike the other versions (below), Anne seemed not to be timid and spineless, but rather quiet and gentle as she is in the book. Of the 3 Annes I've seen on tv/film, this was the only one I could see capturing the heart of Captain Wentworth.

I first saw the 1995 Amanda Root Persuasion movie and was disappointed that Anne Elliot was such a timid, spineless, victimized, plain woman. I found it very difficult to imagine that this Anne had been very pretty in her bloom, or became very pretty and sweetly confident by the end of the movie.

I recently saw the 2007 Persuasion and was again disappointed that Anne Elliot was such an easily disraught, barely talkative character (although the scenery and Captain Wentworth were quite dreamy). When they first speak of Captain Wentworth returning, her cheeks are supposed to become flushed. Yet in the movie, Anne is gaping like a fish and completely discomposed. And of course, there's the spectacle of her running and gasping around during the last part of the movie.

So this 1971 version is my favourite. Being an Austen fan, though, of course, I have all 3 versions in my DVD collection...