I just saw this film, and the one thing I cannot get over is how terrible and awkward the kiss between Anne and Wentworth was. It was so bad it almost ruined the movie for me! Anyone agree?
shareAgree it was soooo bad!
She kept opening her mouth, for a long time, I was like, come on kiss him already or I will!
it wasn't romantic or funny, just stupid.
[deleted]
I agree,although I don´t see the kiss so awkward...That lingering was meant to intensify their final meeting.But I must say I prefer the "wedding present" scene,it´s perfect!!
Having read many posts on the subject I now believe that many of the viewers have misinterpreted The Kiss. In this film, I believe that it was meant to be somewhat awkward and to focus upon Anne rather than Anne and Wentworth. It is the most significant change between the 1995 and 2007 adaptations of the film. In 1995 Wentworth kisses Anne, while in 2007 Anne kisses Wentworth. It is not supposed to be a wholly romantic moment, that kiss is saved for the end of the film. This awkward kiss, in contrast, is Anne's declaration of freedom, serves as proof of her resolve, and is the culmination of her rebellion against the status quo. Please recall the sequence of events and the Regency era no-noes that lead to it. Anne interrupts a discorse between her father, sister and Wentworth on the presumption that her conversation with him takes precedence. Anne then gives short shrift to her previously influential godmother, as she chases after her Captain. In the foyer Anne continues to move with a purpose, and as quickly as possible, winds her way through a series of beloved relatives to continue her pursuit. She exits her home without bonnet and bareheaded. She runs. By the time she has taken her first few quick steps she has shattered her norms and many Regency era conventions.
Upon finding Captain Wentworth she does not wait for him to restate what he has written in his letter. Instead, she states that she accepts his proposal and declares herself "Quite determined." Wentworth, in turn, asks Anne about her level of certainty. She indicates that she is resolute and stands before Wentworth obviously desirous of being kissed, despite being in public--another Regency era no-no. Wentworth makes no move toward accomodating her. By several awkward gestures, she tries to convey that desire to Wentworth, who remains unmoving. Finally, she moves forward and takes the initiative. By doing so Anne demonstrates that she knows her own mind, and places her love for Wentworth both above familial concerns and social conventions. You do not get to see Wentworth's face throughout most of this exchange but I suspect that it is his final test of Anne, as well as Anne's final test of self. Anne Elliot of 1995 was saved by Wentworth, while 2007 Anne was empowered and saved by herself. And based on the film's denouement, this is the woman that she remains--bareheaded--unafraid of being sun-bronzed and freckled, while happily kissing her husband in public.
I like both versions, but I think this one is the more internal and more emotional of the two, and shows a woman more liberated from her past restraints. This provides a greater character arc than the earlier adaptations of "Persuasion." The end is a bit rushed, but I find the story satifying, nonetheless.
Interesting interpretation. I don't buy it for a minute, but it's interesting.
One of the rare adaptations I have no interest in owning. I watched it once. Found it awful. Forced myself to give it a second chance -- laughed out loud.
I thought: just kiss eachother already! It was like a spoof in which she'd say "cut! I can't reach him!" at any moment. She should've have been gasping for air like that.
"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"
mar3429,thank you! I like your synopsis of 'the kiss' and the movie, in general. Your interpretations are probably close to what the producers had in mind for this movie. If not, it should have been what they had in mind for the movie. I loved this version, however, I am in the minority on this one. :-D
I do agree the kiss is somewhat awkward, but the pay-off at the end is great!
i really liked this version i have to say, but the kiss - oh dear god could anything be more awkward or dragged out, the last scene was lovely but i really cringed watching the kiss scene!
shareI have to say i was actually impressed with this version there was somthing about Rupert Penry Jones that made the Captain Wentwoth character even more appealing. Although that kiss is awful. loved the very last scene when they are married at the house he bought her.
shareHe brought her back to her family home, Kellynch, which Sir Walter could not sell. I found it quite odd.
shareOk so he did,nt go to sea with her but she did love that house and was sorry to leave it. So it was a nice ending and miles away from the Novel i'm not complaining i liked the sentiment of it.
shareLet's say that this is a correct interpretation of the director's/script writer's intention with all the liberties taken when it comes to the horrible ending - tell me though, what has this female scampering-about-the-streets-of-Bath-behaving-like-a-regency-trollop empowerment thing to do with Jane Austen's character Anne Elliot?
I have read Persuasion at least ten times and have yet to see any of this in the actual novel. Anne does realise that she would have been happier had she stood by her initial acceptance of Captain (then Mr) Wentworth. However, she does talk to him about following Lady Rusell's advise and clearly states that she "was perfectly right in being guided by [her]".
Anne then continues:
"I am not saying that [Lady Russell] did not err in her advice. It was, perhaps, one of those cases in which advise is good or bad only as the event decides [...] But I mean, that I was right in submitting to her, and that if I had done otherwise, I should have suffered more in continuing the engagement than I did even in giving it up, because I sould have suffered in my conscience."
I'm really having trouble seeing exactly where the to hell with everything except me getting my man-Anne is to be found here. And what would Captain Wentworth have seen in such an Anne? He who acknowledges that "he had been unjust to her merits, because he had been a sufferer from them" and never managed to attach himself to Louisa, though she was emancipated enough, even for a 21 century audience, prior to her fall.
Now I know quite a few people seem to think that modern adaptations is a must. Going with the tide and what's on the menu in terms of political correctness nowadays and all that. If that's what one wants I really don't see the problem in writing an original script, and either placing it in a different time (how about now, when girl power actually exists and is generally applauded) or being true to historical facts at least inasmuch as showing the complete controversy in certain actions (as gentile couples smooching in the streets, be they married or not) and the effects of such. I really don't see what possible good can come out of indulging the present day yelping for more slimy hollywood version of romance with huggly buggly kissy kissy action on top to such an extent as to completely screw up people's historical awareness since, let's face it, if there's any to be had of that it comes more or less directly from the moviescreen. Or do people believe that if we just pretend that women where never less equal than today, never more subdued, and that womanly virtues where always the same throughout history, it will somehow be true?
If you want to make period drama, then do! Shocking as it may seem, that actually has its own charm for an awful lot of people (like the ones who actually read Austen's book and are dying for more adaptations to do her writing credit). If, on the other hand, one is more interested in one's own visions and merely wants to profit a bit by the connection to Austen's famous work, why not make a truly new adaptation? Like Clueless, which beats most Austen screenplay adaptations by far.
First, let me confess that I have never read any of Austen's books. As an avid reader, I understand how frustrating it can be to be to deal with film adaptationsof books that I have loved. In time, as a film buff, I have come to accept that almost any book is better than the film made of it. They are two different mediums and communicate to their audiences differently. Film is limited to what you see and the ability of the actors to project what they are feeling inside. A good book gives you both the external actions of an individual and their internal motivations for these actions. In many ways film is like life. We watch the actions of those about us and are forced to puzzle out and interpret why people do what they do. I would submit that it takes a pretty intimate knowledge of an individual to match their external actions to their internal reasoning--and to be right in fifty percent of cases.
That being said, it is my understanding that the 1997 version of Persuasion is a more faithful adaptation of the book. As a fan of both novels and films that deal with both social constraints and social repression, I enjoyed the film and found it well made. Thus, a new writer/director is left with the choice of either repeating the earlier film with new cast and sets (as Van Sant did with an almost shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's Psycho)or they can reinterpret the film and give it a slightly different spin. In this version they chose to amplify Anne's seditious behaviors (going to sea with your husband on a warship would still give most modern women pause), while showing Anne's pain behind her public displays of outward calm (her journal entries). I suspect that these changes were made to appeal to younger women and to broaden the appealof the film with a 21st century demographic. I believe that the spirit of the tale remains the same, but the emphasis has doubtless, been shifted. In the end, I guess what I'm saying is that the novel is the novel and the film is the film. I seldom try to judge one from the other anymore.
I suspect that the best way to adapt an Austen novel is not in a film--but in the long form--a television based mini-series, based upon my viewing of the BBC's Pride and Prejudice.
As a film standing alone, it makes no sense at all.
sharemar3429: I don't mean to be rude but there was really no need for you to confess that you haven't read Austen's books. You couldn't possibly have with all those misunderstandings regarding the original story. If you truly are an avid reader though I really recommend that you do read it - you will see it far surpasses all of the adaptations that have been made to this date. It is the most wonderful love story (without all the ickyness you usually get today) and of my all time favourite books!
As for the 1995 version of Persuasion I seem to remember it did stay a little more true to the book and it seems to me that the team behind this version paid more attention to the previous movie than to the actual book - they have borrowed certain things straight off. I did think this movie had a better starting point though - I very much liked the casting of Sally Hawkins (brilliant when she was allowed to be and with so much potential to doing Anne justice), Rupert Penry-Jones (what is there to say but; wow!) and let's not forget the fabulous Anthony Head who could not but excel as Sir Elliott. At times these excellent actors actually got a few good lines in nicely shot scenes but some of the most essential parts of Austen's writing were just brutalised by both writer and director. As so many others before them they seemed to think the could improve on Austen and thrashed for instance the wonderful scene where Anne and Captain Benwick talk of constancy in love leading up to Captain Wentworth's writing the letter (sigh). As someone here has already said the placing of these two events in completely different parts of the movie, forcing that stupid scene with him being sent on an "errand" by his brother-in-law was just inexplicable. And I still don't understand; are we meant to believe Wentworth is jealous enough to actually lie to Anne? Or, better still, that the Admiral would actually send Wentworth in his place and talk to Anne(?!) about such a matter - Sir Elliot is not quite dead yet! The latter wouldn't even make sense today!
Oh, and one last thing - as for Anne going to sea on a warship she did no such thing as far as Austen chose to tell of her life with Captain Wentworth (there is actually no telling of whether another war comes or not). That's just more hideous girl power nonsense from people who couldn't be satisfied having the heroine less daring than anyone else, and so since Mrs Croft did it then Anne must do it as well.
Captain Wentworth's errand from his errand is actually from a cancelled chapter (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pcanchap.html) written by Austen. That chapter was replaced by a much better chapter - The Letter. Admiral Croft did in fact send Captain Wentworth to speak to Anne about the lease. Using both chapters, done here and in the 1995 adaptation - does not make a whole lot of sense, but it makes even less sense here as Anne saw the Admiral just a few minutes earlier.
By the way, Anne speaks of constancy in love with Captain Harville in the book, not Benwick, and Anne's father is Sir Walter Elliot, who would be referred to as Sir Walter, not Sir Elliot. "Sir" takes a first name always, while Lord usually takes the last, with some limited exception, e.g. Lord Peter Wimsey, referred to as Lord Peter, not Lord Wimsey. His title is an honorary title as second son of a Duke.
It was very interesting to read that cancelled chapter. And although the context of the Admiral asking Wentworth to speak to Anne--both the fact that Anne happens to pass by rather than Wentworth going to her father's house on that purpose and the fact that he is extremely embarrased by the impropriety in talking to Anne on the matter--makes the entire scene much more understandable than the movie version I'm really happy that she changed it.
About the talk of constancy in love, I'm quite ashamed. In the movie Harville is exchaged for Benwick in this conversation and as I edited my text his name remained from a previous sentence. And though I have managed to sort out some of the English titles and how they apply I hadn't thought about the sir thing before so that was very informative.
It is not enough that they had these intentions. The result was simply not as intended. When an overwhelming majority of the audience reacts in the same way, then it is not the audience that misinterpreted the scene, but the film-makers who tailed to get their point across.
shareCGC, apparently some folks just cannot separate themselves from the book or other adaptations in their mind. Those other references get in the way. I feel sorry for them, because they cannot enjoy the film for what it is. They are missing out on a lot.
Personally, I loved the film. I see it for the film it is. I do not compare it at all and therefore truly appreciate what the screenwriter brought to me. If I were dedicated to the words on the page, I would be in the Jane Austen forum and not here.
Well, to me an adaptation has to have certain things in common with the book it borrows its name, story and characters from. Staying true to the main characters and staying away from huge anachronisms are fundamental parts of any adaptation set in the same time as the novel. Or would you have thought it ok for Gandalf to rip out his cellphone and call Frodo up to see how the quest was going on his end?
Again, if someone wants to make his own interpretation of a novel do the Clueless version. Use a different name on the movie and place it in a time and place where the differences in characters and story make some kind of sense.
No, I have to agree with klorentz:
"As a film standing alone, it makes no sense at all."
Which is really sad because it did have a lot of potential and some parts of it are delightful.
[deleted]
Yes, my mind is quite fixed; I think that the book deserves (and I'm sure it can get) a better adaptation. You, on the other hand, are extremely open to other peoples opinions, aren't you?
"This is a great film. If you don’t think so now then watch it over and over again until you do, and you will because it is great."
I have read the posts you recommended and haven't been all that influenced, as you predicted. All of what you interpreted in the acting of Amanda Hale may very well have been the intent of the actress and the director but it's very far from how Mary is depicted in the book, where it is said on several occasions that Mary is a little too proud and far too self centered. The Musgroves do not take to her as they do to Anne mostly because she is often whiny and obstinate, determined that everyone mistreats her, while Anne is sweet and concerned about everyone else before allowing herself to be of any importance.
For example the scene where Mary wants to stay with Louisa instead of Anne, I believe nothing of what you think to be Anne's reason for yielding can be found in "Anne had never submitted more reluctantly to the jealous and ill-judging claims of Mary; but so it must be". I don't know about you but I have trouble seeing how that sentence leaves any room for interpreting the feelings of Anne in any other way than that she did not at all consider Mary's feelings to come before Louisa's health.
There are lots of other examples--in fact just about every sentence where Mary is mentioned tells some little thing of her flaws (though she is certainly more agreeable--or maybe less disagreeable --than the rest of Anne's family).
[deleted]
Of course the Musgroves dislike Mary, she is not a likeable person. Part of what I believe to be the genius of the film is in showing us reasons why Mary behaves as she does. It is this sort of thing that gives the film depth.
So what is your point here exactly? Apart from re-stating that you are annoyed because the film is not the same as the book.
[deleted]
An unlikeable character like Mary as portrayed in this film is valuable because it invites the viewer to feel compassion [...]
Well your claim that you have no less grounds for thinking that Amanda Hale acted, and was directed, badly in the role of Mary than I have for thinking the opposite is simply your opinion and not an objective fact.
“I am a film and book fanatic and I do understand that they are two different media. I also understand that you cannot mimic a book to the letter when doing a movie adaptation.”
Well you could have fooled me.
For goodness sake when all is said and done this is a romance novel we are talking about not Holy Scripture, loosen up.
[deleted]
But where is your constructive criticism? Again correct me if I am wrong but all I have seen from you are vague statements like “large discrepancies” and “bad film making choices”.
.......
I take it that what you mean when you say that the characters don’t make sense anymore is that the characters in the film are not behaving like the characters from the book. But there is a simple reason for that (and one which you don't seem to be able to get your head around), it is because they are not the characters from the book, they are the characters from the film, and as the characters from the film they make perfect sense.
Why do we care what the book says? Because this film supposed to be an adaptation of the book. It should retain at least some of what the book says. Otherwise, it's merely "inspired by" or "based on." It's not a true adaptation if characters' personalities are completely changed.
I didn’t call this film a “chick flick”, you did. And the reason you called the film a chick flick was for the purpose of trying to make me look bad by implying that I regarded the film as “just another chick flick, right?”.
And considering you have read my posts where I call the film “great” and “a small film masterpiece” your denigrating implication says a great deal more about you than it does about me.
[deleted]
No one as capable as Anne.
shareAh, you're quite right! *giggles*
So, do you think we will soon get to see "Persuasion--the sequel" where Anne becomes the president of the United States (beating both Obama and MacCain) and solves the problems with world hunger, the climate and finds the ultimate solution to the abortion issue (her faithful husband at her side at all times)? Cause I think that such a film would definately have its audience.
It's too easy to characterize all people who loathe this film as those who cannot separate themselves from the book or other adaptations. That's an unsupportable generalization. Case in point - I love the 2005 Pride and Prejudice adaptation even though it is not chapter and verse the book. It's also quite different from the much hailed 1995 adaptation (which also deviates quite a bit from the novel) but it has its own charms and wonderful performances.
I am not wedded to one adaptation; nor do I insist on slavish repetition of what's in the book - otherwise, why make another adaptation? What I do insist on is adherence to basic themes, signficant plot points, and some semblance of respect for the characters. Add to that a coherent plot. This adapatation -- which I actually made myself watch more than once -- comes nowhere close.
Sure Rupert Penry-Jones is an eyeful, but eye candy isn't enough.
What I do insist on is adherence to basic themes, signficant plot points, and some semblance of respect for the characters. Add to that a coherent plot. This adapatation -- which I actually made myself watch more than once -- comes nowhere close.
Sure Rupert Penry-Jones is an eyeful, but eye candy isn't enough.
It's too easy to characterize all people who loathe this film as those who cannot separate themselves from the book or other adaptations.
They could have called it "Love lost and Found" and I couldn't like it any more. If I want pure Austen I will read it, because I know films never cover the book accurately or can include it all.
Like, love or hate the film, but don't start comparing it to other references.
I feel sorry for you that you have to come here, where people that enjoyed the film gather, and condescend to them. What drives people to do that?
All posts are in the opinion of the poster. Do you think anyone is in danger of confusion on that point? I give people here a bit more credit.
share[deleted]
As a stand alone film, with no reference to any book, the film was awful AND laugh out loud funny. At the final scene, my husband started singing the Chariots of Fire theme.
shareAs a stand alone film, with no reference to any book, the film was awful AND laugh out loud funny
Just to add that my husband has not read the book. His opinion is based solely upon what he saw on the screen.
shareWell, she probably WAS gasping for breath after running all over town looking for him. But I agree, it did make for a very unwatchable and unsatisfying (for the audience) kiss.
And genie, it is not necessary to add IMO. It's a given that it's all opinion. Otherwise we'd all agree with each other on everything. Don't see that happening anytime soon.
There are occasional posts that offer facts for informational purposes, but posts like this are strictly our opinions.
I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.
Oh god! The lead up to the kiss was horrible!
I couldn't help but have a laugh!
Might I add that I felt like Wentworth didn't really feel for Anne! Bad acting.
You're not alone. As I said upthread, I saw the film on a movie theater-sized screen with a large audience and everyone was laughing for pretty much the last 10 minutes of the movie. Beginning with Anne's "Run, Lola, Run" moment and ending with the dancing on the lawn at Kellynch.
I found this version of Persuasion quite good - up until those last bizarre 10 minutes. I have to admit, I did wonder how they would deal with the motivations behind Capt. Wentworth's letter when I heard the inconstancy dialogue quite early, but I didn't let it worry me much, as I greatly enjoyed Sally Hawkin's performance, and found the rest of the actors quite up to moving the story forward, and convincing us of the situation that we saw (though I must admit, Sophie Thompson is such a good actress that I have difficulty getting her out of my head whenever someone else steps into the same role - in this film, that of Anne's sister, Mary. The actress here seemed much less believable - much more a caricature of a human).
But from the time that Capt. Wentworth met Anne in Bath on, I found that the movie started to fall apart. Anne's devotion to him, and her obvious affection was dripping from the screen. When Anne basically wrestled him into the parlor to hear his urgent news from the Admiral, I was expecting a proposal right then and there, so palpable were the emotions we saw on both the actors. Then - came even more oddities. Capt. Wentworth zips home, furiously writes a tortured letter to Anne in a couple of minutes, drops it in the hands of his crippled friend, then madly dashes off to... the spa? Then back to.. The Elliot's house? When his friend wouldn't have delivered the letter yet? And in the middle of this, a 27-year old Regency woman in a fine dress is madly dashing around the town (where, by the way, no one even turns a head - I guess madly-dashing young ladies were commonplace). Finally! The couple meets. Wee see the proposal and its acceptance by a woman in such good shape that she's barely breathing heavily. And then - there's this weird kiss-like scene which, I swear, went on for about 20 minutes... I started feeling sorry for the poor girl - she was so short, and he was so tall. I was actually thinking "Geez! Poor Anne - maybe if she stands on her tiptoes'. I kept hoping that she would just reach up, grab him by the hair and pull him down.
I have to admit, the worst for me was the appearance of Kellynch(sp?) hall at the end. I had to pop back to scene 1 to ensure that the film-makers actually were crazy enough to trash the very plot they wrote (remember - entailed estate, rich cousin to inherit). It made a pretty scene, and the impromptu waltz was nice, but still... I don't object when someone takes liberties, even a lot of liberties, from their source material, but please... At least maintain consistency within your own story, and provide new motivations for your characters rather than keeping the actions similar but failing to provide for their reasons.
Well...yes.
share[deleted]
But why was she tired and gasping for air? Why was she running all over Bath in first place?
shareIt greatly amuses me that it's taken over one year and seven pages to discuss a kiss that lasted just seconds on the screen (although it seemed like a year!)
Come on folks, let's get some perspective.
"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"
That's how bad this adaptation is.
share[deleted]
So perhaps this is an example of that most rare of things, a romance film for men.
[deleted]
I don't know. I'm a guy, and I still found it poorly managed and shot. If SOMEthing was happening, the camera spun/changed angles, we saw both actors... maybe I could have stood this scene better.
IMO, the story lives in a woman's world most of the time. I love her stories in spite of that (not where "in spite of" means that I dislike the point of view, just that as a male, its a barrier to overcome).
[deleted]