MovieChat Forums > Persuasion (2008) Discussion > Give me authenticity

Give me authenticity

posted 15 years ago by asims6
41 replies | jump to latest

I watched the 2007 version a couple of hours ago, having had my recording on the shelf for some time. My delay in watching it was mainly due to being very doubtful that the 1995 version could possibly be bettered. This 2007 version is not, of course, better. My particular requirement of period drama is that it must be a faithful representation of the period, warts and all.

Heaven only knows what life was really like so far back in time, but all I expect is that film makers will do their utmost to give us their best shot at an authentic portrayal. This version does try very hard, but fails to capitalise on the lessons in 'how to do it' that the earlier version offers. If were are to have endless remakes of Austen, then the only way forward is surely to progress in this particular regard, towards ever more authentic portrayal of the period. Such authenticity as we saw in 1995 is a vital support to the telling of the story, and not an optional extra.

In the 1995 version, I got a real sense of the period, down to Captain Wentworth's unspeakably filthy overcoat.That's the way it would more than likely have been, and it's a delicious bit of authenticity. The signal there should be clear to the next wave of film makers. The popularity of the 1995 film is attributable, I believe, to that sort of attention to detail. If the 2007 effort had only seized on the gift of the fine example before it, then the future of the remake as a genre would have been infinitely more assured.

We've all read our Austen,(haven't we?), and I dare say many of us have read up on the period generally,and have got a pretty accurate picture of it.I think it's up to remake film-producers to realise that we viewers are now a very much better informed lot, and with the BBC being in a much better position to take risks than cinema is,I think we should put them on notice that we are expecting much more from them when they decide to offer a 'new' version of Jane Austen.

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

The 1995 version is not as authentic as you think-- off-duty navy officers did NOT wear their uniforms.

[–] asims6 15 years ago

Thank you randommovies2002 for putting me right on that. My personal knowledge about such details is, I have to confess, not spectacular by any means. However, I still think that the 1995 version had a an overall 'feel' of authenticity about it,even given that mistake and others which may well exist in the film. I'm basing my view on diverse reading about the period, and the film just sits well with what I've read.
I do hold to the view that it does much better than most other Austen films in attempting to draw a believable portrait of the period, and while I don't want my illusions shattered altogether, I'd like to know if there were other such mistakes in it. Over to you!

[–] klorentz 15 years ago

I'm not sure what you believe was unauthentic about this adaptation. Let us know, if you can.

I love the 1995 film and dislike this one for many reasons but none of them pertain to historical authenticity.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Interesting post, asims6.
I agree that historical accuracy, as far as is reasonably possible, is important. Authenticity was often sadly lacking in past screen adaptations: polyester dresses, modern hairstyles and make-up, and other such anachronisms were common (along with wobbly studio sets!) We are more sophisticated these days and productions are forced to pay more attention to detail.
But how far do we take it? I think we want historical authenticity on our own terms. Do we really want to see rotting teeth and unwashed hair?
And you made the comment: "Heaven only knows what life was really like so far back in time". That's true. We don't really know with certainty.
So an adaptation has to be palatable, accessible and indentifiable to a modern audience that views it. Pragmatically, there has to be compromise.
Just my thoughts. I'd be glad to hear what you say.

"Pray, do not use it ill. It fought at Waterloo".

[–] Julie-30 15 years ago

I agree with you, supergran. 100% authenticity would necessarily not be visually appealing or even interesting. A lot of decisions are made for those two reasons. As has been said, sailors did not wear their uniforms when off-duty, so P95 is not 100% authentic. No adaptation is. But P95 shows more of the grit of that period than, say P&P95 does. Even S&S95, which is pretty pristine, does show Marianne, Elinor and Mrs. Jennings tiptoeing around manure on their way into the ball in London. But P&P95 is completely pristine. If you took away the wardrobe and the horses, it could take place now.

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Hi Julie.
I suppose it depends how important historical accuracy/authenticity is to us. No amount of attention to historical detail will make a bad production good. As klorentz says, she dislikes P07 for many reasons but none of them pertain to historical authenticity.
Conversely, we may forgive historical inaccuracy in an otherwise good adaptation. That's how I feel about the "pristine" appearance of P&P95.
And, after all, we're not watching a documentary. We want escapism, pure and simple! (Well, I do anyway!)

"Pray, do not use it ill. It fought at Waterloo".

[–] Julie-30 15 years ago

One of the many things I love about P&P05 is the grittiness. It's also one of the many things I love about P95. But it is absolutely not the only reason I love these movies. And it's not the only reason I find P&P95 lacking, but it is definitely a reason -- I just find P&P95 to be very sterile. The homes look like nobody lives there; the clothes are always perfect; the hair is always perfect. Nobody lives like that. Nobody I know, anyway. LOL!

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Nobody lives like that. Nobody I know, anyway. LOL!

Me, neither! But then we don't have a servant like Hill running around after us!

"Pray, do not use it ill. It fought at Waterloo".

[–] Julie-30 15 years ago

True, but my hair still wouldn't be perfect if I were outdoors and out of reach of Mrs. Hill or my lady's maid.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kellydofc 11 years ago

Funny, it's one of the things I hate about P&P05. No one who was above lower class (which the Bennets were not)would have allowed a pig to run through their house or have such a slovenly appearance to their home.

"Freedom of religion means ALL religions not just your own."

[–] klorentz 11 years ago

The pig was not in the living quartes of the house. Groombridge House, used for Longbourn was a typical gentleman's home that had the farm offices attached to the house, but not part of it. The pig was being moved from one area of the farm to another, through the connecting breezeway. The blue striping along the wall typically used to denote the working sections of the home was present. There are floorplans of Groombridge where this layout is presented.

[–] asims6 15 years ago

An excellent reply,supergran. How far do we take authenticity? I think you have expressed very well what I now feel on more considered reflection. There has of course to be a compromise.I wouldn't,for one moment,want to deter anyone,least of all my own grandchildren, from enjoying Jane Austen, and if P2007 'grabs them', then I'm happy, especially in view of their almost total lack of historical knowledge about the period in question.P2007 will do nicely I'm sure.

I share another view expressed that we shouldn't want documentaries.I certainly don't want that.I am well known among my friends for being a hopelessly romantic dreamer,'lost in Austen'. Maybe I have taken their strictures on being too dreamy too much to heart. I have indeed become a convert to taking a rather harder view of the period with regard to literary adaptations,but maybe one can go too far in the quest for authenticity.However,they were hard times in so many ways, and I would like my grandchildren to know just how hard they were, but maybe Jane's glorious novels shouldn't be treated too severely in that regard.

It's Jane's view of the world,with all its loves, passions, hopes, and aspirations,and sadnesses, that are the real joy for me in these great works, and if all that is faithfully conveyed, then the job has been done well.

Which version would she be most approving of,I wonder? Has anybody any thoughts on that?

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken"

[–] mrs-darcy85 15 years ago

I adore this movie...i fell in love with rupert penry jones as wentworth!
some things may not be accurate in this adaptation but it does not bother me because it keeps the story and that is why i watch it...to be able to see the love story of anne n her captain. For me it isn't so much about accuracy, too much of a romantic i think.
BUT one thing that bugs me to no end is the kiss, for one i dont think they would have kissed on a public street when not properly engaged but mostly the dragging out of the bloody thing. It is almost painful watching them move together for a kiss...HURRY UP!!!

But i do love the movie n book...dont worry about accuracy, just lose yourself in the lovely story.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Julie-30 15 years ago

This film changes the most important elements of the plot -- the constancy conversation and the letter. How can you say "it keeps the story?????"

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Julie-30 15 years ago

But they eliminated most of the letter because he never hears the constancy conversation and, without that conversation, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE LETTER AT ALL.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Julie-30 15 years ago

Since this is an authenticity thread, I should point out that his hair most likely wouldn't have been quite so neat in 1816.

Anyway, here is the full text of the letter. Read it carefully:

"I can listen no longer in silence. I must speak to you by such means as are within my reach. You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hope. Tell me not that I am too late, that such precious feelings are gone for ever. I offer myself to you again with a heart even more your own than when you almost broke it, eight years and a half ago. Dare not say that man forgets sooner than woman, that his love has an earlier death. I have loved none but you. Unjust I may have been, weak and resentful I have been, but never inconstant. You alone have brought me to Bath. For you alone I think and plan. Have you not seen this? Can you fail to have understood my wishes? I had not waited even these ten days, could I have read your feelings, as I think you must have penetrated mine. I can hardly write. I am every instant hearing something which overpowers me. You sink your voice, but I can distinguish the tones of that voice when they would be lost on others. Too good, too excellent creature! You do us justice, indeed. You do believe that there is true attachment and constancy among men. Believe it to be most fervent, most undeviating, in
F. W."

"I must go, uncertain of my fate; but I shall return hither, or follow your party, as soon as possible. A word, a look will be enough to decide whether I enter your father's house this evening or never."

He says "I can listen no longer in silence." Then he says "I am every instant hearing something which overpowers me. You sink your voice, but I can distinguish the tones of that voice when they would be lost on others." It is plain as the nose on your face that he has heard the conversation between Anne and Harville and is reacting to what he hears. But, in this adaptation, he never hears Anne and Benwick (HUH?????) talk about constancy, and there is, therefore, no incentive at all for him to write the letter. In this adaptation, the letter comes out of thin air. But in the book and in the 1995 adaptation, he has a reason for the letter because he's heard Anne's thoughts and feelings. But here, he has no way of knowing.

And then there's the whole space/time continuum thingy. A full two seconds after he leaves her house she runs after him, yet never finds him. Has he been teleported somewhere? It's just ridiculous. And it's all completely at odds with what happens in Austen's story.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Julie, thanks for posting that passage. It's beautiful, isn't it? And done so well in P95.
For those who haven't read the novel or seen the 1995 version, the question arises: Does 2007 make internal sense as something standing on it's own?
I've watched it again carefully, and would like to say this in it's defence (as Devil's advocate! ):
In this version, the catalyst for the letter appears to be Anne's absolute denial of the rumours of a marriage with William Elliot ("Utterly misinformed; quite mistaken; no truth in any part of it.")
The letter has been changed thus:
"I can bear this no longer. You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hope.
Unjust I may have been, weak and resentful I have been. But never inconstant.
I offer myself to you again with a heart even more your own than when you almost broke it eight years ago.
I have loved none but you. You alone have brought me to Bath. For you alone, I think and plan. Have you not seen this?
I can hardly write. I must go, uncertain of my fate. A word, a look, will be enough. Only tell me that I am....tell me not that I am too late. That such precious feelings are gone forever."

So, any mention of overhearing has been edited out.

In my opinion, this all makes sense as it has been done. But is it an improvement on the original? NO! It's clumsy. And if Wentworth never hears Anne saying that women "love longest", then both parties are the poorer for it.

I'm with you, Julie, on the whole time thing. The scene where Anne runs out of the door after Frederick is done in REAL time (sorry nekosan, I've watched it most carefully!) Even if he stepped into a waiting carriage, there was no time to do everything he accomplished!

There's no rule that scriptwriters have to be precisely following the original books

I agree in principle, nekosan.
And this adaptation of Persuasion has many good things going for it, along with the bad.

"Pray, do not use it ill. It fought at Waterloo".

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] klorentz 15 years ago

But if that's the motivation, the timeline is utterly impossible with a significant distortion in the space/time continuum. She says impossible, Lady Russell appears, he leaves, she follows seconds. One - how does she not see him. Two - how did he have any time in which to get anywhere to write a letter. No -- it does not stand on its own.

[–] alessia78 12 years ago

Not sure if someone else has said this on the board, but I've just re-watched Persuasion 07 and I've just thought that Captain Wenthworth must have written that letter before, possibly just after his conversation with Harville at Lyme when he is told that Louisa is engaged to Benwick and he is now free to propose to Anne again. I think that in this version he writes the letter as soon as he gets to Bath, but then he hears the rumour that Anne is engaged to Mr Elliot. As soon as Anne tells him that the rumours are false, he rushes home and tells Harville to take his letter to Anne.
I know timing is tight as seems to have disappeared into thin air as soon as he's walked out of Camden Place(though he might have got on a carriage?)...

There is no other way of looking at this as of course he would not have the time to go home, write the letter and leave again, before Anne reaches him.
I am trying to make sense of it as I quite like this version. I like both leading actors better than Persuasion 95, particularly Sally Hawkins (whom I saw in a cafe a couple of months ago! it was very exciting).

There are of course quite a few issues with this version...Elizabeth is too old, Mary acts like she's retarded and Charles Musgrove is a bit of a caricature. Also, it is a shame that the letter was cut short and its contents changed to account for the fact that Captain W. did not listen to that famous conversation between Anne and Harville. It could have been handled better but I think that the spirit of the novel is kept even with all the changes and the casting mistakes.
As for the ending and the "wedding present"...could Wenthworth have just rented Kellynch for a while?

[–] Julie-30 12 years ago

But, as has been asked, why in the world would he ask Harville to deliver such an important letter for him?

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] alessia78 12 years ago

I don't know, it doesn't make much sense at all! Perhaps it was just to increase the tension? "Wenthworth isn't here, but he's left this for you" so then Anne runs off again looking for him...I agree it is silly but I suppose if you have not read the book it's another thing you would (probably) not consider much of an issue. If Wenthworth was at home then Anne would have been standing there reading the letter in front of him, and that would look weird I think...

[–] Julie-30 12 years ago

I've read the book at least a dozen times, and this adaptation makes no sense on any level.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] alessia78 12 years ago

Yes I have also read the book many times and I agree that this adaptation is far from perfect but I think it has some good things...the two leads are brilliant and the music too. Even with the inconsistencies, they managed to maintain the spirit of the novel (IMO). It is not as bad as Mansfield Park 2007 (the worst adaptation of all (IMO)

[–] Julie-30 12 years ago

Have you seen MP99? It is, IMNSHO, the single worst adaptation of Austen ever made.

I distinguish between "intentional badness" and "unintentional badness." I put MP99 into the former category. Patricia Rozema INTENDED to make an adaptation that didn't bear much resemblance to the book. She said in my presence that she didn't like the book.

Then there is UNintentional badness. MP07 and P07 fall into that category. I don't believe that either set of filmmakers set out to make a steaming pile of poo. It just turned out that way.

As for the leads in this film, I cannot agree that they were brilliant. I will admit that they were OK at what they were given to do, but what they were given to do was (again IMO) pretty ridiculous. Wentworth is an active man. He does not stand around glowering and brooding. Anne is a pretty girl who is not taken seriously by her family and who tires rather easily. She does not run through Bath like a chicken with its head cut off. She's never had medical training and would not have been able to reset a collarbone on her own.

Believe me, I desperately wanted to love this adaptation. I was crushed when I found myself alternating between shock and laughter.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

[–] alessia78 12 years ago

To my shame I have got the DVD of Rozema's MP. I only bought it because I had not seen the movie before. Since then I've put it in my cupboard and tried to forget it's there..perhaps I'll sell it. I agree that it is the worst adaptation of Austen ever made...it is such a shame that ITV did not put more effort in MP07. I will never understand why they picked Billie Piper to play Fanny. A real wasted opportunity. Thankfully we've got the old MP, which regardless of the bad sound quality and hairstyles/wigs, is overall a very good adaptation.

Regarding Persuasion...I do think both Sally H and RPJ are very good choices. Then of course, as you say, they had to work with what they had been given. I don't think it is THAT bad but to be honest, an ITV production was never going to be as good as BBC ones (no offence to ITV)and it is obvious to me that they changed things around to get points across to people who have not read the book (Anne fixing the collarbone:it shows that she is capable, has many hidden talents and keeps a cool head under every circumstances), no matter how silly some things look to people who HAVE read it. it is also shabby screenwriting at times: for example that dialogue between Louisa and Wenthworth...when did Anne refuse Charles ? Oh I don't know but before he married Mary. Really? Now, THAT kind of thing really gets to my nerves (more than the changes made from book to adaptation) as it is simply lazy writing. Even an idiot should spot how stupid that sounds...
I still watch this Persuasion from time to time, mainly for the two leads and the music. The only adaptations I will never ever watch again are MP99 and MP2007.

[–] GretLocks 11 years ago

"As for the ending and the "wedding present"...could Wenthworth have just rented Kellynch for a while?"

As to that, I always assumed he had just taken over the rent from the Admiral. Never seemed an inconsistency or unrealistic aspect at all.

[–] klorentz 11 years ago

Certainly that is possible, but is it probable? Does it make sense that Wentworth would bring he back to her family estate to live just for a short while, only to have to remove her once more? It also makes very little sense -- to me -- that he would want to start his new life with Anne with one foot in the past, particularly given how much her family disapproved of him.

[–] GretLocks 11 years ago

Well, I'm not sure why we would assume it would just be for a short while. I got the idea from the extravagant tendencies of the father and sisters that they might NEVER recover enough, financially, to be able to live without the rent income. The way I see it, they were essentially living on the rent from their estate AND also using that rent to pay back debts. So I could well imagine Wentworth and Anne being able to live there years...perhaps decades...or as long as they want to.

As to them not accepting him, two things, I got the feeling that NOW, he was confident enough NOT to worry about how they thought of him in the past AND that now, the father and sister were more amenable to him given his current financial situation. I don't remember how the book goes, but in the screen versions, I seem to remember they are shown, in varying degrees, to be more receptive to his company. In fact, I get the impression that Elizabeth was a bit offended that Wentworth showed attention to Anne and not her. But I might not be remembering correctly and even if I do, it is possible they changed the story from how Austen wrote it.

[–] klorentz 11 years ago

You are correct in that there is no reason to assume it's a short while -- except for the implication that Wentworth goes back to a ship when Napoleon escapes Elba. And if Anne was in possession, I would expect that Sir Walter and Elizabeth would try to wheedle their way back into Kellynch -- and have Anne and the Captain support them. And yes, the family accepts him NOW but Wentworth is too smart to fall for that.

I just cannot see either Anne and the Captain thinking that moving to Kellynch was anything but a step back.

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

I actually liked the ending. Realistic? I dunno, maybe not. But it is very nice to see her so happy and him delighted that he was able to please her. Just watch his face as she is elated with her "wedding present." Perfect! The tone and feeling was just right.

[–] klorentz 11 years ago

I found that it fit the production.

[–] pythoner 14 years ago

Don't you also think if you really fall in love with a version, flawed or not any subsequent version is going to be a hard act to follow? It took me a couple of times to really appreciate this one. While the Ciaran Hinds one is still me favorite a really have grown to like this one too.

[–] Julie-30 14 years ago

I've seen this one 4 times, and it makes me angrier each time. So much potential, and it's all just wasted.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com/tag/jane-austen-odyssey/

[–] GretLocks 11 years ago

"Heaven only knows what life was really like so far back in time, but all I expect is that film makers will do their utmost to give us their best shot at an authentic portrayal. This version does try very hard, but fails to capitalize on the lessons in 'how to do it' that the earlier version offers. If were are to have endless remakes of Austen, then the only way forward is surely to progress in this particular regard, towards ever more authentic portrayal of the period. Such authenticity as we saw in 1995 is a vital support to the telling of the story, and not an optional extra."

I'm not sure why authenticity would be the ultimate goal vs...entertainment, excitement, relaxation, character study or any of the myriad other goals for a film/series. I certainly can accept that YOU value authenticity, but given "[h]eaven only knows what life was really like so far back in time" it seems a shadowy goal at best. One person's "authenticity" might not be another person's authenticity. I like scenery, good character interaction, and a story that hangs together in a relaxing and, if possible, humorous venue. I could complain that there simply isn't enough humor in these movies...but it would be purely personal preference. Since I, like you and most others really don't know so much about how things were then, authenticity outside of a superficial what they wore and how they dressed does seem an optional, and perhaps even distracting, extra.