To begin, let’s dismiss the idea that a good adaptation depends entirely on its fidelity to the plot of the novel. Even if you’re working with a six-hour miniseries, film and TV have different constraints than a novel. Taking the written word and visualizing it on film requires interpretation in every creative choice, from script and costumes to locations and editing. A good adaptation recognizes this and leans into it by focusing a few themes to pull out and explore in its own way. A good adaptation has both respect for the source material and its own point view.
With this standard in mind, I can admit that the 2005 “Pride and Prejudice” is a good adaptation. It has some weak points, but it’s also bold enough to give us a different take on the characters and the aesthetics of P&P. And I see now that director Joe Wright needed to do something different, to put his own stamp on a period adaptation of this story. Otherwise, we’d just have another BBC version, and we already have one of those.
A bad adaptation, on the other hand, is one that lacks a clear point of view or fundamentally misreads the source material. Bad adaptations are muddled, dull or both. The 2022 Netflix adaptation of “Persuasion” unfortunately falls into both categories. I know I said I couldn’t finish watching it, but I was chastened after listening to the recent Novel Pairings episode on “reading” TV and film with a critical lens:
It was a good reminder that if we want to learn to critically digest media, we can’t just watch what we like best. (Side note: I love Sara and Chelsea so much, their “Novel Pairings” podcast has been a huge influence on my thought process, and I encourage you to check out additional episodes about Austen.)
So, I committed to watching the whole film because I wanted to better articulate why it doesn’t work. Having finished it, I believe the film’s weakness stems primarily from a poorly written screenplay. The writing is awkward, confusing and stilted. Although the film ignited a hot debate about bringing modern slang into a Regency period piece, I found myself thinking, “Nobody talks like this, not even modern people!” Almost every scene stuffs awkward exposition into the dialogue. Nothing goes unsaid, nothing is allowed to be subtext. Setting aside the issue of historical accuracy, it’s just bad writing, no matter the time period.
The clumsy attempt at modernization creates even more problems. The film shoehorns modern feminist aphorisms into the story in a way that muddles the plot and flattens the dramatic stakes. Early in the film, Lady Russell defends her opposition to Anne’s engagement to Wentworth by saying, “Marriage is transactional for women. Our basic security is one the line.” A few scenes later, we hear another character firmly declare, “An unmarried woman is not a problem to be solved.” So … which statement is true in the world of this film? Anne herself, meanwhile, volleys between wailing over her lost love and, within the space of a breath, arguing that not every woman wants to settle down and get married. As a viewer I’m left wondering, what’s at stake here?
With the exception of Emma, all of Austen’s heroines balance a desire for romantic love and financial security. Austen’s novels explore those themes with wit, nuance and sharp social commentary. Whether or not we can fairly apply the label of feminism to Austen’s writing is a topic of scholarly debate. But if we can, then “Persuasion” is perhaps Austen’s most feminist novel. I would argue that it pushes back against the way Anne Elliot is written off by her family and society as a sad, faded spinster. But all of that nuance is lost in translation in this film. By keeping the story in the early 1800s century but stripping away most of the period’s social and legal context, the adaptation loses its tension and drive. Motivations are unclear and the internal logic of the story falls apart.
Afterward, I was left wondering how this movie was made. Was it warped by commercial pressures? Flattened by the streaming algorithms? Sucked dry by a false and condescending assumption that Austen needs to be “dumbed down” for a younger audience? I’ll never know for certain. But if I’m generous, I think this film is trying to give us a fresh take on an Austen adaptation. These films are not created in a vacuum. Any director who takes on Austen is in conversation with a long line of existing film and TV adaptations — perhaps even more so than the source material itself. These adaptations have formed a genre unto themselves, complete with some tropes that aren’t in the novels at all, but that we’ve come to expect and associate with Austen.
That legacy creates an interesting tension for writers and directors — how do you create something fresh and interesting that also satisfies audience expectations? Plus, there’s a rising awareness that period pieces have, historically, not handled race very well! (Shocking, I know.) The 2022 adaptation of “Persuasion” takes up the issue with colorblind casting. It’s a step in the right direction, but once again, it’s not always thoughtfully executed. Case in point: Louisa Musgrove. In the novel, Louisa’s sweet but immature and headstrong nature is regularly contrasted against Anne Elliot’s calm, rational intelligence. Louisa’s primary narrative purpose is to showcase the superiority of Anne’s character (which makes Wentworth realize he’s still in love with Anne after all). So, is it really the best choice to cast a woman of color in that role when the lead is white? I think the filmmakers understand the optics are bad — Louisa gets a very different characterization in the film. But, once again, the logic of the plot really falls apart as a result.
Unpacking the 2022 “Persuasion” adaptation made me even more disappointed in it because, truly, it could have been great. As much as I love some of the films from the 1990s and early aughts, there’s a lot to reckon with and revisit. There’s so much room to pull out different themes from the novels for examination from our 21st century perspective. We need adaptations that prod at and subvert our expectations. Perhaps most of all, we need adaptations that interrogate the source material from a more inclusive lens. As Sharmini Kumar points out in her article on people of color in Austen adaptations, wouldn’t it be much more interesting and meaningful if, for example, Captain Wentworth was cast as an actor of color?
I’m eager to see more Austen on our screens, and to see where we might go next. After all, Austen’s got more than romance to offer. Her books are rife with irony, barbed humor and social commentary. I just hope the next adaptation brings those themes out more successfully.
Sources & further reading/listening:
How to read TV (Novel Pairings Substack)
“So Far We Are Equal”: People of Color in Screen Adaptations of Austen by Sharmini Kumar (JASNA)
Sanditon and the Pineapple Emoji Craze: Why This Jane Austen Fan Is Offended, and Why You Should Be Too! by Damianne Candice Scott (JASNA)
There Is A Limit To The Power Of “Colourblind” Period Dramas by Yomi Adegoke (British Vogue)
The Gilded Age" and the trouble with American period pieces Brandon Taylor on “It’s Been A Minute” with Brittany Luse (NPR)
The content I need and want!