I am a big fan of the 1995 version, which I have seen many times and consider a subtle, excellent film. This 1971 version I bought yesterday, a bit hesitantly, but now that I have seen it I am glad I did, because it is truer to the book and to Austen's insights. The 1995 version has more dramatic power largely because it sharpens many of the characters -- in the 1995 version Lady Russell is snobbier, more manipulative, less truly looking out for Anne; Sir Walter is even more vain and vapid; Elizabeth is nastier; Mary is more insufferable; Mr. Elliot is more smarmy; Lady Dalrymple is much more stupid -- but I think the characterizations in this 1971 version are closer to the book, to Austen's vision, and to the real people of the time. The 1971 version also includes more of the key lines and scenes from the book, including especially the key scene in the field where Anne overhears Wentworth talking to Louisa (or is it Henrietta?) about the importance of strength of character. I found the acting more subtle and evocative than do many of the critics here, but the acting in the 1995 version is more powerful. I agree with the critics here that the actress who plays Anne is too old for the part; I looked up her entry on IMDb and she was 38 at the time of the filming, when her character is supposed to be 28. I thought her acting was subtle and effective, however. Wentworth is of the correct age and I found him very convincing. In particular, this 1971 version of Wentworth has much more of his sense of humor and teasing; the 1995 one, much more of the sense of power a sea captain would have, and more passion. The admiral in the 1971 version lacks the gruff presence and human warmth of the one in the 1995 version and lacks any feeling of the power an admiral certainly would convey; I found him the one truly weak element in the production. I agree with others that the staging of the "falling" scene was too wooden, and it seemed unconvincing that she would have been so injured by such a little fall. However, it could be that she banged the back of her head on the edge of the stone step, which if so, really would produce a very dangerous injury, and would make the scene more convincing than the scene in the 1995 version, where she falls farther but is clear of any sharp edge that could plausibly cause a major head injury. As to the costuming that some have criticized, I am no expert and can't respond, but I will note that none of the Navy characters (Wentworth, admiral Croft, Benwick, Harville) in the 1971 version wear their uniforms, while in the 1995 version all of them consistently wear their fancy uniforms. I suspect that the 1971 version is the accurate one, and it always bothered me a bit in the 1995 version, the officers being always in uniform when clearly the nation is at peace and the officers are detached from active duty. My father and grandfather were career US navy captains who commanded aircraft carriers and submarines, and they did not spend every day while on leave or at leisure in their dress blues. I doubt it was any different 180 years ago. The uniforms give the 1995 version a lot of zing, and I prefer it, but I doubt it is accurate historically that these officers wore their uniforms so frequently. Lastly, it is true, the production values of the 1971 version are a lot less than the 1995 version, but given the year (1971), the TV format, and the budget, we can't blame the artists for it. Contemporary viewers who can make a mental allowance for the lower production values can find this version well worth their time.
27 Reviews
Very interesting
TheLittleSongbird30 May 2012
As a big Jane Austen fan, I found this Persuasion very interesting. I still consider the 1995 version the best version mainly because I find the character development richer, but this version is much better than the dull and passionless 2007 ITV version. It is not perfect, the hairstyles and costumes and both un-authentic and distracting, unflattering even in some cases. However, it is handsomely filmed, even with some stiffness and the scenery is absolutely beautiful. The music is nice and simple, not over-bearing. The story and atmosphere are not as rich as 1995, and I'd say the same with the characters, but for anybody fussy about faithfulness to the book this version is slightly truer. I didn't mind the length or the pacing, the story isn't as lengthy as Mansfield Park for instance but needs a fair length and a leisurely pace to do justice to the story and characters as well as the class distinctions, which this version mostly did, especially in regard to Lady Russell and Elizabeth, both of whom are the closest-written to their novelistic counterparts than the other versions. The acting is good, Ann Firbank is I agree too old, but she more than makes up for it for her expressive face and her suitably introverted acting. Bryan Marshall is excellent as Wentworth, humorous, teasing yet also handsome and subtly bitter. The chemistry between Anne and Wentworth didn't admittedly move me as much as the 1995 version, but I did still feel there was one, unlike the 2007 version. The supporting cast are just as good, Valerie Gearon and Marion Spencer make the most of their characters, Rowland Davies is suitably buoyant and Richard Vernon and Michael Culver are also solid. All in all, a very interesting adaptation if not my favourite version. 8/10 Bethany Cox
Classy period adaptation
didi-516 December 2009
Despite this production having received a number of poor reviews, it actually holds up quite well for its age. Note also that it is not a BBC programme, it was simply licensed to them by Granada Ventures when the Jane Austen collection was released on DVD.
So how does it compare with other adaptations of the same novel? The most well-known version these days is the 1995 film with Amanda Root as Anne Elliott and Ciaran Hinds as Captain Frederick Wentworth. That film was of course shorter but a good snapshot of the story - the earlier version, with Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall in the same roles, had four hours to tell the story and moved at a more leisurely pace.
Firbank is a good ten years too old for her role, but she is very good - Marshall is excellent as Wentworth, a man disappointed in love, and bitter about interference. And hidden in the cast are people who also contribute - Michael Culver, later seen in Cadfael, as Harvill; Richard Vernon, later seen in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, as Admiral Croft; Noel Dyson, earlier in Coronation Street, as Mrs Musgrove.
One criticism I do have is that the hairstyles are a bit distracting, and that the costumes are awful! Still, this shouldn't detract from a hugely enjoyable Austen adaptation.
So how does it compare with other adaptations of the same novel? The most well-known version these days is the 1995 film with Amanda Root as Anne Elliott and Ciaran Hinds as Captain Frederick Wentworth. That film was of course shorter but a good snapshot of the story - the earlier version, with Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall in the same roles, had four hours to tell the story and moved at a more leisurely pace.
Firbank is a good ten years too old for her role, but she is very good - Marshall is excellent as Wentworth, a man disappointed in love, and bitter about interference. And hidden in the cast are people who also contribute - Michael Culver, later seen in Cadfael, as Harvill; Richard Vernon, later seen in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, as Admiral Croft; Noel Dyson, earlier in Coronation Street, as Mrs Musgrove.
One criticism I do have is that the hairstyles are a bit distracting, and that the costumes are awful! Still, this shouldn't detract from a hugely enjoyable Austen adaptation.
Very early extant BBC period adaptation. Slow and low production value however with half decent theatrical style acting. Its merit is that it is the most faithful version.
mickman91-113 December 2021
This is one of the earlier extant BBC period adaptations. The production value is very low. However, what is great about these adaptations is that their mission was to make thorough and faithful screen versions of the novels. Creative licence is very rarely made and frowned upon. So it is very slow and clunky but if faithful is what you are after then this is the best version of Persuasion that there is so far. It runs at 3 hours and 40 mins in total with a couple minutes of credits. The acting was actually pretty decent, it felt very much like watching a theatre performance. Indeed this is how television of this time was made. It was pretty much recorded theatre in a television studio. The casting perhaps is what lets this one down. Anne is way too old and some of the family members are too similar looking so you have to keep reminding yourself who is who. Overall 6/10.
The movie "Persuasion" was very true to the novel, but that doesn't mean it was any good.
superterri1284 September 2001
When it comes to most movies made about classic novels, most people complain that it wasn't true to the novel. You can't say that about this. That's the one (and only) good point about this movie. I couldn't stand the woman who played Anne. I know she was supposed to be older, but not THAT old! She looked like she was 40! Anne's only supposed to be 27 or something like that. And I could NOT stand how she did her hair. Captain Wentworth was ok, but no where near as dashing as you imagine him when you read the book, and Captain Benwick was just plain frightening. I thought the girl who played Louisa Musgrove was really good, the same with the woman who played Mary. I don't remember having any specific complaints with any of the other characters, so I suppose they did well enough. The script was very close, sometimes word for word, with the book. However, this did make the movie rather boring. I thoroughly enjoyed the book...every time i read it. I never was bored at all throughout the entire novel, so I'm blaming my boredom on the movie's direction and acting. The character of Anne was supposed to be calm, not completely dull...which is what this actress was. Overall I must say i was disappointed with this movie. Compared to the newer version I preferred the newer one, mainly because of the actress who played Anne. This movies wasn't completely terrible, but it wasn't any good either.
Odd casting but mostly canon
lehuber26 August 2023
Anne: played the part well enough. However, she looked near 40 instead of 27 and had the look of a heavy smoker about her. Her hair also looked like a weird hair helmet the first half of the show and did not fit regency style in the slightest.
Wentworth: enjoy his portrayal for the most part but disliked some of the directing choices they gave him. He too seemed rather old for the part but not as old as Anne.
Sir Walter: seemed more angry than annoyed and snobby. He too seemed much much older than than early 50's.
Admiral & Mrs. Croft: Mr. Croft was downright elderly looking and sounding. Though the acting was good. The screen writers and directors made him come across as a tiresome elderly man.
Mrs. Croft was acted well enough and neither here or there as memorable.
Mary: cast very well though they had her sounding VERY harsh.
Elizabeth: perfectly cast and acted. She played the part of oblivious snob quite well.
Charles: very well cast and acted. He portrayed the good natured and jovial character with ease.
Henrietta: also perfectly cast as a sweet, happy girl with pleasant manners and an open countenance.
Louisa: very poorly cast, acted and directed. She practically shouted all her lines, even her incessant giggling. She comes across as ditsy rather than just good humoured.
Mrs. Clay: perfectly smarmy and
Mr. Elliot: very charming. Too charming. Just as this character is intended. This was so well acted that he was the best casting choice for the whole movie. My new favourite Mr. Elliot across all 4 adaptations.
Lady Russel: acted just fine though not very memorably on the whole.
Mrs. Smith: also acted well and seemed a good choice for the role.
This adaptation is the most book accurate as far as story goes. Typical stiff aching transitions of the 70's and very 70's styled regency decor for the sets. Many of the dress fabric patterns were also very 70's feeling. None of this is a negative as it IS '71 BBC! I still prefer the '95, but this is a close 2nd! Leaps above '07. Leaps AND bounds above '22 which was trash.
Wentworth: enjoy his portrayal for the most part but disliked some of the directing choices they gave him. He too seemed rather old for the part but not as old as Anne.
Sir Walter: seemed more angry than annoyed and snobby. He too seemed much much older than than early 50's.
Admiral & Mrs. Croft: Mr. Croft was downright elderly looking and sounding. Though the acting was good. The screen writers and directors made him come across as a tiresome elderly man.
Mrs. Croft was acted well enough and neither here or there as memorable.
Mary: cast very well though they had her sounding VERY harsh.
Elizabeth: perfectly cast and acted. She played the part of oblivious snob quite well.
Charles: very well cast and acted. He portrayed the good natured and jovial character with ease.
Henrietta: also perfectly cast as a sweet, happy girl with pleasant manners and an open countenance.
Louisa: very poorly cast, acted and directed. She practically shouted all her lines, even her incessant giggling. She comes across as ditsy rather than just good humoured.
Mrs. Clay: perfectly smarmy and
Mr. Elliot: very charming. Too charming. Just as this character is intended. This was so well acted that he was the best casting choice for the whole movie. My new favourite Mr. Elliot across all 4 adaptations.
Lady Russel: acted just fine though not very memorably on the whole.
Mrs. Smith: also acted well and seemed a good choice for the role.
This adaptation is the most book accurate as far as story goes. Typical stiff aching transitions of the 70's and very 70's styled regency decor for the sets. Many of the dress fabric patterns were also very 70's feeling. None of this is a negative as it IS '71 BBC! I still prefer the '95, but this is a close 2nd! Leaps above '07. Leaps AND bounds above '22 which was trash.
Eh...
jkt12199 February 2004
Okay, if you discount the production value, the ugly outfits, and the big hair, this adaptation is still far inferior to the 90's version. First Ann Firbank (playing Anne Elliot), is literally ten years too old to play this role and her acting leaves much to be desired. Amanda Root (playing the same role in the 90's version) can express more in her big, brown eyes than Firbank can with her entire face in a four hour production. Anne is turned into a peevish, whining, boring character (and what was with the scene during the `long walk' where she stops to spout off poetry?). Henrietta and Louisa looked so much alike that the only time I could tell them apart was when they stood next to each other (Henrietta was taller). And Louisa! Never was there a more obnoxious character! It was ridiculous to think that Wentworth was supposed to be interested in her. She is supposed to be high spirited and pretty and charming, not stupid and silly with her ridiculous laugh that's like nails on a chalkboard. When she starts to chant, `to Lyme, to Lyme, to Lyme,' I started yelling, `shut up, shut up, shut up!' The best part of the movie was when Louisa falls those three feet at the cobb because I knew I wouldn't have to see her anymore in the movie. Speaking of the fall at the cobb scene; it was the mose poorly acted, badly directed and edited scene of the entire film. How does a person fall three feet down, land on her feet, and still be knocked unconscious?
On the plus size, the character of Elizabeth was much closer to the book than in the 90's version. They also put in many more scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end.
I'll admit, I have bought this movie, even though I knew how sub par it was, but I'm a huge Austen fan, so I'll buy any movie adapted from one of her novels. Watch this move if you're morbidly curious, or to appreciate the 90's version even more.
The bottom line is, this version may follow the letter of the novel, but the 90's version follows the spirit.
On the plus size, the character of Elizabeth was much closer to the book than in the 90's version. They also put in many more scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end.
I'll admit, I have bought this movie, even though I knew how sub par it was, but I'm a huge Austen fan, so I'll buy any movie adapted from one of her novels. Watch this move if you're morbidly curious, or to appreciate the 90's version even more.
The bottom line is, this version may follow the letter of the novel, but the 90's version follows the spirit.
warm and sincere adaptation
toast-152 July 2008
I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait.
I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life.
I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life.
Some nearly fatal miscasting problems, but this 1971 version has some merits
paxveritas10 September 2017
Ann Firbank's Anne is "past her bloom," for sure, by too many years, and there is zero magnetism between her and Bryan Marshall's Frederick, but that's not the actors' fault as much as the casting director's. Firbank lacks the vulnerability and gentleness of Amanda Root's (and author Jane Austen's) Anne in the 1995 version with the incomparable Ciaran Hinds making a very definitive, dignified Frederick.
Zhivila Roche's Louisa Musgrove is far more irritating and immature than she should be, considering she's supposed to evolve quickly as a serious lover of poetry, post-accident; that character development would've been more plausible if Louisa were toned down just a bit pre-accident. No one doubts that people can change after a trauma, but this is way too unbelievable as done in the 1975 version.
Ignoring production values, or excusing them for the technological conditions of the day (which is always a good idea), this version works because it takes the time to tell the story, closer to the book. The omissions made in the 1995 script do damage the logical progression & character motivations. The music is wonderful in the 1995 production, melodious and romantic, yet not overpowering.
Both are fun to watch. I haven't caught the other versions yet, having little hope that they'd be anything like what Jane Austen intended to say. Correct me if I'm wrong!
Zhivila Roche's Louisa Musgrove is far more irritating and immature than she should be, considering she's supposed to evolve quickly as a serious lover of poetry, post-accident; that character development would've been more plausible if Louisa were toned down just a bit pre-accident. No one doubts that people can change after a trauma, but this is way too unbelievable as done in the 1975 version.
Ignoring production values, or excusing them for the technological conditions of the day (which is always a good idea), this version works because it takes the time to tell the story, closer to the book. The omissions made in the 1995 script do damage the logical progression & character motivations. The music is wonderful in the 1995 production, melodious and romantic, yet not overpowering.
Both are fun to watch. I haven't caught the other versions yet, having little hope that they'd be anything like what Jane Austen intended to say. Correct me if I'm wrong!
Has its merits, but overall inferior to the 1995 movie
wendy-spammage22 May 2005
This four-hour miniseries production is about two hours longer than necessary, primarily because the filmmakers seemed not to have a clear idea how to adapt a novel to the screen. They seemed not to know what should be kept in and what might safely be left out. The film opens with Sir Walter reading from the Peerage book that is his primary solace in his troubles. This introduces the family - all of whom we get to know intimately over the next four hours anyway - but serves little other purpose. Similarly, the scenes where the Musgroves lament "poor Richard" serve no purpose but to drag the story down. Some of Austen's actual dialogue is allocated to different characters and some of her narrative is recycled as dialogue that falls awkwardly from the tongues of the characters. There is some fill-in dialogue, too, and this is uniformly dreadful. The scene where Charles Hayter is boring Henrietta with his concerns about getting Dr. Shirley's curacy was only barely interesting as narrative in the book; as a scene in this production, it is stultifying The scene on the Cobb, when Louisa falls and is "taken up lifeless!", is entirely without urgency, and I wondered whether Wentworth's line "Is there nobody to help me?" might have been directed at the writers, as well as the other actors.
This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her.
The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)
This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out "reconciliation" scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.
If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting.
This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her.
The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)
This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out "reconciliation" scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.
If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting.
Interesting curio, but vastly inferior to the 1995 film
LouE1525 July 2007
How unfortunate for this 70's effort that it's been eclipsed by the superior 1995 Roger Michell film. So OK, this TV dramatisation was made nearly 40 years ago (practically TVs infancy in the grand scheme of things). That duly said, really, the sheer murky brown 1970's-ness of it seriously detracts from the drama. "Persuasion" was the autumn of Jane Austen's sadly short writing career. Both the book and its central character, Anne Eliot, are her most mature, thoughtful and wise, in poignant contrast to the vivacity and spirit of her early work "Pride & Prejudice". This dramatisation certainly echoes that more sedate pace, but they failed to understand in 1971 that pace is everything, even in a story as gentle as this.
A motherless, unloved Anne Eliot, unmarried at 27, is forced into renewed acquaintance with the man she rejected at 18, on the advice, the 'persuasion,' of her older family friend. Her lasting affection is tried to the utmost as she must watch him court the attention of younger, prettier girls, while she herself has lost her bloom. Then, an accident shifts the balance of the drama.
This 1971 BBC TV drama takes its ample – perhaps too ample – time to tell the story. This allows for the characters to be very true to the original, but paler, less rich in tone than the 1995 film, which made considerable, but intelligent, time cuts. Despite suitably lavish sets, the costumes are a fright: each unfortunate lady is enveloped in typically high 70s sludge-coloured over-patterned vileness (highlights have to be Mrs Clay in a green velvet and slimy GOLD dress, I ask you! – and Anne Eliot's Jackson Pollock of a green, brown and yellow curtain or whatever sofa it was ripped from). This may sound trivial but with such understated fare as this, the look of the piece is important. Don't get me started on the mad towering bouffant hairdos. Of course each age loves to revile the taste of the previous, but emerging from that dark decade myself, I'm quite sure that the 70's will continue to linger on in people's minds as a benchmark for the very, very bad.
Still, Anne Firbank's somewhat too old Anne Eliot is subtle and elegant, and her slightly haughty ripostes are very much in keeping with her station - this I've never seen before, and I think Austen would approve. Emma Thompson was too old to play Elinor Dashwood in Ang Lee's "Sense & Sensibility", but her extraordinary ability to portray pathos overcame that single defect, while Firbank isn't quite as good as that. But Louisa Musgrove is a triumph of hammy overacting; and Mr Eliot is utterly unlikeable. The leads generated no chemistry whatever – quite unlike Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root in the 1995 film.
One for the Austen fans only, who won't mind any of the above in the sheer pleasure of hearing those wonderful lines again and again.
A motherless, unloved Anne Eliot, unmarried at 27, is forced into renewed acquaintance with the man she rejected at 18, on the advice, the 'persuasion,' of her older family friend. Her lasting affection is tried to the utmost as she must watch him court the attention of younger, prettier girls, while she herself has lost her bloom. Then, an accident shifts the balance of the drama.
This 1971 BBC TV drama takes its ample – perhaps too ample – time to tell the story. This allows for the characters to be very true to the original, but paler, less rich in tone than the 1995 film, which made considerable, but intelligent, time cuts. Despite suitably lavish sets, the costumes are a fright: each unfortunate lady is enveloped in typically high 70s sludge-coloured over-patterned vileness (highlights have to be Mrs Clay in a green velvet and slimy GOLD dress, I ask you! – and Anne Eliot's Jackson Pollock of a green, brown and yellow curtain or whatever sofa it was ripped from). This may sound trivial but with such understated fare as this, the look of the piece is important. Don't get me started on the mad towering bouffant hairdos. Of course each age loves to revile the taste of the previous, but emerging from that dark decade myself, I'm quite sure that the 70's will continue to linger on in people's minds as a benchmark for the very, very bad.
Still, Anne Firbank's somewhat too old Anne Eliot is subtle and elegant, and her slightly haughty ripostes are very much in keeping with her station - this I've never seen before, and I think Austen would approve. Emma Thompson was too old to play Elinor Dashwood in Ang Lee's "Sense & Sensibility", but her extraordinary ability to portray pathos overcame that single defect, while Firbank isn't quite as good as that. But Louisa Musgrove is a triumph of hammy overacting; and Mr Eliot is utterly unlikeable. The leads generated no chemistry whatever – quite unlike Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root in the 1995 film.
One for the Austen fans only, who won't mind any of the above in the sheer pleasure of hearing those wonderful lines again and again.
Avoid this one unless a die-hard Austen fanatic.
Saturn1313133 September 2005
Oh yes, I have to agree with the others who describe this as appalling. The acting in this four hour feature is uniformly bad, so bad to the point that I find it impossible to believe any of the actors in this production could possibly earn a living as an actor. I still wonder who did the casting. Each delivers their lines without appearing to have any kind of engagement or emotional investment with any other character. None appear to have a true relationship, family or otherwise, with another. The direction is also appalling and any action scene is laughable and unconvincing. Were the film editors asleep?
The costumes appear authentic to the Regency period but the fabrics look 20th century and colors (especially the blue colors!) are jarring and I don't believe were available in early 19th century fabric except perhaps in silk.
Also the hair: the men have obvious 1970s haircuts, and the women have "big hair"---especially the woman playing Anne Elliot.
All the female characters, young and old, are quite lovely but this doesn't make up for the lack of acting abilities. The actress playing "Anne" looks as though she is in her forties while Anne Elliot is supposed to be 27 years old. I mean, where was the makeup and lighting crew if we were to find the woman playing Anne believable? She spends much of her time gazing pensively with her eyes at the level of the horizon whether indoors or out. I wonder still what that was suppose to convey. Regret perhaps? Yes, this production is regrettable!
The actress playing Louisa was truly appalling. She screams, squeals, giggles, and leaps around like an ill mannered twelve-year-old (my apologies to anyone twelve years of age reading this) that I found myself eagerly awaiting the moment when she knocks herself out. How this behavior is suppose to attract an adult male is beyond me. Most would back off when she first opened her mouth to giggle and shriek.
The actor playing Captain Wentworth portrays someone so bland and colorless one wonders why any woman could pine over him for eight years.
The rejoining of the pair at the end is not convincingly done or explained. How did they get together again? Not because Louisa was in a coma; that is certain. No, there has to be more than that and it is not explained in the film.
I rate this production two stars: one because it is Austens' work, and the other because some of the outdoor scenes were lovely. The only reason I could watch the entire production is that I was off sick with the flu and I got it from the library.
If you enjoyed the book see the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I would recommend this film even if you have't read the book.
The costumes appear authentic to the Regency period but the fabrics look 20th century and colors (especially the blue colors!) are jarring and I don't believe were available in early 19th century fabric except perhaps in silk.
Also the hair: the men have obvious 1970s haircuts, and the women have "big hair"---especially the woman playing Anne Elliot.
All the female characters, young and old, are quite lovely but this doesn't make up for the lack of acting abilities. The actress playing "Anne" looks as though she is in her forties while Anne Elliot is supposed to be 27 years old. I mean, where was the makeup and lighting crew if we were to find the woman playing Anne believable? She spends much of her time gazing pensively with her eyes at the level of the horizon whether indoors or out. I wonder still what that was suppose to convey. Regret perhaps? Yes, this production is regrettable!
The actress playing Louisa was truly appalling. She screams, squeals, giggles, and leaps around like an ill mannered twelve-year-old (my apologies to anyone twelve years of age reading this) that I found myself eagerly awaiting the moment when she knocks herself out. How this behavior is suppose to attract an adult male is beyond me. Most would back off when she first opened her mouth to giggle and shriek.
The actor playing Captain Wentworth portrays someone so bland and colorless one wonders why any woman could pine over him for eight years.
The rejoining of the pair at the end is not convincingly done or explained. How did they get together again? Not because Louisa was in a coma; that is certain. No, there has to be more than that and it is not explained in the film.
I rate this production two stars: one because it is Austens' work, and the other because some of the outdoor scenes were lovely. The only reason I could watch the entire production is that I was off sick with the flu and I got it from the library.
If you enjoyed the book see the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I would recommend this film even if you have't read the book.
Very sweet
AngelofMusic199813 October 2019
Pathetic adaptation!
divyas-7331410 June 2020
Oh, how horrible was this 1971 adaptation! I was cringing and screaming in my head. Ann Firbank, what were you doing? Why did you have to kill the essence of Anne Elliott? Where was the tension, the vulnerability, the maturity that came despite the hesitation? You saw Frederick for the first time in Mary's kitchen as if you saw a postman delivering a letter!! You read Frederick's letter at the end, as if you read a newspaper advertisement for a cheap toaster!! There was no chemistry between Anne and Frederick. No, No, No! Simply no! A beautiful book rendered charmless. The only saving grace was that this adaption literally covers almost all the scenes from the book - no matter how inefficiently. I had to re-watch some scenes from 1995 and 2007 adaptations to restore my world before I could sleep.
The wrongful power of Persuasion
ledornaiklas31 March 2006
Here is one of Jane Austen's movies that I found very delightful. I read the book first then listened to it on CD and was captivated by how a young Victorian girl could be persuaded against marrying the man she loved due to his lack of a fortune or education. The joy of knowing that Anne is evidently reunited with a lost love. The fact that her godmother tries to marry her off to a good for nothing cousin who's only out for money. Looking at the snobbery that comes from the upper classes and how class distinctions can divide couples from following their hearts. Captain Wentworth realization that he still loves Anne after seven years. His final understanding that Anne's love was constant all that time and they she wasn't going to let her family interfere with her true happiness and eventual marriage to one she truly loved.
Avoid at all costs.
celebworship22 December 2005
The comparisons between the 1995 version and this 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,so did not 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 one, 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.
In the scene where Wentworth walks in on Anne and Mary having breakfast, it seems to the viewer, as Mary thinks, they are only slight acquaintances.
In the 1995 version, when Wentworth walks in (the first time he sees her in years), 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 sees Wentworth's anger at Anne. He is flaunting his courtship in front of Anne, 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 does still care. In this version he just walks on with Lousia 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, probably because it was needed to explain to the viewer what just happened. The 1995 version didn't need to explain, we knew 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. 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.
This is a production to avoid at all costs.
The casting is uninspired and the acting wooden. One gets the impression the director did not read the book,so did not 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 one, 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.
In the scene where Wentworth walks in on Anne and Mary having breakfast, it seems to the viewer, as Mary thinks, they are only slight acquaintances.
In the 1995 version, when Wentworth walks in (the first time he sees her in years), 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 sees Wentworth's anger at Anne. He is flaunting his courtship in front of Anne, 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 does still care. In this version he just walks on with Lousia 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, probably because it was needed to explain to the viewer what just happened. The 1995 version didn't need to explain, we knew 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. 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.
This is a production to avoid at all costs.
What I didn't like at all was the cast, it ruined ruined Janes story
jozefczak29 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well, Anne is way way too old. Wentworth looks younger than she and he should not. Louisa is much too young and too cheerful Oh sister Mary is way too pretty. She is supposed to be average, not pretty. When this actress complains the way Mary should all I think is that she is too pretty to be a complainer. Lady Russell is too Old. This is crazy. If you read the novel, she is Anne's older more mature friend, maybe as old as Annes mother would be which would be around 18-20 years older than Anne- so around 50 NOT 70! Its crazy, doesn't fit. How come Anne is so darn happy in the beginning? She smiles when she says "oh the worst is over, I've seen him now the worst has passed" yeah right. OK if anyone has seen the 1995 Roger Michell version than you cant compare these two. That one is right on. This one is way off. Read the novel and you'll know what I mean.
A Review About Persuasion By Someone Who Has Actually Read It And Studied It.
aliceinwonderland_0077 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This review has been written by someone who has read it (several times) and knows what they are talking about!. Firstly I have read others comments and noticed that some of the objections were really quite stupid. People who have read the book and other Jane Austens or for that matter any good book, will know that sticking to the book is vital you have to trust an author with what they do. If the viewer does not like it BECAUSE it sticks to the book well it shows they do not understand Jane Austen and obviously are not a true fan.
Firstly if the viewer truly loved the book or Jane Austen in general, watching it for four hours should not prove difficult. Secondly, their society did care a lot for looks and so big, fancy hair styles would show off how rich you were, which in their day was a key factor for getting along in "good" society. I have to confess the female costumes were not brilliant but there were only a few bad ones and the males made up for it, also this prejudice for the Naval men not in their uniform is in nice words very silly!, today people do not go out with their uniform away from school or work because they have casual clothes and it was just the same in the 19th century. Also as it goes the acting is very good, it is subtle because that is how Jayne Austen writes! and the scene at the end is beautiful. You can not compare the filming to that of the 1995 version as technology has improved so much since them it is ridiculous to compare them in that. The actress who plays Ann is too old but her air of acting and how she does it makes up for it.
People seem to prefer the 1995 version for some reason that I can not comprehend!. It does not stick to the book at all and so is flat, the ending is sentimental, they change major scenes, the only good actors are the leads and they I give you did a good job for what was given to them. Obviously the people who really, really like it are (I am sorry) stupid as they do not understand Persuasion and so need it to be overdone. The 1971 version is beautiful, romantic, was written by an excellent script writer (same who did Inspector Morse), had very good actors and really it is a film you can watch many times and during each you can be delighted with it.
Firstly if the viewer truly loved the book or Jane Austen in general, watching it for four hours should not prove difficult. Secondly, their society did care a lot for looks and so big, fancy hair styles would show off how rich you were, which in their day was a key factor for getting along in "good" society. I have to confess the female costumes were not brilliant but there were only a few bad ones and the males made up for it, also this prejudice for the Naval men not in their uniform is in nice words very silly!, today people do not go out with their uniform away from school or work because they have casual clothes and it was just the same in the 19th century. Also as it goes the acting is very good, it is subtle because that is how Jayne Austen writes! and the scene at the end is beautiful. You can not compare the filming to that of the 1995 version as technology has improved so much since them it is ridiculous to compare them in that. The actress who plays Ann is too old but her air of acting and how she does it makes up for it.
People seem to prefer the 1995 version for some reason that I can not comprehend!. It does not stick to the book at all and so is flat, the ending is sentimental, they change major scenes, the only good actors are the leads and they I give you did a good job for what was given to them. Obviously the people who really, really like it are (I am sorry) stupid as they do not understand Persuasion and so need it to be overdone. The 1971 version is beautiful, romantic, was written by an excellent script writer (same who did Inspector Morse), had very good actors and really it is a film you can watch many times and during each you can be delighted with it.
BBC surprice.
eejice29 April 2004
Usually when BBC releases a TV series one is used to a certain satisfaction guarantee. Usually the TV series is splendid, even if the story is boring, you can trust the acting will make the it worth while. When I came across, Persuasion, here at the local library, I was looking forward to an enjoyable evening, cause I read the story.
I'm glad I read the story first, otherwise I would not think highly of it. Further was I relieved to learn that the production date of this TV series was from 1971, since I thought, until that moment, that BBC had lost it. It is really bad, and should be used in acting schools as a horror movie.
The only positive thought I have about this series that the people in this film are not likely to appear or be involved in any BBC or other product this century other than the young Musgroves sisters, who apparently were taking their fist steps in acting, and doing remarkably well under the direction otherwise given.
I'm glad I read the story first, otherwise I would not think highly of it. Further was I relieved to learn that the production date of this TV series was from 1971, since I thought, until that moment, that BBC had lost it. It is really bad, and should be used in acting schools as a horror movie.
The only positive thought I have about this series that the people in this film are not likely to appear or be involved in any BBC or other product this century other than the young Musgroves sisters, who apparently were taking their fist steps in acting, and doing remarkably well under the direction otherwise given.
Charming!
ldeangelis-7570812 April 2023
I really enjoyed this series, like reading the novel again. Ann Firbank was great as Anne Elliot, and I liked watching her go from being reliable, dependable, sensible Anne, who always does the right thing, to self-confident, independent Anne, determined to follow heart, no matter what others may think.
Bryan Marshall gave a good portrayal of Captain Wentworth, who appears to be a man carefree and heart whole, looking for a wife for reasons other than love, until he can no longer contain his feelings for Anne.
This time it's jealousy and mistaken attachments, rather than persuasive advice and misguided intentions, that threaten to keep them apart.
What I really loved was the performances of both Morag Hood and Rowland Davies, as Anne's sister, Mary and brother-in-law, Charles. Truly entertaining!
I also caught a familiar face: Paul Chapman (Captain Benwick), in the days before he was known as Steven from "As Time Goes By".
I recommend this!!
Bryan Marshall gave a good portrayal of Captain Wentworth, who appears to be a man carefree and heart whole, looking for a wife for reasons other than love, until he can no longer contain his feelings for Anne.
This time it's jealousy and mistaken attachments, rather than persuasive advice and misguided intentions, that threaten to keep them apart.
What I really loved was the performances of both Morag Hood and Rowland Davies, as Anne's sister, Mary and brother-in-law, Charles. Truly entertaining!
I also caught a familiar face: Paul Chapman (Captain Benwick), in the days before he was known as Steven from "As Time Goes By".
I recommend this!!
Boring
marspeach2 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen this adaptation twice before now. The first time I just found it a dead bore. Other than Anne's ridiculous bee hive hairdo and green plaid dress, it didn't leave much of an impression. The second time I tried to pay closer attention and I did find a couple things to like. This time, my opinion remained pretty much unchanged, except I was able to notice some of the changes made from the novel. You'd think with such a long run-time, it would be extremely faithful. Is it? Well, yes and no. It does follow the novel pretty closely for the most part. Unfortunately, sometimes this can lead to really boring and dull scenes that are good on paper but don't translate that well to the screen. For example, the adaptation starts with Sir Walter reading aloud from The Baronetage as it introduces the characters he mentions. I found this a bit awkward. Who was he supposed to be reading to? Himself? And on the other hand, this version still managed to cut some things out- such as little Charles breaking his collar bone and the whole aftermath with Anne having to miss the party. I thought that was a somewhat important scene, so I was really confused when I noticed it was cut altogether.
This adaptation did not leave much of an impression on me. I thought it was a bit of a bore, despite liking other older adaptations. Some of the actors were good, others were bla. Some of the scenes were good, others went on too long.
This adaptation did not leave much of an impression on me. I thought it was a bit of a bore, despite liking other older adaptations. Some of the actors were good, others were bla. Some of the scenes were good, others went on too long.
Horrible Direction, Poor Acting
marzmello20 April 2008
Being a huge Persuasion fan, I had to check out all versions out there. I was prepared for lower production qualities and staging as I'm familiar with the styles of other ITV versions of the same era. However, I was really disappointed by the casting and acting in this version of the story. I can overlook the age differences etc, but really Anne and Frederick had absolutely no chemistry whatsoever. It's hard to believe there was anything between them. It made it very difficult to feel vested in the characters at all. I almost wished the actors for Harville and Wentworth had switched places, as there was obviously more natural spark between Anne and Harville. Rather than seeing subtle emotions, more often than not, the actors were quite blank in their expressions. The direction for the critical scenes was so poor and awkward. For example, the falling down scene at the Cobb was so painful to watch. Rather than show a sense of urgency and panic, the actors stood apart gawking as if in slo-mo. The Admiral was the most pitiful actor to watch, with his overacting and awkward gestures. The only positive to this version is that it does follow the sequences in the book more faithfully, and I did like that there were more scenes between Anne and Frederick at the end. Too bad it wasn't done by a different set of actors.
Like a Lead Balloon
whoseblues19 January 2007
Oh, my. Poor Jane must have done the old rolling-over-in-the-grave thing. Even allowing for poor production values for the time (1971) and the format (some kind of mini-series), this is baaaaaad. Whatever else you do with Austen, the dialog should sparkle (even in this, perhaps her most serious work), and melodrama should be strictly out of bounds. Alas, not the case with this production. By the time you get to Anne's "Frederick, Frederick, Frederick," you'll either be laughing or crying. Unless you're just out to visually "collect" all extant films of Austen's work, you can skip this one. If you do watch it, however, there are small consolations: The actresses playing Anne's sisters each do a wonderful job with their roles.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
