Inquiring readers, Persuasion-lite is a cinematic reworking of Jane Austen’s final novel, finished before her death, but not published until afterward. Coming off the heels of Netflix’s highly successful Bridgerton (in this cast of Persuasion-lite you can surmise the former series’ influence) and the popularity of PBS’s Sanditon, the decision-makers behind Netflix productions gave the go ahead to a film that ‘modernized’ Austen’s book in order to introduce young audiences to Jane Austen. Or so the story goes. To do so, Chefs Moderne created a story-telling recipe to appeal to newcomers.
Persuasion’s traditional recipe:
This rich, full-bodied classic was created by a Chef in her prime. Her finished recipe transfigured deceptively simple components into rich flavors heretofore undiscovered by the ordinary palate. The original ingredients, while considered old-fashioned today, are still accessible to epicureans who wish to savor the recipe’s nuanced complexity and its historical references.
Time to digest: hours, with repeated enjoyment over a lifetime. Three Michelin stars were awarded to this Chef, who served distinct dishes that were executed to perfection. (Some might say she would have been awarded four stars had this rating system included such a category.)
Netflix’s Persuasion-lite recipe:
This adaptation took a traditional recipe and simplified it to its basic components, using only those ingredients readily accessible in any grocery store today. While it echoes the original, it pales in comparison and fails to plumb the classic’s rich depths. To be fair, there were hints of originality in the spices. This recipe has been rewritten in modern terms that defy belief.
Time to digest: One hour and 47 minutes. One may partake of repeated helpings at the Netflix buffet. A number of diners might find this meal delicious and insist on more helpings; a number will push half eaten plates away or not order the meal again. Sadly the Chefs Moderne who adapted the recipe were not awarded a single Michelin star, since their efforts resulted in a dish that leaves the diner hungry.
Primary Ingredients:
Anne Elliot
The original recipe described a complex woman of 27 who has lost the bloom of youth. She regrets her decision at nineteen to reject Frederick Wentworth’s proposal due to Lady Russell’s persuasive influence. He had not yet made his mark in life. Anne is a woman of character and conviction who must negotiate the difficulties of living with a shallow father and sisters. As the neglected middle child, she lives largely in their selfish shadows, submitting to her family’s and friends’ needs. When Wentworth reenters her life unexpectedly, she observes her long lost love from afar. From his indifference he seems all but lost to her. Under the Classic Chef’s direction, Anne’s journey back to her Captain via circuitous routes is touching, romantic, and memorable.
Dakota Johnson sharing Anne Elliot’s thoughts. Netflix publicity photo.
The Netflix recipe describes Anne as an opinionated cheeky woman (Dakota Johnson) who gazes at and talks to the viewers (breaking the fourth wall) while stroking her pet rabbit (see image above from Netflix publicity), sharing her thoughts in contemporary language, and swilling red wine. She tells us what’s on her mind and in her mind throughout the production. Her observations, starting with her missing Captain Wentworth, the love of her life, are often amusing. In no way does this reworked Anne reflect Austen’s language or intent. In fact, her comical mannerisms and frequent faux pas wind up as a shallow, one-note substitution for the fully realized original. The makeup department also notably applied lipstick to her mouth, thereby diminishing Anne’s transformation from a wan and mousy woman into someone who blossoms with love when reunited with her captain.
Captain Wentworth
The classic recipe describes Wentworth as a vigorous, successful male, whose pride prevents him from revealing the hurt and, yes, love he still feels for the woman who rejected him. In the classic recipe, one can find instances of his kindness towards Anne and his growing realization that this complex, level-headed, and kind woman is worthy of his regard now as much (even more) as then.
The modern Wentworth is certainly handsome (Cosmo Jarvis), but as written for this lite version, he remains on the sidelines. I wanted him sprinkled more vigorously into this plot, but had to make do with his weak, almost secondary role. Only when Anne reads his letter out loud (it is considered to be one of the best love letters ever written) does the real and complex Austen hero come to the fore.
Mary Musgrove
Her role (Mia McKenna-Bruce) adds much comic spice and her presence in the modern version seems major compared to her irritating presence in the classic. Certainly her ingredient is one-note and overly exagerrated, but her character remains true to Austen’s depiction of a selfish, prickly, and whining sister. One memorable addition not in the classic, but quite original, is of Anne answering her sister in Italian during Mary’s nonstop self-indulgent monologues – which she fails to notice.
William Elliot
His role is stronger in the lite recipe than in the classic. In fact, his (Henry Golding’s) presence overpowers Wentworth’s at times and Anne seems more susceptible to his dubious charms. Why is beyond me, for he shares with her his sleazy plan to prevent a possible marriage between Sir Walter and his daughter’s widowed companion in Bath, a Mrs Clay, who in the original recipe sported a snaggle tooth but who, in the lite version, has an ample bosom. William’s sole aim was to prevent Sir Walter from siring an heir that would knock him out of first place for inheriting what remains of the Elliot estate. His final scene in the film elicited a guffaw from me, but Austen’s classic wit did not look for laughter in the cheap seats and the ending in Persuasion-lite made no sense, for William would never have married a woman with no station in life or money.
Henrietta, Louisa, and Charles Musgrove (Respectively: Izuka Hoyle, Nia Towle, and Ben Bailey-Smith).
Sisters-in-law and husband of Mary Musgrove, they pop in and out of the lite narrative to showcase the sisters’ friendship with Anne and her former and current relationship to Charles. Louisa’s story arc especially moves the plot forward. Charles is Mary’s long suffering husband in the classic version, but the Chefs Moderne use him to demonstrate Anne’s awkward drunken confession during the Musgrove’s dinner party to inform the assembled company that Charles had proposed to her first. The Classic’s sensible, thoughtful Anne would rather have died than commit such crude impropriety.
Supporting Ingredients:
Sir Walter and Elizabeth Elliot
Both characters are sadly given short shrift. Their curt treatment was perhaps intentional, but during their short on screen time, the two actors made their mark. Richard Grant’s performance, while over the top funny, reminds me more of Billy Nighy’s comedic turn as Mr. Woodhouse in Emma. 2020 than the character described by Austen. In Grant’s case, his Sir Walter is certainly fixated on his self-important status, which in the lite version was funny. In the classic version, however, Austen made it clear that as a baronet he sat at the lowest end of the peerage scale, making his egotistical turn even more absurd.
Elizabeth (Yolanda Kettle) is not more beautiful than Anne, as described in the Classic. In fact, she looks anemically pale next to her sister’s vivid coloring. Except for Elizabeth’s sumptuous wardrobe and meticulous hairstyles, one would not have thought her to be the favored older sister. Her mean-spiritedness remains intact, however, and contrasts nicely with Anne’s, well, niceness.
Lady Russell (Nikki Amuka-Bird)
This lady’s well meaning advice separated Anne from her captain. She plays the loving mother substitute and appears just enough in Persuasion-lite to remind us that Anne has had someone in her corner since her mother’s death. As in the Classic, she shows more concern for her young friend than her actual family.
A variety of ingredients (which, sadly, are mostly unrecognizable for uninformed palates in this lite version):
Admiral and Mrs Croft, Captain and Mrs Harville, Mr & Mrs Musgrove and their two young grandsons, Captain Benwick, Mrs Clay, and Lady Dalrymple and Miss Carteret. (Mrs Smith is undetectable.)
Those unfamiliar with the classic recipe will miss their almost absent presence or wonder about their inclusion. Mrs Smith, who made an appearance in the Classic, is ignored, but she was an important witness to William Elliot’s character.
I defy those new to Austen to accurately suss out these characters’ relationship with Anne or the Elliot family. Sir Walter’s attraction to Lady Dalrymple and Miss Carteret is given more importance (we already know he’s a peerage snob) than the elder Musgroves and Mary’s two young boys, or Admiral and Mrs Croft, who play important roles in Anne’s journey back to Wentworth.
Spices:
.
Clothing
Some critics who reviewed Persuasion-lite found the clothes drab and lackluster. Their critiques should have been amended to Anne’s clothes only. Since the makeup department never removed the bloom off her rose, her wardrobe substituted for her appearance, which was ‘“so altered that [Wentworth] should not have known her again.” Her gray and brown spinsterish gowns brighten as she is exposed more to Wentworth’s company. The other actors and actresses are appropriately fashionable for their stations, which reflect clothing in 1816-17 England. I also thought that the homespun, handmade feel of Anne’s wardrobe made sense, in that she was the least favored daughter and probably had her clothes sewn by a local seamstress, whereas Elizabeth and Mary most likely demanded gowns made by modistes in London.
Sites:
Ah, lovely England with its historic villages and great mansions.These were wonderfully represented with beautiful exteriors, interiors and gardens. Two locations played prominent roles.
Lyme Regis: This seaside village plays a pivotal role in both the Classic and Lite versions. The basic storyline of Austen’s plot remains in the lite version, but details are missing. Still, Lyme Regis, the Cobb, the village, and it beautiful shoreline are a visual treat, and many of the scenes do echo the Classic version, and even include bits and pieces of original dialogue.
First glimpse of William Elliot’s carriage in Lyme Regis. At the window from left, Anne Elliot and to her right the Musgrove sisters. To the far right, Mary Musgrove nee Elliot.
Bath: Ah, the buildings, the streets, the views of the Royal Crescent, the walk down the stairs in the Upper Assembly Rooms. There was no promenade in the Pump rooms, where Anne’s famous line to William Elliot is widely quoted (but looked over in the Lite version;)
“My idea of good company, Mr. Elliot, is the company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation; that is what I call good company.’
‘You are mistaken,’ said he gently, ‘that is not good company, that is the best.” – Jane Austen, Persuasion
Although this lovely quote was not included, some of Anne’s conversations were used in Bath, as well as Captain Wentworth’s love letter. Since these scenes lead to the denouement, they ended the film on a high note.
Language:
Here’s where the Chefs Moderne took the greatest license. Instead of using the beautiful language in the Classic, the Chefs Moderne chose modern phrases. I defy you to find them in a Regency era lexicon.
“We are strangers. Worse than strangers. We’re exes.” (Anne Elliot)
“It is often said if you’re a five in London, you’re a ten in Bath!” (Anne Elliot breaking the 4th wall when she looks directly into the camera to converse with the viewer.)
“Marriage is transactional” (Lady Russell)
“Thanks”
“I am an empath” (Mary Musgrove)
“Fart around”
“He’s a ten – I never trust a ten” (Anne about William Elliot)
“Embodying gratitude” (Mary again)
Comment:
Good grief. The Chefs Moderne must have burned their candles down to their wicks to come up with this drivel. After watching Persuasion-lite, those not initiated to Austen’s novels and who love this filmed version, might turn to the novel. Imagine their surprise when they discover that her 205 year old book, filled with the language, customs, and manners of her day, varies significantly from this comic book version.
Personal request: Gentle readers, feel free to agree or disagree with my musings. Let’s keep our discourse genteel and agreeable for the sake of my sanity. I thank you in advance.
Other Critics Reviews:
Negative
“At no point during Carrie Cracknell’s directorial debut do you ever get the sense that anyone’s actually read Persuasion.” – Dakota Johnson is woefully miscast in mortifying Jane Austen adaptation – Clarisse Loughrey, The Independent
“Our demure protagonist Anne Elliot is forever doing supercilious takes and wry monologues to camera, taking despairing swigs from a bottle of red wine in private, occasionally nursing a quirky pet rabbit, and at the end (unforgivably) gives us a wink to seal the deal of our adoringly complicit approval.” Persuasion review – Dakota Johnson looks the part as Jane Austen gets Fleabagged, Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian
Positive
“For anyone not too bothered by departures from the novel, the romantic denouement will be immensely pleasurable.: – Dakota Johnson in Netflix’s ‘Persuasion’: Film Review, David Rooney, Chief Film Critic, The Hollywood Reporter
More reviews:
Netflix’s Persuasion the worst film of the year?, Olivia Pym, GQ Magazine
Persuasion review – a travesty of Jane Austen, Slash Film,
Trailer of the film:
Under this trailer, J.Dion wrote:
“Anne’s strength is her quiet, consistency. She is intelligent and thoughtful. Altering her character for modern sensibilities is insulting not only to Austin’s character but to modern audiences. There are many “Anne’s” in this world they and deserve to be valued for who they are and the enrichment they bring to all.
Persuasion is my favorite of Austen’s novel. Unfortunately this looks to be another instance of the “title and names are unchanged but the characters are missing.”
Jane Austen's World 
Pass the bag…
Indeed! What I really wanted to say was this: Don’t mess with Jane.
This is perfection! Full of wit, entertaining, and a wonderful way to compare and contrast the movies honestly. Brava, my friend!
denise
Netflix movie versus *Persuasion* book, is what I meant.
I know you haven’t seen it yet, so I hope I haven’t spoiled it for you. Knowing you have a discerning palate, I think not. (HAH!)
I shall take a hard pass on this production, and instead enjoy with glee all the pearl-clutching and cases of the vapors people are having (understandably) over it. Looks like a train wreck to me. I shall stick with Root/Hinds thank you! 😍
Oh, yes, Ciaran Hinds was the perfect Wentworth, and Amanda Root played Anne to perfection. Thanks for taking note of that.
My thirty-something daughter and her friends enjoyed it, and I suppose it was entertaining. I just wish they hadn’t titled it ‘Persuasion’. Now they think they know something of Austen’s creation. Well, I suppose they do…the character list, if not the characters.
Ah, Julie. Your daughter’s group is exactly the audience they were hoping for. Austen transformed lives on!
I am a 30 something Austen fan. I hope to god that you don’t judge all of my generation based on this. I think the movie was adapted this way to make it interesting to the group of people who don’t read classic novels (no matter their age) and are scared off by the differences in the language. It was an attempt to bring it closer to people, but that doesn’t make it a good attempt.
I’ve watched many Austen adaptations (and other period dramas) to know that you can do this without making it so flat and translating it into fake “youth language”. I cringed at those parts.
They are neither representative of the age it was set in nor the way young people (the generation after mine) talk nowadays.
It would’ve been interesting if they went all the way and took the plot into the modern times. There are versions of this that worked fairly well, the only example that comes to mind is Bride and Prejudice (not the best movie either but better than this Persuasion).
Atia, thank you for stopping by and giving your opinion and defending your generation. Our family members in your age group and younger would love this film for its cheekiness and breeziness. The problem is that the writers wanted both the Austen references and modern treatment. The film is called Persuasion and is advertised as based on Jane Austen’s novel. Well, it has been judged as such.
If I was an English professor I would compare and contrast this film with other cinematic treatments of Persuasion and with the novel. I imagine the discussions, with pros and cons slung around the classroom, would be rich.
I’m 27 and have loved Austen’s work since I was 10 and watched the 2005 P&P with my mom. I immediately read the book (and could no longer watch the movie without cringing), and have since read it many times, finding something new each time. Persuasion is another one of my favorite Austen novels, and I take so much issue with the “modern” treatment of it and her other works. It’s because the stories she wrote are so timeless that these modernized versions are so offensive. Even if some of the social commentary in the books goes over our heads because of the time we live in, we all have met someone like Lady Russell, or like Sir Elliot. I can relate to shy, quiet Anne, who sometimes doesn’t know herself well enough to stand up for herself. She is persuaded because she honestly believes Lady Russell, and she grows enough to realize that she should have been assertive. Why does Anne have to be “spunky?” Why isn’t it acceptable to have a gentle, quiet main character? This adaptation takes away all the power of the original story because Anne always stands up for herself and always makes herself heard. (To me, it’s not believable that she once let herself be convinced to give up the love of her life because she legitimately thought that it was the right decision.)
Also, I don’t watch period dramas to hear modern language or see modern hairstyles or a modern “girlboss” feminist character. It’s doing Austen a disservice in not allowing her stories to shine, because they have to be “spiced up” and made more “relatable” to a modern audience. They’re already relatable! I wouldn’t take so much issue if they had called this movie something different and merely acknowledged that it was inspired by Persuasion. But this bears little resemblance to the real thing.
Dear Kass, Your previous answer is profound and based on your study of and reading Jane Austen’s novels. I can’t disagree with a single statement you made. I would love to be a fly on the wall when you discuss your thoughts about Austen and your reactions to her commercial successors. Thank you for stopping by.
This rash of Neo-Regency productions, the latest Persuasion included, makes me tired. I endorse you, Vic! Do not mess with Jane! And appealing to a new generation forgets how wonderful Jane’s writing was, without modernization. That said, thanks for the review, Vic – always fun to read.
Thanks, Lynne. It’s always hard to walk a fine line, for, interestingly, the film without the Austen association is fun to watch.
My daughter, 54, and I ,76, enjoyed it thoroughly for a contemporary presentation. Far superior to Bridgerton. It wasn’t trying to be the book. Dakota was wonderful, nuanced and speaking to us directly was charming….a lovely Shakespearean device. All the acting was excellent. The mood, tone, scenery, costuming and personalities of Austin’s characters were beautifully captured and portrayed for a 2022 audience.
Hello Corrine, I agree with almost everything you wrote except for one thing – this film does not reflect Persuasion. Had it been given a different title, I would have enjoyed it immensely. We are in agreement that this film is vastly superior to Bridgerton, whose only improvement in the second season is that the writers toned down the nudity. I can’t imagine a mother watching that series with a younger daughter.
What a perfect analogy! The Michelin starred delight v the fast food product composed of dubious ingredients. I haven’t seen this movie, or any other filmed version of Persuasion and am in no hurry to do so. From what I’ve read it seems they decided to cut Anne Elliot out of the story and replace her with Bridget Jones.
This film is particularly transactional in nature. Bridgerton and Sanditon were popular in the States and with a certain demographic, so Netflix jumped on board the gravy train. I’m sure the powers that be studied which Austen film has been given short shrift (in their opinion/research) and settled on Persuasion. The the hunt for a lead actress began: she needed to appeal to a certain demographic and be instantly recognizable. Voila! Dakota Johnson! Her comic turn is played to perfection — too bad her portrayal in no way resembles Austen’s sensible, mature heroine. Netflix should simply have created its own comic Regency story — critics would then have reviewed the movie with a different set of criteria.
I hope Netflix don’t read Northanger Abbey. That could make a good romcom, with a good young comic actor or three. Given their performance with Persuasion I am not sure they do read. What I didn’t understand was the writing team of Ron Bass and Alice Victoria Winslow. Mr Bass has been around for a long time and written a few good films; but was Ms Winslow brought in as a Phoebe Waller-Bridge from Fleabag?
Oh, yes, obviously someone (writers most likely) merely skimmed over the book and inserted their own 21st century sensibilities, removing important characters, and adding dialogue not in the novel. That scene with Lady Dalrymple and Miss Carteret was ridiculous entirely made up. Anne smearing her face with jam might be funny for some, but was totally out of character. One does wonder why Anne was transformed into a 19th c. Fleabagger.
Thanks for the warning. It sounds ghastly. It’s my favourite of the books. I still have the 2007 television film saved with Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones. It’s got a little more of what you’d call the glamour about it than the Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root one. It’s prettied up but unspoiled.
And there you have it. This book is Austen’s most mature, most nuanced work; and is her final completed gift to her readers. To turn an author’s twilight work into a fun cheeky romp through the Regency era did this novel no justice. I do hope English professors take up the cudgel to contrast this film with the richness of the original, and to have serious conversations about literature vs commerce.
I think the reviewer’s comments about the actors’ performances was interesting. Mr Elliot should have been arrested for stalking; Captain Wentworth could have been used as a bowsprit if the ship lost its in an action off Brest; I supposed Mrs Clay’s bosom could stand in for a snaggle tooth; Anne Elliot annoyed me as she was far too knowing in a way the Austen Captain Wentworth would have disliked but perhaps was attractive to Mr Elliot, though I doubt it as he liked them compliant; I felt sorry for the actor playing the character as she had all the subtext as dialogue and was given nothing else to work with. I thought the skills of Richard E Grant were underused by a bad text. I liked Mary Musgrove, both the actor and the character added something; but most of the book and its concerns were missing is this totally inadequate reading of our favourite Austen.
It reminded me of that appalling version of Emma that was about recently that was all pointy collars, and the only bit that was interesting was Amber Anderson as Jane Fairfax. Her playing the piano was a highlight of the film.
First of all, thank you for your observations. I agree about the Mary Musgrove actress and how that character is portrayed. I also think that Anne as portrayed by Dakota Johnson would be off putting to someone of Captain Wentworth’s character – ambitious, upright, and patriotic. Because he was so often sidelined, the audience could not properly discern how or why his tender feelings for Anne were reignited – so many instances of her kindness towards others and his thoughtful gestures towards her were omitted. As for William Wentworth – he’s a sly, selfish fox, not a stupid plotter who blurts out his plans to a women he wishes to woo. As for the modern phrases – the moment I thought the exclamations couldn’t be worse, then a phrase like ‘fart around’ is uttered.
Thanks for the reviews of this. I think I’ll skip this one. I, too, enjoyed the version with Amanda Root/Ciaran Hinds. I don’t mind and even enjoy modernized versions if they change the name of the movie and the character’s names, such as the movie Clueless.
I’m so glad you mentioned Clueless, which in my mind is the best modernized film adaptation of a Jane Austen novel. Amy Heckerling was wise to set the in 1990’s Los Angeles, where Valley Girl speak was still popular. While she changed the names, the setting, and the century, viewers could still identify what roles the actors played. Heckerling managed to tell Emma’s story in contemporary language, with actors who were believable LA types.
Almost 30 years after it came out, I feel that this flick has lost none of its excitement or vitality.
I would like to add a couple interesting adaptations of Jane’s novels: Aisha is a Bollywood adaptation of Emma with Sonam Kapoor as Aisha/Emma; and Kandukondian Kandukondian is a 2000 Tamil-language romantic drama adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. Aishwarya Rai is the Marianne character, and Tabu is the Eleanor character-they are members of a local royal family- and it is set in India’s south. Aishwarya plays Lizzie Bennett in Bride and Prejudice, which is a dud version of P&P because it tries to bridge the east and west, and Mr Darcy is a warm lettuce of a character: damp and limp.
One would hope they could do an adaptation of Persuasion, but they may fall between Devdas and Jab Tak Hai Jaan, both of which star Shah Rukh Khan. In fact the latter has some similarities to Persuasion because it is about second chances.
Of those adaptations I’ve seen Bride and Prejudice only once, and none of the other adaptations you mentioned. I loved your description of Mr Darcy as a warm lettuce – damp and limp.
Thanks for your review. I like your analogy of the recipe prepared by an expert (Jane Austen) and the one just thrown together (Netflix). Some of the same ingredients but no comparison in results. We watched the new Persuasion once. We won’t watch it again. As a matter of fact we went and watched the Amanda Root version later that week to get the Netflix one out of our heads!
Ah, Kevin, the first time I watched Persuasion-lite, I kept walking away, angry, confused, wondering if I’d been too influenced by critics who’d been given prior viewings. So I watched it again, knowing there would be readers who liked this version. Still, this will be one of the few Austen films I won’t purchase. I agree that Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds is the best adaptation, with 2007’s version with Sally Hawkins’ tender interpretation of Anne as a close second. I still am waiting for an updated series of Persuasion, even one with only two 2-hour episodes, to flesh out the characters more than a short film ever could.
This is a scathing review: I agree with a number of its basic objections. I am glad to see this analysis of the new Mr Elliot: you’re right, in this “new” film he reveals his amoral strands and the new Anne remains unfazed. Paradoxically one of the most obnoxious characters in the original Mary Musgrove retains her central self-centered obtuseness. Ellen
Ellen, I’m always amazed at your wide ranging reviews. In this instance, I actually toned down my initial response, but, yes, it is still scathing.
Aside from the gorgeous scenery, Persuasion 2022 is an insult to Jane Austen. I suggest watching it with the mute button set on.
Can’t stop laughing at your comment!!
Another entertaining column!
Vic, can I translate your post into Portuguese and publish it here in Brazil?
Adriana (JASBRA)
Absolutely, Adriana. Thank you for stopping by!
Just make sure to credit JAW. Thank you!!