Did you read the book?
I guess you just decided you are a much better writer than Jane Austen. No need to use any of her silly dialog or boring scenes.
Do the world a favour and stay away from adaptations of classic literature from now on. That goes for Sandy Welch too.
Sandy Welch takes liberties, but it is obvious that she is very well familiar with the books, and I would go as far as to say that she understands them better than some of those who stick to details without understanding the spirit of the texts. That's what adapting is about.
I wish I could say the same for Simon Burke, but I don't think that he did justice to "Persuasion". In this case the alterations don't make a lot of sense, at least from my point of view.
Glad you responded to this, pmvk! I was going to say the same thing.
In fact, I'd stick my neck out and say that Sandy Welch is one of the best (if not the best) book-to-screen adapters of her generation. North & South, Emma and Jane Eyre have all benefitted from her discernment and ability.
- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?
Um.. no. Sandy Welch turned Jane Eyre into a torrid soap opera. She absolutely ruined the dialogue- rewriting nearly every line just because she could- and showing a very superficial understanding of the characters and of the times. It's my favourite book and I was about to throw the tv out the window. So as far as I'm concerned she's one of the worst book-to-screen adapters ever, though she may be a good screen writer. It's probably better if she just writes her own stuff and leaves the classic novels alone.
shareI've no wish to be argumentative with you, Stan. Just intrigued. Jane Eyre is my favourite book also, but 2006 is my favourite adaptation of it. Why do you think it was "a torrid soap opera"? I appreciate that much of the dialogue had been rewritten (although not as much as people have asserted), but I don't necessarily regard that as a weakness. In fact, it's a courageous move in order to make a screen adaptation that is as natural, credible and fluid as possible. I've seen other, more literal novel-by-numbers, adaptations which left me completely unmoved.
I'm really interested in your views if you'd like to be more specific. If you don't think the Persuasion board is the best forum for this, please come to the Jane Eyre 2006 board.
- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?
Let us not even link those two names in the same sentence. I don't think Simon Burke understood the importance of telling the story in logical sequence. SuTH!
shareI liked this movie but this story is screaming for a mini series.
"What happens to a dream deferred?"
It's a rather short book. The longest production yet is from 1971. The Region 1 (US/Canada) is 225 minutes.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
Yeah I made that post before I finished. I'd take a two parter. I guess I really want them to get how sweet Anne is and how much she suffered in silence. I also want them to see how magnificent Captain Wentworth is. Until I read the book I didn't have a good handle on either character and what they really meant to each other. And them changing the letter and everything leading up to itter in this version really takes away the climax for me. I was reading that part on a bench outside my work with people passing by and I actually started crying. I thought the actors did a good job in this but that missing part didn't do the story justice. Just my humble opinion. I also thought they could have done a better job with Mrs. Smith's part. I thought that part was rushed even before I read the book.
"What happens to a dream deferred?"
I just recently reread the book and so was surprised how much of the dialogue from this adaptation was directly from the novel. However, much of it is out of order (especially painful is Anne talking to Capt Benwick at dinner going unnoticed, rather than that conversation happening with Capt Harville an being overheard by Capt Wentworth). I think this version follows the books closely until the very end when it ruins the climax by trying to be exciting rather than quiet and secretive like the situation calls for.
I go back and forth between this and the 95 version. They are both very different feels for the same piece. But I think the acting ruined this version more than the screenplay.
That's one of the best adaptations of classics ever, so your whimpering is just pathetic.
shareIt is simply one of the BEST adaptions I have seen in a period drama. The writer did something very difficult and captured the heart and tone of the novel. The dialogue, much of which is exactly what Jane Austen wrote, is used in the best way to make the film artistic, coherent, and unique amongst a large groupof Austen adaptions.
I love what she did with this film - she kept it faithful to the Austen spirit and yet brilliant in its own right.
Wow1 Did you guys read the book? it completely looses the original tone. The best adaptation is by far the 1995 version (though I have issues with the ending). Go back, read the book again and watch those two adaptations to see which is more faithful.
shareI had actually only just finished reading the novel before I wrote my comment; so Austen's novel was really fresh in my mind. And I really think that the 2007 adaption really stays true - in regard to tone and story - to the novel.
I tried watching the first half of the 1995 version before I had to turn it off. It was a truly strange interpretation of the novel with few redeeming features. There were characters and settings which do not even appear in the novel, and which did not really contribute much to the film. The actress who played Anne Elliot looked bored or just otherwise unemotive - I understand she was trying to appear tormented and nostalgic but Sally Hawkins does it to perection in this 2007 version. Also there was a lack of charisma and likeability in most of the actors/characters in the older version.
How do you justify moving the constancy conversation from the end of the movie to the middle, and have it be between Anne and Benwick instead of Anne and Harville and, most importantly, have Frederick not hear it?
How can this possibly be "true - in regard to tone and story - to the novel" if one of the most crucial scenes in the entire story is re-written so drastically? And, because this scene is so different from Austen's original, it means that Frederick has no impetus to write his letter.
The writers cannot possibly have understood the significance of this conversation.
And, last but not least, how do you justify the Bath Marathon?
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
I agree totally. I heard so many raves of the 1995 version and I was not impressed. It wasn't bad but I do love this version more. Yes, I would have preferred to not see Anne running through the streets of Bath. However, I think the 1995 version captured the actual plot much better with respect to the letter. I get that. However, the spirit of what happens in the 2007 version is captured as well. She isn't going to miss her chance this time.
The change up with the scene with Captain Benwick didn't bother me either. Yes, in the novel their discussion is the impetus to Wentworth's letter. However, in this screenplay part of the cancelled chapters of Persuasion were used when Wentworth notifies Anne that the Crofts will vacate Kellynch because they assume she is marrying Mr. Elliot. That is not in the final draft of the book but in a cancelled chapter. This is the "impetus" moment in this film. And I felt it was used to perfection.
Well said Mr Hogs. The spirit of the book is definitely captured. I am sick of the nit pickers!
share