I saw an interview with the actress who played Anne and she said at the kiss she was just looking at RP-J eyes and just let Anne take over, that's why it was so hesitant and she was crying. Nothing planned but she laughed about how great it was that the tear came out camera side.
WHA??? I can't believe that! I thought the new version was passable, but totally lost the spirit of the thing, and the end is totally messed up. I seem to remember it not even having the all-important discussion about whether men or women are more constant! I also didn't think much of blondie boy as Wentworth, nor that he was that cute to be honest. Give me Ciaran Hinds any day, yummy!
I thought that discussion took place at the dinner table. Admittedly, I've seen it months ago.
Anyway, chacun à son goût, right? I much rather preferred this cast, and CH doesn't do anything to me, although I acknowledge he's a good actor. But that counts for Alan Rickman too, and I definitely preferred DM as the colonel in the new S&S. I'm not telling the adaptation is better when compared to the book, I liked it more though. Amanda Root's eyes started to irritate me after five minutes. That look of constant surprise, not much else. Sally Hawkins had many more expressions to offer, IMHO.
You're right, it does happen, but Wentworth doesn't hear it, which is the entire bloody point of it :P That conversation and the letter that ensues is one of the most romantic things ever to happen in literature, and to change/remove it is unpardonable. I haven't seen the new S&S yet, but the most important thing for me is how well an adaptation captures both the plot and the spirit of the book. The AR/CH version of Persuasion certainly has its faults (the main one being it's far too short and therefore too compressed), but I think it is best at capturing the spirit. And CH looks like a naval captain, whereas the new guy is far too soft even to be a cabin boy. But as you say, chacun a son gout. Some people even liked the KK P&P after all... *vomit* ;)
Some people even liked the KK P&P after all... *vomit* ;)
Indeed, like yours truly. :D
As for movie adaptations, I think we don't differ in attaching spirit and plot, but as every individual sees with different eyes, one thinks such or such adaptation succeeds better in that than the other.
I don't think any movie can faithfully follow complex works of literature, but I don't think that's the meaning of any maker. So, fortunately we can always fall baco to the book. Another example of a movie I highly enjoyed but didn't manage to really capture the complexitiy of the book was Possession. Still, I love that movie. I tend to forget the book and try to watch an adaptation solely as a movie. A movie is entertainment for me, a good book both entertainment and instruction.
Yes, I know ;) I can't pretend that I will ever understand how that is possible for anyone.
I saw Possession before I read it, and liked the film better because I found the book overlong and pretentious, and I just skipped the poetry after attempting the first one and being bored to tears.
Yes, I know ;) LOL, and yes, I already knew your feelings about it. ;)
As for A.S. Byatt, you're right. She's pretentious and likes to show her authors how erudite she is which I think should always be the conclusion of the reader himself afterwards. All these facts and ideas and endless descriptions she wants to push through your throat can be tiresome. Apart from that, love and sex are never sensual in the books I've read so far. In that regard the director of Possession did a much better job! haha I have a problem with that in an author. Or perhaps I cannot well swallow cynicism. A fallen over bookcase, as we say in Holland.
That said, she used to be one of my favs despite of it and I loved Possession and The Virgin in the Garden. Her language is rich and the characters interesting. Reading 'Still Life' now, but, quite frankly, I have problems finishing it.
I did the same thing, just skipping over it all - I suffered through that book, I enjoyed the modern parts of it much more than the Victorian, whereas I felt the opposite way about it in the movie.
I haven't seen the other version so I won't compare. I tried to not compare the others versions of P&P either -- they were done with vastly different viewpoints, I happened to find the 1940s version wonderful as a movie but I could see why P&P fans would abhor it too.
As for the new version, I don't think the overall spirit was lost because other than the leads, the casting was great. The romance was severely watered down to, as I mentioned above, "ugly/old girl gets cute boy". Also, I don't have huge expectations for a one and half hour tv movie.
I'm more of a character person than a plot person so changing plot points don't bother me so much anymore -- I see directors change stories so often that I've come to accept it. But if I don't like the lead actress's portrayal , I often don't like the story overall. I liked Penry-Jones, but I'm a fan of blonds... however, he was way too pretty -- his skin looked softer than mine!
Also, I wouldn't qualify Persuasion as one of my favourite books, so it affects me less if it's not done
( ... )
he was way too pretty -- his skin looked softer than mine!
Yes, I agree, that man is no sea captain! (but when he smiled he was quite swoonworthy!)
The movie was okay, but the production value was low, and I diliked how they changed the letter writing scene and the conversation that he's supposed to overhear that she's having with Benwick. It's one thing to change a few plotslines, but that was a major important one!
As I said, I haven't seen the other Persuasion adaptation so I'm judging it based solely on what I saw last night and in comparison to my interpretation of the book.
You see, I've come to determine, you're a hopeless romantic and I'm a logical romantic (if that's possible)! Unless you've really sold me on every other moment, I find intense moments gimmicky (particularly when dealing with Austen novels which pride themselves on subtlety).
Entertaining? Yes. It was very good but certainly not impeccable for me. I will follow up a little more but there were plot holes -- if I hadn't read the book, I would actually question why Wentworth was should be in love with Anne at all.
You see, I've come to determine, you're a hopeless romantic and I'm a logical romantic (if that's possible)!
I suppose you mean me... haha
I will follow up a little more but there were plot holes
When reading posts about Austen adaptations in the LJ community or at a site such as Firthness, I realize that I look at a movie quite differently than many other Austen lovers. I don't think though because I'm a romantic - I've studied French, a rather rational language and ditto culture ;) - and am quite well informed about the Enlightenment because that movement intersts me. But I simply don't mind it when a book is altered, the book has become mine anyway, the book will always be the book... A movie's something different. That doesn't mean though that I think all adaptations are any good, but that has more to do with credibility from the movie's point of view than the author of the book's point of view.
Yes, I do mean you, but I think you've admitted as much ... and it's lovely! I think I need more comedy in my romance anyway... I need all that romance tempered with a cynicism to keep me happy! There are times, though, I do get swept up in the sheer romance, honest! Just not overly much with this movie, but given the time constraints, that's understandable
( ... )
I need all that romance tempered with a cynicism to keep me happy!
I couldn't agree more, dear, but I get plenty of that reading good books. Although, I hardly have time for that lately with all those romance novels I'm translating. haha
It's just so sad how some people let others make important decisions for them, even when grown up. I think Anne is so utterly embarrassed about it that she can hardly face him because of that very reason, apart from having the idea she blew her chances with him.
But of course, you're right, dear, there are numerous plot holes. I definitely cannot argue with that. That didn't prevent me though from enjoying it. And I love to look at beautiful people, eh... men. ;)
The end was silly, and by the end it all seemed rushed, literally and figurally. Oh dear, I should stop thinking about the flaws, otherwise I might not like it after all! LOL
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Anyway, chacun à son goût, right? I much rather preferred this cast, and CH doesn't do anything to me, although I acknowledge he's a good actor. But that counts for Alan Rickman too, and I definitely preferred DM as the colonel in the new S&S. I'm not telling the adaptation is better when compared to the book, I liked it more though. Amanda Root's eyes started to irritate me after five minutes. That look of constant surprise, not much else. Sally Hawkins had many more expressions to offer, IMHO.
Reply
I haven't seen the new S&S yet, but the most important thing for me is how well an adaptation captures both the plot and the spirit of the book. The AR/CH version of Persuasion certainly has its faults (the main one being it's far too short and therefore too compressed), but I think it is best at capturing the spirit. And CH looks like a naval captain, whereas the new guy is far too soft even to be a cabin boy.
But as you say, chacun a son gout. Some people even liked the KK P&P after all... *vomit* ;)
Reply
Indeed, like yours truly. :D
As for movie adaptations, I think we don't differ in attaching spirit and plot, but as every individual sees with different eyes, one thinks such or such adaptation succeeds better in that than the other.
I don't think any movie can faithfully follow complex works of literature, but I don't think that's the meaning of any maker. So, fortunately we can always fall baco to the book. Another example of a movie I highly enjoyed but didn't manage to really capture the complexitiy of the book was Possession. Still, I love that movie. I tend to forget the book and try to watch an adaptation solely as a movie. A movie is entertainment for me, a good book both entertainment and instruction.
just my 2p
Reply
Yes, I know ;) I can't pretend that I will ever understand how that is possible for anyone.
I saw Possession before I read it, and liked the film better because I found the book overlong and pretentious, and I just skipped the poetry after attempting the first one and being bored to tears.
Reply
As for A.S. Byatt, you're right. She's pretentious and likes to show her authors how erudite she is which I think should always be the conclusion of the reader himself afterwards. All these facts and ideas and endless descriptions she wants to push through your throat can be tiresome. Apart from that, love and sex are never sensual in the books I've read so far. In that regard the director of Possession did a much better job! haha I have a problem with that in an author. Or perhaps I cannot well swallow cynicism. A fallen over bookcase, as we say in Holland.
That said, she used to be one of my favs despite of it and I loved Possession and The Virgin in the Garden. Her language is rich and the characters interesting. Reading 'Still Life' now, but, quite frankly, I have problems finishing it.
Sorry, Tracey, for hijacking your thread! :D
Reply
As for Possession, I have still yet to read the book and I loved half the movie -- JE and Northam were steamy together!
Reply
Reply
As for the new version, I don't think the overall spirit was lost because other than the leads, the casting was great. The romance was severely watered down to, as I mentioned above, "ugly/old girl gets cute boy". Also, I don't have huge expectations for a one and half hour tv movie.
I'm more of a character person than a plot person so changing plot points don't bother me so much anymore -- I see directors change stories so often that I've come to accept it. But if I don't like the lead actress's portrayal , I often don't like the story overall. I liked Penry-Jones, but I'm a fan of blonds... however, he was way too pretty -- his skin looked softer than mine!
Also, I wouldn't qualify Persuasion as one of my favourite books, so it affects me less if it's not done ( ... )
Reply
Yes, I agree, that man is no sea captain! (but when he smiled he was quite swoonworthy!)
The movie was okay, but the production value was low, and I diliked how they changed the letter writing scene and the conversation that he's supposed to overhear that she's having with Benwick. It's one thing to change a few plotslines, but that was a major important one!
Reply
You see, I've come to determine, you're a hopeless romantic and I'm a logical romantic (if that's possible)! Unless you've really sold me on every other moment, I find intense moments gimmicky (particularly when dealing with Austen novels which pride themselves on subtlety).
Entertaining? Yes. It was very good but certainly not impeccable for me. I will follow up a little more but there were plot holes -- if I hadn't read the book, I would actually question why Wentworth was should be in love with Anne at all.
Reply
I suppose you mean me... haha
I will follow up a little more but there were plot holes
When reading posts about Austen adaptations in the LJ community or at a site such as Firthness, I realize that I look at a movie quite differently than many other Austen lovers. I don't think though because I'm a romantic - I've studied French, a rather rational language and ditto culture ;) - and am quite well informed about the Enlightenment because that movement intersts me. But I simply don't mind it when a book is altered, the book has become mine anyway, the book will always be the book... A movie's something different. That doesn't mean though that I think all adaptations are any good, but that has more to do with credibility from the movie's point of view than the author of the book's point of view.
I bet I don't make sense at all. LOL
Is anything ever impeccable BTW? ;)
Reply
Reply
I couldn't agree more, dear, but I get plenty of that reading good books. Although, I hardly have time for that lately with all those romance novels I'm translating. haha
It's just so sad how some people let others make important decisions for them, even when grown up. I think Anne is so utterly embarrassed about it that she can hardly face him because of that very reason, apart from having the idea she blew her chances with him.
But of course, you're right, dear, there are numerous plot holes. I definitely cannot argue with that. That didn't prevent me though from enjoying it. And I love to look at beautiful people, eh... men. ;)
The end was silly, and by the end it all seemed rushed, literally and figurally. Oh dear, I should stop thinking about the flaws, otherwise I might not like it after all! LOL
Reply
Leave a comment