The entire Jane Austen fanbase has been in a tizzy over Netflix’s new adaptation of Persuasion. I’m pretty sure it’s the most controversial Austen movie yet. A quick Google search gave me a not completely unexpected result: Netflix’s Persuasion is generally despised. Vox calls it “an absolute disaster”. Cosmo says it’s the Austen adaptation “for sad girls”, not “Jane Austen purists”. The Telegraph compares it to “the psychobabble ruining culture”. And (my personal favorite), The Spectator claims that “everyone involved should be in prison”.

I’m not gonna lie, I am here for the drama. Generally, it’s not my thing. I avoid The Real Housewives like the plague (their high-pitched constant arguments give me instant anxiety). But the second there’s internet ire over Jane Austen, I’m all over it. I’d like to think Jane would be just as amused as I am that people are this upset by an adaptation of her work more than two-hundred-years after she published it.

But I will not be joining in on hating this adaptation. I was busy the weekend it was released, so I didn’t watch it until after the scathing reviews and Twitter complaints had begun surfacing. So by the time I got around to it, I was prepared for disappointment. Instead, I actually enjoyed myself. Since this is apparently kind of a hot take, I thought I’d share my thoughts.

(A bit of background: I have read all of Austen’s novels – some multiple times, and have seen a fair number of the adaptations. I also have a master’s degree in English, which involved writing more than one term paper on Jane Austen. So while I’m not a filmmaker, I am fairly well versed in literature and Jane Austen.)

not just another Austen adaptation

When it comes to Jane Austen adaptations, they kind of fall in to four groups. First, there are the traditionalists. I’m talking Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet as the Dashwood sisters, traditional. We have period costumes, (semi-)authentic dialogue, basically watching an abridged version of the book. Then we have the ones that take the essence of the story and completely modernize it. These would be movies or books like Clueless (Emma) or Bridget Jones’s Diary (Pride and Prejudice – this one was actually a book first). They’re fun, even if they’re not always obviously Austen (like the Bollywood Bride and Prejudice). I think they’re a great way to show how timeless these stories actually are.

Then we have the spinoffs and sequels. Here, we’re talking about things like Death Comes to Pemberley, which is set six years after the end of Pride and Prejudice (and is both a book and a movie). Sandition might also fit into this category since Austen herself never finished it, though that didn’t prevent an adaptation from being made. Finally, we have the originals… but with a twist. Most notably in this category is the infamous Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Which I will admit to having both read and watched. Obviously satire, but still kind of fun.

why this one stands out (so much)

The new Dakota Johnson Persuasion isn’t even close to the first time this novel has been adapted to the screen. It’s been given the mini-series treatment twice (in 1960 and 1971), two period films (in 1995 and 2007), and a modern “career-girl” take (in 2020). Definitely not Pride and Prejudice-level, but still. There is no lack of Persuasion adaptations. And while I kind of like the idea of it getting a refresh every decade or two, it’s not like we really needed one more. Which is why I like that this one is so different.

It doesn’t quite fit into any of the above categories, either. It falls somewhere between Colin Firth’s Mr. Darcy and Clueless. It’s traditional, but with a modern lens. It gives Austen’s original the slightest update to appeal to a contemporary audience. And I have no problem with it. Because, let’s be honest, classics can be kind of boring. Especially to people who don’t read them that often. So I actually kind of loved how this adaptation made the original content a little bit more entertaining and accessible to the masses. Because everyone should be able to appreciate Austen.

I think the fact that this one doesn’t perfectly land in a familiar category is making people a little uncomfortable. It’s also not so obviously unique that it’s easy to pinpoint why the immediate reaction of many people is an instant “nope”. People wouldn’t have a problem if it was another Clueless. Nor would they care this much if this was a word-for-word remake of the 2007 Sally Hawkins adaptation. Netflix just happened to pick the unheard of option C and take a different path.

change isn’t a bad thing

Of the many articles I’ve skimmed on this topic, I have realized there are two main (contradictory) complaints about this film. One, that it took too few risks in pushing the envelope. The other, that it’s not true enough to the original Austen. Which, lest we forget, is two-hundred and five this year. And since Persuasion was literally being written while the very first camera was being invented hundreds of miles away, I’m pretty sure Austen didn’t write it with the hopes of one day getting a movie deal.

Obviously, this movie was bound to disappoint someone no matter what it did. It could have been the next cult-classic teen movie, disappointing Jane Austen purists everywhere. Or it could have been yet another traditional adaptation few people would have been genuinely interested in watching. Because, let’s face it, as much as I love Jane Austen, I really don’t know very many other people who share that affinity.

Personally, I appreciated this film for being what it is. It takes the story into the twenty-first century without yanking it out of the nineteenth. It’s entertaining and lovely to look at (though not quite at the level of the cinematic masterpiece that is the 2003 Pride and Prejudice). It’s a new adaptation that doesn’t feel like yet another remake. On the other hand, it also doesn’t feel like it was meant to be a Hallmark original movie. It doesn’t quite feel like something I’ve already seen fifteen times. I think that’s why I liked it. And also why so many people didn’t.

it’s true to Austen… but not in the most expected way

If you have read Jane Austen and know much about the early nineteenth century, you might know that Jane Austen wasn’t the stodgy, bonnet-wearing, old-fashioned spinster she’s often imagined to be. If you look at her work in the context of the time she was living in, you’ll see that she was very much a feminist. And a lover of sarcasm. Exhibit A: “The most incomprehensible thing in the world to a man, is a woman who rejects his offer of marriage!” (from my least favorite of Austen’s novels, Emma).

Sure, the new adaptation isn’t an exact representation of the novel. Not only would that be insanely long, but it would also probably put most people to sleep, let’s be honest. What this adaptation does capture well, though, is the spirit of the novel. Honestly, I think it does a great job staying true to the tone and message of the novel. Sure, it eliminated some of the subtlety. But here’s the thing: people in 2022 don’t speak with the same subtlety that people did in 1817. So it wouldn’t come across quite the same way. Those changes made it easier for modern viewers to more accurately understand what Jane Austen meant by her original words.

I really think this adaptation did a pretty great job of bringing a two-hundred-year-old text to a contemporary audience. It’s faithful to the source material (for the most part), without either being basically a remake or too far of a departure from the original Austen. It toes that line well, and I think they pulled it off.

comparisons to other movies and tv shows?

There have been a lot of comparisons floating around when we’re talking about Persuasion. Two in particular, I have seen quite a bit: Fleabag and Bridgerton. And I think both of them are a little basic. For lack of a better word (probably because I’m too tired to be writing this right now). So let’s talk about them. And why I think they kind of miss the mark (and kind of annoy me).

Fleabag

As much as I adore Phoebe Waller-Bridge – and this show – she did not invent the idea of breaking the fourth wall. Speaking directly to the audience is not remotely new. The first instance of this on film came only one-hundred years after Persuasion was published, in 1918 with a film called Men Who Have Made Love to Me (I hadn’t heard of it, either). And it was much earlier when you consider theatre (I couldn’t find an exact instance, but it was sometime in the nineteenth century. And we all know of the classic 80s movie that may have been the first encounter with an actor breaking the fourth wall for many of us. Anyone? Anyone? (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. In case you didn’t get the reference there.)

Anyway, the simple fact that this adaptation of Persuasion has Anne Elliot breaking the fourth wall does not mean it’s copying Fleabag. Aside from the sarcasm, they don’t have very much in common at all. So I think this is kind of a cheap shot. If Fleabag had been the only film to ever have done this, sure. But it’s probably not even the most popular of the many movies and shows to have used this technique. Sure, it did remind me of Fleabag, but only because I am a pretty big fan and have seen it many times. But I didn’t sit there thinking “omg, they copied Fleabag to try and be cool!” Not buying into this one, sorry.

Bridgerton

The many (many) comparisons to Bridgerton that I have seen around the internet are, quite frankly, starting to irritate me. Because beyond the obvious “they’re both Netflix and set in Regency England” thing, which is a stretch, let’s be real, there is only one other thing they have in common: the cast is diverse. Not only is the cast diverse, but actors of color were hired to play originally white characters. Even more shocking, with the exception of a teensy mention in Bridgerton (I have only seen season one, so there may be more) it’s not even addressed! Gasp!

I’m about to say something possibly even more controversial than the fact that I liked the new Persuasion. If you have a problem with the fact that not all the actors are white, you might be racist. Because – and I say this as a white person – it’s about damn time. We can’t go back and get Jane Austen to write more diverse books. They are a product of their time, and it is what it is. But we can make movies like this one where diversity is (rightfully) represented in a way that reflects the real world. And doesn’t do so in a way that uses race or racial issues for the plot.

The fact that the two most popular examples of taking stories set in Regency England and hiring a cast that is not entirely white to bring them to the screen are drawing immediate comparisons… kind of makes me want to scream. It’s lazy. And kind of feels like system racism yet again rearing its ugly head. But for the most inconsequential reason. Henry Golding is a great Mr. Elliot and everyone needs to chill. They didn’t even go so far as to cast a non-white actor as either of the main love interests (which I would have loved to see). See? It’s not the same as Bridgerton at all if that’s the metric we’re using. I’m going to stop now because I literally almost hurt myself rolling my eyes so hard while writing that.

you don’t have to like it… but I think Jane Austen would

Is this my favorite Austen adaptation? No. I probably won’t watch this as many times as the Kiera Knightly Pride and Prejudice. (You want an extra spicy Austen take: Matthew McFayden is the best Darcy and no one can convince me otherwise.) But I’ve already watched it twice. And I’ll watch it again. It’s romantic and sarcastic and fun! Which, coincidentally, are the same three words I’d use to describe pretty much all of Austen’s work.

She was funny. Not in a twenty-first century sense, maybe, but for a woman in the early nineteenth century, she brought the snark. At least as much as she could while still getting published. She made her thoughts clear… to those intelligent and observant enough to see them. This film made it a little more obvious for a world that doesn’t read Pride and Prejudice fifteen times. And I have zero problem with that. Because movies aren’t meant to be consumed in the same was as classic literature.

After spending years immersed in her work and life (and yes I was a giant nerd in grad school), I think Austen would have really enjoyed this adaptation. It’s similar to what I feel she would have come up with had she written Persuasion now. And I really liked it.

I’d love to hear what you think! Have you watched the new Persuasion adaptation?

And check out my bookshop, where you can buy books and also shop my curated collections of my personal favorites AND all of the books I’ve read for my reading eperiments. Or you can just buy whatever books you want to. I get a small commission at no extra cost to you, and you get to support your choice of indie bookstores – it’s a win all around!

Click here if you want to check out my bookshop and support this blog!