"What did I just watch?" Is a comment you sometimes hear on YouTube. I interpret it as slightly more positive than "It was terrible and I hated it". The reviewer is signalling that though the film or TV programme they watched was complete rubbish, somehow they managed to get some enjoyment out of the sheer weirdness of the product on offer. I consider myself generous when I call the so-called adaptation of Jane Austen's Persuasion on Netflix a "What did I just watch?" kind of TV film. It was awful in so many ways. I could not in good conscience recommend it to anyone. And yet I did enjoy revelling in its bizarreness, in a way I wasn't able to do in the case of, say, Enola Holmes. It's just... so... what were they thinking?
I'll start out boringly by, in all fairness, listing a few positives:
1) At the beginning of the film, when Anne is pining for Wentworth, Lady Russell points out that if he cared about her so much, he could have got in touch with Anne after he became rich. If I remember rightly, this is briefly touched upon in the novel, but I don't think any of the other adaptations have brought it up. I've never thought about it because come on, would you really contact a woman who dumped you because you were poor and say "Hello again, I'm rich now?". But Wentworth knew that Anne wasn't a gold digger, and that the concerns about his lack of fortune were those of her friends and family, not Anne's own. Not looking her up does seem a little "weak and resentful".
2) The Musgrove girls, Louisa in particular, are less slappable than in other adaptations. Louisa doesn't unconsciously treat Anne like an old maid and considers the possibility that Wentworth might be a good match for her. She registers that there's something between them and, when she starts falling for Wentworth herself, more or less asks Anne's permission to proceed. Also, when Wentworth criticises Anne behind her back, Louisa stands up for her. It's not in the book, but I quite like this.
3) When Anne tells Wentworth shortly after his return that "I don't want you to be angry", he whips back "How would you like me to be?". Good point.
4) Captain Harville is sweet. Well, he always is, but I'm grateful this adaptation didn't ruin him. In this version of the story, he actually tries to fix Anne up with Captain Benwick. When Benwick falls for Louisa instead, Harville explains being down in the mouth about it (in spite of his own attempt at matchmaking) by not expecting his own reaction: Benwick's grief "kept my sister alive somehow". I can buy that.
5) Mr Elliot is a real charmer. The whole Mrs Smith subplot isn't brought up (and let's face it, it doesn't really work in an adaptation anyway), so his main fault is being mercenary, something he is upfront about. I enjoyed him running rings around the sadly wooden Wentworth when it came to verbal sparring. It also made a nice change that this version of the character actually marries Mrs Clay.
6) On the whole, the side characters are played well. Richard E. Grant plays Sir Walter with a touch of self-irony which is amusing.
There is no way, though, that these positives weigh up all the terrible stuff. There's the sheer cringiness of the winking allusions to modern mores ("A Five in London is a Ten in Bath"; "Hide my ledgers! I don't want anyone to assume my identity"; "Don't respond to anything he says... like a ghost"). Anne Elliot – Austen's most mature heroine, who suffers real anguish during the course of the novel – is depicted as a Bridget Jones-like singleton, smirkingly breaking the Fourth Wall, drinking red wine to drown her sorrows, sometimes mooning over Wentworth like a teenager and getting into embarrassing scrapes. Her (unshaven) Frederick does little except look troubled: the romance is far from compelling. Even if you ignore the references to modern dating, Louisa's courtship tips to Anne are inane, and why would Anne herself rudely blurt out during dinner that Charles Musgrove proposed to her first?
The worst thing about the film, though, is its open, knowing anachronisms. So why on earth didn't they set it in modern times and state that the story was inspired by Persuasion rather than an attempt at a direct adaptation? It would have solved many, if not all, of the film's problems. It could openly have poked fun at contemporary dating games etc. instead of making nonsensical allusions to them in what's supposed to be a historical setting. The diversity casting wouldn't have induced any head-scratching moments for the viewer, because uptown 21st century New York, for example, really is a melting pot, unlike Regency England.
The only answer I can think of is that the film's creators were beguiled by the trimmings of a romantic period drama – the pretty dresses, the coaches, the dancing – while not caring for the real historical context at all. And so, as they were going to ignore the times in which Jane Austen lived and worked anyway, they thought they might as well do it as openly and flauntingly as they could. The success of Bridgerton seems to have given people the idea that you can play fast and loose with Regency-set dramas as long as you deliver those pretty frocks. Well, I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with an Austen novel (it hardly works with Bridgerton in my personal opinion). Next time anyone wants to jazz up a Jane Austen plot, they would do well to go modern.
