Part I: I DIDN’T HATE THE DAKOTA JOHNSON PERSUSASION (2022)
There. I said it.
Do I think that a narrator who drinks herself numb and talks to the camera Fleabag-style; comments like “It is said if you’re a five in London, you’re a ten in Bath” (as if Bath is the equivalent of 21st-century Los Angeles); and “colorblind” casting (don’t get me started) are all things that Jane Austen would watch and say: Yes! This is a marvelous representation of my heroine and the social commentary I put on the page!
No, of course not.
But I still find the 2022 version delightful. It’s a melodrama, a version of the story dialed up on all the most mundane things. The longing is tempered by irony; the wretchedness overcompensated for with shorthand for a “pick me girl.” Nonetheless, it manages to work in such lovely moments, and it’s quite a beautiful experience, too. (The muzh and I joked about the citizens of Lyme and historical Bath looking out their window, seeing a camera crew and going: “Great. Another Jane Austen adaptation.”)
I say this as someone who lists the Sally Hawkins Persuasion (2007) – which handled the problem of an Austen narrator by having her write in a diary, with occasional coy glances at the camera – among my favorite films:
Period films do not need to accurately represent the period they’re depicting.
Part II: Adaptation vs. Interpretation
Most period films are adaptations, and every adaptation is an interpretation.
Any movie/TV show/stage play based on written material needs to change aspects of the story to adjust to the medium. (Unless we’re talking about a BBC production where they’re literally reciting the dialogue from the book. Or Taffy Brodesser-Akner adapting her own book for Hulu.)
When a book is turned into a movie, every creative choice a director makes either follows the author’s original intentions or subverts them. The director’s own intentions may be in line with the author’s, but speaking as a writer who came up in the era of close reading – WE DON’T CARE. Save your authorial intent arguments: all that matters is what’s in the material itself.
There is no neutral ground when a story moves from one medium to the next, and each medium requires a deep understanding of the nuances specific to it. Understanding why a particular medium is best for a particular story is crucial to its telling.
Part III: Period Pieces Are Better When They Reflect The Time In Which They’re Made
When you think of Grease (1978), do you think of it as a period film from the ’50s? No, it’s a movie made in the ’70s about the ’50s.
What about Dangerous Liaisons (1988)? Are we going to pretend this isn’t ’80s makeup cosplaying as 18th century?
But that’s the whole beauty of it! I love seeing the stamp of the era a film is made in. There’s so much pressure to become the DEFINITIVE VERSION of whatever ancient story we’ve been telling over and over again, but there’s something so lovely about having a feel for the time period it was made in.
Some movies embrace anachronisms, usually for comedic effect – Shakespeare In Love (1998) with a therapist’s hourglass telling Will his hour is up; Ella Enchanted (2004) with the manually cranked escalator at a medieval mall; basically all of Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993). It signals to the viewer not to take it too seriously, to have a bit of fun.
When a period film insists upon itself, it CAN feel like whatever we consider “definitive.” In my opinion, that’s for the benefit of people who don’t feel like reading the source material. OF COURSE you want something as close to the page as possible – you’ve never seen the page! What are you, a high schooler trying to get out of doing your homework?
If I’ve read a book and the adaptation closely hews to the same beats, I end up fast forwarding through half the scenes. An adaptation that doesn’t realize when it’s uselessly droning is not doing its job!!
Maybe I’ve just seen too many movies.
Maybe I’ve seen so many goddamn movies that it’s not enough for an adaptation to just tell a story, the way its source material told a story. I need it to say something about the story.
Tell me something new. You don’t have to wink at me, you don’t have to be ironic. But I need you to say SOMETHING.
That scene in Emma. (2020) where Emma (Anya Taylor-Joy) comes to the boarding house to visit Harriet (Mia Goth) and all the boarders go into a tizzy because Emma Woodhouse is blessing them with her presence? What an ingenious way to deepen the source material!
All the pornographic Edwardian shows with their 2000s fashion and soundtracks and lingo? Why not!
The Favourite (2018) reading a postmodern feminist fantasy into 1700s British court, like some exegetic Midrashic reading? Brilliant!
Personally, I love the idea of a high school student in the year 2060 learning Persuasion, trying to circumvent reading the actual thing by watching five different movies instead, coming to the 2022 version, and just being like, Man, the 2020s were a weird time for humanity.
Omg yes!! This is why I roll my eyes into the back of my head whenever someone argues that period films that are otherwise full of anachronisms must only cast white actors and reflect dated gender norms. In the words of Harrison Ford, “Hey kid, it ain't that kind of movie.” (Unless, of course, it is the equivalent of the BBC Austen films, which are great too!)