Curtesy of being an English major, I’ve just completed Jane Austen’s Persuasion and felt curious to see the 2022 film adaption. Verdict? Hmm, chick-flick worthy without a doubt. We all love a good fourth-wall breaking, so check for cinematography. A++ for the set design, I’d also have a hard time leaving Kellynch Hall. The costume design is lovely and a job well done to the hair and make-up team.
But… I just have one or two serious issues with this movie.
Anne Elliot? Are you sure that’s her?
Bare with me but I need this vent. Austen is surely known for crafting heroines that are witty, blunt, precocious and having progressive values in the Victorian society. Anne, however intelligent, is a graceful, quiet character. She is hardly scathing, nor sarcastic and she is DEFINITELY NOT an alcoholic. The reason this shady interpretation vexed me is that I do not see what place it has in this narrative. Is it to appeal to a 21st century audience who are more prone to find answers at the bottom of a bottle? Forgive me for sounding like a moralist but what message does this send out. In fact, it alters Anne’s character completely and this is already done quite drastically without the liquor nuances. ‘URGH LOVE ME, YOU IDIOT!’ is what she screams in a pillow. Look, I get that in a more realistic sense that’s probably how she felt. Unfortunately, it removes the calm, mature stoicism and puts in place a girl that has in fact, not let the eight years mature her but rather act impulsively and…humiliatingly. That is simply not the Anne I read nor wanted to see. I wanted to see the Anne that fought quiet battles, who faced a more inward isolation rather than an over-theatrical portrayal of one.
Artistic License going too far?
Any artist has their license. What is the point of art if it can’t transcend boundaries. However, as a driver has the responsibility to respect the rules of the road, don’t artists have similar responsibilities?
I believe that if a writer wishes to portray a historical time, then they have the duty to do it accurately. Imagination still plays its part, but imagination can still be informed intellectually. Yes, seeing more black faces in mainstream media is what we want and need in society. But don’t we want something more authentic? Shouldn’t we elevate from plopping black characters in stories that don’t belong to them, to telling their own stories? Representation is important but it only has short-term value if it’s done to tick boxes.
Agenda or Authenticity?
‘Race shouldn’t even matter,’ one may say. Well…it certainly shouldn’t but it clearly does. Or else why isn’t Anne Elliot black? Would it just be too weird? Take The Little Mermaid (2023). The uproar was centred around the concern that it was agenda. This is because agenda can take away more than it gives. But while it was jarring at first, that the quintessentially pale skinned mermaid turned out to be a dreadlocked black girl, it takes just a step back and an understanding of the story to see that this casting actually makes sense. Ariel’s principle trait is her voice, red hair and gentle nature. All traits that Halle Bailey (to-date) has and/or can emulate. The director of the film, Rob Marshal even states, “That voice is something that is so signature and so ethereal and so beautiful that it captures the heart of Eric, and he looks for her for the entire film…” Click to view full article. He states that there was no agenda in casting Halle Bailey (read further to see that this was not the case for Carrie Cracknell, director of the 2022 adaption of Persuasion)
However most importantly, this story is not a reflection of society but a fantastical story. Ariel is a mermaid. Anne Elliot is a realistic representation of her society and what’s more Lady Russell is a figure in the novel who upholds that society by persuading her to marry for class and rank instead of love.
Who cares? All the main themes are explored, anyway.
Granted. But I see a contradiction here. Mrs Russell persuades Anne to not choose Wentworth because he had no rank attached to his name, refusing to have hope in the potential of class mobility. Yet how on earth did a person of unmissable African descent find their way so high up in 18th century British society without moving herself up the ranks? And fine, if race isn’t a concern then why go to the lengths of being so accurate in making sure the children are appropriately mixed-race. I appreciated this, don’t get me wrong, but if it’s to paint a more realistic image, then why not do it in entirety? Why not set it in the 21st century where it makes more authentic sense? Because is this to show common Victorian society? Or a marginalised society? Cause, yes, mixed race and black people certainly existed at that time. Its just very rare that they were making Musgrove kind of moves.
The Plight of Black and Mixed Race People
Yes. I see the dilemma: Lukanyo, we are tired of only being part of struggle stories, why can’t we be a part of what we learn so much of in school? Trust me, I get it. Why can’t we also bask in the world of detailed embroidery, ballgowns and bonnets? But do you see a problem here? The idea that to thrive in western culture is to reach the pinnacle of life. What do we know about our own historical accomplishments. And I mean BEFORE colonial times.
I can’t buy the excuse that, ‘there isn’t enough written about it to build a story.’ How about instead of using artist license to inaccurately portray a time in history, you use that artistry to build narratives that yearn to be retold. Because the fact is this that no matter how many black faces you put in Western Classics, it will still leave little girls holding Western values above all else. It is not to say one is better than the other, but it’s to say that one still gets devalued or lost in the mix.
Sounding a little Hypocritical…
It’s a valid opinion. I worry about this often. I mean, I love classical music. Most writers I read are from the West. I adore 19th century European fashion. I, too, dream of balls and long for long curly hair tied up in pins and bows. These are tastes that were shaped by my upbringing, by the stories and movies I’ve read and watched. This is a beautiful society despite its flaws, I can never take that away. But I see how I need to hold where I come from to an equal appraisal. Note—I did not say more, but equal. This is not a competition, it is a matter of interrogating my identity, how I look at myself, learning to love my ancestry and what I represent.
To be A Little More Fair
It wouldn’t be right for me to not delve a little more into the director’s intentions. Carrie Cracknell does state that this is aimed to be a ‘modern-media’ twist on the novel. She also states that her casting was intentional. Representation. Agenda. (Click here to view article) It’s noble, sure. But it’s superficial too. Isn’t it more powerful to see similarities in people that are different to us? To find connections in worlds that seem far from ours? I just don’t think an accurate casting would have taken away from that experience.
Ultimately…
This is a culturally-hybrid world. I get that. I just believe it’s important to see when a cultural hegemony is still prevailing even as it aligns itself with ‘inclusion.’ No. Inclusion is not just in the faces. It’s in the stories. And if you feel there aren’t enough stories to represent a marginalised people. Get a pen and write them.
I’d love to hear what you think. Comment down below!
Do you think the movie is a just adaption of Jane Austen?
Do you think progressive or regressive steps were made in this adaption?
How do you feel about the casting?