I really do not understand why both 1995 and 2007 cut Mrs smith story. It is such an interesting story. Instead of 1995 being like: „Elliot is broke. He only wants to marry into your family because of your money“ (which doesn’t make any sense considering the high debt the family is in at that point) or 2007: „He only wants to marry into your family to make sure to become a Baronet. And he also flirted with Mrs Clay. Isn’t that horrible?“
No the true horror here is that Mr Elliot forced Mr Smith into poverty and death. Leaving an ill Mrs Smith behind, who has no money to get the medical care she needs. And people think that is a boring story to tell?
And instead tell the story of Elliot wanting a title (wow) or is in need of money (yawn)
I couldn't finish watching 2007 so I can't speak to that, but yes, it's always disappointed me in 2005. The equivalent would be skipping over Wickham's history with Georgiana, or Willoughby's with Brandon's ward, and just saying "well, they're insincere and fickle, their interest in you/your sister is selfish, and their finances are in a bad state, you can't trust them".
And the reason that I would particularly like to hear to hear that whole backstory in Persuasion is precisely the fact that, while WIlloughby's and Wickham's past sins are sexual/seductive in nature, Elliot's is not. There's nothing warm or impulsive about it, he didn't make mistakes: it was cold and calculating and deliberate and cruel, every step of the way. And it wasn't for love, or even lust. It was for money and, presumably, the cool pleasure of having this power over somebody else's life and then being able to discard them when you're done.
It isn't as dramatic or easily reduced to a few sentences of 'and then he ran away with her', a gasp and a shocked reaction. It takes some time to explain the actions and to convey the heartlessness and horror. Perhaps that's part of why neither of the previous adaptations took the time to do it: maybe if either of them had been a miniseries, like my favourite adaptations of each of P&P, Emma, and S&S.
But I think leaving it out, as you say, leaves the Big Villain Reveal as... rather a non-event. It's a bit boring and it feels like he's just a bit greedy, rather than (in my opinion) worse than Wickham, or Willoughby, or the Crawfords (and certainly worse than silly little John Thorpe). It also cuts out the thread of 'persuasion' (friend misleading friend, not out of good intentions but maliciously) which ties it to the novel's theme and Anne's character development, and so her change of heart is disconnected from it.
Perhaps it gets downplayed too because this is one case where the heroine or her sister isn't in love with the villain, so the reveal doesn't have so strong an effect on the narrative: Anne wasn't going to love Elliot either way and was unlikely by this stage to agree to marry him. The main effect it has on the plot is to confirm the way she was already thinking and feeling—about Elliot, about persuasion, and about separating her own judgement from that of Lady Russell—and... well, I can see how, when it comes to writing a film script and trying to fit it all into two hours, one might decide to simplify it to just 'oh, btw, he's selfish and insincere'.
I can understand it, but that doesn't mean I like it. Let Mrs Smith speak!
