Film Adaptations - Mansfield Park

Discuss & compare the film adaptations of this novel.

Hey Fanny, I got your message on the persuasion thread. I guess for me, I did not really like Mansfield Park as a book. OK maybe I am saying it incorrectly, I didn't hate it but I was not so so impressed. It wasn't until I saw the Frances O'Connor version that I began to see its merits. I have the boxed set of all of Austen's works that were made in the 70s(or is it early 80s). Boy, those movies are tedious. I feel like I wasted my money. There was no effort made to really do justice to these masterpieces. I feel like the producers and directors were just happy to have the characters read the words verbatim and no real effort was made to the sets, costumes and general scenery. I mean how can you make a Pride and Prejudice without having Lizzy go on her many walks. These Austen movies were basically plays filmed and put on tape. Anyway I say all this to say that to me that version of Mansfield park was dreadful. Yes it was accurate to the script but half way into it, I did not care. By the way Fanny, is there another version of Mansfield Park that you have seen? I would love to see another version.

In a different thread, TrishNYC said that she thought everyone seemed to hate the 1999 adaptation of MP directed by Patricia Rozema. This got me thinking that I actually don't hate this movie as a movie in itself or even as an adaptation of MP.

As an adaptation of MP I am profoundly ambivalent towards it - there are many changes from the novel that I did not like, but there are also many changes from the novel that I thought brought forward interesting subtexts - particularly the way Rozema played up the connection between the Bertram's wealth and slavery and between their moral decay and their participation in institution of slavery and its treatment of people as property, especially as sexual property. And I liked how the connection between the larger institution of slavery and Fanny as sort of a prisoner of MP was highlighted.

The thing that really irritated me though was that Fanny in the film was drawn exactly counter to the spirit of Fanny in the novel. O'Connor's Fanny is a woman of action and initiative - she knows what she wants and she goes after it. Austen's Fanny is precisely the opposite - she is uncertain and achieves victory basically by doing nothing. She simply sits and waits for the truth to shake itself out and people's true intentions to be revealed. Reading Austen's novel, I got the feeling that if Mary and Henry Crawford had been a little more cautious and a little craftier, everything would have worked out according to their designs.

I did like the fact that the film's Fanny went further in trusting Henry Crawford, accepting his proposal and the sincerity of his intentions, which I do not believe she ever did in the novel. I thought this played up both the seductiveness of the Crawfords - in the novel, both Fanny and Edmund are drawn to the siblings, against their better judgment - and Fanny's desperation to escape both her birth family and her adopted family.

As just any old movie, I actually really enjoyed Rozema's MP. I loved Frances O'Connor - she was interesting, witty, and adventurous. Johnny Lee Miller managed to make dull old Edmund Bertram attractive! But I don't think of either of them as being faithful to the spirit of their textual counterparts.

I also wonder why Rozema chose to conflate Fanny and Jane Austen herself. Other than letters, Fanny is not a writer and she certainly does not display the excess of imagination that one sees in the film. So much effort is expended to make Fanny a likeable and "interesting" character - clearly the director thought that Fanny, as written in the novel, would not appeal to modern audiences. And I think this is an accurate assessment, given the fact that so many modern readers find Fanny at least a little annoying or distasteful.

I've not seen other MP adaptations and am looking forward to Jan 2008, when PBS starts broadcasting the new ITV adaptations, even though I don't know how I feel about Billie Piper as Fanny.

>2 TrishNYC:, Hey TrishNYC, it looks like we were posting at the same time! :)

I've only seen the 1999 adaptation - I confess that I look at the covers of the older (1970s and 1980s era) adaptations and I get depressed. I know I shouldn't judge a film by its cover, but they just look boring!

MP is one of my favorite JA novels (kinda obvious, right?) simply because it is so interesting to analyze and seems to bring up many more social/political ideas than her earlier works (which are certainly not themselves devoid of social commentary). I like it because it is so problematic and different from all her other works.

I don't like either of the adaptations I've seen - one was a painful photocopy of the book and the other one went dramatically off the the plot.

Billie Piper? For real? Well, if they think Keira Knightley is Elizabeth Bennett..

>5 PensiveCat:, Heh....

I was so glad when Billie Piper left Dr. Who and they replaced her with Freema Agyeman. I liked the character and the actress so much better.

Although Billie Piper is one of the main problems with ITV's version of Mansfield Park - she's just too modern - she was the star of the first series of the revived Dr Who. At least she could act, Christopher Eccleston can only do intense - even when he's been asked to do comedy he still does intense. (Freema Agyeman was, allegedly, removed from her role because the BBC didn't think she was good enough).

MP is a difficult piece to adapt as it doesn't have a strong central character that the film can focus on. The solution that film-makers take is simple - change the character of Fanny but in changing Fanny they alter the whole dynamic of the original work.

I can't help thinking that Rozema did some background reading to research the novel and ended up preferring the research - the slave idea from Edmund Said, traits of the gothic novel, etc.

Hey fannyprice(LOL!! I just realized that you have the same name as MP's heroine). But in reading your assessments of the book and the '99 movie, I have to say I agree with many of the things that you said. In the movie, Fanny is much more outspoken which is a far cry from the book where she is pretty much timid from start to finish and you are right too that Edmund was no Darcy and was quite frankly dull. I guess that for me since I did not love the book, when I saw the movie and saw the life that was breathed into it, I was really impressed. And your assessment got me thinking too that if they had taken certain liberties kinds of liberties with P&P, I probably would have hunted them down and run them over with a horse :).

As for Billy Piper as Fanny, while I did not hate her, I did not love her either. I was more than ambivalent toward her. I really can't put my finger on it and I hate to make a criticism without providing concrete evidence but there was something about her as Fanny that did not work for me. Many have complained that the ITV movies have a rushed feel to them and with MP you really feel it. It was okay but lets just say I will probably only watch it once in awhile as opposed to my other Austen movies which I watch all the time. But reading your review of MP(the book) really inspires me to break out my copy and give it another read. Maybe I will like it better. I think that I really missed some of the social commentary contained in it because I was so not inspired by the rest of the book. I have to say that you are the first person that I have met who liked Mansfield Park. I like that, as everyone else I know likes the more obvious Austen works(not that there is anything wrong with that).

Oh don't get me wrong - I like the obvious ones too! P&P is delightful and I could watch Colin Firth play Mr. Darcy all day long!

I -know- I've seen one version of Mansfield Park, but I don't remember which; I remember finding it "amusing enough", but - as I generally do - thought the novel was much better.

- But then again, I am fairly ambivalent towards film adaptations of Austen; they all are missing something, I feel. Generally speaking, once you have read one Austen novel, you have the blueprint to how all of her novels are constructed; you know which characters will have pleasant endings and which characters will have less than pleasant endings, you know who Austen herself approves of, and so forth. I think -most- of us would agree that the reason we read Austen is that she is -supremely- witty, and while she can certainly pen clever dialogue, it is in her narrative where her wit truly shines.

I've not watched all that many film adaptations of Austen, but I feel that there is something irreplaceable about "Austen's voice" as narrator. Having that voice directing a film adaptation would -definately- compel me to watch it.

I very much disliked the Rozema MP. I did not like the changes to Fanny's character — why must the lead female always be this cookiecutter "spirited" girl? — and I found the insertion of colonial slavery criticism totally out of place and unnecessary. That kind of out-and-out ugliness does NOT belong in a Jane Austen adaptation.

While I admit I didn't fall in love with Mansfield Park (the Rozema version) when I saw it, I can say that it has grown on me a little over time. I do think she properly caught the themes of Mansfield Park even though the presentation of Fanny varies so greatly from the character created by Austen.

The novel presents some fairly high barriers to modern sensibilities so I was grateful that anyone even made the attempt. On the other hand, the old BBC adaptation did portray Fanny as written by Austen. The actress (whose name eludes me at the moment) was appropriately dull in appearance and I liked the faithfulness of that adaptation. But as someone else noted above, it wasn't particularly compelling viewing although it is hard to judge whether that was the fault of the adaptation, the producers or the original material.

Mansfield Park is in fact one of my favorite Austen novels (Sense and Sensibility is the other one) but I freely confess that it took me three or four readings before I felt I fully grasped *what* Austen was trying to convey. I may now understand who she meant Fanny to be, but I can still remember that initially I was put off by Fanny's virtue.

The next PBS/Masterpiece Theatre Jane Austen movie is Mansfield Park. They showed a quick preview of it after Northanger Abbey on Sunday night. I loved the book when I studied it at university, but I have my doubts about this film version--from what I saw, Fanny Price had bleached blonde hair in a sort of 70s-Stevie Nicks style. I hope that the snippet was just too short and I AM VERY WRONG. Please, please, let me be wrong.

Now, I wasn't around in the '70's, but it appears you're right -- Amazon page.

See Fanny! See Fanny pout!

;-)

Yeah... the actress doesn't look the part at all. I have never seen her in anything else so I don't know what kind of talent she has. Maybe she's really great in the role... I just hope they don't make her a sassy heroine like in the Rozema version.

That's Billie Piper - she was on a couple series of Doctor Who, and I have serious doubts about her casting in this version of Mansfield Park. She was okay in Dr. Who, but fairly one-note, and that one note does not mesh with period drama, at least, not that I can imagine! Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised, but I have my doubts.

Interesting discussion by the way. And oh dear - I don't have a television so I haven't been keeping up with the latest costume dramas but oh dear! Billie Piper as Fanny Price? No, no, no, no, no... Still, I suppose I shouldn't be judgemental.

I'm afraid I didn't like the Rozema Mansfield Park. I know I say this all the time in a 'doth protest too much' kind of way but I believe adaptations should be re-imaginings and re-interpretations of the text not merely a transfer from one medium to another etc. etc. However, the Rozema Mansfield Park was so *very* different from the original that, to be me at least, it *wasn't* Mansfield Park.

I find it a difficult book to get on with; it's values are not our values. It's hard to warm to passive, self-effacing, modest Fanny Price but I think that might almost be part of the point? But the fact that they elbowed "issues" into it and spunkified poor Fanny - it just seemed to say that they had made no attempt to deal with what the novel is actually about and, instead, attempted to produce something that they though the public would be able to respond to.

It's not a bad film per se, it's just not Mansfield Park.

mrkgnao, I ditto your post above wholeheartedly (except I have never seen Billie Piper act).

Spunkify... nice one :-)

Billie Piper is a, surprisingly, decent actress but she doesn't belong in a JA adaptation. When MP was first shown in the UK it was slaughtered by the critics, and the viewers weren't far behind. The problem is that ITV can't do costume drama in the same way as the BBC - their audience is different, which means they aim at a more 'populist' level. For the BBC, a costume drama is a prestige production - they are the kind of productions that are used for the defence when talks about the licence fee take place. (For non-UK residents - every household in the UK pays for an annual tv licence, roughly £135/$270, and this money funds the whole of the BBC).

May I quote you on another forum (www.NarniaWeb.com), jargoneer? With credit, of course. I did not know about the different audiences for ITV and BBC. The thread I'd like to quote you in is here: http://www.narniaweb.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17551&SCRN=0&PN=1&amp.... Or you can join up and post it yourself! :-)

>21 atimco: - no problem, quote away

Thanks :-)

I have never had the patience to watch the whole Mansfield Park film of 1999. Too frivolous, too happy. In my opinion, it was a completely wrong decision to make Jane Austen the main character in the film, disguised as Fanny.

I love the book. In fact, I think it's the best book Jane Austen has written. The loneliness and distance between Fanny and the other characters, I can just feel it when I read the book.

Reminder: Mansfield Park is on PBS's Masterpiece Theater tonight.

Is it aweful that I almost hope it is bad? Persuasion was so much more fun to talk about than the much better Northanger Abbey. I guess this way I will be happy if it is good and happy if we get to trash it :)

It's on right now and I like it. Got to go, the father just came home.

I'm afraid I didn't think much of this version, for the reasons mentioned above by others.

But for me, what did make it watchable was Douglas Hodge's nuanced performance as Sir Thomas Bertram. He brought a humanity and complexity to the role that was an absolute delight.

agree with mess 27. The father brought complexity alive with his performance. As for the rest, best to stick with the book.

I thought the dapple grey horse that Fanny rode was perfect for the part. . . . as for the rest of the cast, they looked like 21st century people playing dress-up. I was distracted throughout the movie by the vision of the whole lot of them taking off their period costume at the end of each day and putting on jeans and leather jackets and heading out for a night on the town. I also did not realize that collagen lips were in style in the early 1800s.

As for the good parts (other than that lovely grey horse), I still enjoyed looking at the gorgeous sets, and analyzing the costumes was fun too.

So here's a question: if most film versions of 19th century literature disappoint its followers and fans, should film makers stop trying? What if filmmakers were to read all these posts and throw up their hands and say "we try and try, but we can't please this crowd. We're quiting. Let's make action movies." . . . would you be glad? Or do you think they should continue trying?

I think they should keep trying, personally. I don't think last night's version of Mansfield Park was outstanding, but it showed a certain amount of attention given to the theme of MP and the next party to take a whack at it might be better.

The Fanny portrayed was far too energetic to match with my understanding of the character, but I thought the Crawfords were fairly well-handled. (Although I snickered at the truth of Nickelini's comment about collagen lips....)

We taped it and will probably watch it tonight. From all your comments (and I trust most of you because our opinions have coincided on so many points before), it sounds pretty forgettable. We'll see.

I think filmmakers should keep trying, on the off chance that one of them might actually consult the true fans and get it right (!gasp!). Also, even if the adaptations are terrible, they do spark some people to get the books and read them... and that can't be a bad thing.

Collagen lips... *giggles*

I know, wisewoman, wouldn't it be nice if the directors/producers/screenplay writers, etc. look at what the fans have placed on THE pedestal (ie, 1995's P&P) and base their adaptations on that? Just think how lovely it would be to have full versions of all of JA's books - cutting out, of course, some of the tedium as long as it didn't damage the story.

I didn't find this version of Mansfield Park necessarily bad. I liked it better than the previous version (when did that come out, the 90's or later?). But, I agree that the actress playing Fanny was all wrong. But, then, since I don't really love the book, it's hard to really like any of the movies. I mean, really, how enthusiastic can you get when the romance is between 2 first cousins? I know that was something done in the past but.....eeeeew.

Seriously, the best Jane Austen adaptations were in the mid 90s (the Mansfield Park was in the late 90s). I don't know why they need to mess with Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice, or Sense and Sensibility. Northanger Abbey, okay, and after the 99 Mansfield Park travesty, almost anything is better.

And yes, the first cousin romance is a little cringy - thankfully they looked nothing alike.

as for the rest of the cast, they looked like 21st century people playing dress-up. (#29)

No kidding! To me, Fanny's too-short hair stuck out as a blatant anachronism for no apparent reason. I'm sure their hairdressing department could have come up with something.

Otherwise, I'd call it a decent, if forgettable, move. I haven't read the book yet, though, so I can't comment on how well they stuck to Austen's novel.

It has been a few years since I have read the book, but did they skip out on part of the book where Fanny goes and visits her family? I kept waiting for her to go visit them, and it never came.

This version was ok, but not great. Why do these newer versions have the leading ladies running around all over the place?

# 35 - It has been a few years since I have read the book, but did they skip out on part of the book where Fanny goes and visits her family? I kept waiting for her to go visit them, and it never came.
-------------------

Yes, I was waiting for that part too.

I like an hour and a half movie, and I don't mind if they conflate scenes (if done well). But I was looking forward to seeing her with her (nightmare) family.

One thing I did like about the movie was how it made me think differently about Henry Crawford. In the book I saw him only as a cad, but in this version I could see why what he offered could be attractive (even though I still knew he was a cad).

And I agree on the whole cousins thing. Yes, I know it didn't raise any eyebrows, but . . . ick.

#35 and #36 - I missed Plymouth too! What was the point of leaving Fanny alone at Mansfield Park instead of with her family in Plymouth? She needs to go to Plymouth to realize how much she misses it and how much she doesn't fit in with her family in Plymouth. How she has become accustomed to life at MP. And what's the point of Henry coming to see her at Mansfield? The whole point in the book was the fact he came and saw the embarrasing squalor of Plymouth and her real family and still wanted to marry her!

Anyone unfamiliar with this story would have no idea of what Fanny's family in Plymouth is really like! William is certainly no indication! (he was just about the only one in the movie I actually liked - at least they had him in this movie!) For Fanny to turn down Henry and keep to that decision after living again in Plymouth, in the dirt and squalor underscores how strongly she felt in her opinions about Henry and her undying love and hope that Edmund might come around someday, or if he never does, she'll have no one if she can't have him. We got none of that in this movie. She only came across as looking the way Sir Thomas saw her, as peculiar and selfish in her stubborness.

Overall, I liked it. Once I got over Billie Piper as Fanny and her hair* I was able to enjoy the movie. I also missed the part where she went home. Again, everything seemed rushed. Why not make it a two hour show? I also felt that the cruelty of Mrs. Norris really never showed through. I actually missed that. I never felt that Fanny really suffered. She seemed to be having to much fun :) Why does this production company feel that they have to end shows with a waltz? Was there even waltzing back then? I do have to say that this is infinately better than the 1999 version, which I really hated. I don't think I am going to buy it though.

*It was unseasonalbly warm here today and I walked my dog without a hat. I have curly hair and it was windy. My bangs kept blowing in my eyes and it kept reminding me of Fanny in the movie.

I knew last night's showing would be discussed. I thought it was ok. Definitely alterations from the book.

I do mind when the story is changed as much as in these films. But the silver lining that may come out of this is that some new people may actually pick up a Jane Austen novel and read it! So for all the " she must be turning over in her grave" that I have been reading over the movies, she may just like that her books are still being read today.

Just a couple of quick points -

The reason it is not two hours long is because ITV, a commerical channel, made it. Therefore, once ad breaks are taken into account the film takes up a 2 hour slot. It could be argued that the film is extended by another hour and shown in two slots but ITV think their audience is too stupid to follow this so they wouldn't do it. (I'm not joking!).

For those of you who don't know, Billie Piper was a teenage pop star who went off the rails a little, found her career ruined, and successfully re-launched herself as an actress. (So there may be hope for Britney yet!). It is unfair to blame her lips on collagen, they were that size when she first appeared at 15. If you look closely at Ms Piper you will notice that individually all her features are too large, and you will then ponder this question - with features that large why isn't her head the size of an Easter Island statue?

My main objection to Billie Piper was that she didn't look frail enough to be Fanny. She just looked to be in too robust a state of health; my reading of the book suggests that Fanny is small and delicate. Piper didn't strike me as the right physical type.

And I think there were some other players with collogen lips, but I won't be sure until I watch it a second time next Sunday afternoon (when it gets rebroadcast in my viewing area.)

And I think there were some other players with collogen lips, but I won't be sure until I watch it a second time next Sunday afternoon (when it gets rebroadcast in my viewing area.)
------------

Yes, there were--that's why I made the original comment. Can't remember who though. After all, it's been 18 hours, and I can't even remember what I had for lunch :-)

#38 - I also felt that the cruelty of Mrs. Norris really never showed through. I actually missed that. I never felt that Fanny really suffered. She seemed to be having to much fun :) Why does this production company feel that they have to end shows with a waltz? Was there even waltzing back then?

-------------

Yes! I had meant to say that too. Mrs. Norris was way too subdued and almost nice. You don't see the horridness that Fanny had to live with.

I also wondered about the waltzing, but I really don't know . . . hold on, flipped over to Wikipedia there for a sec . . . apparently the waltz became fashionable in Vienna in the 1780s, so it is possible. It struck me as odd though.

I read The Annotated Pride and Prejudice last year. I think one of the annotations said that waltzes were just beginning to be fashionable at English balls (though they had been reasonably popular for playing simply as music for a while now).

Looking at Fanny's loosely hanging hair, the only possible justification I could think of (that is in character with the story) is that it made her look childlike. It was tied back - a little - after she "came out" on her birthday. Until then, she looked like a young child and, most of the time, was actually seen behaving like one (giggling, playing tag, pouting, etc.). Small wonder that Edmund-in-the-film had never dreamed of fancying her.

I don't think they should have infantilized Fanny to indicate her innocence; but if you think of Billie Piper's very adult facial features (and permanently "knowing" expression), now I'm wondering whether the filmmakers had that many other choices.

This seemed like a decent interpretation to me, and I liked Billie Piper more than I thought I would. She wasn't what I'd pictured for Fanny, either, but I liked that the sort of beauty she possessed was so different from that of the sisters. Compared to everyone around her, with their classical looks and refined dress, she really did appear ungainly, out of place.

Hey, wasn't Miss Lips also the Bionic Woman?

Of anything Austen wrote, Mansfield Park seems most unsuited to a film adaptation. In what other genre would fans complain that their heroine seemed too lively? While I agree that Fanny should've gotten to go home, the filmmakers otherwise did a fairly amazing job of bringing to life a book that is vehemently not about what is visual or on the surface for its characters. A film can doggedly re-enact every scene in a novel and still miss its point, its moral center. Fanny is the antithesis of the movie heroine; almost all of her struggle is internal. (At least, that's how I'm remembering the book, which I haven't read in about 7 years.) Which is why filmmakers long to change Austen's books up so much; by their very nature, they are different kinds of storytellers from Austen. I'd say that's especially true in MP, and I'm mainly just surprised they didn't take the very visual opportunity of Fanny with her family to show how she has changed and what her values are.

Okay, I am soooo frustrated. I can't get involved in any of these discussions!! Our PBS is taped and aired about two weeks late. Sunday night, according to the guide, was supposed to be Persuasion. No such luck. Some other show was on. I'm praying its just off another week off and I can see it next week, but that means I'm like three weeks off the discussions. grrrrrrr

I haven't been able to watch it yet either, hsmom. (Hey, I was homeschooled, by the way! :-).) I hope to watch it tonight.

Please forgive the doublepost. We watched MP last night.

Before I criticize, I will say that I enjoyed it much more than I expected to. Certain parts were cast spot-on, and the acting throughout was pretty good. However... and you knew that was coming... there were some serious flaws. It was such a mixed bag I can't divide my comments into "good" and "bad" categories.

• Blake Ritson was very good! Did he remind anyone else of Adrien Brody? He played his part well, I thought. I did like the moment when Edmund finally — finally! — sees Fanny as a woman. That was well-done.

• Billie Piper did better in the role of Fanny than I would have thought, but nothing can change the fact that she is too distinctively pretty, too distinctive-looking at all, to play the retiring wallflower Fanny. I would never have pictured Fanny as a brassy blonde.

Also, Fanny in the book is supposed to have delicate health — and this version of Fanny had her nearly bursting with health and good looks. In the book, it's clear that Fanny suffered as the poor dependent relation in the household. In this movie, all she did was ride horses, run around, and laugh the whole time. There was nothing of the constant petty humiliations, the reminders (by Aunt Norris, that is) of her dependent state, and the thoughtlessness of Lady Bertram toward Fanny. All of that is pleasantly erased, and we lose that whole aspect of Fanny's character. As someone observed above, all Fanny did was have fun. Very poorly written part.

Not to mention her hair! Very pretty, of course, but a terribly anachronistic style for a period piece. Fanny would not have had such short hair — and I don't think she would have worn it loose and flowing all the time like that (though I could be wrong here). I think other people here have noted that as well.

• As I said above, Fanny is actually supposed to suffer. Aunt Norris is a shrewish, selfish woman in the book, and her constant little digs and favoritism in favor of Fanny's cousins rankle in sensitive Fanny's soul. None of that was in this version... Aunt Norris is just sort of there.

• Sir Thomas was far, far too young to have four adult children, and his temper was so irascible. The Sir Thomas of the book is certainly a repressive influence on his family, but he never snarled. He never browbeat Fanny cruelly til she wept. He tried to convince her, of course, but he was a gentleman. I didn't care for this actor's portrayal at all. Though there was one line of Sir Thomas' that was perfect... when he said his daughter Maria was "not good, merely good-mannered." A ringing condemnation, and very just.

• They did not emphasize Lady Bertram's laziness enough. She is supposed to be the most indolent of women.

• The Crawfords were well-played. But I didn't think we got to see enough of Edmund and Miss Crawford together, to explain his fascination with her. I liked the brother's and sister's scheming conversations as they walk to and from Mansfield Park.

• I didn't like how they cut out Fanny's forced visit to her family in Portsmouth. One of the biggest themes of the book is how Fanny, having been brought up in such a genteel home, no longer would fit in her parents' world of poverty and squalor. Sir Thomas made her go home for a visit in order to show her what she would lose by not marrying Henry Crawford. But she still held firm to her convictions. And Henry Crawford visited her there, and was still willing to marry her despite her relations. That shows the strength of the affection she was able to rouse in him... I do believe he felt himself entirely sincere in his feelings for her (inconstant though he proved later).

• The shaky camera angles were modern and didn't fit the period at all.

• The ending waltz was pretty cheesy and I doubt a public display of such maintained intimacy would be acceptable back then.

Overall, it was nice to watch once, but beyond that... they just missed the heart and soul of the story.

Okay, so I've not yet read Mansfield Park, however, I did see the PBS movie Sunday. And, in a word...toothsome. (And, while disheveled hair has done much for the sultry appeal of many a woman, it did nothing for Ms.Price's character. )

Minimal plot and puny characters. Though I did like Pugs. He snored. I also liked Ms.Crawford. She was the saving grace of the movie...and the Edmund chap was pleasant to look at. (Shall we bestow a HEG title on him?)

Of course,I was one of those who found Kiera Knightley's severe underbite also quite distracting.

I *adore* Billie Piper in Dr. Who! One note? I found her exciting, quirky, and very often, she broke my heart.

I've never seen Dr. Who, but she did surprise me with MP. But, as someone on another board I frequent put it, she has energy practically radiating out of her fingernails, so it was hard for her to play the subdued Fanny. Nothing against Ms. Piper, but she just wasn't right for the role.

I agree; I was surprised to find her cast in such a part. And she does have, as someone else put it, "a knowing look." But I don't think I would say, as some others have suggested, that she is generally a dull actor. In the right part - like Rose Tyler - she can be very effective.

I'd like to put this question to y'all--

How could a filmmaker go about making a movie about a main character whose prime traits are that she's self-effacing and disappears into the background? I have trouble believing that even diehards would actually enjoy a couple of hours of watching a heroine who's faithfully presented as forgettable.

Certainly, Fanny's not completely static, and her allure grows over time in the book, but I just can't picture a movie where we have a scene of Fanny not doing anything, followed by a scene of Fanny feeling bad about herself, followed by her looking wan and still not doing anything.

So what is it that everyone's picturing, when they say that Piper had too much vibrancy? (I guess another way of asking this would be -- what's the *ideal* that all these film adaptations keep falling short of?)

I don't blame Ms. Piper so much - giving Fanny a boost isn't really my problem. It was the downplaying of Mrs. Norris and the sudden liveliness of Lady Bertram. These ladies should be reinforcing Fanny's inferiority and background fading.

56 -- that makes sense. She needed to be actively squashed more so that we as an audience can be a part of Fanny's struggle to get out from under that -- it would have evoked a greater sympathy from the audience, seeing someone so down-trodden, and they wouldn't have had to work so hard to make her heroine-like -- she would become that simply by maintaining a sense of herself, and then having that affirmed in her love.

Xiguli wrote: How could a filmmaker go about making a movie about a main character whose prime traits are that she's self-effacing and disappears into the background? I have trouble believing that even diehards would actually enjoy a couple of hours of watching a heroine who's faithfully presented as forgettable.

Not to turn your argument on its head, but you could also ask, "How could a writer go about writing a story about a main character whose prime traits are that she's self-effacing and disappears into the background?" And yet Austen did it, and I don't find Fanny forgettable in the book at all.

I think when we say Fanny should be forgettable, we mean from the perspective of the other characters who barely see her anymore because they've taken her so much for granted. She's not forgettable as a leading lady because I think so many of us can identify with how she feels: the shy and unnoticed wallflower who is overshadowed by some bolder beauty. I know I've felt that way, and it makes me love Fanny all the more. There are altogether too many Mary Crawfords in the world!

I don't think a true-to-the-book Fanny would be boring. If you were one of the other characters in the story, you might find her so, but when the story is told from her perspective — camera angles zooming in to show her subtle expressions and reactions to what the other characters are doing — how would that be forgettable?

I ditto paulacs' comments above... Fanny needs to be unhappy in her situation before you really want to root for an unconventionally non-sassy heroine. I think this is why the book works so well.

#58, wisewoman-- you could also ask, "How could a writer go about writing a story about a main character whose prime traits are that she's self-effacing and disappears into the background?" And yet Austen did it,

That had sort of occurred to me as I wrote the question, but I decided that the fact that Austen did write such a story was proof that it could be done. I'm wondering about the ability of film to do it. Not to convey a character's internal struggle, because it certainly can do that, but how it would translate what Austen specifically does in MP to the screen. You're spot on that Fanny's forgettability is a reflection of how the other characters see her, but isn't it essentially how she sees herself? I'm remembering her as someone who never pushes or calls attention to herself. The people around her are the doers. I do, actually, have trouble envisioning a movie that develops by showing the main character's reactions to the people doing the interesting stuff. Subtle facial expressions are powerful because they're used sparingly... But Fanny truly does embody subtlety to a degree that makes her extraordinary--I still wonder how you show that visually.

Maybe we just need a genius to step forward and undertake MP. My inability to picture it doesn't mean it can't happen.

ladygata, I've been thinking about what you said and mostly agree. The movie would have had more depth if the filmmakers had bothered to show the callousness and offhand cruelty of Mrs. Norris and Lady Bertram. At the same time, though, MP the movie was already fully of strong personalities--the Crawfords, the father, etc. Maybe they were wringing their hands over what we've been talking about--how the movie's supposed to be about Fanny, and she's surrounded by people who are more apt to do something interesting (onscreen) than she is, and it wouldn't come off right that way.

Or maybe they were lazy. I don't know. I just think it's neat to sort of pick apart our reactions to these things. After all, they're all essentially knockoffs, these movies... but we still love them so much, overall.

I am still praying for Emma Thompson to take all the Austen stories in hand and write screenplays for each one. That would be brilliant.

Most of the bigger flaws in this rendition of MP could probably be attributed at least partly to the fact that they only had an hour and a half to work with. That's a ridiculously short time to adapt Austen's longest novel.

Emma? Emma? Did you hear that, Emma?
...please.

Speaking of Emmas, there was an adaptation of Austen's Emma that was pretty good and only an hour and a half -- it's the one starring Kate Beckinsale. (Here's a link for it.) So it's not so much being "an Austen novel" that's the problem.

According to the Masterpiece Theatre website, that's the version of Emma that is scheduled to view on PBS stations on March 23rd.

Here is the complete schedule:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/schedule/index.html

Oh, good!

Actually, double that. There's also a particularly good version of Pride and Prejudice the three weeks before.

29: So here's a question: if most film versions of 19th century literature disappoint its followers and fans, should film makers stop trying? What if filmmakers were to read all these posts and throw up their hands and say "we try and try, but we can't please this crowd. We're quiting. Let's make action movies." . . . would you be glad? Or do you think they should continue trying?

It has bothered me that I never got back to this point. If I had never seen an adaptation that I liked, I would say drop the whole idea, but we all have movies that we like. We know they can make successful versions. They need to keep trying, and if the movies are horrible, we can have fun trashing them!

I agree compski, I think film makers keep coming back because there is a good story there and a challenge. Plus each new generation demands different things of its adaptations. Think how acting styles have changed since Lawrence Olivier.

I only wish Merchant/Ivory had turned their hands to Jane Austen the way they did to E. M. Forester.

I do want to add that this has been the only PBS movie that has made me want to go back and read the book, or at least add it to my To Be (Re)read pile.

I finally saw the 1999 version of Mansfield Park and I agree with most of the comments here. I actually think it's a lovely film, it's just not Mansfield Park. Worth seeing for its own merits, but should only be viewed as "inspired by". I think it's better than the more recent TV version. I think it's a very difficult book to turn into a movie. It's a brilliant, but troublesome, book in that our society is so different from MP's world.