MovieChat Forums > Mansfield Park (1999) Discussion > Worst Austen adaptation ever?

Worst Austen adaptation ever?

posted 20 years ago by styleequeen
25 replies | jump to latest

Please don't start flaming me because I don't like this movie. I am giving a negative opinion, but in (I hope) a thoughful way rather than just posting "It SUCKS ass!" as I've seen done on many other boards.
In my opinion this is the worst adaptation of a Jane Austen novel ever. It is a huge shame as I had been looking forward to it for ages, being a fan of Johnny Lee Miller's, and an admirer of Harold Pinter. I had also recently studied the novel for my A-Levels and had come to appreciate it as the best written of Austen's completed novels (though my personal fave remains P&P), with incredibly well developed and moving themes. I feel that this version ignored pretty much all the major themes of the novel in pursuing its agenda of the "hidden" theme.
The biggest crime is that it just doesn't FEEL like a Jane Austen novel. Her sphere was the personal, the domestic, because the inner drama of the heart are as important for most people as big melodramatic adventures. This felt more like a French erotic melodrama from the 18th century. Although the BBC adaptation from the eighties wasn't very good either, with its static camera work and poor production, at least they captured a sense of Austen.
Why is Fanny's family portrayed as utterly destitute? They were "poor" in terms of the middle class because they had too many children and bad management skills, but they still had servants and slept in beds (in the film it looked like they were all on the kitchen table), and were genteel enough to be at least related to nobility.
It would have been a watchable film had they just run with the whole "slavery" theme and used another plot, and other character names. As it was, I was disappointed and exceedingly cross.

[–] corvus_corone_corone 20 years ago

Oh no, I've pressed the wrong key and now I have to write it ALL OVER AGAIN!!!
...Sorry...

Hello styleequeen!
I think I know what you mean, but I can't quite agree with you. My opinion might be biased, because I have read the book before seeing the movie, and it was not one of my favorites. Much too Cindarella-esque with a much too docile (read as "boring") Cindarella. I LOVED the movie.

Fanny is shown as a very intelligent woman with a delightful sense of humour, FAR superior to everyone else who surrounds her (excepting Edmund), but kind and sweet as well. I also liked the idea of her accepting Mr. Crawford, because when reading the book you get to a point where you actually start wondering whether it might not be quite a good thing for her if she accepted him. Also, of course, Jane Austen did the same thing, accepting a man and then breaking it off again.

I also particulary liked all the stories she kept on writing, which were written by Jane Austen as well. So, I have to admit that the movie wasnt quite true (okay not only "not quite", more like not at all) to the book, and argueably not even to Jane Austen, but brilliant anyway. The pictures, the music, the actors... First class!

And as to the family being portrayed as destitute... well, when I was reading the book I always did think that they were much poorer than, for example, the Bennets.

:)

P.S.: ...my favorite Jane Austen book by the way is "Persuasion", although it's closely followed by "P&P"...

[–] styleequeen 20 years ago

Hi corvus-corune-corune, thanks for your eloquent relpy, I'd been wondering if anyone ever would.

I can understand people not liking Fanny because she's so passive (personally I dislike Emma for being such a meddling snob, but she's a very popular character), but I'm rather fond of Miss Price. I find her shyness very sweet, and I don't think she's boring because while she's quiet about it, she feels so much and as a reader I could really empathise with her emotions. Plus her whole character was part of the "Mansfield Park" metaphor, the soul being allowed to bloom and mature at its own pace, without being stifled or hurried and allowing nature to take its course - not any modern vs. traditional, static values (because Sir Thomas's values are old fashioned but stifling), but letting an individual because what is natural for them without interference of superficial social demands. Everyone screws up around her, but Fanny stays consistent, she is the park, and the end is rewarded not for being static, but for being true to herself. The film totally did away with this major theme. Especially when she accepts Henry Crawford - that made Fanny as bad as the others in my opinion (although in my own personal fantasy Fanny does marry Henry because he's so much hotter than Edmund). I realise that the change was to make a more 'feminist' character to appeal to modern audiences, but I think it would have been a more interesting challenge for the actress and director to find the inherent appeal in Fanny Price - by making Fanny a Jane Austen they took the lazy way out.

As for the whole poverty thing, yes the Prices are poor, but poor was a relative term. The Bennets were considered poor not because of any immediate deprivation but because the father hadn't saved for dowries, and with the estate entailed there would be no money to bring into a marriage. The Prices are poorer on a daily basis, but Austen hints that they would not have been so badly off had Mrs Price not been such an absent minded manager (yet another pet peeve, Mrs Price is supposed to be a reflection of Lady Bertram without the luxery, demonstrating how nurturing can save a character not blessed by nature, but in the film she's just some sharp tongued char-woman).

I like Persuasion very much as well. The agonising "will they, won't they" between Anne and Wentworth just kills me. What did you think of the film? I thought it was alright, but had too dreamy an atmosphere, again inconsistent with Austen, but not as gratingly inconsistent as this film.

Proud member of T.R.O.L.L.

[–] corvus_corone_corone 20 years ago

What a speedy reply! GREAT!

I must admit I never looked at the novel this way, but then you have the advantage over me, having studied it for A-levels. I never read Jane Austen at school, only afterwards and then only for the pleasure of it. Fanny as the Park... Hm, you've made me think there.

I do seem to recall, however, that even among literaturists (IS that a word?) there was a discussion about Mansfield Park, it being the most sombre story of all her novels. I've read that people were wondering why Miss Crawfoed is considered so very bad, her sense of humour matching Elisabeth Bennets. Don't start yelling at me, please, I certainly couldn't agree with that. Lizzy always knows what is proper and what isn't, however ironic she may be. Her sense of humour is just delicious, whereas Miss Crawford doesn't know how to behave.

But those people also wondered at Edmund being the "hero", him being so awfully dull, a real kill-joy (if there is such a word. I feel my English is leaving me, but then, it's not my mother tongue, sorry!).

Furthermore, WHY didn't she accept Mr. Crawford, who really gave all the appearance of trying to change for the better? Shouldn't such endeavours be rewarded? I am merely repeating what I have read about it, my own opinion now is somewhat muddled.

I think I will simply have to read the book again. What a great sacrifice ;)

But I still like the film! It might be the worst Austen adaptation ever... possibly, ALTHOUGH all those Austen adaptations from the seventies (or was it eighties) - especially that Mansfield Park one - were so boring I couldn't stop sneezing from the dusty atmosphere they conveyed... the sound was bad, the lighting was horrible, Fanny looked like a mouse close to a heart-attack all the time, eyes almost popping out... I prefer books to films anyway, but IF someone decides to make a film, PLEASE let it be aesthetically pleasing at least - as are all Jane Austen's novels, when you read them. Or is that too much to ask?

Sorry this reply is getting longer and longer. Just to (quickly, I hope) answer your last question, I did like the film "Persuasion". I liked the dark colours, the music, and I found Anne amazing, the gradual change from haggard to pretty, VERY consistent with the book! It was a British production, wasn't it? I like the English way of not choosing the most beautiful faces, but interesting ones, so they improve on you throughout the film. Do I sound inconsistent now myself, since I've said above that films ought to be aesthetically pleasing? But I hope you agree that there is a difference between "aesthetically pleasing" and simply "beautiful".

And now I'll go and read "Mansfield Park" again!

[–] styleequeen 20 years ago

I re-read Jane Austen every year or so, sometimes more. I just love it. I've even made pilgrimages to Bath and Lyme Regis, where I jumped up and down the steps on the cob just like Louisa Musgrove! Did you know that Mansfield Park has been considered THE BEST WRITTEN novel of the English language by many literary critics? That is not to say it is a general favourite with readers, but the development of theme and balance of the writing style are extremely consistent and well rendered - the balance of the sentence structures even reflect the theme of balance (of Nature and Nurture, of personality, of 'straightness' of behaviour...).
As to the Mary Crawford/Lizzy debate, I thoroughly agree with you, the two cannot be compared as 'heroines'. Lizzy is witty and outspoken, but never defies early 19th Century morality, and she always holds these values (and those who follow these values) in esteem. Mary Crawford and her brother are illustrations of the Nature/Nurture theme in Mansfield Park. They are both potentially good characters by Nature, but have been spoilt by their upbringing and London society. Both come to appreciate the morals of Mansfield Park (of which Fanny and Edmund are exemplars) because they are intelligent enough to do so, but have become too selfish in the short term to be able to ensure their long term happiness. Again, this is part of the 'bloom in its own time' theme - the Crawfords' impatience for gratification backfires on both in the end. And what really got Edmund in the end was Mary's vulgarity, which he knows wasn't maliciously meant but was not something he could live with.
Fanny doesn't accept Henry because his change was too quick, too sudden. Austen tells us at the end of the novel, that had the relationship been able to progress at a steady pace, Fanny would have learnt in time to love Henry and give up on Edmund. But Henry though his own conceit re: Maria messes everything up. The fool!
The earlier film adaptations ARE awful aren't they, not just Mansfield Park? They are so painfully low budget, and the acting style wasn't involved at all - the actors were just doing Austen-by-numbers, relying on the love of the books to carry the production to its market. Still, I prefer them to this film's utter transformation of plot, theme, characterisation and style.
I agree with your definition of "beautiful" and "aesthetically pleasing". I would say the same about the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, the actors are not Hollywood beautiful, but you forget that because their performances are so charming.
Watching Persuasion, I liked the intensity of the encounters between Wentworth and Anne, where a single touch is as intimate as sex! It was still a bit too langourous overall for a perfect production and felt rather heavy(there is a lightness of feeling in Austen's work, even in this last novel). The sets were stunning though. I remember watching the film and thinking they looked a bit OTT for regency style, but now I realise that by the time Persuasion was written the delicacy of the regency was giving way to more operatic fashions (probably as a reaction to the dainty pastels and muslins of the regency). Didn't you just love the Bath confectionary shop they take shelter from the rain in?

Proud member of T.R.O.L.L.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gary_is_god 20 years ago

I watched this movie because I'm a fan of Alessandro Nivola and I have to say, it wasn't that bad as a movie, particularly if you haven't read the book (which I haven't). And thank you to 'styleequeen' for posting such constructive criticism, instead of the blatant and un-intelligent dissing I see with other films.

"If money is the root of all evil, then why do churches ask for it?" - The Pancake

[–] kayrux 20 years ago

I'm a Big fan of Jane Austen(and any other classic author) and I have read the book. The movie didn't stay true to the book at all, however it wasn't a bad movie. It was well acted and a fairly good chick flick. However I don't connect it in my mind to Austen. It was so far from the book I forgot what it was based on! So what I say is the movie wasn't bad of itself, but I was very disapointed in it none-the-less. Not a movie I'd recommend.

-Jen

[–] karoline-suppenhuhn 20 years ago

I just got to agree - it wasn't bad a movie in itself, but it was far from being "Jane Austen", and if you're not true to the book, why use it in the first place? I mean, of course the label worked quite well in the nineties, but on the whole I was deadly disappointed, and neither the actors nor the direction are to blame for that. No, all the main characters were really good, just that you would hardly recognise the book anymore.

And my favourite was Emma, by the way ;o))

[–] Josephine7 20 years ago

I think they did the same thing that the makers of the Winona Ryder version of Little Women did. They made the heroine the author! Jo is Louisa and Fanny is Jane. It wasn't truly faithful in the case of Mansfield Park because Fanny is much more...well, just not like how they portrayed her in this film. But over all, I enjoyed it. Not as an adaptation of the book but as a movie on its own.

My favorite Jane Austen novel is P&P but I also love S&S and Persuasion. I am almost finished reading Mansfield Park and I haven't read any of her other novels...yet.

[–] corvus_corone_corone 20 years ago

>My favorite Jane Austen novel is P&P but I also love S&S and Persuasion. I am almost finished reading Mansfield Park and I haven't read any of her other novels...yet.<

Josephine, I envy you! I wish I could still look forward to reading them without actually knowing what's happening. But reading them again and again is also worthwhile... :)

Have fun with Emma and Northanger Abbey, try reading Anne Radcliffe's "The My steries of Udolpho" - WAS that the title...? Horrible book! - first, then you can laugh all the more about Northanger Abbey.

But Persuasion is still the best!

[–] Josephine7 20 years ago

*lol* Is "The Mysteries of Udolpho" really that terrible? I have heard that Jane alludes to it in Northanger Abbey. Thanks a bunch!

I just finished Mansfield Park last night and I was disappointed in the ending. It seemed like Edmund didn't really love Fanny "like a man loves a woman" like he did in the movie, as if she was second best even after he realized all of Miss Crawford's faults? I just don't know.

[–] Unwanted_Birdtamer 19 years ago

I don't know if you'll read this so long after your post, but although they did do the same thing as Little Women in making the heroine the author, there is a huge difference. Jo actually was Louisa May Alcott. Little Women was an autobiographical novel of Alcott's life, and all the March characters were meant to be their Alcott counterparts, and many of the events were as they really happened, even down to Jo writing her "gothic thrillers" (which Alcott did write to make money on the side). But the difference is that Fanny Price was nothing like Jane Austen. The only slight similarity I can see is that Austen was reported to be quiet in company and not many outside of her immediate circle saw that sarcastic and witty nature--but although Fanny was shy, there wasn't really any evidence that she was like Austen with close friends.

It's not the tragedies that kill us, it's the messes.

[–] screenhound22 20 years ago

I understand the sentiment behind the post. However, I caution you that the various Austen adaptations have shown us that there are a million roads to a horrible adaptation. Both recent (last two decades) adaptations of Mansfield Park have been bad in their own unique ways. The '83 mini-series was reasonably true to the text but the production values were abysmal, the film was poorly shot and all the actors gave the impression that they couldn't act their way out of a paper bag--none of them had screen presence, and a few of them (the one playing Mary Crawford, for instance) looked like they were actually reading cue cards stationed somewhere behind the camera. What a nightmare. Furthermore, you have not experienced true agony until you've determined to sit through at least a portion of the "classic" Garson/Olivier version of Pride and Prejudice.

THIS MP turns in some solid performances and has all kinds of good elements mixed together for a rather enjoyable ride--except that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the novel. The director and screenwriter couldn't decide what they wanted to do with this film. Did they want to make it about slavery? There's an element of scholarship that suggests that Austen was a passive commentator on the subject and might have approved of the stance the film took. Great! It's a way to add depth to Tom Bertram and give Fanny a cause--Wait a minute, Fanny has a cause? When did that happen? And from there on out there's a huge problem because they took a single line of dialogue and used it to entirely restructure the film. Furthermore, though very few of the characters look or sound anything like they should, O'Connor's Fanny gets the most drastic reinvention. She is, as the box says "witty and vivacious" what's more she's a master story-teller and her stories are, of course, early Austen works. Even the acceptance/refusal flip-flop on Henry Crawford's proposal is lifted directly from Austen's life. Instead of Fanny Price they took one part Liza Bennet, two parts Austen, and mixed them together for a beautiful, bright, strong heroine who took the name Fanny Price and the affections of Fanny Price without any of her other qualities. That's all from me though there's more to say.

[–] leslie_stanford 20 years ago

Must agree with you screenhound, and all those who have found this movie a disppointment.

I saw this film once and once only. I had just finished my first semester of graduate school (English Ph.D, natch) and had just completed a semester's worth of study of *Mansfield Park* (a novel I hadn't, I admit, read since I was fifteen, when I had found it quite a come down from the other Austen novels I loved). Rereading the novel as a twentysomething proved a revelation; it is an absolute gem of a book--complicated and difficult and strange (rather like Fanny herself!). Needless to say, I was thrilled that a film adaptation was being released and went to see it immediately upon its appearance in theaters. I nearly walked out after half an hour (though foolishly, I stayed, hoping it would get better). The stupid revisionism that permeated the film seemed rather the coward's way out, and casting Fanny as Austen robbed the movie of its central romantic (and moral) question--what kind of femininity do we validate, Mary's or Fanny's?. In this film, the question is moot. Mary and Fanny are isomorphic; it no longer matters whom Edmund chooses. Either way, he gets the same woman (the same brand of irony, the same strongmindedness, the same, well, obviousness).

I would love to see *Mansfield Park,* with all its difficulties preserved, hit the big screen (or small, for that matter) again; I am quite sure that a satisfying movie can be made of *Mansfield Park*--one that won't excise bothersome brothers, provide motivation for Tom's dissolute behavior, and sex up Fanny Price in a misguided attempt to cater to the supposed modern sensbility!

[–] MadameCorleone 20 years ago

I am currently taking a literature course on 19th Century British Authors and the topic this quarter is Jane Austen (which I jumped at the chance to take). Every 2 weeks we read one of her 5 major novels. Recently we finished "Mansfield Park" and I really loved the book. "Emma" is my favorite Austen novel and now "Mansfield Park" is my second. So I was really looking forward to watching this film adaptation, even though I'd heard it didn't really keep to the novel that well. I rented it the other day and watched it last night.

My overall opinion of the film is that someone who hadn't read the book would really enjoy it. Personally, it wasn't a bad film, actually it was fairly well made. But the book is infinitely better in EVERY aspect. I think the director got the casting right, so that helped the film along. Stand-outs are Embeth Davis and Alessandro Nivola (perfecting the Henry Crawford charm) who fit well into their roles as the scheming brother and sister. I actually really liked the scene when they rehearse the play and Maria pulls Henry onto her chest... I was laughing so hard because it worked really well. And I love how they kept one of the best lines in the whole novel - "Which gentlemen among you am I to have the pleasure of making love to?" :) (perfect in every way)

That being said, I am very disappointed in the things that were left out. In the film version, it's very difficult to respect Sir Thomas. In the book you at least feel some admiration for his character. Edmund's declaration at the end seems to come out of nowhere (the moment with the almost-kiss bothered me as well... because it was kindof cheesy). The things that bothered me the most however were what was left out of Henry Crawford's character (especially since I thought his character was the most interesting one in the novel). In the beginning of the film, he's set up as a villian who's out to charm both sisters (good), but his love of Fanny isn't set up at all. A key aspect to him is that at first he intends to make Fanny fall in love with him and then leave her heart-broken. After seeing her with her brother and noticing how loving she is, he begins to fall in love with her and actively pursue her. I actually just wrote a paper on the moment where he reads "Henry VIII" to try and win her and then goes over-the-top in his declaration of love, one of the best moments in the book. There's also no real reason for Fanny to distrust him in the film. She doesn't really see the length of his seductions (as she does in the book) and so her apprehensiveness towards him feels unjustified. I'm not going to vent about the acceptance part because there's not too much to say about it *coughFABRICATEDcough*. There are more moments I wish were in the film (such as the gift of the necklace, Sotherton, etc...), but it's a 400 page book crammed into 2 hours so it's difficult to do (I mean P&P is much shorter and the best adaptation of it is 6 hours long).

So overall it was good, but I'd still prefer to read the book anyday.

This is no mere ranger. He is Aragorn, son of Arathorn. You owe him your pants.

[–] MsLaDiva 20 years ago

Wow...I'm the alien here.

I've read every Jane Austen novel (including the unfinished) and I've seen every film adaptation of her work.

Although I realize how much license they took with the book when making this movie, I thought it was a great movie! It's one of my favorite movies ever. I watch it all the time. I thought it was thought-provoking, real, and a beautiful romance. I felt so much sympathy for Henry Crawford. That actor is fabulous!

"The first thing you lose on a diet is brain mass"

-Margaret Cho

[–] netrospeed 19 years ago

Yes .. Mansfield park is the worst 'adaptation' of an Austen book. It was practically a different story .. and that scene between Wet Fanny (haha) and Miss Crawford>!>?! What would Austen have thought?

However that doesn't make it a bad movie. I enjoyed it very much - I just had to still my swelling indignation, and enjoy it completely out of context with the book!! If you take it as a 'loosely based' on the novel type of thing its very enjoyable.

AND YES!! Henry Crawford was a played by a fabulous actor - Alessandro Nivola. He played Henry better than anyone played anyone lol . . . I really enjoyed his performance and wished silly Miss. Price had chosen him. Altho Edmund doesnt do too badly :) Atleast she didnt choose Tom.

[–] stinky-goat 19 years ago

I totally agree! it was a good movie if you can separate yourself from the Book and just kind of sit back and enjoy, but they were very different. I don't pretend to understand Austen but the General "Vibe" I get from her writing makes me kid myself into thinking she would have enjoyed the idea of someone else telling her story in their own words.

[–] tamannhan 19 years ago

At least the hero is good looking.

We're here; we're clear; we don't want anymore bears!

[–] Agrippina121 19 years ago

I have to start with Persuasion and work my way back to Mansfield Park. Somebody (sorry, I'm not going to scroll back through the posts) called the film version of Persuasion languorous. I have to disagree. The most pointed emotion I took away from the novel was a feeling of wistfulness, something which I thought the movie captured with brilliance. The movie was so essentially gentle and understated -- I reread Persuasion last night and I have to say I think the movie is almost perfect in its portrayal of Austen's characters.

That having been said, onward to Mansfield Park. It wasn't the liberties the movie took with Austen's characters, but rather the ridiculous sensationalism and the completely hysterical melodrama with which I took issue. I don't necessarily mind when a movie is a departure from a book, as long as I feel like the spirit of the book is honored (or even if it is not, as long as the movie has stand-alone merit). In this case, I felt like the movie was just one shrill 90s movie cliche after another. It still irritates me immensely -- five years (and three viewings) later.

As to the 80s version, the actress who played Fanny looked like a squirrel on crack. For all its faithfulness to the dialogue, I didn't think this version was any better.

I've yet to see a decent adaptation of Mansfield Park. I'm hoping one will be made soon, if simply for the sake of my collection.

[–] ch_golfer 19 years ago

I don't know if anyone will even read this, but I have to put this in because I just got finished reading Mansfield Park for the ten millionth time and it's fresh in my memory. First of all, I have incredibly mixed feelings about the book because it's terrible, but i love it. I have to admit that Fanny is not my favorite, but I read that Jane Austen wrote her as sort of the opposite of Jane. To most writers of her time and any who have commented on her work since, Austen was a vulgar, sarcastic woman. She shocked people. More in line with her other heroines. It's obvious that Fanny is different. I must add that I'm not particulary fond of Fanny because she is extremely weak. All of her thoughts are Edmund's except in her opinion of the Crawfords, for the obvious reason that Edmund is in love with Mary and Fanny is in love with Edmund. Although I like Edmund, I find it hard to consider him much of a hero. He does sort of settle for Fanny at the end because there is nothing better. I've always been partial to Henry Crawford because despite his faults, he has the makings of a true Austen hero. His sentiment, his passion, his deep feelings for Fanny make him the perfect hero. He would do anything for her and he does a lot. Think of what he did for William alone. If Fanny had accepted him, he could have been a great man. Now, with regards to this movie, it's fine for entertainment sake, but has nothing relating to Austen's Mansfield Park except for the character's names. I love Alessandro Nivola (Henry), though, so that's pretty much the reason I kept watching it after I started.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] styleequeen 19 years ago

It wasn't the liberties the movie took with Austen's characters, but rather the ridiculous sensationalism and the completely hysterical melodrama with which I took issue.

Oh my god, exactly it! It was the anti-Austen. She always poked fun at such melodramatics and sensationalism and for the film to go in that direction was the ultimate raping of her works.

I read 'The Jane Austen Book Club' recently and something the characters said really resonated. The ridiculously hybridised main character does not make sense! She thinks and speaks like Jane Austen but acts and reacts like Fanny and it's just so inconsistent and incompatible! Am freshly filled with loathing for this film.

"Now go away before I taunt you a second time."

[–] moviestaw 19 years ago

I disagree with you...I think it's agreat, great film. Yes, they did change Fanny, but I feel they did it for the better. When I was reading the novel, I had such a hard time thoroughly liking Fanny. In the movie, I can really like her. I think the change was necessary for audiences to enjoy the film...and, even though the character was obviously changed, I still knew it was Fanny, y'know? She still was shy, but seemed comfortable around dear friends...actually, friend, Edmund. She even seemed very uncomfortable around her family when she returned....

Plus, I love this movie because it is so different from all the other Austen movies, which, don't get me wrong, I love....but the style is so different. I love the simplicity of it, the grayness of it. I really liked how the house was empty, the rooms were rustic, the clothes were very simplly made, crude almost, like Fanny's ball gown.

I, unlike others, do not write off a film as 'bad' because it did not follow the book word for word. I totally understand that there is room for interpretation of a book, stylisticly and story wise.

I love this movie so much, it's my comfort movie...when it rains, I pop in Mansfield Park, get comfortable, and just enjoy it.

By the way, the music in this movie is SUPERB! I'm listening to the movie's theme on repeat, I can't get enough of it. It's light, airy, and fast paced.

I'd say that this movie, and Emma are my favorite Austen films.

Support complete sentences, join the anti-Bush.

[–] StoneColdKilla 17 years ago

I like Mansfield Park. The book, not the movie, of course. The movie was terrible and contrived, and it seemed like the director just wanted to include a bunch of stuff that she was interested in personally, but which had no place in the story of the book, or even in the plotline of her own screenplay.

Is it not contradictory, that Fanny (new or old) could be so happy at the end of the movie, even though she had been made privvy to the fact that her uncle was raping slaves? She seemed pretty disgusted when she made the discovery in the movie, so why did everything just go back to normal afterwards? I guess she must have had a pretty short memory.

So if that line of the story was not going to be pursued any further, why did the director, and writer, feel the need to include it in the first place? Just for the sake of having it in there, somewhere? I think that's called bad screenwriting.

Personally, aside from the fact that the director probably didn't like the Fanny of the book, I think that she simply copped out of the challenge of visually portraying the inward thoughts and feelings of Fanny's complex character. I love the book Fanny, and not because she is clever and charming like the movie would have her be, (and definately not because she is some sort of beacon of morality) but rather because she is so opressed and so subjugated, and she doesn't even know it. It is like she is in her own indetectable mental prison, which was brought on by the society in which she lived, and her quiet, impressionable, self-doubting predisposition. And this makes her an extremely sympathetic character, in my opinion.

If the director wanted to make a feministic social statement by altering the theme of the book, I think that it could have been more artfully done through that kind of avenue, making the audience feel for the character's opressed state. The fact that she is so oppressed, yet accepts her lot in life, even sometimes with more zeal than other people around her would have her do, could be portrayed as a bad thing, and the result of a society that devalued women. Fanny in the book is portrayed as the model of what femininity had ought to be, but that could easily be changed without losing all integrity of the characters.

In fact, when I read the book, (even though the author made sure to explicitly state that Fanny was the better person for her ways), I almost got the impression that Fanny was supposed to be pitied as a total victim. Of course, instead, she is supposed to be seen as having benefited as a result of the abuses against her, both by her own family and by the standards of society. It is odd that this should be the case, though, because in Austen's other novels, the heroine is always somehow extraordinarily more clever than society expects of her gender, which suggests that the the author's idea of the best type of woman was somehow above the standards of her societal system, almost mocking them. And then she comes around with Fanny, who would be just the opposite of what you'd think her to esteem in a heroine.

For example, in our modern day ideas, we would not have really cared that Maria left her dolt of a husband for the man that she loved. In fact, we would almost glorify that. To me at least, and to a lot of other people now, I'm sure, it would seem like the greater of the two evils would be to endure a false marriage than to take the 'social' hit and run off with the person that you actually loved. And by portratying that in a light that is sympathetic to the feelings of Maria, and not reprobating, I think that everyone would assume that she was the one that was wronged.

The book portrayed that behavior (and all of the other 'bad' stuff) as reprehensible, and simply assumed that the audience would think likewise. But it would be just as well to make the movie ironic. It could show all of that happening in a reflective manner so as to expose the oppressive and hypocritical ideas that people accepted (especially Fanny) during that time. And Fanny would be the greatest victim of all, since she did nothing to even counteract the oppression. She just took it as best as she could, repressing every ounce of free-spirit and "willfullness" that she may have naturally experienced, and thinking that it was the right thing to do. (All the while, she is not even gaining the good opinion of most of her other companions for it all, and has to suffer anyway)

But I rant on. Sorry everyone, for this ridiculously long post...maybe I should write my own adaptation of Mansfield Park. I'm sure that anything would be better than the one I just witnessed.

Cheers,
StoneColdKilla