An insult to the novel?

I concur with you reiyi and purpleworm! Finally, people who understand and appreciate Fanny for who she is: SHY! She is not a "dishrag" or a "pushover"--just because someone is different in personality from you doesn't mean you have to insult them and their choices. Perhaps I am a little heated here because I identify a great deal with Fanny (from the book) but there it is... People often have a great deal of trouble understanding shy people, I've found, they think they are either snobs or miserable... We're neither. Just like to keep to ourselves more, which is a good thing! Not everyone is cut out to be, or needs to be, the exact replica of Miss Elizabeth Bennet.

One thing I love about Austen is how she could write so many different types of heroines and get inside all of their heads. Everyone loves the spirited heroine though, which is why Pride and Prejudice is always the favourite, but she also wrote shy girls like Fanny and Anne from Persuasion, sensible girls like Elinor, conceited girls like Emma... it's a nice mix.

I liked this movie when I first saw it, without reading the book, but after doing so, I would really have prefered it if they had actually based it off the book and given us a sympathetic portrayal of a shy person, not another spirited heroine. Nothing wrong with them, I like Pride and Prejudice too, but this is not the place for them. Mary Crawford is actually more like Elizabeth Bennet than Fanny is, but Mary is not the heroine... this book is about morals and such, so it should have been performed as written. Yes, the bits inspired by Jane Austen were funny ("beware of swoons"), but not at all accurate for a movie about the novel. None of Austen's characters were writers themselves, a nice touch, I think. Austen was writing realistically about the women of her time, not making them into models of herself. And as for the tagline "Jane Austen's Wicked Comedy" -- what's up with that?? Complete misrepresentation.

By the way, has anyone seen the BBC version of Mansfield Park? Is it any good?

Can words go straight to the heart?...Can words be as direct as the scent of roses?

Have you ever tried to adapt a novel into a screenplay? Try it. It's very difficult, especially because any good screenwriter's goal is to write something fresh and new. You can't bore your viewers. Austen's book, in my opinion, doesn't translate well in film. With Rozema's changes and interpretations (remember, we're allowed to interpret things our own way, just becuase you feel it should be a certain way doesn't made that right) you get a different look at an old novel. GIve it a chance, don't take such horrid offense to her changing some things. Change is okay sometimes, especially in an artistic interpretation,

Does anyone know the legalities of adaptation in filmmaking? That is to say, was Rozema obliged to attach Austen's name to the film since she uses characters and settings from her novel?

I do think that she could have made a similar film without necessarily borrowing from the Austen. Rather, she could have used her interests in the relationship between slavery and British wealth in the 18th century as a harsh commentary on the civilized society at the time. The film hints at such a meta-criticism, but she might have been able to take it further if she had worked with a story entirely of her own invention.

There are a few legions of differences. When I first watched this it was after an Austen course in which we read most of her juvenalia and all of her novels. So the transposed lines--character traits, etc. were pretty easy to pick up. And annoying. And yes, she did use Jane Austen's life as a model for Fanny. The character was 3/4 Liza Bennet and 1/4 Austen. Fanny Price as such was nowhere to be found. I find it amazing that Johnny Lee Miller was involved in both horrendous adaptations of this novel. The other was fairly faithful to the book and the characterization but the production value was minimal and the acting was horrible so it had its own insuperable failings. This is a good film but a lousy adaptation.

I'd heard of the novel Mansfield Park lots of times before I read, and I love all of Jane Austen's books. Mansfield Park is sometimes called the first modern novel, because it was so different from the typical romances of the time.

"Fanny Price is undoubtedly one of Austen's most unattractive heroines. To a modern audience she comes across as petrified milk toast and a prig too at that." by novelle

I agree that to modern audiences Fanny Price is very unattractive, but like babelfish1 said, the whole point of Fanny Price was that she was different from all the other heroines. I watched the movie before I read the novel, and I loved the movie and really enjoyed it. Then when I read the book, I loved the book too. I love how the book is so simple, and that Fanny and Edmund were so ordinary compared to the other characters in the book. When you compare the two, the book and the movie are completely different. They changed the characters and the events, and I think this time the director took her artistic license too far.

I don't think it was right to change Fanny's character so much. She might be boring, but that's what created the story..that someone so boring and insignificant could end up happy, just by being honest and virtuous. The story in the film and the story in the novel are just totally different in that sense. They're only similar in the sense that girl loves boy, girl wants boy, boy and girl get married.

I agree that on its own, the movie is fantastic, and I thought Francis O'Conner did a good job, even playing a teenager. But anyone who tries to label the movie as an "adaption" is kidding themselves. It's more like an "adaption of the character and novels of Jane Austen" that just happened to be named Mansfield Park.

"No, Luke, Will Shatner is your real father." - Darth Vader's last words

I watched the movie for the first time last night and am still sorting my feelings out on it. Unlike many people posting here, I loved Fanny when I read the book. Why does propriety and virtue have to be boring and unattractive? I would aspire to be Fanny Price over Mariah, Julia and Mary Crawford any day. Fanny was sweet and soft-spoken and that's what I liked about her!

I guess I really had a problem with how the movie portrayed Fanny. I completely understand that movies and novels are two very different mediums and so will rightly turn out differently. However, usually the idea of adaptations is to keep the spirit of the novel the same - this was not the case with Mansfield Park. Whether or not viewers would have seen Fanny as dull or not is irrelevant. Mansfield Park was written as a social commentary about virtue, propriety and morality - Fanny was sweet, virtuous and mild-mannered and was meant to be in dire contrast to her extravagant cousins (minus Edmund) - and especially Henry and Mary Crawford, who were evil...and yes, I would argue that Jane Austen was writing them to be evil. Making Fanny into a headstrong girl completely changes the tone and point of the story. Jane Austen wrote the character of Fanny Price to illustrate a point, in the movie it no longer exists.

My other complaints about the movie are rather unimportant: I didn't like the way Sir Thomas' relationship with Fanny was portrayed, and I didn't like the emphasis put on slavery in Antigua (not that I'm disregarding it's importance in general, but it was not the main focus of the novel, it was hardly even mentioned). Both of those things were not in authenticity with the book. But I wouldn't have minded those things so much if Fanny's character hadn't been as butchered as it was.

There, I've had my say. Despite these complaints, I really did enjoy the movie. Just not as Mansfield Park.

I agree.

Lol's, freedomring! You are *so* right.

*deep breath*
Okay, I understand completely about adapting a novel into a screenplay. It's tough business trying to translate that on screen without changing everything. I think even harder for historical pieces because so often we want to "modernize" the story to make it "easier to understand to audiences." I got into "the world of Austen" when I was about 12. 1995-1996 was a great year to stumble into Austen-itis. However I noticed the first time I saw Persuasion, I didn't understand half of it, whereas I could watch Clueless, for instance, and get it in an instant. As I grew, I gained a deeper understanding and respect for screeplay authors who can write a decent script that isn't revisionist history, or "modernized."

That is why I was horrified to see Mansfield Park. I had read the book and was really *really* excited when they had come out with a film version. When I finally got to see the film, what started out rather cute, ended like a train wreck. I agree with many posters here about how they completely killed Fanny's character, made Edmund (despite the fact I <3 Johnny Lee Miller)a little pansy, and threw in so much unnecessary vulgarities. Seeing Henry & Maria in flagrante was just unneeded--nor was finding sketches of slaves being raped/tortured by the Mr. Bertram. It was like, "whoaaaa...where did THIS come from?" It just didn't fit the story. If the director wanted to make a story highlighting the evils of slavery, why not make an American Civil War piece? There just aren't enough (good one's, that is) of that period.

But I digress. Why make Fanny so altered when she is such a good character to begin with? I disagree with many posters saying that she is in fact, "dry as toast." That's like calling Stella Gibbon's Flora Post "inhibited." Being straight-laced, proper, and prudish is not as horrible as today's society deems it. Fanny isn't boring, she is just quiet and yes, shy, as another poster called her. I completely agree; being shy does not mean she is miserable or boring. Fanny is just a different type of heroine.

What I find so interesting about the novel that was not carried over is Fanny's love for the family & household that have treated her like garbage most of her life. She loves the family despite how horribly they treat her and is constantly "turning the other cheek." This is highlighted even more so when she goes to her birth home and sees the difference between Mansfield and utter poverty. She even gives up her beloved Edmund to Mary, despite how it breaks her heart. But it doesn't mean she doesn't stand her ground. Fanny knows herself and would not do what she deems to be wrong. Look how they could never get her to act in their play because she knew Mr. Bertram would be upset by it nor did all the peer pressure and threats get her to marry Henry Crawford, despite all of his best acting.

Austen points out that in the end, it is Fanny who is happiest because she did not give in to everyone else's immorality. She stood by what she believed to be right and ends up the happiest character in the end. Her guy comes to his senses, the family sees how corrupt their natural children are and embrace Fanny's goodness, and who knows, Fanny might have gotten one of Pug's puppies after all!

Where is all this goodness in the film? Fanny isn't there. The real Fanny is like a "church girl" whereas this movie portrayed her as "sister-sufforagette." There is nothing wrong with either of those character-types but exchange one for another in a piece and you'll see the difference immediatly. Making Fanny a secret Jane Austen isn't fair to Austen anyway! The closest Austen/character crossover is Anne Elliot, and that's even a stretch. Anne's romance was very much akin to Austen's. Austen came from a happy household; she just isn't close to Fanny Price. It was a good idea that didn't carry over well.

I agree that there are good points in this film (there are times that it made me laugh and smile) but in the end I was just so shocked at the changes and smut that was involved. Austen wasn't naive, but she didn't write smut. Austen-ites enjoy a good adaptation (such as Sense & Sensibility); they don't all have to be Pride & Prejudice! However, please, filmarkers; don't mistake adding "reality" as adding unnecessary messages and smut where they are not needed nor wanted. Austen got her points across without it. You just end up looking like another fool revisionist historian like so many other Hollywood productions. Mansfield Park isn't true to the times, the story, or the author's characters.

Filmakers: please, make more "Clueless"'s! We love them because we love looking for the similarties and laughing at the adaptation. But please, don't ruin our favorites. :(
*exhales*