movie vs novel

I have to agree with above. I preferred the movie over the book. All Jane Austen's books are great but Mansfield Park was my least favorite because it just seemed like Edmund only married Fanny at the end for lack of another choice. But the movie is one of my favorite Jane Austen adaptions because the acting is great and in the movie Edmund seems to really love Fanny.

I too, thought this was a beautiful movie. Books and movies are NEVER comparable I think. You read a book you imagine your own characters and what is important in the plot and are invaribly disappointed when the director doesn't see it your way.
What I really loved about this movie was the acting. It was sublime! Reading the faces for what is not being said. Henry was great! I really felt he had changed and wept for joy when Fanny said yes! I think she would have been better off with him. The brother sister thing between fanny and Edmund was creepy! And that moment when he is caught by Fanny! It was a resigned look of "you could have saved me from this life!" and then his head to the wall when Edmund came in the room. Tore my heart! Having said that Edmund was, I think, my favourite. He said more in a moment of looks and conveyed real confusion and pain. When he says goodbye to fanny at the carriage and Mary is standing near. He wants to say something and his eyes flicker briefly in Mary's direction and you know he won't! Truely talented and I will be looking forward to seeing him in more. Harold Pinter too, as sir Betrum was wonderfully dark and delicious. i liked this movie because it brought some life into period drama which can often appear stale and dated while a lovely feast for the eyes. Here, the movie comes alive through beautiful, meaningful shots and great acting. I really enjoyed listening to the director's commentary on the DVD. I think if you have the chance, listen to it! it really adds a dimension to the movie and a real appreciation for her motivation behind why she did Austens story this way!

Well there you go.

I think Rozema is an utter nightmare for an Austen script. On her commentary, she reveals her ignorance of context, the themes, the relative importance of the characters, her misunderstandings of the importance of the key relationships (how else could she overlook Mrs Norris and leave out William Price) and most of all her complete blindness to the central concept of Mansfield Park, stupidly dilapidated in the film, as the cornerstone of nature, civilisation and manners.

Love for Jane Austen? Get real. She's driven a bulldozer through everything that Austen stands for and tried to incorporate in her best novel.

It's not a bad film, but it should be called something else and the characters renamed. No one would even recognise it as Austen then. Georgette Heyer more like

I agree that on its own, this movie is a good one, and I enjoy watching it for its own sake. However, it is not so much an adaptation of the story of Mansfield Park the novel as it is a distant cousin of sorts. Mostly they kept the same names and a few basic plot devices (the Edmund-Mary-Fanny-Henry love mix-ups and the scandal at the end) but have changed characters and plot drastically enough that it's really not the novel anymore. The acceptance of Henry Crawford, the demonization of Sir Thomas -- in the novel he is stern but a good man nonetheless and eventually even "outgrows" his sternness -- and the whole idea of Fanny walking in on Henry and Maria mid-romp, well.... Let's just say that's not what Austen wrote or intended.

The slavery issue was also ballooned out of proportion, as it merits only a briefn reference in the book and had no impact on the plot. Sir Thomas owns a plantation in Antigua, and he does spend a considerable length of time there to take care of business matters, but slavery is only mentioned when Edmund notes that Fanny has been talking more, and he was pleased to hear her asking Sir Thomas a question about the slave trade, as it means that she's coming more into prominence in the family instead of sitting in the background. In no way is the issue of abolition mentioned or promoted in the novel. (That being said, I definitely do not condone slavery, but I think that to force it into the movie as much as it was done accomplished nothing but a distraction. And what on earth were they thinking when they decided to make Sir Thomas so evil about the slaves? What does that accomplish? Not to mention the anachronisms they are committing with the whole importation issue...)

In the credits it specifically says that the movies was based on the novel by Jane Austen, as well as on her early writings, letters and journals. Fanny has been transformed completely to fit the popular view of an Austen heroine -- as someone mentioned above, Elizabeth Bennet/Jane Austen herself. While I do like the character portrayed by Frances O'Connor, it really has nothing to do with the character created by Austen, aside from the name and her love for Edmund.

I guess the short version of this reply is that the novel is very good and this movie is quite good, but they really are not the same thing at all, even more so in the usual way of the movie version never being the same as the book version of any story. I like them both but view them more as distant cousins than siblings -- with a few prominent "family features" in common but not much else.

Will the real Beowulf please stand up and alliterate?