MovieChat Forums > Mansfield Park (2008) Discussion > A few things that bothered me

A few things that bothered me


Gillian Anderson's unnecessary introduction (PBS broadcast of all the Austen films). She sounds like she's talking to a group of fifteen-year-olds who have never read a book, and have been persuaded to sit down and stop playing with their cell phones for eighty minutes.

The distinctly soap opera acting going on during the Crawfords' first visit.

Edmund's sister doing a modern runway-model-style bitch walk as she went out to get into the carriage after being married.

Fanny's blonde hair but giant Laura San Giacomo black eyebrows.

The aunt's wheezy manner of talking. Does she have emphysema?

The severe abridgement that made the movie seem somewhat like a trailer, particularly the omission of Fanny's visit to her poverty stricken family (most likely the usual PBS butchering job).

The hand-held bobbing, swerving, jumping, and jiggling camera (which was even worse in "Persuasion"). But I guess the young people like this.

The ubiquitous conversation during a dance, which was cleverly done in the Ehle/Firth "Pride and Prejudice" but has been turned into a cliche by nearly every Austen adaptation since.

Fanny's continually running about the house like a wild child, in spite of the fact that she's old enough to be a bit more adult in behavior.

The fact that Fanny hardly ever seemed to change her clothes.

The unlikely youthfulness of Edmund's mother, considering his older brother appeared to be at least thirty, and she seemed less than forty.





reply

liscarkat-2: I've been wondering about the Gillian Anderson intros too. Maybe I just don't take to change very well, but I don't care for the new look of Masterpiece (why was it changed from Masterpiece Theater, does anyone know?)

I was annoyed by Fanny's running everywhere as well. Did the scriptwriter and/or director even read the book before they tried to adapt it? The character Fanny is a less than robust young woman, who goes out of her way to be mannerly to the point of being priggish. She does not spend the story sprinting from one place to another with her hair loose. Speaking of which, what is up with the ITV adaptations of Austen's novels? Everyone one of them has the heroines of the story sprinting hither and thither. There has to be a better way to show that the character is spirited without having her run everywhere she goes.

reply

(why was it changed from Masterpiece Theater, does anyone know?)


Because they lost their Exxon/Mobil funding, and they've combined what was Masterpeice Theater and Mystery and added some contemporary works.

So, it's now Masterpiece, Masterpiece Mysteries and Masterpiece Contemporary, or something like that.

reply

Because they lost their Exxon/Mobil funding, and they've combined what was Masterpeice Theater and Mystery and added some contemporary works.
Oooooooh! I did not know that. I kept meaning to look it up(every Sunday I'd think about it, but would promptly forget again). Well, shame on Exxon/Mobile. It's still going to take me a little time to get used to Gillian Anderson as the host. I'd be curious to know who is doing the research for the info she reads during the introduction. In her intro for MP, she said that the character who was probably based on Austen was Mary Crawford. I'd like to see a citation for that.

reply

<the heroines of the story sprinting hither and thither>


Running about like a "Veritable Hoyden" as one of the authors on the Regency group styled it!

reply

[deleted]

The severe abridgement that made the movie seem somewhat like a trailer, particularly the omission of Fanny's visit to her poverty stricken family.

Yeah, that bothered me too. I know they must have had time constraints, but it's a lot easier to condense Northanger Abbey into 90 minutes than Mansfield Park. I felt like too much was left out, but I still think it hung together pretty nicely under the circumstances.

My biggest problems: Mrs. Norris and Henry Crawford. I was so looking forward to the horrible Mrs. Norris and the deliciously dirty Henry Crawford. Both were too tame; I was very let down. But, Edmund was great. I thought he really captured the kindness and stupidity (let's face it, Edmund was dumb) of Edmund in the best way. Fanny wasn't sickly, which was odd, but she made her primness seem justified. I was pleasantly surprised by both of those actors.

Mildred! He's at it again. http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=8093247

reply

I thought the OP made some great observations. I agree totally.

Exxon only made a billion dollar profit last year. You think they could keep supporting MP theatre!

reply

I haven't even read this book, YET, but it definitely felt rushed like I was missing a lot, along with it sometimes seeming like the wrong note was hit here and there.

But there's one particular thing I was wondering about and I think those who have read the book could help me with it.

In the first visit with the Crawfords when Mary stuck part of her leg out, it seemed like it was done too pointedly and in an awkward way. I suppose they were trying to convey that it seemed just that conspicuous to Edmund and that it was a very deliberate move on Mary Crawford's part. I don't doubt either of those, but the way it was done just seems as if no one in the same room would've been able to resist doing a double take and gawking for a second. Is that the way it was in the book? I just thought that there should've been a more graceful, sly way to do it without the intent being lost. But the way it was done just seemed like they were SO worried the viewer wouldn't get it that I halfway expected the frame to freeze so that Gillian Anderson could walk in,"This is a flirtatious gesture on the part of Mary Crawford to Edmund. Allow me to pause for a few seconds as this information sinks in.... Thank you and enjoy the rest of your viewing."


Did it seem that way to anyone else?

reply

LOL at the image of Gillian Anderson interrupting the scene!

In the book, Mary isn't at all interested in Edmund because he's the younger son. She wants to attract Tom because he'll eventually get the house and the title (this is before she's even set eyes on either man). It's only when she fails to interest Tom, and he leaves Mansfield Park that she begins to notice and appreciate Edmund. This takes her completely by surprise since he's not her usual 'type'. She certainly doesn't flash any body parts to attract anyone's attention in the book. If she had, then Edmund would have probably run a mile.

The people have appointed me. I am their leader. I must follow them.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, the hair was very poorly done in this movie. Maria's loose hair/side-burn thingies really annoyed me. They looked like two antennae; I am convinced that she was supposed to be an extraterrestrial in this particular film. Just observe her lifeless behavior and wooden delivery -- there's something very conspicuous about her. . . .

The uncle is a really hilarious character. He and Mrs. Norris have such funny voices ("It's your day, Fanny!"). He can't seem to decide whether he wants to be the bad guy or not. One minute, he's randomly insulting her, the next moment, he's embracing her and praising her wildly. Make up your mind, man!

~~Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone.~~

reply

But the way it was done just seemed like they were SO worried the viewer wouldn't get it that I halfway expected the frame to freeze so that Gillian Anderson could walk in,"This is a flirtatious gesture on the part of Mary Crawford to Edmund."


I know I'm really late to game with this post but LOL! I almost fell out of my chair reading that.


"...It is a ever-fixed mark that looks on tempests and is never shaken..."

reply

I also disliked the fact that fanny didn't visit her family. It's makes being courted by Crawford at the house seem awkward and improper. She's alone at the hosue you dummy! Don't think you're gunna get some!!

and Maria making out with Crawford behind the curtain? Were they even in Sir Thomas's den?

and where was Susan?

I too hated that she wan't as weak as Jane Austen portrayed her...


T~O #523
H~O #58
Twilightologist
"The simplest answer is to act."

reply

Pitch perfect on every point.

I also have to add that I found the Crawfords very sympathetic. I found it very difficult to root for Edmund and Fanny to be together when I was hoping that they each ended up with a Crawford. Mary to shake Edmund up a bit and learn to live a little, and for Fanny to end up with a dashing young man who actually noticed her for herself.

I've read Mansfield Park a long time ago and I confess I know the 1999 film version better than the book so I don't remember how accurate the Crawfords are in this version to the book but it seems while they are calculating, they both seem sincere in their attachments to Edmund and Fanny.

reply

My recommendation is to read the book again and get the 1999 movie out of your mind. Despite the name, it's NOT Mansfield Park.


http://currentscene.wordpress.com/tag/jane-austen-odyssey/

reply

I'm also coming late in this board. Regarding the comment above about the 1999 version, I take it that it is worse than this 2007 version ?

Like some of the posters here, I felt disappointed with how Fanny Price was portrayed in this version. Though the 1983 version looked dated, I prefer Sylvestra Le Touzel's Fanny Price far more than Billie Piper's, where the latter always has this sense of urgency about her and unable to keep still for long, a very superficial Fanny Price. Whereas Le Touzel's Fanny has more depth in her retiring character, and though she seemed weak on the surface, there is actually strength in her ability to walk the tightrope between gratitude and servility and keeping her dignity intact, there is the will to survive in an environ that looks down upon her as a poor relation, in appearance she blended well. Billie Piper's Fanny is an anachronism among the mannered qualities of those around her. Her long years in the house doesn't seem to have instilled a sense of refinement in her. She looked shabby and her dishevelled hairstyle made her looked so out of place among the other characters. Come to think of it, the men's hair look far better than hers.

Billie Piper's Fanny Price stuck like a sore thumb, in a cast that did quite well and kept me entertained through to the end.




Truth inexorably,inscrutably seeks and reveals Itself into the Light.

reply

As bad as this one is, it's still better than the 1999 version.

To paraphrase myself, I don't think the people who made this one set out to make a terrible version of the story. But the 1999 badness is intentional. Patricia Rozema said publicly that she didn't like MP and she didn't like Fanny Price and she thought she could do better. Her MP is an abomination that bears next-to-no resemblance to Austen's story except for the names of the characters.

http://currentscene.wordpress.com

reply

Thanks for clarifying, I was planning to see the 1999 version but now has lost interest in it.
Actually it's only Billie Piper's Fanny that I don't like but the rest of the cast in it, was more than satisying especially Hayley Atwell's Mary Crawford, and the actor who did the character Edmund.



Truth inexorably,inscrutably seeks and reveals Itself into the Light.

reply

Mary Crawford in this version was excelent.

The '99 version is awful, not even in a camp 'so bad it's good' sort of way. Just a couple of hours of my life I'll never get back

He looks like what happens when you punch a cow!

reply

I liked the '99 version but then I had never read the book when I saw it, so I wasn't bothered by the departures from canon.

This Fanny was just odd to me. I think she conveyed her unwavering stances and perceptiveness but she also seemed sort of childlike and feral. Like she was an idiot savant or something.

reply