MovieChat Forums > Mansfield Park (2008) Discussion > In light of the new adaptation is the fi...

In light of the new adaptation is the film really that bad?

posted 17 years ago by felicitycawley
33 replies | jump to latest

Considering neither are entirely faithful to the novel, I know I would much rather watch the film again than the t.v adaptation.

There are so many reasons but here I shall only mention a few:

In the film Edmund always hints that he likes Fanny and his father is really the only thing stopping him, hence his infatuation with Mary Crawford. In the tele-film he instantly falls for fanny over wool choice?

In the film Maria is represented sympathetically and you do feel for her, in the tele- film she barely bloody spoke? What was the point in casting Michelle Ryan at all?

Slavery, Mansfield Park is Austen's most political and dark novel and although not brilliantly the film did mention it and put it in context. The tele-film mentioned over a dinner table word 'abolitionist' popped up and subject passed!

I feel the script really let the tele-film down, it tried to include all the wrong things and for the first hour and a half it felt far too long and the last half hour felt far to rushed considering it's quite vital

It has to end happily and on a high!

[–] Julie-30 17 years ago

Well, slavery isn't an overt theme in the book, so it would seem that the telefilm's treatment was better.

[–] Samitude 17 years ago

I don't think Edmund really falls for Fanny over wool choice. If you notice in that scene he's already looking at her and hardly paying any attention to his book before she says anything about the wool. What I think struck him the most was in the scene right before that. Fanny is standing next to him as Aunt Norris is leaving and you hear Aunt Bertram saying, "Fanny, I need you." Fanny leaves Edmund's side and the comfort of his arm to go to her. Edmund's face is saying, "I need you and you're leaving me." He doesn't want her to go. His mother's words struck him like lightning. That's the scene where it starts to dawn on him in my opinion.

[–] Julie-30 17 years ago

Yes, it is.

I just saw the tele-film and I really liked it. And I detested the 1999 movie with a white-hot passion. I own every single available JA adaptation...except for Rozema's movie. And, unless I can find a cheap copy at ebay where the money won't go to Rozema, I will never own it.

But I am looking forward to owning this movie. I liked it so much more than I thought I would.

[–] CombinationOfCharacters 17 years ago

I agree with the original poster completely. I actually watched the 1999 version on UKTVdrama a day or 2 before Sunday night's version and enjoyed it sooo much more. It wasn't perfect by any means but at least the plot was developed in a controlled manner without rushing to cram everything into an hour and 40 minutesish. And at least they didn't lose out on content by trying to save money by only shooting it in one place. But the main thing that let down the ITV version was the character development and relationship development, both of these things I thought were pretty good in the 1999 film.

[–] Julie-30 17 years ago

But they left out a major character in 1999. Even though we don't see him very much, William Price has a lot to do with the plot. The whole thing about the cross and the necklaces, and then the part about how Henry tries to advance William's career to get in Fanny's good graces are gone.

As for character development in general, the characters in the movie didn't resemble JA's characters, which is another reason I find the movie lacking. In this telefilm, the characters were instantly recognizable to me.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gasolinehorseys 17 years ago

This is, without doubt, the worst Jane Austen adaptation ever. I didn't particularly like the film version, but it was vastly superior to this adaptation. The characters were flat and lifeless (and characters are what Austen does best), the script stilted and the plot zoomed through at the speed of light.

Ultimately, I have the same complaint about this as I did about the Pride and Prejudice film from last year, they watered Austen down. In an attempt to make it more palatable to a general audience they simplified the story.

"...he who accepts human love must
bind it to his soul with pain..."

[–] cgibbon2 17 years ago

Oh, I agree with you about Mansfield Park. It was devoid of characterization, unless you can characterize someone based on speed.

But I disagree about Pride and Prejudice 05. I think that while it moves quickly, you get a solid grasp as to who the characters really are. There is a difference between condensation and chopping up altogether.

[–] Julie-30 17 years ago

I had no trouble with the characters in this movie. Edmund was as clueless as ever. The Crawford as conniving as ever. Fanny may have been more robust than she's supposed to be, but she was still sweet, innocent and loving.

[–] oldgal 17 years ago

I had no problems with Edmund and the Crawfords (although those two could have used some more character development) in this adaptation, but they really flubbed Sir Thomas, Aunt Norris and, most importantly, Fanny. Yes, she is sweet, innocent and loving, but she's also supposed to be diffident and restrained and have strong moral positions. These are the traits that drive her character (she refuses Henry Crawford because she questions his morals, not because she doesn't love him), but these don't exactly make for a compelling movie heroine. I think Fanny is a tough heroine to put onscreen (actually, with the exception of Emma and Elizabeth Bennet, Austen didn't write any movie-friendly heroines: Fanny Price, Anne Elliot, Catherine Moreland, Elinor Dashwood). The 1999 movie version did a fine job of adapting the story, but they only managed it by giving it a completely new, non-Austen heroine!

[–] peculiar_treasure13 17 years ago

she refuses Henry Crawford because she questions his morals, not because she doesn't love him

I just read the book, and I remember it saying that it was actually Fanny's love for Edmund that protected her from falling for Henry Crawford's charms. It said something along the lines of not even she, being a young girl of eighteen, would be able to resist his attentions in the long run had she not already been in love with another. Of course she is also wary of his morals and motives, so that too was a major part.

It's true that Fanny might not be that interesting for the screen, but it's too bad. I really loved jane Austen's Fanny — she's quiet and different from the stereotypical heroine, but really she is extremely strong and steadfast in what she believes is right. I wish adaptations would keep that...

[–] rband-2 17 years ago

The movie with the radiant Frances O'Connor, was much underrated. No it wasn't faithful to Austen's bloodless Fanny, but since when do filmmakers have to be slavish imitators. It's called interpretation. Rozema is a genius in my book.

[–] Julie-30 17 years ago

Rozema said she didn't like the book, she didn't like Fanny and she thought she could do better than Austen.

That's nothing less than hubris, as far as I am concerned. Fanny Price is an outstanding judge of character, which is more than can be said about the popular Elizabeth Bennet. I admire Fanny very much -- and I like her more the older I get.

[–] remyravn 17 years ago

I agree..I'm watching it now and it's all I can do to stop watching it...

Honestly - if they're going to make another version of it, they should at least do it properly...

[–] coleburg83 17 years ago

The slavery plot in the 1999 movie was really what ruined it for me. It was a politically correct version of the story and they turned Sir Thomas into some kind of sadistic rapist in the West Indies.

It was beyond ridiculous really. It's always like that when try and portray late 20th and 21st century morality to these movies.

To answer your question, yes the film is really that bad. Just look at who they cast as Fanny Price and you know from the beginning that it is.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mick-137 17 years ago

I didn't watch this as it was clear from the pre-publicity that no-one involved with it had any idea of what the book was about. I'm glad I didn't--if it makes the film look good by comparison it must be very, very bad indeed.

[–] lisageary 17 years ago

Personally, studying film adaptations in my degree, it is never possible to please the audience of such classic literary works such as Austen. There are always gonig to be parts of a book which are not adaptable to screen, and Rozema's film and the tv adaptation of the book make a valiant effort at portraying different aspects of the novel. Personally, i prefered Rozema's 199 film to the televison adaptation because of its casting choices but i think both portray an interesting adaptation of the class work.

[–] cagosta 16 years ago

At the same time, if Rozema hated Fanny so much, why make the film? Why take a story that you hate and completely change every aspect of it? Why not just write your own original script and not hang on the coattails of someone more famous? The Rozema version simply is NOT "Mansfield Park" in any way whatsoever beyond, oh, maybe the character's names.

[–] kellydofc 16 years ago

Just finished watching the tv version right now. And I hated it!!!! I couldn't even pay full attention to the wretched thing. I would rather have my teeth yanked then ever watch this thing again. I will however watch the movie many times over because at least I cared who Fanny married, in this one she could have run off with the chimney sweep for all I cared.

[–] FlixChatter 16 years ago

Short answer: No. On the contrary, I think the movie is far better, regardless of its faithfulness to the book, it's just a more superior film overall. I agree with the points the original poster of this thread (felicitycawley) brought up, especially regarding to the slavery topic and how Edmund feels about Fanny. I've posted my opinion about these two adaptations here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0847182/board/thread/96059987?d=96166339&a mp;p=3#96166339

Patricia Rozema's is a fantastic director IMO, 1999 Mansfield Park remains one of my all time favorite films!