Northanger Abbey

Rating:
Summary: sweet, polished
Review: The movie treatment of Jane Austen's "Northanger Abbey" is a sweet, polished version of the rather slight story, one of her lesser works. Katharine Schelsinger does a marvelous job as the wide-eyed, tremulous ingenue who is fascinated with Gothic horror tales of beautiful women held captive by men with evil intentions.

Sent to Bath to spend a season there with friends of her parents, Katharine relishes her time away from her many siblings and their quiet, provincial home. Predictably, she falls in love, and after the inevitable false starts and Austin's obligatory, complicated situations involving position and money, she gets her man and finds happiness. The lavish green landscapes of Britain, the marvelous period costumes, and the lush, dramatic musical score all add to the viewer's pleasure. "Pride and Prejudice" this tale is not, yet it provides an enjoyable diversion.

Rating:
Summary: Faithful to spirit of the book
Review: Faithful to the spirit of the book. Thankfully (and unlike some other, respected adaptations of Jane Austen's books), the script retains the humor in Austen's prose. The casting is great, the acting is excellent, with Katharine Schlesinger an absolute stand-out... as Mr. Tilney observed, every thought and feeling shows on her face.

Rating:
Summary: An unusual offering from the BBC - but okay.
Review: Though below the standard of any other Austen film I've seen (I haven't yet seen Persuasion) in terms of quality and acting, this film version of Northanger Abbey is strangely satisfying - or perhaps I should say - not completely dissatisfying. After hearing so many terrible things said of the music and dream sequences I was expecting something far worse - something entirely laughable. What I've found is that with such low expectations the film did alright.

Before one watches or reads Northanger Abbey it is almost vital that one reads Anne Radcliffe's masterpiece, The Mysteries of Udolpho. The reason for this is that NA is consistently referring to the book and is often a direct parody. What was obvious from this film, is that the filmakers had never read Udolpho and didn't understand Austen's jokes. What made it quite clear that Udolpho had not been read were the strange fantasy sequences, as they did not have anything to do with the book or Radcliffe's style at all. What is portrayed in the film is far more graphic and horrific than the book Catherine makes reference to. As a result, the fantasy sequences are over the top and even make Catherine seem a bit mashochistic, which is completely different from Austen's intent. If you haven't read Udolpho, you shouldn't notice these issues at all, however if you have, the filmmaker's approach will seem rather bizarre.

Aside from that, one of my main complaintd is that the music does not fit the film whatsoever and did at times become a distraction. The chanting celtic sounding voice may have sounded better without the synthesizers and St. Elmo's Fire saxophone playing with it. The rock guitar that occasionally flared up was much easier to stomach than the lusty saxophone that played at the most unusual times. On top of this, there were some unnecessary changes made to explain the character of Major Tilney and further create the Gothic suspicions that Catherine harbors. I thought this actually lent her actions more credence instead of making them more ridiculous (and hilariously stupid) as they are in the book. The filmaker's need to validate Catherine in this way really removed hilarity from many of the greatest scenes. It was strange to see the BBC and A&E of all people, do this to a piece of literature. However, the changes were not so strong as to entirely change the story.

Casting also plays a key role in the quality of this film. Isabella is twice as annoying, maybe thrice, as in the book. The actress who plays her smiles in such a large and ghastly way that her attractiveness to men is entirely unbelievable. Her brother, Catherine's unwelcome courter, is better cast, however the scriptwriters portray him as more of a scary abuser than an awkward baffoon as he is supposed to be. Mr. Tilney, our hero, is at times perfect in his role, and then awkward, but in the most important moments, pulls off his character perfectly. Northanger Abbey itself is an historical inaccuracy, as they use a castle - and assume we don't know what an Abbey is. Major Tilney is perfect, and one of the better actors in the film. However, it is Catherine herself that made the film worth watching for me. She was the embodiment of everything Austen described her to be and I can't imagine another actress in the role who could have done better. She had the awkwardness of Catherine, yet at times could be unbelievably beautiful, and at all times maintained the innocence you would expect her to have. I would very much like to see a remake with this same girl in the role, however, I'm sure she's much older now.

Oh, and one more thing, this may be the only film in which the filmmaker's were ever allowed to use the actual waters at bath built originally by the Romans. It is remarkable to see how they were used. Men and women actually climbed into the waters fully clothed, hats and all, and stood around and talked. In this film, the showed the actors with some sort of floating plate tied around their necks. It looked like the plate was covered with flowers or something that was possibly an aromatherapy type treatment. Very interesting for history buffs and likely never to be done again.

In summary, this film is worth watching if you are a true Austen fan. However, if you aren't, the whole thing may come off as some strange Saturday afternoon made for tv movie gone wrong. If you aren't familiar with Jane Austen or films of her books, don't start with this one. However, if you are getting to the bottom of the pile for Austen things to read or watch, this is worth the effort.

Rating:
Summary: Castles
Review: As a fan of Jane Austen adaptations, I wasn't overly excited about this one. Catherine Morland (Katharine Schlesinger) is found enjoying literature, solitude and picking plums.

She is rather entranced by chilling romance novels and when she meets Henry Tilney (Peter Firth) in Bath, she is invited to Northanger Abbey. There she becomes intrigued by the death of General Tilney's wife and starts to do her own detective work.

Most dramatic and at times even creepy although I guess it is at times more humorous than filled with horror. The "fantasy" scenes are rather comical.

For Gothic Lovers and the castle is worth seeing. I'd rather go see that castle than watch the movie!

Rating:
Summary: Adored it!!
Review: Northanger Abbey does not stick to the original text of the novel faithfully, but I can live with all the changes that were made. This movie is so, so, so romantic, and hilarious, and adorable. Peter Firth is an exceptionally appealing, heroic, and amusing Henry Tilney, and I loved Katharine Schlesinger as Catherine. She looked exactly as the Catherine in the book might have looked. God bless that actress for her big nose, her beautiful eyes, and her not-heaving bosom! I can't tell you how wonderful it was to have a real looking heroine -- just as Catherine Moreland was. The scenery was gorgeous, the music 80s -- but fun -- and the location shots were all fantastic. Ah -- the last scene -- the proposal -- melts my heart. It doesn't exist in the book -- but who cares? Neither does half of what charmed me about Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility! I loved it, and didn't think Jane Austen would mind. It is absolutely possible to love both the film Northanger Abbey and the book -- and I do!

Rating:
Summary: Too Faithful Adaptaion of Austen's First Completed Novel
Review: After the tremendous success of Jane Austen films and TV programs made in the 90s, such as "Pride and Prejudice" "Sense and Sensibilities" "Emma" "Persuation" and "Clueless" (as the modernized "Emma"), you may expect much fun from this adaptation of "Northanger Abbey." But the reviewers, so far, are not so kind, it seems, and they are some good reasons. Sure, this one is not good.

The story follows Catherine Morland, merry and good-natured, but a little naive girl who is overjoyed to have a chance to visit Bath, a famous spa where she is going to enter the society. Dazzled by dancing, music, and new friends, Catherine is too happy to know that the society is full of unpleasant things which she soon must learn.

And Catherine, who devours the popular books of Gothic novels (like Radcliffe's "The Mysteries of Udolpho"), is invited to live at "Northanger Abbey" for a while by the sophisticated Henry Tilney and his kind sister Eleanor. Catherine is all too happy to accept the offer, dreaming of experiencing an old castle, some intrigues, secret passages and so on, which are basics of the Gothic novels she loves. And she thinks she finds a deadly secret among the Tilneys, and especially with its eccentric father in mind, she imagines she is to find something horrible among the place.

Here you must remember this: Austen wrote the original book as a spoof of those Gothic novels and their extraordinary situations -- villains, castles, and confined heroines etc. -- so, you have to take the film in that way. However, the film fails to convey this playful mood, taking itself rather seriously, or, presenting the heroine in a too clumsy way. At one scene, she sees General Tilney (father of Henry and Eleanor) grinning and laughing like a big bad wolf in her dream. It is simply misguided and embarrasing, particularly when you hear a strange jazzy soundtrack with that.

There are some romantic aspects in the film, and Catherine naturally falls for a gentleman, but the love story is too short, or looks abbreviated. What intrigued us in "Pride and Prejudice" -- like Darcy's witty remarks -- is all missing, and above all, everything is underdeveloped. The heroine is not joyfully meddling like Emma (or Alicia Silverstone for that matter); her history is not as touching as that of Anne Elliot, the heroine of "Persuation."

Probably there is a reason for that. The original book of "Northanger Abbey" was the first to be written by Austen, but the last one to be published after her death. This complicated history has been the topic of discussion for academic people, but it is not what we should know. We should know that it is written before those masterpieces which made her name. "Northanger Abbey" is just a blueprint, or a prototype of what is to come later, even though it has many elements to be found in her great works.

In short, "Northanger Abbey" is not definitely Austen's best, and they should have known that. And they should have made its film something different than the book. The film is too faithful to the book, to the fault.

Rating:
Summary: Trepid reviewer from an austinphile
Review: I found this to be a remarkably engaging piece, especially owing to it's idiosyncacies with respect to the indulgent, poetic licence that the director, producer, musical score evoked.
How very eighties the score was....it was a welcome reprise.
I agree that the music was somewhat incongruous with respect to the historical time frames, but I felt it added to the appeal.
Peter Firth was earnest, nay, strikingly elegant in his portrayal of Henry Firth. I found the final scene, with his emerging from the mist as profoundly harlequin-like, but acceptably satifsying.
Katherine Schlesinger's wide eyed stares were occasionally a little difficult to understand, and I felt that perhaps she should elect to have her thyroid levels checked. The gothic scenes initially put me off, however, I do believe that with the passage of time, I grew accustomed to them, and as a result they were less and less objectionable.
On the whole, I have to confess that I loved this venerable production.

Rating:
Summary: CHEESY!
Review: I guess the adaptations of Jane Austen's other novels spoiled me. Cheesy is the word I would use to describe this movie. I really didn't like anything about it. I think the director wanted to make a gothic movie rather than a romance. Plus, there were so many things in the movie that did not happen in the book. These things make the movie terrible. I would love for the BBC to make a film that was true to Austen's wonderful novels. Pride & Prejudice, Sense & Sensibility, etc, were incredible adaptations. Many people seeing the movies read the books as a result. The opposite happens when people view the movie Northanger Abbey.

Rating:
Summary: mystery in history
Review: Arguably not Jane Austin's best work, the book is nevertheless worth reading and the same can be said of the movie. It was fairly well done and well cast and sticks pretty close to the book. Don't make this the first movie about a Jane Austin book that you read. If you do, you may not watch another. This book (and movie) is an acquired taste. If you're an Austin fan, you'll like it. If you're not, you might like it. Don't expect another "Sense and Sensibility" or "Pride and Prejudice" because the book was nothing like them. But it is a good story about a young girl who constantly reads what would today be called "Gothic Romance" mysteries. When she gets to go out into the world, she is looking for mysteries everywhere, only to learn that the real world is not the same as the literary world. They handled the heroine's book-influenced day-dreaming very well. And it has a typically-Austin good ending.

Rating:
Summary: NA movie is very refreshing to see!
Review: This adaptation of NA movie is "very" refreshing to see because it breaks away from the traditional style most JA's movies were created. It also captured the Gothic and dark moods of NA and of Catherine Moorland's fantasy. I consider this movie and the book are underrated and over looked. I do hope readers and fan of JA will give this movie/novel a chance.