Mansfield Park

Rating:
Summary: Janie's darkest tale?.
Review: Mansfield Park is thought to have been written by Jane Austen when she was in her thirties and had seen something of life and it's misfortunes. (Her novels were not printed in the order she wrote them). Many scholars believe it may have been her last complete novel. Her sister burned all her correspondence when she died. She was a very private person, who did not discuss her works and quickly covered her writing when anyone entered the room. It is likely that all of her novels reflect aspects of her inner and outer life at the time she wrote them. Since she never married, we might assume she couldn't possibly have based the lives of her heroines on her own life, but that is not so. While her heroines always get their man, they also come very very close to losing them permanently. When I think of Ms. Austen, I imagine she was like Elizabeth Bennet when she was younger and Anne Elliot in "Persuasion" when she was older.

Jane Austin had brothers who distinguished themselves in the British Navy. I beleive one brother was with Nelson at Trafalgar. Ms Austin's father was a vicar, and like her character Frank in Emma, one of her brothers was raised by a wealthy family whose name he assumed.

As she lead a relatively cloistered life with her mother and sisters (not unlike "Sense and Sensibility") she used her knowledge of other's experiences in her novels. One of her naval brothers (who rose to Admiral from the lowest rank--like Hornblower) wrote long letters about his adventures, very much like Fanny Price's brother in "Mansefield Park." Ms Austen admired and loved what she knew from her brother's letters. Her sentiments are reflected in "Persuasion" when one of her characters says "I do so admire these Navy men." In reality, navy life was extremely difficult and mutinies were commonplace.

Mansefield Park is the tale of Fanny Price, a poor little girl who is sent to live with her relatives (shades of Jane Eyre written 30-40 years later). Fanny is not a particularly physically attractive girl in the book or the BBC adaptation done in the 1980s. In the film, however, Fanny is pretty and witty and rather more like Elizabeth Bennet of "Pride and Prejudice."

Fanny's nemesis and "friend" is the decidedly beautiful and sophisitcated Ms. Crawford (who knows a great deal about "Vices and Rears" -- she's speaking of the navy of course). Ms. Austen delighted in giving her characters defects. In the book, Mary Crawford is good natured but not principled, and Fanny is not good natured but she is very principled. (Is beauty external or internal?) The differences between the two women provide quite a bit of amusement and discomfort in the book, but since the "film" Fanny is already beautiful some of the edge is gone. In both the book and the film, Fanny is a better person than Mary, as she proves by the end of the story.

From my perspective, a major flaw of this film is it's failure to develop Fanny's important relationships with her Naval brother and sisters. Instead, the director INVENTED a subplot about slavery in the West Indies and connected it to Tom Bertram's illness which seems to be the result of his witnessing a downright non-Austen scene involving Mr. Bartram Sr. that could have been in "The Wild Sargasso Sea" prequal to Jane Eyre.

Although the book briefly alludes in the preface to the basis for the Bertram's wealth, it never elaborates and "rubbing slavery in the faces of the audience" misses what Ms. Austen is about and why people still read her books. Ms. Austen did not write about the political issues of the 18th-19th centuries. She wrote about relationships. Given women had few choices, no civil rights, no opportunities to do anything other than marry and have children or be a spinster like Miss Norris, Ms Austen found plenty of "social conscience" stuff to write about.

I find it extremely irritating that every time the topic of women's issues arises the discussion invariably seems to turn to race and be trumped by it. Slavery was bad bad bad thing that occurred to blacks AND WHITES (yes, there were white slaves at this time), but Austen's books are about her observations in her own life -- the disadvantage of and cruelty towards English men and women by those who thought and still think they are better than others owing to wealth and the priviliges associated with birth.

Ms. Austen was aware of social class distinctions and she uses her knowledge to make witty observations about pretentious and immorality. (She wrote during the Regency Period when the aristocracy left much to be desired.)

The book and movie use a device created by Shakespeare--the play within the play. And Ms. Austin is making fun of this device. Whereas the play within the play in Shakespere's Hamlet leads to discovery and resolution (Hamlet traps his father's killer), Mansefield Park's play is a disaster that leads to dissolution (Father traps children and puts them on probation).

One of the fun things to do with Austen's books is to look for opposites and recurring characterizations. For example, foolish women who risk all for a bad bad man and foppish fools with money who have their suits of marriage taken seriously.

If you have read the book, you may be disappointed in the film. I saw the film in the theater and I don't plan to buy the DVD. Rent it before you buy it if you haven't already seen it.

Rating:
Summary: Jane Austen would have been proud
Review: Just because the movie didn't follow the book to the perfect finish, it was still well directed and acted. If you have not read the book then you will be sitting on the edge of your seat the entire time of the showing. I enjoyed it immensly and will buy it as soon as it is on video.

Rating:
Summary: It's a must see!
Review: It's very true that the movie was quite different from the book. The involvement of slavery didnt appear in the novel, and some of the characters in the novel are portayed differently than in the movie. In relation to the issue of the change in characters in the film, I liked the change in Fanny. In the novel she isnt as strong willed, or free spirited, as she is in the film. Overall I enjoyed this movie very much, and recomend it to others.

(and i do belive the first review to be a bit harsh)

Rating:
Summary: This is Rozema's Mansfield Park, NOT Austen's.
Review: To be completely honest, I thought this film was a travesty. Isee no need to exclude important scenes and change characters'personalities just because you don't like them. This, however, is precisely what Rozema did. This film bears very little resemblance to Austen's novel, and while I am most definitely not a purist, I believe wholeheartedly that Miss Austen is spinning in her grave over this one.

Austen's Sir Thomas Bertram, while somewhat flawed, is essentially a good man. Rozema turns him into a vicious lecher. Austen's Lady Bertram is not much of anything; Rozema turns her into a drug addict. Austen's Mrs. Norris is an inherently evil woman who emotionally abuses little Fanny; Rozema's Mrs. Norris is just a nosy pest. Austen's Fanny is quiet, reserved and intensely moral; Rozema's is a devil-may-care free spirit. Austen's Tom Bertram was a mindless fop; Rozema's is an ardent abolitionist. Austen's William Price is an example of what was admirable of 19th-century English manhood; Rozema's William Price is...? Well, he doesn't exist, so he's nothing... Those who have never read the book won't understand why Fanny turns down Henry's proposal of marriage (btw, in the book she never accepts it in the first place), or why Fanny does not act in the play. These are very important events in the book, and Rozema glosses over them in favor of pushing her own ... agenda.

This same ... agenda also leads Rozema to revise history. One glaring example of this is that, in 1806, it was illegal for slave ships to be off the coast of England. Yet Rozema puts them there to beat us over the head with her politics. More minor infractions include clothing and household furnishings which were not authentic to the period.

All in all, I think it would be appropriate to use Jane Austen's own words when describing this unmitigated disaster: Badly done!

I can't give it zero stars unfortunately because, as an adaptation, it deserves none. I can, however, give the cinematography and score several stars each.

Rating:
Summary: A Must See
Review: As a huge fan of Jane Austen I highly recommend this movie. Although it doesn't follow the book word by word it is an excellent adaptation. I don't see where people would get the lesbian undertones. Women in that time period had closer female relationships than we do now. The acting, scenery, and especially the soundtrack made this movie unforgettable. If you like Jane Austen, you'll love Mansfield Park.

Rating:
Summary: I can't wait for the DVD release
Review: All right, so we Austen fanatics can see that this is not a 'by-the-book' script, but how often can you say that of any movie? Fact is, with the beautiful photography, costuming and wonderful acting, the movie is very enjoyable. My 27 year old son took me to this movie at Christmastime as a treat and he loved it! Frances O'Connor as Fanny was irrepressible as well as irristable. I have not laughed with an Austen character in a movie this much since Jennifer Ehle in Pride & Prejudice. Watch for the spots where the narrator says "They could have....." (still photo)..... "but they didn't". And life goes on.

Rating:
Summary: A Spirited Fanny
Review: Before seeing the movie, I had read reviews in both the Washington Post and the NY Times. Since I have been a Jane Austen fan since I was a teenager in the 1960s, I was uncertain how I would feel about the movie after reading that there were lesbian undertones in this production. My adult daughter and I saw the movie twice at Christmas time and thoroughly enjoyed it. I have not read any of Austen's private papers but understand that her feelings about the slave trade and wealth dependent upon it were accurately depicted in the movie. I was not offended by the interpretation of the novel, but did not feel that the lesbian comments were warranted. After seeing the movie twice, I felt that Mary was trying to arouse the jealousy of Edmond in the one scene and making a critical assessment of her competition in the other. Perhaps I simply misunderstood the producer's intent, but I think that often we interpret art from our own background and perspective and I don't understand those who feel convinced that this movie has bisexual overtones. This was a fun movie and I would recommend it to any Jane Austen fan. It makes a lively contrast to the older and very conservative BBC production. But no movie can ever replace the joy that comes from reading a good book.

Rating:
Summary: Great Movie, but not like the book.
Review: Mansfield Park was a wonderful movie, but a horrible adaption from the book. Other then the basic names of the characters and the general story line, the movie was nothing like Jane Austen's book. The character of Fanny was portrayed completely oppposite from what she is in the novel and that made the whole story play out differently. It is worth seeing if you are looking for a good movie, but if you want a movie accurate to the book, this is not the movie to watch.

Rating:
Summary: This movie is one of my top five ever!
Review: I absolutely loved this movie. I read the book, which is different, and I loved the adaptation equally well. All around marvelous. I am far more reader than movie-goer, and don't normally appreciate adaptations. The acting, the music, the costumes, the setting -- stellar. I saw it three times and can't wait for the video!

Rating:
Summary: Must See!
Review: As a future English teacher and a Jane Austin fan, I canhonestly say that this movie was very well done. The acting is superband the content provides many breath taking twists on the actual story. This is definitely a must see picture!