Fanny: The Day After
Lots of mixed views about MP07 amongst the Janeite diaspora. A sampling of online and press opinions tend more towards positive, while rank-and-file Janeite opinion (at least on AustenBlog) tends toward the unenthralled. It should, however, be noted that we had at least one bright soul post who is raring to read the book after seeing the movie, so we chalk that up to a positive (though she seemed to be afraid the ending might be different in the book). Too bad The Telegraph isn’t giving out copies of the novels anymore–we think after the adaptations were shown would have been the ideal time to do it. (Our copies arrived today at AustenBlog World Headquarters! Many thanks to Kathleen for collecting them! They are quite lovely editions that the Editrix will keep in her Sanctum Sanctorum.)
5.9 million of you watched the film, though not all of you made it all the way through…curious.
The British press is mostly bored with it all.
Ah, Mansfield Park (ITV1, Sunday). Here we go then. So these’ll be the gates of a big country house, a park, the expectant sound of carriage wheels on a gravel drive, velvety snorting stallions, steaming flanks, a cool reception. Know your place, girl. Here are a load of men who look like Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen. And boobs, lots of them, everywhere – from the front, from the side, from above; pale and heaving with love and lust, virtue and jealousy.
So this’ll be another lazy journalist who can’t be bothered to think of something to write about Jane Austen adaptations besides heaving bosoms.
The Times is not above some bad humor, either.
Alas, however, ITV1 overlooked one gigantic — indeed, one might almost call it insurmountable — problem with the whole project. This drama, with which they hope to capture a teenage audience, has as its main protagonist Fanny Price. Now, I am 31 years old. I can’t, in all honesty, say I have a terribly sophisticated sense of humour, but I am still, I would wager, on far less of an innuendo hair-trigger than most adolescents. What, then, are they — poor, hormone-drunk creatures — to make of the following pieces of dialogue? “Fanny is very young.” “Fanny — so warm and affectionate.” “Help me, Fanny! Guide me!” “Fanny, where are you! I need you!”
I fear those less mature than me might not make it to the end, where Mr Bertram finally kisses Piper’s Fanny in the garden.
Well, we’re rolling on the floor. (not)
The Times reviewer didn’t seem much impressed.
ITV1’s first strike in its Austen season — came and went, leaving the world much the same place it was before it arrived.
The Scotsman didn’t hate it.
Piper, despite having absolutely gorgeous ringlets in this – no, seriously, her best hair ever – somehow just does not look ‘period’. It’s something about the shape of her mouth, I think. If she did live in those times, somehow you feel she’d be better cast as a cheeky scullery maid than as a pious member of a wealthy family.
(There, who was asking about what makes a face modern?)
The Guardian’s Organgrinder blog liked it rather better:
There was a calmness and expressiveness in Billie’s face that kept the drama afloat, even if her larger than life features don’t seem all that period. But by the end of the weekend I’d determined that she really is a superb actress. Just a shame we weren’t treated to a longer version of Mansfield Park that might have done more justice to the subtleties of plot and character that she would have delighted us with, no doubt.
The Telegraph was downright enthusiastic.
All praise to ITV then for making such a terrific job of it (although Austen purists might not agree). It necessitated stripping the plot to bare bones and turning Fanny into a scampering tomboy rather than a timid little Miss. But in the hands of actress of the hour Billie Piper, this Fanny lit up the screen – a cheerful, attractive, only slightly downtrodden young woman whom everyone could root for and take to their hearts.
The Independent took a different approach, praising the series for being “homegrown” in the UK rather than imported from the States.
Gallivant at the Screen Stories blog was rather unhappy with the film because it didn’t go far enough.
It is also hard to believe that such a critically vacuous version of Mansfield Park has been produced in this particular year when we are celebrating the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery, which, in the light of postcolonial discourses is a very live issue in Austen’s Mansfield Park. Esteemed postcolonial critics such as Edward Said have identified Mansfield Park as a key text in displaying the reliance of English society and wealth on Imperial adventures and the pernicious legacy of the slave trade. We also know that Austen herself opposed slavery and read Thomas Clarkson, a chief proponent for abolition, who wrote The Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1808. Indeed, Mansfield Park itself might well be named after the Mansfield Agreement (1772) which was ushered in by the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Mansfield, concerning James Somerset, a black slave brought to England. A question was raised regarding Somerset’s status. Could he still be owned by his master on English soil? A ruling was enforced in Somerset’s favour: ‘It was resolved that England was too pure an air for slaves to breathe in … the moment they put their feet on English ground they are free.’ Jane Austen actually met Lord Mansfield’s niece at the home of her brother Edward Knight, and in view of her usage of the name Mansfield, surely it cannot then be a further coincidence, that in the novel, Fanny Price constantly craves clean, fresh air, ‘the free air and liberty of the country.’
In my opinion this ITV adaptation badly misses a trick. Rather than enhance the potential for a relevant and timely postcolonial interpretation of the novel, excepting a couple of very small references (including Sir Thomas’s walking cane with its decorative carved black slave head), the producers have opted instead for powder-puff pastiche. Was it fear of alienating their audience with what could be deemed as an overtly politicised approach? Or simply uninspired filmmaking?
Personally, I believe it was the latter.
We don’t necessarily subscribe to that theory. We are of the opinion that the references to slavery and the themes of confinement in the novel have more to do with the position of the women in the story, who were more or less selling themselves to the highest bidder (or, in Fanny’s case, refusing to do so) and into “ownership” by their husband. But that is a post for another time.
Incidentally, AustenBlog had a record number of visitors yesterday–even more than after Keira Knightley’s wardrobe malfunction at the U.S. premiere of P&P05 (and this is the first time that incident was even mentioned on this blog, but we got lamers looking for it anyway). Thanks to Alert Janeites Kathleen and Lisa for sending some of these links!
Keira Knightly’s wardrobe malfunction? LOL! Do tell!!
“Here are a load of men who look like Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen.”
Well, they do, you know. And LLB would make a great Mr Yates, come to think of it.
What a total disaster this adaptation was. It was made by someone who obviously has no love for Austen, but likes Mills and Boon
Dreadful!
So we are now determining rank by looks, are we? I am sure that during that time (as well as now) there were super rich ladies who looked like dogs and scullery maids like angels. They did not get promoted or demoted by virtue of their looks, did they? (Well, the angel could have been, depending on the master’s leanings, I suppose.)
In general I liked the sentiment of this Gallivant fellow. However, he seems to want to put the onus on Jane Austen as a moralistic political writer. Arguably true, in a sense, but I do not believe that she was focused on the issue of slavery, just as she did not address the then ongoing Napoleonic war, inter alia.
But for now the colonists will have to content themselves with criticizing the critics, I guess, until the DVDs start hitting the shores.
Congratulations, Mags. This place was hopping yesterday. I am certain you have a number of newfound readers/participants to the site. Now, KK’s wardrobe malfunction (or KN, as my alter ego would put it)… does this have to do with her emaciated look that started rumors about an eating disorder?
Keira Knightly’s wardrobe malfunction? LOL! Do tell!!
Don’t remember the exact details–but I think her dress slipped at one point and gave the young lady time to exhibit, let us say.
I think her dress slipped at one point
yeah – do a google image search for knightley wardrobe malfunction … but first, turn off your google safe search filter
Beware! Don’t click on “The News Vault” because I received a warning from my Internet Secuirt about a trojoan on that site!
Oy, spelling errors.
If you really must see the Knightley girls, rent The Jacket, because you’ll see them and a whole lot more. More than you might want. I own it, but for Adrien Brody of course. It’s an odd movie but thought-provoking.
Actually, I was reading about it.
I’ve already seen The Jacket on cable. I always get a kick out of how my home state is portrayed in films.
If you really must see the Knightley girls… You can also give The Hole a try. And KK was younger then.
I love KK, but she really doesn’t have all that much to, erm, uncover in that department.
You can also see the girls in that rather amusing bounty hunter movie Domino.
And don’t forget Andrew Davies’ ‘Dr Zhivago’, in which Keira plays Lara. Apparently Davies found an excuse again in that movie to get the actress out of her clothes…
But to get back to MP: I think it’s such a pity that AGAIN they are not able to make a decent adaptation of this wonderful novel! I must admit that I do like the Frances O’Connor version, but it’s just not THE adaptation that the book deserves.
Such a shame to read so many bad reviews this week (first Becoming Jane, now Mansfield Park) and also very disappointing. Well, I’d better go read Jane’s books again, because, other than all those movies, they will never be disappointing!
I’ve just received my DVD today and I’ve just seen the adaptation. It really is bad, bad, bad, for all the reasons mentionned. Not only because it’s a poor adaptation but also because it’s a poor period drama. It looks incredibly stiff and the only scenes I felt had some potential as a drama ( I dropped my hopes for a good adaptation during the first 30 minutes ) were the ones accompanied by music, which is never a good sign. I agree with the comments saying that it was boring. I really wanted to enjoy it, I was willing to forgive so many things but it’s not even entertaining. Edmund’s realizing he is in love with Fanny is, I think, ridiculous. Everyone mentioned it but I didn’t think it was going to be THAT ludicrous. He looks at her, reads 2 words, then lifts his head again and looks at her again more intensely. How subtle. How developed, too.
Returning my DVD tomorrow.
The good part is that I really want to reread the book to see again how much potential we’ve just wasted. The score is quite good but I think some of it is taken from other adaptations, I recognized some pieces of music. I’m trying to find something positive… The cross was nice. Oh yes, William was perfect. His 3 minutes and a half on-screen presence were great.
MP1 has been done and is a wonderful, faithful adaptation in my opinion. My only regret is that we don’t see any scene where Fanny and Edmund “get together”. It jumps from his story about his last conversation with Mary to his wedding with Fanny. I like the ending, but I wish there would have been a kiss. They were alone in their garden after all. He could have at least put his arm around her. Anyway, I really love that adaptation. It’s a joy to watch!
I wonder if all these bad reviews are worrying PBS and Masterpiece Theatre about the success of their Jane Austen Festival?
I wonder if all these bad reviews are worrying PBS and Masterpiece Theatre about the success of their Jane Austen Festival?
Variety’s article on the Jane Austen season is upbeat. I’ll be interested to see the ratings for the next shows, and I wonder if Masterpiece Theatre will keep the same broadcast order, or if they will switch around some depending on popularity. They will get the BBC’s Sense and Sensibility in addition to the new ITV films, too.
Rumor (and this is only rumor!) has it that ABC in Australia does not have definite plans to show these films. Any broadcast there may be dependent on their success in the UK.
I read Gallivant’s review to my sister and she said it’s the most comprehensive ripping she’s ever heard. Agreed that he/she over-estimates the importance of the slavery issue in MP. One of the great things about Jane is that she didn’t beat people over the head with her own views.
Yes the 1980s version is faithful, but the production quality was not good. I know, low budget and little technology. I’m crossing my fingers for a future production that can do as well but is easier to look at.
Oh well. As Franka said the books will never disappoint.
That’s so disappointing that reviews/etc. haven’t been very good. I still need to read Mansfield Park so I’ll wait ’til I do that before I watch and see for myself. (Of course, that might make it seem worse in comparison…) (I don’t know why I have left my last Austen novel for so long — though it will be odd to have read all of her “main” novels…)
Or her unnaturally blonde hair and her dark eyebrows? I find that is what makes it hard to believe her as “period”. :/
Here’s another fan of the 1980s MP.
The low production quality doesn’t bother me one bit.
Love the ‘gate scene’ at Sotherton and just about everything else.
I do feel put off by Billie Piper’s hard looks.
I am rather fond of the 1980s versions of JA’s novels (especially P&P) because I was a Young Austen Whore back then, and delighted to see her work adapted to the small screen. They all seemed fresh and interesting, even if they seem stagey now.
But I’m afraid I didn’t enjoy MP1 as much as the others – and that includes the very odd NA circa 1986. I’m not convinced you can successfully translate MP onto the screen. I really hope I’m proved wrong sometime in 20-teens, when no doubt the next round of JA adaptations appear.
I didn’t have high expectations, so I wasn’t really that dispointed! It was fun, but some what lacking, really. There was no chemistry between the two main parts either, sadly. Maybe the girl from Eastenders would have made a better Fanny, Billy just looked too modern, with all that blonde hair bouncing around! Pug was great though! Loved Pug
Got to see it yesterday as well, and as I 1. was prepared through all the comments and reviews and 2. have not read MP before, I must say, I found it … dull.
Not awful, but dull. In fact it did not make me care for any of the characters and who would end up with whome in the end, but then I knew that beforehand.
Certainly nothing to rewatch several times.
Sylvia, I ask because I am genuinely interested not because I am trying to be presumptious — which of JA’s books have you read? If you’ve only read P&P, you are in for a surprise in that not all of her other books are as “light, bright and sparkling” as is P&P. MP certainly fits that description. It is not as funny as P&P. I am not saying that you should like MP — a lot of people don’t — but if you do decide to read JA’s other books, just be aware that they’re not all like P&P.
I just finished watching MP3 and I actually like it better then I expected to. I am a big fan of MP1. It is very faithful to the novel with a wonderful cast. For the most part I thought they did a good job for having to cut in down to 90 minutes. I really liked the play preparations, the harp scene and various others that seemed very much like the book. There was also quite alot of text from the book left in the script which I was happy about.
I liked all the actors in their parts except for Aunt Norris. She looked too young,whispered all the time and we hardly knew she was supposed to be mean. When she leaves to live with Maria and Fanny says she doesn’t know which one will hate each other the most one almost wonders why.
Now, I’m not sure what to say about Fanny. Billie Piper did a good job acting what she was directed to do, but Fanny would not have been so opinionated, would not have “run on in the wild manner that she is suffered to do at home.” Fanny is a lady. She would not run about like that. Besides the hair thing (I wish she would have worn it up),when she wasn’t running about, I liked her.
The scenes I strongly disliked are as follows:
*Replacing the ball with a picnic. It looked odd seeing them dancing on the lawn. They would have looked very nice in a ballroom. Surely the house there has a nice ballroom.
*Leaving out Portsmouth and replacing it with leaving Fanny at home alone. Surely they could have found some place to film at least two scenes.
*Putting leeches on Tom. OK that didn’t bother me because they did do things like that back then, but it made me almost feel ill to look at. It was really gross!
Some have complained that Lady Bertram was too alert. She was near the end, but it didn’t bother me. I actually liked her and thought some of her parts were funny.
I also liked how rediculous Mr. Rushworth was at dinner when he said that line about Mr. Crawford being too short! I really felt sorry for Mr. Rushworth though. He really got the raw end of the deal.
To wrap this up I will have to say that Edmund, Mary, Henry and William shone the most in this film and I probably will actually watch it again.
Well, Amazon UK informs me that my copy is now on its way. Am extremely curious.
I say watch it with an open mind. The book is way too complex (I have started reading it) to communicate all the plots and sub-plots in just two hours. Take it for what it is.
I’m not a big fan of the book and I wasn’t going to watch MP3, but I was curious since I read so many mixed reviews on it. I watched it yesterday afternoon and it wasn’t that bad. I could understand how people are upset that Fanny had more spirit then in the book. They did rush characters, like the Crawfords came in ten minutes into the movie. I can’t imaged Fanny Price as a blonde. I thought the two characters had chemistry and the ending was cute when they did the waltz. If I had to give it a rate: 7/10. I also thought Pug was cute.
Fanny as a blonde didn’t bother me at all. Actually, the first time I read the book I imagined her as a blonde. I think it was because the book says that Fanny has soft, light eyes. I immediately thought of them as blue and her with blonde hair. Now, when I read the book I kind of think of her hair as a very light brown. Anyway, Billie Piper’s hairstyle bothered me worse then her obviously dyed hair. I really wish she would have worn it up.
But if she had worn it up might that have added to the confusion of whether or not she was out?
Daniella, Mansfield may be the most complex of Jane’s novels. And I think everyone agrees that two hours could never do it justice. Which is why I hope to have a much longer version done some day. I think this one was rushed into production and that is a problem when you’re not dealing with a fluff story. I’m glad you found Jane Austen as a result of enjoying it. And I hope you like the novel as well.
All of this talk has me impatient to see Pug.
@ Julie:
I have read Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Northanger Abbey and Persuasion so far and fell in love with all of them. My favourites are probably P&P and NA, but even that changes with my mood.
My comment above was only meant from an adaptation point of view and I do hope, that when I actually READ Mansfield Park, I’m going to like it better than WATCH it. Maybe I care more about JA’s Fanny Price than I did about ITV’s.
I completely understand where you are coming from Ina. Two hours was very short for such a complex novel.
Well, I just saw it. And I liked it. I really didn’t expect to, but overall, I was pleasantly surprised. (OK, the “coming-out picnic” was pretty dumb, but I still liked the movie)
Does anyone know when MP3 will be available in the US? I’m curious. I did like the 80’s version except for the ending and it made me frustrated with Edmund.
A coming out PICNIC? What?
Sarah, it’s been reported that the Season of Austen productions will be shown by PBS this fall. I would imagine the DVDs will not be far behind. I’m taking full advantage of my Netflix account when that happens.
Thanks, Ina!
*clicks off DVD player*
Well, there was a lot wrong with it, but, like Julie P., I enjoyed it more than I expected. Fanny’s hesitancy and timidity combined with her absolute moral strength is such a lynch-pin of the story that you cannot turn her into a young lady who’s always running at full gallop throughout the house (albeit with moral strength) with hair flying and bosom heaving without losing something essential. To say nothing of no Sotherton and Portsmouth. She also seemed to have only one facial setting for Longing Looks At Edmund, which were frequently employed.
That aside, the longing was made much clearer than I’ve ever felt before, certainly more so than in the other two adaptations, and even (dare I say it) than in the book. It underlined the poignancy of her situation in a way that engaged me more than I’d expected. Everybody else looked, and most acted, their part very well. It was the best Maria Bertram I’ve ever seen. One of my main quibbles was the lack of nuance in Mary Crawford. I can hardly see, except for her lovely appearance, why Edmund would fall for her. There is very little of that ‘ready good nature’ and appearance of kindness which so charms him in the book and blinds him to the fact that the mind, indeed, is ‘tainted’ (until her reaction to Maria’s fall). She is cynical, mercenary and hard from beginning to end. “Shake me,” she says to him at one point, “and you won’t get a serious word out of me.” And because that’s the personality she’s been given, it’s also completely incomprehensible why either of them would even be attracted to each other in the first place. It was Mary’s mixture of being able to recognise and value good but still (in the long run) making lax judgements and bad choices that makes her such an intriguing character. We are not given any insight whatsoever into why she is even considering this younger son and clergyman with his 700 pound per year. The script left out the ‘better’ part of her nature, and it detracts from the credibility and complexity of the overall storyline. That being said, there were moments that I found the actress absolutely hypnotic in the part.
This Aunt Norris was less a mean, bustling, officious busybody than just an incredibly hard and cold woman. In the book, she initially struck me almost as a comic character, and it was only after a number of re-readings that I realised what a truly nasty piece of work she is. Here, she is not constantly contriving things with all her talk and explanations. She is actually rather reserved, but somehow more venemous. So, for me, the film highlighted that aspect of her character in a new way.
Not enough justice was done, either, in the potential of the Fanny-Crawford relationship, although it did hint at her possibly-maybe-growing willingness to perhaps-someday accept him. Huh… if I read what I’ve just written it sounds like they got the Fanny-Edmund-Mary-Crawford dynamics all wrong – so how could I have found it anywhere near enjoyable? I have no idea. I also found the birthday picnic absurd, William’s hornpipe dance (or whatever it was) ridiculous, to say nothing of the silly wedding reception and all the attendant social and historical inaccuracies – Edmund popping into Fanny’s bedroom while she’s washing her hair in her nightgown? C’mon!!!
But still, it jarred me less than Rozema’s version. I can only think it’s because they really emphasised the heart of the matter – Fanny’s despair at seeing the man she loves enthralled by a woman who is incapable of truly appreciating his worth. Of course that was part of the other adaptations to date, but it’s somehow more obvious here. A kind of a Paint-By-Numbers Mansfield Park. It will never satisfy any real lover of Austen and all her subtleties, but if it inspires any new ‘elves’ to pick up a copy of the book, I shall not complain.
I’ve seen this twice now, compliments of a friend in England.
I have to say that although I am still generally disappointed, this has improved the more I watch it.
The casting is at least faithful to the book, with the exception of Mrs. Norris and Fanny. Billie Piper is a good actress but I just don’t get her “look.” I still think she would’ve been much more effective if her hairstyle was at least appropriate. Maggie O’Neill is too young, IMO to be Mrs. Norris. I always pictured someone in her 50s and much less fashionable. The rest of the cast is superb and I particularly liked Blake Ritson, Joe Beattie and Jemma Redgrave in their roles. I think they are the best Edmund, Henry and Lady Bertram to date. Michelle Ryan (Maria) and Catherine Steadman’s (Julia) roles are so small that they are rather forgettable, unfortunately. I like Joseph Morgan, too, as he made William Price quite adorable.
I’m very sad about the exclusion of Portsmouth and the move to have a “picnic” instead of the proper ball. Big, big mistake!
Beginning was too rushed. Even after reading the book countless times, I still felt like it was MP on fast-forward with too many characters introduced at once. I can see how novices would be very confused!
Still, however, it is a vast improvement over Patricia Rozema’s version eventhough we were once again treated to a running-around-like-a-wild-little-girl Fanny. Lady Bertram was altered, too, (in a good way) but it was a welcome “improvement” to the drugged-up woman in the 1999 version.
I loved Blake Ritson. I’m not a fan of Edmund but he made him engaging and charismatic and had the intensity and proper chemistry with Billie that worked well. Joe Beattie is quite charming and handsome but with a bad boy edge. I liked Hayley Atwell as Mary Crawford although I thought her costumes not quite as glamorous as Maria Bertrams. Isn’t she the sophisticated London girl? She was too understated, in my opinion.
All in all, a worthwhile adaptation although I wish it was much longer than the 1 1/2 hours. It deserved at least a 3-hour running time to do justice to the book.
Mary Crawford, understated? That cleavage certainly wasn’t understated!
Cleavage rarely is.
And Edmund was great.
I was prepared to hate it after all the reviews but…. I actually really like it. That may be because I’ve never seen the MP1 that everyone keeps raving about. It was a much better adaptation of the book than the one by darling Romenza (irony) – no sex scene, no feminism and no ridiculous lesbian undertones- but it still wasn’t perfect.
As much as I thiank Billie Piper is a fantastic actress- she was born to play feisty women, of which Fanny is not. Edmund was really well cast and Jemma Redgrave really could be his mother, she was a really good Lady Bertram. The story was squashed into the 2 hours, but gets a thumbs up from me.