Facts About Fanny Price
- Humphry Repton was unable to root up the avenue at Sotherton because Fanny Price didn’t want it rooted up.
- The old grey pony did not die of old age. It died of shame because it was unworthy to bear Fanny Price.
- Waltzing outdoors is historically correct when Fanny Price does it.
- Fanny Price will not be dictated to.
- If you noticed Fanny Price’s upthrust, exposed bosom, that’s because you have a dirty mind.
- Fanny Price doesn’t have to brush her hair. It’s perfect just the way it is.
- Tom Bertram could not die because Fanny Price bathed him with her tears.
- Even if Pug was male, he could have a litter, because Fanny Price wanted a puppy.
- Fanny Price makes purple the most special color in the world.
- Fanny Price cured the Editrix’s fever. (So far! 4 hours and counting…)
Tell us more facts about Fanny Price!
For the humorless/Internet-meme-illiterate: Inspired by Chuck Norris Facts
So, Gentle Readers: What did you think of the new Mansfield Park film? And do let us know if you’ve read the book. We won’t make fun of you, we just like to compare reactions between those who have read it and those who have not.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Well, I was hoping someone would give her a comb and a mirror for a wedding present, but if you say it’s all right…
And yes, I have read the book. It’s one of my favorites, but I wasn’t expecting much tonight, so at least I wasn’t disappointed.
Pug was wonderful; at least they got her right.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I’ve read the book and what on Earth was that?! I started watching at 9;30 and Fanny’s brother was already there and the rest of it seemed so rushed I was confused. And no Portsmouth?
January 27th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Thank you for that list. It, and the amount of knitting I was able to accomplish during the last 90 minutes, are the only good things to have come out of this production. While the previews did not give me high hopes, I have to say that I am quite disappointed. Despite the stage production quality of MP 1983, I like that one more and more. Where was Sir Thomas’ concern that Fanny did not have a fire? Where was the evil Mrs. Norris (maybe it was because they only applied aging make up to Lizzie McGuire, I mean, Hilary Duff for this version)? Where was the trip home for Fanny show she could realize how nice Mansfield Park was and how ratty the rug at home was? Where was the confrontation with Henry about Fanny’s choice of gold chain? Billie Piper was such a poor choice for Fanny. I really missed the conniving Mrs. Norris.
But I have to say, I loved the moment of Edmund’s realization. “Purple? Of course! Purple! Only someone as good and kind and fantastic as Fanny could have chosen purple. What a woman! I must marry Fanny! She must tell me I must use purple at all times because she has such a good eye (oh, and what a figure, too!)!” I apologize for leaving out a few exclamation points. There need to be more.
I read the book, but really didn’t have the appreciation for it until after watching MP 1983. After productions like this, I appreciate the book even more.
Oh, and I loved the Lady Dedlock intro. Plain Jane. Mary Crawford, the heroine, but not the heroine. The beauty that Jane created to take her place. As if she’d have Mary be her stand in…
January 27th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
No anything but Mansfield Park. No Portsmouth, no Sotherton, no Mansfield Parsonage–no Grants, no Yates, no Susan Price. Yeah.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Oh, I forgot to mention that I thought it a tragedy of how beat up the suit was. Why couldn’t they have sent it to someone who would have worn it and treated it appropriately?
January 27th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Say what you want about her hair, the on screen washing is conclusive evidence that Jane Austen characters do wash their hair. Anne Elliot, I’m looking at you.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Well, it wasn’t horrific. I thought it needed to be at least two hours (as we’ve said about the others) because much of the depth of the story and the characters was left out.
I didn’t mind so much Lady Bertram’s transformation, but who was that woman impersonating Aunt Norris? I should have liked more of Crawford playing Julia and Maria off against each other, as that better explained Fanny’s dislike of him. I also felt that Portsmith and Fanny’s reaction to being back with her family was important to the story and certainly much more dramatic than having her haunting Mansfield alone.
Watching these has really made me want to do a reread on all the books, because their mediocrity certainly emphasizes what a brilliant writer Jane Austen was.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
My Licensed Professional Opinion about Anne Elliot’s hair is that it was Product Overload–not greasy, but crunchy-hard from too much gel and spritz.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
By the time they started waltzing at the end, my 13 year old daughter and I had tears of laughter running down our faces.
Never mind that they left out 98% of Austen’s novel; that Eureka! moment with The Color Purple will reign as one of the finest moments in Austen adaptation history!
Makes you wonder what Edmund would have done if she’d picked another color…..
PS: I think Mrs. Norris must have had a lobotomy.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I also felt that Portsmith and Fanny’s reaction to being back with her family was important to the story and certainly much more dramatic than having her haunting Mansfield alone.
I forgot about that–did they cut that she was being left at Mansfield all alone? And was that supposed to be a punishment?
January 27th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Re Ben’s conmment above:
I got some crocheting done so the evening wasn’t a total loss!
January 27th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I have read the book (once). My favorite part of this adaptation was Pug. Does that indicate my reaction well enough?
And, I’ll admit I am no expert on Regency manners or moral code, but isn’t it rather unlikely that so many different people (men) would be in Fanny’s room?
January 27th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Okay, I used to be astonished by 9:30 CDT every Sunday, but now I think Davies is just pimping with us. The whole thing is some big April Fool’s joke and at some point he’ll jump out from behind a curtain and tell us he has the real production on a different tape. There was so much wrong with this (and I mean wrong, not “adapted” or “reinterpreted”, just wrong. Let’s not even discuss the miscasting of Billie Piper which was so awful it was almost funny. She’s an adequate actress playing a slightly intelligent Chav but she struggled so hard here I felt sorry for her.
She’s the only young woman in the house who cares about what is proper but she lets her too-short-for-the-period hair hang down like a prostitute? (The same hair had inch-long black roots the night before the picnic and then was fully blonde the next morning.)
Henry Crawford’s entire relationship with Fanny is completely unbelievable because so many of the key pieces were changed or omitted completely.
I wan the past hour and half of my life back and what makes it worse is that I now desperately want the hat Mary Carwford wore at the picnic.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
The one thing I’ve learned by watching these three adaptations is that I think I would really enjoy owning a manor home in the English countryside.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I forgot to post above that yes, I’ve read the book. Unlike the entire company responsible for this production.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Andrew Davies didn’t have anything to do with MP, Persuasion, or Miss Austen Regrets, though you’re not the first to make that mistake. Blame PBS for a lack of clarity in its presentation; several journalists got it wrong, too–and I wrote to one to correct her and she insisted “that’s what the press release said.” It didn’t, but she thought it did.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
LOL at the facts about Fanny Price!
Here’s another one:
Fanny Price (this one at least) can eat corn on the cob through a chain link fence.
Well, I thought two weeks ago I disliked Persuasion too much, and then last week, I failed utterly to despise Northanger Abbey as I should have, so perhaps this time I will have achieved exactly the right level of disgust vs. approval where Mansfield Park is concerned.
I guess I try to look at these little movies from two POV’s…is it reasonably faithful to Jane (in this case–clearly NOT) and is it engrossing and likely to make someone unfamiliar with the novel want to read the novel (this is where I felt Persuasion failed and Northanger Abbey succeeded)?
I felt the lack of Portsmouth, Yates, and all the rest that has already been mentioned, but for me, the gaping black hole of suckiness that was Billie Piper in this role did the most damage. She was so utterly and completely wrong for this part. I don’t think she had a clue what the character was supposed to be about: wrong look, wrong gestures, wrong tone.
What did I like? Well, I always enjoy gratuitous James D’arcy, I enjoyed the setting of Mansfield Park itself, and that was an exceptionally fine specimen of a Pug. The casting of the Crawfords was adequate. I did like the actor who played Edmund. I thought he had an interesting and expressive face and understood the character. Have I seen him before?
The hair washing scene was highly improper, but if he considered himself more of a brother to her, then not so bad. I liked how it showed their relationship was changing–a brother wouldn’t care but once he stopped seeing her as a sister, he realized he shouldn’t be there like that.
God help me, after hating on Billie Piper for almost an hour and a half, I DID enjoy that kiss. That’s how to do it. But it wasn’t worth enduring the rest just to get to that point.
The very low production values version from 1983 still stands as the most faithful.
Too bad.
I want to see the movie about William Price. Now, HE probably has an interesting life.
K
January 27th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
OMG, I just realized that was Cedric Diggory!!!!
Wow, has he ever changed.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Oop, in the Video Game. I didn’t look hard enough at ImDB.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Re Ben’s comment: All I can say is that I’m so grateful I’m not the only one who thought Aunt Norris was played by Hillary Duff after taking an aging potion. I thought I was losing my mind.
It was a terrible, terrible adaptation. Wrong on so many levels. An hour and a half of me going, “Wha…?”
January 27th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Blake Ritson (Edmund) had a very small supporting role in the Inspector Lynley Mystery that Sam West was in–you might have seen him there.
(If not, I have it on DVD…)
January 27th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I thought he was all right. He should play Shelley, or Keats, or someone else from that era who wore linen puffy shirts and died of consumption after penning a lot of poetry.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Blake Ritson looks like Adrien Brody to me. And Mrs. Norris was totally Hilary Duff in 40 years.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
What I want to know is, who was the little kid that Fanny was playing with? Was it really proper for her to see Tom without a shirt? Why did she have a birthday picnic? Is it in the book that she took the part of the cottager’s wife (because I don’t remember that)?
Yea um…. this adaptation was uh… interesting. (long pause) So no, I can’t come up with anything good to say about it. Sorry.
(I have read the book, but only once.)
January 27th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
I’ve read the book and I didn’t care for this film version of it. Like the recent Persuasion film version, it was too rushed. It left out pivotal moments with the result that the story no longer made sense. I agree with some of the others who previously commented about what I’m going to term the “purple epiphany”. What was that? I was also upset about them changing Mrs Bertrum’s character. In the book she is one of the funniest characters. In this film she became the only character with enough insight to see that Fanny and Edmund belong together. That’s quite a change!
January 27th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Fanny Price is such a buxom, strapping young lass, that everybody looks down on her and pushes her around, except when they don’t.
Fanny Price can secure a man’s affections instantaneously through the cunning use of complimentary colors!
Wierdly, even though they did an entire personality transplant for the book, they did get Edmund right. Still a total drip!
January 28th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Fanny Price doesn’t pick lavender. Lavender picks Fanny Price.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Fanny Price has no fire today. She is never cold. Unless she needs to be.
Sir Thomas did not banish Fanny, Fanny banished him.
If you can see Fanny Price, you’re safe; if you can’t, you may be seconds away from receiving a witty letter.
Fanny Price doesn’t gaze at the stars, she allows them to meet her eyes.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Did anyone, anyone at all, hear a single line that was untainted by the poorly spoken Ms. Wadey? If Andrew Davies occasionally simplifies, Wadey exclusively rewrites at the kindergarten level. Woooooo, boy, I’d forgotten how terrible this film was. As for low production values, I fail to see how the terrible script, lack of locations, and “modern, energetic” camera work (read “we didn’t want to spend time and money on actually hiring a thoughtful director”) put it above the (unseen by me) BBC production. At least that version spent some time on it.
Addendum: Fanny Price thinks that being quiet and morally steadfast is so yesterday - this is 1811, for goodness sake (as a shoutout to the awful but at least better acted, directed, and musically accompanied previous film version, which I now look back at with a sense of almost fondness - but not quite.)
At least Edmund was a decent fellow who was often in character and well acted.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:31 am
As much as I didn’t like Persuasion 08 I think Mansfield Park made that one look like a masterpiece of film making. I have read the book and while it is not my favorite JA book I still think it deserves a good adaptation. This was a chopped up disaster. I honestly think that MP99 was better and I hated that as well. The story of the original novel was hardly recognizable. I hope we have got over the most awful of these adaptations. *sighs sadly*
January 28th, 2008 at 12:33 am
I was somewhat fond of this adaptation (though it doesn’t take much to win me over; just quit with the Fanny-walking-in-on-Crawford-and-Maria nonsense.) As much respect as I have for Billie Piper, I was disappointed when I heard she was cast in the role, and after seeing it I felt like she wasn’t quite right. (Also, say what you like about my mind, but the girl needed a higher neckline! Good Lord!)
Disappointments included the lack of Portsmith and the Prices, the fact that they tried to cram it all into that hour and a half, and I particularly hated that Fanny eventually allowed herself to be talked into partaking in the play. To me, her being so adamant about rejecting the part was a very big step for her. She was such a timid creature, so awkward in her feelings for Edmund, and the strength she showed in standing against the play was, in my opinion, not to be changed.
I particularly enjoyed Lady Bertram and Pug. (Which is odd, as I couldn’t be bothered to think much of Lady Bertram in the book.) I thought the casting of the Crawfords was just right; Mary made me hate her just the right amount and Crawford made it somewhat difficult to want to slap him when he finally fell for Fanny.
I also missed the field trip to Rushworth’s house. That was one of my favorite parts of the book.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Well, it made me laugh, I’ll give it that! Edmund, the Crawfords and Pug were delightful, for the most part, and the rest… We’ll just pretend that nothing else was there. Although, I do hope one day I’ll find myself a partner who can make grave colour scheme decisions so effectively.
(To be fair, I could see the purple thing as an attempt to represent Edmund’s realization of how invaluable Fanny is to the whole family, but if so, good lord what a spectacular failure at conveying meaning!)
January 28th, 2008 at 1:23 am
This adaptation at least brings the lulz. Did these people only read the summary on the back of the book? I mean, I’m probably highest on the list of people who find Fanny and Edmund beyond irritating, but turning them into such water-downed versions of their annoyingness is even sadder.
I approved of Pug, though.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:50 am
At some point in the film, I couldn’t stop wondering about Fanny Price’s dark eyebrows even though she had blond hair. Even the makeup people weren’t paying attention!
What is it with all the running?!
January 28th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Best part about watching tonight: explaining to my ten-year-old brother that “robot chick” (Bionic Woman’s Michelle Ryan playing Maria) was marrying “stupid guy” (Rushworth) even though she was in love with “evil woman’s” (Mary Crawford) brother.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Haha! On looking over the adaptation again, I realized I completely forgot to mention the brilliance that is William’s little sailor dance thing. Oh lord, I kind of want a little .gif of that.
Also, for the record, Billie Piper is very pretty, and I don’t really find fault with her acting, as it’s not wooden or confusing. No, in my opinion, she was just playing someone who really, really wasn’t Fanny Price. If I forgot that Fanny was supposed to be shy, and rigidly moral, and frail, and, well, Fanny, her performance wasn’t bad at all. Because of that, I’d hazard a guess that an interpretation THIS off has got to be the fault of either the director or the screenplay.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:19 am
I hated this. It was awfulawfulawful, but I am unable to be eloquent right now, thanks you reading all of the delightfully funny comments on this thread. I have been reduced to laughs, but I did manage to blog about this.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Oh! I’ve just figured out why they had Edmund and Fanny waltz. I IMDb’d Edmund, and come to find out, Blake Ritson was in Strauss: The Waltz King.
How profoundly clever. *snort*
January 28th, 2008 at 4:25 am
First of all, another complaint regarding the hostess. Can we please just do away with Scully? Why is she so serious? It’s almost as if we are preparing for a funeral! Her harsh look, and that wretched background.
Second, why is everyone running about? I don’t care for when the camera seems to jolt around as it follows someone running like a chicken with it’s head cut off. Persuasion of course was far worse with it’s marathons.
As for this installment of “Masterpiece”, it was exactly as I expected.
::thumbs down, both of them:::
January 28th, 2008 at 4:27 am
I forgot to add! The ending was lovely. A nice waltz ala Little House on the Prairie.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:49 am
For some odd reason, I didn’t hate this (yes, I have read the book - several times). After careful soul-searching, I figure it’s probably because of the mental anguish I suffered after seeing MP99 and being in the same room with Patricia Rozema while she told a group of Janeites that she didn’t much like Mansfield Park, she didn’t much like Fanny Price and she thought she could do better.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Well, I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t really like it that much either. I’ve read the book twice (most recently a few months ago), and any adaptation needs to be longer than 90 minutes to do it justice.
To anyone who has the DVD - were there any scenes cut from the original broadcast?
January 28th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I have read the book several times. There are so many things wrong with this movie I hardly know where to begin but here goes: Did they forget to budget for a hairdresser??? I could barely look at that straggly blonde hair another minute….not a decent regency hairdo to be seen on the miscast heroine.
Also, how can anyone possibly hope to understand the essence of Fanny Price without ANY REFERENCE to Portsmouth, her parents, her siblings, her trip back home as an adult, etc, etc????, except for William and a brief mention that her parents couldn’t afford her. It was as if Fanny was floating in a sort of pre-Mansfield limbo.
And what of Mrs. Norris??? Did someone inject her with the milk of human kindness? Her character was so watered down I could see no hint of the JA person we all love to hate!!! What was this screenwriter thinking???
I can’t imagine that this adaptation will inspire anyone to read the book…and how sad is that???
January 28th, 2008 at 6:46 am
At first watching I liked this one, but on a second I did not. It’s painful. There’s something about the colors and dresses and hair (okay, am I the only person who was weirded out by the way the Bertram sisters and Mary had those long whisps of hair - just like my schoolmates did when I was in junior high?) that screamed at me. I wasn’t too bothered by Fanny’s hair: it wasn’t as great a contrast as when she’s Rose, but it’s much better in Secret Diary or Ruby in the Smoke. I couldn’t really hate it, though, because it’s much better (in terms of characterization) than MP99, with Jo March standing in for Fanny. Oh, except when Mary stuck out her fuschia-bestockinged leg - that was … odd.
(I’ve read the book a few times, but it’s at the bottom of my Austen favorites list because I can never shake the nagging feeling that Henry Crawford (pre-Maria) is >>> Edmund. I have some strange theories about Henry/Fanny being like Howl/Sophie from Diana Wynne Jones’s Howl’s Moving Castle.)
January 28th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Oh, and William’s hornpipe embarrassment-squicked me right the heck out. Were they supposed to be unironically amused by it?? I couldn’t tell.
Mrs. Norris seemed a bit mad to me, since she’s played by Sheila from Shameless and acts a bit reminiscent of her. I don’t know if she’s like that in real life or what.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Hahaha!!, Very funny to see your thoughts after seeing no-comb Fanny. I still ask you: who’s the mistery man of this cover? Did any of you saw this mistery man?
http://www.elcorteingles.es/cine/productos/producto/producto.asp?Cod_Referencia=25941104470
January 28th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Wow, and to think I was full of anger at my PBS station for pre-empting it for some antique thing. I even sent them a, um, polite (yeah, that’s it!) e-mail expressing my disappointment. But now the truth comes out–they were merely trying to spare our delicate sensibilities, spare us the pain of pounding our fists against armrest of the chair, the anguish of spewing water at the TV, the nightmares from Fanny’s dark caterpillar-like eyebrows and Edmund’s stringy hair, disturbingly reminiscent of Mr. Collins in P&P2. (Do they think that was the style for clergymen? Glad they didn’t do it to Henry!)
Yes, I have read the book, and while it is my least favorite JA novel, I still like it. I’m tired of adaptations being made by people who don’t like the books, haven’t read the books, or think they can do it better. The books have survived for 200 years–more than survived, are still being read with great pleasure–and these people have the arrogance to think that the content and context are unimportant?!
And yes, Watertown PBS, I am still angry at you.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Unfortunately I didn’t get to see the whole thing. But what I was able to see I didn’t like (I read the book once, a very long time ago and had intended to read it prior to this production but ah well). It seems far too rushed and a bit choppy… However since it’s been a while since I read the book I find myself semi-enjoying it… which would probably die the moment I start reading the book again.
There are some parts that I liked, and others that I didn’t like… So I suppose… at the moment I’m on the fence.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:55 am
This wasn’t JA’s MP–this was AD’s made-for-tv romcom that just used the same names. MP has grown to be one of my favorite of the novels, due to my increasing appreciation of Fanny’s moral development and her ability, despite her timidity, to do the right thing. We saw very little of that in this flick, aimed securely at the 14-15 year olds.
I could scarcely spot a line that actually came from Austen’s hand–93% of the dialogue came from AD’s perfervid imagination. The motivations of the Crawfords–better to deceive than to be dull–or whatever they said as they strolled to MP, was appalling: they were venal and morally corrupt, but not deliberately so in the way suggested. The concept of punishing Fanny by leaving her at MP, rather than the whole Portsmouth episode, which is so important in depicting her steadfastness to her principles, was just dumb. The fact that she was caught in the play was wrong wrong wrong. Edmund coming to talk to her not once but twice in her bedroom (nice double bed there, hey?) was ghastly. The whole Heaving Bosomry throughout was embarassing, and the costuming was lamentable: kept switching back and forth from about 1785 to 1810 inconsistently in many of the female characters. (Yes, I understand that the older ladies might wear an older style, but I think that would be more true of Mrs Norris, not Lady Bertram. I’m talking more about inconsistencies in Fanny’s attire.) Oh, and BTW, Fanny, of all of JA’s heroines, is the LEAST likely to be running around the grounds, throwing her Heaving Bosomry to and fro. She’s physically frail but morally strong–and we’re supposed to understand and appreciate the distinction and her courage.
Not only do I think AD should be chastised–whoever it was at the company (I don’t recall if this is a BBC or ITV production) should be kicked out on their own fannies: didn’t THEY read the book? HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK JA FANS ARE? And if they are hoping to engage non fans into reading the book…well, how surprised these poor saps are going to be: not a Heaving Bosom or bed or bit of aphrodisiac purple embroidery thread in sight!
I myself am busy embroidering a flag for the march on the barricades: “Jane Austen DIDN’T WRITE ROMANCES! SHE WROTE NOVELS OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL GROWTH IN WHICH TRUE LOVE IS THE REWARD!”
After I finish this flag, I’ll start one that says “No more ham-handed adaptations!”
And, BTW, I disagree with that ghastly, deadpan hostess: I see no indication that Austen is Mary Crawford. I think she would have been horrified to be thought that she was Mary, who, despite being lovely, charming and witty, is selfish and without a moral compass.
Have I made it clear that I’m really PO’d? The Bath Marathon was bad enough, but this was absolutely appalling.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:07 am
This is the only weekend when I am not envying you living in US and Canada at all. By contrast, next Sunday I will be dying with envy since you are having the world premiere of Miss Austen Regrets (any charitable soul, please upload it for the rest of us who are not in US and Canada) and I will be looking forward for your comments then.
Like Jessica, I am wondering, what was left out in the MP3 broadcast and I would like to know if our suppositions are right, does the region 1 DVD has only the cut-version or the complete one?
On the bright side for all of you, it seems that The Complete Jane Austen has at last reached bottom, it seems all the rest is above what has been previously seen.
Like (Mari) Carmen, I would like to find out who is the old man in the MP3 Spanish cover, we are speculating he might be Baddeley, but I have not had the strenght to re-watch MP3 to conffirm it, maybe you could tell us, please.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:09 am
NOT ANDREW DAVIES. NOR WAS PERSUASION.
Let’s just blame him for the stuff that is his fault, huh?
January 28th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Mansfield Park: A Hairdresser’s Nightmare. My kingdom for a brush! Now, I read the book and everyone was perfectly coifed in that! Fanny, what were you thinking? Every scene I wanted to take her aside and give her a good combing out. Mr. Crawford and Edmund’s older brother were a nightmare of friz. Is that what the English countryside does to men’s hair? Is that why all the servants kept to their wigs? Edmund was the only male around with a deliciously coiffed mane. It suited him so well. Who is this actor? Adrian Brody’s younger (and cute!) younger brother? Those big brown eyes were set off by that wispy set of bangs…Despite the lobotomized story, I’ll watch him again on Thursday’s repeat. He’s dreamy!
January 28th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Here’s my prediction: Folks who haven’t read the book will think this version of Mansfield Park is good enough. Those of us who know a few facts were throwing our cherished Penquin classics at the t.v. screen and hollering NOOOoooooo!
ITV should be ashamed of its collective self for allowing Iain McDonald and Maggie Wadey to strip Jane’s novel down to a trite and mediocre love story. And whoever thought up that scene of Edmund entering Fanny’s apartment while she is washing her hair should be banished from writing scripts forever. In my opinion, Pug deserves an Emmy for not peeing on everyone’s foot.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I’m less concerned with the inaccuracies as I am with the poor quality of dialogue and complete lack of coherent characterization. But yes, if there’s any scene in the book NOT to omit, it’s portsmouth. Sigh.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I re-read MP just prior to the viewing, as I did with “Peruasion” and “Norethanger Abby”. I know that the version of “Pride and Prejudice” has been lauded as a great adaptation. Maybe, perhaps, could be that is because they alloted enough time for the story to play out! In these first three productions I feel like the production team must have been late for a train! They’ve butchered the text, leaving no story but the love story (and the SAME love story I might add — girl loves in vain, hoping against hope, oh, wait! He loves me, he really loves me! Kiss, dancing, fade to black.) All the humor has been sucked out, the ridiculous characters miraculously gain wit (WTF with Lady Bertram geeting off the couch and informing her husband Fanny’s been in love with Edmund since childhood. I didn’t know Lady B was awake long enough or avoided self-absorption long enough to intuite that!)
Here’s an idea. How about an adaptation that actually follows the story! What a novel concept!
January 28th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Here, here!
January 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Now that I’ve seen the first series of Shameless on the Sundance Channel I find it hard to see Mrs. Norris with any composure! I’m glad she had so little to say.
And Blake Ritson - since being so obsessed with the new S&S all I could think was, “aw, he’s engaged to Hattie Morahan! That’s so cute!”
I am just about convinced that Mansfield Park the novel is unfilmable. The one faithful adaptation we did have is dry. And if they’re going to try to convey Fanny’s experience through a VO as they did in this one and clearly no one paid attention, then what’s the point?
The outdoor scenes were cringeworthy but I couldn’t hate it. Interesting choice instead of making Fanny shy they made her common. And I liked having a likable Lady Bertram. Overall: eh.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Once again, a bad JA adaptation increases my admiration for the cleverness and artistic wholeness of JA’s novels. Modern adapters seem convinced that modern audiences can’t relate to the story of a timid, frail, unwitty, uncharming heroine who nevertheless wins the day because her moral integrity allows her to withstand unbearable pressure to sell out her own values. (I happen to think that, with the right actress — i.e., one who is not Billie Piper — this story could become compelling for a modern audience, but never mind.) So modern adaptations keep edging Fanny into Elizabeth Bennet territory (”Let’s make her more fun!” you can imagine them saying in script meetings), with the result that when Sir Thomas turns the screws on her over Henry’s proposal, it’s impossible to understand why this cheerful, buoyant, self-confident girl doesn’t explain in detail just what Henry got up to with Maria and Julia and why that makes him entirely unsuitable as a husband. Furthermore, the more fun Fanny Price appears to be, the harder it becomes to understand a) why Edmund takes so long to fall in love with her; and b) why Henry’s feelings for her might, just might, be a sign that Henry has the potential for moral growth. Oops! It turns out that JA’s original design made sense, and when you mess with it, nothing does!
It’s always seemed to me that MP is an interesting contrast to P&P: JA gives all Elizabeth’s beauty, wit, charm and vivacity to Mary Crawford and then dares the men in the book — and the readers, too — to see past those surface qualities and through to the core of what makes a person truly good. In that sense, MP, like P&P, is also about the contrast between first impressions and considered opinions, but MP ups the stakes from P&P by giving us more people who have delightful surfaces and rotten cores, and fewer people whose moral fiber is fully advertised by their external qualities. But no adapter (caveat: I haven’t seen MP1) seems ready to take the book on in its full, challenging complexity — delightful Mary, shrinking Fanny, equivocal Henry, irritatingly conflicted Edmund — and try to make it work.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I have to say that I didn’t mind this one- perhaps because I abhorred the latest Persuasion, and this was moderately better, or perhaps because I had such low expectations. I’ve read the book many times (and am re-reading it again right now), and I thought that Mansfield Park would be the most difficult to adapt, since the plot hinges on character. However, in this case the weakness was a strength of sorts. One of the worst things about Persuasion was that they failed utterly to develop the character of any of the characters, either major or minor. So the story, even if they had gotten the plot better, still wouldn’t hang together. This adaptation of Mansfield Park of necessity curtailed some of the plot, but nevertheless managed to squeeze in some illustrations of character, or at least enough to make the story make sense. Without understanding the quality of Fanny vis-à-vis Mary Crawford, and of Edmund vis-à-vis Henry Crawford, it’s hard to see what the issue is. I thought that this adaptation did a decent job of showing why Mary and Henry, despite their charm, weren’t quite all that. OK, they beat it over our heads with a hammer, but better that than leaving it out. Of course, the characterization failed in many ways - Mrs. Norris was completely lost as the comic figure she really is, and Fanny… Well, Billie Piper may be a very nice actress, but she was so completely miscast as Fanny. There were a few nods to her shyness and modesty, and she came across as a very decent human being, which was good, but Fanny as scampering, feisty, bosom-exposing, wild-maned center of the Mansfield universe? And I just have to add- Fanny and Edmund as cutting-edge trend-setting waltzers?!? And yet somehow about halfway through I stopped yelling at the screen and just sat back and watched.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I have been disappointed in almost all of these latest adaptions (with the exception of Northanger Abbey, but as that was the slightest of JA’s works, maybe that was the easiest to get right) but I HAD high expectations of Mansfield Park, which is my second favorite JA book, right after P&P. This Fanny was so wrong in so many ways. Is it so hard to have a quiet, moral, gentle Fanny? The way she romped, her hair, her busoms, just everything was wrong about her. I did like Edmund (who was also JA’s favorite hero) but Henry Crawford was all wrong to, the whole thing was rushed…well, at least P&P is coming again in Feb., and that is THE BEST adaptation of any JA novel I have ever seen, and the fact that I have watched it 50x already won’t keep me from seeing it again.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Is it just me, but I kind of expected Jemma Redgrave to wip off her turban at some point, throw Pug off her lap and announce to all that she is really Dr. Bramwell.
For that matter, Lady Bertram’s transformation into a Yenta was “interesting” to say the least!
January 28th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I kept expecting Dr. Who to show up and take Fanny away in the Tardis to rescue her from a dreadful alternate universe version of the Regency period. The whole thing would have been greatly improved by a few Daleks chanting, “Exterminate! Exterminate!”
(Note to American viewers: Billie Piper played Dr. Who’s companion in the first three seasons of the new Dr. Who on the BBC.)
January 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I am just about convinced that Mansfield Park the novel is unfilmable.
I sincerely hope it is not, Jen K. IMHO it would be a difficult task but not impossible. Two (or three if we are strict) major elements are absolutely necessary:
- Only a miniserie could do justice to the story (it is long and more complex to be put in a film).
- A director and a screenwriter who could appreciate MP and Fanny Price (and even the Lord High Major of Wankerville) as Jane Austen wrote them.
I admit MP and Fanny are not my favourites, I cannot say that I love them, it took me years to understand them (I like HC, so go figure), but I certainly have also learned appreciate the complexity they present, my mind (not my heart) can be grossly engaged with them, and what MP2 and MP3 have done is to increase that esteem for the originals even more and also MP1 despite its low production qualities.
The previous weeks before the release of MP2 (yes I am talking of those years back), I was convinced that a change in Fanny’s personality would be needed, when I saw the film I changed my mind, and after having seen the Wives and Daughters miniseries, my conviction that Fanny can be portrayed more closely or faithfully and also she could be engaging, was reinforced. Even since I read that Gaskell novel and saw the miniseries, I’ve related it with MP and Fanny, that is why I am hopeful that a proper MP adaptation can be done, if only there would be people willing to do so. *sigh*
January 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I remember watching this on ITV last year. Oh the pain…just reliving it whilst reading though these comments…
I thought Blake Ridson (was that his name?)’s portrayal of Edmund was the only redeeming feature. I re-read the book before the show and afterwards and I maintain that he got Edmund’s character right on the money for me. He was the perfect mix of kindness, naivety and morality. And the purple scene wasn’t really his fault…what WAS the scriptwriter thinking??? And what would have happened if she’d said maroon? Would he have thrown her out the house and demand she never return??
Pug was amazing….ground-breaking acting..there really should be an oscar/emmy/other award for best animal peformance.
I didn’t think the actress playing Lady Betram was too bad…she did the best she could with a very bad script…
I’ll get back to the script after my lecture, which I really should get to..oops..
January 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I think that is an excellent suggestion! With Jane Austen having become fair game for any director’s creative embellishment, why not throw in Dr. Who as well?
My personal view on Fanny is that she is actually the local alehouse serving wench in disguise–which would explain the character transformation, the hair, and the heaving bazooms.
I know she was just dying to yell, “‘Ere, Guv’nr; ‘ave a pint!” when Daddy Bertram got miffed.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Okay, Davies gets a pass on this for lack of personal involvement but I can’t help thinking that his influence on Austen “adpatations” is what led to this Wadey woman thinking she could serve up that piece of tripe last night. Davies proudly says that “invented scenes” in book adaptations are his specialty and he is a very sought-after screenwriter so anyone seeking similar success is going to follow his model.
Allison T: I completely agree with you on the costuming. What was going on? In one scene, Lady Bertram was wearing a turban hair dressing which was the height of late Regency fashion and a few days later at breakfast she’s back with the pre-Regency slightly powdered coif with the side curl. Edmund was dressed in solid fashionable Beau Brummel style complete with combed forward hair while Henry who is supposed to be the wordly London-based fashionable one looked like Heathcliff after a bad night on the moors. Would it have been too much for the producers to take a small trip to Bath and have a look at the pictures in the costume museum there?
I’m still wondering how Edmund’s new parishioners will react when they see that the Vicar’s wife has bleached blonde hair, bobbed at the shoulders that she refuses to pin up and wears her decolletage on full display at all times. I’ll bet attendance will go up on Sundays.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Well, I turned this on when I got home from work last night and almost turned it off during GA’s introduction. Who wrote that crap and what was up with the weird pauses she took? As for MP, the half-hour I watched made me long for the 1999 version, which I loathed and despised. 3 minutes into it, Sir Thomas is gone, 5 minutes later, they’re doing the play, and Fanny’s in it? The dialogue was execrable and had nothing to do with JA. Billie Piper, who I actually like in Dr. Who, was totally miscast as Fanny and what was up with the hair? She had the same hairstyle she did as a 10 year old. Are we to believe that her hair didn’t grow at all in 8 years? Walking around without a hat on, low-cut dresses? Why not just send her out to be a streetwalker? Sigh! I dread watching the rest of it.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:07 am
The only scene I distinctly remember that was cut is that one conversation they have about slavery at the dinner table after Sir Thomas’ return where Fanny reveals she’s secretly an abolitionist (if I’m remembering the scene correctly.) There might be others.
Also, purple has always been my favorite color.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I am quite put out. Honestly, I think I prefer the ‘99 version. I know that’s a widely despised adaptation, and I’m not particularly fond of it myself, but if you’re going to strip away all the depth and meaning from a story, you should have some solid reason for doing it. Decide to make a feminist, post-colonialist reimagining, and stand by it. At least MP ‘99 is interesting and thought provoking. This version was so bland and blah, I can’t even be bothered to write the rest of what I didn’t like about it. It’s not worth it.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Bad bad bad. I thought nothing could be worse then MP 1999, but this is cringe worthy. Is a gentle, moral, thoughtful and self-effacing Fanny so hard to portray? MP is my 2nd favorite JA book, and this was a complete let down for me. So far, out of all the new adaptations, only NA was good (in my humble opinion). The hair, heaving chests, waltzing, romping around, everything was the opposite of what Fanny is supposed to be. Did they even read the book? Edmund was good, but almost everyone else was not cast well.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Are all new adaptations henceforth required to feature running heroines and outdoor waltzing at the end? (”Oh look, Fanny and Edmund learned a new dance!”) I was so terribly confused, shouting “Run, Anne, run!” and then oops - “Run, Fanny, run!”
Really - one look at Billie Piper’s face and posture on the DVD cover should have been a dead giveaway.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:44 am
And, yes, I’ve read the book.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
It was Fanny’s physical exuberance that bugged me most. That, and her Heaving Bosom.
I’ve read the book, and I loathed this adaptation. My mother, who is visiting me and watched it as well, has not read the book, and she thought it was “cute”. (Er, in her defense, she knows nothing about MP, JA, or the Regency period.) If she had been inspired to pick up the book after watching this adaptation, I could have at least felt that it had one redeeming factor. Alas, for all that she deemed it “cute”, she also seems to have found the story quite forgettable, as she has expressed zero interest in reading the novel.
I want that hour and a half of my life back.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I couldn’t watch this for very long: the awful hand-held camera work was making me dizzy. Reminded me of one of David Letterman’s stunts when they strapped a cam on the back of a chimp and let the little guy go all over the studio.
I had a sudden urge to wash my hair last night, too, though I usually do it in the morning shower.
Kudos to Pug for stealing everything from the humans.
Yes, I have read MP several times.
Oh, and those groaning sounds you heard coming from the general direction of Winchester Cathedral? Poor woman.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Pay attention gentle readers!!
I am not a well-versed Janeite (yet) but I at least know that this version of MP was not adapted by Andrew Davies - it was by Maggie Wadey. Persuasion 2007 was adapted by Simon Burke. The two so-called stinkers are not Andrew Davies’.
In this group of adaptations Andrew Davies adapted Sense and Sensibility and Northanger Abbey. And since Northanger Abbey is the only one so far the majority have enjoyed (S&S has not been shown in the US yet) I think he deserves a little bit of credit.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Fanny Price destroyed the color wheel. Purple is the only color now.
Fanny Price didn’t invent a new dance. She remade history in her own image.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I have read MP more than once. It is my favorite Jane Austen. I like the true ambiguity of the choices the characters face. They weren’t as clear cut as in her other books. This isn’t an easy book to adapt for TV. I’d love to see a high budget cinema version.
I enjoyed this in general. Billy Piper’s hair was horrid though! (Better than Anne’s skull cap of a couple weeks ago but…) What was the director thinking? Put that mop up!
I think the leaving out of Portsmouth was a budgeting choice. I can only imagine how difficult it is to do an adaptation of MP on a TV budget.
I do now understand why you are called the Austen Police. Just look at this thread of comments to see why. *smirk*
January 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I’ve been reading Jane Austen novels for over twenty years. I watched all three adaptations with my 80-year-old father. He wouldn’t know who Jane Austen was if she waltzed into the room, which after watching these movies, he probably thinks she has a fondness for—and a brisk run. He just loves a good love story with a happy ending.
I think everything I felt for the movie has been expressed here already. I did find it kind of funny that Fanny’s hair was the polar opposite of poor Anne Elliot’s unfortunate, painfully tight look. They certainly do things in the extreme.
The funny little dance Fanny’s brother, William, did was classic. Look at the actors’ faces surrounding him. It looks like they are ready to bust a gut. It probably took about 20 takes before someone did not break out with screams of mirth. I was embarrassed for him. Poor guy.
It is funny even though I am an Austen reader and my father is not, we were in agreement on the three movies. We both thought Northanger Abbey was okay, cute. We both thought Persuasion was awful, although mine was for the botched Letter and his was strictly based on the homeliness of the lead actress and the disgusting kiss, for which he shouted, “Kiss her already, you idiot!” Agreed. We both felt that Mansfield Park was really silly. It is one of my favorite books but the movie did not capture the mood of the book for me at all, and to not have Portsmouth really changes the story into something other than Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park—Dancefield Park, perhaps. That silly du du music was, well, silly. My poor father never really understood what was going on and kept getting Tom and Henry confused. He thought it was juvenile and was a movie made for kids. *sigh*
January 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Oh I forgot to mention last time that I have read MP a few times…wasn’t my favourite book by a long shot until I re-read it after that ‘adaptation’…atleast it made me appreciate the book more than I did before…
The script…don’t even get me started. Why the good lord was the ball a picnic?? I’m sorry but there is no creative reason to change the setting. It didn’t alter the story AT ALL! And then Fanny being in the play was ALL wrong! That is a pivotal part of the plot. Even Edmund, in all his high moral-ness was tempted to play a part but not Fanny. The fact that she didn’t succomb (I’m sure I’ve spelt that wrong!) to pressure shows that she’s grown both morally and in confidence.
I have to admit though I did like the kiss at the end…until they ruined it with the waltz (’Oh look, Edmund and Fanny have learnt a new dance’ <– What the Frank Churchill??). The kiss was slap bang in the middle of two excrutiatingly painful scenes…the supreme purple-ness and the waltz! These ITV people sure know how to ruin a kiss!!!
January 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Fanny Price is the Fountain of Youth.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
What the heck is the fascination with dancing outside? And all the WALTZING outside as the apparently perfect finale to 90 minutes of “what was that?” ???? Oh dear, people, do get a grip!
*(alrighty, now I feel slightly better and will endeavor to continue)*
I have read the book many, many times. I am VERY fond of MP. My opinion of the program last night as a representation of Jane Austen’s novel was that it was pretty poor. It was abominably rushed, left out a good 3/4 of the story, changed another 1/4, and dispatched with most of the character development as well. I didn’t hate Billie Piper as Fanny, but I don’t think she was given very much in terms of her character’s motivations. She just kept playing “dutiful poor relation loving cousin from a distance” without any sense of the fullness of Fanny’s character (which we see in the book).
As a film standing on its own … I think it suffers from the same problem as the other two, it was so rushed one could get no sense of a real progression of events or any character development, so contradictory things seemed to come out of the blue and didn’t make a great deal of sense.
And again, I didn’t hate Billie Piper, but I did keep wishing she would brush and put up her hair and put on a nicer dress, and every now and then I couldn’t help but think of Rose Tyler.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I watched it last night and rushed out this morning to buy the 1999 version in order to erase the new version from my brain. I’ve read the novel more than once.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
It seems the consensus is to give Drive-Thru Academy Awards to Pug, for his commanding and believable performance in the role of a Pug, and to Blake Ritson, who is the only cast member who appears to have read the source material, for his “fine eyes” and passing resemblance to Adrian Brody.
LOL@”Dancefield Park”.
Btw, I have read the novel several times, and I actually like it better than I do Sense and Sensibility, although S&S is far more cinematic.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Re the waltzing, when Beau Brummel first waltzed in front of the POW, he was absolutely outraged and it significantly slowed the adoption of the waltz in England, so now the two (supposedly) most conservative and proper characters in the book introduce the waltz to Mansfield Park? Enough! It’s not even worth pointing out the inconsistencies anymore.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I am sure someone will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Mary Crawford loosely based on Eliza de Feuillide? The introduction to Mansfield Park was pretty upsetting, I thought. People who aren’t familiar with the book might come to the conclusion on their own that the adaptation “took some liberties,” but to have Gillian Anderson come right out and say something so silly with no back up was really irresponsible.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
On a slightly more somber note, on the PBS forum for The Complete Jane Austen, there are a distressing number of comments to the effect that bad Jane Austen is better than no Jane Austen at all. I really find that discouraging. If we keep telling people like PBS/Masterpiece that we’ll accept any old Austen, we are just going to keep getting more crappy Austen….
January 28th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Well, I have not read all the postings but I had to comment.
I am a newbie Janeite, married to a rabid one who has read every snippet of every novel over and over. I have lived with P and P in my VCR and now DVD as a constant companion for years. We own every one of the sequels from the clever to the obscene. I have seen all the old versions and am watching these new ones with my wife.
I have only read Persuasion. I have never read any other Austen. So I am in the minority here, obviously.
So I am watching as a film buff, not as a member of the cult. Speaking as someone who has not yet read the book, I found last night’s MP to be quite enjoyable. There were laugh-out-loud moments, and a few moments of true emotional connection. I found the depictions of both Crawfords to be complex and interesting and compelling. Had Mr. Crawford really changed? Was I being deceived? Would Fanny be deceived?
Not knowing that Fanny says “No: to the play; or that Mrs. Norris is more complex; or that there is a trip to Portsmouth in the book: I of course did not miss or note these omissions and commissions.
I did of course note that there seemed to be far more unchaperoned contact than I would have expected; and the kiss and arm in arm walk at the end was silly and out of place, never mind the waltz. But of the three so far, I liked it the best; and it has made me (put down the NA I just started and) pick up Mansfield Park to read more.
All in all, I am impressed with what they have done.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Jeff, I’m glad you’re enjoying the films and that you’re reading Jane Austen. Really, I am! But I agree with Maria, above you, as well. There’s no reason that these films couldn’t have been made in such a way as to encourage newbie Janeites AND satisfy the old hands. But they would have had to spend some money and time to do that, which no one seemed to want to do; and if we sigh and say “Oh well” and turn the other cheek, we’ll just keep getting the same dissatisfying second-rate stuff. And trust us, this is second-rate stuff.
Remember the glory days of the mid-90s? It was felt that ten years was enough to bring back these stories for another try. After the reception these have received, it will be twenty years before we’ll get another set. And maybe that’s a good thing.
Read the books. You’ll never be dissatisfied with those.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
When Fanny was bathing Tom’s forehead in the leeching scene (just what we needed to push this adaptation over the top), a small part of me hoped she would leap atop his chest and romp about with him in bed, never mind that he’s deathly ill with fever.
Despite the many sins committed by the screenwriter and director, my least favorite part was the introduction. Let’s all say it together, people: Mary Crawford DOES NOT EQUAL Jane Austen. Mary Crawford may be funny, but she is a BAD WOMAN.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Thank you bloggers, one and all. I have just spent 45 minutes reading every one of your postings and you will not be surprised to hear that, unlike my time spent last evening viewing MP, I have enjoyed every minute!
January 28th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
***When Fanny was bathing Tom’s forehead in the leeching scene (just what we needed to push this adaptation over the top), a small part of me hoped she would leap atop his chest and romp about with him in bed, never mind that he’s deathly ill with fever.
Ok!
Ok.
I’m on board with that, but only because I watched Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World and found that Tom Pullings was shockingly fanciable.
BUT IT WOULD NOT BE TRUE TO JANE.
Anyhow, as long as they were going to muck up the rest of it, they might as well have given us gratuitous shirtless D’arcy WITHOUT yucky leeches!!! >:{
January 28th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Wet shirt Darcy isn’t true to Jane either, and millions of people love it. I do not happen to be one of them, but I am in the minority.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I agree with many of the points of Jeff above.
I have watched these movies with my wife, who is not an Austen fan like me, and who thinks my watching P&P 95 repeatedly is more than a bit weird. She thought Persuasion was okay, she liked Northanger Abbey, and she really liked Mansfield Park. I did, too, as a movie. ( Yes, I have read all six books.)
As an adaptation, of course, it leaves a lot to be desired. ( I was just over on the Yahoo Janeite website - they were about to go crazy over the insult to the memory of Jane Austen.) The culprit, of course, was the short time allowed for it - 90 minutes for a novel longer than P&P. It needed at least 2 hours, and could have benefited from the two part treatment given the new S&S.
Given the constraints, some of the deletions made sense. The field trip was deleted. I’m glad. That is the only part in any of Jane Austen’s novels that I have found boring and pointless. Fanny’s trip to see her family was removed; since it would be taking time to develop a subtheme (that MP wasn’t really so bad) that there was no time for, it didn’t make sense to keep it.
The only part that to me was actually irritating was that Fanny was a tomboy rather than weak and retiring. Edmund was perfect; the Crawfords were excellent, and for the most part it preserved at least the main thrust of the story. If any significant time was spent on a character, I feel it was done accurately. Even tomboy Fanny acted pretty much as JA said; and yes, I know someone will nitpick a detail here or there about that. ( There was some brouhaha about Fanny acting in the movie, when she supposedly didn’t in the book. At the end of chapter 18 it shows that she indeed was cajoled into reading one of the parts.) Poor Mrs. Norris, a villainess in the book, was essentially forgotten in the movie. And yes, I have no doubt that they got some other details wrong.
Actually, in the end, to me it was a tolerably faithful rendering, although far too short. I felt it was a much better rendering of MP in 90 minutes than P&P 2005 was of Pride and Prejudice in 2 hours- though that might seem to be faint praise.
“If we keep telling people like PBS/Masterpiece that we’ll accept any old Austen, we are just going to keep getting more crappy Austen……”. I’m not so sure it makes any difference.
They produce what they think the masses will accept, as long as they think it’ll somehow make a profit. P & P at least had a reputation as a great romance. MP didn’t have that going for it - most people don’t get past P & P and perhaps Emma unless they’re Austen geeks.
Frankly, I think it a miracle that P & P 95 got made in the way it did. (I never could see what was so sexy about the pond scene with Darcy. I thought he looked like a guy in a nightshirt who got sprayed by a garden hose. And I still can’t figure out how he got back to the mansion, dried off and got fully dressed while Elizabeth was dashing to the carriage.)
January 28th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I thought it was awful, which is surprising, because I liked the other ones. I actually liked the 1999 version, better, and I’m under the impression that isn’t a Janeite favorite.
I’ve seen the ‘99 version a couple of times, yet I was totally lost with what was going on in this version. Obviously it would have helped a lot if I’d read the book. But, from a stand-alone point-of-view, it was really hard to follow.
Another thing that bothered me… I had the misfortune of having to watch it with the closed captioning on, since my husband was trying to sleep. Having the constant even scrawl of the black CC box going across the screen made me notice that the camera movement was really jittery and weird. It almost seemed like the camera was suspended in some sort of contraption that kept getting bumped and knocked into. It was weird.
So, yeah. I didn’t like this one at all.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Okay…everyone has already said, much better than I could, that this was not Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park. I have read the book, and it’s not my favorite JA. Some of the changes and shortcuts in this adaptation were annoying.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I agree with every point made above about the travesty that was last night’s broadcast. I have read that Mary Crawford is indeed loosely based on Eliza de Feuillide, the widowed older cousin who showed up to toy with the affections of two of Jane’s brothers until finally agreeing to marry Henry. I do agree that Jane Austen herself would be horrified at the claim that she would like to be anyhting like Mary Crawford.
But here’s where everyone can throw things at me. I really kind of like MP99, and I own it on DVD. While the deliberate changes are evident, I would still argue that Rozema Got all of the characters, especially now compared to that piece of dreck on last night. At least the humor was there in Lady bertram and Mrs. Norris and Rushworth. Yes, of course, Fanny was totally changed, but she still managed to be convincing as painfully shy and morally correct. That said, it’s still horrifying to hear Julie P.’s recounting of Patricia Rozema’s comments.
Here’s my Fanny Price fact:
Fanny Price is happy to take long walking errands for her Aunt Norris. The sun can turn Fanny Price’s hair magically golden.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:24 am
…but I actually liked it…as long as I could forget what it was SUPPOSED to be.
I thought the casting was good…did not mind Billie Piper at all as Fanny. I do get irritated when screenwriters don’t bother to learn the manners and mores of the Regency era.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:28 am
…maybe my expectations were so dimmed by the first two, that I just decided to be bygones with whatever Masterpiece decided to throw at us next. It was really okay.
What was not, however, is the awful new intro to Masterpiece Theater. And who on earth decided to hire Gillian Anderson to host? She looks completely and utterly bored, mails in her delivery…and who thought to put a redhead up against a red background. Can you say no budget for a set? It made me long for Alastair Cooke in his comfy study.
BTW…is the main actress in Miss Austen Regrets the actress who played Jane Fairfax in Emma?
January 29th, 2008 at 6:25 am
@ #40 Tabatha:
For what it’s worth, that didn’t happen in those books either.
@ #96 Debra:
The sun doesn’t turn Fanny Price’s hair golden, Fanny Price cut a lock of her hair, threw it up in the sky and the sun was born.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:58 am
@Carol G - No, the actress in Miss Austen Regrets (Olivia Williams) is in The Sixth Sense and Peter Pan.
…
I was thinking you meant the Paltrow Emma. IMDb confirms that she was Jane Fairfax in the Beckinsale Emma.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Have you found what are the missing scenes? From comments I have read at other forums, apparently the harp scene was deleted, can anyone confirm it?
January 29th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I only watched the longer version once so didn’t spot anything–but yes, the harp scene was missing. And Marybeth said above the conversation about slavery was missing.
I’ll try to compile a list tonight.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Yes, I have read Mansfield Park many times and love it.
I thought this adapatation was very frustrating. The lack of proper character development made the events confusing. My husband, who has not read MP, was baffled as to why Maria Bertram would take off with Mr. Crawford. Fanny and Edmund’s connection based on their shared moral views was very weakly demonstrated. The film’s depiction of Fanny as alternately mature and bold and then child-like (skipping about or sulking until her horse arrives) was really irritating.
I understand why Portsmouth was left out (how could it possibly fit in the time frame.) But, that was a critical point in the book showing Mr. Crawford’s better side and how his weakness finally killed any budding chance to have a better life with Fanny. I was disappointed that my favorite quote was missing where Fanny tells Mr. Crawford, who is trying to convince her that he has changed, that it is his changeable nature that concerns her.
I hope anyone interested in this movie will read the book. There is much more to MP than was seen Sunday night.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
MP was the first JA novel I ever read. I confess that I hated it! While I came around a few years later on JA, I have never fully come around on MP. I can appreciate it, but I enjoy it least of all her novels. But I have many years and many readings of it before me, and someday it may end up my favorite.
Many things wrong with this production, as so many have said. I’ll limit to the two things that irked me the most:
1) They didn’t even get basic exposition or characterization in there. My husband was not familiar with the story, and he was utterly confused, particularly about who the Crawfords were and why they were even there.
2) The not-Mrs. Norris. In the novel, she’s a cancer in that house, and is so important in Fanny’s being the way she is. Not that Fanny was really Fanny in this version.
I feel moved to defend Billie Piper. Physically she was totally miscast (way too healthy and robust, and I will not even comment on the hair/eyebrow problem), but I think that she did the best she could with a poorly written character. The way she was physically repulsed by Henry Crawford (before he starts to win her over)said more about his character than the script or the actor playing him.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Having only my one-time read of MP and a viewing of the horrid, horrid “Persuasion” (ditto that on Anne Eliot - I have an excellent clarifying bottle of shampoo with your name on it) to compare to in this “Masterpiece Classic” series, I confess that I actually enjoyed this version of MP. I credit this to two facts:
1) Pug was truly exquisite. Even my very own Pug sat up to attention during Pug’s scenes!
2) Unencumbered with a good working knowledge of the book, I could swallow some of the more absurd plot twists (hair down and waltzing and purple, oh my!), unlike certain other Masterpiece Classic movies (name rhymes with “Schmersuasion”).
Editrix, thank you for clearing up the confusion regarding Andrew Davies’ alleged co-opting of all things Masterpiece Classic. After the epic P&P 2, I couldn’t quite believe he was responsible for the entirety of the muck, but I am reserving right to point the Finger of Shame in his general direction should more muck come forth.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I have read Mansfield Park and am familiar with the plot and details. This adaptation was nothing like it other than taking place at a large house in the country. I will not be buying the DVD.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Since I’ve seen the waltz used in the new versions of Persuasion and Mansfield Park I’m wondering how anachronistic it is for the time period. I was initially outraged that they would try to pass off such scandalous dancing in a movie set during the Regency period. But then some quick Googling showed that it was introduced in London around 1812. Does anyone know how common waltzing would have been throughout Britain in the 1810s?
January 29th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I hated this adaptation. I know I disagree with the authors of this blog in that I liked the 1999 film, though I saw it before I read the book, and then again after, and it is a good film on its own, even if it’s not a faithful adaptation. I love the book. It’s interesting and complicated. This new adaptation, though, is not only unfaithful, it’s just bad. Billie Piper is miscast; she looks like Harriet Smith from Emma, not Fanny. And the poor girl should really get her teeth fixed. She had to do some strange contortions of the lips to keep them covered. I found this very distracting.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Poor Fanny… I wonder if she ever found out that Henry Crawford and her dear William deceived her about Will’s promotion? Her brother was not a lieutenant, but in fact nothing more than a sailor in the Surprise (Capt. Jno. Aubrey) under the name of Warley, and tragically drowned in a storm off Cape Horn…
January 30th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Perhaps they should have reversed the casting, between Fanny and Mary Crawford? That might have been a better fit. I was finding Mary too likeable, and Fanny too exasperating.
I’ve not read the books, and I enjoyed all three films even with all their flaws. But I agree, these works should not be treated so lightly. I’m definitely inspired to go read the books now, and learn more about these characters that I’ve only caught a glimpse of, as though from a speeding train.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Thank you, Girl Detective, for mentioning Billie Piper’s teeth. I don’t mean to be cruel–I liked her in Dr. Who–but watching her try to cover her enormous teeth was very distracting. I found myself cheering her on, “C’mon, you can do it–close your lips! Yes!” She just doesn’t have the look of a period actress. As a modern character, she doesn’t have to feign shyness or modesty. Or perhaps, as an earlier poster suggested, she should be playing a barmaid!
January 30th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I didn’t realize that large teeth were 21st century phenomenon. Who knew?
January 30th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Before orthodontic braces and cosmetic dentistry, EVERYONE had small, perfect teeth. I thought that was common knowledge.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
“What is it with all the running?!”
Don’t you know Fanny is competing in a marathon with Anne Elliot? Fanny has better odds since, even though she is supposed to be sickly, Anne trips when walking over logs.
I think the whole Pug litter thing meant that he would sire a litter and one puppy would be given to the owner of the sire. Just a guess but a serious one.
Although waltzing was done in Europe in the eighteenth century it was not done in England until a few years later. It was done at Almacks per this reference and others:
“The waltz traveled to Paris with Napoleon’s soldiers and arrived in London in 1814 where it was introduced to Almack’s by Lady Jersey. In England the physical contact of the waltz was regarded as shocking and there was outrage when it was included in a ball of the Prince Regent in 1816. Even Byron objected, complaining about the: “lewd grasp and lawless contact warm.”
But since Fanny has never even been outside of Mansfield and MP3 takes place before the Regency Period I find it quite incorrect too. Then again they didn’t even wear white wedding gowns at this time either!
January 30th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Oh, I thought it was dreadfully boring. I didn’t think the “Doctor Who” girl made a good fanny at all. I did think the part before the wedding was cute, though. The part where they both ran outside from the table? I liked that, yes… but that’s all. The movie just couldn’t keep my attention.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
“I sincerely hope it is not, Jen K. IMHO it would be a difficult task but not impossible.”
Conceptually, no. Practicably, yes. On what planet are we going to find that magical confluence of money, industry influence, market interest, and love of Fanny that would require such an effort? In what time period? It would be better as a miniseries, best done as an independent film, and how often do indie filmmakers latch so lovingly onto an adaptation like this one?
We may one day live in a time where rogue Janeite filmmakers are able to commit the time and resources to such a project but we are not there yet. I name only possibilities. My beloved Fanny can remain untouched until she can be handled by the right sort.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Well of course people at the time had large teeth, and sometimes (often!) bad teeth, too. But we wouldn’t want to see Fanny with decaying teeth, and we wouldn’t want to see the hero with premature baldness. Maybe they cut the scene where Aunt Norris says, “Fanny, for goodness’ sake, try to keep your lips closed. You look like a horse!”
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
i finally put my finger on what i really didn’t like about this adaptation. all the peeking from behind doors and messy hair made me think of P&P05. not very creative, hmm?
February 8th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Terrible. I actually found myself rolling my eyes and tsking aloud. It’s not the fault of the actors, either. The “adaptation” is simply ridiculous. At least MP99 reinvented the story with a new, but coherent point of view, however bizarre. But these “adapters” missed the entire point of the book. And I love Billie Piper, but she was horribly miscast. And the costuming was atrotious. Fannie joins the play? And does the waltz? Have they lost their minds?