Mansfield Park (1999) User Reviews (214)

Even cute-as-a-button "Frances O'Connor" couldn't save this pointless exercise...

[kmccabe- · 6/10 · 26 August 2001]

They say the great thing about Shakespeare's work is that it is so open to interpretation. Every director can bring his or her fresh eyes to a play and make it new. Even so, I think we are obliged to stay true to the basic tennents of the text. Are the works of Jane Austen as open to interpretation? Maybe, but I doubt it; Certainly not if MANSFIELD PARK is anything to go by.

MANSFIELD was always my favourite of Austen's six novels. Many modern critics, while not denying its basic greatness, have problems with the book. Many find FANNY PRICE unlikeable, many find her judgemental, and feel that her Stoic, Augustan approach is hard to relate to. Stand-by, do nothing, and eventually he'll see the error of his ways and come to love you. Not very modern, is it?

OK, so if you don't like the main character, if you don't like what she has to say, then what do you do? Look for other aspects of the story you can relate to. In recent years some critics have chosen to see MANSFIELD PARK in Post-Imperial terms, as a critique of Slavery. After all, the family's wealth is based on plantations in Antiga, which were run by slaves. Is that what the book's about? Is it? I don't know. I think the evidence is a little slim, but who am I to deny the possibility? Maybe it plays a part in the subtext of the novel.

So, I'm a modern script-writer who doesn't like the novel, it's pre-occupations or even Fanny Price. What do I do? I completely re-write the story to take a possible minor sub-text (slavery) and turn it in to the driving narrative force. I then take smart as a whippet, stubborn yet passive Fanny and turn her into a ballsy version of Bridget Jones. With an attitude. I then string together a couple of scenes from the book with a few invented bridging scenes to advance the romance. Et Voila! I have a completely different story!

I don't know what this film is, but it isn't Mansfield Park. Enjoy it on its own terms, but don't ever get the idea that your watching Austen on the screen. But, jeeze. I think that if you're going to adapt a novel for the screen, you ought to at least like the source material; Otherwise, what's the point? If you don't like the main character, you shouldn't be able to completely re-invent her. Or if you do, you should have the decency to be a little ashamed.

This is Jane Austen as if written by Edith Wharton

[noralee · 6/10 · 8 November 2005]

This "Mansfield Park" is Jane Austen as if written by Edith Wharton, and there is a difference between the two social commentators as to sensuality and satirical touch.

The whole audience was getting fed up with the Ashley Wilkes-type hesitant male, though I did enjoy the unusualness of the flighty hunk seeming to be enraptured by the heroine before he showed his unfaithful stripes--even if he was sort of driven off the moral straight and narrow by her lack of guidance.

I had seen Roczema's previous indie Canadian feature and this was far more straight-forward story-telling than that head-scratching feminist tract. The lead actresses in both save the movie.

I didn't mind the talking to the camera as she reads letters and the set pieces as the narrator comments on the scene.

The settings are the usual Natural Heritage Trust tourist views, but this is not the Austen touch. Much better were "Persuasion" and "Clueless."

(originally written 12/27/1999)

Not true to the letter, but has the wit and spirit of Austen

[secondtake · 8/10 · 20 January 2014]

Mansfield Park (1999)

A remarkably clear-headed film that make Jane Austen real and alive. The heroine here is perhaps even a bit like Austen—though the actress is prettier, by all accounts—and it includes letters read by the character that are seemingly Austen's words. But what the cast and director Patricia Rozema pull off here is fabulous.

There is no one reason this movie works so well, except of course the really scintillating, funny writing of Austen herself. The lead character is Fanny Price, played with true joy, angst, and subtle wit by Frances O'Connor. The two men who court her on and off are strong enough as men to be convincing, but they are perfectly still young men, barely more than boys in years, and they have those youthful flaws. Which is part of the fodder for Austen's wit.

And social observation. If you don't quite catch the way she plays social classes against each other you miss part of the substance. It isn't just that the poor niece ends up at the rich uncle's house, but that this same niece has the perception to see through their facades. And to keep mum until just the right moment.

This isn't a liberation film where the woman charges to victory in a big speech or by a power play. Instead—and this is one reason Austen is still readable today—the woman simply comments on the issues in a way that makes clear her more advanced views, and the obstacles slowly fall away through outside circumstances (rather than her own doing). The passivity of Fanny Price might bother some people, but that's exactly her role, as a character, in this pageant.

One last point—slavery. This is the one novel of Austen's that gets her in trouble for her languid views on the uncle's use of slaves in the West Indies. The movie seems to twist this into a more modern condemnation, which helps us stay sympathetic to the whole shebang. There is even an added scene of sketches (done in a way rather like Goya's socially critical drawings of the same time, with some Kara Walker thrown in) which make clear the crisis at hand.

If you want to dip into Austen through a movie, choose between this and the 2005 "Pride and Prejudice" and you won't be disappointed. Of course, if you want to read the book—that's even better. More modern and fresh than it "should" be for 200 years ago.

Jane Austen is spinning in her grave!!!

[Psyche-8 · 12 April 2001]

What has this movie done to a book as charming as 'Mansfield Park'?! The storyline has been altered until it is virtually unrecognisable! Fanny Price is nothing like she is in the book, the other characters have been equally changed for the worst and as far as I could tell hardly any of Austen's witty prose has been retained!! It seems this adaptation is 'Mansfield Park' in name only.

This is probably the most difficult of Austen's novels to bring to the big screen because the characters are so much a product of their time. Fanny is supposed to be shy, submissive, compassionate and pious. She was never outspoken, headstrong or feisty. In short, she is not Elizabeth Bennet and she never will be. To attempt to portray Fanny in this light is missing the point of her whole character. She is dull and boring by today's standards, but her disposition was admirable during the time that she lived.

I really don't know what the filmmakers were thinking with this adaptation - they probably weren't!! At any rate, it is only because Jane Austen is long dead that they would dare to produce this version. If you haven't read the book you'll probably enjoy it. If you have read the book, don't bother with this. It will ruin your whole experience of the novel.

Another Fix for Austen Groupies

[m0rphy · 6/10 · 4 February 2004]

It is always a pleasure to read John Simpson from Hastings literate reviews and I echo his sentiments.Mansfield Park was published in 1814 being set in 1806.It came after Pride & Prejudice but before Emma.Many of the user comments below bemoan the fact that the film departs from the novel.This is certainly not necessarily a bad thing if the producer can give us a better version; e.g.the ending of "Portrait of Jennie (1948).Personally I have not read the novel but saw this tv film about a year ago before it was repeated recently.I therefore have to accept the director shows latitude with the facts of the written word but we don't know what agenda from the producers she was working from.Was she told to "sex it up" with the copulation scene?Was she told to mention contraversial subjects such as rape and slavery to satisfy modern prurient tastes?

I was intrigued whether I would feel differently, having seen it before and therefore have the benefit of familiarity with its content.I must confess I was left with a rather hollow feeling at its end.This film gives the impression it is based on one of Austen's darker novels what with the allusions to slavery and the early stirrings of womens' emancipation but we know from our literate colleagues Austen did not mention these, only perhaps on her unwritten and subconcious agenda.I was quite impressed with the art work of scenes on the slave driven Antiguan plantation as they effectivly captured the main emotion of fear.Did Austen really write the joke about "... after all this is 1806", as if it were the swinging sixties? Slavery was abolished in Britain from 1833, so we have to assume this was an accepted but socially unspoken topic, contraversial when Mansfield Park was written

The principal players headed by Frances O'Connor as Fanny Price gave measured, adequate performances but I never experienced the high emotions experienced from Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth in the celebrated 1995 tv film of P&P.One of the highlights of an Austen outing is to hear wonderful piano-forte but I sorely missed an exposition of this by any of the ladies present.Personally, Carl Davies' original Mozartian piano theme he composed for the aforementioned P&P will take a lot of beating.Jane Austen collected her "Opinions of Mansfield Park" from family and friends just after its publication.This was long before public opinion polls or indeed Imdb user comments!! I rated it 6/10.

Jane's best

[gurciullob · 7/10 · 9 December 2020]

This movie had a delightfully playful way of bringing Jane Austen's book to life especially with the way the story was directed to bring you into it like a letter. It was funny, intense and captivating, and I would say (and this is probably going to be an unpopular opionion) I enjoyed the characters and storyline of this story more than Pride & Prejudice.

Excellent film inspired by rather than adapted from Austen's work

[fw · 10/10 · 5 March 2003]

Director Rozema does for film what Austen does for the novel. In place of Austen's beautiful prose, Rozema's Mansfield Park delivers delicately crafted performances, heartbreakingly poetic cinematography, and a haunting score by Lesley Barber, but still manages to capture Austen's wit throughout.

Frances O'Connor and Jonny Lee Miller (as Fanny Price and Edmund Bertram) carry the film with their subtlety and chemistry, and a few scenes between the two are enough to deem the film a masterpiece. But they are not the only merits: the supporting cast breathe dimensionality to their characters with interesting interpretations of Austen's work. Most notable are Lindsay Duncan in her dual roles as Mrs Price and Mrs Bertram, and Victoria Hamilton as an intensely human Maria. Sophia Myles and Justine Waddell display equal genius albeit within the limitations of somewhat small roles. It is more difficult to gauge the performances of Alessandro Nivola and Embeth Davidtz; their characters are too affected by choices made in the script (arguably, Henry Crawford for the better and Mary Crawford for the worse).

One can be a fan of Jane Austen and still appreciate the film. Although it bears little resemblance to the novel itself, it embodies much of the spirit of Austen and draws from her other novels where Mansfield Park the novel might be, dare I say, lacking. I am an ardent supporter of Austen, but I must say that the film version makes a commendable choice in choosing a protagonist that shares more of Pride and Prejudice's Elizabeth Bennett's spirit than the subdued Fanny of Mansfield Park.

The film does, of course, have its flaws. The slavery issue is treated in a manner too heavy-handed to blend with Austen's style, and the same can be said of the hints of lesbianism that are just painfully out of place. The sexual tension is often a touch too overbearing in the film, although I agree with Rozema in saying that the film does not create this sexuality anew but draws from the tension latent in the novel (with the exception of the above-mentioned lesbianism). Other disappointments include Sir Bertram and Tom Bertram, who are practically caricatures that mar the otherwise brilliant characterization in the film.

Regardless, the film's high points far outweigh its imperfections -- all in all, highly recommended.

Review - Mansfield Park

[Maxence_G · 7/10 · 8 December 2020]

A respectable adaptation of Jane Austen's novel of the same name.

Mansfield Park (the movie) surely didn't get enough recognition for Frances O'Connor's performance.

I have seen many complaints about it being unfaithful to the book, but I think that the essential was to make a film faithful to the style of Jane Austen, not the plot.

Plus, for once, I thought that the 4th wall breaking was entertaining and practical in the way that it is not used to bring comical relief or to make lazy expositions.

Also, it is undoubtedly, a feminist story, but unlike the more recent Enola Holmes, it avoids historical revisionism.

My major complaint is that Patricia Rozema, maybe due to a lack of budget, shot the film like a TV movie.

When you miss BBC films...

[galiyanur · 8/10 · 26 December 2020]

Shockingly different from what i am used to when it comes to BBC and Jane Austen

Enjoyable, gorgeous to look at version of the Austen story...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 25 October 2007]

I had no trouble enjoying MANSFIELD PARK because I had no comparison to make to the novel, which I never read. I saw nothing about it that made me think it was catering to 1999's sensibilities, despite the use of a scene where someone is caught in flagrante with another. Aside from that indiscretion, the dialog seemed like authentic Austen to me and the whole affair has been expertly photographed in England, of course, on lush locales that are breathtakingly gorgeous to look at. The swirling camera swerves often from the interior of a room to the vast horizons outside with the greatest of ease.

And, of course, the British cast cannot be praised highly enough. All of them perform to the manor born in the appropriate style. FRANCES O'CONNOR (who closely resembles a young Jennifer Jones) is Fanny Price, the poor girl sent to live with rich relatives at Mansfield Park, who becomes an elegant young woman and a writer. (Sounds suspiciously like the author herself inserting her character on this role).

And JONNY LEE MILLER is Edmund Bertram, a young man obviously smitten with her from the start. It takes the entire running time of the film for the young lovers to discover they always did love each other, but along the way we're treated to some interesting episodes of British class distinction amid the manners and mores of a bygone era, including some sharp bits of humor.

Interesting that after essaying this quiet, unassuming role, Jonny Lee Miller would next take on the fight against a vampire in Dracula 2000. So much for British dexterity and range.

Summing up: Some admirers of the novel seem to be put off by this one, but I have to admit I enjoyed it, even if I did find Fanny's inconsistent feelings about her suitor,Henry, and her inability to make up her mind, rather frustrating at times.

Don't feed the trolls

[ThomasColquith · 8/10 · 29 April 2023]

"Mansfield Park" from 1999 is a well done period drama based on the eponymous Jane Austen book. It is well cast and acted and has appropriate settings and the script is well written. I rate this film an 8/10 and would recommend it to those who like historical dramas. My only complaint would be the occasionally odd camera-work. But overall it does work and it does feel surprisingly contemporary to both its original time period and the current day as well. I'm glad that I took a chance and finally watched this now twenty-four year old film. If you're interested in it just give it a go, you could do a lot worse.

Can't decide whether I liked this

[pma97dr-2 · 7/10 · 5 February 2001]

I went to see this with reservations. I had heard that it bore little resemblance to the book, but I was on the whole pleasantly suprised. The acting is uniformally excellent (apart from the Young Fanny who had the worst fake English accent I've ever heard) especially from Frances O'Connor and Harold Pinter.

Although O'Connor was excellent, and the characterisation of Fanny worked in the context of the film, it would have been nice to see the character of Fanny from the book, which contrary to most opinions, I found to be very complex and interesting. This would be hard to bring across in a film, and when you remember the diabolical TV version, it is easy to understand why they did it as they did.

I thought the addition of the slavery issue was a bit crass, and there were too many needless jokes, Mansfield Park isn't Emma however you rejig it) but on the whole this wasn't too bad.

Muddled and offensive

[galensaysyes · 3/10 · 29 March 2001]

For half or two-thirds of its length, I thought this a fair enough movie. True, it's a poor telling of the novel, bits from which are stuck together without the structure of it being clearly conveyed or, apparently, recognized. Also true, it's filled with bad theatrical ideas, such as combining the heroine of the novel with Austen herself (and then casting the role with an actress who can play neither one). And also true, it's played less like an Austenian social comedy than like a half-baked version of Tom Jones. All these things notwithstanding, up to a point it's entertaining enough. (However, "enough" here means, as always in this usage, not quite enough. Halfway through the movie, not seeing much I recognized on screen, I turned to the novel, and found one paragraph of it more involving, amusing, and wise than everything in the movie rolled together. But let that pass.)

Then came the Social Significance - as if Austen's novels were not full of social significance. Evidently the adapter disliked the nineteenth century, and Austen, and set out to show them up for what they were. I pretended to miss the insinuation of her father's having molested her and her sister--there being no other interpretation to be placed on the looks exchanged between the two of them and their mother when he gives Fanny a hug. But then Fanny turns up an album of atrocity pictures showing what her (almost) foster father, his son, and his crew were really getting up to with their slaves.

This exceeds allowable bounds. Such a device might be imposed on Fielding, or on Dickens, without betraying the author's purpose too far; but not Austen. It obliterates the story, or what's left of it. In the face of rapes and beatings and tortures, who gives a fig whether Miss Price and her Reverend get together? Yet the comedy of manners continues galumphing along as if the scene had never happened. Having forced it in, the adapter makes no changes in the narrative to accommodate it. This is film-making for MTV watchers, i.e. patients with short-term memory loss.

Ah - the adapter might counter - but that's just the point! The characters act as if these horrors didn't exist! To which I would reply: if she felt, reading the novel, that the squire was just the kind of man who would have done that sort of thing, white European male pig that he was, and that Austen (owing to her famous ignorance of human nature, which causes her books to continue to be read two centuries later) was too much of a booby to see it, whereas the adapter's own superior sensibility makes all things manifest, she might at least have done Fanny the justice of having her react to the discovery as she would have, given her character. The story turns on her absolute moral rectitude and her rejection of the amorality represented by the Dangerous Liaisons characters. In the face of the dark deeds of which she becomes aware, her denunciation of the others becomes itself amoral and hypocritical, for she has silently acquiesced in the viciousness of her class.

This conclusion must be extrapolated, since it is nowhere stated in the film, the adapter not having troubled to stir in the muck she has tossed into the pot. But I can't help wondering, if her object was to discredit Fanny, as well as the monsters around her--if she had so little use for the character as that--why did she choose to do this book?

Why mess with Art?

[nic_cassowary · 11 January 2004]

Maybe it was a mistake to watch this adaption of Mansfield Park the day I finished reading the novel. This production is too modern. Now I understand that they probably wanted to make it "more appealing" to today's moviegoers, and I know that it's hard to fit all a book into a film - but why did they change the essence of who Fanny Price is? She is a highly moral, quiet, smart, very put-upon young lady. While Frances O'Connor is a wonderful actress, she played Fanny all wrong. She was smiling (constantly), having pillow fights, speaking her mind. There was no sense of period or restraint in her portrayal. I think the writer/director should have had more faith in the characters in the book.

With so many storylines to choose from in the book, I wonder why new ones were added, such as the slave trade and opium use? It is a shame that Sir Thomas didn't have the character arc seen in the book, that has him appreciate Fanny more and show her greater kindness when he returns from Antigua. In the film he is just always a big, mean bully. Jonny Lee Miller's Edmund is not nearly pious and conflicted enough. He is meant to be joining the clergy.

I am sure I would have thought it was an average film if I didn't know the original source, but it was a big disappointment.

Fan fiction

[kayper54 · 7/10 · 29 November 2010]

If you plan to watch this film (or have already watched it and are dissatisfied with it,) try to step back a bit from the Jane Austen novel as it was written (and additionally, the faithful-to-the-novel adaptation in the 1983 6-part mini-series) and try to look at it the way you would a well-written piece of fan fiction. The characters and their basic story lines remain somewhat the same: they have the same beginnings, same names and backgrounds and the same final, end-of-story resolutions, but their personalities and attitudes as well as many of the significant incidents are given a somewhat different treatment. Fanny is the most altered; she has more spunk (waaaaaaaay more spunk, possibly more than is easy to forgive for die-hard Austen fans) and Frances O'Conner is more attractive than Fanny seems to be described in the novel (or as portrayed by the actress in the mini-series.) She is also fashioned a bit as a reflection of Jane Austen herself as a writer of love stories, and even a very subjective POV of a "History of England" novel much like that actually written by Miss Austen as a teenager. Sir Thomas' character is written a little darker and of course the slavery issue becomes one of the centerpieces of the story, something that was glossed over so lightly in the novel and the mini-series that it was barely noticeable. Indeed, it may be brought too much forward to forgive for die-hard Austen fans. I will leave it to others who are better informed and educated than I am to decide whether the 1990's politically-correct ideologies of the young people in this early 19th century story seem unrealistically anachronistic.

However, as a movie by itself, viewed as "inspired by" rather than "based upon" the novel, it works very well. It is interesting and the characters and "enhanced" story lines are mostly well-thought out. Tom Bertram, Jr. is a tortured "artiste," and is not just an idle playboy, but one who is desperately trying to distract himself from the great burden of guilt he carries regarding how his family's fortune is made on the sweat, tears and broken backs of forced, slave labor. The only characters who really do remain truthful to the novel are Lady Bertram and Aunt Norris. I like that it is brought right out in the open that Lady B is a borderline alcoholic (if she hasn't actually crossed over that line.) While Edmund is portrayed still very closely to how he was originally written, he, too, is given a little more of an edge. A little side observation: Embeth Davidtz, who plays Mary Crawford, so much resembles Jackie Smith-Wood, who played the same character in the '83 mini-series that she could be Smith-Wood's daughter (or at least her much-younger sister.)

The ladies' costumes are gorgeous, the prettiest I've ever seen in any Jane Austen film/TV adaptation. If you want a real treat of the history of the ladies' costumes in nearly every, single Regency Period film/TV adaptation made in the last 40 years, check out the "Trivia" section of this title page, as well as the Trivia sections of all the title pages of all the Regency Period TV/films since about 1970. Someone went to a great deal of effort to catalog all of them in minute detail.

An entertaining story that did deviate from the book

[mahalo-2 · 7/10 · 24 July 2000]

I was surprised about how the movie deviated from the book. Some of the changes seemed pointless, but I did like the change of adding the slavery aspect to the movie. It gave Tom far more substance than he was allowed to have in the book. I especially liked how Jane Austen's humor was accurately portrayed in the movie. Fanny did have some memorable and extremely witty lines. I was upset about her agreeing to marry Henry and then changing her mind. She really did hurt him very badly. I don't remember that happening in the book. The scene only seems to damage Fanny's character and I'm not sure what the writer was trying to accomplish by adding it.

View it as 1990's drama in early 1800's clothes. Too modern!

[movie-viking · 6/10 · 6 October 2008]

Poor Fanny Price. The Creepy Crawfords as well as a leering uncle and several other dubious relations work to get her into compromising situations-- The book is 1990s society but is portrayed in early 1800's period costumes and period dialogue. For instance, both of the "Creepy Crawfords" Mr. Crawford and his sister leer after Fanny...A transgender moment common in 1990's to 2000 film productions.

Young women were tightly chaperoned back then and most would have actively avoided the appearance of a compromising situation. If their reputation was damaged, it could vastly change their life for the worse.

Even Edmund, the one pure and decent person who Fanny eventually will marry, still talks with her while she is lying on top of her bed. And later, Edmund falls asleep during the carriage ride and leans against her partly bare chest long before they even get engaged. Too modern!!! Creepy uncle has been exploiting slaves in his overseas plantation. This very developed subplot is rather graphically shown through the anguish of one of his sons and through rather explicit drawings.

The film is moderately interesting, but consider it a parody on Austen, not an interpretation. NOTE to wannabee Jane Austen film makers- Many reviewers here prize those films that stay true to the AUSTEN books! Those of you wanting to make a modern film - do it the Bridget Jones way.

Excellent

[eyeintrees · 10/10 · 25 February 2021]

I haven't read the book. The reason being that I find much of the books written about rich, idle, boring people in that era, tedious; a time waste and immeasurably dull beyond belief. So I suppose it 'not being anything like the book', which all the 1,2,3 & 4 scoring reviews keep telling us about, is a very, very good thing.

It's an excellent film and an intelligent one. Absolutely recommended!

Very watchable but the scriptwriter is bigoted against the English

[Rozinda · 6/10 · 28 April 2010]

I was predisposed to enjoy this adaptation even though I'd seen reviews that indicated it was not a faithful adaptation and some that did not rate it at all. However, I was quickly annoyed by the disgraceful attack on our Queen Elizabeth I. I can only assume the scriptwriter is descended from a disgruntled Scots emigrant and doesn't know the truth. Whilst the view of our great Queen as a brutal persecutor of Mary Queen of Scots may delight some disgruntled Scots, it is totally inaccurate. Mary was a foolish woman although also in a difficult situation as she was a staunch Catholic in a country that had turned mostly Protestant. After her third very stupid marriage failed and she was on the run from her own nobles who had no respect for her - which is significant - she hoped England would give her protection. Yet at the same time she continued to insist obsessively that she was Queen of England and plot and scheme to do away with her "Protector" Queen Elizabeth. Unfortunately for her, the usual rule of winner takes all applied. She had to be imprisoned as she was encouraging sedition. Elizabeth should have had her executed long before she actually did after enduring many years of Mary's interminable plotting against Elizabeth's life, but Elizabeth held to the view that a Monarch should not be dishonoured. It is a pity her cousin Mary of Scots didn't have the decency to honour Elizabeth similarly. Mary didn't it seems care about the fact that England had had an appalling experience under the brief but manic rule of Catholic fanatic Mary I who introduced the vicious Spanish Inquisition with horrendous results into England. Thank heaven she didn't last long. The Inquisition is totally alien to English ways. There was no way England would stand for another Catholic ruler either - which is partly why later James II later was slung out, and rightly. There is no way Fanny - or Jane Austen - would insult Queen Elizabeth as in this movie. I must assume the movie isn't British or the scriptwriter would know better.

The Slave Trade... Jane Austen did not get into politics. Fanny wouldn't have dared to criticise. Tom is a selfish arrogant drunkard and I don't remember him ever complaining about slavery. Did he? Fanny was quiet and careful not to offend and very well aware of her lowly status. Her Aunt Sir Thomas's wife was very fond of Fanny though imposed greatly on her - why isn't this bond shown? Fanny and Edmund were rather insufferable prigs by our modern standards but not by theirs. This movie's Fanny is far too feisty by far.

If the scriptwriter hadn't chosen to get into politics and smear England's great Queen, this movie would have gained 8 stars from me. I don't mind a loose adaptation, but do get the facts right. If the story had been written by a Scot resentful of the treatment of their Catholic Queen Mary and about Scots of the time who might have been equally annoyed, the view of Mary and Elizabeth it expressed would have made sense.

Worth watching - A good solid film, a charming interpretation

[heidi-962-439592 · 9/10 · 28 April 2011]

A solid film, highly enjoyable and watchable. I am a Jane Austen fan and purist, and was not offended that this version did not stick avidly to the book.

The acting was solid and the characters believable (no strings, no wood) I am a big fan, have read the book many times and the characters were well matched to the actors, even if the central story deviated a bit.

I give this 9/10 for a chick flick period drama with a happy ending (as all in this genre should be) and a 6/10 for a strict version of Mansfield Park. This 6/10 does not detract from the enjoyment of the film in my opinion.

It states clearly in the opening credits that the film is based on "Jane Austen's letters, her Juvenilla stories AND Mansfield Park" so in this version the character of Fanny Price is given a generous nod to the characters and events in the life of Jane Austen, which is a new and interesting twist and nice for those who are fans of Austen and not just the 6 novels. Fanny in the film is not as reserved and put upon as Fanny of the book, but this is where the Jane Austen letters come in, and I would like to believe that Fanny of the film is just as worthy a heroine (because after all we all love Jane too).

As with all movies of a good book there are omissions that some may find frustrating, but the parallels with Jane Austen's life; her early writings of the Juvenilla stories and her reading them to her beloved sister, her first accepting then refusing the marriage proposal a day later, all added to the charm of this version.

I am pleased that I got over myself and the negative reviews I had previously read and decided to give it a go. It is worth watching, and to all the nay sayers out there, No it really is not that bad, there are many film version that are unwatchable, but this is not one of them.

Lies mostly between over-exertion and toothlessness

[allyjack · 7/10 · 21 September 1999]

Version of Jane Austen's novel crams so much contemporary politicking into its central character that it almost fragments altogether. A young girl from poor circumstances grows from a charitable afterthought of the rich relatives with whom she's sent to live, into the primary redemption of that family's moral character. Given that the family lives mainly on the profits of Antiguan slave labor, and that the landscape is strewn with lurking temptations of the flesh, this may not be such a feat; in any event, the film feels more like a series of set-pieces than a coherent whole, and lies in a strange zone between over-exertion and dramatic toothlessness. "This is 1806 for heaven's sake," says a character at one point, although it's rather hard to tell: the banality of the well-to-do milieu is well caught, but Rozema's cinematic 'enhancements' merely generate disengagement without any accompanying analysis. Whether viewed through the prism of past or present, it's markedly less persuasive than other recent Austen adaptations.

The heart of Austen

[duffytweedy · 9/10 · 12 October 2006]

This is a wonderful movie, one that I liked far better than I expected. For the record I am a passionate fan of the novels, and thought the recent Keira Knightley "Pride and Prejudice" too silly and modernized. The ads and previews for "Mansfield Park" on its theatrical release made it seem like a revisionist, "sexed-up" bit of trash, so I skipped it. What wasn't stressed then, and makes watching the DVD worthwhile, is that it is revisionist in a very thoughtful, interesting way. Note that the movie claims to be "based on" both Mansfield Park AND Jane Austen's journals and other writings. It never claims to be a straight filming of the novel. Fortunately it is beautifully made and has integrity in being faithful both to aspects of the book and to the writer/director's interpretation of it. It earns the liberties it takes with the novel.

No, this is not Jane Austen's Fanny Price. Fanny has been re-imagined as "Jane Austen" herself, a woman of intelligence and talent for whom ideas and writing are essential to life. The wild stories we hear Fanny reading to her sister are passages from Austen's Juvenilia, and we also hear passages from Austen's journals and other writings. I've never been a Fanny-hater myself, but I did love this new Fanny. I was surprised at the absence of Fanny's brother, but the writer/director (Patricia Rozema) has combined William with Susan for the sake of economy. As she explains in the commentary track, she retained Susan instead of William since Susan's character has a conclusion, as it were.

The abolitionist theme that is very subtle in the book is played up here. Not with preachy monologues and 21st century anachronisms, but by dialogue and events that come naturally from the characters. There have always been abolitionists. Other, more overt motifs in the novel, such as improvements and acting, do not get much screen time. Changes are also made in chronology, and there is a brief "caught in flagrante" sex scene that doesn't deserve the scorn heaped upon it.

What emerges in this movie is a great, vibrant heroine, the hybrid Austen/Fanny character. Austen's journal writings are haunting, echoing and summarizing many of the themes of her best characters and fiction. Frances O' Connor gives a fantastic performance as the adult Fanny, supported by as fine an ensemble cast as I've ever seen. The movie has a wonderful score, and looks just right. Deliberately not as opulent as some adaptations, this film makes the signs of decay around the house of Mansfield Park subtle but unmistakable.

This version of Mansfield Park is not a straight depiction of the novel, and the adaptation won't be to everyone's taste. Patricia Rozema does know Austen's work, but as a filmmaker realizes that you can't just transfer great prose onto a screen. She made choices as to which themes to bring out and which to ignore, and made changes in character and dialogue to give the movie a life of its own. These choices were made for artistic reasons, not out of ignorance of Austen. You could ask, Why not just write an original screenplay if you're going to change so much? I think it's because Rozema and we love Austen, and Austen is still at the heart of this film, just beating a different rhythm.

Jane Austen's Novel Comes To Life

[sddavis63 · 6/10 · 3 June 2001]

This is a pretty well done adaptation of the Jane Austen novel about a young girl (Fanny Price, played by Frances O'Connor) from a poor family who is sent to grow up with wealthy relatives in the England of the early 1800's.

The story has a "soap-opera" flavour to it as we see, through the eyes of Fanny (often through letters she writes home to her sister Susan (Sophia Myles) the lifestyles of the upper-crust of that era. O'Connor was delightful as Fanny. I hope we see a lot more of her in the future. Equally good was Jonny Lee Miller as Edmund Bertram, who carries on a flirtatious romance with Fanny almost from her first arrival at Mansfield Park (the family estate.) Also offering strong performances were Embeth Davidtz and Allesandro Nivola as Mary and Henry Crawford, a brother and sister who also take up residence at Mansfield Park. Nivola does a good job as Henry, who simply can't understand why he can't convince Fanny to return the feelings he has for her. Davidtz has an impressive screen presence, and although this is never developed, and nothing improper ever happens, there are a couple of scenes in which there is some very powerful and yet innocent eroticism hinted at between Mary and Fanny, which makes you wonder just what goes on behind closed doors at Mansfield Park.

In other words, I liked the movie. It had some problems, mind you. It creeps along a little bit and there are times when you wonder just where this movie wants to go, as the plot seems to meander here and there without establishing a strong direction. Still, it's a pleasant enough journey through early 19th century England, and does include some spectacular shots of the English countryside and seashore. I wouldn't say it's one of the best movies ever made, but it's certainly enjoyable enough.

I rated it 6/10.

Wonderful novel - horrible adaptation

[gachronicled · 4/10 · 25 February 2001]

Although I know better than to expect a "pure" adaptation of a novel when Hollywood gets hold of it, I was nevertheless unprepared for the horrible mangling this novel received at the hands of the screenwriter. Having immensely enjoyed recent renderings of "Sense and Sensibility," "Emma," and various versions of "Pride and Prejudice," I expected to receive similar enjoyment from this film. I had not read any reviews or advance press before watching it. I had, unfortunately, just read the book itself this summer and it was fresh in my mind. In my opinion this is the WORST rendition of a Jane Austen work I have ever seen. Perhaps if I had never read the book, I might have enjoyed it somewhat more, but to me it was unbearable to see a book I thoroughly enjoyed so completely rewritten. I am astonished at the comments of some of the reviewers here opining that Jane Austen would have approved. Poppycock!

I began to feel sick early on. To me, the character of Fanny Price and other major characters bore as much resemblance to Jane Austen's heroine as Danny Devito bore to Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Twins." The entire invention of Fanny as a budding writer, the deletion of her younger brother who was so important in the plot concerning Henry Crawford, the image of Fanny as somewhat outspoken and rebellious, the depiction of Fanny's aunt as an opium addict and her uncle as a brutish, raping slaveowner.... The list goes on and on. Henry and Maria being caught by Fanny in the house, Fanny voluntarily kissing Henry and agreeing to marry him and then retracting. Ugh!

I really detest writers who want to mold everything in the modern vein. Fanny Price was not a modern heroine, but she fit her time. There was far too much PC propaganda and feminist hogwash which you might expect in a movie about our society but is ridiculous set against Fanny's time. She was devout, loyal, quiet, humble, stubborn only in her keen perception of others' character as measured against her conviction of what was good and what was not, possessing an innate strength of character which did not rely on others' perception of her and which she refused to compromise. Jane Austen would not have approved of this new Fanny for precisely this reason: her Fanny did not care about the "new" conventions of moral thought and permissiveness in her own society. The movie downplayed the seriously flawed characters of Henry Crawford and his sister. It portrayed him far too sympathetically, made it appear that he truly and deeply loved Fanny and seemed to blame Fanny's (non-existent) double-mindedness for his downfall.

All in all, this is an extremely disappointing film if one cares about what was really written in Mansfield Park. I think "Clueless" as a modern version of "Emma" (and which I also enjoyed) is more true to Austen than this let-down of a movie.

Mansfield Park on speed

[alfa-16 · 16 June 2005]

This isn't an awful movie. It's quite watchable. Some of the acting, especially from Pinter is excellent.

But the rest resembles those films made from classic novels in the 30s where no one concerned in making it had time to read the book. A quick treatment by a college student, a quick script conference, then off we go. Rozema has almost no idea of what the book is about but is entirely unembarrassed by her ignorance in her interview on the DVD.

Austen fans don't have to wait long to discover just how far off the wavelength she is. The first contact between Sir Thomas and Fanny is a reproof for running through MP's corridors shrieking like a banshee. Lines are taken from Mary Crawford in the book and given to Fanny in the film. How's that for missing the point? One by one characters appear looking no more recognisable than if they were appearing in a literary celebrity edition of Scooby Doo.

I agree with other reviewers that if the film was called something else and the characters had different names, it would be impossible to trace it's origins to Austen's book which is definitely not a conventional love story about bright young things getting together having overcome a few obstacles.

There's very little to choose between the morals of Rozema's characters, so nothing of the catastrophic descent into the abyss is associated with the production of Lover's Vows, nor do we have any glimpse of Rushworth and Crawford vandalising Sotherton. Mrs Norris is one of the most deliciously evil creations in literature - Rozema reduces her part to a few lines. Thomas Betram is a "modern" artist - yikes! William Price, Fanny's brother and one of the key relationships in the book, is missing altogether. Susan, her sister, has been reading too many Style magazines.

Mansfield Park might have been a bit like this had it been written by Georgette Heyer or even Jackie Collins. As an Austen adaptation it is execrable. But it's so far off the mark, that as something else entirely, it's not all that bad. Maybe they should just change the title.