Jump to content

Menu

Mansfield Park...


Recommended Posts

I can't decide which version I like better. I LOVE the Frances O'Connor and Johnny Lee Miller version. I didn't fully pay attention to the beginning of this one. I need to read the book again to figure out which is closer to the book.

 

*After reading some of the comments in regards to the book, I definately think the Frances O'Connor version is much better. I didn't pay enough attention to truly judge last night's version, but it did feel rushed and left out so much. Especially as someone mentioned on who Fanny really was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These latest Austen movies (Persuasion, Mansfield Park, and the new Sense and Sensibility that I saw on YouTube) seem to me like Muzak interpretations of the classic Austen stories. At least they provide a good opportunity for me to read the books again to get this fluff out of my mind. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked it. It was a bit too condensed - I think if I wasn't familiar with the story line I might have had a hard time following it, but as it was I didn't have a problem. I thought Billie Piper was kind of an odd choice to play Fanny (and why did her hair look so messy the entire time?) but she was better than I thought she'd be. Overall, I enjoyed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even at the beginning of the film I already knew it was rather "Muzak" as one poster said, & thought it ironic that Mrs Norris said "Well, this is off to a bad start."... My feelings exactly!

 

It seemed like they tried to introduce a few of the main characters in a big hurry:

 

"Hi, I'm Fanny and I'm in love with my cousin Edmund and we're the best characters in the whole story."

 

"Hi, I'm the tyrannical father leaving on a business trip". ( The portrayal of him I thought was very poorly done.)

 

"Hi, We're Mary & Henry Crawford and we're conniving."

 

And then you were left to sort out the other characters on your own. It took me a while to figure out which was Lady Bertram and which was Mrs. Norris.

 

That said, I've enjoyed the watching of these so far just for comparison sake & to see others interpretation of characters, although I don't plan on watching these versions again. (except maybe Northanger Abbey).

 

Jacqui

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the movie would have been difficult to appreciate if you had not read the book. Because I had just finished the book it was easy for me to sort out the characters. If I had not just finished the book figuring out one was who and how they were related and what their pasts and stories were would have been very difficult. Physically I did not think Billie Piper fit the part of Fanny. The biggest important story feature the movie left out was Fanny going back to live with her biological parents in Plymouth. This is critical to the story and they deleted it UGH! I liked the actors that played Edmund and Mary. I wasn't wild about who played Henry Crawford. Also in the book Tom goes with his father to the West Indies and returns early. I has dissapointed that they changed that story element. It didn't need to be changed and the story makes more sense the way it was written. Also I wish they would have included the indoor ball scene as it is important to the story and them dancing on the grass just seemed silly.

All in all it was OK I enjoyed watching it and comparing it to the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw.. darn... I have not watched it yet! :( I hope to later this week.

 

I did enjoy Sens and Sensability... but Im affraid nothing can compare to the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice.... it has made it hard for all other movies to stand close in light. It is my favorite, and closest to the books... by golly almost word for word...

 

I look forward to reading the posts on this! I love Janes books!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that bothered me throughout the whole movie was Fanny's hair!! She had a modern, messy hairstyle. I have never seen a Regency-period film with a woman who wears her hair down and messy. It seemed very wrong for the period, and bothered me. Somehow Fanny just seemed too modern overall.

 

I liked it best out of this series so far, but that's not saying a lot. These versions are too rushed. They're in a hurry to make sure we "get" the characters. I agree with the other poster that showing Fanny going home to her family is important, and in the book doesn't she actually accept Henry when he comes to visit her at her home, then repent and break it off?

 

Wendi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was rushed, disjointed, modern, and left out too much of the storyline from the book.

 

My teenager, who hasn't read the book, had to ask me several questions to keep up. Such as the very basic, "Who is that person?" about Aunt Norris.

 

Mary Crawford was so dislikable from the start that there was no reasonable explanation as to how Edmund fell in love with her.

 

I could go on and on but I have to start the school day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why these movies are only an 1 1/2 long? I can't help but think that an extra half hour would allow for more details. I enjoyed Mansfield Park, but it was a bit difficult to get into after being spoiled by the 1999 version with Frances O'Connor. Last night's version seemed rushed. It focused little on who Fanny was (as a writer, as a sister) and more on what was going on around her. Still, it was definitely a sweet movie. The truth is that I'd probably watch a Jane Austen adaptation perfomed by poodles if it were on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recorded it and will be watching tonight, I hope. This is the only one of Austen's book that I haven't read before watching the movie. Do you think I should put off watching, and read first? Would that make the story line more "followable"? Is "followable" a word? :o

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These latest Austen movies (Persuasion, Mansfield Park, and the new Sense and Sensibility that I saw on YouTube) seem to me like Muzak interpretations of the classic Austen stories. At least they provide a good opportunity for me to read the books again to get this fluff out of my mind. :)

 

Melissa! What a great comparison! Austen remakes to Muzak. Brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with Quincy! :DPoodles would be cute. :p

 

I have not read Mansfield Park, but it is on my 888 list for this year. I did watch the movie last night and enjoyed it. However, I am putting down Ben Franklin to read Mansfield now because all your comments of changes and the things they left out have intrigued me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't like Persuasion much, but I've really enjoyed Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park--then again, I also haven't read most of the books. I liked Billie Piper more as the movie went on and she gathered some vigor, but I gather from the book's description that that's not true to the story? I thought the scene in the garden where they first kissed was terrific :D, but I agree these feel like the Cliffs Notes versions of the books too. They definitely make me want to read the books even more, but I'll need to give that some time, or else I'll just be annoyed with the movies like many of you are, LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hadn't read the book, yet I was able to follow it pretty well. I did keep wondering about Mrs. Norris and who she was in relation to the others (was she an aunt or a lady in waiting? - she seemed to feel threatened by Fannie, no?) And who were Mary and Henry? At first I thought they were Fannie's brother and sister, but I see now that they were cousins - but how?

 

All in all - I thought it enjoyable, and I don't think you need to read the book first. Based on the other posters, you might not enjoy the show if you read the book first!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it was enjoyable. This was a pretty complicated story and took time to develop in the book to get the nuances of behaviors, I thought. From Miss Norris' meanness, Tom's troubles, the problems with the Crawfords' character, etc. -- that's alot to convey in 1-1/2 hours.

 

Persuasion, on the other hand, from Anne's perspective, would be easier to film since it's more linear and covers less actual time.

 

The chasing through the house and grounds and then dancing on the grass at the end made me smile, because it was so similar to Persuasion's conclusion, and didn't make as much sense.

 

Ah well, like someone here said, I'd probably watch Austen done with poodles.:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the movie would have been difficult to appreciate if you had not read the book. Because I had just finished the book it was easy for me to sort out the characters. If I had not just finished the book figuring out one was who and how they were related and what their pasts and stories were would have been very difficult. Physically I did not think Billie Piper fit the part of Fanny. The biggest important story feature the movie left out was Fanny going back to live with her biological parents in Plymouth. This is critical to the story and they deleted it UGH! I liked the actors that played Edmund and Mary. I wasn't wild about who played Henry Crawford. Also in the book Tom goes with his father to the West Indies and returns early. I has dissapointed that they changed that story element. It didn't need to be changed and the story makes more sense the way it was written. Also I wish they would have included the indoor ball scene as it is important to the story and them dancing on the grass just seemed silly.

All in all it was OK I enjoyed watching it and comparing it to the book.

 

I agree, some really key parts of the story were left out. I don't understand why they bother making these movies if they are going to change things so much that they are not really true to the book. I get that things need to be condensed or altered to fit in the time contraints, but they are leaving out the true essence of these stories. Northanger Abbey was the best of the three, but none of them are master pieces.

 

And, as for the hair, you would think that if they are going to use an actress with a dye job, they would have touched up her roots and lightened her eyebrows. The whole hair thing was distracting.

 

Anyway, this version of Mansfield Park was definitely lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Him: "Who is that woman again?"

 

Me: "I have no clue."

 

Over. And over. And over again. :cool:

 

As for the hair, I was troubled by the lack of money for a brush, a touch-up (her ROOTS!!!!), and the fact that her hair and eyebrows didn't match.

 

Her overbite is another story, but I'm getting petty.

 

We enjoyed the story, as with all Austen stories; however, the story seemed rushed. We also couldn't figure out WHAT Edmund saw in Mary Crawford AT ALL.

 

And the Uncle.....good guy/bad guy? Decent/mean??? We were very confuddled.

 

We recorded it, just like the rest of them. And we'll probably watch it again.....sometime. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...