Mansfield Park (1999) is WILD | Movie Review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ต.ค. 2024
- Today, we're going through Mansfield Park from 1999 and comparing it to the novel from 1814, by the magnificent Jane Austen.
Mansfield Park, full movie: • Mansfield Park (1999) ...
My Mansfield Park book video: • Jane Austen's Mansfiel...
🌸 s o c i a l m e d i a 🌸
IG: / arnellahobler
FB: / authorarnellahobler
🌸 m y n o v e l s 🌸
Leaves of Holly
amzn.to/3V4ZpAm
Garden of Silver
amzn.to/3PdSi4O
(affiliate links ♥)
🌸 m u s i c & i m a g e s 🌸
Investigations by Kevin MacLeod
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. creativecommon...
Source: incompetech.com...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Marty Gots a Plan by Kevin MacLeod
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. creativecommon...
Source: incompetech.com...
Artist: incompetech.com/
All film screenshots © 1999 Miramax Films
#janeausten #mansfieldpark #moviereview #classicliterature
“My God, this is 1806, for heaven's sake!” Is one of my favorite movie lines ever
That was a good one!
Except book was written between 1811 and 1813.
@@jacky3580scholars disagree. Many agree the general timeline, minus the theatrical and its liaisons (1797) and the Crabbe book reference (1811), the majority of the text takes place between 1808-1809.
The book has Fanny looking forward to going back to Portsmouth, only to be disappointed when she see's the state it's in; but my recollection is that Sir Thomas always meant it to show Fanny the difference between Portsmouth and Mansfield Park: i.e. what she was giving up by refusing Henry.
You didn’t mention this but it seemed to me the reason why sir Thomas got mad about the drawings was because one of them seemed to be of him 😳 did anyone else think that was supposed to be a sketch of him?
Oh yeah, now that you mention it one of them really does look like him! I suppose in those days that would almost be like having photographic evidence 🤔 (still angry about the character assassination of dear Sir Thomas though)
Yes, the last drawing in particular looked very much like him 🤢
It absolutely was. With an enslaved woman kneeling in front of him...
“Amplified” is a good summary of this movie versus its book. For many modern audiences, I think these choices were within the characters’…characters and adequate for communicating all the subtleties in the book.
This novel is not a typical rom com. Fanny is not at all flashy, with her best traits humility, service and moral fortitude. Edmund, her love, is not attracted to her, feels for her like for a sister, settles for her when his romantic dreams collapse. It's hard to see how this material gets put on the screen without modification. Maybe it's nicer to say that Edmund "realizes" how great she is and how rotten Mary is (I have seen movies where this happens and it can work). Fanny is the girl-next-door and that character seems to have been exiled from Hollywood but perhaps a producer would have the guts to bring it back? There was a kind of version of this in Beautiful Girls, a nice 1996 rom com, where Mira Sorvino plays a long suffering nice girlfriend who wins her man in the end. Can we celebrate such a homespun character in our day?
I do agree about Fanny being a girl-next-door type of character in the book. This movie version of her though was a bit more sassy and a typical "main character" vibe - which I don't think fits very well with Fanny's story. I agree that we see far less of Fanny's character type in Hollywood today, the current trend is more in the opposite direction. But the pendulum always swings, as they say! So I'm sure the girl-next-door will be back at some point.
@@ArnellaHobler Yes, I didn't say it but this representation was a betrayal of the Fanny Price character. Sort of like Anne Elliot in the latest Persuasion, though that was far worse a betrayal. It's sad to see whole swathes of wonderful women told that their personality isn't good enough. We need a little more "vive la difference", "it takes all types", choose your saying.
@@charlesiragui2473 I still haven't dared watch the latest Persuasion adaptation, but I can imagine!
I just hate that movies have such a hard time depicting a protagonist that is not outgoing. They try to make Fanny snarky when in reality, her character was shy and mindful. It happened again with Dakota Johnson’s persuasion. Not all Jane Austin’s protagonists are like Elizabeth or Emma!
Yes, that is a very common issue with Jane Austen movie adaptations. Honestly, I haven't dared watching the Dakota Johnson one yet 😱
@@ArnellaHobler thanks for replying! Do not waste your time with that movie, it’s nothing like the book we love
Have you seen the 1995 Persuasion?with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. Its a PERFECT adaptation.
The acceptance of a proposal, and rapid turnaround to rejecting it the next morning, is straight out of Austen's own life (Harris Bigg-Wither). As is the 'Complete History of England...' - and of course all the other references to Fanny as an aspiring writer.
Another excellent review! Thank you! My thoughts on the film are as follows:
Like with Pride and Prejudice 1995, Emma 1996, and Sense and Sensibility 1995, I saw the movie before I ever read the book. Unlike the previous 3, however, I was underwhelmed after both film and book completion. Sir Thomas was almost a completely different character in the book, though I was heartened to see he wasn't out and out abusing his slaves in the book, so small mercies there.
I liked book Fanny more. As someone who can be a bit of a doormat, I empathized with book Fanny way more. Movie Fanny seemed to run hot and cold as to when her snarky attitude would come out. I disliked her treatment of Henry Crawford in the movie as well. I hate when people give me mixed signals, and she was throwing them out left and right at the poor guy. She shouldn't have encouraged him at all, though I think that if he had come into the kitchen the morning after she accepted his proposal with just a smile and a good morning, he wouldn't have scared her off so abruptly. He came on way too strong with his attempt to dance her around the kitchen while singing; it was in such stark contrast to her usual composed and calm demeanor that it made me feel he didn't know her at all, even with all the walks and candid talks they'd shared by then.
Also, what on earth was Henry planning on saying to Fanny after she caught him sleeping with Maria?! He was creeping out into the hall calling her name when Edmund came upon him. I still wonder what that conversation would have been if she was still lingering in the hall!
Not sure why William Price was completely omitted in the film. Maybe they thought it would make movie Henry appear too manipulative if Fanny got engaged to him out of gratitude, but I think he appeared just as manipulative in the movie by bluntly talking about Fanny's unrequited love for Edmund, making her feel there was no hope for her and Edmund by stating Edmund and Mary were a done deal. It's possible he might have been successful in his suit if he had been patient. It's unclear how long movie Fanny stayed with her family in Portsmouth, but she stayed for 3 months in the book. If Tom hadn't gotten sick, she likely would've remained there longer; Henry may have won her affection eventually by showing he was in love for the long-haul. Who knows?
I do agree that book Fanny is more likable. I think her inconsistent character in the movie is due to them keeping some of her actions/interactions from the book, while changing others.
You might be right about her being scared off by Henry's intensity. It's difficult to tell with movie-Fanny's changing personality, but maybe if he had been a bit more careful with her and she had stayed there longer, things might have turned out well for them. As for Henry trying to go after her in the hallway after the incident with Maria; that feels very strange to me. It's not like an explanation would have helped, and she had already rejected him before this. So it makes no sense why he would try and talk to her.
My theory is that William was omitted due to there being so many characters already. Either that, or they wanted more use out of Susan who would otherwise only be seen at the end of the film. But there are most likely many reasons, as you said, Henry would have given a more manipulative impression had his interaction with William made it into the film.
Thanks for sharing! Always happy to hear your thoughts!
It certainly was a curious directorial choice to deal with the issue of slavery given the standard dramatic fodder that Jane Austen used for her novels,but of course many movie and theatre directors use the source material according to their designs.On a lighter note,I chuckled imagining Henry advertising for a mobile fireworks vehicle with the caveat must have dove compartment attached!😁❤️
I mention it in my own comment, but I think it's important to remember Edward Said (the scholar who first proposed the term "orientalism") published an important book in 1993 where, famously, he gave an entire chapter to "Mansfield Park." After Said, no one approaching not just Jane Austen's work but 19th century British literature in general could do so & ignore the problematic subtexts of colonialism, the domestic side of imperialist projects. etc. So the film released 6 years later & just think that similarly, it was trying to reckon with what Said had brought up so recently.
My goodness, haha, now I have that mental image, too! And it's quite hilarious! 😄
@@malexander4094 Of course it's important to weigh up these matters in the overall historical context and I've no doubt the work you mention is valuable to the greater debate but we both know,as I once pointed out in a live show on a Jane Austen novel,that she was no Mary Wollstonecraft,and was writing to entertain her reading public and Mansfield Park is no treatise on slavery.
@@MartinDSmith Agreed!
I do prefer the film to other adaptations! despite its deviations! (The novel is possibly my 2nd favorite Austen.)
I like the novel's adaptation of Fanny: because it makes her much more like a female writer of that time...In fact, every one of Fanny's stories is Jane Austen's own juvenilia! In the opening she's writing/quoting Austen's "History of England," then later "Love & Friendship," etc. So even if the film's Fanny is not true to the novel's, I think it **is** true to Jane Austen herself.
@17:11 This even alludes to the famous episode where Austen accepted a marriage proposal, then changed her mind overnight!
I love books, but I also studied film. I recognize what are quite unique challenges for adapting this novel; it almost requires fundamental changes. A few I dislike: occasionally it's not subtle, despite being smart. And, agreed e.g., about Sir Thomas. Much respect to Harold Pinter, but the film's Sir Thomas is too aggressive, too cold. I also don't really like how the whole "Lovers Vows" sequence is handled.
On the other hand, I feel Embeth Davidtz is so pitch perfect as Mary Crawford. One of the difficulties of adapting the novel is that the Crawfords are almost like one of those swaggery charismatic couplings you see in 1930s films (like "The Thin Man"). They very nearly upstage others even in the novel! So I like how they were handled, esp. Davidtz's performance.
@13:17 I'm not sure..."punishment" is the right word for the film, but in the novel it's explicit Sir Thomas *does* think in Portsmouth Fanny will learn to appreciate the comforts of privileged life, i.e., what she could have by marrying well, i.e. Henry Crawford. Then once Fanny's been there a few days, Austen/narrator comments on how Sir Thomas would feel about his experiment.
One of the most famous commentaries about "Mansfield Park" is Edward Said's 1993 book "Culture & Imperialism," where Said gives it an entire chapter on it. (Said's most famous work is "Orientalism.") Since Said, no scholar or critic can engage with Austen & 19th century British literature, without addressing the subtexts of colonialism, slavery, etc. And it may very well be Austen knew her audience would already take that complex & problematic subtext for granted.
So, especially for a film coming out just 6 years after Said's commentary, they almost had to address that.
It also demonstrates again one of the difficult things about adapting "Mansfield Park." In a film, you have to be so visual, & actors must have something to work with. 2 of the most difficult characters to adapt are Tom & his mother. Tom's only a drunkard & his mother's trapped in the ennui of a marriage with little affection in it. I like the choice of weaving Tom into the dark complexity of Mansfield's source of income; he is the first of a new generation that, within another generation or two, will give us accounts such as "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad, & the madness these imperialist evils induce not just elsewhere, but when they return home.
On the other hand: I don't love how Lady Bertram is almost comedic relief. Yet I'm aware of a stageplay adaptation where they made her an opium addict. Sounds crazy! but I'd prefer that kind of change. Because in the novel it's quite understated, how full of ennui & trapped she is; but an adaptation is going to have to SHOW that, & also give that poor actress something to do! Not to mention, we really need to SEE Fanny caring for & being so important to Lady Bertram, because that carries a lot of weight later. So, that's yet another challenge!
All in all I like the film. It's much of its time: in the wake of Said, & also trying to make Fanny interesting. Today a bolder director/producer might hem closer to the novel's understated points & subtleties. But in the late '90s this was really a big ask for a big studio making a historical period piece, & I get that! Great review! (& sorry for so much commentary...I love "Mansfield Park"!)
If Mansfield Park is your 2nd favourite, which one would be your number 1?
I didn't express this in the video but I wasn't actually a fan of how they made Fanny a writer. That, along with her taking back her acceptance of Henry's proposal, felt too much like they were trying to portray her as Jane Austen rather than her own character. It could also be the reason why Fanny's relationship with Lady Bertram was downplayed (and by removing their relationship, Lady Bertram is sadly reduced to a comedic relief). Although I'm happy they didn't make her an opium addict!
I've read excerpts of Said, but I didn't think about how the movie might have been affected by it. I simply thought they wanted a more clear villain character (Sir Thomas) and thus chose that direction. It makes sense, even if I still find it out of place.
@@ArnellaHobler Re: Fanny as a writer. One reason I like this is, it aligns Fanny with the rest of Austen's heroines in (to me) an important way: they are all, taken together, what Emma calls "imaginists." This comes from Austen herself, how she described herself & also her literary aims, in letters etc., in depicting the heart of "domestic life" as she called it.
Having a vivid inner world is at the core of that; women were so restricted in their roles, in that domestic life. So that capacity for rich imaginative expression was what to do. Interesting to think of Austen as advocating for that freedom of mind. (sidenote: this is why it's so, so important, the
choice to give Lizzie reveries & daydreaming, in the 2005 "Pride & Prejudice.")
So of all her characters, in a way Fanny Price poses unique challenges to adapt on screen, because her imagination works differently from her other heroines. It almost means changing her character (no excuse). But in the 1983 adaptation she is practically a robot, & in the 2007 version Billie Piper gives her full-strength energy dialed to 10.
Therefore, I like that in the 1999 film, she is not quite the Fanny of the novel, nor a biographical fiction entirely about Jane Austen....yet, in I think a good balance: makes Fanny a woman *like* Jane Austen, a woman who is an imaginist, observing & sketching domestic life, & there finds freedom, autonomy, etc. Even if this is still different from the novel's Fanny, I find it a far more interesting choice of adaptation than either the 1983 or 2007 versions!
Re: my favorite....if not "Mansfield Park," it very well might be "Emma." I'd like to read it a 3rd time this year. My 1st time, I spent 2/3rds of it hating it, felt like punishing myself! Then suddenly, towards the end as Emma is having all her revelations.....I suddenly wondered if I was reading a work of genius! There are things Austen is doing on many levels. (Jane & Emma is 1 such level your review turned me onto!) She is also experimenting with the novel form, in modernist ways: e.g. in Emma you find stream-of-consciousness a century before Virginia Woolf, or James Joyce, etc. I read it a 2nd time: & feel in giving herself permission/freedom to write a character only she'd like, she lets her hair all the way down & runs wild with the novel form...all the same she is in the most total control of her craft. It's peak Austen for me.
Then! right now my 3 favorites (no order) are "Emma," "Mansfield Park," and "Sense & Sensibility." BUT! an unsung & important favorite is **also** "Lady Susan"...!!! It needs more love, it's brilliant!
This movie had so many problems. I honestly think that the actresses playing Fanny and Maria should have been switched. Frances O’Connor is prettier (sorry, just my opinion) and would have been more convincing as the wealthy socialite, while Victoria Hamilton would have been more convincing as the shy wallflower treated as a doormat. More importantly, they messed up the character of Fanny by trying to mix some of Jane Austen herself into the character. That doesn’t work! It felt like they couldn’t decide if they wanted to make her loyal to the character from the book or make her more like Jane. And I agree, making Uncle Bertram into a monster didn’t work either. While I didn’t like him in the book, I don’t think that he was much (if any) worse than lots of other Austen characters.
You are too generous in your review. This adaptation was the most horrific thing I've ever seen. I asked the library to make a warning about the sexual content and you'd have have thought I'd asked them to burn it. I just thought that the obscene pictures should have a warning. This movie had very little in common with the book
We only hear about Fanny questioning Sir Thomas when she's discussing it later with Edmund - and Edmund says he was disappointed that she didn't ask more...which she didn't because Maria & Julia seemed disinterested & she didn't want to 'put herself forward".
If Edmund wanted Fanny to continue, surely the suggestion is that Sir Thomas didn't take offence and her question was answered?
Love your comments as always ❤
On the matter of Mansfield and slavery there’s an excellent essay by Edward Said, on the book Imperialism and Culture (that calls Jane Austen). I think you’ll enjoy it!
Thank you so much! 🥰 I will definitely have to check that out!
Yeah the movie was horrendous, I just saw it and the comment section was filled with praises yet admited it was nothing like the book. The gratuitous sex scenes I think are just a staple of a Harvey Winestein production, hence why nothing really comes from it in the end. The child actors were very good, but eveything else felt like a play and nothing came off naturally. And yes the "house" was an embarrassment, its like they spent all their production money on renting those places and had nothing to dress it. Again very high school play production. The sister bond was the only thing that made me feel anything.
I think Mansfield park is Janes Austin's Breaking Bad. We started with a really sympathetic character in terrible circumstances and then she gets a proposal that she will be arguably treated better than she is at Mansfield and she will help her whole family, but she choose to stay at Manfield becoming complicit in its slave holdings and her cousin's excommunication and cousin marriage.
I think Austen wants to show us how unethical, not-nice people justify their behaviour to themselves. I think we are supposed to feel uncomfortable with the 'happy ending'. I dont like this movie but I think they are exaggerating what I read into the novel. Especially with Fanny's late jab a tobacco farming being a better option when her uncle says they are getting out of slavery, and then she looks at the camera, because we know tobacco has been just as bad for humanity.
I think she dodged a bullet with that proposal from Henry Crawford. She was clearly warming up to him and yet he still started the affair with her cousin, and probably would have eventually even if Fanny married him. In that scenario, staying at Mansfield was the better choice. But since this film is so different from the book, I find it difficult to ascribe any political themes to Jane herself, as she was very subtle about things like that. As you say, the filmmakers have exaggerated things to a whole new level.
@@ArnellaHobler oh I watched this guys video where he argues that Austen was definitely talking about slavery th-cam.com/video/1LU3YAp7uzs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=GqYDEGnkmS9piSvZ
I think it is a culture gap that we are missing that she was being much clearer about slavery than we understand
Love your videos!!
Thank you! 😊
I thought just about the same as you! I was disappointed with the characterization of Sir Thomas, the Mansfield house, queer baiting, and also that Fanny had accepted Henry. I wish they had shown Fanny more as she was in the novel, but I understand that a woman like Fanny is hard for modern audiences to love. Similarly, I think Jane Austen’s appreciation of the Church is hard for modern western audiences, as well.
Glad to hear it's not just me! And yes, a more faithful adaptation of her might have been more difficult to like. Sometimes, reading really is the best way to enjoy a story 😊
Remember the movie isn’t a faithful retelling or the book. Especially the slavery. There’s nothing said about this. This book is an important social cometary. Slave trade was abolished, in UK, 1807. Sir Thomas would never have discussed such things in front of his wife and daughters. It’s a crap movie.
It's been so long since I saw this movie. The reason being that I cannot really enjoy it. Mansfield park is actually my absolute favourite of Austen novels, so I can hardly enjoy either movie version in relation to it, but this one was over the top for me. All Austen novels portray deep-rooted, mainly social issues which played major roles in everyone's life (and to be frank, should we as women live in those times, these issues would certainly interes us 100% more than slavery we would hardly see for ourselves) and Austen often plays with the themes by putting 2 characters in the same or similar situations and points out how human nature and mind works, by their reactions and solutions. There is the story and all its twists and turns are hidden in an intricate net underneath... No matter how easy and cheerful the story may look at first sight. AND THEN, this movie wipes away all this underlying tensions and issues, and main characters reactions and plasters over it slavery issue, infidelity issue and that's pretty much it. I would like to point out, that that the time of Europeans using slaves in business in America, this was considered minor issue - major only to those living in the colonies and the slaves themselves. Slavery was part of human culture since prehistoric times (there is evidence of that in many excavations), by this time, slavery was at the decline, only starting to feel barbaric to the "cultured" people, because in their homelands, slaves no longer were ...there... You know. Here, they just wedged this issue, which almost none at the scene could relate to. I would completely buy this movie, if the main character traveled anywhere where this issue was actual, at the very least to the fringes of west indies, or if she met a slave brought back to England, but like this it was too much of unrelated.
Next thing, this Fanny Price was not Austen Fanny Price. It is pointed out that Fanny is a bit sickly, even fragile (I mean she is given a horse for the sake of outdoor exercise). On top of that she is suppressed by everyone else having almost absolute authority over her that she has no outlet for her opinions to be expressed, let alone to influence anyone. Also, I believe that Fanny being fair-haired was a part of her portrayal as a demure young woman, but I am not positive on her hair being light per the book. Maybe I just adopted the movie Fanny from 2007 more readily and this dark and confident Fanny was not IT. If this was not called Mansfield park and the names was changed, I would hardly relate I to the book and maybe, I would then be able to find it an interesting and good movie.
For Mansfield, I would prefer them exploring more for example this social depravity of unchecked or indulged young people (I believe that would be the main theme here anyway). I mean, look how self-destructive Tom is - drinking, gambling and all that love affair drama and jealousy around, and the only one who never succumbs to any indulgence is Fanny - even Edmund bends his way to be noticed by Mary.
Anyway, I was a bit harsh here. Since as I said, I love Mansfield park and Fanny herself, so this is a bit personal, 😊 so sorry about that.
I see where you're coming from, we're all a bit sensitive when it comes to our favourites 😉
As I've said, I think this movie missed the mark in terms of adaptation. I wouldn't have minded though if they went in a completely different direction and focused the story from other character's perspective, or as you said, have Fanny actually travel to the plantation and see the slavery firsthand. It wouldn't be Mansfield Park then, of course. But art has inspired art for hundreds of years, so why not!
@@ArnellaHobler exactly! It's pretty much a trend nowadays to take a minor character from a well known story and to explore their point of view, either during the the main story or after its end. Since there is not much good showed of Tom Bertram, I think this slavery theme would fit with the story if it was from his point of view - since there is actually his trip to Antigua with his father. Getting first-hand experience on the matter. Even drawing the horrid pictures. I would definitely like such a variation more.
Absolutely agree. It’s a great book.
I actually like this Movie, but its not a faithfully adaptation of the book. I kinda wish Fanny ended up with Heny Crawford.Maybe he would have become a better man if he had married her. I dont like that they made Fanny a sassy girl boss, I hope one day someone will make a proper adaptation of Mansfield Park.
P.S- I also find the Lesbian scenes weird and out of place.
I'm glad it's not just me! And yes, it's an interesting thought, what might have happened if she had married HC. Maybe in another adaptation, who knows 😀
For how particular u are referencing accuracy ur mispronounced Maria's name
thank you for this revew, now I know never to watch this adaptation, that was obiously made for idiots
A tone issue, Anecdote, OMG hahahah!
Don't think it can be accused of "queer-baiting";
think rather the film was directed (& possibly adapted) by a man-hating lesbian!
Sorry Jane Austin isn't Candy sweet enough for you. I think it's to her credit that she brings real issues such as slavery into her writing, but it had been at the forefront of British history and politics since 1807.
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Jane Austen wrote mainly about social etiquette and the issue of slavery was never a plot point in any of her novels. My opinions in the video are just about the movie adaptation itself - and it's completely fine if you don't agree with it, just saying :)
@joanlyoung1 why you Even bother to comment when it's clear you have never read Jane Austen?
Slave trade was abolished in 1807. Fanny’s world view didn’t extend to West Indies.