Mansfield Park

Since secondary school I have loved Jane Austen's work. I love the language, the stories, the settings, the characters and their attitudes and the detail. There have been many great versions of Jane Austen's books, such as the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, the 1995 Sense and Sensibility and the 1995 Persuasion, but there are also some disappointing ones such as 1987's Northanger Abbey and 2007's Mansfield Park. This 1983 Mansfield Park is neither one of the greats or the disappointments regarding Jane Austen adaptations. It's not perfect, with a slow start and some stiff camera work, but it's still leagues ahead of the other two adaptations of the book, the 1999 version I disliked but had one or two decent things and the 2007 version I hated with a miscast Fanny Price and no actual sense of the era. This Mansfield Park has beautiful scenery and interiors as well as some handsome costumes, not only did I get a sense what era it was supposed to be set but also Mansfield Park itself didn't actually look like a fortress. The series is lengthy and the pacing leisurely, but considering the length of the book both were necessary and apart from at the start the adaptation benefits from these. The music is simple in composition, but not so much to be repetitive or over-bearing. The dialogue isn't too stilted and is in Austen's spirit, and once it gets going the storytelling with its detail to the time and characters is very believable and again pretty faithful. The acting was generally fine, Sylvestra Le Touzel's Fanny is not my definition of a great performance, but in the most challenging Austen heroine role she does do a good job being pretty and austere and is miles ahead of Frances O'Connor and Billie Piper. Nicholas Farrell is excellent though as Edmund and Bernard Hepton is a joy as Sir Thomas, but the best performances came from Jackie Smith-Wood in the complex but thankfully more subtle than before role of Mary Crawford, and Anna Massey who is as always great as Mrs Norris. So overall, has its foibles, but it is the best version and actually the only one I'd give as close as a recommendation to. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Ok so maybe you all disagree, but I prefer this old mini-series to the modern 1999 film.

I read the book before I had seen either, and this version is so much more true to the book. For me that is much more important than modern touches that spoiled the movie.

Even though Sylvestra may not give a good performance as Fanny Price, I find her much more believable as Fanny than Frances O Connor.

The camera work is very dodgey. At the start when Fanny is in the carriage with Mrs Norris, when Fanny is introduced to the Bertrams and when Tom, Edmund and Mary Crawford are walking together.

Mrs Norris is just how I imagined her, and Lady Bertram too. Henry Crawford is not played well I feel, the way he speaks seems all wrong and strange, I think they chose the wrong actor there.

I was struck by the scene where Maria wants to go through the locked gate and sends Mr Rushworth to get the key. This scene is just how I pictured it in the book, it is quite remarkable.

The settings serve their purpose, the house is furnished as you would expect. That was another thing I disliked about the recent movie. Mansfield Park looked like a Fortress inside! All bare and ugly, more suited to Northanger Abbey I feel.

The music was simple, but it was obviously a low budget production.

If anyone agrees with me please say.

This is a gentler, truer version of jane Austen's novel than the appalling 1999 film and I am thankful for that ! The casting could have been done with more thought and the whole production would have welcomed a larger budget but - overall - this version remains the yardstick by which all others should be measured.

Fanny Price is, despite the actress chosen to play her, essentially the heroine of the book and it is her views, fears insecurities and morals which are pivotal to the story. Judgmental? No, i think not. The fact that Fanny does speak out against the play and Henry Crawford shows the strength of her misgivings. Anyone who finds her insipid has either not read, or not understood, the book and should look again.

In this day of fast paced films and often nonsensical dialogue, this adaptation may seem a little slow at times, but it is worth persevering. To dismiss it as mere period drama does the novel an injustice, and it should be viewed with the thought that you are watching through the window if history. women had no real value or input. They were expected to marry well and breed the next generation, personal ambitions were rarely mentioned or taken seriously. Although, indeed it could be argued that, despite all the education or freedoms of the present day, quite often books, Tv and films still convey the message that women are nothing if they do not snare a man - a dire reflection upon society.

Of the actors involved, many were good and others less so which often happens. Was amused by the fact that Jonny Lee Miller appeared in both this version and the 1999 film. A welcome link

This is unquestionably the best ever adaptation of this book, faithful to the text and faithful to the feeling of the book. Sylvestra le Touzel is appropriately mouse-like and really embodies the real Fanny Price, (one of my favourite Austen heroines). She displays that transcendence of flesh that Austen uses as a metaphor for stability in an increasingly precarious situation, both for the estate and for the individuals associated with it. More recent adaptations have tried to make Fanny more capricious and human... but that is not what she is about. She represents the rise of the diligent lower classes to dominate the corrupt aristocracy, of merit over money, and morality over license. She and Edmund are the eventual winners, custodians of their inheritance, when all the favoured children have fallen into sin and temptation and proved themselves unworthy. Fanny Price is not so very different from Jane Bennett, Anne Elliot or Elinor Dashwood. I don't understand why so many people find her character "difficult"

If you enjoy Jane Austin's novels, this is the best of the two available versions of Mansfield Park. It is very true to the book, but lacks the beautiful production values and outstanding cinematography of the 1999 version that stars Frances O'Connor.

Fanny Price has always been a problematic character for Austin's fans. Many that read the book when it was published in the early 1800s found her unbearable compared to Austin's other, more spirited heroines. Sylvestra Le Touzel does a nice job in this very challenging role.

The best performance in the movie, though, is Jackie Smith Wood's Mary Crawford. Mary is beautiful, flirtatious, morally confused, good hearted and shallow, all at once. She is one of the more complicated characters in all of Austin's novels, and Jackie Smith-Wood plays her to the hilt. It's a mystery why such a terrific performance did not yield further opportunities, but her career seems to have evaporated after this role.

This is a movie for the more patient Austin fan. The pacing is measured, and the characters, particularly Edmund and Mary Crawford, evolve as the story moves forward. Mansfield Park, unlike Austin's other successful novels, is really about the failed love affair between Edmund and Mary. As a result, it is a more somber read than Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. The wedding at the end is a natural result of Edmund coming home to Fanny as the one stable element in his life.

It's a solid movie with good acting and a complicated plot. It is well worth seeing.