39 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
takes liberties, but involving and well played, 20 Feb 2007
This review is from: Mansfield Park [DVD] [2000] (DVD)
Reviews of this film have been very varied, from very positive to the exact opposite. It is true that it makes explicit what is not even implied in Jane Austen's book about the way in which Sir Thomas makes his wealth - it's the slave trade. Having said that, historical fact makes this at least a possibility, and even if Sir Thomas were not directly involved, the exploitation of black labour must have some role in his interests in the West Indies, and he must have knowledge of this, visiting the area for long periods of time as he does. Having said that, I find the film rewarding for a number of reasons. Fanny Price, not at all an easy character to play, is presented with just the right balance of clear-headedness and uneasy deference by Frances O'Connor, who is excellent. Harold Pinter, who write the screenplay, is good as Sir Thomas and Lindsay Duncan a convincingly absent presence as his wife. Henry and Mary Crawford are as attractive and unreliable as they should be. I was worried about the directness of some of the dialogue, but checking with the book found that it came very close to what the author actually wrote ; and dramatically it works. In the rest of the cast I found no serious weakness. The film is visually satisfying and well paced. It will not please those who require an absolutely literal approach to Austen, and they are fully entitled to take that view, but I enjoyed it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An Intriguing Adaptation, 15 Sep 2010
This review is from: Mansfield Park [DVD] [2000] (DVD)
Reading the reviews submitted on the topic of Jane Austen novels, I wonder why so much criticism is directed toward a film's total adherence to every aspect of her books. I have all her novels, and read them periodically and know the stories as she wrote them. I find it interesting to see the various features, within her stories, used by producers to try and interpret how she wanted her characters to come across to her readers. Whatever form of interpretation is offered by whatever producer, it will never satisfy everyone as the script writers have to be selective as well as inventive because of the film's time-scale. For me, any production of her work simply immortalises Jane Austen novels still more. When the need arises that I want to relive the originality of her stories, I open her books in my collection. I enjoyed this film adaptation of Mansfield Park and felt Frances O' Conner's portrayal of Fanny Price, quite entrancing, though a little more assertive than previous adaptations, and perhaps there, strayed a little from how the character comes across in the book. I was intrigued to see Edmund played by Johnny Lee Miller; a part that was worlds away from the Hackers character he played in the mid nineties. I found his performance convinced me of his brotherly relationship with Fanny, gradually mutating to a romantic conclusion. On the whole I felt this production worthy to enter my collection alongside the many other versions of Mansfield Park in it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
75 of 88 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
MANSFIELD KRAP!!, 17 Feb 2005
By A Customer
This review is from: Mansfield Park [DVD] [2000] (DVD)
Beware potential buyers; some reviews given here confuse the film with the BBC TV drama. Full marks, however, to Ms Louise Barada from France, who hits the proverbial nail full-on. This film 'adaptation' is THE WORST, and I had to FORCE myself to finish watching it the first time, and even obliged myself to watch it a second time, in order to be as fair as I could in attempting to review it. I have also given it one star (the photography was quite good), mainly because I am obliged to give it SOMETHING, or not review it at all. As any old film, based on nothing at all, it has some merit; as a Jane Austen 'adaptation', it fails miserably and aught never to have been made.
Slavery, and the abolition of it, was becoming the 'hot issue' of the day, but formed no part of the novel. The Bertram's fortune may have derived in part from their use of slaves, but the dawning realisation it might be wrong was an intellectual movement which can best be compared to our present-day moralistic attitude to bombs and war, i.e. it was still unquestioningly accepted by the old school as the way things had always been done. That a mere coachman should voice an opinion is as ridiculous as putting the burden of conscience on the shoulders of Tom Bertram, who's only interest was that the money should continue to flow in, from whatever source: he would have been up there raping and abusing with the best of them.
Mrs. Norris, like Mrs. Jennings and Mrs. Bennett before her, and Miss. Bates after her, is one of Jane Austen's outstandingly vocal portrayals; here, however, she might as well have been axed, being given little to say, and that little so badly written as to challenge the acting powers of a Dame Maggie (who would not, incidentally, have been a bad alternative). Fanny's brother William heads the axe list, which only serves to illustrate how completely the writers have failed to understand the complex weave of the original; his promotion at the hands of Mr. Crawford having been the main reason for Fanny weakening in her resolve against him. This said, she at NO POINT weakened to the point of accepting his attentions, and Mr. Crawford's fancying himself attracted to her was almost entirely due to her steadfast refusal of him and consequent unattainability, as an obstacle to be overcome. The fact that Jane Austen herself DID become engaged, only to back out of it 12 hours later, together with some of her earlier juvenile writings, have been grafted onto Fanny with a view to spicing her up, but the end result is a Fanny as unlike the heroine of the novel as can well be. Fanny NEVER grew to be comfortable with her relations, and was always scared to death of her uncle and was always adverse to 'putting herself forward'. Incidentally, there is NOTHING autobiographical about MP, save the naval brother(s) and the present of the amber cross, which, of course, are deleted from the film, making a total nonsense of the gold chain sequence with Miss. Crawford, which seems to have been retained only in order to introduce a gratuitous allusion to lesbianism, wet blouse and all.....!!
The Grants at the Parsonage are also axe victims, so we have no idea why the Crawfords are even there; the principal houses were transposed, MP actually being the 'new' and Sotherton being the 'ancestral'; the Bertrams were going through a phase of 'belt-tightening' because of Tom's extravagance, but were still relatively wealthy, not within a inch of having to sell up, as portrayed here. The preposterous scene with the fireworks and doves occupied time and (undoubtably) money that should have been better spent bringing information thought less important to the audience. Huge chunks of the novel are missing, which only goes to underline the folly of 'adapting' a long and complex work when you have neither the time nor the money to do it anything like justice.
Francis O'Connor did the best she could with what she was given; Harold Pinter's Mr. Bertram is credible, as is Embeth Davidtz and Allesandro Nivola as the Crawfords; and Jonny Lee Millar is perhaps the most convincing (and authentic) of the bunch as the younger Bertram son.
A final word to Miramax. The jaunty, tongue-in-cheek approach worked well with Gwyneth Paltrow's Emma, but that doesn't mean all of Jane Austen can be treated the same way; that was a one-off.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No