Mansfield Park 2007

I want to begin by saying that whoever decided it was acceptable to limit a production of Mansfield Park to 90 minutes should be put in the stocks. And I don’t care what Miss Bingley would say about such a positively medieval action. One can barely do justice to Persuasion with 90 minutes, much less a novel of over twice its size. *pouts*

That said, I doubt I am preaching to the choir here—from comments I have read regarding this latest adaptation of Mansfield Park, it seems others would think its brevity is this film’s only virtue. There’s no arguing with the fact that many of the novel’s original scenes and events are altered significantly—Fanny’s three-month stay in Portsmouth with her family is omitted from the film altogether, for example—to squeeze a 412-page novel into an 90 minute production. When one gets past the unfortunate running time, not all the alterations are necessarily awful. The screenwriters did a tolerable job of condensing the story, and to someone who had never read the novel, it would likely flow very smoothly.

Having griped long enough on that head, I must say I really liked this film. I had just finished rereading the book and found, much to my surprise, that I enjoyed it considerably more the second time—it is long and there are chapters where it seems nothing much happens, but I cannot understand why people consistently hate on MP. I loved it, and as I had yet to see MP on screen, I was jumping for joy when it arrived in my mailbox. The image of DVD cover, with Billie Piper’s wild hair, pouting lips, and healthy complexion, worried me as I read descriptions of Fanny’s slight frame, mediocre health, light eyes and lack of striking beauty—there is nothing ”quiet” about Billie Piper’s look (check out this post at Jane Austen today about various reactions to this blonde Fanny). But I was pleasantly surprised by how little she irritated me. Yes, there were some things wrong: she looks as healthy as a horse, running about after Pug and playing badminton with Edmund. She’s not a girl that would collapse after a quarter-mile walk. I was also worried that she was going to pop right out of her dress a number of times to a point of distraction. Heavens. Looking for heaving bodices? This is your film. (And it’s funny that Billie herself had the same fear.) Is she the perfect Fanny Price, small, weak, and easily overlooked? No; but she does capture her humility and deer-in-the-headlights look that one can easily imagine jumpy Fanny wearing all the time

As for the other cast members, I was pleased with the younger characters and disappointed with the elder ones. Mrs. Norris (Maggie O’Neill) is terribly boring and meek and says nothing at all that would indicate she has scarred Fanny’s childhood. Lady Bertram (Jemma Redgrave) is okay; she lounges about and looks half-dazed all the time, which is all that is really required of her anyway, I suppose. Sir Thomas (Douglas Hodge) is, in a word, pathetic. I envisioned a stately, grand figure, worthy of the terror he strikes into the hearts of his rebellious children. I wasn’t expecting the ridiculous John Dashwood all over again, with breathy utterances and wiggling eyebrows making him appear more confused and indecisive than intelligent and steadfast. Tom is all that could be wanted in an elder son who is made for life and destined for nothing greater than drinking, gambling, and socializing. I enjoyed James D’Arcy’s performance of this dissolute, yet lovable character. Maria (Michelle Ryan) and Julia (Catherine Steadman) received very little screen time, but they were satisfactory enough, though Maria’s informal ponytails would not have been worn outside her bedroom door. The casting directors chose their Henry and Mary Crawford well as they actually looked like siblings. Hayley Atwell did justice to Mary’s “lively dark eye, clear brown complexion, and general prettiness” (Ch. V), and Edmund’s attraction to her wit and spark is definitely understandable, though some of her flirtation went a little far. Joseph Beattie was a mediocre Crawford; he looked more like a creeper than a gentleman charming enough to lure Maria into scandal.  He and Tom clearly had the same stylist. Joseph Morgan plays a delightful William Price and makes the character just as sweet and amiable in the film as in the book.

And finally, Edmund, played by Blake Ritson, is very charming (check out the Jane Austen Today post about Blake as Edmund—why yes, this is my favorite blog!). Whew. One cannot blame Mary Crawford for choosing the younger son over the eligible elder. Edmund had me in the novel, and he swept me away in the movie. How can one not be sympathetic towards Fanny when she has him teasing her, though purely unintentional, all the time? I would be a mess, too. Blake Ritson has something of Adrian Brody’s look about him, and I love the latter. Maybe that’s why I enjoyed this movie so much. . . it is not uncommon for my opinions of films to be influenced by the presence of attractive guys in boots and breeches By the way, Blake must have a thing for clergyman, because he is playing Mr. Elton in the upcoming Emma. Ick. Let’s just hope he leaves it at that and doesn’t decide to play Mr. Collins in a future P & P.

It was only when scrolling through the credits absentmindedly that I caught the comment about filming being done entirely at Newby Hall in North Yorkshire that it dawned on me that the entire movie did in fact take place in one location. Not only does the limited time explain the removal of some scenes and people, but limiting the entire production to one estate would also require the Sotherton excursion, Fanny’s Portsmouth trip, any action in London, scenes from the Parsonage, and Dr. and Mrs. Grant to be excluded. The Sotherton trip would not be a loss except for the walk through “the wilderness” in which Fanny is totally forgotten, a scene which characterizes not only Mary and Edmund’s relationship, but also the budding romance between Henry Crawford and Maria. The decision to stay in one site is a risky one, as the acting and dialogue must be interesting enough to keep viewers watching when there is a total lack of scenery change. I felt it worked in this production, but that could just be me.

Though I wish not so much of the original story had been changed (sometimes it was really annoying—like when the writers decided it would be a good idea to trash the Fanny-visits-Portsmouth episode to have the entire family leave Fanny behind at Mansfield Park instead as they visited Lady Bertram’s mother. If nothing else, Lady Bertram would never have gone on a 3-week-trip anywhere), the final 10 minutes or so of MP rank among my top 10 Jane Austen film scenes. Unbelievably heartwarming. The intimate scene in Fanny’s bedroom (no, not that intimate, you naughty people), the chase around the house, flicking eyes across the breakfast table, Edmund’s enthusiasm and Fanny’s flirtation, Lady Bertram’s surprising perception, the tender kiss outside, and the final wedding dance were all absolutely delightful! ”Edmund and Fanny have. . . learned a new dance.”  I know these final scenes are not enough to redeem MP completely, but they do serve as some reward for making it to the end.

Is it a faithful adaptation of Jane’s least popular novel? No, but it’s better to be a bad adaptation that’s still fun to watch, than a bad adaptation that is just a bore with bad acting all the way around. Will it be better than the 1999 version I am to watch tonight? That remains to be seen.  I give this Mansfield Park 3 out of 5 stars. Though storyline flaws aside, I would say 4 out of 5.

 

Check out Laurel Ann’s review at AustenProse and Vic’s review at Jane Austen’s World.

~ by Lady Ashley on June 16, 2009.