Mansfield Park 1999

Yuck.

This film might be the worst Austen adaptation I have ever seen.

Actually, it’s more like a spinoff. I was fully aware that Patricia Rozema did not intend the film to be a faithful adaptation, and I was prepared to see some serious deviations from the original story—I was not disappointed on that front. But to see a generally bad movie that was more painful than A Knight’s Tale? That’s not what I was expecting. I think I got a headache from furrowing my brow so much.

If this film were an FB bumper sticker, it would say “Directing FAIL.” The acting wasn’t terrible, but the script and situations were. I somewhat liked what I saw, but not how I saw it—if that makes any sense.

It’s hardly worth mentioning that MP 1999 contains an absurd amount of deviations from the original story. For crying out loud, it’s tagline is “Jane Austen’s Wicked Comedy.” Ummm, right—I’m glad you decided to use one of her more mature, somber novels on which to base your awful wicked comedy. William is completely absent, his role having been incorporated into Susan (Sophia Myles); the play scene is pathetically short and haphazardly done; there’s an odd abolition subplot that rears its ugly head every now and then at the strangest times throughout the movie; Mansfield Park’s interior looks like a tornado has swept through it and removed all decor and furniture; and Maria and Henry carry out their little scandal within the halls of Sir Thomas’ house and then disappear after both Edmund and Fanny find out, which is really absurd once you think about it.

The characters, like the story, were a mix of good and really bad. Mrs. Norris (Sheila Gish) retains much of her novel-essence, fussing about and being generally mean to Fanny; she even looks like she’s sucking on a lemon, which is a nice touch. Lady Bertram (Lindsay Duncan) is a little disturbing, but she’s really not worth mentioning anyway, as she is simply as lazy and useless as called for. Sir Thomas is infinitely more appropriate in this film than the 2007 production (sans the cruel slave-owning alter persona); he’s imposing and has a certain gravity about him that the wimpy 2007 Sir Thomas lacks. Seeing Maria (Victoria Hamilton) for the first time somewhat shocked me; she isn’t as pretty as Julia (Justine Waddell) and looks almost ridiculous at times. Henry Crawford (Alessandro Nivola) is a looker, that’s for sure. The Bertram girls (actually, all the women in the Bertram house) were struck by him immediately, which isn’t really the effect Mr. Crawford is supposed to have, but whatever. Mary also surprised me; she appears older than her brother, and certainly older than any of the Bertram girls or Fanny. I also didn’t think she was nearly as alluring as the 2007 Mary. She’s also so highly irritating and forward that I couldn’t see how Edmund could ever seriously consider marrying her.

Unhappily, James Purefoy is pretty much entirely absent. About 30 minutes through the movie, the hope of some great screen shots of a very Rawdon-esque Tom was my only consolation. But alas! When he wasn’t drunk or walking around too fast to get a good look at him, he was on his deathbed—a very attractive invalid, but an invalid nonetheless. Oh, and his role as a tortured abolitionist artist battling his racist father was just wacky.

I very much liked Edmund, played by Johnny Lee Miller. I don’t really have much to say about him other than I am confident he will do Mr. Knightley justice.

That brings us to Fanny. Oh, Fanny. Physically, Frances O’Connor was a better choice for Fanny than Billie Piper, but she was given such a warped version of Fanny to portray that a comparison really isn’t fair. Had she played the meek, timid Fanny of the novel, she might have done very well. The 1999 Fanny is, in a word, outspoken. Big mistake. She goes from being demure and accompanying to bold and sharp. Whoever created this character was trippin’ on something. I actually felt sorry for Mr. Crawford! The little skank led him on and on and on, finally agreed to marry him, and then dumped him, and then led him on some more. And whose idea was it to make her some sort of quasi-Jane Austen? Morphing Fanny with Jane and mixing in a bit of Lizzie Bennet is perhaps the most ridiculous idea ever—okay, maybe not a totally ridiculous idea, but it failed, like pretty much everything else in the movie. Maybe if I start praying now, in five years or so we’ll get a decent Fanny Price in the next adaptation.

It’s not merely the complete carnage of Mansfield Park’s story that was so distasteful—that was to be expected after all; it’s the ignorance of Regency decorum (intentional or otherwise) that I found difficult to watch. I’m no expert, but there were some situations in this movie that would have been inconceivable during that time. Two group scenes horrified me the most: 1) When the Bertram’s and Mary sat in a circle discussing what an advantageous match Henry Crawford would be for Fanny, who was sitting attentively in their midst. 2) When Mary defended her brother, dismissed Henry and Maria’s tryst as “folly,” and laid the blame on Fanny, in the presence of Sir Thomas, Lady Bertram, Mrs. Norris, Edmund, and Fanny. Such subjects would never have been discussed publicly like that. And Mrs. Norris introducing the topic of Maria’s departure to Sir Thomas, and then Sir Thomas having Fanny read it aloud! I just can’t picture any self-respecting person of 1806 bringing such a scandalous subject out in the open for discussion.

 I’m almost done ranting In conclusion, even without paying heed to the deviations from Jane Austen’s novel, I could not enjoy Mansfield Park 1999. Sure, parts made me laugh and I wish I could incorporate some bits of it into the 2007 version, but overall, it didn’t feel right. I also wish I could say, “At least you get to watch James Purefoy!” but I can’t really do that either. Lol. Maybe it will grow on me. I give it 2 out of 5 stars.

~ by Lady Ashley on June 18, 2009.