Avis des utilisateurs

They say the great thing about Shakespeare's work is that it is so open to interpretation. Every director can bring his or her fresh eyes to a play and make it new. Even so, I think we are obliged to stay true to the basic tennents of the text. Are the works of Jane Austen as open to interpretation? Maybe, but I doubt it; Certainly not if MANSFIELD PARK is anything to go by.

MANSFIELD was always my favourite of Austen's six novels. Many modern critics, while not denying its basic greatness, have problems with the book. Many find FANNY PRICE unlikeable, many find her judgemental, and feel that her Stoic, Augustan approach is hard to relate to. Stand-by, do nothing, and eventually he'll see the error of his ways and come to love you. Not very modern, is it?

OK, so if you don't like the main character, if you don't like what she has to say, then what do you do? Look for other aspects of the story you can relate to. In recent years some critics have chosen to see MANSFIELD PARK in Post-Imperial terms, as a critique of Slavery. After all, the family's wealth is based on plantations in Antiga, which were run by slaves. Is that what the book's about? Is it? I don't know. I think the evidence is a little slim, but who am I to deny the possibility? Maybe it plays a part in the subtext of the novel.

So, I'm a modern script-writer who doesn't like the novel, it's pre-occupations or even Fanny Price. What do I do? I completely re-write the story to take a possible minor sub-text (slavery) and turn it in to the driving narrative force. I then take smart as a whippet, stubborn yet passive Fanny and turn her into a ballsy version of Bridget Jones. With an attitude. I then string together a couple of scenes from the book with a few invented bridging scenes to advance the romance. Et Voila! I have a completely different story!

I don't know what this film is, but it isn't Mansfield Park. Enjoy it on its own terms, but don't ever get the idea that your watching Austen on the screen. But, jeeze. I think that if you're going to adapt a novel for the screen, you ought to at least like the source material; Otherwise, what's the point? If you don't like the main character, you shouldn't be able to completely re-invent her. Or if you do, you should have the decency to be a little ashamed.

Jane Austen wrote gold. Its It's a shame that the people making this movie didn't have any faith in the author. The changes were enough that this is almost a different story.

If the story wasn't what they wanted to produce, maybe they could have called it "Fanny Price - Based On Jane Austen's Mansfield Park". Then maybe I wouldn't have felt deceived.

Jane Austen was a spectacular author. In this book she was able to take the loan of a gold chain and turn it into the biggest dilemma of the century. It's a storyline that really shows Fanny's character and it really stood out to me in the book, but it was left out of this movie.

The character of the uncle was extremely changed. It was quite annoying.

The actors and actresses all did a tremendous job in this movie. That's why I gave it a 7. I wish I could have seen them all in Mansfield Park.

Mansfield Park is my least favourite Jane Austen novel. I find it dull and highly uninspiring, lacking the wit, chemistry and energy of Austen's stone-cold classics like Pride and Prejudice or Emma.

What this film does is completely inject new life into it. Yes, the characterisation of Fanny is much more Lizzie Bennet than Fanny Price. She is not like this in the book - at all. It's a complete change of character. But it works. (And I loved the very tongue-in-cheek inclusions of some of Austen's juvenilia, which in this film, Fanny has written herself.)

The whole production is buzzing with energy and intrigue throughout. It brings out the themes of slavery more explicitly, which is very interesting - Tom's nearly drinking himself to death is explicitly signposted as a result of his horror at what Sir Tom is doing in Antigua. Sir Tom generally comes out less sympathetically than in the novel. (Mrs Norris and Maria are just as they are in the text - to my delight.)

Only one thing slightly lacks - Henry Crawford is a tad miscast. In the book, he's a charismatic but slightly sinister rake...and sinister because only Fanny sees through him. In this film, he's a bumbling fool with a high sex drive. Nothing wrong with it - just a slightly different take than mine. You could imagine some audience members feeling sorry for him when Fanny rejects him, which is not what should happen.

However - in general, wonderful adaptation! Some things are totally altered from the book - and for the best.

Maybe it was a mistake to watch this adaption of Mansfield Park the day I finished reading the novel. This production is too modern. Now I understand that they probably wanted to make it "more appealing" to today's moviegoers, and I know that it's hard to fit all a book into a film - but why did they change the essence of who Fanny Price is? She is a highly moral, quiet, smart, very put-upon young lady. While Frances O'Connor is a wonderful actress, she played Fanny all wrong. She was smiling (constantly), having pillow fights, speaking her mind. There was no sense of period or restraint in her portrayal. I think the writer/director should have had more faith in the characters in the book.

With so many storylines to choose from in the book, I wonder why new ones were added, such as the slave trade and opium use? It is a shame that Sir Thomas didn't have the character arc seen in the book, that has him appreciate Fanny more and show her greater kindness when he returns from Antigua. In the film he is just always a big, mean bully. Jonny Lee Miller's Edmund is not nearly pious and conflicted enough. He is meant to be joining the clergy.

I am sure I would have thought it was an average film if I didn't know the original source, but it was a big disappointment.

This movie had a delightfully playful way of bringing Jane Austen's book to life especially with the way the story was directed to bring you into it like a letter. It was funny, intense and captivating, and I would say (and this is probably going to be an unpopular opionion) I enjoyed the characters and storyline of this story more than Pride & Prejudice.

This "Mansfield Park" is Jane Austen as if written by Edith Wharton, and there is a difference between the two social commentators as to sensuality and satirical touch.

The whole audience was getting fed up with the Ashley Wilkes-type hesitant male, though I did enjoy the unusualness of the flighty hunk seeming to be enraptured by the heroine before he showed his unfaithful stripes--even if he was sort of driven off the moral straight and narrow by her lack of guidance.

I had seen Roczema's previous indie Canadian feature and this was far more straight-forward story-telling than that head-scratching feminist tract. The lead actresses in both save the movie.

I didn't mind the talking to the camera as she reads letters and the set pieces as the narrator comments on the scene.

The settings are the usual Natural Heritage Trust tourist views, but this is not the Austen touch. Much better were "Persuasion" and "Clueless."

(originally written 12/27/1999)

Director Rozema does for film what Austen does for the novel. In place of Austen's beautiful prose, Rozema's Mansfield Park delivers delicately crafted performances, heartbreakingly poetic cinematography, and a haunting score by Lesley Barber, but still manages to capture Austen's wit throughout.

Frances O'Connor and Jonny Lee Miller (as Fanny Price and Edmund Bertram) carry the film with their subtlety and chemistry, and a few scenes between the two are enough to deem the film a masterpiece. But they are not the only merits: the supporting cast breathe dimensionality to their characters with interesting interpretations of Austen's work. Most notable are Lindsay Duncan in her dual roles as Mrs Price and Mrs Bertram, and Victoria Hamilton as an intensely human Maria. Sophia Myles and Justine Waddell display equal genius albeit within the limitations of somewhat small roles. It is more difficult to gauge the performances of Alessandro Nivola and Embeth Davidtz; their characters are too affected by choices made in the script (arguably, Henry Crawford for the better and Mary Crawford for the worse).

One can be a fan of Jane Austen and still appreciate the film. Although it bears little resemblance to the novel itself, it embodies much of the spirit of Austen and draws from her other novels where Mansfield Park the novel might be, dare I say, lacking. I am an ardent supporter of Austen, but I must say that the film version makes a commendable choice in choosing a protagonist that shares more of Pride and Prejudice's Elizabeth Bennett's spirit than the subdued Fanny of Mansfield Park.

The film does, of course, have its flaws. The slavery issue is treated in a manner too heavy-handed to blend with Austen's style, and the same can be said of the hints of lesbianism that are just painfully out of place. The sexual tension is often a touch too overbearing in the film, although I agree with Rozema in saying that the film does not create this sexuality anew but draws from the tension latent in the novel (with the exception of the above-mentioned lesbianism). Other disappointments include Sir Bertram and Tom Bertram, who are practically caricatures that mar the otherwise brilliant characterization in the film.

Regardless, the film's high points far outweigh its imperfections -- all in all, highly recommended.

Mansfield Park (1999)

A remarkably clear-headed film that make Jane Austen real and alive. The heroine here is perhaps even a bit like Austen—though the actress is prettier, by all accounts—and it includes letters read by the character that are seemingly Austen's words. But what the cast and director Patricia Rozema pull off here is fabulous.

There is no one reason this movie works so well, except of course the really scintillating, funny writing of Austen herself. The lead character is Fanny Price, played with true joy, angst, and subtle wit by Frances O'Connor. The two men who court her on and off are strong enough as men to be convincing, but they are perfectly still young men, barely more than boys in years, and they have those youthful flaws. Which is part of the fodder for Austen's wit.

And social observation. If you don't quite catch the way she plays social classes against each other you miss part of the substance. It isn't just that the poor niece ends up at the rich uncle's house, but that this same niece has the perception to see through their facades. And to keep mum until just the right moment.

This isn't a liberation film where the woman charges to victory in a big speech or by a power play. Instead—and this is one reason Austen is still readable today—the woman simply comments on the issues in a way that makes clear her more advanced views, and the obstacles slowly fall away through outside circumstances (rather than her own doing). The passivity of Fanny Price might bother some people, but that's exactly her role, as a character, in this pageant.

One last point—slavery. This is the one novel of Austen's that gets her in trouble for her languid views on the uncle's use of slaves in the West Indies. The movie seems to twist this into a more modern condemnation, which helps us stay sympathetic to the whole shebang. There is even an added scene of sketches (done in a way rather like Goya's socially critical drawings of the same time, with some Kara Walker thrown in) which make clear the crisis at hand.

If you want to dip into Austen through a movie, choose between this and the 2005 "Pride and Prejudice" and you won't be disappointed. Of course, if you want to read the book—that's even better. More modern and fresh than it "should" be for 200 years ago.

Jane Austen's writing brought to life in this period drama centering on Fanny Price. The acting is quite good and the storyline fairly drama filled. However, it overall lacks chemistry, I didn't feel swept up in any of the romantic escapades, even between that of the main characters. It was a bit of a let down in the romance department, but everything else was well done.

I haven't read the book. The reason being that I find much of the books written about rich, idle, boring people in that era, tedious; a time waste and immeasurably dull beyond belief. So I suppose it 'not being anything like the book', which all the 1,2,3 & 4 scoring reviews keep telling us about, is a very, very good thing.

It's an excellent film and an intelligent one. Absolutely recommended!

Although I know better than to expect a "pure" adaptation of a novel when Hollywood gets hold of it, I was nevertheless unprepared for the horrible mangling this novel received at the hands of the screenwriter. Having immensely enjoyed recent renderings of "Sense and Sensibility," "Emma," and various versions of "Pride and Prejudice," I expected to receive similar enjoyment from this film. I had not read any reviews or advance press before watching it. I had, unfortunately, just read the book itself this summer and it was fresh in my mind. In my opinion this is the WORST rendition of a Jane Austen work I have ever seen. Perhaps if I had never read the book, I might have enjoyed it somewhat more, but to me it was unbearable to see a book I thoroughly enjoyed so completely rewritten. I am astonished at the comments of some of the reviewers here opining that Jane Austen would have approved. Poppycock!

I began to feel sick early on. To me, the character of Fanny Price and other major characters bore as much resemblance to Jane Austen's heroine as Danny Devito bore to Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Twins." The entire invention of Fanny as a budding writer, the deletion of her younger brother who was so important in the plot concerning Henry Crawford, the image of Fanny as somewhat outspoken and rebellious, the depiction of Fanny's aunt as an opium addict and her uncle as a brutish, raping slaveowner.... The list goes on and on. Henry and Maria being caught by Fanny in the house, Fanny voluntarily kissing Henry and agreeing to marry him and then retracting. Ugh!

I really detest writers who want to mold everything in the modern vein. Fanny Price was not a modern heroine, but she fit her time. There was far too much PC propaganda and feminist hogwash which you might expect in a movie about our society but is ridiculous set against Fanny's time. She was devout, loyal, quiet, humble, stubborn only in her keen perception of others' character as measured against her conviction of what was good and what was not, possessing an innate strength of character which did not rely on others' perception of her and which she refused to compromise. Jane Austen would not have approved of this new Fanny for precisely this reason: her Fanny did not care about the "new" conventions of moral thought and permissiveness in her own society. The movie downplayed the seriously flawed characters of Henry Crawford and his sister. It portrayed him far too sympathetically, made it appear that he truly and deeply loved Fanny and seemed to blame Fanny's (non-existent) double-mindedness for his downfall.

All in all, this is an extremely disappointing film if one cares about what was really written in Mansfield Park. I think "Clueless" as a modern version of "Emma" (and which I also enjoyed) is more true to Austen than this let-down of a movie.

What has this movie done to a book as charming as 'Mansfield Park'?! The storyline has been altered until it is virtually unrecognisable! Fanny Price is nothing like she is in the book, the other characters have been equally changed for the worst and as far as I could tell hardly any of Austen's witty prose has been retained!! It seems this adaptation is 'Mansfield Park' in name only.

This is probably the most difficult of Austen's novels to bring to the big screen because the characters are so much a product of their time. Fanny is supposed to be shy, submissive, compassionate and pious. She was never outspoken, headstrong or feisty. In short, she is not Elizabeth Bennet and she never will be. To attempt to portray Fanny in this light is missing the point of her whole character. She is dull and boring by today's standards, but her disposition was admirable during the time that she lived.

I really don't know what the filmmakers were thinking with this adaptation - they probably weren't!! At any rate, it is only because Jane Austen is long dead that they would dare to produce this version. If you haven't read the book you'll probably enjoy it. If you have read the book, don't bother with this. It will ruin your whole experience of the novel.

From a poor family to a life with a wealthy uncle, a child is given the chance to have a better life around the year 1800.

This adaptation from Jane Austen's story, seems to be contend with more than being a romance. From poverty and doing without wealth, to education, proposals and marriage as a "manoeuvring business", one's timely choices, even slavery as a side, and societal norms of the time and the awfulness of people .. in a way. It's hard to really pinpoint to what the story is about, but it is entertaining nevertheless, though not as memorable as others in its vein. As it itself states, "life seems nothing more than a quick succession of busy nothings", so carries the film.

Still, the delightful Frances O'Connor is the focus of attention. She is given the role of an educated and well-written young girl with "effusions of fancy in a style entirely new", that doesn't really seem to stand out. The dialogue is good, the interactions decent, and it has a somewhat satisfying ending.. even if I felt more like a tourist being paraded around instead of feeling immersed or deeply caring for its displays and characters.

It is always a pleasure to read John Simpson from Hastings literate reviews and I echo his sentiments.Mansfield Park was published in 1814 being set in 1806.It came after Pride & Prejudice but before Emma.Many of the user comments below bemoan the fact that the film departs from the novel.This is certainly not necessarily a bad thing if the producer can give us a better version; e.g.the ending of "Portrait of Jennie (1948).Personally I have not read the novel but saw this tv film about a year ago before it was repeated recently.I therefore have to accept the director shows latitude with the facts of the written word but we don't know what agenda from the producers she was working from.Was she told to "sex it up" with the copulation scene?Was she told to mention contraversial subjects such as rape and slavery to satisfy modern prurient tastes?

I was intrigued whether I would feel differently, having seen it before and therefore have the benefit of familiarity with its content.I must confess I was left with a rather hollow feeling at its end.This film gives the impression it is based on one of Austen's darker novels what with the allusions to slavery and the early stirrings of womens' emancipation but we know from our literate colleagues Austen did not mention these, only perhaps on her unwritten and subconcious agenda.I was quite impressed with the art work of scenes on the slave driven Antiguan plantation as they effectivly captured the main emotion of fear.Did Austen really write the joke about "... after all this is 1806", as if it were the swinging sixties? Slavery was abolished in Britain from 1833, so we have to assume this was an accepted but socially unspoken topic, contraversial when Mansfield Park was written

The principal players headed by Frances O'Connor as Fanny Price gave measured, adequate performances but I never experienced the high emotions experienced from Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth in the celebrated 1995 tv film of P&P.One of the highlights of an Austen outing is to hear wonderful piano-forte but I sorely missed an exposition of this by any of the ladies present.Personally, Carl Davies' original Mozartian piano theme he composed for the aforementioned P&P will take a lot of beating.Jane Austen collected her "Opinions of Mansfield Park" from family and friends just after its publication.This was long before public opinion polls or indeed Imdb user comments!! I rated it 6/10.

Shockingly different from what i am used to when it comes to BBC and Jane Austen

I had no trouble enjoying MANSFIELD PARK because I had no comparison to make to the novel, which I never read. I saw nothing about it that made me think it was catering to 1999's sensibilities, despite the use of a scene where someone is caught in flagrante with another. Aside from that indiscretion, the dialog seemed like authentic Austen to me and the whole affair has been expertly photographed in England, of course, on lush locales that are breathtakingly gorgeous to look at. The swirling camera swerves often from the interior of a room to the vast horizons outside with the greatest of ease.

And, of course, the British cast cannot be praised highly enough. All of them perform to the manor born in the appropriate style. FRANCES O'CONNOR (who closely resembles a young Jennifer Jones) is Fanny Price, the poor girl sent to live with rich relatives at Mansfield Park, who becomes an elegant young woman and a writer. (Sounds suspiciously like the author herself inserting her character on this role).

And JONNY LEE MILLER is Edmund Bertram, a young man obviously smitten with her from the start. It takes the entire running time of the film for the young lovers to discover they always did love each other, but along the way we're treated to some interesting episodes of British class distinction amid the manners and mores of a bygone era, including some sharp bits of humor.

Interesting that after essaying this quiet, unassuming role, Jonny Lee Miller would next take on the fight against a vampire in Dracula 2000. So much for British dexterity and range.

Summing up: Some admirers of the novel seem to be put off by this one, but I have to admit I enjoyed it, even if I did find Fanny's inconsistent feelings about her suitor,Henry, and her inability to make up her mind, rather frustrating at times.

I went to see this with reservations. I had heard that it bore little resemblance to the book, but I was on the whole pleasantly suprised. The acting is uniformally excellent (apart from the Young Fanny who had the worst fake English accent I've ever heard) especially from Frances O'Connor and Harold Pinter.

Although O'Connor was excellent, and the characterisation of Fanny worked in the context of the film, it would have been nice to see the character of Fanny from the book, which contrary to most opinions, I found to be very complex and interesting. This would be hard to bring across in a film, and when you remember the diabolical TV version, it is easy to understand why they did it as they did.

I thought the addition of the slavery issue was a bit crass, and there were too many needless jokes, Mansfield Park isn't Emma however you rejig it) but on the whole this wasn't too bad.

Fanny Price (Frances O'Connor) comes from a poor family. Her mother married for love. She was sent to live with her aunt's family the Bertrams in Mansfield Park at the age of 10. She's looked down upon by everybody except the son Edmund (Jonny Lee Miller). Sir Thomas travels to their Antigua plantation with the oldest son Tom. The rest of the family is joined in Mansfield by Henry (Alessandro Nivola) and his sister Mary Crawford (Embeth Davidtz). Edmund becomes infatuated with Mary. The Bertram sisters Maria and Julia both vie for Henry despite the fact that Maria is already engaged to the dull Rushworth.

This movie takes slavery on as a central theme. Also Fanny Price is a thoroughly modern woman as well-read head-strong thinking woman. Her abolitionist views are ahead of her times. This adds something much more than the usual Jane Austen interior romanticism. I'm sure some Austen fans hate a lot of the changes but it works for me. It adds a higher moral idealism to the romance.

A respectable adaptation of Jane Austen's novel of the same name.

Mansfield Park (the movie) surely didn't get enough recognition for Frances O'Connor's performance.

I have seen many complaints about it being unfaithful to the book, but I think that the essential was to make a film faithful to the style of Jane Austen, not the plot.

Plus, for once, I thought that the 4th wall breaking was entertaining and practical in the way that it is not used to bring comical relief or to make lazy expositions.

Also, it is undoubtedly, a feminist story, but unlike the more recent Enola Holmes, it avoids historical revisionism.

My major complaint is that Patricia Rozema, maybe due to a lack of budget, shot the film like a TV movie.

This isn't an awful movie. It's quite watchable. Some of the acting, especially from Pinter is excellent.

But the rest resembles those films made from classic novels in the 30s where no one concerned in making it had time to read the book. A quick treatment by a college student, a quick script conference, then off we go. Rozema has almost no idea of what the book is about but is entirely unembarrassed by her ignorance in her interview on the DVD.

Austen fans don't have to wait long to discover just how far off the wavelength she is. The first contact between Sir Thomas and Fanny is a reproof for running through MP's corridors shrieking like a banshee. Lines are taken from Mary Crawford in the book and given to Fanny in the film. How's that for missing the point? One by one characters appear looking no more recognisable than if they were appearing in a literary celebrity edition of Scooby Doo.

I agree with other reviewers that if the film was called something else and the characters had different names, it would be impossible to trace it's origins to Austen's book which is definitely not a conventional love story about bright young things getting together having overcome a few obstacles.

There's very little to choose between the morals of Rozema's characters, so nothing of the catastrophic descent into the abyss is associated with the production of Lover's Vows, nor do we have any glimpse of Rushworth and Crawford vandalising Sotherton. Mrs Norris is one of the most deliciously evil creations in literature - Rozema reduces her part to a few lines. Thomas Betram is a "modern" artist - yikes! William Price, Fanny's brother and one of the key relationships in the book, is missing altogether. Susan, her sister, has been reading too many Style magazines.

Mansfield Park might have been a bit like this had it been written by Georgette Heyer or even Jackie Collins. As an Austen adaptation it is execrable. But it's so far off the mark, that as something else entirely, it's not all that bad. Maybe they should just change the title.