Palácio das Ilusões

I have to wonder if the folks who are praising this film to the skies have ever read the book. I am not a Jane Austen purist - if I were, I could not say that the Root/Hinds version of Persuasion was my favorite Austen adaptation, which it is. This is Patricia Rozema's Mansfield Park, NOT Jane Austen's.

First, Rozema gives us a feisty, spirited Fanny Price, who tells off Aunt Norris and Sir Thomas, who accepts Henry Crawford's proposal, and then rejects it the next day (a la JA herself with Harris Bigg-Wither). In this MP, Sir Thomas deserves to be "told off." He is portrayed as a lecherous "dirty old man," who leers at Fanny and Mary Crawford throughout the film.

We have all heard about the additions Rozema made to the film. She deals with the slavery issue in a very heavy-handed way, beating us over the head with it whenever possible. Tom Bertram is not the empty-headed fop he is in JA's book; here he is just as much an abolitionist as Fanny, and it is his sketchbook filled with incriminating drawings of Sir Thomas abusing the slaves in Antigua that Fanny finds. In fact, Rozema's take on Tom is rather bizarre; in the book, his arguments with his father center around his irresponsibility and his profligacy. In the film, while Sir Thomas tries to scold his son for these faults, Tom takes him to task for his activities in Antigua. What I found odd was that, if Tom is such an abolitionist, why would he be so free and easy with money tainted by the slave trade?

Rozema left out what I consider to be some very important people and scenes. William Price and the Grants are nowhere to be seen; as a result, there is no amber cross bought with prize money, no distress over which chain to wear to the ball, no one to accompany Fanny to Portsmouth. Fanny's dislike and distrust of Henry are never fully explained. We never get to see the outing to Sotherton and, while we do see Maria flirting relentlessly with Henry, we never see him playing one sister off against the other. Fanny's disapproval of the theatricals is never explained either. In Rozema's version, it seemed as if Fanny was simply not invited to be in the play, instead of being unalterably opposed to it. The scene with Fanny playing Anhalt to help Mary Crawford rehearse is also completely wrong. Mary starts caressing Fanny, while Edmund watches with his eyes almost popping out of his head. So, instead of Edmund giving in and joining the play in order to spare his family the embarrassment of publicity, we are left with the impression that he takes on the role of Anhalt just so that he can justify having Mary run her hands all over him.

Next, we have the scenes at Portsmouth. Here, we have Henry sending Fanny a display of fireworks and doves, and then we see her accepting his proposal and sealing the bargain with some less-than-chaste kisses - in public, no less! The (in)famous sex scene between Maria and Henry takes place at Mansfield Park rather than in London and, because Rozema has played with JA's chronology of events, Fanny is already back from Portsmouth, and it is she who catches them in the act. Edmund is present for the aftermath, where Maria tries to defend her actions.

Another thing that galled me no end is that Mary Crawford's defense of her brother's actions is done in person, at Mansfield Park. She is patronizing towards all concerned, including Sir Thomas, who has finally stopped leering by this point. The newspaper item announcing Maria and Henry's behavior to the world is read by Fanny, and the culprits' full names are used, which is also not the way it happened in the book.

A couple of people walked out about 1/3 of the way through the screening I attended, and several others walked out just as the credits began. The Wishbone versions of Pride & Prejudice and Northanger Abbey resemble the source material more than this trash does. Shame on you Ms. Rozema, shame on you!

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.

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.

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.

The movie is totally unlike JA's original novel. The director turns a completely likeable romantic story into a complicated feminist abolitionist I-dont-know-what.

I like JA's Fanny Price - simple, timid, suffering unto herself. She gives up her happiness for everyone else's around her good and bad, and that is what makes her ever so sweet and lovely and adorable. Not the assertive outspoken Fanny shown in this movie.

Shame on the director. Oh! please let the classics be