Palácio das Ilusões

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

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!

Had this movie taken on another title, or be a modern version of the novel, I would've been more forgiving. Let me repeat again: this movie does not reflect Jane Austen's Mansfield Park, neither does the main character portray Fanny Price in the least bit.

For those who have never read Mansfield Park, this book Austen's "virtuest" novel. Generally people don't like Fanny because she is too modest.

Fanny Price is an exceptional character. Her modesty can never be properly portrayed by Hollywood. So I hope that no one will try to make another movie out of this novel. I love Pride and Prejudice as much as I love this novel, but this novel is far different from P&P. P&P can be captured on screen without boring out the audiences but MP cannot. Nevertheless, this does not make the novel any less valuable.

Fanny Price may not be as attractive as Elizabeth Bennet. But if these characters existed in real life, I would trust Fanny over Elizabeth any day. As witty as Elizabeth is, her judgement is faulty (as a result, the 2nd half of the title is called "prejudice"). She cannot discern who Wickham is, and believed in his good appearance. Fanny is just the opposite: her intuition is un-mistakable. Who, except for Fanny, knew that the handsome Henry Crawford was un-trustworthy?

Having read and loathed the book (relatively speaking of course; I usually love Austen), I went into the theater with no small trepidation. The book "Mansfield Park" has a singularly unappealing protagonist in Fanny Price, a simpering and timid milksop, which was a big shock after "Pride and Prejudice" whose Elizabeth Bennett is surely one of the most enchanting fictional heroines ever. The book is also dense and long without the trademark Austen lively wit. And then, there is the confusing "play within play" plot which further muddles the story.

OK, I got that off my chest. Phew. Now about the movie. I enjoyed it very much in its own fashion. It is rather unfaithful to the book, other than the general plot line. That's not necessarily a bad thing. In this free adaptation of Austen via Rozema, Fanny is portrayed as a determined woman, of intelligence, strength of character and mischief. She is more Austen and Elizabeth Bennett than the Fanny from the book, and her appeal is magnified by the performance of the wonderfully expressive new Australian actress, Frances O'Connor. They also canned the whole thing about the play (just barely skimmed over), thank God. The story moves along briskly, starting with the poor relation Fanny coming to live with the rich Bertrams, then making friends with the second son Edmund whom she comes to love as she matures into young womanhood. As with all Austen novels, it is about an independent-minded woman who finds her way into a wedded bliss, through many trials and tribulations. Between Fanny and her heart's desires lay obstacles, mainly in the form of a very attractive but amoral pair of brother and sister, Henry and Mary Crawford. Mary sets her sight on Edmund, and Henry, although initially interested in the empty-brained Bertram sisters, starts pursuing Fanny. The chase begins as a challenge, but gradually turns into something resembling a genuine feeling. In Rozema's hand, Henry is a scoundrel but is made rather appealing and sympathetic, someone who gives the annoyingly decent Edmund a fair competition. Fanny almost gives into him (not so in the novel) and her resolution to hold onto her true love is made more courageous because of Henry's appeal.

The movie is lovely to look at, and the music is appropriately frothy. The performances are variable, with the clear distinction in the outstanding Ms. O'Connor. Embeth Davitz's turn as mercenary Mary is chilling, and Harold Pinter is excellent as the mercurial Sir Bertram, who is simultaneously affable and brutal. I had the most problems with Johnny Lee Miller's Edmund, whose wooden delivery made me wonder why he had Fanny's devotion.

The film's not a masterpiece by any stretch (and is inferior to SENSE AND SENSIBILITY in wit and to PERSUASION in heart), but nonetheless very enjoyable. A lesser Austen is still an Austen, I guess. The film also has a modern sensibility that's sometimes jarring. There is a very 20th century outrage in slavery, quirky pauses in camera work, Fanny talking directly to the camera (tricky but it works) and even a hint of lesbianism that's rather uncalled forAt any rate, it's entertaining, different, and worth the price of admission just to see the luminous Frances O'Connor. I feel I owe her a small debt of gratitude for making Fanny finally palatable, and for that, I expect grand things from this actress.

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.