Mansfield Park

Low budget films and television productions have to be accepted for what they are. That being said, the 1983 Mansfield Park still has a distinctive on-location look and the cast is uniformly strong - Sylvestra Le Touzel has just the right mix of prettiness and austerity and Nicholas Farrell is excellent as Edmund.

Where the 1999 film sacrificed the book's moral subtlety for pretty obvious ends (Fanny becomes a sort of pseudo-feminist icon, but of course back in the eighteenth century, before it was cool) the 1983 film contains all the troubled morality of the book - its characters, many of whom are failures in way or another, are presented with sympathy and irony, and the faithfulness of the screenplay is infinitely to be preferred to the 1999 film's racy, but ultimately pedestrian value system.

Ok so maybe you all disagree, but I prefer this old mini-series to the modern 1999 film.

I read the book before I had seen either, and this version is so much more true to the book. For me that is much more important than modern touches that spoiled the movie.

Even though Sylvestra may not give a good performance as Fanny Price, I find her much more believable as Fanny than Frances O Connor.

The camera work is very dodgey. At the start when Fanny is in the carriage with Mrs Norris, when Fanny is introduced to the Bertrams and when Tom, Edmund and Mary Crawford are walking together.

Mrs Norris is just how I imagined her, and Lady Bertram too. Henry Crawford is not played well I feel, the way he speaks seems all wrong and strange, I think they chose the wrong actor there.

I was struck by the scene where Maria wants to go through the locked gate and sends Mr Rushworth to get the key. This scene is just how I pictured it in the book, it is quite remarkable.

The settings serve their purpose, the house is furnished as you would expect. That was another thing I disliked about the recent movie. Mansfield Park looked like a Fortress inside! All bare and ugly, more suited to Northanger Abbey I feel.

The music was simple, but it was obviously a low budget production.

If anyone agrees with me please say.

I will agree with others that the production value of this mini series is a bit low. The acting is very stiff and is some places just unconvincing. For users of digital televisions the picture and sound quality is very low, but understandable since this production was made in the early 80s.

The thing that amazes me most about this rendition is how faithful it is to the book. If you loved the book, then you will also like the movie. I'm sure the costume designer and casting directors looked at the old Hugh Thomson illustrations. This most noticeable in the characters of Henry and Mary Crawford.

Lady Bertram is very much like she was in the book -except for her voice. I found it very odd! Rather overdone in my opinion. Mr Yates had a very strange hairstyle as well.

The locations and set were very nicely done. Sotherton and Mansfield Park are very much like the way I pictured them. There was one scene in Portsmouth where there was a matted background with ships. That was rather cheesy looking but it was the only scene that I was less than satisfied with.

This production lacks the polish of BBC's Pride and Prejudice (1995) but it is worth seeing for the serious Austen fan.

This is unquestionably the best ever adaptation of this book, faithful to the text and faithful to the feeling of the book. Sylvestra le Touzel is appropriately mouse-like and really embodies the real Fanny Price, (one of my favourite Austen heroines). She displays that transcendence of flesh that Austen uses as a metaphor for stability in an increasingly precarious situation, both for the estate and for the individuals associated with it. More recent adaptations have tried to make Fanny more capricious and human... but that is not what she is about. She represents the rise of the diligent lower classes to dominate the corrupt aristocracy, of merit over money, and morality over license. She and Edmund are the eventual winners, custodians of their inheritance, when all the favoured children have fallen into sin and temptation and proved themselves unworthy. Fanny Price is not so very different from Jane Bennett, Anne Elliot or Elinor Dashwood. I don't understand why so many people find her character "difficult"

This is a gentler, truer version of jane Austen's novel than the appalling 1999 film and I am thankful for that ! The casting could have been done with more thought and the whole production would have welcomed a larger budget but - overall - this version remains the yardstick by which all others should be measured.

Fanny Price is, despite the actress chosen to play her, essentially the heroine of the book and it is her views, fears insecurities and morals which are pivotal to the story. Judgmental? No, i think not. The fact that Fanny does speak out against the play and Henry Crawford shows the strength of her misgivings. Anyone who finds her insipid has either not read, or not understood, the book and should look again.

In this day of fast paced films and often nonsensical dialogue, this adaptation may seem a little slow at times, but it is worth persevering. To dismiss it as mere period drama does the novel an injustice, and it should be viewed with the thought that you are watching through the window if history. women had no real value or input. They were expected to marry well and breed the next generation, personal ambitions were rarely mentioned or taken seriously. Although, indeed it could be argued that, despite all the education or freedoms of the present day, quite often books, Tv and films still convey the message that women are nothing if they do not snare a man - a dire reflection upon society.

Of the actors involved, many were good and others less so which often happens. Was amused by the fact that Jonny Lee Miller appeared in both this version and the 1999 film. A welcome link