As a die hard Austen fan this is a difficult adaptation. In fact I have not seen an adaptation of Mansfield Park that I think captures the character of Fanny Price suitably. The 1983 version comes the closest to the book but that is more for the faithfulness to the story rather than the portrayal of Fanny. She may be one of the most difficult heroines to get right. I love the book for its amazing depth and complexity of themes, characters and socio-political statements. I love Fanny for the unusual representation of the feminine she portrays. She must have been unusual even at the time of writing for Jane says only she will love this heroine. Fast forward to today and Fanny's long-suffering, pious, sensitive nature is positively anti-feminist.
The problem is that screenwriters take those characteristics and cast them to what we think of as pious and long-suffering. In the 1983 version, Fanny is stiff and self-righteous. The literary Fanny is graceful and elegant. Why else would Mr. Crawford find her compelling? We can't even imagine these days how this could go together and screenwriters dodge the issue by re-writing the character.
This was taken to an extreme here with the writer choosing to use Jane Austen herself for Fanny rather than to bother tackling Fanny at all. This was also seen the the deplorable giggly wild thing Fanny in the 2007 version. I challenge a screenwriter to produce a version of this book reasonably faithful to the text and actually explores the tremendously complex character that is Fanny.
A few words about the movie itself. There are a few gems that are in the book that I have not seen in other versions. For instance slavery is a part of the book, subtly wound into the subtext. Jane was an abolitionist. And I loved the line where Edmund says ": Fanny, you really must begin to harden yourself to the idea of... being worth looking at." Fanny was beautiful, not stiff and thin-lipped.
Overall this piece needs to be taken as an artistic rendering, not a literary adaptation. Then it is more enjoyable.
The problem is that screenwriters take those characteristics and cast them to what we think of as pious and long-suffering. In the 1983 version, Fanny is stiff and self-righteous. The literary Fanny is graceful and elegant. Why else would Mr. Crawford find her compelling? We can't even imagine these days how this could go together and screenwriters dodge the issue by re-writing the character.
This was taken to an extreme here with the writer choosing to use Jane Austen herself for Fanny rather than to bother tackling Fanny at all. This was also seen the the deplorable giggly wild thing Fanny in the 2007 version. I challenge a screenwriter to produce a version of this book reasonably faithful to the text and actually explores the tremendously complex character that is Fanny.
A few words about the movie itself. There are a few gems that are in the book that I have not seen in other versions. For instance slavery is a part of the book, subtly wound into the subtext. Jane was an abolitionist. And I loved the line where Edmund says ": Fanny, you really must begin to harden yourself to the idea of... being worth looking at." Fanny was beautiful, not stiff and thin-lipped.
Overall this piece needs to be taken as an artistic rendering, not a literary adaptation. Then it is more enjoyable.