It likes to call itself "Mansfield Park"...

     It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Jane Austen novel, in possession of even nominal popularity, must be in want of a film adaptation.

Okay, but not this much, honest!

     It's an equally known fact in the Austenite world that "Mansfield Park" is not typically looked on with a great deal of fondness.  This was probably Jane's most political, and least romantic novel.  I first read it about two years ago, not sure what to expect, and though it carries a much more somber tone, and its main character, Fanny Price, is drastically different from your typical Austen heroine, for me, these didn't detract at all from the purpose or the enjoyment of the novel itself.  It still became my (now second) favorite.

I love "Mansfield Park".  And I wish film makers were able to use its deviations from the typical Austen "formula" as a strength and asset, rather than fighting them, and in the process just creating a "Pride and Prejudice" copycat.  It just doesn't turn out well that way.

So... we watched the 2007 ITV  "Mansfield Park".

I guess I should start out by confessing that I tried watching this three or four times before we actually watched the whole thing.  Had a very hard time warming up to it.  I am glad we watched it, but still think Mansfield Park deserves much, much better.

     In regard to story I think the filmmakers tried very hard to keep most of the main plot points intact (except for the Portsmouth trip. more on that later).  But it seems the main difficulty they kept running into was that they had already completely transformed the most critical characters into something they aren't.  When the characters are different people, then their actions within the plot aren't at all going to match what their personality would dictate.  There didn't seem to be much reason behind why the characters were doing what they were doing (or why they objected), besides the novel calling for it.

 "Well, first we do a play, but for some odd reason Fanny thinks it's a bad idea, and apparently so does Edmund.  But then he decides to be in it anyway because bringing a stranger in to fill the extra part would be wrong somehow?  Erm... okay, works for me."

Standing next to the very stiff Mrs. Norris.

The 93 minute running time also really seemed to hurt any attempts at true character development.  But then again, that's why miniseries tend to rule the roost in the world of period drama film adaptations.  The acting felt a wee bit rushed; I can't help but think the actors had a hard time with the character-action discrepancy mentioned above, and as a result, it all felt somewhat artificial and impersonal.  There were, however some marvelous stand-out performances.  Rory Kinnear, really did make for a fabulous Mr. Rushworth.  He balanced the blundering clueless-ness with that tinge of self-importance very well; pathetically vain, but still love-able.  And James D'arcy pulled off the slime-ball Tom Bertram quite nicely.  I was really pleasantly surprised that they could go from Henry Bolingbroke and  Nicholas Nickleby, respectfully, to these two (very different) roles so well. =)

     Most of the costumes were quite lovely, despite some low-cut gowns.  It's really amazing just how many costumes are re-used from one period drama to the next.  Entire websites have been dedicated to spotting duplicates, and while I don't have any linkies to those, just looking at the IMDB trivia page for "Mansfield Park" really blows the mind.  Great costumes.  But Fanny Price's half-up, half-down hairstyle with highlights reealllly didn't fit the period, or Fanny's character for that matter. If Billie Piper needed to keep the highlights, they might have at least pinned it up into a nice regency up-do like most of the other characters had.  Fanny wouldn't have been seen dead in a dress as revealing (significantly more revealing than the others' clothing) or a hairstyle as loose as that.

Smolder faces everybody!

And that's where, I think, the biggest problem lies with this film: Fanny Price.  Billie Piper is an unusual choice for Fanny from the get-go, but the powers that be only make things worse when they try to reform Fanny into a feisty, outgoing, outspoken firecracker whose only resemblance of the original Fanny is her name and necklace.

     Will the real Fanny Price please stand up?  All too often Fanny is dismissed as a mousy, good for nothing pushover that frights at the drop of a hat, and has no opinion on anything nor any capacity to do anything for her own good.  And yeah, of course, any character who isn't a headstrong mover-and-shaker whose character is defined by her actions, but whose main strength is rather in her internal dialogue, strength of moral compass and inward character is going to be tremendously more difficult to portray in such a visual medium as film.  It's only natural that they'd reform her into a sudo Elizabeth Bennet, running through the house with her hair loose, dancing, laughing, smirking, chasing, shrieking, joking, flirting, smoldering (!!!), just an altogether more verb-y type of character.  But this is not her.  Fanny of the novel, on the other hand, has a very different character sketch:

Mr. Crawford. Hissss.

     When Mrs. Norris and her sister, Mrs. Bertram decided it would be most charitable to adopt one of their little nieces from their bedraggled sister, Mrs. Price, and raise the addition in the height of English society, their sister jumped at the opportunity and promptly sent Fanny, aged ten.  Fanny was meant to be raised as a sister to her cousins; but, somehow, the family never really lived up to all their "good" intentions, and ended up constantly reminding of her inferior status, and of her duty to be always grateful and indebted to her relatives that pulled her from the mouth of the slums.

     Physically and emotionally injured from poor nutrition and a rattling environment in the early stages of childhood, and now sanctioned to the attic alongside servants' quarters for her bedroom, she's grown up in terrible health, so frail she can only bear a very short horse ride once a day to build up what little strength she can muster.  She knows her place in the family and stays in it, even when the demands of her aunts push her beyond her physical limits.  She's no weakling, though.  Her moral principle always directs her, and she makes no bones (to herself) about when other people are behaving less than ideally.  She sees through others' smoke and mirrors of mannerism, and can judge a person's true motives quite proficiently, though always giving a reasonable margin for the benefit of the doubt.

 So when Fanny is caught up in a courtship with a man she knows, but must not say why, to be anything but honorable, the pressure is on from all family sides, appealing to her sense of duty to accept the lucky proposal from the impressively superior, and seemingly ideal, gentleman.  Can this suitor actually change his ways like he's promised?  She's doubtful.  But her uncle maintains the authority to send her back home permanently if he's displeased enough with her.  What's a girl to do?

Fanny Price is a quiet, extremely intelligent, extremely moral, introvert who's absolutely out of her element and in a complete pickle.  Who'd blame her for being so timid?  She stands utterly indebted to her uncle and aunts, and has been raised in full knowledge of it.  Her health and history constantly haunts her, but her morals and firm beliefs are steadfast, and she continues in them despite all the forces against her.  Though her constitution may be a weak one, her character is not.

(The story definitely makes the case for better consideration for those who are sensitive or shy.  It's a shame, then, that so many still treat Fanny's character with such contempt and impatience.  One can only hope we'd be wise enough not to let that outlook carry over into real life, in our treatment of real "Fannys")

"See, we're the villains."

     Our modern culture is definitely slanted to favor the more spunky, outgoing, aggressive girl that doesn't really give a hoot about what others have to say, like, for instance, Mary Crawford *cough*.  So rather than taking the book as it is, film makers tend to look at Mary Crawford's character, who they know is supposed to take the place of the antagonist, and twist her into a much more malevolent, downright villainous character.  Fanny, the heroine, is then left to be twisted into your spunky, go-get-em Mary Crawford/Elizabeth Bennet type character that's much more palatable for today's culture, and easier to translate to a screenplay.  It's a win-win deal for the modern filmmaker, really.

     With all that said, I think it'll probably be a long time before we get to see the real Mansfield Park on screen.  It's, generally speaking, the antithesis of what our culture appreciates today, and when you get down to the nitty gritty, probably much more difficult to translate to screen correctly.  If it ever is done to the book, though, this novel is absolutely brimming with potential.  For now, I guess we can still get some comfort from mentally "casting" the perfect 17-hour spectacle, directed by some person with an appreciation for the Austen novels (maybe a family member vaguely interested in film *cough*), filmed at Chawton house and Chawton cottage, with perfect period-correct costumes, broadcast on BBC 1, followed by a series of encore screenings on PBS, and then released on DVD and Blu Ray with 6 additional hours of deleted scenes and special features.  'Tis exceedingly diverting sport.