Masterpiece Theatre: Mansfield Park Reviews

• Could have been better......

  
  By A2X9AXCWH4MT4I on 2007-12-18
  It is a truth universally acknowledged that Jane Austen fans have yet to find an adaptation of "Mansfield Park" that truly does justice to the novel. "Pride & Prejudice" and "Persuasion" have their share of successes, with the 1995 versions and the recent versions having (for the most part) become instant classics and fan favorites. But not so for poor "Mansfield Park."
  
  I wanted so badly to love this version, especially with all the press hoopla surrounding the casting of Billie Piper (Dr. Who). The 1980s version starring Sylvestra Le Touzel remains the most faithful adaptation of the book, but has become outdated, is slow moving and tends to drag in places. The 1990s version starring Frances O'Connor is an anathema to Austen purists. This is Mansfield Park in name only, and is a slap on the face for true fans of the book. In short, Janeites were ready for a new and improved adaptation of "Mansfield Park."
  
  Sadly though, this new version falls short of expectations. If you have not read the book, then you will probably like it. If you have - and especially if you count yourself as an Austen purist - then there are many aspects of this version that you may find irritating (or worse..).
  
  I dislike starting my reviews on a negative note, but I was disappointed with this one. Among the shortcomings are as follows (warning - SPOILERS):
  
  - Casting of Billie Piper and Maggie O'Neill. Personally, I find Billie's blonde hair and dark eyebrows very distracting and far too modern for a period piece. Ladies in the Regency era tied their hair back in a bun but the filmmakers totally disregarded this and left Billie to run around like a wild child instead of a proper Regency lady. I also took issue to Maggie O'Neill who was not quite the right age and was a tad too "fine looking" as the widow Mrs. Norris.
  - Very choppy beginning. It almost feels like the first half hour is filmed in hand-held camera. It is annoying and gave me a headache.
  - Too many scenes were altered or omitted entirely. Many characters do not even make an appearance. There is no visit to the Price family home in Portsmouth; no visit to the Rushworth home; Maria and Julia Bertram disappear in the second act, when Maria and Rushworth marry; Maria and Julia Bertram and Mr. Yates are mere cyphers and don't have much to do; other than William Price, all the other Prices (including Susan) are absent in this story...and the list goes on.
  - Scenes jump around and there is little coherence to the screenplay. Novices to the story will be confused (especially in the beginning) as new characters come and go, there is little character development and no fluidity as the scenes move from one to another. Everything in the first act is rushed and you feel like the filmmakers are trying to cram hundreds of pages of storyline into the first half hour.
  
  There is, however, a light at the end of the tunnel. The story does improve as you go along and the last half hour provides some memorable highlights. Blake Ritson's Edmund proves to be swoon-worthy in some key (romantic) scenes from the book. The 'thunderbolt' scene (you will know what I mean when you see it) up until the end is certainly worth seeing. Jemma Redgrave's Lady Bertram also does some scene stealing of her own.
  
  Most of the cast are perfect for their roles. Blake Ritson is quite dashing (in a solemn, Byronic way) and handsome as Edmund Bertram and Joe Beattie makes for a charming and attractive Henry Crawford. Jemma Redgrave, Douglas Hodge (Sir Thomas Bertram), Hayley Atwell (Mary Crawford), Michelle Ryan (Maria Bertram) and others are well cast. Hayley Atwell shines as the scheming, manipulative and lovely Mary Crawford. Jemma Redgrave's portrayal of Lady Bertram is a change from the book, but I actually liked it. She gave an otherwise bland character added dimension and some warmth. Douglas Hodge (a veteran of British period dramas) is excellent as always.
  
  All in all, this version has a bumpy beginning but a much improved second act, overall good casting, mediocre screenplay and what appears to be a relatively low budget (all of the scenes were filmed in one location - yes, no kidding). If you want a more faithful adaptation of Mansfield Park, look to the 1980s version starring Sylvestra Le Touzel and Nicholas Farrell (who, incidently, play Mrs. Allen and Mr. Musgrove in the new versions of "Northanger Abbey" and "Persuasion", respectively).
  
  Of the 3 recent Austen tv adaptations, this is my least favorite. For my choices in the recent Masterpiece Theater dramas, my vote goes to "Northanger Abbey" with "Persuasion" a distant second. I have yet to see the new version of "Sense & Sensibility" so I will reserve judgement until then. This "Mansfield Park" is certainly worth a viewing, just make sure to keep your expectations in check.
  
  

• A decent adaptation of Mansfield Park

  
  By A2L6QS8SVHT9RG on 2008-01-09
  Of the three iTV 90-minute films done this year, Mansfield Park is my least favorite:
  Persuasion and Northanger Abbey were just much better done (even with their faults & foibles). As always, there is not a great adaptation of Mansfield Park available: the 80's version is fairly true to the book, but that Fanny is not my favorite in casting: the 90's version is too modernernized, and this one again, just ends up missing the mark. For one, the story is too much condensed, with so much being left out, that I was almost shocked, for one, to have met Mr Rushworth within the first 4 minutes of the film.
  
  The casting of Billie Piper worked out somewhat: she does a good job of being active of mind and body, but never quite gets the tone of humbleness and quiet servitude which should also accompany this, in the person of Fanny Price. Her blond hair hanging loose and wild (it's never up in a proper Regency hairdo) is far too unrealistic for me, to what would have been expected of a young Regency woman, poor dependent or not (I'm sorry, but her hair would have always been up or pulled back! EXCEPT maybe when she's in her own bedroom). Blake Ritson as Edmund is fine casting, as well as Hayley Atwell as Mary Crawford, Joseph Beattie as Henry Crawford, and Jemma Redgrave as Lady Betram. I found the whole story a bit rushed and stilted, and it seemed to be a whirlwind: if I, avid reader of Jane Austen, had trouble following the storyline, how much more so would someone who had not read the book?
  
  Content: there are some things to be aware of: some cleavage is shown, sexual innuendos, an engaged woman kisses a man who is not her fiancé, there is talk of a scandal where a married woman runs off with another man, a scene where a woman is washing her hair in a basin and a man comes in to talk with her, there is not much else: it is pretty tame.
  
  Although it was a bit of a disappointment, I can appreciate certain moments in the film, where the fine acting of some shines through, and with good costuming to eye and things along that line, it is an enjoyable way to wile away 90 minutes: not up to par they way that I would have hoped, but all in all, and enjoyable version of Mansfield Park until one better comes along.
  
  
  
  

• Under false colors

  
  By A1WJKM99W7HRKY on 2008-01-28
  This is not Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park"--it's another story altogether, from another place and time. The first, and establishing portion, of the novel has completely disappeared, the themes of the Austen book have vanished, the language is pure 21st century, and the characters, their bearing and their manners bear no resemblance to the originals--the actors just happen to be wearing Regency garb.
  
  I would have no objection to, and would in fact enjoy, watching a good melodrama decked out in 18th century costumes--just don't try to tell me that this is "Mansfield Park."
  
  

• Yikes, Ms. Austen, look what they've done to Fanny this time!

  
  By A35VI0H5AFHOJ5 on 2008-01-28
  The sheer unadulterated awfulness of this absolutely amazes me. Fanny Price as a flirty, pouty, bosoms almost falling out, bottle blonde with bed hair and an acting style straight out of "Tom Jones" pretty much ruins the whole thing singlehanded. The intended villainess, Mary Crawford, looks downright demure by comparison and a far more suitable match for a clergyman. Then there's the inconsistent uncle who starts out Simon Legree and ends up Father Knows Best. And the otherwise adequate and attractive actor playing Edmund who's given about 15 seconds of close-up across the family breakfast table to show, with just his face, the aha! moment when he realizes it's Fanny he loves after all. That scene alone may end up earning this movie a place in the so-bad-it's-funny pile. I don't think Jane Austen is turning in her grave; I think she's laughing herself silly at the ludicrousness of it all.
  
  

• A Must See Jane Austen Adaptation

  
  By ARV4ZFNASFQAM on 2007-12-01
  This version of Mansfield Park tarring Billie Piper is very well done is all aspects. Billie Piper does a great job as Fanny and brings to the role an innocence and charm that makes her instantly likeable and fun to watch. The way she handles the anger, saddness, and happiness in the role with such ease makes it a must see. Even though there are so many Jane Austen adaptations constantly coming out, this adaptation is one that is not to be missed.
  
  
• disappointing
  By A3ICVJQMZAGQV5 on 2008-01-28
  While Mansfield Park is not the most appealing of the Austen novels, it deserved a better effort than this latest version. Most fans of Austen have read the original books, so we understand much of the manners, custom and dress of the times, and have certain expectations. Other reviewers have pointed out the problems, and I agree with them. I also could not get past Fanny's appearance (which was more like a bar maid than even a servant) to have any empathy for the character. I did not understand the director's decision to dress everyone else in the piece for the period and not the main character. Keeping every scene in one spot and mostly in the same room might have been cost effective but hardly does justice to the richer world that Austen was so adept at portraying. Although I own most DVD versions of other Austen productions, I know I will not want to see this again. My recommendation is to watch it on PBS or rent it before you buy.
  
  
• Mansfield Park--An Unintentional Comedy of Errors
  By AMAOS41TZ1V89 on 2008-01-29
  As an Austen scholar, I was bracing myself for something that would take liberties with the novel, but it seems that the screenwriter must surely have read only the Cliff notes. Even then, the early part's first-person narrative made me wonder if s/he had picked up her abbreviated version of Jane Eyre instead. An estate called Mansfield Park is indeed involved, but that's about as close it gets.
  
  Even such a massive rewrite might have been tolerable with some accurate historical research, but there are SO many funny mistakes in the representation of both the characters and the period that it was hard to believe this production could appear on (the program once known as) Masterpiece Theatre.
  
  One could hardly determine which was longer and bounced more--Fanny's full and unbound hair or her full and nearly unbound cleavage, as the charity-case companion races shrieking and laughing through the estate. Nor should you look for the novel's complacent, drowsy, plump Lady Bertram (for whom so many have a secret affection); the beautiful but miscast Jemma Redgrave presents an elegant, intelligent mother with sharp insight.
  
  But there's worse. When Henry Crawford drags Maria behind the curtain and declares himself her lover as they grope and grab, I nearly gagged; and when Edmund sits next to a sprawling Fanny after the picnic (no ball) and tells her how lovely she looks, I did gag. Plus, Fanny's absolutely central visit to Portsmith is axed. I don't mind streamlining when the end product is smooth and historically and literarily accurate, but this production was jumpy and jumbled.
  
  When the whole thing finally closes with a WALTZ in 1810, it was I who was shrieking with laughter--eveyone knows that dance did not come out until 20 years later and THEN was considered very racy; certainly not something a reserved clergyman from the upper classes would have initiated at his rural Tory wedding. Good lord, who wrote this mess anyway, Barbara Cartland?
  
  Which is a real shame, because the marvelous actors and actresses (except for the lovely Miss Redgrave) looked right for their parts--and I'm sure we'll see them again in hopefully better material. But let's face it, folks; modern screenwriters are just too terrified of frail, gentle Fanny to bring her to us as Austen created her.
  
  
• Fairly accurate
  By A1XCQGIPNRHTTW on 2007-12-23
  This may not be the perfect adaptation fans have been waiting for, but for a low-budget production, it wasn't too bad. The casting was nearly perfect, though Billie Piper may not have been ideal for Fanny. She still did a decent job pulling off the role. Edmund, Mary, Mr. Bertram, and Mrs. Norris were all superb in this film! Mrs. Bertram was altered slightly from the book, but I thought it was for the better.
  
  SPOILERS BELOW!!
  Just like all low-budget productions, scenes and characters from the book were cut. Most I could accept, like not visiting the Price family. But I do wish they had kept the ball in. Instead they changed it to a picnic. Also they didn't have Henry Crawford leave before Maria was married, making the scene between her and Mr. Bertram (where Maria insists on marrying Mr. Rushworth despite the easy out her father is offering her) confusing and gives Maria a poorer character than in the book.
  
  Overall, this adaptation was decent. Certainly better than the terrible '97 movie.
  
  
• Horrible adaptation
  By ARYWYVFBYL0HU on 2008-01-29
  As an ardent Jane Austen fan, I shuddered with horror at this production. It bore little resemblance to the book. I can't begin to write about how wrong everything was, so I'll keep my comments to a few of the main characters.
  
  Instead of a shy, retiring, timid, somewhat delicate Fanny Price we get a robust serving wench of a girl - all bosoms and teeth with wildchild hair. The difference between Jane Austen's Fanny and her cousins is intended to compare a poor girl with uncompromising moral principles to a group of worldly, indolent young people who pursue pleasure unencumbered by such principles. (Even the steady, religious-minded Edmund goes off course; Fanny - never.)
  
  In this production, I saw a healthy, active girl who bounces about. She takes part in the play staged by the Bertram children and their friends the Crawfords and runs shrieking and grabbing people at a picnic. The Fanny in the book refuses to take part in the play, even when asked by her beloved cousin because it's against her morals. Somehow I can't imagine Ms. Austen intended her to be the life of the party at a picnic. Thus a most important theme in the book is lost.
  
  Aunt Bertram seemed to become a somewhat shrewd character instead of the woman who would plaintively ask others what she should think and who would placidly agree with stronger personalities. Lady Bertram is supposed to an example of egoistic indolence and sloth. In her, Jane Austen creates a satirical stereotype of manners and customs.
  
  Aunt Norris, that selfish busybody who's persecution of Fanny and blind adoration of Maria underscores her foolishness fades in importance. She should be characterized by meanness, officiousness and sycophancy towards the powerful, and bullying of anyone she perceives to be in her power - such as Fanny. She was a key character in Jane Austen's story.
  
  I won't go into all the scenes left out or changed in this production. And the very important themes lost - does Sir Thomas' business in the West Indies involve the slave trade? (Or the unique, rather bizarre ones added to it.) I guess this adaptation was an attempt to "modernize" the story by introducing an inordinate amount of sexual tension and removing the wit and sting of Jane Austen's writing.
  
  If you are a serious Jane Austen fan, don't watch this. It's truly awful, a powerful example of how wrong things can go when you take a classic and remove its soul.
  
  
• Another disappointment
  By A37NZRR8XDA79P on 2008-01-29
  There has yet to be a successful adaptation of Mansfield Park. I was hoping PBS, of all people, would produce something akin to tolerable for Austen fans, but this is yet another disappointment. I agree with the other reviewers that the first half was very choppy. I think the adapters were trying to rush through elements of the story that they feel are problematic - primarily the play business, which is even confusing in the novel if you're unaware of social context.
  
  But why can't anyone do justice to poor Fanny Price? Even many fans dislike her as a character but she is one of my favorites. I find this version's Fanny very strange, she spends most of her time chasing small children and dogs, much to the puzzlement of all and seems to have some hair styling issues. Jane's Fanny is a waif who never moves faster than a slow crawl, unless atop a horse and then I'm sure never faster than a trot. She's described as unattractive and forgettable, a perpetual martyr, and definitely something less than a true part of the Bertram family. She's painfully shy and terrified of Mr. Betram, though she does love him as a father.
  
  And lastly, I find the portrayal of Mrs. Bertram utterly laughable! To imply that she's so observant and attached so dearly to Fanny is ridiculous. The novel's Mrs. Betram is a dreadfully lazy moron who spends all her time getting Fanny to do her needlework for her (especially the difficult bits) and sleeping. She treats Fanny as a servant and gives her a cold unheated bedroom to live in. She evens tries to pawn her off on Aunt Norris (though Norris treats Fanny even worse than the Betrams and luckily Fanny's spared this fate).
  
  The simple truth is that most film adapters are afraid the public won't like Fanny Price and maybe they're right. Everyone always says Jane Austen endures because her characters are relatable, even a hundred years later, but maybe Mansfield Park can't make the transition. Unfortunately, most filmmakers have been too afraid to even try.
  
  
• "A Comedy About Ordination"
  By A2IG2FG7L85RMU on 2008-01-27
  All of the novels in the new BBC series so far have been altered, jumbled, and severely cut to fit within the confines of approximately 90 minutes of screen time. "Mansfield Park" suffers further from oddities in casting: Billie Piper, though plain enough and believably pious, is far too lively a character for Fannie, and Blake Ritson is much too handsome for Edmund. One of Jane Austen's consistent points is that her heroes and heroines are not strikingly handsome, but only near it and, as is psychologically sound, become better looking as their characters are revealed to their potential suitors. Ritson would have better fitted Austen's vision if he'd been cast as Henry Crawford. Beautiful, but depraved Mary Crawford, on the other hand, is perfectly cast.
  
  Apart from the weak points just mentioned, I think "Mansfield Park" the best of the series so far. It's the truest to Jane Austen's vision. Thus we have retained here the corruption of the witty, attractive, big city young people set against the relative paleness of the conventional country dwellers, Fanny and Edmund, who've internalized the values that represent the best of the Mansfield life. Never simple in confounding virtue with mere geography, Austen as well as her adapters here shows the parental failure of Mansfield's Sir Thomas in having overseen only his daughter's manners, not their moral education. Corruption can bloom then in the countryside as well as in the big city.
  
  The novel "Mansfield Park," which is the favorite of high-Janeites, turns on the conflict between cleverness and goodness. In most of Jane Austen, a combination of both qualities in the main characters is the ideal. Think Elizabeth Bennett or Elinor Dashwood. Here, though, push comes to shove, and the author's judgment is that in a conflict comparatively dull goodness is vastly preferable to witty heartlessness. Happily, the TV adaptation has had the courage to remain true to the author's values.
  
  
• For pure enjoyment's sake,the 2008 MANSFIELD is the most enjoyable
  By ATXL536YX71TR on 2008-02-02
  Okay,let's get this out of the way first.I have read the Jane Austen novel and I have seen all three totally "Unacceptable" screen adaptations to the hard core "Janeites." Here, we examine THIS particular screenplay adaptation as just that-an adaptation for the screen, to give us a sense of the daunting and arguably not best written Austen plot,that is the most pallette-able to view in 90 minutes.
  
  That said,only the 1983 BBC 4 -hour miniseries fairly adheres to the novel.But,it is by no means perfect.The 1998 version is smart,witty and quite a good time, but characters are changed too much for the "purists." (I LOVED IT!)So....why has Masterpiece Theater adapted this story a third time and what are it's merits and pitfalls?
  
  The basics are the same: Fanny Price is taken at the age of ten from her family to be a ward of her wealthier relations, The Bertrams.She grows up , always reminded that she is there,but is of humbler origins. She has a kindred spirit in her cousin Edmund who, along with Fanny,grow into adulthood together,but seemingly torn apart by obligations and class structure.They will break those bonds and marriage will be theirs, as well as eternal bliss.This IS Jane Austen!
  
  This adaptation cuts to the quick of Austen's laborious novel-the relationship and eventual betrothal of Fanny to Edmund.Many of the subplots,such as Fanny going back to visit her family are omitted as well as certain characters are paired down considerably to keep focus on Fanny and Edmund... and THERE IS THE WORD-FOCUS.Billy Piper Doctor Who - The Complete First and Second Series (11pc) as Fanny is adequate in the role (not a good hair-dye-job!) and shows a certain free spirit so lacking in the 1983 version; BUT it is actor Blake Ritson from The Inspector Lynley Mysteries: Set 5 who IMO is the finest of all of the Edmund Bertram's yet.When he has the epiphany that Fanny is the girl for him, he lights up the screen with his big eyes and infectious smile, and all of the Empire corseted feelings of past productions are forever bound up and stayed in a upper room chiffarobe! It is Ritson's performance as Edmund that makes this adaptation so immensely viewable. Much of this production is brought out of doors (even the wedding) allowing the dusty drawing room book readings and card parties to be left indoors, and the joy and fun that is in Austen's book is given fresh country air and lots of sunlight in order to let Fanny and Edmund's love blossom.This is where THIS adaptation soars!The costumes are totally and correctly period proper.
  You may grumble about Aunt Norris' role being trimmed,or Mrs.Bertram's savvy almost feminist wiles, but for love in bloom,GO FOR IT! This is a film...not the book...and it is excellent!
  Hayley Atwell,currently seen in Woody Allen's Cassandra's Dream who plays Miss Crawford is also OUTSTANDING and is every bit worth the viewing time.She plays a more cunning Crawford.
  
  
• Not Mansfield Park, but enjoyable!
  By A51NFDCYRNRSH on 2008-03-11
  The first time I watched this dvd I had just finished rereading Mansfield Park and I was very disappointed in the production. The first couple of minutes take you well into the book with almost dizzying speed. I have never been a big fan of Fanny and she ties Emma as one of my least favorite Jane Austen characters as she is a sickly, righteous young lady whose sole distinction is her goodness. After allowing some time to pass between the rereading and then re-watching I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the Mansfield Park, such as it is, which is to say, in many ways, it is not. Lady Bertram, as portrayed by Jane Austen, can barely summon the strength to breathe, let alone share an insightful thought, but in this MS she is perceptive. Mrs. Norris, her sister, is robbed of all her malevolent, insipid and ultimately destructive nature and is quite passive. Her behavior in the book results in grave character flaws in Maria and Julia. Fanny as portrayed by Billie Piper is an enjoyable character,and, unlike the Fanny in the book one can understand why Mr. Crawford and Edmund fall in love with her. This is a entertaining dvd as long as you are not expecting a retelling of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park.
  
  
• Just plain awful
  By A3GWM1FHA3EQPM on 2008-01-28
  To be honest I haven't cared for any of the adaptations that I've seen of Mansfield Park. This one stands alone in sheer awfulness though. Billie Piper was a bad miscast, and while the acting in general was good, the screenplay badly lets Jane and the viewer down with some very stupid alterations to the story. To save time, a lot of the action takes place off screen and then the characters discuss it. The characters were altered, some beyond recognition. The Aunt Norris character was the most egregious example of this. Instead of being a greedy, selfish, ill-natured, hateful bitch, she's comes off as more bored than boorish, and seems more lazy and vague than Aunt Bertram, who actually seems to have an attention span and some saving graces in this adaptation. Nothing ever seems to be explained, and if viewers were not familiar with the original novel, they would be totally confused with this mess. The costumes seemed off, for the women, although the men's were generally good. I so wanted to like this one, because I tossed out the one with Ms Le TOuzel, which I found meandering and coma-inducing. I also found her performance screechy and juvenile. The Frances O'Connor version was my least favorite until this one. Not any more! That one actually looks almost acceptable compared to this steaming, craptacular pile of inept mediocrity. If you haven't seen this yet, don't bother. You won't have missed anything but a good case of irritation. I found Ms. Piper underwhelming at best, and as another reviewer noted, her blonde hair and black brows were discordant, as was her unbound, messy hair. She looked more like a blowsy serving wench than the cousin and niece of a great family. Mansfield Park was never my favorite Austen, and with adaptations like this, it won't change any time soon. I really looked forward to seeing this, and now I'm afraid to watch the Masterpiece series again, because of what atrocity they will foist on us the next time.
  
  
• Why Mansfield Park will never work...
  By A1D49LCZ0WGRSV on 2008-01-31
  The beauty of Mansfield Park the novel is that Fanny is the perfect narrator - discounted by all as a 'no body', she is perfectly situated to observe and report all the events occuring around her.
  
  A movie based on someone who is a 'no body', who nothing really happens to other than some mild bullying and a lame attempt at a seduction will never work. It's my opinion that Mansfield Park as a film would only work if the character of Fanny is either "sexed up", melded with attributes of other Austen characters, or dispensed of entirely. Which of course, would not please Austen fans.
  
  So, please do not waste your time or money by purchasing this film - you would be better off by reading the actual novel, and then watching "Pride and Prejudice" or Emma Thompson's "Sense and Sensibility".
  
  P.S. Not to mention, Billie Piper's overbite is extremely distracting.
  
  
• Disappointing
  By A2A4C0IRW8OMIK on 2008-01-31
  This production suffers from being too short to fully develop the story and from poor decisons in casting and directing. Fanny is presented as a disheveled hoyden of no particular charm while Mrs. Norris is too pretty and too passive. Miss Austen would not recognize either as the women about whom she wrote. I had hoped for much better from BBC; Austen fans are still left without a top-notch film version of this book.
  
  
• Intrigue on a Jane Austen scale...
  By A2TXR85WQLE32N on 2008-01-28
  "Mansfield Park" has the familiar elements of a Jane Austen story: a disadvantaged heroine waiting for true love, competition for marriage and money, Regency-era social customs, and a nicely furnished set at Mansfield Park. This particular version features some intense intrigue, a sometimes bumpy plotline, and a nice ending.
  
  Fanny Price (Billie Piper) is sent to live with her wealthier relatives at Mansfield Park, home of Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram and their four children. Fanny grows up there as the poor relation, treated as something of a servant and expected to be grateful. Her one friend in the household is her cousin Edmund Bertram (Blake Ritson).
  
  As the story proper gets underway, the rhythm of the household is upset by two events, the departure of Sir Thomas to tend to family properties in Antigua and the arrival of Henry and Mary Crawford. Henry and Mary are accomplished schemers who plan to marry the most eligible of the Bertram clan and get their cut of the family fortune. The absence of Sir Thomas leaves the young adults to run wild under the dubious influence of the Crawford siblings. Henry wooes the already engaged eldest daughter, while Mary flashes her considerable charms at Edmund Bertram.
  
  Fanny suffers in silence as her Edmund is distracted by Mary. Her life is further complicated when Henry makes an unwelcome (and we suspect an insincere) proposal of marriage that she is pressured by Sir Thomas to accept. Fortunately, Fanny keeps her head, and with the timely assistance of Lady Bertram (Jemma Redgrave), her patience is ultimately rewarded. In a couple of absolutely priceless scenes, Edmund first decisively rejects Mary and then comes to understand his real feelings for Fanny.
  
  The storyline proceeds in rather choppy time jumps. Some of the minor characters come and go with minimal preamble or explanation. The short length of the movie curtails much of the subtle character development in the original novel. For example, it isn't entirely clear why Fanny, the neglected poor relation, suddenly becomes the rock of the family late in the story. These minor faults aside, this movie is recommended to fans of Jane Austen and of Masterpiece Theater as an entertaining period drama.
  
  
  
• They Should Have Read the Book...
  By A21BXWUZ39LGX2 on 2008-01-30
  If the directors had actually read the book and not just copied word for word the script of the other movie - it might have been a good and different adaption. The acting in this movie was also very poor. I would stick with the 1900s version.
  
  
• Let's hear from a "Dude's" perspective!
  By A3RWR50VUII07D on 2008-02-02
  Masterpiece Theatre is doing an outstanding job at making Jane Austen's novels more interesting,intriguing and edited down.As a guy, I am enjoying these new versions of Austen's works.Along with Emma Thompson's screen adaptation for Sense & Sensibility (Special Edition),Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice and DougEmma (1996) McGrath's , I relish these new freely adapted versions of Miss Jane's works.As films and as engaging screenplays, these bring Austen's works to a whole new generation of those who do not necessarily care to read the books or be pinhooked into a certain view of history.The latest adaptation to be aired is 'Mansfield Park', and with a hip young cast of talented Brits, Austen's story is edited down graciously without missing the central intent of the novel.
  This,in my opinion, is a "smart" screenplay, because there is no lag time.Screenplay overseer Andrew Davies (not the actual writer) wastes no time in showing our Fanny Price romping in the field with her cousin Edmund at age ten and then dissolving into eight years later still romping and very much attached kindly to one another.We bypass a lot of the early years to show that Fanny and Edmund are the focal point here.We don't get lost in subplots and sub subplots and non essential characters in order to understand that Austen's intent is to show that love overcomes all obstacles.Neither character suffers in the translation.Other characters are simply written out.That happens sometimes.Here, it works with no apology.We have a sleek 90 minute script,with all the fat cut out, and all of the choice prime left for consumption. No true purist in anything can ever be totally pleased; this is why adaptations you either love'em or hate'em!This 'Mansfield Park' is a love 'em. Blake Ritson and Billie Piper smoke up the screen just like Matthew MacFadyan and Keira Knightly did in Pride & Prejudice.The hair is let down, the snaps are unbuckled and Jane Austen breathes her way into the 21st Century!
  Respectfully submitted from a sensitive "dude's" perspective.
  
  
• The 1999 version is better!
  By A2608DU7SPUDRM on 2008-02-22
  Warning: Do not let this movie be your first introduction to Jane Austen or Mansfield Park as there are too many deleted scenes from the novel for it to make sense. The huge turning point for Fannie Price is when she is returned to her parents after refusing Henry Crawford so that she might be reminded of the comfortable life she has grown accustomed to at Mansfield Park. And yet in this film, they never even leave MP! We never see Maria in any opulence that the Rushforth fortune would have brought to her -- that would have clearly shown what she forfeited for the rake, Crawford. And Fanny's hair is always down and messy, not very realistic for a period piece. Lady Bertram has been relegated to background as is the condescending, manipulative Mrs. Norris that everyone loves to hate! The scene with Edmund and Miss Crawford when she tells him of her strategy for over-coming the tragedy and scandal of their siblings' affair, was lacking in dramatic tension. As was the entire film. The 1999 version, is so much more enjoyable! (Although I now own this DVD, I doubt it will be watched again. I am disappointed to admit, it will simply fill a space in my collection.)
  
  
• Disappointing
  By A20U79CRB1GJFA on 2008-01-29
  I had high hope for this series and particularly this installment as I so love the book. Thusfar each of the first three episodes suffer from the impossibility of condensing a rich period novel into 90 minutes. There is no real chemistry between Edmund and Fanny--- and since there is so little time for any real character development that is crucial to making this piece work.
  
  The concept behind the series--- creating collection of Jane Austen films-- was wonderful. But why not full blown, authentic, quality productions instead of 90 minute tv movies?
  
  
• Sad, really
  By ACL6RWZ49DDI7 on 2008-01-30
  An apparent escapee from Fielding's Tom Jones, this blowsy and unconvincing Fanny Price was a constant source of distraction - or was it just annoyance? Whether it was her disheveled dress, [serving wench attire only, please] her raggedy hair [blonds have more fun? unkempt blonds with black brows have the funnest?] or her tom-boy behavior [tsk tsk - will our darling Fanny never grow up?] she was out of place and so shattered the other wise charming period piece [not at all true to the book, but why would we expect that?]- to pieces.
  
  It seems that Jane has been forced to sit thru yet another meeting of the powers that be where it was patiently explained to her [again] that sex sells and really, Jane, people just don't act that way! They won't pick up the option if we don't modernize! Surely you want to make a career out of this? Well then....
  
  
• What's wrong with what JA wrote???
  By A2PA9Z59CHTF0E on 2008-02-08
  Without knowing the book this might pass as a moderately enjoyable film. Yet overall, the movie doesn't "flow well," it feels like the scenes have been "cut and pasted" together without creating a smooth storyline. I wonder whether it makes sense to people unfamiliar with the book? - Most regrettably the script makes little use of the original dialogue, it would have made the characters much more believable if they had. With all it's shortcomings, I would choose the version with Sylvestra Le Touzel as Fanny Price over this one any time.
  
  
• Simply dreadful - what a disappointment!
  By A4GMSYCJTYOL7 on 2008-04-28
  I'm having trouble deciding which of the four new Austen adaptations is the worst, Mansfield Park or Persuasion. After some consideration, I've decided this one wins the prize. The basic story is that a humble, meek poor relation comes to live with a grand family, an act of charity they intend will "improve" her. In the end, she improves them. Fanny is the one with steadfast moral character and the strength around which the family gathers in time of crisis. This version ended up as a kind of Harlequin romance in historic costume, with Fanny alternating between child-like romping and sexy, smoldering looks of burning passion. When will movie makers get it that there is something going on in Austen's work besides a romance?
  
  The only successful adaptation I've seen is the Sylvestra Le Touzel version from twenty-odd years ago. It is sadly dated now and looks like a stage play on film, so it could stand to be updated. I'm sadly beginning to think this will never be done well.
  
  
• Disappointed
  By AFWKG0FZRJQB9 on 2008-02-29
  I loved the 1999 film version and enjoyed Billie Piper on Doctor Who. I missed this version on PBS, so I ordered the DVD. If I had seen it on PBS, I would have never ordered the DVD. It felt like I was watching the cliffnotes version of the Mansfield. The acting was stilted. The production value was poor. The only bright spots were Blake Ritson as Edmund and Hayley Atwell as Mary Crawford.
  
  
• What happened to Fanny
  By A2F2DT9Z9LEXJ7 on 2008-03-02
  I have to agree with the other reviewers that question what were they thinking not putting up Fanny's hair! I realize to some this might be a minor point but one the most important themes in Mansfield Park is Fanny transition from Girl to Woman. We don't get to see this transformation of Fanny on film; she never puts her hair up and becomes a young lady. It is the other character's realization that Fanny is no longer a child that causes the plot to twist. Why does Mr. Crawford fall in love with Fanny in this version? Why does Edmond have a change of heart? Fanny's hair is a visual symbol of her maturing. On a side note it would have made the scene where Edmund walks in while she is washing her hair at the end more powerful. As he is seeing her as only a husband would see his wife- hair down.
  
  Jane Austen did not write screen plays and most viewers are savvy enough to realize that a 90 minute production can not include all the sub-plots; scene changes that we find in the book. All can be forgiven if the main characters stay true to the original in spirit. This script did not capture the spirit of Fanny from the book. She was not there to glue everything together, which made the scenes seem choppy, stuck together and fans left to wonder if they had never read the book would they have understood what happened.
  
  To end on a high note:
  The casting was excellent. The actor did a terrific job with what they were given. I probably would have highly enjoyed this production, if I didn't think I was watching an adaptation of Mansfield Park.
  
  
  
  
• Agree with "Could Have Been Better."
  By A35LO1UDP26XC9 on 2008-01-29
  Don't waste your money on this version. The story line moves too fast and as a result leaves a feeling of emptiness and incompleteness in regards to the characters and storyline. Jane Austen is as to classic romance as J.R.R. Tolkien was to fantasy. And her novels deserve films that reflect that.
  As a Jane Austen fan (I have all of the movie versions of her stories, including 5 versions of Pride and Prejudice), I wish someone would do this book some justice in the style Jane would have approved. A moving and sweeping romantic modern production without any vulgarity of today's films. (i.e., I cite Kiera Knightly's version of Pride and Prejudice).
  
  
• Passion, not purity, is the key
  By A24YD2K0V6OGBF on 2008-02-03
  Though I dearly love Austen's Mansfield Park and could agree that much of what she wrote is missing in this adaptation, I nevertheless can appreciate that what we are given is still a delightful costume drama. Strip Austen of layers, if you must, but her genius is so forgiving that a worthwhile (i.e., passionate) story still exists. Couple that with the dexterous acting of Blake Ritson, Billie Piper and cast, and you have an enjoyable movie that brings the past to life in vivid colour. The beginning is a bit awkwardly done, and if you stand on the letter of the law, so to speak, you will find fault (as many have, see more reviews) but if you can view the film for what it does offer, there is much to be enjoyed. (Other than Piper's hair; pretty, but shockingly improper for a regency miss!) And Hayley Atwell does a tantalizing Mary Crawford though her forwardness in the film would have forewarned the devout Edmund long before the scriptwriters allowed him to catch on to her true nature here. Her facial mannerisms are so well-done that she comes across rather likeable, despite her faults. Poor Fannie is good, to be sure, but more child-like than Austen intended, and her good choices seem to come more from a strong childish passion rather than sense or strong wits. Nevertheless, you will be drawn in and swept along to a strong ending that is great fun. (And I do love fun--or I wouldn't be a regency romance author, would I?)
  
  
• Disappointment
  By A2RR4S9Z28BY5C on 2008-02-05
  I was so excited when I found out that newer versions of all my Jane Austen favorites were in works, I automatically pre ordered all, thinking it's Austen, how could you go wrong. I was therefore pretty disappointed when I watched "Mansfield Park" master piece theater the first time...Here a short list of the major aspects (there is unfortunately more) that made me dislike this version;
  
  The actress cast as Fanny Price (Billie Piper) while is not bad expressing Fanny's demure personality, she seems physically all wrong. Her hair, looks stringy, color is really brassy (VERY FAKE LOOKING) and as other readers have mentioned not historically correct! Why is it always down? And for the most part looks like it hasn't been brushed! Also the dark eyebrows and hint of mascara were really distracting! She shows a bit too much cleavage for Fanny which might be plausible ONLY for her "special picnic"
  
  The character of Henry Crawford is really unlikable, there is not one moment in the film where you wonder, is he misjudged? Is he really a changed man? That is one of the most entertaining parts of the story, is just when you start to believe that Henry Crawford might be a changed man, you discovered that you are being fooled! This was missing in the movie, maybe because they have not devoted to much time showing Crawford trying to win Fanny's affection.. The older version staring Frances O Connor developed the relationship between Fanny & Crawford thoroughly.
  
  You don't get to see just how poor Fanny's parents are in comparison to the Bertram's (it is mentioned only), thus it is more difficult to establish why Fanny feels like such an outsider at Mansfield Park.
  
  Mrs. Norris is not as comical as she is in the book nor the other older movie version of Mansfield Park...
  
  There was one thing that I did enjoy in this Mansfield Park, which the version staring Frances O Connor was missing....The close relationship of Fanny's and her brother William, as this character is totally missing from the older movie version.
  
  I give it 2 stars for the nice costumes, set decorations and beautiful location.
  
  
  
  
• This is very very badly done............
  By A1BDQHMRVG2UXJ on 2008-02-06
  I cannot beleive that this was made by Masterpice Theater,(who in my opion Love, and they have not dissapointment till now). Its a disgrace to Jane Austen and Fans everywhere as was the 1999 version, where do these people get thinking they can change a perfectly good story? I have read the book three times and dont understand why they must make a movie in "fast forward" mode. And another thing that just gets my goat is Fanny's Uncle is made to be a most horrible man , when in truth was a wonderful Uncle and Fanny was one of his favorites, He loved and repected her more than he did his wife and daughters, come on people get a clue and dont mess with good if you cant make it better or follow with what a billian Author made. I'm so sorry to make this so harsh but I just got it in today and cannot beleive i spent money on it.
  
  

• Masterpiece Theatre: Northanger Abbey
• Persuasion
• Sense & Sensibility (with Miss Austen Regrets) (BBC TV 2008)
• Emma (A&E, 1997)
• Sense & Sensibility Collector's Set (Sense & Sensibility 2008 / Miss Austen Regrets / Persuasion 2007)