Online magazine: Media Reviews Film Reviews

Mansfield Park: 1999

Based on Jane Austen’s novel, Mansfield Park, her letters and early journals.

Such is the credit line given at the beginning of Miramax’s 1999 Austen release, Mansfield Park. From the start, the viewer is made aware that this will not be just another "costume thingy". Canadian writer/director Patricia Rozema (I’ve Heard the Mermaids Singing) stated that she wanted this to be quasi biographical of Austen herself, an element she felt was missing from other versions and one that needed to be explored. She has developed a character, not that of the Fanny Price in the book, nor of Jane Austen herself, but one which Elsa Solender, then-President of JASNA called "Fanny-Jane". She has pulled her text from Austen’s various novels, juvenilia, and letters, adding in a goodly dose of her own theories and personality. There were no "early journals" as such, no diaries or hidden manuscripts- just the Juvenilia.

The film starts with Fanny, before leaving home, telling her sister Susan a story, thus setting the stage for all the interweaving of the Juvenilia to come. Fanny, you see, is a aspiring authoress. From the very beginning, we are introduced to the concept of slavery in Austen’s time, a subject that was briefly passed over in the book. In this film, it becomes the main theme. African slaves, slaves to fashion, slaves to society, bondage. And freedom. Is that not what everyone longs for? Tom is disenchanted with slavery in Antigua, Maria soon becomes tired of the bonds of marriage. Fanny longs for the freedom to love whom she chooses and be loved in return. Both the novel and the film quote from Laurence Stern’s A Sentimental Journey: "I cannot get out... the starling said."

Perhaps this is what Austen intended us to see. There is some speculation that she took the title from the famous "Mansfield Judgement" which, in 1772, outlawed slavery in London.

In adapting the novel for film, Rozema wanted to avoid the stereotypical drama, such as we saw in the previous version of the film. She attempted to update the dialogue, and even the clothing and furnishing! Her practice was to write the scenes as contemporary pieces- and then "basically translate them into the past. Translate them into the language of the past.....translate them into the social customs of the regency period. That way, if I knew that it worked on the contemporary scene on sort of a basic, universal, human level--if the scene worked for now, then it would work for then."

For all the criticism heaped on it, (and there was a lot!) none, I think rested on the actors. Rozema chose very wisely in her culturally diverse cast, France O’Conner (Fanny ) hailed from Australia, Alessandro Nivola (Love’s Labours Lost) and Embeth Davidz (Schindler's List) were the Americans, playing Henry and Mary Crawford...just a coincidence, perhaps? The rest of the mostly British cast included Austen veteran Victoria Hamilton (Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion) as Maria, Johnny Lee Miller (who had previously played Fanny Price’s brother in the BBC Mansfield Park) as Edmund, Justine Waddell (Tess of the D’Urbervilles, Great Expectations) as Julia, Sophie Myles (Oliver Twist) as Susan Price, Hugh Bonneville (who starred opposite France O’Connor in Madame Bovary) as Mr. Rushworth, and noted actor and playwright Harold Pinter as a "glowering, deep voiced" Sir Thomas. Perhaps one of the greatest casting achievements was getting Lindsay Duncan (An Ideal Husband) to play the sisters, the haggard Mrs. Price (along with her real-life husband, Hilton McRea, as the gruff Mr. Price) and the opium addicted Lady Bertram. She gives, without a doubt, one of the best performances in the film. One other cameo appearance is made by Patricia Rozema’s daughter, in the role of the youngest Price child.

We are quite used, by now, for Shakespearean films to receive PG-13 and even R ratings....that is natural, due to their content....but a Jane Austen film? There must be some mistake! Alas, in her efforts to"modernize" the story line and make it appeal to the general populace Rozema invented scenes to add to the sensual atmosphere of the film. Mary admiring Fanny’s figure, Henry actually embracing (is he stalking her?)- and kissing- Fanny- not that she seems to mind, Tom’s sketchbook, Henry and Maria’s dalliance, Edmund’s barely contained emotions....surely these were not necessary to the plot development. There have also been unexplained deleted scenes: Henry’s deciding to make Fanny love him (None of these heartfelt sensations. Instead Austen writes,’You ought to be satisfied with her two cousins.’ ‘But I cannot be satisfied without Fanny Price, without making a small hole in Fanny Price's heart.’- not so much a Romeo as a cad!), the significance of the necklaces, William Price. Perhaps the most controversial scene, though, was Fanny’s acceptance of Crawford’s proposal. Rozema claims that this was true to Jane Austen’s own brief engagement to Harris Bigg-Wither which occurred in 1802. Seeing as Mansfield Park was printed in 1814 and Fanny’s one characteristic and claim to fame is her steadfastness to the right and her high principles. It is highly improbable that Jane Austen would have considered letting her ever accept him. She would know, too well, the fate of that choice. Fanny, though relenting towards the end, was spared the agony of a morally unequal marriage-or even the shame of engagement to such a man- by Henry Crawford’s own lack of principle. Jane, herself, knew there were far worse things than singleness. A mercenary marriage is one of them.

That is not, of course, to imply that this film does not have many great scenes and memorable lines (and no- Henry Crawford isn’t really wearing a wig...). It is interesting to see just how Rozema weaves together a tapestry of dialogue from her various sources. Take this one scene for example, where Fanny rides off into the rain:

Edmund: Fanny don’t be foolish- it is raining! [Patraica Rozema]
Fanny: I see more distinctly through the rain [Letters of Jane Austen]
Edmund: It’s just a silly ball [PR]
Fanny: I will not be sold off like one of your father’s slaves, Edmund. [PR]
Edmund: Aw, don't be an imbecile. [PR]
Fanny: Oh, but imbecility in women is a great enhancement to their personal charms . [Northanger Abbey]
Edmund: Fanny, you're being irrational. [PR]
Fanny: Yet another adornment. I must be ravishing. [PR]
Edmund: Fanny....You must really begin to harden yourself to the idea of being worth looking at... [Mansfield Park]

There is only one actual Mansfield Park line in the whole thing, though much of it is Austen!

The final scenes, in particular are a triumph of wit, understatedness and timing. As well as featuring Patricia Rozema’s favorite camera angle...that from a helicopter. Everyone who ever wondered how Edmund got around to proposing will be satisfied. Everyone who wondered how Henry was served later in life, will delight in the genius of his reward. And as for Sir Thomas? Well, let’s just say, he doesn’t totally reform.

Lines may not be given to the correct character, scenes may be translated to other locations and acted out rather than implied...visitations and speeches that never occurred in the book take place. Looking at it from a non-Austen point of view, though, it is an entertaining and well filmed movie. As Jane Austen, well, that is a different story. There are some who feel that there are two categories of Austen films: Based on the Novel by Jane Austen, and With Apologies to Jane Austen. Perhaps this film should fall into the latter category.

When it comes down to it,Miramax has their advertising all wrong. "For everyone who loved Emma and Sense and Sensibility, comes the comedy [?] that Jane Austen loved best." "An uncommonly intelligent film...the best adaptation of a Jane Austen novel", says noted film Critic Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times. Even the title of the film is wrong: "Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park"'. No...I wouldn’t call this one the best adaptation of an Austen novel- if an Austen at all! Perhaps the Australian critic said it best when he wrote, "Slave Trader? Sexual secrets? If this doesn’t sound like Jane Austen, it’s because it isn’t. The open-minded moviegoer will have a hard time resisting Rozema’s stylish, stirring movie. It’s impure Austen, but potent movie making." In the end, one wonders what Jane Austen would have had to say about such treatment of one of her "own darling child[ren]", but, with a few exceptions, it is, as a classy, well-made film. The story line still works. Fanny and Edmund still love each other. We still cheer for them and are at the last rewarded with a happy ending.

And what of the doves released in "Portsmouth"? They were to be Starlings, but Starlings are, unfortunatley, nervous birds and if they had been placed in the basket, the stress, along with the noise of the fire crackers would have resulted in a basket of dead song birds instead of a glorious picture of freedom and release. As it was, they used 350 homing pigeons...which failed to return home! They ended up "in the rigging of sailing ships used in the film and creating a hazard for the cast. Several of the birds have already met an untimely end on roads ... while others have simply disappeared. The mass release [ was] investigated by the RSPCA after complaints from residents that the pigeons were being attacked by seagulls."

Mansfield Park was filmed on location in Portsmouth, Kirby Hall doubled for Mansfield Park. The film, which runs 112 mins., is available on Video and DVD. The DVD version features a "Making of" featurette, language selection (French), and a Director’s voice-over option. The soundtrack is available from RCA Victor, and Rozema’s screenplay can be found in bookstores.

Laura Sauer is a collector of Jane Austen Films and film memorabilia. She also runs Austentation, a company that specializes in custom made Regency Accessories, as well as the The Mansfield Park Gallery.
More information on the film can be found at www.mansfieldpark.com