I've watched this adaptation many, many times over the years, and I'm extremely fond of it. I like Sylvestra le Touzel as Fanny, but I like unusual casting choices. And I think their representation of Fanny as completely trapped by her circumstances and imposed propriety, yet managing to maintain her integrity in the face of immense pressure to do otherwise, is not only faithful to the book, but to the culture and society of Austen's day.
I agree with the poster who mentioned the problem with, as I refer to it, "80's BBC." But once you get used to it, you can enjoy the characters and not be quite so distracted by the sound quality and sometimes awkward flow.
Speaking of sound quality, if you a not a native English speaker, I'd recommend using captioning if it's available on the disc, because the sound quality can make it difficult at times for even English speakers to fully understand what was just said.
I do recommend this adaptation. Watch it more than once, and I think the next time around you'll find yourself more immersed in the people and plotlines without the distraction of "80's BBC!"
reply
share
randommovies2002
17 years ago
I think Sylvestra's performance is uneven. Much of the time she is very good at Fanny, but some scenes are poorly done.
Having now seen her in several other productions (Northanger Abbey, Vanity Fair, Amazing Grace) I know that she is a much better actress than what comes out in some of her scenes in Mansfield Park. I think we should blame directing and editing for most of the problems (and low budgets). They should have taken a few more takes, and then edited it better.
reply
share
kerprice
17 years ago
Okay, I'm just starting to watch this version. I've read the book last week (books on tape, actually), I saw the dreadful BBC '07 version, and I vaguely recollect the also not-so-good 1999 version.
Having already seen the 1980s versions of P&P and Emma, the cheap sets and the cinematography don't bother me as much as others. However, I'm 10 minutes into the movie and both Tom and Edmund have long hair!! Is this "historically" correct for that time?
reply
share
Julie-30
17 years ago
Don't use the 1970s/1980s adaptations as guides to what was appropriate during the Regency. For the most part, they're not. Just enjoy the dialogue and the acting.
reply
share
alessia78
12 years ago
joining a very old conversation here! maybe someone is still reading :-)
I've just finished watching this version of Mansfield Park and really enjoyed it. As has been said already, it feels a little staged like all other old BBC adaptations but IMO it isn't as bad as Sense and Sensibility (1981) and you get used to it after the first 30 minutes.
I think the acting is very good, including Sylvestra Le Touzel. Many people have been quite harsh in their criticism but I liked her style. I think she portrays the awkward, shy teenager well. (it helps that they picked an actress of similar age and appropriate looks, IMO, unlike Billie Piper who was completely wrong as too modern looking).
I really felt for her when the Crawfords are introduced and you see the contrast between Fanny and self confident Mary. I could see how poor Fanny is like a fish out of water during all the social events and in particular when the play is set up. It must be a very hard carachter to play as, unlike other Austen heroines, Fanny is brought up to be less than the other girls in the family, she is not "out" and never sees anyone or goes to balls...therefore she is socially awkward and shy. I think this actress did a good job here.
I like both Henry and Mary Crawford in this version. It's been a long time since I read the book but I remember hoping Henry would succeed with Fanny...while watching the episode where he tells her that he'll show that he will be constant and then goes to visit her in Portsmouth I was thinking: this would be enough proof for me, I'd accept him. But of course Fanny has seen through him and is not persuaded by flattery and a glamorous lifestyle. You've got to admire her for that.
something I found jarring is the hair/wigs etc...
This production seems to have a thing with hair...for some reason they decided that Edmund and a few other-young-men should have long hair...why? This book was written around 1811 and-to my knowledge-men had not been wearing their hair like that for a few decades. (I suppose older men would still go with the trend of their youth)... On the other hand they went for a short hairstyle for Mary. It's a really odd choice. I'm no expert so does anyone know if this short style was commonly accepted for ladies at the time?
As others have said the sound quality is very bad but thankfully my dvd has subtitles. Some music at key points would have been nice too.
reply
share
randommovies2002
11 years ago
This book was written around 1811
Set slightly earlier, though. Fanny's ball takes place in 1808, IIRC.
1808 or 1811, the hair was still wrong. But I'll forgive it for that. :-)
reply
share
sallyannmsmith
13 years ago
I find that sometimes the look in her eyes borders on the silent film look. Sort of eerie.
reply
share