I read the book last year and actually found the book quite confusing. I got it all the way through though. I then finally got to warch it today and just got done watching it. It was soooooooooooo good!! I am happy she chose Edmund!
shareI've heard people object to the placid nature of the book's heroine but 'confusing' is a whole new one.
Myself, I think the film is confusing. No coherence or consistency of plot, theme or character. A total mess.
"Now go away before I taunt you a second time."
I've always liked the book better. I thought the movie was kind of strange sometimes-and, okay, did Jonny Lee Miller have lipstick on? I don't know how any guy could have lips that RED, naturally. But I wish they could have been just a little bit more faithful to the novel. I'm not a purist, but I mean...they didn't even stick to the nature of the heroine. That is understandable though. Fanny's not very likeable to most people (though I've always liked her), so...but I don't like how they made her a Fanny-Jane hybrid. But hey, it's not like the novel's any different because of that. Okay, I'm rambling.
shareSomewhat off-topic, in response to "did Jonny Lee Miller have lipstick on? I don't know how any guy could have lips that RED, naturally"
My boyfriend does ;o) His lips are yummy.
I like the book better because I found the movie a bit strange too. Maybe he did have lipstick on... Mansfield park, the actual house was so empty they looked kind of poor. But hoestly I fell out of my chair when I noticed the dress on the girl that Henry Crawford eventually marries. She is only briefly pictured but she is wearing the exact dress from Sense and Sensability(starring Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson). It is worn by Fanny Dashwood when she literally throws lucy Steele from the house.That is the first time I have seen a dress actually reused. I just thought this might be cool trivia.
shareI would consider the movie pretty good if it wasn't claimed to be an adaptation of Mansfield Park.
Looks like breakfast, smells like your auntie!share
Agreed Kixie, the book could've bowled this over 100,000,000 times.
sharei'm not sure i understand why everone seems to hate this movie so much, granted it isn't 100% faithful to the novel; but the novel is extremely long and there are parts that seem to drag on. i don't think any movie can be completely faithful to the source material. besides, if you want to talk about trully horrific adaptations just look at the scarlet letter(1995) or the newest version of pride and prejudice. i think all things considered, the movie isn't that bad.
shareI don't have a problem when movies are not 100% faithful to books, logically some changes have to be made. However, this version of Mansfield Park is not really at all faithful to the book. The characters have none of the early 19th century sensibilities, they kiss and talk and act without any restraint. In the movie Fanny is portrayed as a free sprirted writer who gallops around the country. In the book Fanny is quiet, reserved, polite, morally faultless, never speaks back and at no time did she say yes to Henry Crawfords proposal. While I think the movie is reasonably entertaining it is not even close to being an adaption of Mansfield Park.
shareI, personally, loved both the book and the movie. I think Mansfield Park is Jane Austen's best novel. So when I found out that there was a movie of it, I thought I'd check it out even though I was positive that it would suck... like the Harry Potter movies. Anyway, though I realize that the movie is not an "faithful" representation to the book, I think it captures the "soul" of the book rather well. Usually when I see a movie of a book and realize that the director has changed the character's...well... character then I'd be all up in arms but here I was ok with it. It's because, again, I think they captured the "soul" of Fanny Price in a visible way, so that it seemed to me that the Fanny Price in the movie was the projection of the Fanny Price in the novel. If that makes sense.
shareThe newest version of Pride and Prejudice is absolutely fabulous and I am a complete and wholehearted fan of Jane Austen's work!
shareGiven that the only link between the book and the movie is the names of the characters then trying to compare them is pretty pointless. It's easy to get hung up on the multiple outrages this adaptation commits but the fundamental violence done to the book is the shift in Fanny's character from passive to active, which completely undermines the entire moral strucutre of the book.
shareI usually always prefer the book to the movie, but this is one occasion where the movie heroine trumps the book version. Fanny in the book was so insipid and judgemental, especially about her own mother. And what was with all the fainting? The movie heroine had so much spirit, and managed to be morally forthright without being a giant boob.
shareI think we can all agree that the characterization of Fanny in the movie is vastly different than that of the novel. I think a more interesting question is why? Why did the filmmakers choose to so radically change the heroine's fundamental character? The answer, I beleive, is demonstrated in gourmentgirl0 post. In the novel Fanny is morally self-righteous and judgemental. Jane Austen, and late 18th early 19th cenutry England, considered these positive traits. In late 20th and early 21st century America they are looked on much more negatively. I am not saying that that one time period is right and the other is wrong. But that the filmmakers recognized that the Fanny in the novel would not be palatable to a modern audience and changed her accordingly.
share