Hey, I am trying to decide weather to buy this, I am buying the 86 version cause I have seen bits of it and want to see the whole.
I have BBC '80 Pride and prejudice and I like that one, i like all versions of that show!!
It was stiff in places and dryer then the others but it followed the book the closest.
so I guess I am just asking for a comparison.
Thanks
Personally, I preferred the '07 version. I liked the two leads, Mr & Mrs Allen, Isabella & Frederick and Eleanor Tilney (even though she was too old). It's far from a perfect adaptation, being about 90 mins long and with the inevitable 'sexing up' of Andrew Davis, but IMO it was the best of the three JA adaptations made last year.
I'll be honest with you though, I really, really dislike the '86 version.
You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hopeshare
loved '07.
hated '86.
Ned/Chuck Shipper
Loved '86. LOVED it! Its production value was much, much higher. The costumes, the locations, the interiors, the carriages, everything was just gorgeous and appropriate to the time period. It was filmed in Bath. The '07 version was not, and that hurt it. The presence of Bath is as important in the movie as it is in the story. The script was wonderful, too. It was, for the most part, true to the novel and incorporated all of Jane Austen's most important, meaningful, and witty lines -- women having the power of refusal, not speaking well enough to be unintelligible, etc. Oh, the '86 version was a million times better than the '07 version. I had to watch it immediately after watching the '07 version to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Buy the '86 version -- you will be glad you did!
shareI recommend that people WATCH the '86 version before buying it. (Many public libraries in the US have it in their collection.) NA-86 isn't to everyone's taste. There are a lot of quirky things about it. But I do agree that the production values were good -- Except for that horrible, cheesy music that was bad enough to begin with, but made even worse by the poor editing of the music. Did they have to ruin every scene with it?????! LOL, saxophones during the Beachen Cliff walk!
shareUnless the 86 adaptation was way ahead of its time, it is hard to imagine that the production values could be better than a film done recently. That I would have to see to believe.
shareagreed. In my opinion I do not think the '86 version was better in terms of production.
Ned/Chuck Shipper
Well, to explain further, what I meant is that the makers of the 1986 version seemed to have more of a budget with which to produce their film.
1.) The costumes are much nicer in the 1986 version. The women's gowns and accessories look expensive. It appears that they actually had money to make their costumes, rather than renting so many of them, which is what all 3 ITV 2007 JA projects had to do.
2.) It was actually filmed in Bath, with scenes in the Assembly Rooms, in the Pump Room, at the Royal Crescent, and even in the Roman Baths.
3.) Props, sedan chairs, etc. were better and more authentic.
So that is what I meant by production values. :-)
My main complaint about this version is the fact that Davies changed Catherine's reading material from Udolpho to The Monk. People who haven't read either book might not think this matters, but Austen knew both books and Davies knows both books, and believe me, IT MATTERS.
NA's plot mirrors Udolpho's. The characters have similarities with each other. But The Monk is about sado-masochism, incest, devil-worship and rape. The DOM chose it for a reason. A reason I disagree with. Strongly.
A New York-based writer/actress named Lynne Marie Macy wrote an stage play of Northanger Abbey that is positively brilliant. It shows the parallels between NA and Udolpho. I've seen it twice and it is, without question, an outstanding adaptation of NA. I've met Ms. Macy on a couple of occasions and have told her each time that I someday hope to see a filmed version of her play. It's truly wonderful.
Julie-30
I thought that both books are mentioned. Wasn't she reading Udolpho in the beginning?
Is the play available for purchase?
living is easy with your eyes closed
John Thorpe mentions The Monk, but Catherine doesn't read it. This is the only reference to The Monk in Austen's novel:
"Have you ever read Udolpho, Mr. Thorpe?"IMO, this reference illustrates Thorpe's character. (The Monk is a is a mysogynistic, bawdy novel.) share
"Udolpho! Oh, Lord! Not I; I never read novels; I have something else to do."
Catherine, humbled and ashamed, was going to apologize for her question, but he prevented her by saying, "Novels are all so full of nonsense and stuff; there has not been a tolerably decent one come out since Tom Jones, except The Monk; I read that t’other day; but as for all the others, they are the stupidest things in creation" (ch. 7).
Canada
I recently watched the 1986 movie, and I liked it. It was a bit strange and the music-well it's no 2005 P & P. I just borrowed the 2007 version from a local library and plan to see it this week. Question: how do the leads from 1986 (Peter Firth and Katharine Schlesinger) compare to the this movie's? Also, I loved the 2005 P & P and am looking forward to seeing Carey Mulligan again.
Finally saw it last night, and not bad. It didn't have the gothic atmosphere of the 1986 movie, but the leads were good and Carey Mulligan/Isabelle wasn't OTT like the 1986 Isabelle. One question though, was Eleanor Tilney supposed to be younger or older than Henry because in this movie, she appeared to be older. Also, I liked the extended Isabelle/Frederick Tilney story and she seemed to be a more sympathetic character than her 1986 counterpart was.
One thing I miss in this movie was the scene near the end of the 1986 movie when Henry rides through the mist and gives Catherine that passionate kiss in the trees.
I really liked the lead actors in this version, particularly Felicity Jones. She's pretty without being head turningly lovely and seems like a really sweet girl. J J Field does act out of character at one point in this version, but that's the fault of the script not the actor. But, I've got to be honest, I really dislike Peter Firth's perfomance in the '86 version.
I lost my jobshare
What? Why?... Not the Phantom Menace?
One significant difference regards the reasons for the General's interest in Catherine.
In the 1986 version, the General married his late wife for her money. An inveterate gambler, he needs a large influx of capital to maintain his habit. He is under the impression that Catherine likely brings a sizable dowry and that she will eventually inherit the substantial Allen fortune. He hopes to marry her himself. Once her true limited (for his needs) fortune is revealed, he throws her out. Henry is appalled at his father's behavior and feels duty-bound to make amends (although he does have genuine affection for her). We are left to assume that they will marry (it ends a bit hazily in the style of one her vivid daydreams).
The 2007 version follows the book in this regard - the General sees her (based on the faulty report from John Thorpe) as a suitable and desirable match for Henry. The two develop a mutual affection for one another. The General is then told that Catherine is a destitute daughter of fortune-hunters, and throws her out. Henry knows her true family circumstances is appalled at his father's behavior, and determines to marry her against his father's wishes.
I just picked up the 86 version in a used book shop today. It will be interesting to compare.
shareIn the 1986 version, the General married his late wife for her money. An inveterate gambler, he needs a large influx of capital to maintain his habit. He is under the impression that Catherine likely brings a sizable dowry and that she will eventually inherit the substantial Allen fortune. He hopes to marry her himself.
I've seen the 1986 version many times (I own the dvd) and I've never gotten the impression that Gen. Tilney wants to marry Catherine. I've always thought that he wanted her to marry Henry. :-)
In fact, Gen. Tilney's dialogue with Henry near the end, following Gen. Tilney's banishment of Catherine, shows that Catherine was intended for Henry, NOT the General:
HENRYIn an earlier discussion between Catherine and Eleanor, following Catherine's receipt of James's letter, Eleanor explains to Catherine that her father is trying to repair his financial problems by making "dazzling matches" for each of his children:
Your behaviour surprises me, sir.
GENERAL TILNEY
My behaviour, damn you. It’s Miss Morland’s behaviour that surprises me. The Marchioness arrived from Bath with rumours that persuaded me to make more careful inquiries and I discovered Miss Morland to be what you’ve probably always known her – a common little fortune seeker. As you may well imagine, Thorpe’s deceit has given Bath some pretty amusement at my expense.
HENRY
Thorpe! John Thorpe misled you.
GENERAL TILNEY
Yes, Thorpe. Dammit. Thorpe, his vulgar sister and Miss Morland colluded to ruin the Tilney family, and they attempted it at our weakest point, Frederick and yourself [emphasis mine].
ELEANOR
I know that we appear to be rich and fortunate but things are not what they seem. Father is an inveterate gambler and loses vastly in all of which the Marchioness only encourages him with schemes of setting everything to rights by
making dazzling matches for us children.
The 1986 version is showing on BBC4 this evening at 7.00pm.
shareI have them both and like them both equally well. I'm not an expert in fashion and style for that era, and wouldn't know if something was filmed in Bath or not.
But both had aspects that I enjoyed.
I liked who played Catherine M in the 07 version a little better than the 86 version.
But I liked Peter Firth as Henry a little better than JJField. So that is a plus for the 86 version. Not to say I have any criticism of JJFeild.
I like Sylvestra Le Touzel kind of because she was also in another JAusten movie, Mansfield Park, when she was younger. So that is a plus for the 07 version. This shows another side of her acting ability.
I didn't care so much for the added "bedroom scene" in the 07 version, but on the other hand, I liked the "proposal" by Henry at the end more in that version.
On the otherhand, in the 86 version, I liked the discussion between Henry and his father after he found out what his father had done to Catherine. The scene and photography was interesting to me.
I wouldn't know Udolfo from The Monk, so that didn't affect my opinion of either movie.
I have seen both versions, and I own the 86 version. I prefer the 86 version, because it is more true to the Austen novel. I think that filmmakers should stick to the original stories and not go mucking about with them.
Someone mentioned Udolpho, and that it was an important part of the storyline in Austen's novel and the 86 film version. That is very true; Catherine Morland was engrossed in The Mysteries of Udolpho by Mrs. Radcliffe, fantasizing and daydreaming about it constantly...I can't imagine doing away with that and using a different novel; what was Davies thinking?
In my opinion, you can't improve on Jane Austen; they should leave her work alone....film it as closely to the original as possible, or just forget about it.
The 86 version is a bit campy, but according to what I've read, Austen was spoofing the gothic novel craze when she wrote Northanger Abbey...they weren't really her cup of tea. So, the campiness doesn't bother me; it seems rather appropriate under the circumstances.
Someone mentioned the end of the 86 version when Henry Tilney comes to find Catherine Morland and kisses her in the mist. I agree with you...that is one of the best parts of the film....very well done.
Another person mentioned the great costumes, etc., in the 86 version. I agree with that post too. They obviously had a decent budget for period costumes, authentic carriages, and filming on location in Bath, England. I like the authenticity.
If you have doubts about it, you can check out the 86 version free from the public library before you buy one. I bought it, because I wanted to have at least one film version of all of the Austen novels, and this version (86) is more faithful to the novel.
I own both versions and I disagree that the 07 is more true to the novel than the 86 version. I think they both stray from the novel about equally. They both get things right and they both make mistakes.
shareOut of curiosity - when you say "get things right" and "make mistakes" I assume from a lot of your posts that you don't mean "follow the book precisely" versus "adapt parts of the book to make a movie". So what kind of mistakes do you think are present?
For me - I found that simplifying the General's motives made the '07 version nicely watchable. On the other hand, I am unsure that having Miss Thorpe in bed with Captain Tilney was necessary (though I admit, I am swayed by the book's time period a bit)
If Isabella and Capt. Tilney had slept together, Austen would have told us. After all, she lets us know that Lydia and Wickham slept together, that Maria and Henry slept together, etc., but she never tells us that Isabella and Capt. Tilney did.
shareOh, I agree. I was just referring to two plot elements changed in the movie - but for me, plot changes per se are not bad, as long as they work well in the adaptation.
shareI just don't think that plot change worked. Isabella is a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them. And sleeping with Capt. Tilney would have been stupid.
shareIt doesn't work for me because it's out of keeping with Isabella's personality. The other Austen characters who have sex outside marriage (Maria Rushworth, Lydia Bennet, Eliza Williams etc.) do so because they're carried away by their feelings/passions. Miss Thorpe, in contrast is stone cold at heart and too calculating to take such a risk. The 'Are we engaged now?' line is just daft IMO.
Having said that, I still can't stand the '86 version, at any price.
I lost my jobshare
What? Why?... Not the Phantom Menace?
That should have been obvious - I guess that's why I felt uncomfortable about it, weaselfrance. I guess I missed the line, too - I was probably too startled at the scene to notice it. In general though, I liked Carey Mulligan's interpretation of Isabella.
shareIn general though, I liked Carey Mulligan's interpretation of Isabella.
I agree. In fact, I like it better than the 86 portrayal. It seems more natural (and real) to me than the 86 portrayal.
I thought this version was pretty well cast, but I really liked the actresses playing Isabella and Catherine.
I lost my jobshare
What? Why?... Not the Phantom Menace?
I don't mean "follow the book precisely." I understand that scenes have to be changed when adapting written material for a visual medium and I don't have a problem with that. An adaptation that "gets things right" is one that stays true to the author's characterizations (and characters' motives).
shareThere's no contest between the two. From the music to the crazed expressions, the 1986 movie is an altogether weird piece. A little too psychedelic for my tastes - definitely not what Jane Austen was aiming for. The 2007 Northanger Abbey is much more like the book, and Felicity Jones is perfect for the role of Catherine.
shareThe 2007 Northanger Abbey is much more like the book, and Felicity Jones is perfect for the role of Catherine.
That depends upon your criteria. There are quite a few changes in NA 07 that make some of the characters and their motives very different from how Austen wrote them.
I really love Felicity Jones, and I love this version, but it has faults too -- huge ones -- that are at odds with what JA wrote.
I never got the impression in either movie that Gen Tilney was hoping to marry Katherine M himself. Always that he was hoping to match her up w/ Henry.
shareI'd like to see a mini-series of NA, one that fully covers the whole story. But may have to wait a while for that!
He looks like what happens when you punch a cow!share