I disliked the first-person voiceover at the beginning – it took Austen’s ‘voice’ out of the production, IMO.
Fanny’s hair definately should have been up throughout the whole thing. I could have stood it had they left it down until her birthday party (why a picnic instead of the ball?); but after that she was definatly ‘out’ and should have had her hair up.
Fanny & Edmund should not have been waltzing at their wedding. The waltz was only just becoming respectable by 1820 or so. In most circles at the time when this production appears to be set the waltz would have been surprising, if not actually scandalous. It might have been reasonable to have the Crawfords waltzing; or Maria or Julia, but having Fanny & Edmund waltzing undercuts a main facet of their characters – that they were both very respectable, conservative people.
Which brings me to my main objection – Fanny. Look – Fanny, as written by Jane Austen, is a bit of a prig. She isn’t a very popular heroine for this reason. Still, it’s the way she is. Austen didn’t do one-size-fits-all heroines – each of her ladies is a distinct personality. Fanny is somewhat priggish, but extremely moral and respectable. She would not have galloped through the house, hooting and laughing. She just wouldn’t have.
I liked the Crawfords (I always like the Crawfords), though. There were a few inexplicable changes (again, why the picnic instead of a ball? To make Fanny’s inappropriate hoydenishness’fit,’ maybe?), but most made sense given that they were working with only 1 1/2 hours to tell the story.
Too bad, really – I think this could have been pretty good.
Agree, but I did like it. Turning Fanny into someone who is very upright in the presence of her Uncle, but will romp made her more likable - and Fanny isn’t likable. The waltz was horrible, and the hour and a half format didn’t give you enough time to understand Aunt Norris and her role or Lord and Lady Bertram. The Crawfords were deliciously naughty from the start though. And I’m not a huge Mansfield Park fan - it is Austen’s preachiest and least fun book.
I think my biggest issue with Davies is that he doesn’t seem to give Austen fans enough credit for understanding the respectability issues of these women and their period. Anne Elliot would NOT run through Bath or kiss Wentworth in public. Whatshisface (Edward?) would not have kissed Fanny before getting her acceptance and being clear that she did return his affection (and perhaps not even then) and they certainly wouldn’t have waltzed. Isabel Thorpe was too shrewed to have sex with Captain Tilney - because Austen certainly wouldn’t have had any qualms about making it clear that she did so had she done so. The second big issue is that this, like Persuasion, just could have used the extra half an hour. Northanger Abbey did best in its 90 minute format - and I’m dreading what happens to Sense and Sensibility in 90 minutes.
I would have seriously disliked this one if the guy playing Edmund Bertram hadn’t been so gorgeous. As Jess pointed out, that wasn’t Jane Austen’s Fanny. I found even just her physical appearance jarringly anachronistic: 21st-century hair, makeup and teeth.
I thought the guy playing Sir Thomas did a good job of conveying the character’s initial fear-inspiring, cold correctness and then the softening of his attitude at the end.
Sir Thomas was great --really the best Sir Thomas of any of the adaptations, in my opinion. Edmund was gorgeous, I agree, as were both Tom and Henry Crawford. And I liked that both Lady Bertram & Aunt Norris were so attractive. The three Ward sisters (Fanny’s mother, Lady Bertram, Aunt Norris) were all supposed to be very handsome.
I agree with all you say about this production but I don’t think Andrew Davies was to blame. I think the Masterpiece season of Austen adaptations was originally made for ITV in Britain. Davies adapted Northanger Abbey but the others in the series were done by other writers (Mansfield Park by Maggie Wadey).
Andrew Davies has just done an adaptation of Sense and Sensibility for the BBC but it was done as a 3 x 1 hour mini-series so didn’t ditch all the nuances like the 90 minute ITV versions. Mind you, he doesn’t stick strictly to the book - it starts with a sex scene :dubious:
I’ve never read the book, so I can’t make any comparisons in that regard. But I felt that it was a dull, flat performance. I gave up on it after 20 minutes.
Hmm. I just checked and it looks like Sense & Sensibility will be aired over 2 nights at 1 1/2 hours each. So that sounds more promising – 3 hours is enough to do it justice, if it’s a good production. Wish they’d done the same for Persuasion!
How did this version compare to the 1999 theatrical version (with Frances O’Connor, Embeth Davidtz and James Purefoy)? Knowing nothing about the book, and not being an Austen devotee, I liked that one a lot.
Eliza Williams, who we never meet but only hear about second hand in Sense and Sensability?
I haven’t finished watching last night’s Mansfield Park. I’ve always sort of liked Fanny - she knows what she feels is right and doesn’t easily get pulled into doing what she thinks is wrong. Not easily led, in other words.
I thought the girl that played young Fanny in the beginning looked amazingly like Billie Piper.
You are, of course, right. I’d gotten the impression from the PBS website that Davies had written the remaining adaptations as well. He did do most of them - but not Mansfield Park or Persuasion. Which are the two we seem to be having most the the issues with to date in terms of “but, but…that wouldn’t have happened.”
Frankly, I liked the theatrical version better. They also chose to tart Fanny up (Fanny, as written by Jane Austen, is not a modern heroine), but I liked their tarting up better. In the theatrical version, they sort of melded Fanny (dutiful, respectable girl) with some version of Jane Austen herself (liked to read and write, sense of humor). Mansfield Park is not my favorite anyway, so I didn’t obect to the tinkering as much as I would with a character I was fonder of. Plus, I felt that the theatrical version managed to still feel Janeish, so I gave the adjustment more of a pass than I would have otherwise.
My only real beef with the theatrical version was its treatment of Sir Thomas (making him into a slave-owning rapist). Sir Thomas is a good guy (overall) in the books.
Agree, and yet - I’m not sure that any of these (except the six hour, nearly absolutely faithful P&P) should be seen by people completely unfamiliar with the books. I suspect it isn’t exactly a surprise for most of the audience (particularly S&S as the second most popular Austen).
It might be but nonetheless that’s the name Jane Austen gave her character. There are Fannies here and there throughout British literature, not only as characters but authors. (And I won’t mention Fanny Hill.)
I watched about 20 - 25 minutes of this atrocity and then gave up. As someone said above, what was with the hair? Bad enough that it was Jean Harlow-bleached-blonde, but not “up”? Her low neckline was also inappropriate for daily dress, it was more suited to a ball gown.
I’m glad I didn’t see the waltz. I might have had a spasm or a fainting fit and since I lost my smelling salts, what on earth would I have done?
The way Fanny was portrayed in this production made her seem not modest and retiring but sneaky and sly. It seemed to me as though she was forever behind an arras, both literally and figuratively. It is not my favourite Austen novel, but, still, I love Fanny and I think she has never shown to advantage in TV or movie adaptations of this work.
Though Austen intended otherwise, it is clear that her fondness for sparkling wit and lively characters made the Crawfords about a million times more attractive and “realistic” than the virtuous Fanny and Edmund.
So true. Whenever I reread it, I love the Crawfords more and I know I shouldn’t!
This production did do a fairly good job with Edmund, though - they managed to make him more attractive and likeable and less of a clod than he seemed in the old BBC adaptation, but not Mr. McSexipants like he was in the theatrical adaptation.
Nobody but me has mentioned it, but did you all hate the first-person voiceover as much as I did?
No, she’s not. The actress who played her is also quite hideous, with that huge barracuda jaw. I found myself hoping she would keep her mouth closed. She isn’t likable, but neither is she detestable. I couldn’t work up any emotion in regard to her. Nevertheless we have Mr. Whatzit being horrid to her for no apparent reason and then telling her he values her for no apparent reason.
This probably has as much to do with the way Austen develops, or fails to develop her male characters in all her works. She must have had horrid relations with men in real life - limited though they apparently were - because none of her men is really admirable or even consistent. Most of them are part-characters. In Mansfield Park Edmund is supposed to be such a shining example of manhood, but he has the bad judgment to go after what’s her face, who is so obviously lying, scheming and shallow. They have nothing in common on any level. And yet he follows his nether bits and nearly marries her. How could Fanny respect him after that? Is this the behavior we want in a rector?
Gulp. I think I"ll give that a miss. No way it can be done in 90 minutes.
As Jess pointed out, that wasn’t Jane Austen’s Fanny. I found even just her physical appearance jarringly anachronistic: 21st-century hair, makeup and teeth.