I have a theory about the Janeite world: Either you like Fanny Price or you like Emma. I’ve never run into anyone who likes both.

Mansfield Park is the longest of Austen’s novels. It’s not my favorite (that would be Persuasion) nor my least favorite (that would be Emma), but there are parts of MP that I truly love—and parts I’m more than happy to skip over.

Fanny Price is plucked from poverty as a child and taken to live with relatives at stately Mansfield Park. Surrounded by entitled and vain cousins, Fanny forges a connection with one—Edmund Bertram. Years later, two neighbors fresh from a life in high society descend on Mansfield Park, sparking a labyrinth of intrigue and affairs. Fanny finds herself being pursued, but not by the longstanding love of her life. Can Fanny listen to her own heart and wait for her true love to notice her?

Despite the 1999 film version which turns MP into a “fun and sexy comedy” that “tells a timelessly entertaining story where wealth, secret passions, and mischievous women put love to the test . . . with delightfully surprising results,” Mansfield Park is Austen’s most serious novel with her most serious characters and situations. At the age of nine, after having been forced to grow up too quickly in her own home, where she’s had to take care of the house and her younger siblings all her life, Fanny Price is sent to live with her mother’s sister, who married a wealthy baronet, at Mansfield Park (introducing one of Austen’s favorite themes right off the top: wealth and social status). At MP, Fanny is basically left to raise herself based on the ideals and morals instilled in her as a child—and because of constantly being berated by her aunt Mrs. Norris, Fanny does her best to become someone who gains no notice for herself, who feels gratitude toward those around her who’ve done so much for her, and to live up to the unrealistic expectations set on her by Mrs. Norris.

Fanny Price has been called the “moral compass” of all the characters in Mansfield Park, as she has a childlike view of right and wrong, good and evil. She does not see in shades of gray (not only is she still very young when the main action of the story takes place, but she’s lived an extremely sheltered—shall we call it cloistered?—life). However, in the end, it is this naivety, this childlike approach to morality, that saves her when she sticks firmly to her beliefs and effectively removes herself—by way of banishment from Mansfield Park and everyone she has come to love there—from the taint of the bad things brought about by others not living to those same standards.

And without a full exploration of the events that happen in the novel that show us Fanny’s innate goodness and her wonderful simplicity in thought, the viewer of a film adaptation of this novel will never understand exactly how emotionally complex Mansfield Park and Fanny Price are. In addition to exploring that favorite theme of wealth and social status, Austen takes on deeper issues here, such as nature vs. nurture (why did Fanny, raised in the same household as Maria Bertram, turn out to have such strong morals while Maria did not?). As Austen’s third published novel, MP explored an area of life only hinted at in S&S and P&P—sexual promiscuity and sexual attraction vs. love. Fanny is against the theatrical the rest of the young people wish to put on in Sir Thomas’s absence because of its sexual themes and overtures—because those are inappropriate for a group of unmarried young people to be acting out. Would the affair that happens at the end of the novel have taken place without the theatrical? Possibly. But Austen uses the theatrical to introduce the idea that encouraging temptation in a seemingly fun/innocuous way opens the door for a world of sin and pain later.

And this is why the 1983 version of MP will be my favorite until someone does another faithful miniseries adaptation of the novel. No, the acting isn’t great. Yes, it has that old style “inside looks like it’s a theater stage not a real house” style cinematography, but it’s the only version I’ve ever seen that actually stays true to the character of Fanny Price and the complex themes Austen explored in the novel. (And a little piece of trivia for Ruth: Jonny Lee Miller, who would go on to star as Edmund Bertram in the 1999 “romantic comedy” version of MP played Fanny Price’s younger brother Charles Price in the 1983 version!)

There are three main adaptations of MP—the 1983 BBC version (the one I like), the 1999 “romantic comedy” version (starring Frances O’Connor and Jonny Lee Miller), and the absolutely botched 2007 version starring Billie Piper and Blake Ritson, which aired during the 2008 PBS Complete Jane Austen Series (read my review here).

What about you? Have you seen MP? Do you like it? hate it? Which version do you like?

My first exposure to Sense and Sensibility was in 1995 when I went with the other women in the singles group at church to see Emma Thompson’s Academy Award–winning film adaptation of the Jane Austen novel. It took me several years after that to actually be able to make it all the way through the book—and long road trips and books-on-tape really helped out a lot with my accomplishment of getting through it the first time.

Even as someone totally unfamiliar with the storyline, though I thought the conclusion of the Emma Thompson version was satisfying, I remember walking away with the feeling that “Helena” (which I thought Elinor’s name was, from the way Kate Winslet pronounced it) should have ended up with Alan Rickman—because, age-wise, they were much better suited for each other. But once I made it through the book, I came to realize how the 1995 version barely scratched the surface of the story. (But Emma Thompson did a much better job of translating such a long, involved story into two hours than the screenwriter of the 2005 adaptation of P&P did. But that’s a whole other blog post.)

So when I heard that a new miniseries version was planned, I started getting excited—especially once I learned that screenwriter Andrew Davies, the writer behind the 1995 version of P&P, had penned the script. Back in 2008, when it premiered, I blogged about it in pieces, but this will be the first time I’ve combined it all in one place—and I’ve revised it now that I’ve watched the miniseries a couple of times with some additional thoughts and comments.

Andrew Davies decided to spice up this adaptation by opening with a “seduction scene” at the beginning. This, more than any rumors that leaked about the adaptation, created a furor in the Janeite world. But the scene we’d all been warned about really didn’t show much of anything, nor did it reveal the identity of the seducer. Even though I know the story, it felt very disconnected from the main action at Norland with Mr. Dashwood’s death.

The first half hour of the movie didn’t seem much different than the Emma Thompson version—down to the scene (not from the book) of Margaret on the floor in the library. In fact, Andrew Davies seemed to have taken Emma Thompson’s lead on the character of Margaret—she is more closely related to Thompson’s version of the character than how the character appears in the book. Also, at times, several of the characters seemed to have taken their acting direction from the Emma Thompson version—especially the actress playing Fanny, who seemed to have studied her lines by repeated watchings of her predecessor in the role.

I liked the casting of David Morrissey as Colonel Brandon—though I had a hard time not seeing him as a young Liam Neeson. It was also nice to see Marianne smiling at him when he turned the pages of music for her instead of being quite so heartlessly cold to him the way Kate Winslet was in the theatrical version.

Another quibble: never, not once, in the book does anyone call Elinor “Ellie.”

Though I initially made some disparaging remarks about Hattie Morahan’s portrayal of Elinor, after just seeing the first part of the two-part movie, she really won me over in the second half of the movie. I’ll freely admit I was wrong to call her “so plain as to be nearly homely.” I can mark the change in my attitude toward her portrayal of Elinor from the scene when Lucy Steele reveals to Elinor that she (Lucy) has been secretly engaged to Edward for four years. I also quite enjoyed the symbolism of the scene following when Elinor escapes to a cave to mourn the loss of Edward—and even then cannot allow herself the weakness of tears. That may be one of my favorite parts of this new adaptation.

One of my least favorite parts of the new adaptation is the Palmers. Except for the fact that they must be introduced because Elinor and Marianne stay at their home when Marianne is so ill, I didn’t really see the point in having them in this film at all. Of course, I already knew that they would never be able to compare with how the characters were played in the 1995 Ang Lee/Emma Thompson version by the incomparable Imelda Staunton and Hugh Laurie. Aside from the fact that both of them are fabulous comic actors, the script they were given allowed them to pull in much of the humor that Jane Austen built through the absolute ridiculousness of those characters in the book.

I do like the Mrs. Jennings in the 2008 miniseries—probably because we get more of her character, and she’s not as over-the-top as the character in the 1995 version.

As I said before, this adaptation at times felt like merely an expansion of Emma Thompson’s script for the 1995 version, so I wasn’t really surprised to see almost the exact same interaction and dialogue between Marianne and Mrs. Jennings’s butler in London, the only difference being that he was amused rather than annoyed by her. 

Charity (Marianne) Wakefield’s hair bugged me continuously throughout the film (as did Elinor’s bangs, since that wasn’t the style)—even when they went to the assembly, Marianne’s hair looked unkempt. But at least Elinor’s was less severe, as if she’d taken time to try to style it rather than just pulling it back in a bun. In the 1995 version of the film, the assembly is crowded, just as described in the book—where there are so many people, they’re pressing around them from all sides. In the 2008 miniseries adaptation, the assembly was well attended, but not crowded. They were able to move around with ease, without having to squeeze through a mass of people. Marianne’s fainting, in the book, is attributed (by everyone but Elinor) to the “press” of the crowd and the heat generated by so many bodies so close together. Also, Col. Brandon was not at the assembly in the book. Also, in 1811, which is when the book was published, unmarried girls like Elinor and Marianne and the Steele sisters would have worn white to the assembly, not colored gowns. Colored gowns were worn by married women, matrons, and old-maids (like my Julia in Ransome’s Honor).

The casting of Dominic Cooper as Willoughby in the miniseries didn’t work for me. In the first half, he comes across as petulant and arrogant; in the second half, he comes across as nothing but sinister and creepy.  I understand why Andrew Davies was tempted to pull Brandon into the assembly scene, to give Marianne even more reason to soften to him because he was there to help her when Willoughby disappointed her, however it made the dueling scene confusing. I wonder how many people who’ve never read the book believe that they dueled over Marianne, not over Willoughby’s seduction of Eliza. In the book, the duel takes place off-page. We only learn about it when Brandon tells Elinor the whole story about his ward and Willoughby’s part in ruining her.

There also seemed to be quite a bit of confusion over who was related to whom and how. I was very disappointed in Andrew Davies in this aspect. Marianne calls Fanny “aunt,” when Fanny is her sister-in-law. Sir John Middleton calls Lucy and Anne Steele “our nieces” and then introduces them to Elinor and Marianne as “your cousins.” The Steeles were distant cousins of Lady Middleton, and would therefore not have been considered relations of Elinor and Marianne, since they were only (distantly) related to Lady Middleton by marriage. Then, the worst offense of all, someone refers to Edward as Elinor’s cousin. Edward and Elinor are not related at all, with the exception that Edward’s sister is married to Elinor’s half-brother.  Again, it concerns me that this would be quite confusing to those who aren’t familiar with the story as to how all of these people are connected with each other, since the screenwriter couldn’t even keep everyone straight with the right relationship titles.

The two best additions to this adaptation, which were left out of the 1995 version, were Mrs. Ferrars and Anne Steele. Both came across just as I’d imagined them in the book, and the scene when Anne lets slip the truth of Lucy and Edward’s engagement was priceless.

And the actress playing Lucy, though insipid instead of humorous, was actually pretty enough to believe that Edward would have fallen for her, unlike the one in the ’95 version.

The score for this adaptation was written by Martin Phipps, who created the music—including a heart-rending piece, “Northbound Train”—for the 2004 BBC adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell’s North & South, as well as the newest adaptation of Persuasion (unfortunately, none of these soundtracks are available commercially in the U.S.). There were a couple of times, especially in the second part, when, if I closed my eyes, I could have been watching N&S, because the theme and instrumentation of the music was so similar.

I did read somewhere that Charity Wakefield (Marianne) is an accomplished and professionally trained pianist and singer. They could have made much more use of this.

The resolution of the Marianne/Brandon relationship bugged me in this adaptation. First, why, if Brandon has his horse right there, would he walk back to the house carrying Marianne after she collapses in the rain? Second, the whole comparison between Brandon’s courting Marianne and his taming a horse and training a hawk was borderline offensive. Third, what I want to know is when someone is going to get the timeline of the relationships right. Edward and Elinor are married long before Marianne and Brandon’s relationship begins to mature to the point that they marry. Marianne is courted by Brandon for about a year as she, along with their mother and Margaret, visits Elinor and Edward at their vicarage at Delaford (i.e., Elinor and Edward are already married throughout Marianne and Brandon’s courtship).

What version(s) of S&S have you seen? What are your thoughts?

Tomorrow: a head-to-head throwdown between the actors/actresses in the major roles in the 1995 & 2008 versions.