After watching the film, you’ll know that there are several ways in which this adaptation departs from Austen’s novel. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, of course! Adaptations needn’t always be entirely faithful to be good or to be interesting or to be worthy of analysis. We should think of any adaptation as an interpretation of its source text, an argument about what’s important and how the source text creates meaning. That said, we needn’t agree with every interpretation, either!
In a comment to this post, discuss one decision made by the creators of this film that you find particularly worthy of analysis. First, explain what the decision is and (more importantly) how it interprets the novel (for example: does it turn a verbal pattern in the novel into something visual? does it highlight a certain theme? does it make explicit something that is only implicit in the novel? etc.). Then, say a bit about what you think about this decision. Is it a solid interpretation of the novel? Is it an interesting (but ultimately failed) departure? Does it miss something crucial in the novel? Does it deepen your appreciation of that aspect of the novel? You can be honest here, but the important part is to explain why you think the decision works or doesn’t work (or something in between).
I think by having the fact that Sir Thomas has slaves in Antigua a more prominent part of the movie than it was in the book helps explain more about Tom. In the book Tom seems to be the spoiled first born but with the addition of his sketch book it shows that his behavior is a result of the family’s wealth coming from slavery in Antigua. In the book it seems like Tom, like his sisters, is just an overprivledged child but the movie showed his affliction to the business his father is in.
Slavery was a predominant topic in the film, compared to the novel. The producers of the film must have felt that the film gave them an opportunity to dig deeper into the subject. It was a little disturbing when Fanny was going through the book of drawings and there was back ground noise to really bring you to the horrific circumstances in Antigua. The film put Sir Thomas in such a bad light, when in the novel he seemed like someone with a conscious. Very surprising.
One of the differences between the novel and the movie that stuck out to me the most was the removal of William, and his being replaced by Susan. William was such an important character in the novel, while Susan was not relevant until the very end. I thought the relationship between the siblings was also very different in the movie. William was the only character other than Edmund that kept Fanny going and that she cared about more than anything. In the movie when Fanny first gets to Mansfield it seems that the relationship between the two sisters is simply based on story telling, rather than a strong bond to allow Fanny to make it through the troubles in Mansfield Park. While I think the movie still gets the crucial points across, I do not like the decision to remove William. I think that replacing William with Susan makes her relationship with her old home less important, but whenever you must condense a 372 page book into a two hour movie, things that may seem important in the novel must be let go to focus on other more important aspects of the story.
One aspect of the film I found most interesting is Fanny’s return to Mansfield Park. In the beginning, when she arrives, the carriage ride is uncomfortable. Fanny is fearful. Later on in the film, upon her return she is accompanied by Edmund and he falls asleep on her shoulder, giving the impression that Fanny finds her return most welcomed. She’s glad to be back. In the novel, this scene with Edmund doesn’t happen although she is glad to return, the film implicitly implies, as well as in many other instances, that Edmund is in love with Fanny. I can see why it was done for filmic story telling purposes but I thought it was interesting that not only did he director imply Edmund’s love for Fanny heavily, the director also took away Fanny’s invisibility. She immediately has a voice and presence in the film which she gradually gains as the novel progresses. Was the implicit implication of Edmund’s love necessary? Especially when the ending of the film brushed through the fates of other characters quickly?
I admire the director’s choice of highlighting the theme of slavery by presenting it in the primary scenes of the film with the slaves’ bloodcurdling screams of agony. In the scenes of the film where the screams are heard, it gives the slaves a voice whereas the slaves in the novel are only mentioned indirectly. The slaves’ screams manifest the cruel and inhumane way they are treated. The cruelty of slavery was omitted from the novel.
In the film. Fanny witnesses the screams twice, once when she is sent to Mansfield Park and the other when she is exiled from Mansfield Park by Sir Thomas. The film’s interpretation ties together the lack of freedom of the slaves and Fanny Price. I think the film interprets the book very well and with the artistic freedom it has taken, it emphasizes some of the underlying themes in the novel, especially the similarities between Fanny and the slaves. Whether Fanny stays or goes, it is not her choice to make. Even when she returns, it is by Edmund’s invitation that welcomes her back.
On another note, I like that the characters in the film explicitly acknowledge that their wealth and comfort are derived from slavery. For instance, Edmund and Fanny speak about their benefitting off of the money from slaves and the short scene of Tom and Sir Thomas where Tom exclaims that his father is immoral for their family business.
One thing I can say that I liked with what the director did was his choice of always showing close ups on each individual. There were certain moments in the film where you never really saw everyone together on the screen. Instead you saw closely how one character reacted and then the camera would go to another character to really focus on the text. When reading the novel, it was quite difficult to try to understand each of characters motives just basing it off of what they say. However, actually “seeing” the character’s emotional and physical expression intrigued me more into the plot. I thought that was a nice touch that is not really used a lot in certain films. Another interesting thing I’ve noticed was how the theme of slavery was used in the film compared to the novel. As we know slavery is mentioned in the novel because of Sir Thomas and his money ties but not as strongly and effectively as it did in the film. But again this is not an Austen film this is another’s artistic expression to show another individual’s suppression. In other words, a characters ability to speak out or not be an outcast like we see through Fanny’s character. The theme of slavery really helped me understand the larger themes in the novel. Slavery shows how the innocent and how people who are seen as different are being preyed upon. Edmund and Henry prey on Fanny only because her choices are controlled or motivated by something. I found it interesting that Harold Pinter played Sir Thomas especially because he is known to really bring out the domestic and realistic truth of a character. Him playing Sir Thomas made me see his character and the novel in a new light.
One aspect of the movie that stood out to me was the director’s choice to emphasize Mary Crawford’s sexuality. There were a few scenes that exuded sexual tension between Mary and Fanny, which was very odd. For example, when Mary begins touching Fanny during the reading of the play and then looking at Edmund. Also, when Mary slowly helps Fanny out of all her clothes after being caught in the rain. The novel never mentions any of these physical actions between Mary and Fanny, so I never really caught on to a sexual vibe between them. I think this was an interesting choice and would have definitely piqued the interest of viewers who have not read the novel. For those who have read the novel, it was kind of awkward and uncomfortable to watch. It would have been nice to see more parallels between the novel and the movie. However, I understand this is a modern interpretation and I appreciate the diversion from the original material to add drama and make the movie interesting.
I have to confess that I saw the movie before I read the novel… And after reading the book I noticed one major change, and that was in the depiction of Henry. The first time I saw the movie I actually felt bad for Henry. It didn’t really seem like he did anything bad, other than flirt with Maria. And I kept thinking “Fanny what is your problem?! Marry him!” I didn’t catch on to Henry’s character until much later, during the library scene with Maria, where he looks like a puppy that just got kicked, and tells her he’s been rejected. Yea, I was a bit slow.
In the novel they made him seem like a flirt, but they did not really reveal how mean he was until the end of the movie. They made it seem like Fanny was reluctant to marry him because she was in love with Edmund, and not because she was the only person to notice that he was the scum of the earth. I watched the movie again after reading the novel and I saw a few more clues this time around, like when Rushmore keeps looking at Henry and Maria in confusion.
On another note I noticed that they included Sir Thomas’s speech to the girls about preparing for “gross ignorance, some meanness of opinions, and very distressing vulgarity of manner.” I love that line. It foreshadows the entire novel. What’s ironic about it is that this behavior it is not from whom you’d expect.
I really enjoyed the movie but I do believe it didn’t live up to the book. At the very beginning, Fanny’s departure from her family and her dear sister Suzie was an event the movie highllighted that was not in the book. Same goes for the journey to Mansfield Park in the carriage which was stressed in the movie but not as much in the book. The shocker about her journey there was the ship filled with slaves that was out at sea. Slavery seemed to be highlighted a lot in the movie, whereas in the book it was subtle. Mrs. Norris always reminds Fanny of her place in the movie much like in the book and Edmund seems to genuinely care about her in the movie also. Mrs. Bertram drinks in the movie which is the cause of her idleness, and she enjoys playing with her pug. Leaving out William, such an important character in the book was a poor choice. Overall, the movie was accurate to some extent but did not manage to stay true to the entire book.
The film starts with Fanny’s perspective instead of giving us background information about the character like the novel does. This choice was effective in making Fanny more likeable by seeing her attachment to her family and her unawareness of being sent to live at Mansfield Park forever. The scene in the film when Mrs. Norris shows Fanny her room for the first time was particularly striking because it was the moment that Mrs. Norris informs Fanny that he is meant to stay forever and the her mother gave her up and “abandoned” her. Visually, the room that Fanny is given is fairly large and has an “abandoned” look to it with sheets covering the chairs and the furniture being completely out of place the same way Fanny feels completely out of place by being in Mansfield Park, making her feel unloved and unwanted. These early scenes were sufficient in making the viewer empathetic towards Fanny and reflected the inner turmoil and sadness that Fanny felt at the beginning of the novel. Being able to see it on screen made it all the more heart-breaking to watch how a girl is forced to separate from her family. The only difference being that Edmund immediately came to her rescue in the film whereas in the novel it took longer. I believe the director took it too far by making any into a spokeswoman who could tell the viewer an overview of what was happening at Mansfield Park. This deviated from Fanny’s personality in the novel and actually made me dislike her more as the film progressed.
-Monica Rivera
My favorite scene in the novel was Sir Bertram’s surprise return from Antigua. Particularly when Sir Thomas walked into his own study to find himself on a stage, “He stepped to the door, rejoicing at that moment in having the means of immediate communication, and, opening it, found himself on the stage of a theatre, and opposed to a ranting young man, who appeared likely to knock him down backwards.” One could find this moment in the novel comedic, and I did. In the movie, this moment plays out differently. First, Fanny greets him before the others, which in the book is not the case. Fanny intentionally stays behind in the novel. When Sir Thomas meets Tom after discovering the play, in the movie, Sir Thomas sarcastically asks Tom, “So, this is what you’re in such a terrible hurry to leave Antigua for.” After which, Tom displays hostility towards Sir Thomas by knocking over a tray of food. This scene in the movie was created to build upon the tension between the two, as adapted in the movie. The adaptation focuses on slavery, and this moment reminds us of the tension between the two over the issue. In the novel, the communication between Sir Thomas and Tom was less dramatic. Tom made the effort to try to explain away his lapse of judgement. One thing that this adaptation got right about this moment was the gravity of Sir Thomas’ return. Everyone was aghast. This aspect seems true to the novel. In the novel, this moment has more depth, and like most adaptations this movie falls short. The movie glosses over, a favorite scene of mine, and what could have been a comedic scene with the right amount of tension, rather than a complete downer.