I liked the casting for this movie so much that it's a real shame that the story deviated so much from the novel. Every character was well-acted and physically well-cast, even if the characters themselves were not true to the book. The actor who played Edmund also played Mr. Knightley in Emma, but I much preferred him in this role. Fanny was spirited and lively, an imaginative writer of fanciful stories - a far cry from the timid and fearful creature in the book. Eldest brother Tom Bertram was made to be even more disgraceful than in the book (though he was given the moral high ground in the movie), but the real liberties were taken with Lady Bertram - made to be an opium addict! - and Sir Thomas, who, in the movie, had a morally reprehensible role in the slave trade.
Great liberties were taken with the story as well, though I have to admit that the movie managed to faithfully incorporate a lot of dialogue - even if, rather frequently, words were attributed to different characters. Very surprisingly, beloved brother William was entirely left out! His role was more or less replaced by sister Susan. Of course, without him, other elements of the story had to change as well. Many scenes were based on scenes in the book, but were in some way twisted around. One major deviation from the book involving Fanny and Henry Crawford had Fanny acting entirely out of character - basically negating the very principles by which her character was defined in the book. Another very flagrant alteration was in regards to Henry Crawford and Maria's relationship towards the end - the movie sensationalized their behavior, as if assuming the audience would not be entertained enough by early 19th century sensibilities.
All told, the movie was well-made and well-paced, but not a very accurate representation of the book. I should, however, cut it some slack because the credits themselves say the movie is based not only on Mansfield Park but also on Jane Austen's "letters and early journals". It's as if they tried to fit Jane Austen into Fanny's role, which, I dare say, makes me want to find out more about Jane Austen herself.
I don't really care if the movie wasn't an accurate representation of the novel. It's not the job of the filmmaker to do this. Nor is it actually possible to lift an entire story from a novel and exactly copy it on film. To do so would cost money and time and is a job for the insane.
ReplyDelete"Sir Thomas, who, in the movie, had a morally reprehensible role in the slave trade."
Sir Thomas was always a slave holder in the story. Fanny brought up the subject of his slaves in the novel, but the subject was immediately shoved aside. The same thing happened in the 2007 movie. The 1983 mini series did not even mention Sir Thomas' role as a slave holder. If Austen had introduced the topic of slavery in the novel (however minor), then I believe that director Patricia Rozema had every right to portray his role as a slave holder as she saw fit.
And frankly, I believe being a slaveholder is morally reprehensible anyway.
I just watched this last night, and I did like the casting, like you did.I kept thinking the guy who played Edmund looked familiar, but I didn't figure out he was in Emma (and also as Sherlock Holmes in Elementary!) until after the movie, which is good, because sometimes if I recognize someone as another character, then it detracts from the experience (e.g. Snape, as the Colonel in Sense and Sensability). I really liked Edmund's and Fanny's chemistry in the movie.
ReplyDeleteBut as for the rest of it, I thought it was also too loosely based. Fanny just seemed too outspoken for her true character in the book. It also was 'artsy' in a way that I don't really enjoy. I like straight adaptations, I guess. This one skipped a lot of stuff, and was a bit over the top in sensationalism too.