|
|
|
|
|
|
Mansfield Park (1999) 
Actors : Hannah Taylor-Gordon, Talya Gordon, Lindsay Duncan, Bruce Byron, James Purefoy
Director : Patricia Rozema
Studio : Miramax
by Miramax
Release Date : 2000-07-11
Publisher : Miramax
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 9786305907145
UPC : 717951004901
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 303 reviews)
List Price : $14.99
Our Price : $6.03
|
|
| |
|
Description |
|
This fun and sexy comedy tells a timelessly entertaining story where wealth, secret passions, and mischievous women put love to the test ... with delightfully surprising results! When a spirited young woman, Fanny Price, is sent away to live on the great country estate of her rich cousins, she's meant to learn the ways of proper society. But while Fanny learns "their" ways, she also enlightens them with a wit and sparkle all her own! Featuring an exciting ensemble cast of young stars -- you'll join critics everywhere in their overwhelming praise of this smart, playful, and funny hit! |
| |
|
| |
|
Appalled; not a representation of the Austen novel |
|
I was appalled at this version of 'Mansfield Park,' inasmuch as it bears no real resemblance to the Austen book. (The Austen book is not a comedy; Fanny Price can be a frustrating heroine for a modern reader because she would never dream of "standing up for herself," such a concept would be unthinkable to a character like hers, which represents the ultimate victory of sheer goodness over the blandishments of personality, as represented by the opposing persona of Mary Crawford.) This film's presentation of Fanny Price seems rather to be the director's/writer's supposition of what Jane Austen herself might have been like, but it's not even a fair representation of the voice of the narrator. Filmmakers need far more insight into the premises, not merely of the 18th century in general, but more precisely of the Austen consciousness in particular, not overlooking what a profound place religion played in her heart, and that is what is needed in order to portray Mansfield Park the way it might have seemed to its creator. Of course, then it probaby wouldn't be nearly as popular. Remove the title to this film and it has some merit on its own in terms of crafting, but -- but--. |
| |
|
Jane Austen, eye-candy, and loosely based-adaptations. |
No, this is not a mirror-image of Austen's work. In fact, it's not even close. However, it is an entertaining film and one that kept me watching, if for nothing else than the splendid myriad of scenes depicting Frances O'Connor strutting around courtyards in an early 19th century corset.
If you are an Austen fan, this film might act as some sort of heretical treatise than an actual depiction of her vision of Mansfield Park, but for people like me, who know next-to-nothing about her work, I can say that the film was highly enjoyable.
PLOT: Fanny Price is sent to live with a very aristocratic family. It is here that she delves into the realm of flirting with simple head-nods and that magic twinkle in your eyes. Drama, untold buckets of drama, unfold, and Fanny learns that to find love through purity is often a very difficult thing. In the end, Fanny finds love, and millions of women once again will be swooning over 19th century romanticism, wishing to God that there were more men nowadays who thought like they did back then.
3.5 out of 5 |
| |
|
Imaginative and clever, and NOT harping on slavery |
So the movie isn't a carbon copy of the book. So? Can we move on?
This movie is thoroughly enjoyable in its own right. I am unpleasantly surprised at how many reviewers seem to think this movie focuses too much on slavery. This topic takes up what, 5 percent of the movie? Yes, there is one arguably graphic scene where Fanny discovers Tom's sketchbook with disturbing images from his father's slave plantation. Well, it's pretty accurate, isn't it? Weren't slaves a topic of considerable attention in that time period? Weren't they treated pretty badly? She is horrified and Sir Thomas is ashamed. On to next scene. What was it, two minutes?
Yes there is a split second where we see some breasts. I think the director showed that much of what was going on to drive home the contrast between characters' integrity, and how deeply betrayed Fanny feels afterward. It's just a breast, people. Sheesh.
And I didn't think either of the Fanny/Mary Crawford scenes were suggesting lesbianism in the least, for two good reasons. The first, the play read-through, was entirely for Edmund's benefit. Mary wanted Edmund to "practice" with her, remember. But he refused. By behaving the way she did (with Fanny), Edmund couldn't resist the temptation of being the recipient of such attentions, and indeed agreed to play the role just as Mary wanted.
The second scene in question, after Fanny is caught in the rain in front of the manse, is a pretty typical representation of how intimate female friends spoke and behaved with each other back then- read more history on this subject if you're interested. So Mary tells Fanny she is "so lovely." Can't a woman tell her friend (even if she's only her "friend" to gain access to a man) that she is lovely? Does that make her gay? Come on. Mary wanted to marry for money and was using Fanny as a pawn; end of story.
I thought this movie was wonderful - funny, romantic, suspenseful, and creative. Frances O'Connor is spectacular. Let this movie stand on its own, and let Austen's book stand on its own. There is room on my shelf for both! |
| |
|
Lacks the book's delicacy |
If you enjoy Edwardian drama that lets everything hang out, this film may be to your taste. It makes strong statements about infidelity, class relations, race relations. It's very much a 'tell all' of the rich and famous of that time. For that point, it's interesting.
My chief complaint is the story is not as faithful to Jane Austen's work as it should be. There are so many ways this film differs from Jane Austen's version. Bluntly, it all comes down to the producer hammering watchers over the head with concepts such as slavery, infidelity, etc. that were touched on lightly in Austen's book.
Rebecca Kyle, June 2008
|
| |
|
Completely not Austen's work |
|
This movie did absolutely no credit to Jane Austen's work. It was completely different from the book. All the innocence and morality of Austen's "Mansfield Park" was supplanted by immorality. The director did a horrible job. |
| |
|
|
|
