characters with interesting interpretations of Austen's work. Most notable are Lindsay Duncan in her dual roles as Mrs Price and Mrs Bertram, and Victoria Hamilton as an intensely human Maria. Sophia Myles and Justine Waddell display equal genius albeit within the limitations of somewhat small roles. It is more difficult to gauge the performances of Alessandro Nivola and Embeth Davidtz; their characters are too affected by choices made in the script arguably, Henry Crawford for the better and Mary Crawford for the worse .One can be a fan of Jane Austen and still appreciate the film. Although it bears little resemblance to the novel itself, it embodies much of the spirit of Austen and draws from her other novels where Mansfield Park the novel might be, dare I say, lacking. I am an ardent supporter of Austen, but I must say that the film version makes a commendable choice in choosing a protagonist that shares more of Pride and Prejudice's Elizabeth Bennett's spirit than the subdued Fanny of Mansfield Park.The film does, of course, have its flaws. The slavery issue is treated in a manner too heavy-handed to blend with Austen's style, and the same can be said of the hints of lesbianism that are just painfully out of place. The sexual tension is often a touch too overbearing in the film, although I agree with Rozema in saying that the film does not create this sexuality anew but draws from the tension latent in the novel with the exception of the above-mentioned lesbianism . Other disappointments include Sir Bertram and Tom Bertram, who are practically caricatures that mar the otherwise brilliant characterization in the film.Regardless, the film's high points far outweigh its imperfections -- all in all, highly recommended.

tonight and I couldn't break myself away. I love it.Now, of course, I'm a bit biased as I have a crush on Frances O'Connor. But, still, I thought the acting, pacing, and scenery were all very good. What stands out to me though is the way O'Connor shows vulnerability making certain scenes all the more sincere.

Jane Austen's journals and other writings. It never claims to be a straight filming of the novel. Fortunately it is beautifully made and has integrity in being faithful both to aspects of the book and to the writer/director's interpretation of it. It earns the liberties it takes with the novel.No, this is not Jane Austen's Fanny Price. Fanny has been re-imagined as "Jane Austen" herself, a woman of intelligence and talent for whom ideas and writing are essential to life. The wild stories we hear Fanny reading to her sister are passages from Austen's Juvenilia, and we also hear passages from Austen's journals and other writings. I've never been a Fanny-hater myself, but I did love this new Fanny. I was surprised at the absence of Fanny's brother, but the writer/director Patricia Rozema has combined William with Susan for the sake of economy. As she explains in the commentary track, she retained Susan instead of William since Susan's character has a conclusion, as it were.The abolitionist theme that is very subtle in the book is played up here. Not with preachy monologues and 21st century anachronisms, but by dialogue and events that come naturally from the characters. There have always been abolitionists. Other, more overt motifs in the novel, such as improvements and acting, do not get much screen time. Changes are also made in chronology, and there is a brief "caught in flagrante" sex scene that doesn't deserve the scorn heaped upon it.What emerges in this movie is a great, vibrant heroine, the hybrid Austen/Fanny character. Austen's journal writings are haunting, echoing and summarizing many of the themes of her best characters and fiction. Frances O' Connor gives a fantastic performance as the adult Fanny, supported by as fine an ensemble cast as I've ever seen. The movie has a wonderful score, and looks just right. Deliberately not as opulent as some adaptations, this film makes the signs of decay around the house of Mansfield Park subtle but unmistakable.This version of Mansfield Park is not a straight depiction of the novel, and the adaptation won't be to everyone's taste. Patricia Rozema does know Austen's work, but as a filmmaker realizes that you can't just transfer great prose onto a screen. She made choices as to which themes to bring out and which to ignore, and made changes in character and dialogue to give the movie a life of its own. These choices were made for artistic reasons, not out of ignorance of Austen. You could ask, Why not just write an original screenplay if you're going to change so much? I think it's because Rozema and we love Austen, and Austen is still at the heart of this film, just beating a different rhythm.

clearly in the opening credits that the film is based on "Jane Austen's letters, her Juvenilla stories AND Mansfield Park" so in this version the character of Fanny Price is given a generous nod to the characters and events in the life of Jane Austen, which is a new and interesting twist and nice for those who are fans of Austen and not just the 6 novels. Fanny in the film is not as reserved and put upon as Fanny of the book, but this is where the Jane Austen letters come in, and I would like to believe that Fanny of the film is just as worthy a heroine because after all we all love Jane too .As with all movies of a good book there are omissions that some may find frustrating, but the parallels with Jane Austen's life; her early writings of the Juvenilla stories and her reading them to her beloved sister, her first accepting then refusing the marriage proposal a day later, all added to the charm of this version.I am pleased that I got over myself and the negative reviews I had previously read and decided to give it a go. It is worth watching, and to all the nay sayers out there, No it really is not that bad, there are many film version that are unwatchable, but this is not one of them.

to modernize them. I find Pride and Prejudice more relevant than many movies based on novels written 10 years ago. And secondly, the charm of Jane Austen is that her characters are in no way wicked! They have faults abundantly, but the heroines and heroes are undoubtedly good. They are not sleazy. I hate to think that being naughty is the equivalent of being modern. Or that every story that mentions slavery must make a big deal about how horrible it was and good people will instinctively realize that and will stand against it. We all know slavery was bad, but it was a way of life for a very long time and believe it or not, not every good person was an abolitionist. All this to say that the forced modernity jars very unsettlingly with the characteristics anyone who is familiar with history knows and expects to see.Buuut despite the rant, I was altogether pleased. I felt the changes in Fanny were an improvement and though she felt inconsistent, I could understand where waverings in her personality came from. I think many mistake her steadfast loyalty to Edmund for smugness and prudery, and truthfully I might not like her if I had to live with her in person, but I felt for her on screen. The rest of the cast did very well, though Mary was too much vixen, even making insinuations with Fanny.It was very interesting at the end where Fanny states it all could have ended very differently, but it didn't. I definitely saw that as I was rooting for Henry most of the time. I do truly feel if he had shown more patience or Fanny had accepted him, they may have grown to love each other and things could have still ended happily. But Austen seems intent on having that one deceitful man in all her stories: Wickham, Willoughby, Frank, Henry...Ah well, all in all a good film. One of the more melancholy of the Austens, alongside Sense and Sensibility- when things get dark, they get DARK. But don't worry, the sun will shine again, as suns are wont to do...

court her on and off are strong enough as men to be convincing, but they are perfectly still young men, barely more than boys in years, and they have those youthful flaws. Which is part of the fodder for Austen's wit.And social observation. If you don't quite catch the way she plays social classes against each other you miss part of the substance. It isn't just that the poor niece ends up at the rich uncle's house, but that this same niece has the perception to see through their facades. And to keep mum until just the right moment.This isn't a liberation film where the woman charges to victory in a big speech or by a power play. Instead—and this is one reason Austen is still readable today—the woman simply comments on the issues in a way that makes clear her more advanced views, and the obstacles slowly fall away through outside circumstances rather than her own doing . The passivity of Fanny Price might bother some people, but that's exactly her role, as a character, in this pageant.One last point—slavery. This is the one novel of Austen's that gets her in trouble for her languid views on the uncle's use of slaves in the West Indies. The movie seems to twist this into a more modern condemnation, which helps us stay sympathetic to the whole shebang. There is even an added scene of sketches done in a way rather like Goya's socially critical drawings of the same time, with some Kara Walker thrown in which make clear the crisis at hand.If you want to dip into Austen through a movie, choose between this and the 2005 "Pride and Prejudice" and you won't be disappointed. Of course, if you want to read the book—that's even better. More modern and fresh than it "should" be for 200 years ago.