If one reads the opening credits, shortly after the young Fanny climbs into the carriage at the beginning of film, you will find the words "Based on the novel by Jane Austen, Mansfield Park, early journals and letters". Therefore the movie makers do indicate that this movie is NOT purely a book adaptation, albeit in small print. In truth, this movie is half "Mansfield Park", half "Becoming Jane".
I would have been very upset with the film if I had not read the above-mentioned caveat (even having been fore-warned by IMDb users that this movie was highly inaccurate), but knowing this made the world of difference in understanding WHY they made the changes that they did.
Fanny doubles up in character as Jane Austen herself, which is the biggest flaw in the plan, seeing as most interpretations of Jane portray a very independent woman--quite the polar opposite of Fanny Price. The problem is, the director or writer didn't quite make up their mind which way to portray Fanny/Jane, so sometimes she is outgoing and feisty, and sometimes shy and submissive, so the character in the movie is very inconsistent.
Edmund, Fanny's cousin, doubles up as Jane's beloved brother, Henry. Edmund falls for Mary Crawford; Henry Austen fell for his older widowed cousin Eliza de Feuillide, against the wishes of his sister Jane and the rest of the family. This coincides with Fanny disliking Edmund's affection for Mary, and also gives an excuse for picking an actress of whom my first impression was, "She's too old to play Mary." And Fanny's unladylike playfulness with Edmund makes more sense in the light of how Jane likely behaved with Henry.
Henry Crawford doubles up as Tom Lefroy, the source of some speculated flirtation in Jane's life, as well as Harris Bigg-Wither, the man from whom Jane accepts a proposal one day and retracts it the following morning. This is the reason why they make Fanny in the movie accept Henry Crawford and then decline him, even though in the book Fanny declines him consistently and emphatically. It was tempting in both cases to marry someone with financial competency. And I think the Tom Lefroy side of it is why they have Fanny engage in some verbal jousting and teasing with Henry Crawford and have her enjoying his company on occasion.
Fanny's correspondent and best sibling-friend in the book is her brother William. Her sister Susan is substituted in this role in the movie to play the fill-in Cassandra, Jane's only sister and her confidante, frequently by extensive correspondence whenever they were separated.
Other tie-ins to Jane Austen's life is that they have Fanny being an aspiring writer. Fanny writes a "History of England", as Jane did in earlier years, and it appears that the lines Fanny says in the movie about some of the kings of England may be snippets from that writing. When Edmund refers to Fanny having a new modern way of writing, it is because she was parodying older history books. The other stories she concocts and relates to her sister appear to come from other pieces in Jane's "Juvenilia".
Understanding that the movie makers were combining fiction with biography made the digression from the novel's plot more understandable, but I think they should have taken more effort to make this apparent to viewers. No one in their right mind should put the title of a Jane Austen book on a movie that does not closely follow the story for fear of raising the hackles of the many purists out there (myself among them). It was an interesting idea they had, but not well-advertised enough of a concept to excuse themselves. If they had even tweaked the title a little, such as "Jane's Mansfield Park", it might have better alerted the audience that the movie is not just the book verbatim and has more to do with Jane herself.
Now, I like the idea, once presented as such, but was it well-executed? Moderately so. The big problem was, as I suggested, having one actor filling two roles simultaneously, rolled up together. Fanny came out a bit wishy-washy. Edmund did all right generally, but it was hard to see that he ever really loved Mary with the infatuated devotion he has for her in the book, which makes Fanny's fear of losing him less grounded. Fanny's unwavering love for Edmund (in the book) is diminished, as well, because of her flirtations and temporary acceptance of Henry (in the movie). And of course the entire plot is rather rushed through to try to fit in 2 hours--a problem for any Austen novel--so many details and character development are lost.
However, in spite of the negatives, and in spite of wishing this had been a purist adaptation, we still are left with an enjoyable Regency-era movie, full of great sets and pretty costumes (a few looked a bit "off" to me as far as accuracy goes, but we'll set that aside and try to appreciate the aesthetics as they are). It's a basic time-period rom-com, if not a true work of Austen, and as such I intend to like it for its own merits, in its own right, and not for its namesake.
And considering that many readers dislike Fanny as an Austen heroine, changing her character likely made this more appealing to a broader audience; if you are one such reader, you may find this movie even better than the book. (I think Fanny is grossly underrated as a heroine, but that is another argument.)
If you are on the fence about whether to watch this (as I have been for years, before finally deciding to give it a chance), make up your mind to pretend this is a different story altogether, not "Mansfield Park", and perhaps you will find room to like it.
I would have been very upset with the film if I had not read the above-mentioned caveat (even having been fore-warned by IMDb users that this movie was highly inaccurate), but knowing this made the world of difference in understanding WHY they made the changes that they did.
Fanny doubles up in character as Jane Austen herself, which is the biggest flaw in the plan, seeing as most interpretations of Jane portray a very independent woman--quite the polar opposite of Fanny Price. The problem is, the director or writer didn't quite make up their mind which way to portray Fanny/Jane, so sometimes she is outgoing and feisty, and sometimes shy and submissive, so the character in the movie is very inconsistent.
Edmund, Fanny's cousin, doubles up as Jane's beloved brother, Henry. Edmund falls for Mary Crawford; Henry Austen fell for his older widowed cousin Eliza de Feuillide, against the wishes of his sister Jane and the rest of the family. This coincides with Fanny disliking Edmund's affection for Mary, and also gives an excuse for picking an actress of whom my first impression was, "She's too old to play Mary." And Fanny's unladylike playfulness with Edmund makes more sense in the light of how Jane likely behaved with Henry.
Henry Crawford doubles up as Tom Lefroy, the source of some speculated flirtation in Jane's life, as well as Harris Bigg-Wither, the man from whom Jane accepts a proposal one day and retracts it the following morning. This is the reason why they make Fanny in the movie accept Henry Crawford and then decline him, even though in the book Fanny declines him consistently and emphatically. It was tempting in both cases to marry someone with financial competency. And I think the Tom Lefroy side of it is why they have Fanny engage in some verbal jousting and teasing with Henry Crawford and have her enjoying his company on occasion.
Fanny's correspondent and best sibling-friend in the book is her brother William. Her sister Susan is substituted in this role in the movie to play the fill-in Cassandra, Jane's only sister and her confidante, frequently by extensive correspondence whenever they were separated.
Other tie-ins to Jane Austen's life is that they have Fanny being an aspiring writer. Fanny writes a "History of England", as Jane did in earlier years, and it appears that the lines Fanny says in the movie about some of the kings of England may be snippets from that writing. When Edmund refers to Fanny having a new modern way of writing, it is because she was parodying older history books. The other stories she concocts and relates to her sister appear to come from other pieces in Jane's "Juvenilia".
Understanding that the movie makers were combining fiction with biography made the digression from the novel's plot more understandable, but I think they should have taken more effort to make this apparent to viewers. No one in their right mind should put the title of a Jane Austen book on a movie that does not closely follow the story for fear of raising the hackles of the many purists out there (myself among them). It was an interesting idea they had, but not well-advertised enough of a concept to excuse themselves. If they had even tweaked the title a little, such as "Jane's Mansfield Park", it might have better alerted the audience that the movie is not just the book verbatim and has more to do with Jane herself.
Now, I like the idea, once presented as such, but was it well-executed? Moderately so. The big problem was, as I suggested, having one actor filling two roles simultaneously, rolled up together. Fanny came out a bit wishy-washy. Edmund did all right generally, but it was hard to see that he ever really loved Mary with the infatuated devotion he has for her in the book, which makes Fanny's fear of losing him less grounded. Fanny's unwavering love for Edmund (in the book) is diminished, as well, because of her flirtations and temporary acceptance of Henry (in the movie). And of course the entire plot is rather rushed through to try to fit in 2 hours--a problem for any Austen novel--so many details and character development are lost.
However, in spite of the negatives, and in spite of wishing this had been a purist adaptation, we still are left with an enjoyable Regency-era movie, full of great sets and pretty costumes (a few looked a bit "off" to me as far as accuracy goes, but we'll set that aside and try to appreciate the aesthetics as they are). It's a basic time-period rom-com, if not a true work of Austen, and as such I intend to like it for its own merits, in its own right, and not for its namesake.
And considering that many readers dislike Fanny as an Austen heroine, changing her character likely made this more appealing to a broader audience; if you are one such reader, you may find this movie even better than the book. (I think Fanny is grossly underrated as a heroine, but that is another argument.)
If you are on the fence about whether to watch this (as I have been for years, before finally deciding to give it a chance), make up your mind to pretend this is a different story altogether, not "Mansfield Park", and perhaps you will find room to like it.