*WARNING* : RANT

For loyal Jane Austen fans everywhere: BEWARE the TREACHERY of the 1999 version of "Mansfield Park."

Ok, that's a little extreme. Let's put it this way:

This week, I'm writing my paper on Jane Austen's novel "Mansfield Park." Having never before read the book (shocking, I know!) I was very much excited to spend some 3 or 4 hours doing so, and calling it "homework" only made the story all the more exciting! Anyway, reading it, as I did, with as intellectual and analytic an eye as I could, I formed a very solid idea in my head of the plot structure, themes, and especially of the characters. So it was with some hesitation, but an exceptionally strong curiosity, that I looked up the film on Youtube. The version I found first was the 2007 Masterpiece Theatre (which, by the way, I must add: I love MT, and have yet to be disappointed!) version with Billie Piper and James D'Arcy (not a prominent role, but fun to recognize nonetheless). It was EXCELLENT! I loved it! I was so happy to see such wonderful portrayals of all the characters! Of course, as a TV version, it could only go so far with plot, resulting in the cutting of a number of scenes, BUT NOT to the detriment of the overall piece. The characters were beautifully true to the story.

NOT SO for the 1999 version. Admittedly, Edmund is more the dashing young fellow in this version, and the scenery is to die for, but from the very start, from the very first scene Fanny is all wrong. After reading the book, you can hardly bring yourself to like the girl, for all her awkward, humiliating, humiliated, insipid, self-deprecating humbling awkwardness. She hardly speaks a word, has no wit or opinion or thought to speak of, crumbles and cries and quakes before the world - and yet, in spite of it all, she is gentleness itself; kind, patient, is not envious, is not puffed up. She is charity itself. And popular opinion is against her because of this: because she thinks only of others, because she is willing to be subservient and silent upon every reproach. Critics whine: why doesn't she stand up for herself? Where's her backbone, her individuality, her personality, her determination, her strength? What they don't understand is that her weakness is her strength. In her silence is her voice.

Not so our little 1999 heroine,the self-assured upstart snarky little bright young thing. In her first scene, she's making up stories to comfort her younger sister. From the incorrigible young age of nine, she's interested in the issue of slavery. For pete's sake, if you read the BOOK, she bawls the entire trip to Mansfield, the entire first week there, and then off and on during the next eight years. EIGHT YEARS of pining and whining. And feministic pouty little miss adventure-and-curiosity has the nerve to stare petulantly into the camera and tell us how bored she is. "Voracious" reading? WRITING? Quirky? Yes. Funny? Maybe. Accurate? Emphatically NOT.

[And, on that note, NO subtlety whatsoever. Which is the essence of Austen's writing and wit ... I wince and wince and wince at the portrayals of Mrs. Norris, Tom Bertram, Rushworth, etc. But that shall be another rant, another day.]

[Oh! and the seduction scene in the East Room? KOWTOWING to our modern day society who have no brains or wit enough to understand what's going on unless it is played out in detail in front of them, to the great perversion of characters ... Edmund? For example? SERIOUSLY? And Mary: CREEPY.]

Why portray her as Alice in Wonderland? Why portray her as Jo March? Why portray her as Jane Austen herself? Or even Lizzy Bennet? Why portray her as anything other than Fanny Price??? Let the other girls stick to their own stories! Fanny has enough people pushing her around and telling her how to behave; can't we give her a little room and let her BE HERSELF? Isn't that what modern society has been drumming into our heads these past, what, fifty years?

So, maybe I'm a purist. So, maybe I'm a perfectionist. So, maybe I'm reading too much into the story ... or staying up too late at night. Very probably yes. But while studying literature, it becomes all the more obvious and irksome when such great works are misrepresented; and it also becomes vitally important for these works and their characters to be well portrayed for the *sigh* dare I say it? Uncultured masses. Ok, that sounds snobbish. Let's say, the general population. Those who haven't read the books, but get dragged by the hair to see the films (or fall asleep in the middle of them on the family room couch). And for the not-so-general population as well, those who have read and enjoyed and can appreciate the books; are they not irritated ... even the slightest bit ... to see things shown in ways they are not meant to be? What about future generations,when books become extinct and stuffy old archeologists turn to ancient, worm-eaten fragments of VHS film for their information, holding the shreds up to the light to see images of strange people in bird feathers and large hair, ornate dresses (probably worn for complicated rain-dance or sacrifical rituals) and bizarre footear; and the discovery of a DVD player will win the Nobel Prize! Just think of how they will be able to see us all ... *sigh*

Ok, getting extreme again.

Anyway, READ THE BOOK. READ THE BOOK. READ THE BOOK.

Then use your God-given gifts of intelligence, reason, and free will - watch the films, and form your own opinions. [now that I have told you what to think, muwahahahahaha]

Until later!
Yours truly :)







And just sayin', Mary Crawford looks TERRIBLE. Lady Bertram WORSE. But Julia is BEAUTIFUL. MOLLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

... if you haven't, READ and SEE and DELIGHT IN Mary Gaskell's "Wives and Daughters." Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!