{"id":14,"date":"2007-02-25T16:25:30","date_gmt":"2007-02-25T23:25:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/2007\/02\/25\/parrill-and-mansfield-park\/"},"modified":"2007-02-25T16:26:57","modified_gmt":"2007-02-25T23:26:57","slug":"parrill-and-mansfield-park","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/2007\/02\/25\/parrill-and-mansfield-park\/","title":{"rendered":"Parrill and Mansfield Park"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the essay on Mansfield Park<\/em> in her book, Jane Austen and Film<\/em>, Sue Parrill discusses both the BBC (1983) and Patricia Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s (1999) adaptations in context with Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 1814 novel. Parrill basically describes and compares both adaptations with what Austen would or would not have wanted; additionally, Parrill outlines what other critics, such as Claudia Johnson, have written about both adaptations.<\/p>\n

Parrill begins her essay quoting Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s feelings on Mansfield Park<\/em> and discussing the continuing unpopularity of the book. Parrill writes that “Austen was confident that it would be well received and unhappy when it was not. One of the problems with the novel for the modern reader is its protagonist” (Parrill 80). Because of Fanny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s subdued and submissive attitude and behavior, modern readers have difficulty identifying with her when she is treated badly by her parents, Aunt, and Uncle. Furthermore, Parrill asserts that film directors and screen writers have a hard time adapting Fanny in order to be true to Austen because Fanny “is said to be physically unattractive and weak…she is essentially passive” (Parrill 80). How does a film maker make a movie which is both entertaining to modern audiences, and true to how Austen envisioned Fanny Price?<\/p>\n

Both directors who have adapted Mansfield Park<\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u201cKen Taylor and Patricia Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u201chave been called wrong by critics, including Parrill. Parrill writes that Sylvestra Le Touzel, who plays Fanny in the 1983 BBC version, hampered the success of Taylor\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s film because she is too plain. Parrill writes that “Television and film are visual media. The choice of Sylvestra Le Touzel for the role of Fanny was fatal to the success of this adaptation” (Parrill 84). However, because Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Fanny is so plain and unattractive, it seems that Le Touzel would be a natural choice.<\/p>\n

In his adaptation, Taylor was concious of Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s choices and stayed close to the novel. Indeed, as Parrill writes, “Ken Taylor followed the story-line of the novel closely. For many Janeites, this faithfulness to the novel makes up for other deficiencies” (Parrill 85). Indeed, many “Janeites” were appalled and disgusted with Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s adaptation, which modernized and “reinterpreted” (Parrill 85) Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s novel. Rozema chose to downplay Fanny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s modest personality, instead purporting her to be a young Jane Austen. Additionally, Rozema concentrated on political and cultural themes. Parrill writes that “in this reinterpretation she has been much influenced by recent critics, such as Claudia Johnson, who have emphasized the importance in the novel of the issues of slavery and the oppression of women, particularly as they relate to the character of Sir Thomas Bertram and his treatment of Fanny Price” (Parrill 85). Even while keeping with modern interpretations, such as those of Johnson, “Janeites” were outraged with nineteenth-century political implications that Austen may or may not have been concerned with.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, viewers–Austen lovers or otherwise–were surprised at the implication of lesbianism during certain scenes in Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s version. Parrill writes that “reviewers were agog over what they interpreted as lesbian overtones in the Miramax film, particularly in the scene in which Mary rehearses her lines with Fanny” (Parrill 94). In coming to Fanny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s bedroom to rehearse lines from a taboo play, it seems that Mary is seeking Fanny out sexually. Parrill continues that Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s camera strategies in forces the lesbian overtones to the reader. Parrill writes that the “camera circles Mary and Fanny as Mary stands close to Fanny and puts her hands around Fanny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s waist. Using one of her favorite camera techniques, Rozema enables the viewer to look beyond the girls in the foreground to Edmund, who is watching them” (Parrill 94). Because Edmund is sexually or romantically linked to both Fanny and Mary, the scene suggests a certain shared sexuality, lesbian or otherwise.<\/p>\n

Parrill continues in her essay to discuss how the two adaptations differed, emphasizing Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ability to make the story-line more alluring to the modern-day viewer. As discussed, Fanny Price is portrayed as a young, budding writer Jane Austen in Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s film; this helps the viewer identify with Fanny. Fanny in the 1999 version even reads stories to her sister Susan which are in fact some of Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Love and Freindship <\/em>(Parrill 87). In general, viewers can identify with Fanny and understand Mansfield Park<\/em> in the 1999 version because of conflicts–both of the late 20th<\/sup> and early 19th<\/sup> century\u00e2\u20ac\u201cthat Rozema imbues into the film. Besides lesbianism and slavery, Rozema discusses incest and substance abuse in her film (Parrill 102).<\/p>\n

Parrill discusses Johnson\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s explanation of Fanny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s voice-over vignettes at the end of the novel, which allow the viewer into the film. Parrill writes that “the conclusion is vaguely nostalgic and whimsical, as the narrator reiterates that it might have turned out differently, but it didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t” (105). Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s decision to conclude the film with small vignettes which allow the viewer, along with the narrator and characters, to think what could have been, impacts her “reinterpretation” of Mansfield Park<\/em>; in other words, the film and story-line can include whatever the viewer chooses. Thus, the viewer has the freedom, just like Rozema did, to make conjectures on Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s original story.<\/p>\n

Parrill concludes her essay discussing the freedom implication of the DVD cover\u00e2\u20ac\u201ca picture of Fanny holding a key to presumably, Mansfield Park. Parrill asserts that freedom\u00e2\u20ac\u201cfrom slave owners, parents, place, and substance\u00e2\u20ac\u201cis what Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s film is really about.<\/p>\n

I thought Parrill\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s essay was very useful in putting both adaptation in context with each other and Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s novel. Parrill also briefly summarizes the political and social climate of the early 19th<\/sup> century; in order to make an Austen adaptation in the late 20th<\/sup> century concerning the modern political and social climate in regards to that of the early 19th<\/sup> century, comparisons must be made. I liked Parrill\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s commentary on “reinterpreting” Austen in film adaptation. Because I am interested in the idea of reinterpretation of the early 19th<\/sup> century in the late 20th<\/sup> century, particularly in regards to modern audiences and Mansfield Park<\/em>, I would use this essay for my final paper. Also, I did not watch the DVD commentary on Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s adapation; because Parrill cites this commentary often in her essay, I will definitely go back and take a look at Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s interview.<\/p>\n

By: Leah<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the essay on Mansfield Park in her book, Jane Austen and Film, Sue Parrill discusses both the BBC (1983) and Patricia Rozema\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s (1999) adaptations in context with Austen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 1814 novel. Parrill basically describes and compares both adaptations with what Austen would or would not have wanted; additionally, Parrill outlines what other critics, such as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":45,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/45"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/janeaustenfilm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}