@klward22 With how much opium tincture or whatever it is she's drinking, I'm guessing they probably could have switched dogs on her and she never would have noticed. That's probably Puggsie the II or III by now. ;)
You could definitely be right. I don't know what Jane Austen's views on slavery/the slave trade were, but I would like to think she disagreed with it! I still like how this movie goes really in depth with it, ya know? My earlier comment was a response to how some comments were complaining about the slavery aspect of this movie. The novel is definitely better though, but this is a very interesting take on it! :)
This manor house is quite drab and cold. Unless a family has considerable financial setback (causing them to sell household items), a home of this standing would certainly be decorated in carpets and tapestries - even older ones - just to keep out the cold from the stone floors and walls.
I'm sorry, but this adaptation is just unacceptable. Things move way too fast and there are inaccuracies and anachronisms in almost every scene--not to mention the complete and total disregard for the source material. Quite frankly this is the worst adaptation of any of Austen's works I have ever seen.
As an AA, the moral point of slavery is made by Austen for the times, imho. Here's why:
The timeline. This is the Regent Era (Georgian), 1000xs less decadent & more moral than the upcoming early Victorian Era which results in the Slave Trade Act of 1807, 7 years prior to this novel (1814). There is a HUGE abolition movement @ this time because of a case against Lord MANSFIELD in 1772. (hehe)
That's why erbody's so weird abt discussing slaves here. It will be abolished b4 these kids are 40.
@ty73us oops! "a case against Charles Steuart in 1772 forced England to have to deal with the legal statuses of manservants being shangheid into plantation slaves in other countries. The case was ruled by Lord Mansfield. England had actually stopped enslaving in the 1600s but more legislation had to be extended because of the blacks who were starting to be sold there, a bad time 4 tht business b/c of the "bareness" of the times, as u can see from the uncorseted ladies. Regent was a short era.
This movie is kind of awkward...It makes lots of characters seem dark or creepy. The one thing I do really like is how sweet Julia is...not like the book, but it's cute.
@Sarandib22 Oh my God I was thinking the same thing. Have you watched the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet? It's much, much worse. And the girl is only 17!
If I may ask, is this movie called Mansfield Park? I would like to have it in my library plus I have just discovered my love for Jane Austen writtings.
wow the history of the west Indian slavery.. the most wicked and cruel slavery ever..that where all the riches came from. fanny your complexion have become much lighter..lol
They've completely butchered this story. I mean it's a nice movie, I suppose, but it couldn't be more different than the book. Sir Thomas wasn't such a pompous fool in the book, he was a good man. This movie is making him look like an idiot. And Mary Crawford wasn't such a seductress, she was really a sweet girl. Just superficial.
It's unjust that Fanny is trying to show that she has a mind, and everyone - except Edmond - is just reverting to her looks. :-( I'm glad that times have changed... oh, wait...
This is a shameful and sexually connoted, truly unacceptable version of Mansfield Park. I can see no similarity. The characters are misunderstood and pathetic. I wonder why on earth they did it that way.
@TheGemini15 It's the only way this has probably stayed on Youtube. If you gave the whole movie, they'd probably delete your account. This way, you can be sure that this movie will stay up.
I agree, it does suck. But I don't mind cutting out a little if it means we get the majority.
I have mixed feelings. The anachronisms are bothersome, while other elements make for an interesting product...if it were not attempting to portray a historical novel.
i completely agree i cant make up my mind as to wether or not i like it... its hard to tell depending on how you judge it ... by history and the novel or by popular adaption... i'll reserve judgement til the end
I actually like the inaccuracy from the novel of slavery being mentioned. i think it adds a richer context to the story and sort of exposes the true way that Sir Bertram made his money, which is sort of glossed over in the book since in Jane Austen's time such things weren't really mentioned in literature
I disagree. Adding the slavery tangent is petty political posturing. I read/watch Austen for its romantic escapism, not for more dreary political dogma.
@policemanaaron, absolutely. It's as if the scriptwriters are actually EMBARRASSED with Miss Austen's lack of political correctness. So sad, too, because she was more than liberal-minded for her day, and not in the current notion of the term, either. She was discerning and felt deeply for those unfortunates in her circle without means or society behind them to alter their circumstance. But now, evidently, we must "clean her up" in a creepy way not unlike a Nazi bookburning--tragic.
@tiffers1912 but austen's point in 'glossing over' that aspect of the novel could have been ment to show how it was glossed over in real life, in the book fanny asks about the slave trade and is met by a 'dead silence' and the fact that Austen mentions the slave trade at all is remarkable considering the time the book was written..in just mentioning it she is giving it a conspicuous absence beacuse it is such an important part of the story. shes forcing the readers to think about it themselves.
i thought fanny was mr bertrum's niece by marriage. mrs norris is fanny's aunty right? and mrs bertrum is mrs norris' sister, so mrs bertrum is fanny's aunty too right? so tom, julia, moriah and the other brother are her cousins right? can someone explain to me. thanks
Sir Thomas Bertram and Lady Bertram's children are Tom, Julia, Maria and Edmond. Mrs Norris is Lady Bertram's sister. Fanny's mother is Mrs. Price and also Lady Bertram's sister. So yes Fanny is niece to Sir Thomas. Fanny's mother married "for love" and is poor, whereas the other two sisters married for convenience, position and a relatively comfortable life.
so why do they treat her badly like a maid or something, why is her room dingy and without heating in the winter, why is mrs norris mean to her. why is she not treated like their equal. why does mrs norris live there with the bertrams, maybe i should have read the book
She is a poor relation. Has no money, no dowry/inheritance and no status. Her only benefit was the rich Baronet uncle. Poor people who went to live with richer relatives had to "earn their keep." Back then women didn't have many opportunities other than to marry, go into service (maid or cook), governess or prostitute. Sometimes women could operate schools for girls or a boarding house and still stay "respectable."
This movie is so far away from the book that i don't see it like an adaptation at all. I just see it as a movie with a similar main story. So i can like both, the movie and the book !!
wtf i think this is soo not the real thing for the book... its either that or i made up and entire meaning to the book... lol but seriously the scenes are sooo mixed up.. she doesnt make up stories or write to suzan... they even got the gender wrong... william.. and henry is way not the way i imagined him... he's way better
The movie is based on the book but also on some letters that Austen wrote herself, a combination. As for the part of William and Susan, it is mix. Fanny did have a closer relationship with William but Susan was her younger sister whom she got close and went to live with the Bertrams when Fanny married Edmund.
I don't remember the book being this liberal-minded about the slaves, and this woman definitely isn't Fanny. I guess this movie is as much "MP" as "Clueless" is Emma.
At least clueless was trying to make it fit into something that wasn't the natural style, this is just a weak adaptation. They hardly mentioned slaves, and Fanny... well, I agree, this just is not her.
That. Woman. Is such. A CREEPER!!! I've seen this movie a million times, and she gets weirder with each viewing. Boo, Mary Crawford. Boo. Keep the creepiness to yourself, please!
one thing I do love about the movie version is how it shows how horribly they are behaving by being in the play, but I do think they should have drawn it out a bit longer. It was such a HUGE deal in the book, and was important build up for why she refuses henry crawford's proposal
but read the book - they're all great!!! really, i'd rea dthe book before watching any of the movies, as sometimes things aren't explained properly, so without that knowledge, we can be left a bit lost...
no, not at all like the book - no secret slave-trader life :) and mary crawford is pretty hideous in this version. i think the writer here thought it was a bit too boring and wanted to jazz it up! also- the start of the movie says "based on mansfield park and her writings and life" or something like that. fanny is actually boring, and very (VERY) accommodating to everyone, bit of a pushover, so doesn't make for a good movie. they always muck this one up for that reason i think! :)
in one wawy this is painful to watch - so not true to the book - very messy. on the other hand - i love every jane austen movie, and the worse acted or written, the better! :)
My dear fracsred, I was just wondering if this movie rendition is close to the book....I see that it is not...I have yet to read the book, but I can not help but wonder if there is more about the Uncle and his secret life as a slave trader...This would indeed explain the eldest brothers utter abhorrence of his father.
I like Julia, she seems the better of the two sisters. No wonder why Tom is so messed up, Sir Thomas has big issues himself. How is a son supposed to grow better when his father doesn't. But, I think that the change that happens more in the end of the story plays out really well.
in those days women werent allowed opinions unless u were royale and it was allowed for men to praise women like he did, back then it was not being a perve but being a man. this movie takes place in the early 1800's no laws for women back then they were slaves themselves
It is interesting to see how much is changed from the book, including the time lines. Mary and Fanny are both amplified. She was never accomplished as a writer, or wrote to Susan. She was more serenely demure. It's all been modernized, but I like the discussion of slavery which Fanny did touch on in the book. The ball didn't happen till the sisters had left, and was because of her Fanny's brother. Much better than the recent screen version, and it makes sense to see languid Lady Bertam drugged.
i thought fanny was blonde? i think fanny's character is btter blonde, nothing against frances o conner. I just think it fits her personality to be blonde. she is supposed to stand out from her cousins and everyone else right?
The cousins are supposed to be blond . I think I'd like this film more if I hadn't read the book . Fanny wrote to her brother William in the book and he's quite a big part of the story , no mention of him so far .
whoa! that threw me off a bit when he meantioned her figure. i watched the 2007 mansfield before i found this and i kinda like the unlce better in that one (0.0) but i do like this movie better.
umm, definitely not, flametteX. Jane Austen, the author of Mansfield Park and five other novels, was controversial in her time in the early 1800s (as a woman writer) but her works are really much more mainstream and wholesome, especially compared to Fingersmith
Artistic License, indeed! Although I'm not fond of either the '99 or the '07 version (b/c both portray Fanny Price to be too lively, unlike the book), this one seems to take considerable liberties.
that part with miss crawford and fanny is wierd.i mean i can see how it would fit in but they shouldn't have put it in. it's a disgrace to jane austens work i'm only glad it won't appear again!
well, he wasn't as pervy as he is in this movie, but he was still very controlling. there was also definitely something off about him in the book, not just in the way he interacted with fanny but with all of his children. I feel like he's harder to pin down than some of austen's other characters.
i don't know they just showed him advocating slavery i hate how they've destroyed him he was a stern but good man in the book how could they do this to him ?!
i almost thought that Miss Crawford had a thing for Fanny if i didn't read the book previoiusly...
MarianaPhoenix 1 day ago
I love the book to much, this movie ruined my imagination.
rdgraaff100 3 weeks ago
Sir Thomas Ewwwwwwwwwwwww
They ruined his character.
SuperSoulSeeker 1 month ago
at 1:34 i was afraid mary was going to kiss fanny lol
coolElsie 1 month ago 2
jn
silypuss 1 month ago
Sir Thomas is such a pervy creep also! What didn't they change from the book?
grumblebunz 1 month ago
This slavery stuff just doesn't belong in here and Fanny certainly wouldn't have expressed her strong opinion in the book like this.
grumblebunz 1 month ago
This opium crap for Lady Bertram is ridiculous also. Why does she need to be a junkie instead of just uninvolved and lazy?
grumblebunz 1 month ago
Oh dear, never noticed Mr. Rushworth checking out his codpiece before... 3:16
violentfille 1 month ago
@lizzielonglegs can't watch this without bursting into giggles now :(
JasmineRAWWR 2 months ago
embeth davidtz sure has a taste for younger girls ehh? ahhaha
ImmorTigerLilyxx 3 months ago
this movie is not what i expected it to be!!
zhuzhela 3 months ago
Slavery is cruel inhumane and stupid
winnerACE1109 7 months ago
So they were cousins ?
winnerACE1109 7 months ago
.... Puggsie is an old dog
klward22 7 months ago
@klward22 With how much opium tincture or whatever it is she's drinking, I'm guessing they probably could have switched dogs on her and she never would have noticed. That's probably Puggsie the II or III by now. ;)
Sarandib22 5 months ago 6
Lol I'm sure there's a different intention to the first scene, but I think Edmund's just thinking:
"Don't get a boner don't get a boner DONOTGETABONER"
lizzielonglegs 7 months ago 24
man, they were so sexist in those days!!!!
FMLdoodez 8 months ago
Why is she writing to Susan and not William? I don't understand why she cut him out.
Finntroll17 8 months ago 5
This is one of the worst version as they added so much rabbish to the story. I would recommend: MANSFIELD PARK (1983) Episode 1 Part 1/5
sadiasum82 10 months ago
hot lesbian scene
Areyoubeingfilmed 10 months ago
Ah the ignorance of some people inference to black people. Classed as a completely different species.
Black then they would never have thought that in less than 200 years, black man, would be President of the USA. How society has grown up.
lilmisssmiley02 10 months ago
I love Mr Rushworth's jacket at 4:55! Such a wonderful colour!
Wilzo 10 months ago
Fanny would you... oh Mr Bertrum, how CONVENIENT to find you here
cryinward 11 months ago
Haha it's the actress from Wives and Daughters and The guy who plays Edmund was also in the BBC version of Emma.
BOOKfreak526 11 months ago
You could definitely be right. I don't know what Jane Austen's views on slavery/the slave trade were, but I would like to think she disagreed with it! I still like how this movie goes really in depth with it, ya know? My earlier comment was a response to how some comments were complaining about the slavery aspect of this movie. The novel is definitely better though, but this is a very interesting take on it! :)
tiffers1912 11 months ago
I don't like how they turned Sir Thomas into kind of a creep for his niece. I felt that in the book he was so purely a fatherly figure at the end.
armorArtichoke 1 year ago 35
Comment removed
armorArtichoke 1 year ago
julia is way better than mariah
Smokinmaryj 1 year ago
i really like julia in this part she seems like a nice person nicer than marhia who is a bitch
Smokinmaryj 1 year ago
This manor house is quite drab and cold. Unless a family has considerable financial setback (causing them to sell household items), a home of this standing would certainly be decorated in carpets and tapestries - even older ones - just to keep out the cold from the stone floors and walls.
colemyst 1 year ago
This is nothing like the book.
MrsBbler 1 year ago
This doesn't seem very Jane Austin-like....
JadeTigerGem 1 year ago
The best adaption is definitely the 1981 version, if you don't like this one go watch that one ;)
NBBisLOVE5 1 year ago
Sir Thomas is like a creeper!! That SO wasn't how he was in the book.
livn4hevn 1 year ago
Miss Crawford rehearsing with Fanny is so wrong.
clpearson991 1 year ago
Miss Crawford is so much better in the book
fire12321 1 year ago
Ick... I'd forgotten just how truly awful this is, how truly vile. Rozema has mutilated Austen, not adapted her. Gag.
RevWarRev 1 year ago
This version isn't very good but unfortunately the 2007 version is even more painful to watch....
Ballet4Everz 1 year ago 8
omg agreed it was terrible
dolphinrider22 5 months ago
This is not my Mansfield Park! :(
danrdrewf 1 year ago
awful movie.. in every way possible. i think the worst is that fanny is not likeable at all.
nellautumngirl 1 year ago
@nellautumngirl I agree but i did not find her likeable in the book either. At least in the movie she has more personality.
Bl9cKandWh1tE 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but this adaptation is just unacceptable. Things move way too fast and there are inaccuracies and anachronisms in almost every scene--not to mention the complete and total disregard for the source material. Quite frankly this is the worst adaptation of any of Austen's works I have ever seen.
urbanr0cker 1 year ago
@urbanr0cker
agreed
nellautumngirl 1 year ago
Why is she unhappy about coming out into society:? Does it have something to do with her insecurity?
sidraqsa 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
sidraqsa 1 year ago
Haaa - I'm loving the mother and son duo in the play. Their mini rehearsals are hilarious XD
gossipgirladdict12 1 year ago 3
As an AA, the moral point of slavery is made by Austen for the times, imho. Here's why:
The timeline. This is the Regent Era (Georgian), 1000xs less decadent & more moral than the upcoming early Victorian Era which results in the Slave Trade Act of 1807, 7 years prior to this novel (1814). There is a HUGE abolition movement @ this time because of a case against Lord MANSFIELD in 1772. (hehe)
That's why erbody's so weird abt discussing slaves here. It will be abolished b4 these kids are 40.
ty73us 1 year ago
@ty73us oops! "a case against Charles Steuart in 1772 forced England to have to deal with the legal statuses of manservants being shangheid into plantation slaves in other countries. The case was ruled by Lord Mansfield. England had actually stopped enslaving in the 1600s but more legislation had to be extended because of the blacks who were starting to be sold there, a bad time 4 tht business b/c of the "bareness" of the times, as u can see from the uncorseted ladies. Regent was a short era.
ty73us 1 year ago
So THAT'S where Sick Boy's been....lounging around in the early 19th century!
marginallymental 1 year ago 3
@marginallymental Haha! Made me laugh :)
zozelini 1 year ago
This movie is kind of awkward...It makes lots of characters seem dark or creepy. The one thing I do really like is how sweet Julia is...not like the book, but it's cute.
HDC17 1 year ago 2
Is it just me or is the volume really low on this ?
awakening321 1 year ago 11
4:52 OMG, is she showing enough clevage there??? So much for the virtue of modesty.
Sarandib22 1 year ago 6
@Sarandib22 Oh my God I was thinking the same thing. Have you watched the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet? It's much, much worse. And the girl is only 17!
ohgoodjoy 1 year ago
If I may ask, is this movie called Mansfield Park? I would like to have it in my library plus I have just discovered my love for Jane Austen writtings.
brekizahonda 1 year ago
wow the history of the west Indian slavery.. the most wicked and cruel slavery ever..that where all the riches came from. fanny your complexion have become much lighter..lol
hateful22 1 year ago
This sucks. I wonder if the other versions are better or not.
ShesFixingHerHair8 1 year ago
why does mary crawford always end up a little too close to fanny? to put it nicely?
absolute52347 1 year ago 5
ewww Sir Thomas is kind of gross...the way he spoke of his "Mulatto" lover and the way he was sizing up Fanny...nasty
Strangefruity 1 year ago 9
ok so its not just me he is totally CREEPY
dolphinrider22 5 months ago
@dolphinrider22 You're right, he's totally creepy.
Germania72 4 months ago
They've completely butchered this story. I mean it's a nice movie, I suppose, but it couldn't be more different than the book. Sir Thomas wasn't such a pompous fool in the book, he was a good man. This movie is making him look like an idiot. And Mary Crawford wasn't such a seductress, she was really a sweet girl. Just superficial.
charleighb2008 1 year ago 8
It's unjust that Fanny is trying to show that she has a mind, and everyone - except Edmond - is just reverting to her looks. :-( I'm glad that times have changed... oh, wait...
SgtPlmFry 1 year ago 8
Sir Thomas is so disgusting!
aikenshin 1 year ago
I think Julia is prettier hen Maria. I wonder if she;ll have more speaking parts later.
Tygrfawn78 1 year ago
Lady Bertram reminds me of Anna Nicole.
Bunnyshank 1 year ago
she is such a slut, just saying
missduh101 1 year ago
This is a shameful and sexually connoted, truly unacceptable version of Mansfield Park. I can see no similarity. The characters are misunderstood and pathetic. I wonder why on earth they did it that way.
Katioush 2 years ago 8
@Katioush Agreed. This is Mansfield Park in name only.
WoundedWolfgirl 1 year ago
i feel like with each video i click onto for the next part its skips a couple minutes... lol
bbbm1305 2 years ago 7
Is it just me or does Sir Thomas sound really perverted when he compliments Fanny?
QueXseraXsera 2 years ago 34
Yes; this is a feminist version.
MissElfreda 2 years ago 3
um no...hes one step away from being a scary stalker in her bushes...*shiver*
Sarcastic07 2 years ago 6
Edmund's really cute I think. Not as gorgeous as the Colin firth mr. Darcy though
lonesomelittlegirl 2 years ago 8
but you know...he's gorgeous as mr. knightley in the new emma ^_^...
elizab3th23 1 year ago 9
Hey, i've just recognized them! Marc Antony and Servilia from HBO's Rome!
bogi18 2 years ago 7
I loved Rome! I wish there was a third season of it. He was in Vanity Fair and A Knight's Tale as well. I've seen her in a few other movies too. :)
1dumbbird 2 years ago 3
mmm Rome. So freaking awesome! 2 seasons...TWO seasons! insane!
Sarcastic07 2 years ago
I have commented on the gayness of this scene before and now once more I inform you of the weirdness!!!!! Honestly...
magicalmahem 2 years ago 5
gayness? I dare say i must disagree! they have done the book justice!!
TaylorLartna321 2 years ago 5
Like in the brothel
akkellaa 2 years ago
theres some pretty funny parts inthis movie lol
nani1591 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
literaturechick12 2 years ago
for the play they are putting on, who is the person that amelia chooses to make love with? there was a cut out between part 4 and 5
blue0eyed0girlyy0 2 years ago 6
theres a cut out between every part i noticed !
that sucks !
TheGemini15 2 years ago 81
@TheGemini15 It's the only way this has probably stayed on Youtube. If you gave the whole movie, they'd probably delete your account. This way, you can be sure that this movie will stay up.
I agree, it does suck. But I don't mind cutting out a little if it means we get the majority.
sierracademianut 6 months ago
I cunt hear a thing, I just admired Frances O'Connor's lovely face
wisesatyr72 2 years ago 3
I hate this adaptation, its is too like the paperback pulp fiction with covers of women in plunging necklines and gothic scenes.
terestoye 2 years ago 4
I have mixed feelings. The anachronisms are bothersome, while other elements make for an interesting product...if it were not attempting to portray a historical novel.
hollywoodartchick 2 years ago 4
i completely agree i cant make up my mind as to wether or not i like it... its hard to tell depending on how you judge it ... by history and the novel or by popular adaption... i'll reserve judgement til the end
JoRRRRRRRRRRRRRR 2 years ago 6
I actually like the inaccuracy from the novel of slavery being mentioned. i think it adds a richer context to the story and sort of exposes the true way that Sir Bertram made his money, which is sort of glossed over in the book since in Jane Austen's time such things weren't really mentioned in literature
tiffers1912 2 years ago 102
@tiffers1912
I disagree. Adding the slavery tangent is petty political posturing. I read/watch Austen for its romantic escapism, not for more dreary political dogma.
policemanaaron 1 year ago 7
@policemanaaron, absolutely. It's as if the scriptwriters are actually EMBARRASSED with Miss Austen's lack of political correctness. So sad, too, because she was more than liberal-minded for her day, and not in the current notion of the term, either. She was discerning and felt deeply for those unfortunates in her circle without means or society behind them to alter their circumstance. But now, evidently, we must "clean her up" in a creepy way not unlike a Nazi bookburning--tragic.
marginallymental 1 year ago 2
agreed did jane austin write about slavery in her book mansfield park or did they just add it for this movie?
dolphinrider22 5 months ago
@dolphinrider22 The slavery was added to the movie, and Mr. Bertram wasn't a deceiving guy either!
violentfille 1 month ago
@tiffers1912 but austen's point in 'glossing over' that aspect of the novel could have been ment to show how it was glossed over in real life, in the book fanny asks about the slave trade and is met by a 'dead silence' and the fact that Austen mentions the slave trade at all is remarkable considering the time the book was written..in just mentioning it she is giving it a conspicuous absence beacuse it is such an important part of the story. shes forcing the readers to think about it themselves.
boringandstupid 11 months ago
i thought fanny was mr bertrum's niece by marriage. mrs norris is fanny's aunty right? and mrs bertrum is mrs norris' sister, so mrs bertrum is fanny's aunty too right? so tom, julia, moriah and the other brother are her cousins right? can someone explain to me. thanks
templewayne 2 years ago
Sir Thomas Bertram and Lady Bertram's children are Tom, Julia, Maria and Edmond. Mrs Norris is Lady Bertram's sister. Fanny's mother is Mrs. Price and also Lady Bertram's sister. So yes Fanny is niece to Sir Thomas. Fanny's mother married "for love" and is poor, whereas the other two sisters married for convenience, position and a relatively comfortable life.
CearaQC 2 years ago 4
so why do they treat her badly like a maid or something, why is her room dingy and without heating in the winter, why is mrs norris mean to her. why is she not treated like their equal. why does mrs norris live there with the bertrams, maybe i should have read the book
templewayne 2 years ago
She is a poor relation. Has no money, no dowry/inheritance and no status. Her only benefit was the rich Baronet uncle. Poor people who went to live with richer relatives had to "earn their keep." Back then women didn't have many opportunities other than to marry, go into service (maid or cook), governess or prostitute. Sometimes women could operate schools for girls or a boarding house and still stay "respectable."
CearaQC 2 years ago 9
thank you
templewayne 2 years ago
yes. u are right. Mrs. Norris, Mrs. Bertrum and Mrs. Price are all sisters... Thus Moriah, Julia and the rest are all cousins...
andreablacker 2 years ago 2
daddy thomas is kinda spooking me a bit!
angelsbeautified 2 years ago 7
The two characters who are always drunk were both in HBO's Rome. The woman played Sevilia, and the man played Mark Anthony. Too funny!!
MAM231415 2 years ago 2
Yeah and Atia was in the 1995 version of Emma as Jane Fairfax.
And Brutus was in the newest version of Persuasion as Anne's cousin and wanna-be suitor, Mr. Elliot.
Jane Austen actors really seem to get around.
Stargazer19 2 years ago 4
Whats with the father at 2:48 - 3:00 ? Does he like her? Or does he only like her a a daughter?
meerkatlibrarian 2 years ago
umm....that's certainly not father -daughter love.
cravilicious 2 years ago 5
eww miss crawford
rumblegirl 2 years ago 2
This movie is so far away from the book that i don't see it like an adaptation at all. I just see it as a movie with a similar main story. So i can like both, the movie and the book !!
Thank you for the video^^
linoaplayer 2 years ago 11
wtf i think this is soo not the real thing for the book... its either that or i made up and entire meaning to the book... lol but seriously the scenes are sooo mixed up.. she doesnt make up stories or write to suzan... they even got the gender wrong... william.. and henry is way not the way i imagined him... he's way better
Loolz94 2 years ago 2
this film is loosely based on the novel...
juhee589 2 years ago 2
The movie is based on the book but also on some letters that Austen wrote herself, a combination. As for the part of William and Susan, it is mix. Fanny did have a closer relationship with William but Susan was her younger sister whom she got close and went to live with the Bertrams when Fanny married Edmund.
arumdaum 2 years ago 5
I don't remember the book being this liberal-minded about the slaves, and this woman definitely isn't Fanny. I guess this movie is as much "MP" as "Clueless" is Emma.
Bonegirl06 2 years ago 3
At least clueless was trying to make it fit into something that wasn't the natural style, this is just a weak adaptation. They hardly mentioned slaves, and Fanny... well, I agree, this just is not her.
moxieoxy3 2 years ago 2
Right. I am just reading the book.
CataDanna 2 years ago
That. Woman. Is such. A CREEPER!!! I've seen this movie a million times, and she gets weirder with each viewing. Boo, Mary Crawford. Boo. Keep the creepiness to yourself, please!
musiciansheart 2 years ago 5
1:03 - 1:42 is uuguh, homoerotic. yay.
killyrboyfriend 2 years ago 3
in some ways Tom is so much more interesting then Edmond
Zhin23 2 years ago 6
I love Edmund but Tom...yumm... all brooding and rebellious plus james purefoy is a MAJOR babe!
torie89 2 years ago 3
I know, in the 2007 one, James D'Arcy was just as well - ATTRACTIVE. Woweee :D
samjhart 2 years ago
one thing I do love about the movie version is how it shows how horribly they are behaving by being in the play, but I do think they should have drawn it out a bit longer. It was such a HUGE deal in the book, and was important build up for why she refuses henry crawford's proposal
bryn61213 2 years ago
I know- I just noticed too. It is beyond creepy 1:20-1:36, Miss Honey don't do it!
momopomkom 2 years ago 4
She's also in Bridget Jones (first one) as Mark Darcy's law partner
surrealj 2 years ago
What an UNCOMFORTABLE part at 1:19! I do not like that lady at all!
DumpingDoll16 2 years ago 10
I bet you anything edmund popped a woody there
torie89 2 years ago
but read the book - they're all great!!! really, i'd rea dthe book before watching any of the movies, as sometimes things aren't explained properly, so without that knowledge, we can be left a bit lost...
fracsred 2 years ago
hey Pru,
no, not at all like the book - no secret slave-trader life :) and mary crawford is pretty hideous in this version. i think the writer here thought it was a bit too boring and wanted to jazz it up! also- the start of the movie says "based on mansfield park and her writings and life" or something like that. fanny is actually boring, and very (VERY) accommodating to everyone, bit of a pushover, so doesn't make for a good movie. they always muck this one up for that reason i think! :)
fracsred 2 years ago
in one wawy this is painful to watch - so not true to the book - very messy. on the other hand - i love every jane austen movie, and the worse acted or written, the better! :)
fracsred 3 years ago
My dear fracsred, I was just wondering if this movie rendition is close to the book....I see that it is not...I have yet to read the book, but I can not help but wonder if there is more about the Uncle and his secret life as a slave trader...This would indeed explain the eldest brothers utter abhorrence of his father.
pruloveu2 2 years ago
this is pretty short, and fast-moving. none of the plotlines are explained properly - very unsatisfactory....
fracsred 3 years ago
I love Julia's face when sir thomas says their going to have a ball in fanny's honor. I love julia she is the better of the two sister i think.
sarizalite 3 years ago 9
I'm saying that too!
sarizalite 3 years ago
I like Julia, she seems the better of the two sisters. No wonder why Tom is so messed up, Sir Thomas has big issues himself. How is a son supposed to grow better when his father doesn't. But, I think that the change that happens more in the end of the story plays out really well.
CowCowMeows 3 years ago 3
in those days women werent allowed opinions unless u were royale and it was allowed for men to praise women like he did, back then it was not being a perve but being a man. this movie takes place in the early 1800's no laws for women back then they were slaves themselves
marixa310 3 years ago 7
Yes, Jane makes a great comparison...Fanny understands servatude, because she lives it daily.
pruloveu2 2 years ago
It is interesting to see how much is changed from the book, including the time lines. Mary and Fanny are both amplified. She was never accomplished as a writer, or wrote to Susan. She was more serenely demure. It's all been modernized, but I like the discussion of slavery which Fanny did touch on in the book. The ball didn't happen till the sisters had left, and was because of her Fanny's brother. Much better than the recent screen version, and it makes sense to see languid Lady Bertam drugged.
Jenchens 3 years ago 5
Sir Thomas is a perv, he was better in the book.
theclassics819 3 years ago 2
ew Sir Thomas is a perv. lol.
Victorian9322 3 years ago 6
lol the uncle's behavior when he first sees fanny again...can you say pervert lol
insidiousMUSIC 3 years ago 15
Why is the aunt always sleepy/sleeping?
giangstr 3 years ago
In those days it eas common to take opium. She's supposed to be off her face and totally unaware of what is going on around her.
chookfeather 3 years ago 3
Wow.....I'm sorry, but this version REALLY makes Sir Thomas look like a pervert. Other than that, so far I'm enjoying this adaption!!
InuYashasGirl4life13 3 years ago 3
i thought fanny was blonde? i think fanny's character is btter blonde, nothing against frances o conner. I just think it fits her personality to be blonde. she is supposed to stand out from her cousins and everyone else right?
gigglefeather801 3 years ago
The cousins are supposed to be blond . I think I'd like this film more if I hadn't read the book . Fanny wrote to her brother William in the book and he's quite a big part of the story , no mention of him so far .
portersbabe 3 years ago
mary and fanny both sort of look alike...
nyappyapple2 3 years ago 3
OK there is something really whacked with the uncle. I haven't read the book but is he as perverted?
Yidenia 3 years ago
AHAHA! edmund's face! he's like; "uh... this is uncomfortable..."
sookala 3 years ago 8
whoa! that threw me off a bit when he meantioned her figure. i watched the 2007 mansfield before i found this and i kinda like the unlce better in that one (0.0) but i do like this movie better.
queenzoleck 3 years ago 2
umm, definitely not, flametteX. Jane Austen, the author of Mansfield Park and five other novels, was controversial in her time in the early 1800s (as a woman writer) but her works are really much more mainstream and wholesome, especially compared to Fingersmith
clj14 3 years ago
artisitc license should be the name of this film, they ruined all the good parts!
ellipsis88 3 years ago 6
Haha I lol'ed
mansfieldparkmovie 3 years ago
Artistic License, indeed! Although I'm not fond of either the '99 or the '07 version (b/c both portray Fanny Price to be too lively, unlike the book), this one seems to take considerable liberties.
niskoa 3 years ago 2
@ellipsis88 Seriously.
WoundedWolfgirl 1 year ago
yyyyuuuukkkk!!
chanona18 3 years ago
that part with miss crawford and fanny is wierd.i mean i can see how it would fit in but they shouldn't have put it in. it's a disgrace to jane austens work i'm only glad it won't appear again!
anpanmon 3 years ago 3
I've read the book, and I hate hate HATE how pervy Fanny's uncle is portrayed here. In the book, he was just a very kind uncle (for the most part).
rosely04 3 years ago 5
well, he wasn't as pervy as he is in this movie, but he was still very controlling. there was also definitely something off about him in the book, not just in the way he interacted with fanny but with all of his children. I feel like he's harder to pin down than some of austen's other characters.
motiongraphics2005 3 years ago 2
he was controlling, but that's about it. It said that he had tried to be a good father and a decent man. He wasn't a perv.
tatorstevie 3 years ago 4
god i hate miss crawford...:S
melonhad678 3 years ago 7
her uncle is so nice and her aunt is a complete bitch
caraszmatic 3 years ago 4
i don't know they just showed him advocating slavery i hate how they've destroyed him he was a stern but good man in the book how could they do this to him ?!
anpanmon 3 years ago 8
i agree
tatorstevie 3 years ago
Agree Billie Piper just didn't look right as Fanny. Far too wild and jumpy not to mention the catastrophic hair.
IloveRichardArmitage 4 years ago 9
is lady bertram on laudenum or something?
papercrane13 4 years ago 2
yes
deedeedmr 4 years ago
I am not sure the movie needed to focus so much on the slave trade.
sareis01 4 years ago
It didn't need to but I found it more interesting that it did. It provides historical context that makes it mo