02.15.07
Fanny Price!
I found this article very interesting, but, from what little I’ve seen of the BBC Mansfield Park, I think she trumps up a lot of what’s there. I don’t think the film could possibly live up to the expectations this article raised. Also, for an article that claims to discuss the different ways and style of adaptation the two films use, Fergus examines only one version. Also, her definitions of purist and neo-purist play little direct part in the article. However, Fergus raises an interesting idea when she speculates that another Mansfield Park adaptation would best be presented as a modernized version, especially after reading somewhat mixed reviews of the idea and success of updating an Austen novel in a manner similar to that used in Clueless.
Fergus briefly discusses the way Rozema handles voice, but her focus is clearly on the Giles adaptation. For Fergus, the 1999 Mansfield Park is a “postmodern pastiche…[employing] the postmodern view of adaptation as intervention” (70). Surprisingly, Fergus has no objections to Rozema’s decision to allow Fanny to directly address the camera; in fact, he finds it similar to Austen’s use of narrators. He does, however, criticize the film for its Gothic elements, particularly in the portrayal of Sir Thomas Bertram, as well as the stronger character the film gives Fanny. As a result, a central part of the story, Edmund and Fanny’s relationship is weakened since Fanny hardly needs anyone to shape and teach her.
In contrast to Rozema’s version, Fergus believes the 1983 mini-series uses a voice much more in keeping with Austen’s, and establishes it primarily through six different narrative and visual tools. The first is that the film finds “a visual equivalent for significant words or phrases” (73). This is seen particularly in the way the film makes clear the characterization of Lady Bertram as “captivating” in the novel’s opening lines. Lady Bertram takes a prominent position in the film’s opening, and is portrayed as “both beautiful and static” (73) as the camera zooms in on her as she lounges on her sofa. While Mansfield Park at times seems to revolve around Lady Bertram, her words and opinions are given no real regard. Rather, her “sofa visually represents not simply her inertia but her lack of agency”(74-75).
Next, Fergus cites Giles’s ability to “properly” assign the novel’s narration to other characters. She particularly notices a scene in which Lady Bertram tells Fanny what is considered an acceptable match, Henry Crawford, as apposed to rather poor and degrading match made by Lady Bertram’s sister, Mrs. Price.
Fergus also observes the effective use of voice over in the BBC version. As the film opens, the picture show to the viewer of Fanny as she journeys alone and afraid is in stark contrast to Mrs. Norris’s voice-over as she praises “her own generosity and her management of Fanny’s destiny” (76). Fanny’s letters to William are also delivered in voice-overs, allowing Fanny to have a voice of her own. These two uses often place the film’s visual and oral elements in ironic juxtaposition. The ambiguity of the film’s closing line and image, however, is even more iron. Here, Fanny states her “happiness” at her marriage to Edmund and how they will be under the care and guidance of Mansfield Park, yet the viewer knows the patronage of the Bertram’s has not given successful marriages to their own children. This statement is made more ironic by the image that accompanies it: “Fanny carrying her own pug to a bench outdoors, then sitting with pug at her feed and Edmund by her side” (77).
Fourthly, Fergus discusses Austen’s use of “character narrative” in her novels, a technique where the narrator’s speech dissolves into first person, making it much easier for an adaptor to assign to a speaker.
Next, Fergus looks at the way Giles’s mini-series visually expresses the narrator’s irony. Fergus looks in depth at Mansfield’s impromptu dance, which “emphasize[s] murky sexuality and people’s selfish blindness to what is before them” (81). This is particularly evident in the interactions between Tom and Mrs. Norris. Tom, who criticizes Mrs. Norris for asking him to play cards whine he cannot refuse, does the same thing when he asks Fanny if she wants to dance while he begins to read the paper, leaving her no choice but to refuse. Throughout the dance, “Mrs. Norris views the visible sexuality…in terms of marriages, Tom, in terms of folly and illicit amours. The comedy in the sequence arises largely from their mutual blindness” (82). Here, Fergus states her claim that the BBC mini-series is “neo-purist,” using “visual equivalents for significant words, phrases, and themes in the novels” (84).
Finally, Fergus reveals the sixth essential element in a successful adaptation and translation of Austen’s narrative voice – voice effects, or the proper casting of characters. Fergus believes Giles’s casting is “nearly perfect,” and defends the actors in their character and stylistic choices (84). Fergus concludes by making it clear that she believes Rozema’s version has been reduced to a romance between Edmund and Fanny, while Giles’s adaptation includes romance but focuses overall on character. She closes with an interesting idea, that the best approach to another Mansfield Park adaptation would be to modernize the characters and plot similarly to Amy Heckerling’s Clueless.
Jan Fergus’s article “Two Mansfield Parks: purist and postmodern” looks at two film adaptations of the novel Mansfield Park: Patricia Rozema’s version, released in 1999, and the 1983 BBC mini-series, directed by David Giles. While Rozema’s version was widely accepted by audiences and critics alike, Giles’s version was never shown in the United States, and even in Brittan, its reception was poor. Despite this, Fergus believes the BBC mini-series presents the most successful adaptation in dealing with “the central problem of filming Austen: the problem of finding an equivalent for the narrative voice” (70).