"MANSFIELD PARK" (1983) Review

 

"MANSFIELD PARK" (1983) Review

Long before Patricia Rozema wrote and directed her 1999 adaptation of "Mansfield Park", Jane Austen’s 1814 novel, the BBC aired its own adaptation some sixteen years earlier. This one came in the form of a six-part miniseries and is regarded by many Austen fans as the definitive screen version of the novel.

"MANSFIELD PARK" told the story of Fanny Price, the oldest daughter of a former Royal Navy officer, who is sent by her parents to live with her wealthy aunt and uncle-in-law, Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram, at their estate called Mansfield Park, during the early 19th century. Viewed as socially inferior by her new family, Fanny is treated as half-relative/half-servant by the Bertrams. Only Edmund, the family’s second son, treats her with great kindness and love. Because of Edmund’s behavior, Fanny finds herself in love with him by the age of eighteen. But her life and the Bertrams’ lives soon encounter a force of nature in the arrival of Henry and Mary Crawford, a pair of vivacious siblings that are related to the local vicar’s wife. Henry ends up stirring excitement and romantic interest within the breasts of the two Bertram sisters – Maria and Julia. And much to Fanny’s dismay, Edmund forms a romantic attachment to the alluring Mary.

In compare to the 1999 Patricia Rozema version and the ITV 2007 movies, this 1983 miniseries is a more faithful adaptation of Austen’s novel. Considering its six episodes, I do not find this surprising. Literary fans tend to be more impressed by cinematic adaptations that are very faithful to its source. However, "MANSFIELD PARK" is not a completely faithful adaptation. Screenwriter Ken Taylor completely ignored Fanny’s questions regarding Sir Thomas’ role as a slaveowner with an estate in Antigua. Whereas Austen’s novel and the 2007 movie briefly touched upon the subject, writer/director Patricia Rozema literally confronted it. Only the miniseries ignored the topic, altogether. Judging from the fans’ reaction to this deviation from Austen’s novel, I suspect that many of them are willing to pretend that the subject of slavery was never broached in the miniseries.

Did I enjoy "MANSFIELD PARK"? Well . . . the miniseries had its moments. It allowed me to become more aware of the plot details in Austen’s 1814 novel than the other adaptations did. I enjoyed the scene featuring the Bertrams’ introduction to the Crawford siblings. I enjoyed the ball held in Fanny’s honor in Episode Four. It struck me as very elegant and entertaining. I also enjoyed the constant flirtation and verbal duels between Edmund and Mary, despite my dislike of the former character. And much to my surprise, I really enjoyed the sequence featuring Fanny’s visit to her family in Portsmouth. For once, the miniseries’ pacing seemed well paced and I enjoyed the details and production designs in the setting for this sequence. One of the actors portraying Fanny’s younger brothers turned out to be a young Jonny Lee Miller, who later portrayed Edmund in the 1999 production.

But the best aspect of "MANSFIELD PARK" turned out to be a handful of first-rate performances and Ian Adley’s costume designs. I usually do not harbor much of a high opinion of the costume designs seen in other Jane Austen’s adaptations from the 1970s and 80s. But I cannot deny that I found Adley’s costumes not only colorful, but very elegant. I am not surprised that he earned a BAFTA TV Award nomination for Best Costume Design.

As I had stated earlier, I was also impressed by a handful of performances featured in the miniseries. One came from veteran actress Anna Massey, who superbly portrayed one of Fanny Price’s aunts, the noxious Mrs. Norris. Depended upon her sister and brother-in-law for their support, Massey’s Mrs. Norris walked a fine line between toadying behavior toward Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram and her malicious tyranny over Fanny. Samantha Bond gave a subtle and complex portrayal of the oldest Bertram daughter, Maria. Bond conveyed not only the shallow and selfish aspects of Maria’s personality, but also the dilemma that her willingness to become the wife of the disappointing Mr. Rushworth put her in. I also found myself impressed by Bernard Hepton’s performance as Sir Thomas Bertarm, owner of Mansfield Park and patriarch of the Bertram family. Hepton’s Sir Thomas came off as superficially generous, intelligent and morally absolute. He seemed every inch of the ideal English landowner and gentleman. Yet, Hepton also conveyed the corruption that lurked underneath Sir Thomas’ façade – namely the man who seemed more concern with the financial suitability of his children’s spouses than any emotional regard. Hepton also revealed with great subtlety, the baronet’s egomania and tyranny in scenes that featured the character’s efforts to coerce Fanny into accepting Henry Crawford’s marriage proposal.

I will be brutally honest. I have never been a fan of the Edmund Bertram character. Despite his kindness to Fanny and occasional wit, he strikes me as a self-righteous and very hypocritical man. Whenever I think of that scene in which Edmund rejected Mary Crawford, it still makes my blood boil. But his characterization still worked, due to Nicholas Farrell’s performance. He really did an excellent job in conveying all aspects of Edmund’s personality, both the good and the bad. Despite my negative feelings regarding Edmund’s personality, Farrell made him seem very interesting. But "MANSFIELD PARK" would have never been bearable to me without Jackie Smith-Wood’s sparkling portrayal of one of Jane Austen’s most memorable characters, Mary Crawford. Like Fanny Price, many fans have either loved or disliked this character. Count me as among the former. I absolutely adored Mary – especially in the hands of the talented Ms. Smith-Wood. With great skill, the actress conveyed all aspects of Mary’s personality – her barbed sense of humor, dislike of the clergy, her talent for manipulation, her moral ambiguity, her charm, her wit, her great warmth and generosity. I suspect that the main reason I like Mary so much is that as an early 21st century woman, I find it easy to relate to her way of thinking. Smith-Wood managed to convey the modern sensibilities of Mary’s personality, while still portraying the character as a woman of the early 19th century.

Unfortunately, the bad tends to go hand-in-hand with the good in many movie and television productions. And there are aspects of "MANSFIELD PARK" that left a bad taste in my mouth – including a few performances. One performance I had mixed feelings for was Angela Pleasence’s portrayal of Fanny’s other aunt, the languid Lady Bertram. I am aware that Ms. Pleasence possesses a rather high voice. But I noticed that she had exaggerated it a bit for her portrayal of the childish and self-involved Lady Bertram. I wish she had not done this, for I found this exaggeration very annoying. And now that I think about it, I realized that Pleasence’s Lady Bertram hardly did a thing in the miniseries that allowed the plot to move forward, except use her selfishness to protect Fanny from Mrs. Norris’ spite . . . sometimes. But I cannot blame the actress. Despite the high-pitch voice, I cannot deny that Pleasence gave a first-rate performance.  But . . . Lady Bertram was never a role that had never impressed me. I have yet to find an actress who has ever done anything with the role. I truly believe that producer Betty Billingale and director David Giles selected the wrong actor to portray the charming Lothario, Henry Crawford. Robert Burbage seemed like an affable presence, and he wore the costumes designed by Ian Adley very well. But his portrayal of Henry seemed wanting. I will go further and state that I found his performance by-the numbers and his acting skills rather mechanical. Burbage’s Henry did not strike me as the attractive and sexy man who managed to flutter the hearts of the Bertram sisters. Instead, I felt as if I had been watching an earnest schoolboy trying . . . and failing to behave like a rakish seducer.

Finally, I come to Sylvestra Le Touzel’s performance as the miniseries’ leading character, Fanny Price. I am not a fan of the Fanny Price character. Yes, I admire her willingness to stick to her conviction in rejecting Henry Crawford’s marriage proposal in the face of Sir Thomas’ attempts to coerce her. But Fanny also strikes me as being priggish, passive-aggressive, illusional (to a certain extent) and worst of all, hypocritical. I also dislike Edmund Bertram, but at least I was impressed by Nicholas Farrell’s portrayal of the character. On the other hand, I WAS NOT impressed by Le Touzel’s performance. I realize that she had portrayed a socially awkward and introverted character. But I have seen other actors and actresses portray similar characters with a lot more skill. Le Touzel’s performance struck me as wooden, mannered and at times, slightly hammy. Hell, she made Burbage’s performance seem positively fluid. Le Touzel eventually became a first-rate actress. I recently saw her very funny performance in 2007’s "NORTHANGER ABBEY". But I wish Billingale and Giles had cast someone with a lot more skill to portray Fanny, forty-three years ago.

I find it odd that screenwriter Kenneth Taylor took it upon himself to be as faithful as possible to Austen’s novel, with his deletion of Sir Thomas’ role as a slaveowner being the only exception. However, he had failed to change some aspects of the novel that I consider to be very flawed. Taylor never allowed Fanny and Edmund to become self-aware of their personal failings. Edmund managed to self-flagellate himself for becoming emotionally involved with Mary. But I have never considered his feelings for her much of a failing. Because of the pair’s failure to become self-aware of their own flaws, I believe they lacked any real character development. Taylor’s script could have assumed a third voice and criticized or mocked Fanny and Edmund’s lack of development. But it did not. The sequence featuring the "Lover’s Vows" play dragged most of Episode Three. By the time Sir Thomas had returned to Mansfield Park, I nearly fell asleep, thanks to the episode’s slow pacing. In fact, Giles and Taylor’s efforts to make "MANSFIELD PARK" faithful to the novel nearly grounded the miniseries to a halt on several occasions, almost making the entire miniseries rather dull.

More than anything, I had a problem with the miniseries’ finale. One, I never understood Edmund’s decision to reject Mary Crawford as his fiancée. Although Mary had condemned her brother and Maria Bertram Rushworth’s affair and elopement as folly, she had a plan to save the honors of both the Bertram and Crawford families. She suggested that they convince Henry and Maria to marry, following the latter’s divorce from Mr. Rushworth; and have both families stand behind the couple to save face. This plan struck me as very similar to Fitzwilliam Darcy’s plan regarding Lydia Bennet and George Wickham in "Pride and Prejudice". Why did Austen condone Mr. Darcy’s actions regarding Lydia and Wickham in one novel and condemn Mary Crawford for harboring similar plans in this story? Did Taylor, Giles or Willingale even notice the similarities between Mr. Darcy’s actions and Mary’s plans and see the hypocrisy? Apparently not. My last problem centered on Fanny and Edmund’s wedding in the final episode. How on earth did this happen? The miniseries had made Fanny’s romantic feelings for Edmund perfectly clear. Yet, Edmund had never displayed any romantic regard for Fanny, merely familial love. Even when revealing the end of his relationship with Mary to Fanny, he still expressed love for his former fiancée. But the next scene jumped to Fanny and Edmund’s wedding, without any explanation or revelation of their courtship. At least Patricia Rozema’s 1999 movie conveyed Edmund’s burgeoning romantic feelings for Fanny, before his final rejection of Mary. Giles and Taylor failed to do the same in this miniseries.

I might as well say it. I will never harbor a high regard for "MANSFIELD PARK" . . . or any adaptation I have seen so far. Although its faithfulness to Jane Austen’s 1814 novel revealed the story in greater detail than the 1999 and 2007 movies, I believe there were scenes in which it should have been less faithful in order to overcome some of the novel’s shortcomings. The miniseries can boast a few outstanding performances from the likes of Anna Massey, Nicholas Farrell and Jackie Smith-Wood. But it was hampered by other performances, especially the wooden acting by lead actress, Sylvestra Le Touzel. In the end, "MANSFIELD PARK" proved to be a mixed bag for me.

R.I.P. Angela Pleasence (1941-2026)

"MANSFIELD PARK" (1983) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "MANSFIELD PARK", the 1983 television adaptation of Jane Austen's 1814 novel. Directed by David Giles, the six-part miniseries starred Sylvestra Le Touzel, Nicholas Farrell and Jackie Smith-Wood:

"MANSFIELD PARK" (1983) Photo Gallery

"BLEAK HOUSE" (1985) Review

 

"BLEAK HOUSE" (1985) Review

In less than I year, I have developed this fascination with the works of Charles Dickens. How did this come about? I do not know. I have seen previous Dickens movie and television adaptations in the past. But ever since last year, I have been viewing these adaptations with a vengeance. And one of them turned out to be "BLEAK HOUSE", the 1985 adaptation of Dickens' 1852-53 novel.

Adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, this eight-episode miniseries conveyed the affects of Jarndyce v Jardyce, a long-running legal probate case involving the existence of more than one will. The heirs and their descendants have been waiting decades for the court to determine the legal will, for the sake of a large inheritance. Among those affected by the Jarndyce v Jardyce case are:

*John Jarndyce - a wealthy English landowner, who happens to be the proprietor of the estate, Bleak House. Jarndyce had inherited it from his uncle Tom Jarndyce, who had went mad waiting for a verdict on the case before committing suicide.

*Richard Carstones - Tom Jarndyce's grandson and John Jarndyce's cousin, who also became one of the latter's legal wards, and a potential beneficiary of the Jarndyce v Jardyce case.

*Ada Clare - Tom Jarndyce's granddaughter and Mr. Jarndyce's cousin, who also became one of his legal wards, and a potential beneficiary of the Jarndyce v Jardyce case. She and Richard, also cousins, became romantically involved.

*Esther Summerson - one of the novel's main characters and orphan, who became Mr. Jarndyce's ward following the death of her previous guardian, Miss Barbury, who had also been her biological aunt. She joined the Bleak House household as Ada's companion and Mr. Jarndyce's housekeeper after he became the guardian of Richard and Ada.

*Honoria, Lady Dedlock - the wife of baronet Sir Leicester Dedlock and a beneficiary of the Jarndyce v Jardyce case. She is also the younger sister of Miss Barbury and Esther's illegitimate mother.

*Captain John Hawdon aka Nemo - a former British Army officer, who became an impoverished law writer and drug addict. He is also Lady Dedlock's former lover and Esther's illegitimate father. His penmanship on one of the Jarndyce v Jardyce affidavit attracts Lady Dedlock's attention.

*Mr. Bill Tulkinghorn - Sir Leicester's ruthless lawyer, who noticed Lady Dedlock's reaction to the affidavit. This leads him to investigate her past and possible connection to Hawdon aka "Nemo".

*Miss Flite - An elderly woman living in London, whose family had been destroyed by a long-running Chancery case similar to Jarndyce v Jarndyce. This has led her to develop an obsessive fascination with Chancery cases, especially the main one featured in this story. She quickly befriended Esther, Richard, Ada and Mr. Jarndyce.

As one can see, these characters represented plot arcs that connect to the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case. As one of the beneficiaries of the Jarndyce case, Richard becomes obsessed with the verdict. He seemed more interested in depending upon the Jarndyce verdict to provide him with an income rather than pursue a profession. This obsession eventually led to a clash between and Mr. Jarndyce, who has tried to warn him not to get involved with the case. Another clash formed between Lady Dedlock and Mr. Tulkinghorn, due to his determination to find proof of her past with Nemo and the conception of their child. A clash that proved to create even more damaging for a good number of people, than the one between Mr. Jarndyce and Richard. In the midst of all this stood Esther, who served as an emotional blanket for several characters - especially the inhabitants at Bleak House, a potential romantic figure for three men (ironic for a woman who was not supposed to be a great beauty), and the center of the Lady Dedlock-Nemo scandal.

For years, 1985's "BLEAK HOUSE" had been viewed as the superior of two adaptations of Dickens' novel. The first adaptation had aired back in 1959. But a third television adaptation from 2005 had managed to overshadow this second adaptation's reputation. But this is not about comparing the three adaptations. I am focusing only the 1985 miniseries. If I might be blunt, I believe screenwriter Arthur Hopcraft and director Ross Devenish created one of the better Charles Dickens I have personally seen. Granted, one might use the source material - the 1952-53 novel - as the reason behind the miniseries' top quality. But I have seen my share of poor adaptations of excellent source material . . . and excellent adaptations of poor or mediocre novels and plays. And I would find this excuse too simply to swallow. Hopcraft and Devenish could have easily created a poor or mediocre adaptation of the novel. Fortunately, I believe they had managed to avoid the latter.

With eight episodes, Hopcraft and Devenish did an excellent job in conveying Dickens' exploration into the chaos of the legal landscape in 19th century Britain, especially cases involving the Chancery courts. One might consider the longevity of Jarndyce v Jarndyce rather exaggerated. However, I speak from personal experience that an extended length of time in such a case is more than possible. But what I thought the effect of Jarndyce v Jarndyce and similar cases in Dickens' story seemed very interesting. In Richard Carstone's case, I suspect his own hubris and upbringing had allowed the case to have such a toxic effect upon him. He had been raised as a gentleman. Which meant he was not expected to work for a living. But since he did not possess a fortune or an estate - like Mr. Jarndyce - Richard never lost hope that the court would rule the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case in his favor, allowing him to inherit a great deal of money. Although it took another case to send Miss Flyte mentally around the bend, I found it interesting that her obsession with Chancery cases led her to attach her interest to the Jarndyce case beneficiaries.

The Jarndyce case also produce a group of leeches in the forms of attorneys like Mr. Tulkinghorn and his obsession with assuming control over the Dedlocks and Mr. Vholes, who had sucked a great deal of money from Richard in exchange for his legal services. The series also featured the vicious moneylender Mr. Smallweed, who helped Mr. Tulkinghorn in the latter's campaign against Lady Dedlock; and Mr. Jarndyce's "friend", Harold Skimpole, who had not only encouraged Richard to pursue a greater interest in the Jarndyce case, but also had accepted a "commission" from Vholes to recruit the young man as a client. Would I regard William Guppy as a leech? Sometimes. I had noticed that one particular story arc was missing - namely the story arc regarding the philanthropist Mrs. Jellyby, her daughter and Esther's friend, Caddy and the Turveydrop family. This did not bother me, for I have never been a fan of that particular arc.

However, I also noticed that "BLEAK HOUSE" featured a few moments in which important plot points had been revealed through dialogue or shown after the fact. Audiences never saw Skimpole convince Richard to hire Mr. Vholes. Instead, Mr. Jarndyce had revealed this incident after it happened. The whole scenario regarding Dr. Allan Woodcock being a survivor of a shipwreck was handled as a past event revealed by the good doctor himself. Hopcraft's script never stretched it out in the same manner as Dickens' novel or the 2005 miniseries. Audiences never saw George Rouncewell's release from jail, for which he had been incarcerated for murder. Instead, Episode Seven began with George in jail and later, near the end, found him serving as Sir Leicester's valet without any information on how that came about.

"BLEAK HOUSE" featured a few other writing and direction decisions by Hopcraft and Devenish that I found . . . well, questionable. Why did the pair solely focused on Lady Dedlock in the series' penultimate episode and Richard and the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case in the final one? Would it have been so difficult for them to switch back and forth between the two arcs in those final episodes? I found Inspector Bucket's resolution to the story's murder mystery rather rushed. I would have liked to see Bucket eliminate suspects before solving the case. In Bucket's final scene with the killer, Hopcraft left out that moment from the novel when the latter had the last scathing word on British society, leaving the police detective speechless. This erasure dimmed the impact of Dickens' message and made the killer even more of a caricature. I had some issues with how Devenish directed certain performances. How can I put this? I found them a bit theatrical.

I have one last issue - namely Kenneth MacMillan's cinematography. I realize that in "BLEAK HOUSE", fog represented institutional oppression and human confusion and misery in society. Unfortunately, I feel that MacMillan may have been heavy-handed in utilizing this symbol in the series. It is bad enough that photography featured a fuzzy element that seemed popular in many period productions in the 1970s. But thanks to MacMillan's use of fog in the story, there were many moment in which I could barely see a damn thing. And I found that irritating.

Aside from a few quibbles, I had no real issues with the performances featured in "BLEAK HOUSE". One of those quibbles proved to be the performances for some of the secondary cast members. How can I say this? The exaggerated and wooden performances for some of the cast members brought back memories of some of the minor actors' bad performances in 1982 miniseries, "THE BLUE AND THE GRAY". I must admit that I did not care for Pamela Merrick's portrayal of Lady Dedlock's French maid, Madame Hortense. Her performance bordered and then surpassed the lines of caricature - as some British actors/actresses tend to do. Charlie Drake's portrayal of the moneylender Smallweed tend to waver between a pretty solid performance and pure caricature. Although there were moments when I found her portrayal of the eccentric Miss Flyte a bit hammy, I must admit that Sylvia Coleridge gave a well-done performance. Chris Pitt's performance as Jo, the crossing sweeper boy struck me as very poignant. Yet, at the same time, he seemed so passive that at times, I found it difficult to believe he had survived on the streets on his own, for so long. Jonathan Moore, whom I had remembered from the 1988 television movie, "JACK THE RIPPER"; did an excellent job of conveying the ambitious and self-interested nature of law clerk William Guppy. However, his portrayal of Guppy seemed to lack the character's comedic nature. Denholm Elliot gave a very interesting performance as Esther, Richard and Ada's guardian, John Jarndyce. On one level, I found his portrayal of the kind-hearted Mr. Jarndyce as first-rate. Excellent. But there were moments, including the character's famous quote following Jo's death, when Elliott's Mr. Jarndyce seemed to resemble one of those "angry young men" characters from a John Osbourne play. I found those moments very odd.

However, there were performances that did not leave me scratching my head. Colin Jeavons and Anne Reid gave very competent performances as the grasping solicitor Mr. Vholes and George Rouncewell's close friend Mrs. Bagnet, respectively. Ironically, Jeavons had portrayed Richard Carstone in the 1959 adaptation of "Bleak House" and Reid had portrayed Mrs. Rouncewell in the 2005 television adaptation. Both Suzanne Burden and Lucy Hornak gave solid performances as Esther Summerson and Ada Clare. And yet, both actresses managed to rise to the occasion with some brilliant moments. Burden's moment came, following Esther's realization that she had survived the smallpox. As for Hornak, she gave an excellent performance during Ada's soliloquy about her love's growing obsession with the Jarndyce case. Brian Deacon gave a passionate performance as Dr. Allan Woodcourt, the penniless doctor in love with Esther. Ian Hogg gave a very solid, yet commanding performance as Inspector Bucket. I really enjoyed Sam Kelly's warm portrayal of the law-stationer, Mr. Snagsby. Bernard Hepton gave one of the most colorful performances of his career as the alcoholic rag and bone shopkeeper, Krook. Dave King gave a very solid performance as the loyal, yet intimidating and conservative former Army sergeant George Rouncewell. I found George Sewell's performance as Sergeant Rouncewell's older brother, the wealthy Mr. Rouncewell not only entertaining, but very memorable. I thought Robin Bailey did an excellent job portrayed the haughty and proud Sir Leicester Dedlock.

But there were four performances that really impressed me. One came from Philip Franks, who did an excellent job of conveying Richard Carstone's emotional journey from John Jarndyce's warm and friendly young man, to the more embittered one, obsessed with the Jarndyce case. T.P. McKenna gave a delicious performance as Mr. Jarndyce's self-involved friend, Harold Skimpole, who proved to be quite the emotional (and financial) vampire. I thought Peter Vaughn was superb as the Dedlocks' sinister lawyer, Mr. Tulkinghorn. I was amazed by how Vaughn managed to combine the character's dedication to protecting his client Sir Leicester and his penchant for assuming control over others. If I had voted for the best performance featured in "BLEAK HOUSE", I would choose Diana Rigg's portrayal of the tragic Honoria, Lady Dedlock. I believe the actress gave a brilliant performance as the mysterious, yet complicated baronet's wife, whose cool demeanor hid a great deal of emotions and a personal secret. I am shocked and amazed that neither she, Vaughn, McKenna or Franks had ever received any accolades for their performances.

In fact, I am surprised that "BLEAK HOUSE" had only received BAFTA nominations (and won three) . . . and they were in the technical/arts category, aside for the Best Drama Series/Serial. No Primetime Emmy nominations, whatsoever. Was this eight-part miniseries the best adaptation of Charles Dickens' 1852-53 novel? I cannot answer that question. Granted, it had its flaws. But what television or movie production did not? But I cannot deny that "BLEAK HOUSE" was a first-rate miniseries that deserved more accolades than it had received, thanks to Arthur Hopcraft's screenplay, Ross Devenish's direction and an excellent cast led by Suzanne Burden, Denholm Elliott and Diana Rigg.

"BLEAK HOUSE" (1985) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "BLEAK HOUSE", 1985 adaptation of Charles Dickens' 1852-53 novel. Adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, the miniseries starred Diana Rigg, Denholm Elliott, Suzanne Burden and Peter Vaughn:

"BLEAK HOUSE" (1985) Photo Gallery