The Mansfield Menagerie

It is very challenging for the fan of the novel Mansfield Park to dip a toe into the world of its adaptations. They are uniformly unsatisfying. Austen's work generally lends itself so well to portrayal on screen, it is hard to say why exactly Mansfield Park has had such a rocky road to the screen. I know that it is not one of Austen's best loved works. It is her longest and features an interesting assemblage of characters in which our hero/heroine stand for a moral line. The themes of class stratification, understanding one's self, one's talent's, one's "place" may not translate well to a modern audience. But these themes play well for me, and I love the novel. I love its complexity and depth.

Were I to simply rank and pick my "favorite" of the three adaptations (a 1983 BBC miniseries, a 1999 theatrical release, and a 2007 TV movie ) there'd be an unquestionable winner, because only one of these adaptations does a proper job of actually adapting the book: the 1983 miniseries. The other two are seized with misguided attempts to spice up the story - make Fanny Price exciting, to make Sir Thomas evil, to focus on irrelevant details (the slave trade), or push the sexuality over the top.

In quick recap of how all the watching came about: I wanted a lengthy miniseries fill my evenings and reached for the 1983 Mansfield Park which I own on dvd. I knew what I was going to get because I've seen it many times before and I enjoyed it, but for some reason, on this viewing, I was distracted by the grating affectations many of the actors employ. I also noted with displeasure that the Edmund / Fanny story wrapped up really awkwardly. These dissatisfactions led me to reach out for more.

Because it had been many years since I'd watched the other productions, I could no longer remember details and was flying blind. So I rented the 1999 version online. I figured, well, it had Jonny Lee Miller. This would be a good place to start. I couldn't have been more wrong. It didn't take long to remember that this was the light-porn adaptation. There is a sex scene with nudity; there is a lesbian hint between Fanny and Mary Crawford; there are shocking drawings shown of slaves beating raped, beaten, hung. Um....seriously. They are adapting... ?Austen? Do they know what she writes about? Oddly, the 1999 production also chose to morph Fanny Price into more of a "Jane Austen" character, changing the feel of the story significantly. I thought I'd hit rock bottom with one of the worst Austen adaptations there is.

So I was glad I'd only rented, not bought, and went over to eBay and and bought the 2007 version on dvd thinking it'd be nice to have another MP in my collection. Oh my word! This version is hardly an adaptation of anything. It is so pared down as to be unrecognizable. The sexuality is rampant and brazen; Fanny is insipid; plot details are bastardized. Its a mess! I think it is actually a worse adaptation than the 1999 version (and that is truly saying something), if only because it has hacked away at the novel so severely. If 1999 is bad because of its interpretations being unacceptable, 2007 is bad because it is a sprint.., on the wrong course.

Nevertheless! interesting things have happened in the past when I have taken the time to dig into the portrayals one at a time and compare them. So, just as I have done previously with both the adaptations of Emma and of Persuasion, I will go role by role into the Mansfield Parks, grading each production on the performances/characterizations of the main roles, assigning "casting points" to them. At the end I calculate a CPA (casting points average) and choose a winner.

Here we go!


Fanny
As mentioned above, I found all of the Fannys unsuitable. Austen has crafted heroines with a range of personality types: the lively and intelligent, the sensitive and romantic, the girlish and misguided, the reserved and proper. Why is Fanny's moral everywoman so hard to hit the right note on?

I have often heard Fanny accused of being boring. Sure, she might not be sparkly, but her character still packs a wallop. Austen describes Fanny through the voice of Henry Crawford as he tells his sister that he wants to marry her. According to Henry, Fanny has grace and goodness, is gentle, modest, and sweet. She shows patient forbearance and has strong affections. She has a warm, gentle heart and an understanding beyond question. He describes her elegant mind, her good principles, her steadiness and regular conduct and integrity. To this, Henry's sister Mary replies that this praise is "scarcely beyond her merits." In other words, yep. Fanny is all that. She is also young, pretty, relaxed and content. in the full bloom of youth, as Austen would say.

I picture her character as somewhere between Anne Eliot and Elinor Dashwood in terms of her clarity about what is right. Since she comes from poverty, she doesn't have their same decorum or self-confidence. She doesn't always know how to act in company; but her motives and actions always come from the right place. She may be girlish in the line of Catherine Moreland, but with a naturally strong central core. It's extraordinary that she has all these qualities, given her neglect and removal from her family as a child. In fact, as I think of it, she's somewhat of a Harry Potter character: completely good, very aware of what is right, and willing to stand up for that at every turn. She is remarkable for what she manages to be, despite everything in her background.

None of these characterizations do her justice.


1983 - Sylvestra Le Touzel conveys some qualities of Fanny Price. She evokes the diligent niece, the compliant cousin, the kind friend to the disenchanted (see, e.g., her treatment of poor Rushworth); she is the moral line in the sand. But isn't relaxed, warm and natural enough. Sylvestra has an interesting look. She is actually somewhat beautiful at times, but doesn't suggest Fanny's striking attractiveness that many other characters in the book are struck with. The portrayal is a bit too frumpy. She has an odd, exaggerated, affected acting style with stilted mannerisms and a flat, decided, cadence. She seems almost apoplectic at other times. She is memorable but she doesn't capture Austen's heroine. B

1999 - Frances O'Connor is far too sparkly. She plays an interesting character, but that character isn't Fanny Price. It is some blend of Jane Austen herself and a new heroine written to confuse us. O'Connor is an appealing lead actress. She might make a great Austen heroine.  Just not this one. Although this might not be through O'Connor's design or fault, this characterization of Fanny is far too outgoing, charming, intellectual, literary, and outspoken. Fanny doesn't need to be glossed up to be interesting. She would be interesting just as she is, if somebody would care to try doing that. B


2007 - Billie Piper is a lovely actress, but her Fanny Price is too far afield from anything Austen intended. She pouts; she's uncouth and open-mouthed. She stands around staring in a childish way. Interestingly, this worked well for the younger actress who played Fanny as a child, but doesn't translate to what grown up Fanny should be. This Miss Price speaks without decorum or reserve; she is a tomboy, running around disheveled and demanding a dance outside when Sir Thomas proposes a ball. Seriously? Not. Fanny. B-



Edmund

2007 - Blake Ritson
Warm, kind and introspective, Ritson strikes a good brotherly tone with Fanny. He comes across as both dignified and honorable with an appropriate affect and tone of voice. He is relaxed much of the time, but more importantly, appears to be in control, almost always. He uses anger well when anger is need. Unfortunately, at the end when he becomes rather giddy in love with Fanny it feels rather strained and out of character for our Edmund. A

1983 - Nicholas Farrell
He hits a good blend of morality and charm. Though probably not quite enough charm. He is a good moral center and does a nice job of making us see Mary's faults; we don't get a lot of chemistry with Fanny, but we do get a tiny nice scene which feels like almost flirting with Fanny (in the carriage on the way to dinner). He is not as personally appealing as the other two and has some notable mannerisms that feel awkward, but generally, he personifies Edmund. This 1983 production wraps up abruptly with Fanny and Edmund getting together with no change in manner or shift in their relationship. (The opposite problem of the 2007 version.) I can't put this all on Farrell, but he can bear his share. B+


1999 - Johnny Lee Miller
He is a very handsome man and has the potential for great charm. They just aren't on full display here, where he's fairly forgettable. He seems earnest enough and a bit confused much of the time. In fact, he seems buffeted about without real endeavor and that is the opposite of what Edmund should stand for. He should be direct, sure of himself, honorable to a fault, and appealing enough personally to have 2 ladies fall in love with him. He succeeds well enough on that last one, but feels too changeable and weak to be a good Edmund. I don't like seeing JLM down here a the bottom of any list, but he just doesn't stand out as much as the other two. If you want to see him shine, go over to Emma where his is the definitive Mr. Knightly. But as Edmund: B



Mary Crawford

Mary Crawford is one of Austen's most interesting women. She is so appealing, attractive and intelligent, but ultimately stands for base amorality and ends the book in disgrace, shut out from the man she has come to love and the family and home to which she's become attached. She is often compared to Elizabeth Bennett for her sparking wit, but I think that's too simplistic. I do see Elizabeth's wit, intelligence and playfulness in Mary Crawford, but I also see the overt interest in social climbing, the ambition and inappropriate character of say Mrs, Elton. And, unlike either of these women, Crawford also possesses the well-bred surface elegance and manners of someone like Miss Bingley. This must be a juicy role and the actresses who portray her in these productions do a pretty nice job with it.

1999 - Embeth Davidtz
She hits all the markers. She is quite elegant. Quite beautiful. And maybe just a touch too regal. She looks a bit like Jackie Smith-Wood who handled the role in 1983, and acts a good deal like her too -- but without the awkward edges. You get the feel for the slightly conniving, self-interested lens through which she views the world, while able to sell herself seamlessly at Mansfield Park. The production in which she acts is way too raw and places Mary in a bit of a sex tease scene with Fanny Price. Remarkably, Davidtz' performance manages to overcome that awkward bit and stay refined. A


1983 - Jackie Smith-Wood
Like many others in the 1983 production, she acts with too much consciousness and has an affected style. If she could have been just a bit more natural, she'd be spot on as a Mary Crawford who speaks readily and easily with charm and wit, has the right amount of baseness in her motivations. She and her brother as a team probably have the best chemistry as well, seeming very much like siblings. B+


2007 - Hayley Atwell
This lady looks like Cindy Crawford. She is very pretty. but, her Mary Crawford is too sharp, calculating, and coarser than she should be. Mary should be elegant, lovely, a true lady on the surface. Atwell gives an impression of a cold, strategizing player from the start. We don't have to dig deep to see her flaws; they are on full display. B



Henry Crawford

How are you supposed to pick! All three are reasonably good approximations of Henry, but two are fairly forgettable (Beattie and Nivola) and one (Burbage) has irritating, though memorable, affectations.

I'll give the edge to the memorable one.

1983 - Robert Burbage
He is tightly curled, like his sister, with whom he shares a nice chemistry. He plays Henry well, showing the rakish side in the beginning, developing into an earnest young man who seems to really love Miss Price. He sees her -- her value, her character -- while others are blind and Burbage manages that memorably. Alas, he also acts with an over-the-top awareness. Unfortunately, he enunciates with emphasized diction and gives big meaningful nods to make his points. Could he have only tamed that tendency, he'd have not only been memorable, but truly enjoyable. B+


1999 - Alessandro Nivola is a lovely man no doubt. But his Henry Crawford is the emo version. He feels things deeply and appears quite earnest. But Henry should be a bit more stand-offish, a rake who keeps his true emotions hidden. He fools those around him, then begins to fall, in spite of his better plans and judgements, for Fanny Price. Nivola is too soft, appealing, and available to be a convincing Henry. B


2007 - Joseph Beattie
He plays a shaggy Crawford, less kempt than one might like to see. And he, like his sister, feels too modern, too relaxed, too self-aware. They both appear to be going in to Mansfield Park full of specific bad intent, rather than having their rakish and conniving tendencies slowly unfold as their undoing. It's an important distinction. Henry fails to excel here not really because of Beattie's performance so much as the production choices of the version he is in. He ends up being more detritus on the floor of this poor adaptation. B





Sir Thomas

1983 - Bernard Hepton is the clear best. In fact he is the only one who I can stand watching. Where did these other productions get such a creepy take on Sir Thomas? I don't claim Hepton's Sir Thomas to be a marshmallow. He is a stern alpha male, clearly an authority figure with a great deal of austerity about him. He frightens Fanny and his daughters aren't attached to him. But this Sir Thomas is also caring toward his wife, forgiving of his sister-in-law, kind to fanny, (and even to Maria), he respects Edmund and shows reasonable frustration with Tom. He is a highlight of the production. A

2007 - Douglas Hodge
I think the 2007 must have been heavily influenced by the 1999 movie's take on the sexuality and on the foulness of Sir Thomas. Hodge's Sir Thomas is not as creepy as Pinter's, but is still unsettling. There are overtones of inappropriateness in his interactions with his niece. He is just not an appropriate Sir Thomas. C+

1999 - Harold Pinter
Violent, scary, and god only knows what that guy is up to in Antigua. Alongside Fanny, Sir Thomas has to be one of the most generally misinterpreted characters in this book. I get that he may be hard to understand and appreciate, but the creative team behind this 1999 production reached well outside a reasonable interpretion of Austen's work to get this dark and disturbing take on the patriarch of the clan. C-



Mrs Norris

1983 - Anna Massey
According to IMDB, Massey was born in 1937, making her just 46 or so during this production. I would have argued that she was too old for Mrs. Norris, but in point of fact, the actress is probably a perfect age for the role. That she is played so stooped over may be why she seems older. I don't know if this is Massy's own posture? or an acting choice? In any case, other than my perception that she it a bit too old-seeming for the role, I think Massey's Norris is the gold standard. Very memorable. Irritable and oh so petty, she gives the right flavor of a controlling woman trying to keep life going in the direction it is "supposed" to. A-



2007 - Maggie O'Neill is also about 45 years old at the time of her performance here and she seems it. (As a good thing). She, and her sister Lady Bertram, in fact, both feel like a nice breath of fresh air. They have the right kind of energy. O'Neill seems a little more like a tough CEO than a frumpy aunt, but I like her acting choices. She does well with this role. It's just that I can see Massey in my head now when I read the book, not O'Neill. B+


1999 - Sheila Gish was about 57 years old at the time of this role. This is not the sole reason I have her in last place. I just felt I should mention her age, since I spoke about it for the others. In any case, I would claim that 57 is a bit too old for Mrs. Norris. Still, a larger problem here is that Gish's turn as Norris isn't very memorable. I have vague impressions of more anger and cruelty than is strictly appropriate to the role. I'll give her a B.




Lady Bertram

1983 - Angela Pleasance
I seriously LOVE this languid, half-asleep take on Lady Bertram. The problem is it is just soooo overdone. Had Pleasance scaled back her approach, and spoken with a bit more clarity and coherence sometimes, she'd have been amazing. Had she not taken a great idea so over the top, she could have gotten my highest mark. As it is, I'll keep her in first place for the acting choices, her obsession with her pug, her quiet girl-like voice, but just ding her a bit for not knowing when to stop. A-



2007 - Jemma Redgrave is great. I really like her take on Lady Bertram. The problem is that this production has made her too purposeful, too aware. She is the one who engineers the over-the-top happy ending for Fanny and Edmund and -- although that can hardly be the actress' fault -- I can't like that choice of characterization. Had Jemma Redgrave had the good fortune to act in a MP with the ethos of the 1983 production, I'm sure she'd have knocked this out of the park. As it is, I'll give the portrayal of Lady Bertram in 2007 a B+

1999 - Lindsay Duncan (and the crazy production she is in) has taken Lady Bertram from languid, relaxed, and cozily content to sloppy alcoholic. She is not ladylike. She is not sanguine. I feel bad giving the excellent actress Lindsay Duncan grief over this, as I'm sure she was directed and compelled toward this characterization by the production ethos driving this film But, I have to call it as I see it. The choices that went in to this portrayal of Lady Bertram are not good ones.  B-




Thomas Bertram (eldest son)

1983 - Christopher Villiers
The 1983 production, I have mentioned time and again, has numerous actors that go overboard with self-aware caricatures of their roles. One of the few in the production who emotes normally with no identifiably irritating "shtick" is Christopher Villiers as Tom. He gets one of the funniest lines in the miniseries and delivers it perfectly. When he and Edmund are arguing about the play and Tom suggests that it will be a distraction for his mother's nerves in light of Sir Thomas' absence, they look over to her just as she gives a snort and has clearly been sleeping. Tom smirks: "well, I was unlucky there!" He is not a major presence, but is so refreshing when he is on screen for his easy, natural, unaffected, manner. A


The other Toms are both forgettable. They look a bit alike as well, with these long pointy sideburns. So much so, that... this is embarrassing... I'm not entirely sure I have correct pictures here. I can at least remember D'Arcy, so I'll rank him next with a B.


Gosh this is unfair... even for me.

2007 - James D'Arcy
 - fairly forgettable B

1999 - James Purefoy. Entirely forgettable B-
But that's the way it's going to be.








Maria Bertram


1983 - Samantha Bond
Bond really manages Maria Bertram well. She has a refined attitude with enough of a twinkle to suggest that beneath the exterior, she is ... slightly wicked. She is cool. She is aware. She oozes a great mix of self-confidence and jealousy and a touch of naughtiness. And she does this with relish. Nice portrayal. A



1999 - Victoria Hamilton
This is a brave actress to go en flagrante like this in an Austen adaptation. Her characterization of Maria is done pretty well, with a lot of heart. Despite the non-Regency handling of her attraction to Crawford, Hamilton infuses her Maria with a healthy dose of humanity. She has a yearning in her eyes. You can sense her lacking... and her longing ... and her sad (self-selected) fate of a life with a man she doesn't respect or love. You can find her foolish. You can hate her, but you understand her a bit better due to this nice performance. A-


2007 - Michelle Ryan
This is a way over the top sexed-up take on Maria. She stares brazenly at Crawford and makes love to the camera. But in doing so, she gives a one-note performance. She is meant to be sexy as hell. She is sexy-as-hell. This is it. Maria is more. Whether we blame Ryan or (again) the creative forces behind the characterization, we come away with a performance that adds nothing to our understanding of Austen's character, though plenty of appreciation for her lovely face. B-




Julia Bertram


Julia is a fairly minor role and, in truth, I probably could have kept it out of this post. At one point I thought about ranking the sisters (Maria and Julia) as a set, but then I realized that I had different winners for each sister. So to be fair, I needed to split them up and grade them separately.

1999 - Justine Waddell
There is something about Justine Waddell that needed to be rewarded. She is lovely, pleasant to look at; rather quiet, quite pretty, but somewhat benign. You see a sense of longing in her, and also a clear feeling that she is used to be in the background. Waddell has the right look for Julia and I think captures a really good younger sister vibe. Its not a big part, but the performance feels totally solid anyway. A


1983 - Liz Crowthers
I find her a bit too snivelly for my taste. She is jealous more than confident. Pouty rather than lovely. She recedes into the background, though she appears in the adaptation that almost certainly gives Julia the most screen time. Crowthers is competent, just a bit of a disappointment B+


2007 -  Catherine Steadman
I remember both the sisters in this productions primping, pouting, making goo goo eyes and sexing it up at least in the beginning. After that, I don't recall much of Julia's presence. Of course, part of Julia's role is to be a bit of background noise, but I'm not sure this portrayal of Julia contributes anything to our understanding, as Waddell's does. Steadman gets a B




Mr Rushworth

Rushworth strikes me as a pretty important character in this novel. He exists in a world where morality is the key variable. Fanny and Edmund standing for what is upright and moral, while others, particularly Maria, Mary and Henry push against what is right. There are splits between upright/proper traditional characters (Sir Thomas) and a more-relaxed style of living in the world (Fanny's mother and father, for instance.) A character like Rushworth is important because he falls outside of both of these dimension - neither as a paragon of morality or amorality, and not as a exemplar of what it means to hold up traditional values or those of fashionable society. He has a foot in a few different camps: he represents society, wealth, high-end living and also represents the insipidity of such factors being the standard upon which success is measured. Rushworth is great as comic relief and as a means by which almost every one gets to feel better about themselves.

1999 - Hugh Bonneville manages to convey the complexity of all this background with his posture and face alone. He looks like a man who has grown up expecting a certain respect; he holds himself with great decorum, yet, his face looks confused and a little silly. He looks like he doesn't quite know what he is doing or why he is there. This is perfect. I wish the character had more screen time in this version, but Bonneville makes his little bit count. A

1983 - Jonathan Stephens is also very strong. He brings many of these same characteristics to the role, but brings a little something extra too: a slightly annoying over-the-top self-awareness. This, thankfully, is the last time I'll say it, but the 1983 production has no shortage of actors who over-emote. A little bit less can often be more. So, while Stephens' instincts on how to play this guy are spot-on, he hits us over the head with them. A-


2007 - Rory Kinear
Rushworth is a character these adaptations seem to have gotten the measure of pretty well. Kinear is good in this role; good enough an actor to make you long for more of his character. Unfortunately, you long in vain in this production, in which we are lucky to meet Rushworth at all. The way they sliced and diced through many of the less prominent roles, that is by no means a given. Kinear is appealing - dignified and a little silly. We just don't get nearly enough of him. A-





Whew! That's a lot of roles! Thats a lot of grades to assign! Let's get on with the calculation.

Here are the point values for each grade:

                 2007      1999      1983
A   = 4.0     1            3           3
A-  = 3.7    1            1            3
B+ = 3.3    2                          4
B  =  3.0    4            4            1
B- =  2.7    2            2
C+ = 2.3    1
C  =  2.0
C- = 1.7                  1

               34           34.8        39.3     casting points total
             3.09         3.16        3.57      casting points average

The winner overall, and I guess there's no surprise here, is 1983 with a very strong CPA of 3.57! Congratulations! 2007 and 1999 lag far behind but are so close to each other, and both manage solid B performances overall! 1999 just edges out 2007 for second place, with 3.16 CPA compared to 3.09.


Lots of things to note!

• each of the productions has at least one character who 'wins' the role. 2007 has the fewest wins with 1 -- just for Edmund. 1999 wins on 3 roles (Mary, Julia, and Mr. Rushworth) while 1983 wins the rest, 7 roles.
• the only role that scored in the "C" range was Sir Thomas! With two performances (1999 and 2007) earning C range marks
• 1983, though it does come away the winner here, it is not so much on its own shinning strengths as much as the others weaknesses. 1983 has more "B+" grades than either A's or A-'s and its the lowest scoring role was the "B" Fanny herself earned
• the best-acted role across all three productions was Mr. Rushwoth. All three adaptations turned in an "A"-range Rushworth
• 1999 has an interesting split. There are really good turns from Mary Crawford, Maria and Julia Bertram and Mr Rushworth in this version. It has as many A's (3) as the winning production (1983) does. But almost every other role in the 1999 version is in the B range, with the notable exception of Sir Thomas who is the worst characterization in the whole set
• the most often awarded score was a solid "B." I gave out 9! B's. Compare this to 7 A's, 5 A-'s, 6 B+'s, 4 B-'s and, as mentioned above, 2 scores in the C range (a C+ and a C-)

A Triple Shot of Persuasion

Having recently watched and compared all three adaptations of Jane Austen's Persuasion -- 2007 BBC TV Movie, 1995 feature film and 1971 miniseries -- I decided it would be an excellent plan to go role-by-role and pick the best performances in each. I did this a few years ago with Emma and had a lot of fun, so why not!

Although I grudgingly picked the 1995 version as my 'favorite' adaptation overall, all three were a bit disappointing and failed to deliver the truly satisfying experience that an excellent adaptation can supply. While 1995 has the overall best mix of a reasonably true and accurate plot, alongside a very dashing Captain Wentworth and a smooth flowing well-executed feel -- the others aren't far behind. All three have some significant strengths, but some significant weaknesses as well. However, exceptionally fine performances are found in all. So, I'm wondering, how will the points come out and which adaptation will come out on top if I grade the actors? Lets see!  By the way, my grades are obviously based on my own subjective enjoyment of the performances and are heavily biased toward what I feel is "true" to the characters as Austen wrote them.

Anne Elliot:

1) Sally Hawkins (2007). I love her spunky charm and deep internal life. Because the adaptation she acts in is the most distant from the book, Hawkins does not have the opportunity to really inhabit the Anne Elliot of the book as the others do. However, I think she still comes closest to the essence of what makes Anne admirable - likable, trustworthy, solid, but still engaging, and full of a rich deeper inner life -- more so than those around her have much inkling of. Austen describes Anne as having an "elegance of mind and sweetness of temper" and I think Hawkins come closest to projecting these qualities. I can almost see her thinking things to herself with a quiet amusement. In her eyes there is a spark. The viewer -- just like the characters around Anne -- can either miss it and miss out on a lot, or catch it and be rewarded.  A

2) Amanda Root (1995). Though she is clearly an excellent actress, Root, and the production she acts in, have a take on Anne that feels a bit too timid and mousy for my taste. I greatly appreciate Root's emotive skill and think that she has created an inspiring and memorable persona; I just don't think that persona makes the best Anne Elliot. Amanda Root would have played an excellent Fanny Price (Mansfield Park) had she been given that chance instead. I do find her earnestness and quietness engaging, but I want Anne to be a character of lovelier inner poise and command. Amanda Root makes Anne frumpy, though she stirs with this performance anyway.  A-

3) Ann Firbank (1971). Maybe partly because of the earlier era and partly due to Firbank's more demure look, she nails the part in one way that the others do not: she projects the elegant qualities of a once lovely woman of high class; she speaks in a very refined and quiet way and gives an appropriate aura of subtle, though diminished, grace. However, she is a bit too stayed and settled for my taste. She never quite gets a lighter and cheerful inner depth that I believe Anne Elliot possesses. The actress is about a decade older than Anne is in the book, and that may push the edge of an appropriate age. By the end of the film Anne should be appreciably more attractive and appealing -- not just physically, but charismatically, but Firbank just never quite gets there, though she does perk up a bit. Overall this is a rather dull take on the role. B+

A note on the look of Anne: Somehow none of these actresses 'look' like Anne to me. Austen describes her heroine as having "delicate features and mild dark eyes" and notes that she had been a "very pretty girl" but is now "faded and thin" and "haggard." Later on, when noticed at Lyme by Mr. Elliot, Austen tells us that Anne has "very regular, very pretty features" and is looking remarkably well due to the bloom and freshness of youth having been restored by the sea air and the trip having animated her. Yet both modern (1995/2007) Anne Elliots have a more earthy look and neither are 'haggard' in the beginning nor delicate, really. The 1971 version gives us a very elegant and classic beauty in the lead role, thin and lanky with strong features, but she never seems to attain that freshness of youth. All three versions admirably liven Anne up as the production goes on; in particular, the 1995 version does an excellent job of very subtly beautifying Anne so that by the end she is much more attractive than she was in the beginning. Unfortunately, they never really get her to a place of striking beauty. I'm not sure exactly what I have for Anne in my mind, but I know these three actresses aren't quite it.

Captain Wentworth

1) Ciaran Hinds (1995). Some people complain that Ciaran Hinds doesn't look they way they expect Wentworth to look. I suppose they are right. Oddly, while the 'look' of Anne Elliot mattered very much to me, the look of Wentworth is a non-issue. Hinds is certainly a bit too old for Amanda Root (10 years her senior, when they should have been contemporaries); but, I can forgive it. I like that this Wentworth is not gorgeous. His appeal comes from his strong and direct manner, his forceful voice and his dramatic presence. His status as a leader -- one who has been around a bit and knows what's what -- is evident. Hinds is a charismatic and sexy Wentworth who conveys the strength and vulnerability of this character. A

2) Rupert Penry-Jones (2007) is the handsomest of the Wentworths and looks the most age-appropriate (though he is actually a bit older than Bryan Marshall was in 1971). You get the full sense of what a great catch this man would have been when Penry-Jones plays him! He is also somewhat intense, and it's great that the production he is in allows him to express and convey deep desire for Anne, along with a smoldering gallant style. I really don't have too much negative to say about him other than that he falls a bit short of the mark set by Ciaran Hinds in exuding the full range of presence and strength of the character. A-


3) Bryan Marshall (1971). I hate that I am troubled by things like Ann Firbank's fluffy '70s updo or Brian Marshall's thick sideburns and helmet hair. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't. It is odd and unfortunate that the look of both our leads in the 1971 production is so heavily a function of their own time as to be distracting when other more minor characters in that production look fairly timeless. In any case, Marshall is good but it may take the modern viewer a bit of time to get used to his style, or to ever come round to finding him sexy. Aside from his appearance, he plays the least engaging or dynamic leading man of the three. However, he does project a warm and appealing Captain Wentworth overall and, by the end of the production, is quite attractive and so very in love with Anne as to be really sympathetic. B+


Sir Walter Elliot

1. Anthony Head (2007).  We are told by Jane Austen that vanity is the beginning and end of Sir Walter. He had been remarkably handsome in his youth and still a very fine man at the age of 54. Sir Walter cares very much for his station in life and for the appearance of his dignity and his fine person. For all of these reasons he is absurd, but not hilarious. Of all the Sir Walters, my favorite is Anthony Head. I would watch the 2007 version again simply to sample his performance one more time; it took time to switch gears to Anthony Head's take on the role, but once I did, I was absolutely hooked. For starters he is a physically perfect choice; he almost certainly was an extremely handsome younger man and now looks dignified and still quite attractive. Head gets the little-ness and irritability of Sir Walter just right and allows Sir Walter to lighten up considerably once in Bath and away from the pesky financial troubles that plagued him before. A+


2. Corin Redgrave (1995) gives a very fun performance here as Sir Walter. Yet, all in all, he is a bit too flamboyant, fussy and over-the-top for my taste. He also comes across as somewhat whiney and attention-seeking, which I just don't see as an attribute of the character Austen created. Redgrave's take may diverge from Austen's, but he does creates a very distinct impression and really eats up the scenery when he's on camera. He does this with his performance as well as his costumes -- which are beyond extreme. I mean, I can't help but admire all of this, but the production's take on Sir Walter is a bit too comic to get the top spot. A-

3. Basil Dignam (1971). Is a good actor; I don't know much about him, but I get the impression of a typical, strong-quality, BBC character actor. I find him a bit too old (at age 65ish) for the character, and also too average looking to really stand out as the absurdly vain and attractive Sir Walter. That said, I still like the solid, even style Dignam gives to Sir Walter, with his fussy and self-absorbed ways. There is some tough competition in this field and Dignam just can't quite stand up with the others. B

Lady Russell

What an odd bunch of Lady Russells! ... from kindly friend, to ice-queen, to total doormat, we cover all interpretations of the role.

1. Susan Fleetwood (1995). Lady Russell is an odd character. She has been the means of separating Anne from Wentworth before the film even begins. Thus it makes sense to think of her as meddling or overreaching. Still, the novel makes it clear that she did this out of love for Anne and because she believed that Anne deserved better. She stands in place of a mother and is the character that loves and appreciates her the most. She counsels the family and has a strong position of power. Because she addresses all of these aspects, Susan Fleetwood gives a fantastic performance; she makes Lady Russell warm(ish) and motherly, but still unfriendly toward Wentworth and somewhat bossy from time to time. She is a friend-like counselor, both motherly and proud. A


2. Alice Krige (2007) plays Lady Russell a bit too heavy on the cold and directing side, and light on the motherly counselor side. She seems pinched and unfriendly to me and also looks rather stressed out much of the time. Rather than coming across as powerful, she seems troubled and either ineffective or icy. B


3. Marian Spencer (1971) is my least favorite by far, mostly because I find her totally forgettable in this role. She plays Lady Russell as a milquetoast and fretful matron. She neither comes across as powerful and strong, nor particularly kind and helpful. She is bland. In fact, I can hardly remember her performance at all, and had to re-watch clips of it in order to have something to say here  :)   C



Mary Musgrove

1. Morag Hood (1971). Mary Musgrove, Sir Walter's youngest and whiniest daughter, is also an incredibly interesting character in the book. Perhaps it is just because 1971 Mary (Morag Hood) gets the most screen time and therefore the best opportunity to really explore the petty selfishness and imagined neglect of Mary, but I really like her performance the best. Hood is quite sexy, something I hadn't expected in a 1971 production or thought of as an attribute of Mary, but find actually works quite well for the role. She is not downright beautiful but is appealing enough that you can see why Charles chose to marry her. He may have started regretting it right away as it is clear that Mary is used to getting her way; but as a couple they capture an interesting and an unusual, but decently workable, relationship that I like.  Morag Hood portrays the nuances that make up Mary and ends up being a highlight of the production. A


2. Amanda Hale (2007) gives a quite nice, but odd and quirky take on Mary that I like. She portrays Mary as a bit snooty, a bit stupid, and fairly unpleasant, but harmless enough. Preoccupied with her own little needs. Hale uses a twitchy, jerky sort of walk and does a great job of demonstrating the benign but irritating style of this character. She, like her sister Elizabeth in this production, engages in a bit too much posturing; both play their roles for laughs and for attention rather than just playing them straight; this is not my preference for any Austen adaption, because I like the humor and irony to come straight out of the dialog. Still a very good Mary.  A-

3. Sophie Thompson (1995). It seems sacrilegious to have Sophie Thompson at the bottom of any acting list, yet, I just didn't care for her Mary. She is whiney red-nosed and rather low-brow. It is hard to imagine this Mary as the dignified daughter of a baron and impossible to imagine Sir Walter would have ever put up with a child such as this. Sophie Thomspon is always great at creating memorable characters and this one is no exception; she is memorable, but I'm not sure its in a good way. She takes Mary to a place I don't think Austen wrote for her (a whiney, low-class place). B-

Admiral (with Mrs.) Croft

1. Peter Wight (2007) has a gregarious warmth and style that suits this character. He seems to be about the right age and energy for the role and he comes across as a good natured man who is slightly out of his element but comfortable enough with himself that he really doesn't care. I like Admiral Croft, as played by Wight, but think of him as window dressing to his wife's more important role.  A

2. Richard Vernon (1971) Although only in his mid-40s here, Richard Vernon appears 20 years older! But he still manages the joyful, preoccupied air of a sailor on land. He is completely comfortable with his position and lot in life, and therefore expects that everything will just go along as it should. Although, physically, he is far cry from Peter Wight, both men have a similar airhead energy to their Admiral Crofts; they project the kind of man you would be happy to chat with but would probably never get to know all that well. A-

3. John Woodvine (1995) makes a jovial enough Admiral, kind toward children and pleasant to have at a dinner party. But somehow his performance doesn't suit my undertanding of the character as well as the other two. This is an odd criticism, but to me, Woodvine seems to be a bit too sharp and strong, too 'present'; I'm not sure why that seems wrong for a sea captain, but I like the more distracted, fanciful and self-absorbed take of the other two Admirals a bit better. B+

Mrs. Croft (with her husband)

1. Fiona Shaw (1995). Its funny that my least favorite Admiral Croft is teamed up with my most favorite Mrs. Croft. I love Fiona Shaw's fantastic portrayal as the latter. Shaw has the right age, the right look, the right earnestness and the right intelligence. She just gets this character. She sees Mrs. Croft as a salt-of-the earth type of woman who is unflappable and independent, yet very happy to be married to her husband. She is warm and kind and also very powerful. She is honestly the only Mrs. Croft I can even remember and, because I love this character, that is quite important! A+

2. Marion Bailey 2007 is too old for this role -- at around age 55. This is compounded by being much too old a choice to play the sister of Rupert Penry Jones' (who looks 28). She might have swung Ciaran Hinds' sister, had she been in the 1995 film (as he was, and looked, around 42). But, in any case, Bailey is not just too old but too non-descript. She plays a typical Austen matron -- and does it well enough, but, overall, her performance falls short for this interesting and pivotal role. B

3. Georgine Anderson (1971). As with Marion Bailey (2007), Georgine Anderson comes across as too old for this role. And as with Richard Vernon, her on-screen husband, she is actually much younger than she looks. She is 'only' 43 years old here (which is still probably too old), but appears 55.  In any case, the 1971 version has a reasonable but not particularly moving take on the Crofts. Anderson is pleasant enough and competent enough, but doesn't provide any special spark to really sell the role; and this is a special disappointment because Mrs. Croft is one of my favorite characters. B

Charles Musgrove

1. Rowland Davies (1971) managed to turn in the unbeatable Charles Musgrove performance over 40 years ago. The other actors should have just looked at this film and gone home. Everything about his Charles rings true. I love the scene where the group is taking their walk and Charles is miffed at his wife for having refused to accompany him down to his cousin's home. Charles is holding both arms out for Anne and Mary but keeps dropping the Mary arm to swat at things with a stick. He does this perfectly with just the right attitude of boyishness and irritability. I also think of the scene where they are all in Bath and he is speaking to his mother about his theater tickets, saying "aren't I a good boy?"  Davies gets the spoiled, but still good-natured and sensible style of Charles to a T. Love him. A+


2. Simon Russel Beale (1995) plays Charles a lot like Rowland Davies did; so I like him too. He also has a similar ruddy-face and look. But somehow his portrayal does not have quite the charm of Davies'. Maybe this has something to do with his relationship with his wife seeming a bit more unpleasant and strained than the couple in 1971 managed to pull off. In any case, he comes in second. A

3. Sam Hazeldine (2007) plays Charles capably enough, but he is a bit bewildered and wiry and maybe at tad too frustrated or angry for my taste. I see Charles as a basically good-natured and simple fellow who cares mostly for sport, basic propriety and the comforts of his happy life. He is relatively easy to please, and even when irked by his sometimes inappropriate wife, gets over it and steps up to the next pleasure. Hazeldine is a fine actor but just doesn't grab these nuances and run with them; his Charles is a bit too angry/irritable, serious, and flat. B

Elizabeth Elliot

1. Valerie Gearon (1971) reminds me very much of Vivian Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara in her take on this role. She is really quite beautiful and I think Elizabeth needs to be. She is older than Anne, yet has remained fresh and elegant (like her father). That said, Elizabeth is not a kind, good person, and I like the way Gearon makes Elizabeth feel impeccable on the surface, but acidic just below it. Elizabeth, as Austen wrote her, possesses the same fierce Elliot pride as her father and like her father, her bearing should therefore be refined; Gearon's is. She should have an outward appearance of dignity and perfection and under the surface be petty and cruel. Again, Gearon delivers. A


2. Julia Davis (2007) is quite amusing, but she does here what Corin Redgrave does in 1995, and just plays the role a bit too comically; she pulls out what is absurd about Elizabeth and plays it to the hilt. That makes her performance interesting and funny, but not particularly true to the book. As with younger sister Mary in 2007, Elizabeth here is played over the top for laughs or attention. I prefer Valerie Gearon's straight take. I do appreciate the high-style costumes and hairstyles that this Elizabeth is given here, by the way. I think that really suits the extravagance and self-importance of Sir Walter's oldest daughter and mistress of the house to have excessive fashion taste. A-

3. Phoebe Nichols (1995) is quite irritable as Elizabeth. I don't see Elizabeth acting this way. She should be fairly content with her position, outwardly diginified and excessively proud -- though certainly self-absorbed and neglectful of her sister as well. She should act with decorum and at least some restraint. But this Elizabeth is pissed! and really seems to hate Anne; she is the opposite of dignified most of the time. It is just too much. Overall, the 1995 production has a take on Anne's sisters (and to some extent their father) that is too vulgar. B-

Mr. Elliot

1. Tobias Menzies (2007) is an excellent Mr. Elliot. He is glib and charming; he conveys a smooth politic style. I did not picture someone who looks like Tobias Menzies when I read the book, but I certainly do now. He gives a great impression of ambiguity. We don't quite know what to think. Just as Anne Elliot does, the viewer likes and admires him, but can't quite trust what he is up to.  He is cut from the same cloth as Mr. Wickham in Pride and Prejudice or Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility; Mr Elliot is the perfect, sexy, Regency cad, and Menzies' performance is spot on. Come to think of it, I'd love to see him play either of those roles please :)  A+

2. Samuel West (1995) is a very young and pretty Mr Elliot. Although he certainly makes Mr. Elliot an appealing man, he does not begin to grasp the nuance of the character in the way Tobias Menzies does. I keep picturing him as Frank Churchill (Emma) which is rather odd. I think he reminds me a bit of Ewan McGregor who played Frank in the Gwyneth Paltow Emma from around this time (1996). And I honestly didn't care for McGregor in that role either. They both suffer from flat and uninspired pretty boy-itis. B+


3. David Savile (1971) plays a Mr. Elliot who seems a bit more middle-aged and has a look that reminds me more of an Austen vicor. The more mature age is probably suitable, given that Austen never really suggests his age and we know he is a widower; but the somewhat dull and uninspired characterization does not. B

THE GRADES!

Lets do some summing up and get to our winners.

For starters, let me note that all three productions had first place winners. 

2007 -- Anne Elliot, Sir Walter, Admiral Croft and Mr. Elliot

1995 -- Captain Wentworth, Lady Russell, and Mrs. Croft

1971 -- Mary Musgrove, Charles Musgrove, Elizabeth Elliot

This is nicely balanced indeed!

And there were very few A+s handed out. The only actors/productions to get that top nod are:

Sir Walter Elliot (Anthony Head) 2007

Mrs. Croft (Fiona Shaw) 1995

Charles Musgrove (Rowland Davies) 1971

Mr. Elliot (Tobias Menzies) 2007

Again, pretty balanced, with each production scoring an A+, and 2007 getting 2.

But the final say will go to grades. In order to be precise, I'll assign a point value to each letter grade -- just like in school. By counting up total grade points and diving by the number of performances (ten characters here), I can determine an overall CPA (casting points average!) for each picture. This is getting exciting.

                      2007           1995          1971

A+  4.3         2                   1                1

A    4.0         2                   3                2

A-   3.7         3                   2                1

B+  3.3                              2                2

B    3.0         3                                     3

B-   2.7                              2                

C    2.0                                                1

gpa             3.67             3.57            3.36

Its an upset! Although 1996 had squeaked by as my favorite overall adaptation, 2007 wins it on actors by a nose.  All three adaptations came in very close to each other -- in the B+ to A- range -- which is especially an impressive feat for 1971, given its age and dated feel. It still managed to turn out such generally good performances so as to give the 'modern' ones a run for their money.

All three productions deserve appreciation for the things they do well. Now, I have just to wait, because in another 10 years or so, someone is bound to see the need to re-adapt Persuasion. Lets hope they hit it out of the park!