User reviews

After watching the more recent movie version of this movie, I must admit I put off watching this one for fear they would be similar. I'd read the book years ago and enjoyed it, although not as much as Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice. I finally got around to viewing this about a month after I'd purchased the box set and was VERY pleasantly surprised. It stayed very faithful to the book and unlike a few of the other reviews I read here, I did not find it at all dull nor did i find the acting lacking in any fashion.

I especially liked the development of the relationships between Fanny, Tom and Edmund. It was neat seeing them grow and mature over the course of the mini-series.

I was also impressed with the interactions between the Crawfords. The characters had always irked me a bit in the story but in this version they came across as more subtle.

I will agree with others that the production value of this mini series is a bit low. The acting is very stiff and is some places just unconvincing. For users of digital televisions the picture and sound quality is very low, but understandable since this production was made in the early 80s.

The thing that amazes me most about this rendition is how faithful it is to the book. If you loved the book, then you will also like the movie. I'm sure the costume designer and casting directors looked at the old Hugh Thomson illustrations. This most noticeable in the characters of Henry and Mary Crawford.

Lady Bertram is very much like she was in the book -except for her voice. I found it very odd! Rather overdone in my opinion. Mr Yates had a very strange hairstyle as well.

The locations and set were very nicely done. Sotherton and Mansfield Park are very much like the way I pictured them. There was one scene in Portsmouth where there was a matted background with ships. That was rather cheesy looking but it was the only scene that I was less than satisfied with.

This production lacks the polish of BBC's Pride and Prejudice (1995) but it is worth seeing for the serious Austen fan.

Low budget films and television productions have to be accepted for what they are. That being said, the 1983 Mansfield Park still has a distinctive on-location look and the cast is uniformly strong - Sylvestra Le Touzel has just the right mix of prettiness and austerity and Nicholas Farrell is excellent as Edmund.

Where the 1999 film sacrificed the book's moral subtlety for pretty obvious ends (Fanny becomes a sort of pseudo-feminist icon, but of course back in the eighteenth century, before it was cool) the 1983 film contains all the troubled morality of the book - its characters, many of whom are failures in way or another, are presented with sympathy and irony, and the faithfulness of the screenplay is infinitely to be preferred to the 1999 film's racy, but ultimately pedestrian value system.

The actors weren't perfect, but they were mostly believable. Sylesta seemed to talk continually in a high tone, and didn't seem to fit comfortably into her role. But she was submissive yet resolute, as Fanny is supposed to be. I didn't feel Edmond was totally right for his role either. He didn't seem smooth enough or something. I liked Henry Crawford mostly, except he didn't make me fall in love with him when he addressed himself to Fanny. He wasn't convincing when he tried to woo Fanny- if he was i'd have fallen in love with him. He also had a curl of the lip that made him ugly- he would have been handsome without it. His sister totally hit the nail on the head though. And Lady Bertram was HILARIOUS! I loved her performance! Anna Massey as Aunt Norris was great too!

This is unquestionably the best ever adaptation of this book, faithful to the text and faithful to the feeling of the book. Sylvestra le Touzel is appropriately mouse-like and really embodies the real Fanny Price, (one of my favourite Austen heroines). She displays that transcendence of flesh that Austen uses as a metaphor for stability in an increasingly precarious situation, both for the estate and for the individuals associated with it. More recent adaptations have tried to make Fanny more capricious and human... but that is not what she is about. She represents the rise of the diligent lower classes to dominate the corrupt aristocracy, of merit over money, and morality over license. She and Edmund are the eventual winners, custodians of their inheritance, when all the favoured children have fallen into sin and temptation and proved themselves unworthy. Fanny Price is not so very different from Jane Bennett, Anne Elliot or Elinor Dashwood. I don't understand why so many people find her character "difficult"

And that big flaw is the two leading actors. The rest of the cast gives a solid good performance but Sylvestra Le Touzel ( as Fanny) and Nicholas Farrell ( as Edmund) are just too dull. You hardly care for them and it's very hard to believe that Henry Crawford falls in love with her.This may be true to the book but it does not work in a movie / TV- series. Of course Fanny should not be glamorous and Edmund should not be dashing but here they go overboard. The performances by Anna Massey , Samantha Bond, Angela Pleasence, Bernard Hepton, Liz Crowther and Jackie Smith-Wood are the ones that really shine . Of course it's long ( 260 minutes) but if you like this kind of TV-series this will be no disappointment to you ( it will - most likely - also not be your favorite ).

I LOVE this version of Mansfield Park. I understand that it isn't to everyone's taste due to the low budget and the length but I throughly enjoy watching it (and I have seen it a number of times). I am a huge fan of period dramas and this is one of my favourites. It is the third version of Mansfield Park that I saw (although the first made) and after seeing this version, I cannot stand how inaccurate the other two versions are.

Anna Massey is absolutely fantastic as the controlling, miserly, class conscious Aunt Norris.

I also liked Jackie Smith Wood's performance as Mary Crawford, the polar opposite personality to Fanny Price, the heroine.

I thought that Bernard Hepton's Sir Thomas Bertram was much more likable than the more recent versions in which he was played overly harsh.

All in all, if you are a fan of period dramas and don't mind long adaptations, this one is definitely worth watching.

'Mansfield Park' has not been served well in its filmed versions. The film spent far too much time shoe-horning in Austen's juvenilia writings, while the TV version with Billie Piper was ridiculously miscast and misjudged.

Which leaves us with this version from 1983. Not the most exciting of novels, it is the story of Fanny Price, sent from the cramped house she shares with her parents and siblings in Portsmouth, to the home of her rich aunt and uncle Bertram. Here she becomes part of high society, although barely tolerated by her snobbish Aunt Norris, and finds her first taste of love and infatuation.

Played by Sylvestra Le Touzel, Fanny in this version is plain, quiet, and unassuming. Nicholas Farrell seems a little too old for Edmund but he's fairly good in the role of the second son turned curate. Although many of the characters are caricatures to some extent - and none more annoying than Angela Pleasance as Aunt Bertram - there's some good work from Anna Massey as Aunt Norris and Bernard Hepton as Sir Thomas, Fanny's initially remote uncle.

Paced far slower than dramas would be nowadays, and not as filled with incident as, say, Pride and Prejudice or Emma, 'Mansfield Park' requires some patience in viewing, but will reward that patience if you stay with it.

If you enjoy Jane Austin's novels, this is the best of the two available versions of Mansfield Park. It is very true to the book, but lacks the beautiful production values and outstanding cinematography of the 1999 version that stars Frances O'Connor.

Fanny Price has always been a problematic character for Austin's fans. Many that read the book when it was published in the early 1800s found her unbearable compared to Austin's other, more spirited heroines. Sylvestra Le Touzel does a nice job in this very challenging role.

The best performance in the movie, though, is Jackie Smith Wood's Mary Crawford. Mary is beautiful, flirtatious, morally confused, good hearted and shallow, all at once. She is one of the more complicated characters in all of Austin's novels, and Jackie Smith-Wood plays her to the hilt. It's a mystery why such a terrific performance did not yield further opportunities, but her career seems to have evaporated after this role.

This is a movie for the more patient Austin fan. The pacing is measured, and the characters, particularly Edmund and Mary Crawford, evolve as the story moves forward. Mansfield Park, unlike Austin's other successful novels, is really about the failed love affair between Edmund and Mary. As a result, it is a more somber read than Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. The wedding at the end is a natural result of Edmund coming home to Fanny as the one stable element in his life.

It's a solid movie with good acting and a complicated plot. It is well worth seeing.

This adaptation is very true to the book. However the actress portraying Fanny was not the best choice. Sometimes she seemed like she was thinking through her acting choices at the moment she was saying her lines. She was either under or overacting many scenes. Some of her expressions and hand movements for emphasis were almost comical. The male leads playing Tom and Edmund seemed both to be good choices. The actor portraying Henry Crawford was also fine in the part. .i liked the other females leads playing Aunt Norris and Mary Crawford. Aunt Bertram seemed more like the village idiot and not the great lady of a wealthy family. However, by miscasting the most crucial role of Fanny, this adaptation fell flat for me. I would not recommend it.

Ok so maybe you all disagree, but I prefer this old mini-series to the modern 1999 film.

I read the book before I had seen either, and this version is so much more true to the book. For me that is much more important than modern touches that spoiled the movie.

Even though Sylvestra may not give a good performance as Fanny Price, I find her much more believable as Fanny than Frances O Connor.

The camera work is very dodgey. At the start when Fanny is in the carriage with Mrs Norris, when Fanny is introduced to the Bertrams and when Tom, Edmund and Mary Crawford are walking together.

Mrs Norris is just how I imagined her, and Lady Bertram too. Henry Crawford is not played well I feel, the way he speaks seems all wrong and strange, I think they chose the wrong actor there.

I was struck by the scene where Maria wants to go through the locked gate and sends Mr Rushworth to get the key. This scene is just how I pictured it in the book, it is quite remarkable.

The settings serve their purpose, the house is furnished as you would expect. That was another thing I disliked about the recent movie. Mansfield Park looked like a Fortress inside! All bare and ugly, more suited to Northanger Abbey I feel.

The music was simple, but it was obviously a low budget production.

If anyone agrees with me please say.

While "Northanger Abbey" was my least favorite Austen novel, "Mansfield Park" is my least favorite Austen miniseries. Nothing against the acting, which was very good, it's just that the characters in the novel are some of the least appealing and this stands out more on screen. In the other works, no matter how flawed a character (Lydia, Wickham, Mr. Collins, Willoughby, Lucy Steele, to name a few), they were still entertaining to read about, or watch. I found this not to be the case with the Crawfords, Maria, Julia and the rest of them. They just didn't have it.

Also, there was never enough of a chemistry between Fanny and Edward to make it believable that they were destined for a HEA, nor the conflict/misunderstanding that provides a spark, like you find with Darcy and Elizabeth or Knightley and Emma.

There's just too much missing, and even a subplot of adultery isn't enough to really spice things up.

Not bad, but nothing to rave about, either.

Mansfield Park is such a close-to-home and simple novel. It all pretty much takes place in the Mansfield Park building and it is about the simple relationships between one family. It probably then doesn't require a 4.5 hour long adaptation, but you can rest assured then that there is nothing left out of this version, it is as thorough as an adaptation can get. I think the simple story is much better suited to a 90 minute+ film. But this was good to watch to get the definite Mansfield Park on screen. It is slow thanks to the low budget TV production of the time, as well as the slow nature of the story (there is no action packed drama or excitement here). But all round I enjoyed it and thought the casting was pretty good and I had a genuine sense of pleasantness as the story concluded in its happy way. Only Jane Austen enthusiasts are likely going to hunt this out and watch it. Most people are probably better off with the 1999 film. But this one is certainly more charming and has better characters. The 2007 one is rushed and 2D.

I read many of the reviews here before deciding to buy the DVD of this version of one of my favourite books. Having been appalled by the treatment of Austen's text in the other two versions (though enjoying them as entertainment), I was quite cautious about it and initially found many of the criticisms voiced here seemed justified. But after repeated viewing, I came to like it more and more; and I really think that it is just about as faithful a rendering of this complex, subtle, quietly troubled work of genius as we are ever likely to see. Production values and locations are adequate for the story and the acting, and I now value this Austen adaptation as highly as the best versions of the other books.

Indeed, this 1983 version is "dated" as are other BBC/ITV productions of the time -- this is especially notable when compared to, for example, the Keira Knightley-version of "Pride & Prejudice," which is lush and beautifully shot.

However, this mini-series has the luxury of time (as it is episodic) and is able to convey the finer points of the novel missed in director Patricia Rozema's 1999's "deconstructed" version and the lively (but far less faithful) 2007 Billie Piper version (in which very pretty and likable, but inconceivably blonde-haired and dark-browed, Piper is constantly running and giggling throughout the Bertram estate).

Three sisters have married. Mrs. Price married for love, to an uneducated and poor naval fellow, and has borne him eight children, and they live in squalor, in Portsmouth. Her sister, Mrs. Norris, married a clergyman and they live on or near the estate of yet another sister, Lady Bertram, who, in turn, has married very well, and has four children, two boys, Tom and Edmund and two girls, Maria and Julia with her husband, a baronet, Lord Bertram.

Mrs. Norris -- for reasons not entirely clear, although likely to give the appearance of having a charitable nature -- has convinced her wealthy brother-in-law and sister to take in their unfortunate sister's oldest daughter, Fanny. Fanny grows up at Mansfield Park, always aware she's the family's "poor relation." Her affection for her cousin Edmund is at the core of Austen's love story.

The acting in the mini-series is really excellent and Sylvestra LeTouzel is really Fanny, as Austen describes her in the original novel. LeTouzel is actually quite beautiful, fragile and yet resilient.

Anna Massey's Mrs. Norris, too, embodies Austen's Mrs. Norris, without being so overtly hostile, from start to finish, as Maggie O'Neill's, in the 2007 version. Massey's role is much more substantial than future Mrs. Norris's are given and she is well up to the task. Villainy is much more credible when it is more cloying and subtle as Massey plays her.

There's a good deal of hostility towards Anna Pleasence's performance as Lady Bertram, and, unfortunately, I must jump on that bandwagon, too.

I love Jemma Redgrave's Lady Bertram in the 2007 version, although Redgrave's Lady Bertram is probably a good deal more observant and present than Austen's Lady Bertram.

Pleasence's performance, whether a personal acting choice, or one dictated by the director, is a challenge to watch, as it pulls the viewer out of story. It's simply odd. Her delivery consists of an extremely affected high-pitched voice and thumb-sucking (yes, really!). Some have mentioned her Lady Bertram seems medicated, but she actually comes across as touched/special/mentally deficient, and it defies credulity that Lord Bertram would marry her and that she would subsequently be running an estate like Mansfield Park (although the argument might be that Mrs. Norris does a good deal of the "running," with Lady Bertram as merely a figure head.

Pleasence's vocal stylings are reminiscent of Shirley Henderson's as "Moaning Myrtle" in "Harry Potter," but without Myrtle's wit and passion.

Christopher Villiers and Jackie Smith-Wood, as Tom Bertram and Mary Crawford, are very, very good, and, like Massey's Mrs. Norris and LeTouzel's Fanny, offer up performances that are clearly what Austen intended for the characters.

Samantha Bond, as Maria Bertram Rushworth, is very pretty and excellent and does offer up a hint of what she'll bring 30 years later to "Downton Abbey."

This is probably not a story for everyone, but essential for an Austen fan.

for everyone who has read this book, Fanny Price ends up maturing into her own woman, a beautiful woman...with a brain. Le Touzel looks like she is on medication. Terrible acting, she just ruins it! Henry is a little tall for his character. He is also too effeminate. Mary Crawford is brilliant. Edmond is a little too old. Mrs. Norris is hysterical- OK, this casting decision works. Rushworth is also perfect. Yates looks too effeminate also. But, Le Touzel is simply horrid. This is not a good character for her. Poor Fanny! I would recommend this movie only because it includes an almost complete textual account of the language Austen uses in the novel. The 1999 version is much more fun but terribly incomplete. If they could redo this version with a better suited actress for Fanny it would be fabulous!

Since secondary school I have loved Jane Austen's work. I love the language, the stories, the settings, the characters and their attitudes and the detail. There have been many great versions of Jane Austen's books, such as the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, the 1995 Sense and Sensibility and the 1995 Persuasion, but there are also some disappointing ones such as 1987's Northanger Abbey and 2007's Mansfield Park. This 1983 Mansfield Park is neither one of the greats or the disappointments regarding Jane Austen adaptations. It's not perfect, with a slow start and some stiff camera work, but it's still leagues ahead of the other two adaptations of the book, the 1999 version I disliked but had one or two decent things and the 2007 version I hated with a miscast Fanny Price and no actual sense of the era. This Mansfield Park has beautiful scenery and interiors as well as some handsome costumes, not only did I get a sense what era it was supposed to be set but also Mansfield Park itself didn't actually look like a fortress. The series is lengthy and the pacing leisurely, but considering the length of the book both were necessary and apart from at the start the adaptation benefits from these. The music is simple in composition, but not so much to be repetitive or over-bearing. The dialogue isn't too stilted and is in Austen's spirit, and once it gets going the storytelling with its detail to the time and characters is very believable and again pretty faithful. The acting was generally fine, Sylvestra Le Touzel's Fanny is not my definition of a great performance, but in the most challenging Austen heroine role she does do a good job being pretty and austere and is miles ahead of Frances O'Connor and Billie Piper. Nicholas Farrell is excellent though as Edmund and Bernard Hepton is a joy as Sir Thomas, but the best performances came from Jackie Smith-Wood in the complex but thankfully more subtle than before role of Mary Crawford, and Anna Massey who is as always great as Mrs Norris. So overall, has its foibles, but it is the best version and actually the only one I'd give as close as a recommendation to. 8/10 Bethany Cox

This is, as other reviewers have commented on, a very faithful adaptation of Jane Austen's novel, which is the best thing I can say about it. The acting is so stagy that it looks like a theatre piece taken off the stage, and most of the actors are obviously uncomfortable in their roles, something a good director would have noticed and tried to amend. Although the novel is enjoyable to read and I wouldn't cut a word out of it, the story simply doesn't have enough movement to go over well on the screen without some editing. It might have been better to make a shorter and less boring film - I nearly fell asleep watching it.

It's true that this version is a bit long and should only be attempted by real aficionados of Austen's work. I prefer it to the 1999 version, but someone looking to be entertained for an afternoon ought to look elsewhere. I didn't mind the actress who played Fanny as much as everybody else seems to. I won't praise her acting, but found it not much worse than anyone else's. She looked the part so much more than Frances O'Connor and played it with the necessary timidity that the other actress completely ignored. Edmund, I thought, looked all wrong for the part. I suppose this is a debatable point, but I felt his features were too old and his expressions too severe. Edmund was meant to be serious but warm. It is a subtlety that I felt, unfortunately, neither he nor the 1999 actor got right. The worst choice was Henry Crawford. His portrayal was so off and confusing that I found it hard to focus on the rest of the film. The actor played Crawford so flamboyantly that it is hard to imagine he made so many girls fall in love with him. Those are all of my real complaints; otherwise I found it an enjoyable, faithful adaptation of a wonderful book.

It was wonderful to see an accurate adaptation of one of my favorite novels. The themes of the book are well-presented, and I was pleased with the casting and portrayal. I thought a smaller, frailer-looker Fanny would have more suited the character and I did not care for Miss Crawford's close-cropped hair, either, but these were not difficult to accept. It obviously had a much lower budget than the recent 1999 adaptation, yet it was not nearly as awkward to watch as they did not massacre Jane Austen's meanings in an effort to make the setting and plot more palatable for modern audiences. There was no ax to grind here, just an accurate, well-acted, satisfying film. If you love the book, you will love this movie. If you did not care for the book, then you will be wasting your time.

I liked the actress playing Fanny-she grew on me and did a good job changing from nervous mouse to a little more self-assured, but always unassuming and deferring as the character was. Anna Massey was great and so is Angela Pleasance and the rest of the cast. The Frances O'Conner version was entertaining, but missed the book entirely, not only by changing the story and adding all the current socially relevant commentary, but by its half-hearted, after the fact, leaving out the main theme Austin was exploring-maybe not so popular in our time, but perhaps more relevant in our cynical times. The Billie Piper version was also not too good, if you read the book. This is by far the best version of a rich book. I agree with a previous poster that the actor playing Edmund seemed somewhat miscast, and I thought the Mary Crawford actress was a little flat even though she had the best lines. I did, however, like the guy who played Henry, he should have been as brassy as he was played, I think.