NA07: what's the verdict?
March 25, 2007
Just like last week with MP, we’re interested in your opinion of the new film version of Northanger Abbey. Let us know if you’re familiar with the novel as well–we won’t make fun of you, we promise, we just find it interesting to compare the opinions of those who have read the novel with those who have not.
Leave a Comment
Comments are closed.
After viewing this, can someone please tell me if Catherine and the Tilneys visit to Woodston (Henry’s home) is included in this version? I loved that part in the book.
And, Mags, please give us your verdict of JJ Feild as Henry. I know you’re a fan of his (just as I am).
Just a few quick thoughts as it has just ended and I haven’t really had much time to think over it.
It was slightly over-dramatic, very Andrew Davies, and the fantasy scenes seemed a bit superfluous to me. Despite that though, it did make me smile quite a lot until the end, which glossed over the wait Catherine and Henry have to face and jumped straight to their children, for goodness sake!
I didn’t like General Tilney at all, it was not how I pictured him when reading the book, and I’m very disappointed in that. All other characters came across well to me though, especially Henry as I do love JJ Feild. I thought he was very good.
The purported love triangle was nowhere to be seen, thank goodness! John Thorpe was not dashing, and in no way different to the book. William Beck is a very… odd looking man, which I think added to the sinister undertones I think Thorpe should have.
In short, I liked it, but then I liked Mansfield Park. I think this adaptation deserves to be better received, really.
And, marcyg68, they did not go to Woodston, but Henry and Catherine rode to see it from a distance. Which doesn’t really count, but never mind!
I’ve got to say I really really liked this! I enjoyed the book but its been at least a couple of years since I read it so any deviations I didn’t pick up on but in general the plot was stuck to. I enjoyed it FAR better than Mansfield Park last week. This was full of spirit and fun. I found it very funny and I really think the fantasy sequences worked well (I found them hilarious- they were totally over the top but then again they were meant to be). The best thing though for me was that I think Felicity Jones was brilliant as Catherine- she captured the spirit of the character beautifully. And I reckon JJ Fields is as close to Mr Tilney as anyone could be.
All in all I loved it and I taped it so I’m going to rewind and watch it again right now.
Assorted quick thoughts in no particular order. Will write clearer thoughts tomorrow.
Not bad. Nice cast and good production features. At least one could hear some dialogue from the novel. Considerably better than ‘Only-Pug-Didn’t-Make-Me-Sob-Mansfield Park’ of last week. It does start with a female voicever with bits of the first chapter of NA which is nice. I thought Miss Jones was a very nice Catherine. J.J. Fields is an alright Tilney (although slightly too moody at times for my taste), he gets the wonderful line on smirking but alas Andrew Davis cut out his fabulous statements on marriage being like a country dance and the value of novels. He doesn’t really get away with the muslin bit but it is hard to pull this dialogue off without giving the impression that he dresses in Eleanor’s frocks in secret. And plays the conversation when he catches Catherine by his mother’s room too heavily (and AD decided that Mrs Tilney’s room was verboten to all on the General’s orders).
Highly irritating feature: mentions of Byron…not once, but three times…including Isabella apparently alluding the incest allegation (which is 1816! My head hurt. Why do they insist on throwing these ‘pop culture’ to us, the foolish masses? Well, we had Nelson referenced in MP…Urk. What’s the point of Northanger Abbey being such a huge place? It’s supposed to have some old parts but is modern and comfortable. Lacock Abbey is the sort of place more to mind. And why in merciful heavens are they performing the Magic Flute at the theatre? And in the original German as the soprano belts out ‘Der Hölle Rache’? Although they ride to Woodston, they never enter the house so Catherine can admire the rooms (and we could see the terriers and the Newfoundland puppy, awwww). Boo. And Andrew Davies, cut out the bally ‘gothic fantasy’ scenes, they’re ghastly and painful, as much as I like the odd glimpse of gratuitous gapping frilly shirtage…and Tilney appears just creepy in the ‘naked bathtub’ outside scene. Frocks aren’t that bad although ladies are remiss with their chemisettes and bonnets. For the amateur scene spotter, it would be intriguing to find the huge lake that is next to Beechen Cliff in Bath (spot the certain bits of ‘Bath’ that look just like certain famous bits of Dublin. Snort. And Editrix, remember your ‘new’ NA fanfic? Yeah, there is a ‘seducation scene’ with a nekkid Isabella and Frederick. Which I never see Isabella doing myself. Although think she’s brighter than that. And Eleanor’s lad is a ‘second son’ (this plot line is never resolved).
Truely oddly, John Thorpe admits to reading (!!!) ‘The Monk’ and suggests it to Catherine, calling it ‘hot stuff’. Groan. And there’s these terrible over the top fake ‘readings’ as well. And Thorpe’s already vaguely stalking Catherine from her first dance in the Lower Assembly Rooms, when she meets Henry. Huh? At least, despite the blurb of a ‘love triangle’, Thope is clearly no rival to Henry.
And why would Catherine make a mooee face on hearing that Tilney is a clergyman, since it is her father’s profession. And Andrew Davis obviously watched the previous version (you know the one with Tilney as the Regency girl’s gay best friend) since Tilney comes to Wiltshire on a white horse. I had deja vu for a second and thought bad electronic music would start. And the last five minutes q43 wierd, as Henry claims General Tilney is a an evil creature who badly treated Mrs Tilney (‘vampirism’ is mentioned, eh) and Henry has ‘broken’ with his father and will never to talk with him again. Huh? Well, that’ll make living at Woodston really easy! Snort. This part quite ruined it for me. Conclusion: Not completely sporkable but I did not want to smooch Tilney (which is a bad sign) and from now on, British TV producers, please keep Andrew Davies on a tighter leash!
Thanks, Zoe!!
These reviews are very heartening so far. I happen to love the book so I’ve been really looking forward to this one.
How was the ending handled? Was it much like the book (Henry pursuing her to Fullerton, the walk to the Allens, Eleanor marrying a viscount, Henry and the General finally reconciling)? Was there a wedding and do they wrap the story up well (not too rushed, I hope?).
I LOVED it. Felicity Jones was a very sweet Catherine, Carey a wonderfully light, on-the-surface-amiable-but-really-very-shallow Isabella, John Thorpe suitably charming, with that necessary streak of unpleasantness, and JJ Feild as Henry was just lovely. It was all highly entertaining, although I was shaking my head at Catherine’s dreams. Ah, Andrew Davies, you always try to get your actors to get their kit off! At least, however, he worked it so that it was plausible. I really liked Catherine’s family too, especially when Catherine was telling them all about what had happened to her. Roll on Persuasion!
I never really took to the book, which means I’m probably easier to please, but I liked it (more than the Mansfield Park adaption).
I agree, General Tilney wasn’t as I had imagined him, but, in a way, with so little screen time, it perhaps makes sense to change his character – make him a more obvious villain. I would have liked to see more of Thorpe’s character – because you don’t see him boasting about his horses etc., the discussion of Catherine’s prospects with General Tilney seems a bit odd.
Actually liked all the fantasy scenes – it gave the production a nice Gothic touch.
Really, my big quibble would be with the casting of Catherine, and mainly for the really random reason that something about the structure of her face reminded me of Ronnie Ancona when she does her imitation of Audrey Hepburn. That’s both silly, and unfair to the actress, but I kept seeing Ancona instead of Catherine. The actress also struck me as a little too mature for Catherine – I had imagined her a bit younger, a little sillier than that – but on the other hand, the fact that she was more grown up made Henry’s falling for her more believable.
Thought Isabella was very well cast, and I’d have liked to see more of her friendship with Catherine. Henry was also very well cast.
All in all, while I wish it had been longer, to get everything from the book in – I enjoyed it.
(Just remembered another minor, minor quibble. At the first ball, when they go in, it’s like the book – impossibly crowded. But when they’re dancing – acres of space. Where had everyone gone?)
I loved it, way better than last weeks MP!
It had a sparkle about it and it made me smile a lot in places (wasn’t much of that last week, haha)! It was always a lighthearted sort of novel in the first place, has I’ve just finished reading it, and found it easy to read and fun. The dreams/daydreams I liked, I’m not going to be stuffy about them, it fitted in well, actually. The actors we’re all just right in their parts, esp Catherine and Henry, I enjoyed them both!
Anyway, that’s my opinion, I’ve enjoyed/enjoy reading what everyone else thinks. I want to watch it again, I’ll no doubt like it more
I haven’t read the book and as such have a question to ask – does the term ‘hot stuff’ appear in the novel? It seemed as foreign to the rest of the script as a reference to the music of Led Zeppelin.
I found Felicity Jones enjoyable as Catherine. I particularly liked the change in her demeanour when she was around her younger siblings. Her facial expressions and tone were just right. I’m expecting to see more of her in future.
JJ Field was great as Tilney. In his and Jones’ interplay he seemed like a boy cheekily prodding her to see what response she would give. What I found especially amusing was that this seemed to go on between the actors as well as the characters.
From the behind-the-scenes footage:
JJ Field: So why don’t you choose the other bloke?
Jones: Because you’re, much more… *clearly struggling to answer*
JJ Field: hahahah
There was a great feeling of warmth with Henry enjoying Catherines innocence without looking to exploit it. It also nicely mirrored Thorpe.
It seems the actors were corralled into exaggerating the love triangle element that’s been going on in the press releases. Presumably ITV feared viewers wouldn’t be enticed by a synopsis that read ‘A young woman falls in love with a jolly nice chap’
The ending could have been much better (I was looking at the clock hoping for another fifteen minutes). It was far too abrupt being little more than: They all lived happily ever after. The End.
I hated it. I don’t think it helped that I didn’t like JJ Feild in his role. There was something lacking in his performance. I have to really believe in the two main romantic characters and while I was rooting for Felicity Jones’ character ‘Catherine Moorland’, Feild’s ‘Henry Tilney’ was as interesting and revolting as a wet hanky.
Feild resembled an age of beyond twenty six years old (perhaps thirty years of age) and that made me revolt more than desperately wish for him to fall in love with Jones’ character, someone who I thought was only but fifteen years of age until the voiceover narration nearing the end of the drama informed me otherwise.
I will however give credit where it is due. I have heard so much of the humour of Jane Austen’s work and I did find this adaption very humourous compared to Mansfield Park.
Feild’s ‘Henry Tilney’ was as interesting and revolting as a wet hanky.
Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Daniella, please read the book IMMEDIATELY and learn of the true perfection (or very near it) that is Henry Tilney. There’s a reason we call him Da Man.
Daniella, I haven’t seen this NA, but it strikes me as very odd that you should find the age gap between the two leads to be such an obstacle. I’ve seen the clips of Jones and Feild, and I don’t see how the former is so very young and the latter so very old, as you assert. Even if Tilney *was* all of thirty (how ancient!) and Catherine fifteen, hasn’t Austen written romances with a larger age gap? I think immediately of Emma (21) and Mr. Knightly (around 37), of Marianne (17) and Colonel Brandon (well into his 40s). I mean, if the chemistry is not there, it’s not there, but having seen Feild’s Tilney and Jones’ Catherine, I hardly think they are mismatched age-wise.
I can’t wait to see it… I cancelled my amazonUK order for MP, but will gladly keep this order in tact! Reviews sound decnet as a whole. Loads better than last week’s production (which I downloaded and despised).
I’ve not seen an adaptation of NA. Couldn’t sit through the 80s BBC. But I like the look of these actors and can picture them as the characters I read in the book, and I love Henry Tilney. Too bad I have to wait til Persuasion airs next week for this to ship out!
Remember…I’ve invited those not as familiar with the Austen oeuvre as most of the “regulars” to participate in this thread–they might not be as able to compare between the works. That being said, we are interested in reading all opinions. And debate is good!
1. No, I didn’t play General Tilney in the 1986 adaptation of Northanger Abbey.
2. First, let me get this out of the way. Felicity Jones is so cute! I haven’t seen Ronnie Ancona’s impression of Audrey Hepburn; I just thought of Audrey Hepburn herself, in Roman Holiday, which is one of the high water marks of film cuteness.
3. That’s out of the way. Now. I liked it very much. The casting was quite good, with no glaring Billie Piperisms. They didn’t try to film it using a single set. Carey Mulligan did cleavage duty, leaving the other women free to wear fairly appropriate dresses. Dublin Castle was a bit over the top for an English country gentleman’s home, but that’s a minor quibble.
4. My sons are learning to play “Where have I seen that British actor before?” Hey, that’s Ada Clare! Hey, that’s Roy from Robin Hood! Great fun.
5. One problem for someone familiar with the books is that one has favorite scenes or bits of dialogue that are inevitably tampered with. So, I was disappointed in the “Beechen Cliff” scene. Not so much that it bore no resemblance to Beechen Cliff (from the real Beechen Cliff you see a parking garage in the foreground which Catherine would reject as unpicturesque), but in the changes to the dialogue. Even my twelve-year old son knows that scene as “the one where they talk about ‘nice.’” Oh, well. I’m occasionally willing to give up some of those favorite things if I’m otherwise properly entertained, and there’s sufficient cuteness.
6. You have to love a hero who knows so much about muslin.
I loved it…well compared to last week’s MP.
Firstly, I think the cast was a job well done although I confess I didn’t like John Thorpe…actor or character.
Secondly, I think that was the point of such an age gap…Jane Austen, I believe knew that the heroines would silly and ‘inexperienced,’ so she deliberately put in a more serious and sensible hero to teach her how to manage herself better.
Thirdly, I’ve not read the book except for the ending, but compared to the BBC version of NA, this is so much better.
Better, much better. But.
Last week we had a picnic waltz, untidy hairstyles and gentlemen in shirtsleeves.
This week we had Byron and vampires. I am looking forward to Persuasion, by which time we should have moved on to electric lamps and the Brownie camera.
I always did think the academics had got it wrong. Not Jane Austen – the ironic painter of funny and moral worlds in miniature (‘the little bit of ivory on which I work with so fine a brush’), but Jane Austen the blunderbuss – progressive, unprincipled and avant-garde.
A fantastic adaptation that brought the two central characters to life. Tilney and Catherine were made for each other and Andrew Davies did really well to cram everything in to just under two hours. I wish the ending was not so rushed… but that’s my only gripe.
I loved it!!!
JJ Field was adorable as Henry, I liked Felicity Jones, she was really sweet. Carey Mulligan does evil, shallow cow really well.
I didn’t think the dream scenes were that out of place, but I didn’t get the one with Isabella tied up with Frederick Tilney.
I thought it really captured the novel- which is lighthearted and a load of fun.
People have been saying that they played the love triangle aspect up, but I never got that impression. John Thorpe was persuing Catherine, but I never got the impression from the new adaptation that Catherine was anything but a little näive and she didn’t like being rude – she was only attracted to Henry. That fitted my interpretatioon of the novel, but people see things in different ways.
John Thorpe looked like a blond Graham Norton – which is only an asset playing John Thorpe.
Kathleen, I think Thorpe mentions reading ‘The Monk’ in the novel. (He doesn’t call it ‘hot stuff’ though.) Of course, it would be far too shocking for Catherine to read it. But then what Isabella gets up to in Davies’ adaptation is certainly beyond what Austen would include!
Anyway, this was miles better than MP, which was pleasant but missed the tone of the book by a mile. This adaptation captured the sweetness and vivacity of NA very well. Felicity Jones was a cutey and just the right side of naïve. JJ Field an utterly gorgeous Tilney – I hope the Da-Mannites approve – in turn warm and silly and sombre and a billion times less crazily camp than Firth. Eleanor was more sympathetic than usual and wore lots of pretty Indian silks.
I know some didn’t like the gothic daydreams but I thought they were funny and surreal – especially the bath scene, which was unexpected, to say the least.
This was absolutely brilliant and so much better than Mansfield Park! Felicity Jones is a wonderful young actress with a ‘goofily’ lovely face and aura; I think she played the part wonderfully. JJ Field made my heart flutter suitably, too…
I’m going to have to re-read the book as I only had dim recollections of that particular one, but am now determined to get stuck into the various Gothic novels mentioned in it, as well – anything to experience dreams so wild and exhilarating as those of Catherine’s! Speaking of the dream sequences: in the context of this version of Northanger Abbey they really add to the overall feel of fast-paced excitement and amusement. Do not be put off!
It may not be the truest Jane Austen adaptation, but it is certainly not an insult to her name and stands alone as a fantastic piece of escapist viewing. I, for one, am definitely ordering the DVD!
I really enjoyed it. I was very relieved to see that the love triangle did not materialise. Although the ending was slightly rushed it was still similar to the book with the walk to the Allens. Did anyone else notice a striking similarity between the Morland’s house and Austen’s house in ‘Becoming Jane’?
It was OK – not as good as other adaptions I’ve seen though. Some of the acting was quite poor and.or hammed up, but I not sure that it might not have been deliberate, given the fact that the novel was a parody of the gothic horror in a way. It was quite over the top in that respect. They’d created gothic dramatic scenes as Catherine’s dreams, but they’d also make them quite risque, and there were a lot more obvious sexual references in the adaption than there were in the book – it had been modernised in that respect. Lots of gratuitous cleavage and girls together in underwear too. I think it was an adaption that was meant to be quite light and not as serious as the other books can be.
They also condensed it a lot compared to the book, but they did only have two hours to work with. A lot of backstory was cut out, especially with Mr Thorpe, and to a lesser extent, Isabella and Catherine’s brother. Oh, Mr Thorpe was played by one of the guys in the new BBC Robin Hood – the blonde one with the prominent features (I’d say erring towards the ugly side of striking!). He was only in the first handful of Robin Hood episodes, one of the original outlaws.
In any case, while it was an entertaining adaption, I would have liked a little more good acting (particularly from the lead, Catherine, and General Tilney) and a little less hamming it up, and less adding of lots of sexual innuendo (and obvious bits too) that weren’t at all in the book. And you are left wondering at the end what became of Isabella and Catherine’s brother. Oh, and they changed the details of the ending slightly to simplify it and avoid further explanations.
this was brilliant! I do think I’m going to create a new religion with Andrew Davies as the masterpiece! He has done such a great job ! it captures the spirit of the book so well! Mansfield Park was ok, I don’t know how Persuasion will be, but this one is great!
I’m afraid I’m going to be a damp squid on Andrew Davies (please, lad, stop this fixation on bathtubs). While I agree that the narrative was mostly there, I was sorely dismayed that huge chunks of most of Henry’s amusing dialogue was cut (along with classics from other characters). Perhaps we could have had a few less “fantasy” scenes and more of Henry’s delightful dialogue. Goodness, if they wanted a ‘gothic fantasy’ scene why not do the hilarious one Henry recounts to Catherine as they drive to the abbey which has Catherine spellbound and Henry trying not to giggle?
‘”Oh! Mr. Tilney, how frightful! — This is just like a book! — But it cannot really happen to me. I am sure your housekeeper is not really Dorothy. — Well, what then?”‘
A major objection is the ending. Having introduced the object of Eleanor’s affection (who for no reason is a ‘second son’) when they were walking down Beechen Cliff, this is promptly forgotten so that the reason for General Tilney’s relenting to Henry and Catherine nuptials cannot happen. Similarly, ending with Tilney informing Catherine that he’s practically told his father to get stuffed (and that the General really IS a wife abusing monster, eh?) is very odd. What is the young couple supposed to do now? Would the Morlands have given their consent if there wasn’t approval and that Henry is (according to Andrew Davies) about be disinherited? Where are they supposed to live now, if they can’t go back to Woodston? Guess there won’t be any Newfoundland puppy slobber after all.
Positively, I did like the cast, although as a devotee of Da Man, I’m afraid J.J. Field didn’t capture the snarkiness (and the sexiness may I be so base) of the Da Man I love. But that’s a personal opinion. The locations were nice, although I fail to see why they couldn’t have shot the production in Bath since I spotted some rather well-known places in Dublin…and that giant lake at the foot of Beechen Cliff was rather distracting.
All in all, nice. Not thrilling but nice. Will watch it again although will still be gnashing my teeth at the multiple mentions of Byron.
Oh – so there’s no Henry wickedly recounting the horrifying adventures awaiting her when she arrives at Northanger Abbey!? That’s one of my favourite scenes
…
*sighs*
My DVD is on the way. In the meantime, here’s another pretty extensive review from the guy at screenstories http://screenstories.blogspot.com/ (you may have to scroll down to the navigation on the right).
I really, really enjoyed it. There were several parts that disappointed me as they were left out from the book, such as the visit to Woodston, some of Henry’s finest dialogue – especially the omission in the journal conversation and the conversation they have on the way up to Northanger Abbey – as some people have mentioned already. I also agree that the ending was quite rushed and some parts didn’t quite tie up – though the very final line made me laugh quite a lot as it was so very tongue and cheek and in-keeping with the tone of the film.
However, these are very minor gripes, and I was quite happy to put up with them when I was so happy with the acting and the narrative. I thought the adaption was perhaps more modern than it could have been, but then we have got to take into account that a lot of people who watched NA would not have read the book and so would not have got quite a few of the more subtle references. Therefore, I see this as a sexed-up and modern adaption of NA, but that doesn’t tamper with the enjoyment at all. In fact, in some ways I think that I enjoyed it more than I would have done had the sexual innuendo and the deliberatley – in my opinion at least – ott fantasy sequences been left out.
As for JJ Field… LOOOOOOOOOOVED him! I thought his Henry Tilney was played to perfection, and the kiss at the very end was divine. I thought that Jones was a lovely Catherine – very sweet and eagerly enthusiastic for everything, which is exactly how I imagined Catherine to be in the novel. I think that this – as well as Davies’ Pride and Prejudice and Lee’s Sense and Sensibility – is one of my favourite adaptions.
I can’t wait for Persuasion, being me second favourite book only to Northanger Abbey. Mansfield Park dampened by spirits a little, but Northanger Abbey has lifted them up again and restored my faith in Jane Austen season. Yay!
In his and Jones’ interplay he seemed like a boy cheekily prodding her to see what response she would give…There was a great feeling of warmth with Henry enjoying Catherines innocence without looking to exploit it.
This sounds just like book Tilney……forever teasing Catherine but doing it affectionately and without sarcasm or meanness. I haven’t seen this yet but so far this version’s Tilney sounds just like the one in the book (a very good thing, in my opinion). I agree with Mags, Henry Tilney is perfection.
Henry is 26 and Catherine is 18 when the book concludes. I’m not sure if this is mentioned in this adaptation. A mere 8 years is nothing in Georgian times, as Meredith has pointed out.
I definitely recommend reading the book if you haven’t yet done so. It is delightful and will hopefully help the novice understand the characters’ motives and backgrounds, and perhaps will help them appreciate this adaptation a little more (if not already).
Loved it ! Have read the book a number of times. This adaptation was infinitely superior to MP. Felicity Jones has the sweetest face imaginable. JJ Field was completely suitable as Henry Tilney.The kiss at the end was wonderful. The sexy gothic scenes were fine with me.
Perhaps not enough of Mrs Allen’s comedy but not everything can be fitted in. On a shallow note, there were some gorgeous dresses.
Definitley a thumbs up from me.
I’m preparing myself to be thoroughly entertained, if not blown away, by this adaptation. I think I’ll be among those who found themselves laughing at the fantasy scenes. Someday there will be a feature film or miniseries that leaves in the best dialogue.
I’m sooo glad the reviews are, overall, quite good!!!
Such a relief… I couldn’t stand it if they had messed NA up, but actually I never expected it to be bad (I love Andrew Davies’ work and the casting seemed good). Now all I have to do is see if for myself in just a few days. 
Thanks for all the reviews, by the way!
I’ve read NA a couple of times, so don’t have every detail committed to memory in the same way as I do for P&P
but I thought it managed to capture the essence of the story pretty well. There wasn’t the constant shouting ‘IT ISN’T LIKE THAT IN THE BOOK!’ at the telly, like there was last week with MP.
The casting was good, although Henry, Isabella and John weren’t quite as I had imagined (perhaps due to over-exaggeration of their characters) but I had no problem with General Tilney.
The dream sequences worked well to illustrate Catherine’s over-active imagination although were slightly ‘racier’ than necessary.
Certainly enjoyable (unlike last week’s offering!)
@camille
If you start a religion with Andrew Davies as the *masterpiece of the script*/satan – I’m afraid I would have to be the satan/*masterpiece of the book* luring people away from it.
I haven’t seen it yet, but from the posts I have read here and elsewhere I am imagining a super duper chick-flick entertainer with the emphasis on *love* (boy meets unawakened girl and awakens her) and the happily ever after ending.
A regency romance – Barbara Cartland style.
I really loved it – and I hated Mansfield Park last week. I think the dream sequences worked because they were there to give modern viewers – who may not be familar with the original book and probably aren’t familiar with Mrs Radcliffe – a sense of the sort of thing in which Catherine is immersing herself. Austen was, after all, writing at a time when the name Mrs Radcliffe instantly suggested something to the minds of her readers; the dream sequences had to make up for that.
And I loved the casting – much as I love the novels, Henry Tilney has always been the only one of Austen’s heroes I ever found attractive, because he’s funny. JJ Feild captured him perfectly, and though there were times I thought Felicity Jones was a bit too knowing, in general she was really good. And yeah, some good speeches were cut, but they had to fit the entire book in less than two hours and they did a pretty good job.
I hadn’t actually realised that it had been shot here in Ireland, but I guessed while watching it and was pleased to find my suspicions that King’s Inn was standing in for Bath and Glendalough for Beechen Cliff confirmed…
But Catherine was reading ‘The Monk’ **not** written by Mrs. Radcliffe.
The kind of book Catherine was immersing herself into had all kinds of horrors (ghost kind, murder, skeletons of murdered people) etc. etc.
Basing on what I have read from posts here, it would seem Catherine was dreaming about ‘lurid’ things.
Personally, I have never thought the above mentioned things to be the cause of such an emotion.
Yes, Mrs Radcliffe’s novels confined themselves to skeletons, murders and ‘spooky’ stuff, but The Monk went way over the top, even at the height of the Gothic novel craze. If I remember correctly, it included incest, drugging innocent maidens, attempted rape and other choice scenes of that kind. Jane Austen would never have put in into the hands of any of her heroine’s, but Andrew Davies apparently thought it was necessary to emphasize the influence Catherine’s reading had on her perception and judgement.
Looks like the “Persuasion” trailer is now online on the ITV JA Season website:
http://janeausten.itv.com/#/Home/
After the fun and fantasy of NA2, Persuasion looks more like heavy drama. Lots of tears from Sally Hawkins and brooding about from RP-J.
Bring out the hankies, ladies and gents!
We look forward to your reviews for P3 this time next week. I really want this to be good, as I loved the book. Very different from “Northanger Abbey” – more dramatic and grown up – but just as good. It just shows Jane Austen’s range as a writer, really.
Let’s hope this one is just as good as (if not better than) P2 and NA2. So far we’re at Northanger = 1, Mansfield = 0.
Watched it today…
Some of my favorite scenes were removed, and it wrapped up quickly, but this is Northanger Abbey, without question. I liked the way the gothic visions were incorporated!
Much better than the vapidness of last week, which left me questioning what romantic period piece I had really watched.
Bring on Persuasion!
Basing on what I have read from posts here, it would seem Catherine was dreaming about ‘lurid’ things.
Having actually seen it, I can say that while one of the dreams involved nakedness (the now apparently infamous bath scene, which was as much like one of those awful “being naked in public” dreams as an erotic dream), and another was a little bit lurid, the vast majority of the dreams were much more Mrs Radcliffe than The Monk – highwaymen, exploring gothic castles in a flowing white dress, being kidnapped, that sort of thing. I’m usually incredibly pedantic about adaptations and anachronisms – and last week MP’s depiction of public dancing in which the participants were practically feeling each other up was ridiculous – but I really think this worked.
And you’re right, of course, that Austen wouldn’t have shown Catherine reading The Monk. I do think, though, that in real life Catherine would definitely have read it, even if the author couldn’t be seen to condone it (whereas I certainly don’t think that the characters in Mansfield Park would have been getting up to their implied or explicity shown sexual shenanigans in public or private, so it was ludicrous and anachronistic to show and suggest that). I dunno, I don’t usually approve of adapters going “I know better than the author! I have more freedom than her! This is what would have really happened!” But for some mysterious reason this seemed to work in NA – to me, anyway. Others were obviously not so impressed!
I agree with you Stellanova. I thought the inclusion of The Monk was interesting, because it enabled an ‘exploration’ of Catherine’s sexual awakening, as a young girl on the brink of womanhood falling in love for the first time, but still used a core theme of the novel, which was her immersion in sensational Gothic novels. And as has been pointed out, most of the fantasy scenes were more Mrs Radcliffe than Matthew Lewis! I also liked the ‘naked’ bath scene (not that we saw anything to speak of), because it was a ‘guilty’ fantasy. Catherine was clearly attracted to Henry, and yet also felt guilty for feeling so – he is dressed as a parson and speaks of her nakedness as God’s Creation. Obviously this is extrapolating wildly from Austen, but it worked within the context of this film, and relates to a modern audience, who would expect a teenager falling in love for the first time to have sexual feelings that they have to grapple with.
(whereas I certainly don’t think that the characters in Mansfield Park would have been getting up to their implied or explicity shown sexual shenanigans in public or private, so it was ludicrous and anachronistic to show and suggest that).
Stellanova, perhaps I missed something, but I never saw anything resembling what you’re describing in last week’s version of MP. JA’s Maria and Henry did run off together, so the world did know they were having adulterous sex, but where in this new adaptation was there anything resembling “sexual shenanigans?” I did see that Henry and Maria kissed behind the curtain, but that’s all I saw. What did I miss?
Fair enough, Julie, I really was exaggerating. Although I should stress that when I said “explicity shown” I didn’t meant the acts themselves were particularly racy or graphic, I just meant that it was literally shown rather than suggested, and I particularly meant the kissing scene, which I think showed Maria behaving like a moderngirl to whom kissing (within hearing of her family, no less) wasn’t a huge deal, which, even though she was engaged, seems more than a little casual for the time. Actually I thought the biggest anachronism was the game of blind man’s buff, in which Edward spent quite a long time identifying Fanny by touch – not very sexual by modern standards, but I really found it hard to believe that the older generation would have sat back and watched while young men and women basically fondling each other in public. I just saw the entire programme as an attempt to make the book racier and more lively (I should add that it’s my least favourite Austen by a long, long way – it’s the only piece of her writing I actively dislike), and so it tried to up the romantic tension rather crassly by more or less inventing it and making the characters behave in a modern way. Whereas I though the liberties taken with the original text in the NA adaptation were much more in keeping with the actual book.
Mags, I have no eagar desire to read ‘Northanger Abbey’, though I am sure I will do in due course. I will however, when I read the novel, not associate JJ Feild’s representation with the novel’s character, because I am sure he is much better ‘in novel’ than I percieve him right now.
Meredith, yes I did find the age gap quite substantial. Though I do not consider a person of twenty six years to be “ancient”, I do think that when romantically linked with a person of only fiteen years, the gap is too big. At fifteen years old you have alot to learn about the world and continue to considerably learn more over the coming years. At twenty six years you will most likely be standing on your feet and have experienced a great deal. Though appearences did decieve; he looked of thirty years to my family, I still am uncomfortable with the age gap between the two characters.
Perhaps if we are to learn that the respective ages of the two are twenty-six and eighteen, would the match be more acceptable? It was how Jane wrote it. The story started with the seventeen-year-old Catherine, and they married when she was eighteen. Yes, nitpickers, the book begins with “No one who had ever seen Catherine Morland in her infancy would have supposed her born to be an heroine,” but the action starts with her being seventeen years old.
I did not pick up on it on first viewing, but did Mr. Davies write Catherine as being only fifteen? Dirty old man.
But Catherine is 18 I believe when she gets married.
I think for NA2 there was no mention of Catherine being only 15. As far as I can remember, the story starts with Catherine being 17 yrs old.
I saw your earlier post, Daniella and it seems you were just mistaken when it comes to Catherine’s age. Did Felicity Jones look too young for you? I thought she looked just as I imagined Catherine Morland to be in the book.
I had the opportunity to finally see NA, and I can see why Daniella had the impression of Catherine being 15. In the very beginning, the narrator talks of Catherine’s childhood and how she was quite the tomboy (we see a young actress playing little Cathy running around to illustrate the point). She (Jane Austen?) goes on to say that “but by the age of fifteen, appearances were mending.” We are then treated to Felicity Jones running around playfully, so a reasonable person would assume we are rejoining the present, and a heroine who is fifteen and “beginning to mend” so to speak, instead of seventeen and “almost pretty.” Added to this, we have Henry’s somewhat paternalistic air, and Catherine’s naivete, so the former may appear older/wiser and the latter younger than their chronological age.
That impression is as valid as any other. I don’t see it myself. While Jones has an innocent, youthful face, she is not built like a fifteen year old girl. And if anything, Feild strikes me as boyish, especially when climbing apple trees or wearing top hats that make his ears stick out. He’s cute and charming (oh how charming!) rather than handsome and dashing.
But on to the real review. Reading other poster’s comments made me optimistic that I would enjoy Northanger Abbey more than Mansfield Park, but I was still afraid I would be one of those who though it was only “alright” rather than liked it outright. Well, I am happy to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was not without its faults, and it took some liberties here and there, but it was witty, fun, well-made, and true to the original spirit of the book. The two leads had immediate chemistry (imho), and the supporting cast was great as well. Another major step up from last week was the score. In a slightly campy play on gothic horror, there was the creepy swell of strings, and a Harry Potter-esq use of bells to indicate innocence and wonderment. Nothing too overpowering, and with tongue firmly in cheek. I knew I would enjoy this adaptation from the very first scenes, because it continued in that same vein (screaming baby Catherine, the inclusion of some of Austen’s best lines, the family expanding), all had the hallmarks of her gentle satire and were designed to make one smile. In fact, I doubt if I ceased smiling for five minutes together while watching this. And despite the rushed ending and leaving piles of important bits out (A criticism I level at the whole of ITV’s Austen season), I will say that Persuasion will have to be pretty amazing to surpass the bar set by this Northanger Abbey!
I’ve just seen it and thought it exquisite from beginning to end. Really funny. I find that the whole really captures Northanger Abbey, which is my favourite novel by Jane. The cast is really good, Felicity, Carey and JJ in particular ( Henry’s Da Man indeed ). Catherine Walker is really good as Eleanor too. The dream sequences work surprisingly well. And kuddos to Andrew Davis for keeping so many things in 2 hours, I have to admit that the scene where the General makes Catherine go back home was quite cleverly adapted. Can’t wait to see it again
Mags, you have been quiet…
Will you be posting a review??? As a fellow Henry Tilney fan, I would’ve thought you would have shared your thoughts with us by now. Do tell.
I just finished watching it, and I absolutely loved it! What a wonderful adaptation! (I’ve read the book a few times, and I read the book again last weekend to “prepare myself” for the new adaptation.)
There were flaws, but I think the fact that it didn’t take itself seriously was a huge part of its charm. The casting was excellent (Felicity and JJ in particular,) and the pace worked well. I missed seeing the real Bath, but I think that’s my major complaint about the movie. Northanger Abbey was also too large, but the point is that they managed to get most of the things very close to how I imagined them to be while reading the book. The fantasy sequences were a bit odd in the beginning, but they explained the concept of the gothic novel to a modern audience, so they didn’t bother me as much as I feared.
Indeed, I found myself smiling and laughing throughout the movie, so I can’t wait to see it again.
Eventually, I guess, but I haven’t seen it yet. I’m not in the UK.
Well, I thought it was altogether quite lovely. Felicity Jones, particularly made me laugh with her expressions. I’ve read the book, but it’s been a while, so prior to viewing, I reacquainted myself with the novel by listening to the audiobook from classicFM on my mp3 player whilst shelving books at my afterschool job at the library. =T It passes the time nicely. For the most part, I found it kept to the spirit of the novel, though Andrew Davies did rather over do it with some of the ‘fantasy’ scenes. The first couple were amusing, then they kind of just became unnecessary.
As for our Henry, he’s quite lovely, I thought (his gentle humored ribbing of Catherine is particularly well done), and well-matched in his Catherine. Particularly the kiss at the end, it was quite… fitting, for them. =D
Isabella annoys me a bit, but then, she annoyed me a bit in the novel as well, so I suppose that fits. Eleanor doesn’t seem quite like I pictured her in the novel, but I still like her well enough. All this talk of General Tilney not being like rather strikes me as odd; I thought him perfectly grizzly, though perhaps the whole thing was a bit abrupt. And as for John Thorpe, he’s rather jockish and arrogant, but in an amusing way.
Altogether, I give the adaptation an 8/10… (points off for the fantasy scenes and a bit of a rushed ending.) Though in comparison to Mansfield Park, the curve would give it a 10. =T
I have it saved on my computer now, should anyone like, I can make clips from it and upload to youtube or simply straight for download… just request a scene and I’d be happy to share. For the time being, here is a clips I made… (youtube is being testy, so I’m using savefile, so the clip will be available for download. =T)
Meeting Mr. Tilney – “How uncomfortable it is,” whispered Catherine, “not to have a single acquaintance here!” From when Catherine and Mrs. Allen sit down to the end of the dance scene and Catherine and Henry’s ‘journal’ conversation.
Link: http://www.savefile.com/files/585308
At the Opera – “Nay, I am sure by your look, when you came into the box, you were angry.” From Catherine leaving for a ride with the Thorpes to Catherine’s apology to the Tilneys for breaking the engagement. Also includes one of the infamous fantasy scenes (this one, I think, from Monk. Andrew Davies, king of subtlety.)
Link: http://www.savefile.com/files/585319
Let me know if you’d like me to upload other clips, or if this is inappropriate, let me know and I’ll take them down. =T
Hillo, my dear Mags,
I have not read the novel. This is my very first introduction to the story, in fact. I did enjoy it, although it could have done without being sexed up. The sexing up was funny, to be sure, but I would rather have had repartee. I don’t think the fantasy scenes added anything at all. I will say, that I do have an idea of why Da Man is Da Man for you. He is rather awesome, although I could hear him trying to fit in more banter before being rushed off screen somewhere. The gothic might have been a bit overdone with all of that lightning and music cues etc…
In short, my Austenite friends tell me NA might be more my cup of tea, and if there is in fact more banter and repartee, it just might be.
I finally saw it!! Brilliant, brilliant all around. It is one of my favorite JA books and this adaptation certainly lived up to it.
It made me smile, and chuckle at times, and sigh at the perfect chemistry of JJ Feild and Felicity Jones. JJ Feild was divine – I don’t think they could have picked a more perfect Henry. He is amusing, witty, sweet and very handsome and I simply adored him. Felicity Jones had the perfect blend of sweetness and naivete. Mrs. Allen (Sylvestra Le Touzel) made me laugh. It’s hard to believe this was the serious, timid Fanny from the 1980s Mansfield Park. General Tilney, Capt. Tilney and John Thorpe were rather creepy – as they should be – since they (and Isabella) are probably as close as you can get to “villains” in this story.
I’m very pleased that they’ve done an excellent job of keeping with the spirit of the book. I have just finished reading NA so it is all fresh in my mind. A good bit of dialogue is intact, and almost all the important scenes are included. For less than 2 hours, this is quite a feat!! I thought the “fantasy sequences” were in keeping with the story and did not detract from my enjoyment of it (certainly less bizarre than the ones from the 1980s NA). The music was well done. Patrick Doyle – who also did the score for the Emma Thompson S&S – did a good job of blending the lively and playful with the dark and sinister.
I also loved how this adaptation showed tender moments between the Morland family, nice girlie moments between Catherine and Eleanor, and the gentle teasing between Henry and Catherine. The “love triangle” is non-existent, really, since it is pretty clear early on that Catherine preferred Henry and that John Thorpe did not stand a chance.
Like most everyone here, my only complaint is that it is too short!! I wanted it to go on and on….and I wish the ending was longer. However, I am very pleased with how they handled it. I love Henry’s awkwardness, Mrs. Morland’s knowing smile, her “Hush, Lucy!”, and the lovely proposal and awkward but eager kiss!!
This is definitely one of my favorite JA adaptations ever – right there on the list with P&P 1995 and 1980s, S&S 1995 and the two Emmas. This was light, witty and charming and did justice (IMO) to Jane Austen’s work. I now have the dvd and plan to watch it over and over. Well done and thank you, ITV!
Re: the age differences between Tilney and Catherine. I just got to Emma, chapter 12, where we learn that there is a sixteen-year gap between Emma and Knightley: Emma is 21, Knightley is 37. The extraordinary thing is that they have this conversation about the difference in their ages while Knightley is holding their eight-year old niece. So, the gap in age between Emma and her niece (13 years) is smaller than the gap in age between herself and Knightley.
Uh oh! So many reviews to read! I’ve seen it yesterday and I loved it.
I was scared along Catherine in the first night at the Abbey and had to cry with her, when she thought she’d lost Henry’s respect. During the rest I laughed and smiled.
I fell in love with the novel and think this adaptation is very well done.