Northanger Abbey

source: Northanger Abbey

Northanger Abbey

First things first. Northanger Abbey was my least favorite of Jane Austen's novels and there is probably no way to turn it into a film masterpiece. Compared to those in her other books, the characters aren't nuanced (believably) and the story isn't especially interesting. But still, it is Jane Austen and even bad Jane Austen should be better than this. I am also surprised that BBC is putting out adaptations with impossibly short running times like this (also the 07 Persuasion). There isn't enough time to develop characters and relationships which is pretty much the essence of Jane Austen's books. And then comes the casting of Northanger Abbey, with a way-too-beautiful actress playing Catherine and a way-too-creepy portrayal of John Thorpe. So even though I wanted to like this movie, it was pretty much doomed from the start. As far as the actual production went, I didn't think anything was particularly good or bad about the performances, cinematography, soundtrack, etc... It was just OK. Maybe with another hour or so, the producers could have made it work.

After 20 years with the horrible 1987 version as the only adaptation of Northanger Abbey, many fans were eagerly anticipating the new 2007 version. I was a little nervous about Andrew Davies writing the script, given his tendency to sex things up, but the cast looked really good. And then I saw it… Suffice it to say- I was totally right! Most of the cast was really good, especially JJ Feild as Henry Tilney…but it was really sexed up. Most of this was in the form of Catherine's dreams, but there was something else too. One scene in particular was just plain wrong! Why, Andrew Davies, why? He seemed to interpret the story to be Catherine's sexual awakening. Sorry, I didn't see any of that in the book- it was a comedy! This version has funny moments too, but it's really all the sexed up scenes that bothered me. Davies seemed to have missed the point, but at least not as badly as the 1987 creators did. I wouldn't call this adaptation terrible, or anything. It just wasn't as great as it could have been. It was filmed in Dublin, because I guess they were too cheap to actually go to Bath (yet somehow the 1987 version could afford it? And even Persuasion that was filmed at the same time?) I did like that we got a nice little introduction that was close to what was in the book. There was even an epilogue- but it was so short, blink and you'll miss it! I think what annoys me so much about this movie is not how "bad" it was, but how bad it was compared to how good it could have been! With such a great cast, it could have been really excellent. Instead it was a disappointment.

This, I had high hopes for, having recently read and enjoyed the novel all over again, and remembering that I had thought the first film of it pretty poor. The remake improves on it in two respects: the first Catherine looked rather amateurish and the one here is okay; and the camera-work in the earlier film looked rather amateurish and here it also is okay. In most other respects, especially the casting, this version is worse. The most conspicuous failure is the treatment of the rattle, John Thorpe, the novel's funniest character. That he is a rattle, which Austen is at pains to point out, is the fact that makes him funny, and which leads him to the two acts that precipitate the crisis of the story. For some reason the film ignores this altogether. It diminishes him into Joe the fat boy, so that his act (now reduced from two to one) no longer proceeds from his character; in fact it makes no sense at all. And in the novel, did Thorpe tell Catherine that The Monk was "hot stuff"? It sounds incongruous and I don't remember it. And did Captain Tilney seduce and abandon Isabella? I'd rather remembered that he led her on to please his own vanity and then left with his regiment. Isabella, the film does somewhat better by than it does her brother, the Tilneys' father (who has turned into Rawdon Crawley), and most of the other characters; she's at least recognizable, but more randy than I remembered her, and in other respects watered down, with her monologues shorn to next to nothing, so that she's no longer funny. In fact nothing in the film is funny, although much in the book is; and whereas the book sparkles and delights--it's the one published novel of Austen's that retains some of the buoyancy of her juvenilia--the film has a puzzlingly grim edge and leaves a dour aftertaste. Surely more gaiety could have been carried over? But I must say that in general I don't understand the principles behind this new set of Austen films. The running times are so brief that obviously much had to be cut, but did the characters have to be the first casualties? And why couldn't the denouements, so well judged in the novels, have been kept as they were? I would tremble for "Mansfield Park" (which we Yanks haven't seen yet), if not for the comfort of knowing that it can't have had worse done to it than it had previously; also, that it's got Rose Tyler for protection.

NORTHANGER ABBEY is a charming version of the Jane Austen tale, covering somewhat familiar Austen territory in its tale of a young woman who comes to a vast estate and falls in love with an aristocratic young man who is willing to give up his inheritance to marry her, if he must. It's beautifully lensed in color with excellent vistas of the English countryside and some impeccable performances from a first rate cast. FELICITY JONES and JJ FIELD are excellent as the young lovers, whether exchanging dialog that is on the humorous side or deadly serious, and CATHERINE WALKER is fine as Jones' confidante, Eleanor. Time constraints make it impossible to ever do full justice to Austen's stories, but fans of the author should find this an enchanting enough version of the tale to satisfy Janite admirers, even if there are many omissions in the telling. Very worthwhile, with high quality production values throughout.

I was lucky enough to be in the UK the evening this aired on ITV. My British friend and I both sat up to watch and we were both satisfied. Between the two of us, I'm the "Janeite" but she truly enjoyed this adaptation as well. It's important to remember that Jane Austen's books will always outshine the movie adaptations. It's impossible to do full justice to her writing. Northanger Abbey has always been a secret favorite - I realize it's not as "serious" as the other 5 books, but I must admit I've got a real fondness for Henry Tilney. JJ Field fills the role perfectly and stands out as the star in my opinion. Felicity Jones is also very good as Catherine. The supporting actors are exceptional - and I agree with others that it's a shame we don't see more of William Beck as John Thorpe, absolutely brilliant casting! I'm looking forward to all three adaptations coming to the states - and I'd encourage anyone to try this version of Northanger Abbey out!

I was kinda disappointed with 'Mansfield Park', so I was definitely hoping for an improvement when I tuned into 'Northanger Abbey'. I was instantly hooked. As a lover of romantic stories, I loved the cute relationship between Henry and Catherine. (The kiss at the end is v.sweet!). Felicity Jones was great as Catherine Morland, and so was JJ Field as Henry Tilney. I think they had great chemistry, (and I love the bit where he strokes the mud off her face.) I would like to see more of them in the near future. I found the fantasy sequences v. intriguing- it was like seeing right into Catherine's warped imagination. so... 10/10.

Altogether a decent adaptation of Northanger Abbey, but not the best. A few quibbling details took away some of my enjoyment but on the whole, it was good hour-and-a-half of literary fun and looks to be better than next week's Mansfield Park. Pros: 1. It was well-cast. JJ Feild was, appearance-wise, pitch-perfect as my beloved Henry Tilney. He looks just as Jane Austen described him: dark haired, tall, though he stooped a bit much for one whose "address was good." Also, he was pleasing to the eye without being jaw-droppingly handsome. I liked his voice very much -- it was similar in pitch actually to Mark Dymond's, which seemed to indicate kinship, to me, anyway. On his interpretation, it may have been a bit too morose at times for my conception of Henry -- he always struck me as buoyantly confident -- but while I generally see Henry as a bit zanier, I rather liked Feild's more deadpan spin. Felicity Jones also was a good bit of casting. She looked like Catherine Morland as I imagined her -- freshly pretty without being overwhelmingly so -- and I liked very much her Catherine. She was innocent without being irritatingly saccharine, and I found her transition as believable as it possibly could be in the compressed amount of time. Mark Dymond was very dashing as Frederick Tilney, Carey Mulligan and Catherine Walker as Isabella and Eleanor played their contrasting parts astonishingly well, Sylvestra La Touzel was amusingly shallow, and William Beck was appropriately boorish and stupid. Good. 2. The good parts of the dream sequences. I liked the illumination of Catherine's fantasies, although I really would have liked to hear more of the witty dialogue between Catherine and Henry and a scene at Woodston more along the lines of the book. We fall in love with Pemberley and Darcy, with Donwell Abbey and Knightley; I really wanted to see Henry in his native environment. 3. Dancing and women's costumes. Very nicely done. Catherine's dresses were appropriately simple for her character, Eleanor's were rich yet modest, and Isabella's were characteristically flamboyant. As for the dancing, heck, it adds some movement to the Bath scenes. 4. The fact they mostly managed to stick to the tone of the book. Mostly. Cons: 1. The unneeded sexual references. While not particularly gratuitous -- except for that rather un-Austen-like scene with Isabella and Frederick at the end -- I found them more distracting than anything. 2. The cut of the dialogue. The best parts were the dialogue; the best part of ANY Jane Austen book is often the dialogue. Why cut a good thing? I was totally looking forward to some Henryesque sarcastic monologues. 3. Northanger Abbey. It was SUPPOSED to be modern and pleasant in contrast to Catherine's suppositions. So when I saw dark, creepy interiors, it fell flat for me. 4. The characterization of General Tilney. While he is an unpleasant, greedy man, he was not evil; he accepted Henry and Catherine in the end for goodness' sake. Instead, they made him a one-dimensional, metaphorical "vampire" and more a villain along the lines of what Catherine imagined instead of the "realistic" antagonist he was. 5. The compression of the ending. It moved too swiftly, and I found Henry's proposal a little odd and halting -- since Henry is older than Catherine, I would expect him to be more, I don't know exactly, suave? or maybe I'm being unrealistic. The kiss was awkward, but it sort of worked in its awkwardness. In essence, certain flaws -- the after-sex scene with Isabella and Frederick, the characterization of General Tilney, the occasional unevenness of Henry's portrayal, the references to Byron, etc. -- occasionally teeter the movie slightly into the direction of the melodrama it ISN'T supposed to be, but mostly it succeeds. And heck, I enjoyed myself somewhat, though I suspect Jane probably rolled in her grave a couple of times.

I've really enjoyed that adaptation. It's witty, charming and the necessary changes brought to the book narrative are clever and do not jar too much with the original. It made me reread the book, which I think should always be the effect of a good adaptation. The actor playing Henry Tilney was charming (maybe more than the book Henry Tilney in fact) and all the others seemed to fit their roles. Carey Mulligan makes a very effective Isabella Thorpe and plays her part with subtlety while Felicity Jones looks just naive enough for the role of Catherine. I was only bothered by the choice of William Beck of Robin Hood to play John Thorpe. His physical appearance simply did not seem to fit the character. He is a very good actor but hardly attractive enough to make a valid love-interest for romantic Catherine. The only reason I do not give it "10" is because of the absurd over-sexualisation of Catherine's dreams or the lending to her of "The Monk" by Thorpe. This is taking incredible liberties with the historical period in order to "make it relevant" to 21st century viewers which TV film-makers must assume to be incapable of viewing anything with interest if it does not contain overtly sexual contents, though the contrary has been proved again and again.