Comparison of Mansfield Park and Metropolitan Whit Stillman's attempt to capture Jane Austen's novel Mansfield Park on film in Metropolitan is a fair adaptation but it is unable to give the viewer the same insights. Stillman manages to have most of Mansfield Parks characters represented in some way or another, however the time needed to develop those characters is simply not there in a two hour movie. It is this development that makes Jane Austen's books so interesting. She spends an enormous amount of time telling us the backgrounds of the characters, especially Fanny Price. We are then able to interpret their actions knowing their motives and history, whereas in the movie we are often confused about certain behaviors. Stillman is able to capture some of the significant events in Mansfield but without the background, they have less meaning.
Whit Stillman could not simply parallel his characters one-for-one with the ones in Mansfield Park, rather he had to concentrate on including the significant characteristics of Austen's characters, sometimes in more than one person.
Jane Austen, Watercolour and pencil portrait by he...
English: Back View of Jane Austen, Watercolor
Henry Crawford (portrayed by Joseph Beattie) with ...If he had tried to copy the nature of the Mansfield Park people the movie would not have been believable. Viewers would not like a perfect character like Fanny, in fact they would probably distrust her more because she was perfect. At the beginning of the movie Audrey Rouget is introduced, obviously meant to be a version of Fanny Price. She is shy, slight, and the appears to be younger than the rest of the group. Like Fanny, she really hasn't "come out" yet. At first, she is enamored with Tom Townsend, then hates him for leaving her looking stupid when he was supposed to be her escort. The viewer has a hard time with this because they have only known each other for...