Copyright Literature/Film Quarterly 2004  | |
Patricia Rozema is a Canadian film director whose adaptation of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park (Miramax, 1999) produced a torrent of varying receptions, ambivalent at best, denigrating at worst. The novel itself is not highly popular with Austen readers/critics and it was adapted only once for the BBC and broadcast as a miniseries in 1983 before Rozema released her vision of the novel on film in 1999. This interview is meant to interrogate the choices behind her clearly politicized interpretation of the story. Since she is both the screenwriter and director of the film production, Rozema embodies an interesting case of the reading, envisioning, and rewriting process of literary classics like Austen's and representing them in the twentieth century's most popular medium, the cinema, which has its own methods of communication. In this interview, I investigate Rozema's reading of the text, the ideological stances that informed, affected, or shaped her reading experience, and her position in relation to the issue of fidelity to the original text, which is still at the core of any critical assessment or indeed general reception of film adaptations of classic/canonic works of literature.
Our dialogue took place through written correspondence and I received the answers to my questions in March 2003, when Rozema was busy working on a film and I was still researching Austen and film adaptations in England. I hope this interview sheds some light on the stages of filming Mansfield Park and highlights some of the central issues regarding film adaptation in general, and that of Austen's novel in particular.*
Hiba Moussa: What factors do you think make a book adaptable?
Patricia Rozema: The moral core of the piece needs to be built into the turns of events themselves, not just the prose description of those events. Some novels declare themselves in their interpretation of events and some, the ones that are more easily adapted, declare themselves in the very fabric of the causal relations.
HM: How much do socio-historical circumstances, whether those shaping the time you read the, book or the time the book was produced, affect your reading and understanding of a novel?
PR: They affect me very much. In fact, that is what I added to Mansfield Park, the movie. I felt like we couldn't fully understand Austen's subtle statement about captivity if we didn't know that the issue of slavery was raging in every home in Britain at the time. And I felt morally obligated to explain that the extraordinary amount of leisure time these people enjoyed was purchased with the sweat and blood of slaves in the West Indies.
HM: Does English literature have a special significance to you?
PR: Of course it does.
HM: Do you think that studying literature at a university prepared you for the role of adapter and do you think that it is a prerequisite for a successfully well-informed screenplay?
PR: The more you know about different parts of life, the richer your work can be. Acquiring some analytical skills around novels definitely helps.
HM: What is the main purpose behind adapting literary classics in your opinion?
PR: To examine stories that bear re-examination. Tales that are rich in humanity need to be re-interpreted. Re-fashioning them into a different media expands the complexity of our understanding. Collective re-awakening.
HM: How important is fidelity to the original text when you want to adapt it?
PR: Fidelity is critical. The movie should have a different title if it serves an entirely different purpose than the original text. But you cannot underestimate what a radical thing it is to change from one art form to another. An author slaves to start with just the right word, phrase, sentence, and paragraph. The sounds of the words are crucial. But all the demands of words and prose are lifted when you make a movie. The physical presence makes many unnecessary and some necessary ones impossible. So you serve two masters as an adapting filmmaker: the author's intention and the needs of film. Sometimes "fidelity" can mean only focusing on one day of a story told over twenty years in a book. That said, I do sometimes think that if I had changed the title just slightly to say "Letters of Mansfield Park" or "Mansfield Park Revisited," I could have saved myself some grief and managed to get people just to look at it as a movie first and then evaluate its relationship to the original text second.
HM: What kind of changes do you make when rewriting the text?
PR: I make the written word conform to habits of speech. Shorter sentences mostly.
HM: Do you think that reading a novel and re-presenting it from a postmodern point of view and culture entail the risk of imposing meanings and implications that are foreign to the novelist and the novel itself?
PR: Yes. But the whole enterprise is a "risk." But some stories need to be retold, over and over and over again, with this spin and then that. Fairytales are changing all the time. The strongest most important ones will be retold with postmodern and then post-postmodern interpretations. Interpretation is impossible to avoid. It must be openly declared by the filmmakers (writer and director) but "imposing meaning" is impossible to avoid-just selecting the moments we do from a novel is a form of imposed meaning. The effort must be made not to run counter to the novelist's intent, but then the fact of interpretation must be embraced.
HM: Mansfield Park as a literary adaptation makes, in my opinion, the least interesting of all Austen's novels a most interesting film version. What made you choose Mansfield Park!
PR: Thank you. I was attracted to the open acknowledgement of slavery in the novel. I felt like I could bring something new to the canon of Austen movies. I liked that it wasn't just another tea party. I felt for Fanny, the injustice with which she is treated right from the start. I liked the implied parallel between the captivity of women and the captivity of slaves.
HM: Some critics think that Mansfield Park is difficult to adapt to film mainly because of the nature of its tone and its main character. What problems did you encounter with the text when writing the screenplay and what risks were you bearing in mind when adapting it?
PR: I did think that the character as written would be too slight and retiring and internal and perhaps judgmental to shoulder a film. So instead of just arbitrarily adding contemporary characteristics to her personality, I became obsessed with Austen herself. I wanted to know everything about her intentions and journey as a writer. It was clear that Mansfield Park was a hugely autobiographical work so I thought I'd add some of the "teller into the tale." I would include Austen, as I understood her, into the character. I tried not to change her behavior in interaction with others. I just allowed the audience into a privileged place inside her mind by making her a writer. Mansfield Park without any alteration would make a lousy film. I knew that. But I thought if I could include just a few things I knew about the period and about the author, it would be fascinating. That was the goal.
HM: Did you read the book as a literary critic, a screenwriter, or a director?
PR: As a human being.
HM: To what extent does your identity (nationality, gender, and class) affect your reading and presentation of this classic text?
PR: I connected to her as a woman. I connected to her experience of starting out life poor and ending up rich (my personal history). I connected to her rage about not being considered central to the real social story. I connected to her insecurity around more educated and elegant individuals. I felt like she was a barely noticed Canadian at a British function.
HM: Why do you think Austen is so popular for contemporary audiences and for screenwriters?
PR: She's one of the best writers in the English language. She understands people. She's extremely funny and her stories are exquisitely structured. Everyone can find themselves in her stories. She tells "romances" but with such an unsentimental voice that we never feel tarnished. We will always be concerned with who sleeps with and marries whom, but without all her economic, psychological, and social layering, it would be mere soap opera.
HM: How did you assimilate your role as a director and screenwriter when you were writing the screenplay, especially in relation to the specific and different natures of film and novel?
PR: I have a short memory. I write it, then as a director I execute the writer's plan. Once in a while I change but I trust what I came up with in the quiet contemplative moments more than the hurly burly of the set. I just try to make it authentic in every way, even the magic.
HM: The film obviously adopts and presents a political voice, specifically feminist and postcolonial, and you mentioned before that you read some criticisms of the novel before re-writing it. Did you read Edward Said's essay, "Jane Austen and Empire," on the novel before writing the script?
PR: Yes, I was very influenced by him. I don't think, however, that Austen was as unaware of her imperialism as he suggests. I do agree with him that Mansfield Park is more about Antigua than it is about England.
HM: Did you think of your audience when writing the screenplay Mansfield Park and visualizing it from a director's point of view?
PR: Yes and no. I just try to please myself and hope that I'm normal enough that it will please others. I knew it could function for some merely on the domestic romantic comedy level and for others more like myself on a political level. I try to make it simple and strong and true for those who don't wish to know that there is really sugar on the pill.
HM: Did you make any changes in the script while the film was being shot? In other words, were there any scenes that looked good on paper but were disappointing in live action and had to be changed?
PR: Not really. I stuck pretty much to the plan. The only big change was going back two months after principal photography had ended and shooting the scene with Sir Thomas Bertram (Harold Pinter) confessing the error of his ways to his dying son, Tom. We felt we needed that resolution otherwise the issue of slavery was never really addressed or completed. What I had originally thought was just a kind of social theme that was always present (the slavery accents) somehow became a subplot and needed resolution. That is what that scene was.
HM: The film has received varied reactions among academic critics. How would you react to some who think this is a completely "unfaithful" version or "against the spirit of Austen" or "not in tune with the novel?"
PR: I would disagree. It is definitely a free and openly interpretive version but I think that if Austen came back as a filmmaker in 1999, she might have adapted her novel into a film in the same way I did. I believe that.
HM: I see the film as an academic rather than mainstream adaptation of Austen's novel (mainly because I could feel a theoretical spirit in it). Do you think that makes it slightly elitist? And how does that reflect on its popularity or status?
PR: I don't think of it as academic. I'm not an academic. It is informed by my research and theory but no, I intended it to be a tale told from one heart to another.
HM: To what extent do you think Harold Pinter's presence in the film added to its critical/ academic tone, if it did at all?
PR: He probably lent it a little credibility with some; his presence might have alerted some to the film's political leanings. But he's not a big draw in suburban mall culture.
HM: The film is being used in seminars on the novel in universities and colleges teaching Austen, especially in relation to postcolonial theory. To what extent do you think your version is also useful for educational purposes and how do you feel about adaptations playing that role?
PR: I feel honored. I think it is quite useful educationally partly because one is forced to read the novel. I don't pretend to have redone the novel (as some filmmakers absurdly claim) in film. I think both the film and the novel are rich territory for postcolonial theory.
HM: Was Mansfield Park's first appearance to Fanny as "Gothic" meant to contribute to its dark and mysterious side or to the tradition of the novel in Austen's time?
PR: Both.
HM: Why did you put the responsibility on Tom (rather than the more "moral" Edmund) to illuminate the dark side of Mansfield Park and its owner?
PR: It would have been Tom's struggle as the eldest. Would he follow in his father's footsteps?
HM: What future do you envision for Susie as Fanny's successor in the main house?
PR: Questioner of established suppositions.
HM: The film's end, interestingly, is not a closure in the traditional sense. How does that relate to Austen's neat closing of the narrative and what does yours aim to achieve or say about the consequent lives of the characters?
PR: Hmmm. I think it's actually quite a traditional ending. The flying about with the camera was meant to embody that suddenly distant tone Austen takes when she sums everything up. Perhaps I don't understand.
HM: Do you think Sir Thomas repents at the end despite the fact that he is investing in a newer and surely milder form of enslavement, that of tobacco?
PR: It's a partial redemption for jolly old England. Slavery may have been abolished but there were lots of other imperialistic shenanigans after that. That line was me trying to not tie things up quite so sweetly.
HM: If you were to adapt another Austen novel, which one would you choose and why?
PR: I wouldn't. I think I did the most interesting one. And I think that most of the others really should be read and not watched.
HM: Would you consider other literary classics to adapt? If yes, which ones and why?
PR: Yes, The Picture of Dorian Gray. But I haven't figured out how yet.
HM: As a cinematic product, did you ever think of the film as a risk in terms of reception and box office returns?
PR: I try to make a film that engages people I respect-then I let the gods and the distributors have their wicked way with the thing.
HM: Were you involved in the casting and what aspects in terms of actors/actresses did you think were crucial for the success of the film?
PR: I was totally responsible (in consultation with my producers) for the casting.
HM: Did the producers want any changes done to the original draft/script?
PR: It was too long at first and I had to cut a million pounds out of the budget just before shooting so that made me become more and more economical and eliminate any experimental scenes. I was lucky to have extremely smart and literate producers: David Aukin, Allon Riech, Sarah Curtis, and Harvey Weinstein.
HM: What conditions affected the production most?
PR: Chance. Weather. Actors' moods and love lives. Jonny Lee Miller was divorcing Angelina Jolie and not very happy about it. Frances O'Connor was separated from her long-term boyfriend and open to romantic negotiation, shall we say. Harold raged about all the waiting. The weather rarely cooperated. The size of the cast made quick changes or rethinks very hard, it was like steering a big ocean liner. I wanted to use starlings in Portsmouth but they are of nervous disposition and probably would have died in the boxes, so we used white homing pigeons but the animal wrangler somehow got stuck with nonhoming pigeons and they just stayed there, on our set. Also the language itself had to be checked and double-checked for historical accuracy so there was no ad libbing. I got meningitis during the shoot and everything had to be shut down for a time while I recovered in hospital. Various amusing issues like that.
| [Footnote] |
| * To distinguish between the film and the novel, the underlined title refers to the film and the italicized to the novel, except when Rozema herself refers to them in her own way, which I have kept. |
| [Author Affiliation] |
| Hiba Moussa |
| Lancaster University, UK |
My Research