Northanger Abbey

The filmmakers were clearly on drugs. That's the only explanation I have. How else do you explain this travesty of a Jane Austen adaptation? Northanger Abbey is a parody of a Gothic novel. But this film was made as if it WERE a Gothic novel. The bizarre music and dream sequences to me suggest drug-induced hallucinations rather than a naive, innocent girl with an overactive imagination, as Catherine of the novel is...

The actress who played Catherine just stands around bug-eyed all the time. Peter Firth looks at least 10 years too old to play Henry and he actually seemed a bit on the gay side to me. I don't see the attraction between him and Catherine. John Thorpe's portrayal was rather odd but Isabella actually wasn't that bad. But nothing could save this PIECE OF CRAP movie! One more thing- This film invents a character not in the book, a French friend of General Tilney's, "The Marchioness." Why exactly they added her is beyond me. Must have been the drugs. She is scary-looking beyond belief, with white foundation, red lips and black lines randomly painted on her face (dimples?).

You'd think this would at least be entertaining in a "so bad it's good" quality but unfortunately, it's not. It's just BAD.

When Jane Austen wrote 'Northanger Abbey' she intended to poke fun at the trashy Gothic literature of her day, aimed at silly, young, impressionable females. The story was meant to gradually draw the character of Catherine Morland out of the fantasy world she had built for herself, and into reality. The typical language, characters and themes of a Gothic romance were sent up the whole way through and were shown to be the epitomy of bad writing.

However, this adaptation seemed to embrace and flatter what it was that Jane Austen was attempting to satirise. It retained a gothic feel throughout and seemed to 'put back' what it was that Jane Austen was trying to 'take out'. Northanger Abbey became the mysterious castle, Henry Tilney became the intriguing Gothic hero, and the 'secret' which Catherine believed existed at the Abbey turned out to be real. One cannot help thinking that the makers of this adaptation hadn't read the book very closely as they seemed to have missed the point.

Unfortunately with an adaptation of this type, when Jane Austen was writing she was assuming that her readers would be familiar with the Gothic genre. Filmmakers today would need to explain to the audience what the Gothic genre was all about, explaining why this adaptation contains so many fantastical elements that Jane Austen was attempting to escape from.

All of this aside, it works quite well. The adaptation keeps to the storyline pretty much, and retains much of Jane Austen's witty dialogue. The music helps contribute to the eerie atmosphere very well. One cannot help but wonder at the beauty of this version. Perfectly cast and impeccably acted.

Sometimes, changes to novels when they're made into films are not only necessary, but a good thing. However, in the case of Northanger Abbey, it's a very, very bad thing. Not only is the story itself ripped to shreds, but the satire is almost completely absent from the film, and it's mixture of romance and intrigue doesn't even touch upon the biting commentary that Austen put into her work. It fails to be amusing or satirical at all, and instead turns the character's fascination with her fantasy world into mostly a drama.

This affects the romance as well. It's meandering and aimless. Chemistry and interest are never established. The reasons Tilney is attracted to Catherine are completely absent from the film, leaving the audience to wonder what it is he sees in her at all.

Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a more faithful version if Austen's satire.

The other reviews have judged this production quite harshly. I disagree. It's from 1987, and was produced as part of a BBC television series, so it's unfair to compare it with much bigger budget features. I found it charming, and faithful to the novel. This novel is different from the usual Austen. It was written as a homage to the Gothic novels of the day and so it's more dramatic and less nuanced. It's a fun, short novel rather than a serious novel. This production captures the wonder and excitement of a naive girl making her first foray into society. The movie characters that are black and white villains are also villainous in the novel. Don't be put off by the low rating. It's worth a view.

Jane Austen's novel is a satirical sweep at the Gothic novels then the fashion for young ladies to read, and her heroine Catherine Moreland is no exception. In her fantasy world there are always happy endings and intrigue, and she expects to find this as she accompanies the Allens to Bath.

However, this adaptation misses the point of Austen's novel entirely, and is dull and ponderous (even at its short running time of an hour and a half). Katharine Schlesinger is irritating as Catherine, all wide eyes and empty head; while Peter Firth is nothing like my idea of Henry Tilney. Good to see Googie Withers, Robert Hardy, et al in supporting roles though, even if they are given little to do.

And who on earth thought electronic music would be suitable to play over the opening credits? An appalling choice and totally out of step with the source material.