Northanger Abbey

Normally BBC productions of Jane Austen are pretty good but Northanger Abbey is just odd. What were they thinking? This film has little of Austen's charm and ironically mimics the Gothic novels that Austen so wonderfully mocked. Not only that, the "gothic" sequences are tacky, over-the-top, and frankly silly. The actress playing Miss Morland is poorly cast with no obvious appeal to attract the attentions of an eligible bachelor, and though I rather liked the creepy Peter Firth as Mr. Tilney, he is not a bit like the novel, even when delivering dialog straight out of the book. Robert Hardy as General Tilney turned in one of his few terribly "ham" performances. This film was so bizarre and strange that I actually watched it again just to savor how freakishly wrong it was.

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.

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.

I've read this book probably 4 times, and loved it every single time. I'm afraid this movie has missed the mark. Well, no, it hasn't missed the mark - it doesn't even know where the mark is in the first place! First of all, these actors are nothing like I pictured the characters as I read. I may have pictured them somewhat differently from how Austen described them, but nevertheless I find it very hard to accept them as the characters in the book. They just don't fit. Second of all, why are there so many scenes cut out and new ones put in? It felt like I'd missed so much when the movie was over, and that it was rushed and incomplete. And all of her visions! Some of the scenes in this movie are very similar to those in John Gielgud's "Prospero's Books," which I know is lauded as brilliant filmmaking. However, here it just distracts from the story and creates an uncomfortable situation for the viewer. If you love Jane Austen, I would suggest not seeing this movie. Wait for someone like Emma Thompson or even Kenneth Branagh to do justice to it (although I hope he doesn't cast himself as Tilney!!).

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.