Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I analyze Canadian director Patricia Rozema`s 1999 film adaptation of Jane Austen`s Mansfield Park. By including elements of feminism and post-colonialism in her adaptation, Rozema changed three important aspects of Austen`s novel. I offer an analysis of the film in light of those changes. The film version turns Fanny Price from the shy, diffident, and quiet heroine of the novel whose love for Edmund goes unrequited to an intelligent, active, and 1990s politically-aware attitude girl who enjoys Edmund`s reciprocated love. This change weakens Austen`s main theme of Fanny`s growth from a shy girl to a lady of Mansfield Park. The film version also changes two important rejections in the novel: Fanny`s rejection of the performance of Lover`s Vows and her rejection of Henry`s marriage proposal. Since these two rejections in the novel suggested Fanny`s moral victory and also her proper judgment of Henry`s past immorality and dissipation, the film`s changes blur the meaning and importance of these two episodes. Finally, Rozema`s film version offers a postcolonial critique of Sir Thomas who owns sugar plantations in Antigua, turning him into a greasy character, a colonizing instigator, and a kind of slave holder of Fanny. Austen`s Sir Thomas who has some problems in the education of his sons and daughters, is a responsible family head. In the novel, he adopted Fanny to protect his sons from a would-be marriage between cousins, but by the end, declares Fanny to be his real daughter; his awakening paralleled Fanny`s development. Rozema`s changes underscore postcolonial critiques in the novel, but by overemphasizing those elements, the film suffers. In my analysis, I conclude that Rozema`s feminist and postcolonial spin on Austen`s novel weaken Austen`s core themes of the growth and awakening of both Fanny and Sir Thomas, however fast-paced and interesting the final product.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".