Until a cold felled me low this week, I had refrained from rewatching Northanger Abbey 1986, which I had a tough time sitting all the way through the first few times around. This film has left me feeling frustrated for its lost opportunities and many misses, and I wonder if the director and script writer wish today that they could change some of the creative decisions they made almost a quarter of a century earlier. In this film, we see the story unfold from young Catherine Morland’s (Katherine Schlesinger’s) point of view. This means we get a lot of Gothic novel fantasies made up by script writer Maggie Wadey, and hardly any Jane Austen at all.
Isabella Thorpe and her mother wear outfits, hats, and hairdos that seem inspired by Von Heideloff prints
The production values are quite stunning, considering how old this BBC adaptation is and how poorly made films for television were in that era. Costumes designed by Nicholas Rocker are the fashion equivalent of beautiful meringues and chocolate bonbons (how could any of these women, except Mrs. Allen or Eleanor Tilney have afforded such luxurious gowns?). Despite the breathtaking settings and authentic backdrops, this 90-minute film adaptation with its strange synthetic music manages to entirely miss the satiric point of Jane Austen’s wonderful take on the gothic novel. And someone should have told the makeup department to lay off the heavy mascara and lipstick on all the ladies.
1795 Von Heidoloff fashion plate
Although the length of this adaptation is a mere 90 minutes, script writer Maggie Wadey added scenes and characters that detracted from the story or overwhelmed it, and that replaced moments in the book that were important to drive the plot forward and understand the characters better.
While Jane Austen made it clear that young Catherine had quite an imagination, these over the top film scenes were jarring and took away valuable cinematic time from good story telling.
I also found major problems with the musical score. The four musical clips embedded in this post and written by composer Ilona Sekacs in no way evoke the Regency era. Click to hear the theme for the DVD – a 47 second music clip.
Catherine's Gothic dreams drive the music
Sekacs’ synthesized music and odd vocalizations from a female choir concentrate almost solely on giving us an eerie sense of ” Gothic doom”. Unfortunately, the composer uses the “Lah da dah-Ooh” chorus throughout the film, and occasionally throws in a Gregorian Chant for good measure. Only during the ball scenes and at a musicale in Northanger Abbey are we allowed to hear music made with traditional instruments and that might have been heard during the Regency era.
An occasional tinkle from a pianoforte would have added greatly to a Georgian era atmosphere
I can only surmise that Ilona Sekacs was influenced by Vangelis, who had won an Academy Award for his score for Chariots of Fire five years before this production. Although Chariots was a period film, Vangelis’ electronic score sounded fresh and sweeping as 1920’s male runners practiced their speed against a back drop of endless beaches, rolling waves, and big sky. His score was a huge success in the early 80’s and he was rewarded for it. Alas for Jane Austen lovers, electronic synthesizers do not work as effectively in evoking a Bath drawing room, or as a backdrop for such Regency pastimes as walking, taking the waters, and carriage rides.
Bodiam Castle, built 1385
As the opening credits roll by, Catherine’s views Northanger Abbey from the carriage (to the accompaniment of this musical clip, which features male and female chanters and trumpets blaring). The Abbey is actually Bodiam Castle, a 14th-century keep with a water moat, and a well-known tourist destination.
Bodiam Castle's grounds from the air
I instantly sat up and took notice, for I have visited Bodium Castle. It was a ruin during Jane Austen’s day and was only partially rebuilt in 1829, a good twelve years after her death. According to Jane’s novel, Northanger Abbey was surrounded by extensive gardens, and I wondered how the director would pull off the scene where the general boasted of his fruit trees. Imagine my surprise when I saw Catherine and Miss Tilney walking towards a side entrance of an entirely new building with different architectural details and nary a moat in sight. “Badly done”, as Mr. Knightley would have said. Bad transition, indeed.
A stroll through the gardens of Northanger Abbey
But I have jumped ahead of myself, for there are other earlier errors for which I cannot forgive this production. Take Henry Tilney (Peter Firth), for instance. At the Assembly Ball, he bumps into Catherine and Mrs. Allen (a delightful Googie Withers) without a proper introduction from the Master of Ceremonies. Except for Henry’s comments about muslins, his fey but wise sense of humor is almost entirely missing at the start of this film.
Henry Tilney bumps into Catherine Morland and Mrs Allen.
I must admit that I do not like Firth‘s portrayal of Henry Tilney and could never see him as this character. But even so, Henry’s charming conversation was given short shrift, and he appears only long enough for Catherine to develop an interest in him before disappearing. Click here to view a YouTube clip (and hear period appropriate music) of Henry’s first meeting with Catherine.
James Morland introduces John Thorpe
Where Henry’s role was severely diminished, John Thorpe’s presence early in the film was largely retained. Mrs. Allen and Catherine do not bump into Mrs. Thorpe as they walk through Bath, as Jane Austen had written. Rather, as you can see in this YouTube clip, Catherine’s brother, James, visits the Allens and makes the introduction. Catherine then meets Isabella, overplayed by Cassie Stuart.
Isabella Thorpe, pretty but calculating
Because of the film’s short length, Isabella’s overly forward and friendly manner seems doubly rushed. The second time she meets Catherine, she reveals her love for James and her wish to marry him, and the next thing you know, James goes racing off to his father to beg for his permission to marry her.
John's loud coat should clue Catherine about his character
But once I again I digress. John Thorpe (Jonathan Coy) is suitably sleazy (can’t you tell from his hideously striped suit?) and even Catherine leaves her Gothic fantasies long enough to be appalled by his boorishness. Thorpe’s early scenes are quite effective and then … he disappears. Except for a few mentions later, he literally falls off the face of the DVD, but not before he participates in one final scene in the hot baths, where Catherine, Isabella, Mrs. Allen, and Eleanor Tilney gather to bathe in the hot mineral waters. The party enters the baths to the strains of odd discordant music. An entire chorus is now crowding in on Catherine’s brain, and she can only stare wide-eyed around her.
Mrs. Allen and Catherine in the hot bath
But Catherine, who has a full and active day ahead of her, can bathe for only a short time. She makes a walking date with pretty Eleanor Tilney (Ingrid Lacey), who happens to be there. After sweating for some time in a hot and humid room, Catherine and Isabella emerge from the building with every curl in place and looking fresh in their beautiful unwrinkled, delicate muslin walking dresses. Isabella begins to fret over Catherine’s excessive attention to Eleanor. It is at this point that the uninitiated will start to lose an important thread of the story, for unless the viewer has already read the book, she will have no idea why John and Isabella are so determined to have Catherine accompany them to Clifton.
Bath is a beautiful setting as always
The plot has been so compressed and muddled, that the motivation that drives these characters is a bit murky. The uninitiated will wonder: Why is John so interested in Catherine? Why is Isabella jealous of Eleanor? Why, indeed.
As John meets the ladies outside the hot baths he reveals that he has rearranged Catherine’s walking date with Eleanor, which sets Catherine’s temper off and sends her running through the streets towards General Tilney’s house.
In my opinion, this would have been a good time to insert Vangelis’s oscar-winning score for Chariots of Fire, since a run through Bath by a Jane Austen heroine is now rapidly becoming a Jane Austen TV adaptation tradition. (See Persuasion 2007.)
Catherine interrupts the Tilneys
Catherine rushes past the footman as he opens the Tilney’s front door, enters the house alone, and barges into the drawing room to apologize to Eleanor for John’s arrogance. All the while, she still looks fresh as a daisy.
The General meets his unexpected guest
She meets General Tilney (Robert Hardy), who is simply delighted with Catherine and who encourages her to go on an outing with Henry and Eleanor as soon as possible. (The uninitiated will wonder: “why is he so intrigued with this rather simple, uninteresting girl?” Why indeed.) And so Catherine hurries off with the Tilney siblings to … Beechen Cliff ? Why, no! Jane Austen’s chosen spot for discussing the picturesque wasn’t deemed good enough and so the actors were taken to another location.
A walk along a sculpted lake instead of Beechen Cliff
And thus they are filmed walking through a picturesque setting, with a lake and temple folly and weeping willows (so very 18th century refined), to talk about the picturesque.
A lake with temple folly
Instead of gazing at Bath from the heights of Beechen Cliff, the viewers are treated to the sight of Henry rowing the ladies across the waters.
At the end of this important scene (for Henry recognizes Catherine’s natural, unassuming, yet unformed airs), the music crescendos and the viewers hear 31 seconds of neo-jazz/Grecian tragedy music with a greek chorus and New Orleans saxophone.
In this image, the description of Catherine rings true: ""Catherine grows quite a good-looking girl-she is almost pretty today."
At this juncture I must share the following comment, just to soften my own harsh critique. Jules, a very well spoken person, had this to say in 2005:
Ilona Sekacz wrote the score for a BBC TV version of ‘Northanger Abbey’ with Peter Firth. The music stood out a mile. A wonderful, haunting voice with a pulsing rhythm that has has stayed with me since I first saw the programme back in the 80s (I think). I could hum it now. I have tried to find this music but it has disappeared into cyberspace. Such a shame, it was so memorable. I bought the video years ago just to get the music. It’s not out on DVD but I transferred my VHS so I’ll never lose it.
I love this woman’s music, it’s unique and inspiring.
Isabella flirts with Captain Tilney and gets her comeuppance
Ok, so to each his own. I’ve gone on long enough about how much I dislike the film. In swift succession, Isabella flirts with Captain Frederick Tilney, prompting James to end their engagement; Catherine visits Northanger Abbey and makes a fool of herself trying to find intrigue and uncover a murder most foul,
Catherine rides with Henry to Northanger Abbey
and General Tilney discovers she’s as poor as a church mouse and casts her out of his house.
The general learns that Catherine is poor
Because time is so compressed in this film, Catherine is cast out of Northanger Abbey without explanation. The uninitiated will have no idea what has transpired, because no explanation was given at first. And because the camera does not follow her on her ride alone back home on a public stage without adequate resources, the uninitiated remain clueless about Catherine’s mature demeanor during that long journey alone and how dastardly the General treated her by forcing her to go unescorted, thereby placing her in harm’s way. Henry Tilney soon discovers he can’t live without her and comes after her on his steed. And because he comes across in this film as a prosy old bore, not a sharp-witted, dashing hero, the uninitiated will wonder what Catherine actually saw in him.
Henry comes for Catherine
Did I find anything of redeeming value in this film? Yes, but those comments shall have to wait for another critique. A production that added a marchioness who provided General Tilney with the latest gossip (and perhaps some sport in his bed), but that prevented Henry Tilney from saying some of his best lines deserves little praise.
Why was the marchioness (Elaine Ives-Cameron)added?
How would Lady Catherine de Bourgh have critiqued the film, I wonder?
“I send no compliments to the director or script writer. They deserve no such attention. I am most seriously displeased.”
I must explain that this film was one of the main reason why I did not read Northanger Abbey until the very last of Jane’s novels. The story as told in this film is quite awful, so you can imagine my delight and surprise when I finally met Jane Austen’s actual characters in print.
Read more on the topic:
- Public Bathing in Bath, Georgian Style – how the Georgians bathed in the hot baths.
- Go Gothic With Northanger Abbey: Isabella Thorpe Chats About Horrid Movies
Vic,
The film’s flaws of editing and rewriting, which I mostly agree with you about, are redeemed in my view by the screenwriter Maggie Wadey’s canny understanding of General Tilney’s character, as brilliantly played by Robert Hardy, who of course was fantastic as Sir John Middleton in Emma Thompson’s S&S.
If you pay close attention, you see that Wadey shows General Tilney wooing Catherine on his own behalf, not on behalf of Henry! And Wadey also shows that Catherine is, conversely, attracted to General Tilney in a way that Catherine herself is not consciously aware of.
This screenplay is more subtle than it appears.
Cheers, ARNIE
sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com
Thanks for stopping by, Arnie. Yes, Robert Hardy’s General Tilney was one of the bright lights. I intend to write the other, more positive half of my review later, but first I had to share why I find this production, despite many viewings, so wanting in many areas.
Yes, this film adaptation of Northanger Abbey was a big disappointment. Making Catherine Moreland a writer, and adding the vampiric looking Marchioness, completely subverted Austen’s original intentions.
Catherine Moreland was supposed to be a rather average girl, whose distinction was in her artlessness, and a growing confidence in the rightness of her own feelings and impressions. Having read a bit of Fanny Burney, I wonder if Austen was also satirizing the type of heroine who is so stunningly beautiful that every man in sight instantly falls head over heels in love with her. Perhaps Austen was showing that a more ordinary girl could also interesting as the heroine of a novel.
The character of the Marchioness, who looked like she stepped out of one of the zombie Jane Austen novels, completley subverted Austen’s intention of showing the foolishness of Catherine’s gothic fantasies. Instead, the filmmakers seemed to want to transform the story into a gothic novel. What a mish-mash.
Dianne, perhaps this film anticipated the mash-up craze from the past two years! Your statement about Austen showing off a more ordinary girl as a heroine is spot on!
Thinking about the Marchioness, I realized that this adaptation of NA was made around the same time as Amadeus, a film that featured a variety of decadent characters. One wonders if her makeup and character were inspired by Milos Forman’s film, which was made in 1984.
I bought the DVD for a little Christmas treat for myself last year and I and my daughter spent the whole time shrieking ‘oh, no’.
I thought it was dreadful and even Robert Hardy was way over the top in his interpretation. General Tilney was a snob as well as a fortune-hunter and that was why he treated Catherine so rudely, when he found out that she came from an ordinary family. I don’t think that he was meant to be sinister in any way.
The only saving grace, I thought, was in the selection of the actress for the part of Catherine. Her looks did fit the concept of a girl who had been considered plain for much of her lifetime and had suddenly bloomed.
Can’t stand the running scenes, especially with skirts hitched to knee height – so stupid!
Cora, I have been noticing that the movie adaptations are not adapting the script from Jane Austen’s novels as much as from previous adaptations. How else to explain the similarities in certain situations? Such as running through Bath, or depicting Catherine in a series of nightmarish heroine-in-danger scenes, which the 90-minute 2007 Northanger Abbey script also adopted.
I know film is a visual medium and that there are reasons why directors and script writers make certain choices, but when these changes do not improve the story, why make them at all?
I have only ever managed to watch 5 mins of this film without cringing so much that I had to reach for the remote control to turn it off. The music imho is appalling and Catherine looks like she belongs in the stage version of Phantom of the Opera (as Sarah Brightman’s Christine) rather than a Jane Austen classic. The only part I have found ok was the roman bath scene where you see them bathing with their swimming regalia and still wearing a hat (how awkward that would be) and wearing trays for their food and drink.
I love the 2007 version and I can’t wait to see The Pemberley Players (who played at the ball) in person next year at a Jane Austen inspired ball.
Oh, Nikki. I wish I could see the Pemberley Players too.
If you found the bath scene fascinating, you might want to read my article about it. I provided the link at the bottom of the post.
Still having nightmares with this version. My eyes couldn’t believe what I was watching. And that music….And Catherine is so silly there…I don’t have words to describe it! Robert Hardy was the only fine thing to me…
And am I dreaming or there was a duchess? I can’t really remember…
@SalonJaneAusten
Carmen, perhaps the marchioness is really a duchess. I did not feel like rewatching the movie to make sure I wrote the title correctly. Does anyone else recall?
Yes, maybe she was a marchioness…and the ending! Henry with a white horse! Isn’t it supposed that at the end, Catherine learns to control her daydreamings? Here, she’s encouraged! :S
Oh, gosh, more memories are coming to my mind…
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vic , Stacey and salondetejaneausten, Mobeena Khan. Mobeena Khan said: RT @janeaustenworld: The 1986 Film Adaptation of Northanger Abbey Fails on So Many Levels: Jane Austen's World http://t.co/G06PkWr […]
I have to say I agree with you on this one.
I first saw this version when I was just 15 and my English wasn’t very good at the time. I misunderstood this for a horror movie instead of a parody of a horror book. As you say, the eery music distracts from the Georgian feel altogether.
And before reading the novel I never understood why Catherine was turned out of the Abbey and how it happened that Henry came to her house at the end.
One of the biggest failings is of this version is as well that Northanger Abbey is very gothic in its architecture and interiors, whereas in the book Catherine is disappointed that the Abbey has been done up very modern and was hoping to see something more gothic.
I also though that Catherine was too attractive and outgoing in this version – I prefer Catherine in the recent version where she appears timid and innocent.
That said, I did like Eleanor Tilney in this version and John Thorpe is suitably off-putting. Isabella Thorpe is appalling.
Excellent point about the modernization, Anna. I had a line about General Tilney’s improvements, but decided to write about the exterior of the sets instead.
Many people do not like Katherine Schlesinger as Catherine, and you are among a very few who find her attractive. Most think she is not attractive enough. I think that Schlesinger as Morland looks like she just outgrew her ugly duckling stage and has recently blossomed into womanhood. The actress cuts a striking figure in her beautiful gowns, and looks fresh, young, and elegant.
I also agree with you that her character is a bit forward.
Dear Vic,
I just wanted to point out one small factual error in your post: the composer of the Chariots of Fire soundtrack is Vangelis, not Vandelis.
Otherwise- interesting review- I have not seen this adaptation of Northanger Abbey, and will not be seeking it out after reading this!
Thanks for your very interesting posts!
-Sara
Sara, Thank you! My spelling – well, thank you spell check!! Change made.
Ah Vic, you have visited some of the choice historical jewels of Southern England I see. Bodiam Castle, is everybodies idea of the quintessential English Medieval fortress.It was however, more of a fortified country retreat. The castles designed to subjugate real trouble and withstand long sieges, were and are massive, brutal, muscular looking affairs, whose foreboding demeanour would have frightened Catherine Moreland into a feint.
I think I saw this a film a long time ago. So I have only an indistinct memory of it. However the suggestion that General Tilney was wooing Catherine Moreland and she in return was reciprocating, is ludicrous. If the film shows it that is a fault because Jane Austen didn’t write it.
In the novel General Tilney appears as eccentric and self absorbed. The scene where he takes Catherine along with his daughter, Miss Tilney, on a guided tour of the Abbey shows him sweeping them through some of the rooms of the Abbey, stopping once in a while to examine in detail and comment on particular features of architecture or object. He examines Catherine in a similar way. As we all know, Catherine is never satisfied. She catches glimpses of other rooms, the sight of a spiral staircase and so on, which only feeds her imagination more. Her abiding feeling is for General Tilney to leave the Abbey on some errand or other so she can explore more.It’s NOT to jump into bed with him. Her whole mind is set on discovering the mystery that she imagines.
To go around wielding Freudian analysis willy nilly every time an older gentleman and younger lady come within hand shaking distance is ridiculous. . Freud was a doctor. His analysis was for helping treat his patients not for literary analysis.
When you read a novel you must look for evidence in the novel not apply it from outside.
This movie cracks me up. The hats are so delightfully over-the-top–they are some of my favorites in all the films for their sheer (if out-of-place) fabulousness. And my two favorite lines (and guaranteed howl-with-laughter moments) are:
“It’s a CANAAAAAAARY”
and
“Are we to be SUPPLANTED, Pussy?”
I agree about the removal of stuff in the book and insertion of silly Gothic fantasies. In fact, this paragraph:
Although the length of this adaptation is a mere 90 minutes, script writer Maggie Wadey added scenes and characters that detracted from the story or overwhelmed it, and that replaced moments in the book that were important to drive the plot forward and understand the characters better.
If you replace “Maggie Wadey” with “Andrew Davies,” that pretty much describes my opinion of the most recent effort. At least this was shot in Bath, though like the most recent Persuasion Bath was contracted to mostly the Abbey, Pump Room, and the Royal Crescent.
Wishbone is still the best Henry Tilney on film IMO. And as Heather pointed out in the Team Tilney presentation–he’s not nearly as drooly as some others. *cough*
A member of Team Tilney stopped by! I am verklempt!!
Just before PBS came out with the Jane Austen celebration about 3 years ago, suddenly at a discounted price you could purchase a DVD set of Jane Austen films. They were the 1980 era ones and included this NA you have critiqued. I’ve often felt badly that I haven’t gotten around to viewing it. Not so anymore. I didn’t like what I saw on the cover nor the way the other dramas were depicted then. You’ve saved me time. Love reading your posts!
Okay, I will risk death by a barrage of tomatoes and say that I really liked this adaptation. Granted, most of the music was fairly bizarre, and the make-up was quintessentially eighties overload, but the costumes were a lot of fun. As were the lines Maggie quoted above. :) As for the players, I thought Peter Firth had that Henry Tilney twinkle in his eye and cut a handsome figure in the role (or “if not quite handsome, was very near it”). I found Catherine Schlesinger to be an interesting casting choice. For me, she captured Catherine Morland’s naivete and sense of childlike wonder, and the over-the-top gothic fantasy sequences comically showed the audience her overactive imagination as influenced by her taste in reading. I enjoyed the brutish John Thorpe and his obviously disingenuous sister, especially in the comic context of Catherine’s clueless brother recommending these two vulgarians as desirable companions to his sister. Yes, the plot was ridiculously rushed in the 90-minute format, and had I not read the book I probably would have said WTF? on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, the core coming-of-age theme of learning to discern a true friend from a false one–based on one’s own observations rather than from the pressure of peers– came across in this version. Also really enjoy watching Robert Hardy as the archetypal tyrannical father.
Ah, Laurie, you touched upon almost every aspect of the film that I was going to (and still will) put in my second more positive review of this film, except in the instance of Peter Firth, who, I must admit, I did not like as Angel Claire in Tess either.
I am glad there was a positive voice in the comments! Thank you for stopping by.
Thank goodness. Laura you have used the word,”comic.” Yes, this is near a comedy as Jane Austen got. It is over the top, exaggerated and meant to be fun.A real leg pull and dig at the Gothic Novel. A good example is General Tilney’s , over the top, English politeness and attention he gives Catherine when she first arrives at Northanger Abbey. I’m thinking of the breakfast scene. It is totally rediculous ,”politeness,” following the code of all supposed gentlemen. Although as a lovely twist, General Tilney is no gentleman.
Jane Austen must have had one BIG BELLY laugh writing this. As for the film. I don’t really know it.
I haven’t watched this adaptation before. Catherine did look quite good though. I just rewatched 1995 P&P last night. It’s still the best adaptation I’ve watched.
Fire and Cross
I’ve never seen that film, thank goodness. Thanks giving me the info I need to cross it off my list, though I have to say it was the clips of the music that clinched it. What were they thinking of? Was there a trend at the time to modernize historical fiction in films? (But why? The clue is in the name: “historical”…)
The film should be watched from a purely intellectual point of view. There are good aspects about the film and enjoyable moments, as Laurie pointed out, but there are times when I am so enraged at the rapid unexplained transitions, music, and changes in plot that I quickly forget them.
I’ve not seen the film, only read the book, but I laughed out loud after listening to your music clips from the movie, esp. the boating scene. The 80’s synthesizer was hilarious. Of course, it WAS the 80’s… always makes me wonder what we’ll think in future about adaptations that we think are very realistic (like 95 P&P).
Vic, I’d love if if you could do a list of those JA adaptations you feel are worth watching, and which you could do without. I’ve just begun my adventures into this realm, and would rather forego the bad impressions!
Oh, that is a difficult request, for two noted Jane Austen bloggers, Margaret Sullivan and Laurie Viera Rigler, found more redeeming qualities about Northanger Abbey 1986 than I did.
Tell you what. I will create a poll and ask others about their favorite JA film adaptations! We’ll ask for a concensus. Look for the poll this weekend.
tankyou
Ah, iki, zor bir istek olduğunu, Jane Austen blogcular, Margaret Sullivan ve Laurie Viera Rigler kaydetti yaptım daha Northanger Abbey 1986 hakkında daha fazla kurtarıcı nitelikleri bulundu.
Bak sana ne diyeceğim. Bir anket oluştururum ve sevdikleri JA film uyarlamaları başkalarına sor! Bir uzlaşma isteyeceğiz. anket, bu hafta sonu için bak.
Thanks so much for sharing your insights. I didn’t like this film either. I tried to, but to no avail.
Vic, I agree with you 99.9%. I have watched this 1986 version several times; but I always skipped on the insufferably loooooong horrid scenes. This is supposed to be a romance, not a horror movie!
Peter Firth’s character, Henry Tilney, didn’t have enough chance to prove himself as a hero; instead, superfluous characters were included, e.g. the marchioness & her (useless?) entourage, who lengthened the film without advancing the story.
The 2006 version, with Felicity Jones as Catherine Morland and J.J. Feild as Henry Tilney, in my opinion, is a more authentic portrayal of the novel, e.g. Mr King, the Master of Ceremonies, performed the necessary introduction between Catherine and Henry; and NO GORY SCENES! Also, the outdoor scenery looked similar to those mentioned by Jane Austen, e.g. the garden around the Abbey, the hill behind Bath.
If I did’t know Northanger Abbey, the book, perhaps I would not understand the movie and probably I woul not like it.
I realize all the problems with this version of Northanger Abbey, it is almost nonsensical… and perhaps for that reason I enjoy it.
Not to mention that I have loved Peter Firth and Robert Hardy.
I know, I know… I need to know Wishbone to have an idea about the real Mr. Tilney!
Raquel, this is just one person’s take (which reflect the opinions of so many others), but not all. as you can see.
Taste is personal. Sadly, I have hated this film since the first time I saw it. Each time I rewatch it I hope to like it. There are aspects that I do like, and I will mention those in another post later. Thank you (and everyone) for stopping by.
I watched this film earlier today and wondered if this 1986 version was filmed at Lismore Castle in the Republic of Ireland?
Oh this adaptation of Northanger Abbey was truly laughable! I must say the worst things for me were the awful jazz music and the actress who played Isabella Thorpe. There seemed to be quite a few inaccuracies with the costumes as well. You have certainly nailed the key flaws in your review. I must say that I was initially skeptical of the 2007 adaptation of NA, but it wins hands down compared to this.