WHY DO MANSFIELD PARK AND NORTHANGER ABBEY SO RARELY GET ADAPTED?

 

Jonny Lee-Miller and Frances O'Connor in Mansfield Park 1999

As Jane Austen fans, we are never short of new adaptations to enjoy. Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Emma, and Persuasion have each had numerous film and television versions—sometimes several within a single decade. Austen’s wit, her timeless themes of love, class, and social ambition, and her cast of unforgettable characters continue to capture audiences worldwide.

But as Amy Wilcockson (University of Glasgow) points out in a recent article for The Conversation, there are two Austen novels that remain strikingly underrepresented on screen: Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey. Together they make up a full third of Austen’s published works, yet filmmakers tend to leave them aside. Why?

Northanger Abbey: a Gothic satire waiting for its spotlight

J.J. Feild and Felicity Jones in Northanger Abbey 2007

Written in 1798–99 but not published until after Austen’s death, Northanger Abbey is Austen at her most playful. It parodies the Gothic romances that captivated readers of the time, but it also critiques the harsh realities of marriage, wealth, and women’s social status. Catherine Morland may be naïve, but her mistaken suspicions about General Tilney’s murderous tendencies highlight just how unsafe and precarious life could be for young women without financial security.

Yet, despite this rich material, we have only two television versions (1987 and 2007)—and never a major feature film. As Wilcockson asks, isn’t it a travesty that Northanger Abbey has never had its cinematic moment?

Mansfield Park: Austen’s most serious work

Blake Ritson and Billie Piper in Mansfield Park 2007

Mansfield Park (1814) may be Austen’s most controversial novel. With its themes of infidelity, gambling, and above all the shadow of slavery—embodied in Sir Thomas Bertram’s Antigua plantation—it tackles issues that reach far beyond ballrooms and marriage plots.

Fanny Price, often criticized as a “quiet” heroine, asks the central question: when she inquires about the slave trade, her uncle ignores her. This silence speaks volumes. Scholars have linked the novel’s title to Lord Mansfield, a judge whose rulings shaped the abolition debate in Britain. Austen’s own family connections to anti-slavery activism further underscore that she was deeply aware of these issues.

Perhaps it is precisely this weightier subject matter that has made filmmakers hesitate. But avoiding these themes leaves a gap in how we understand Austen—not merely as the creator of charming romances, but as a keen observer of power, politics, and empire.

Why it matters

By continually revisiting Pride and Prejudice or Emma, adaptations risk flattening Austen’s legacy into a series of witty romantic comedies. Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey, however, remind us that Austen’s work spans satire, social critique, and engagement with pressing moral debates of her day.

Imagine what a director like Greta Gerwig could do with the Gothic humor of Northanger Abbey, or how a filmmaker unafraid to confront history might handle the moral complexities of Mansfield Park. These novels deserve their moment on screen—not only for faithful readers, but also for new audiences who might discover just how multifaceted Austen really was.

---

Questions for reflection and discussion

1. Why do you think filmmakers have hesitated to adapt Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey?

2. How might a modern adaptation highlight the social critiques in these novels while still engaging today’s audiences?

3. Do you think Catherine Morland and Fanny Price are less “screen-friendly” heroines compared to Elizabeth Bennet or Emma Woodhouse? Why or why not?

4. If you could choose a director for a new adaptation of either novel, who would it be and why?

5. Should adaptations stay faithful to Austen’s plots, or would you welcome more experimental versions (as with the 2022 Persuasion)?