Inquiring Readers,
After experiencing years of an Austen drought on the large and small screen, we are treated to two adaptations within a half year–Sanditon and the newly released Emma.
Emma film poster on a London bus. Photo courtesy of Tony Grant
Emma, the film will air in theaters in my region on March 6th. Sadly, I won’t see the film until late next week, but my British friend Tony Grant has reviewed it. He writes in part:
My thoughts were, will Autumn de Wilde’s Emma get Austen’s subtleties concerning the different relationships right? Will the actors be any good? All is lost if they can’t cut the mustard. What might we get out of this Emma that speaks to us in 2020? Will the film tell Jane Austen’s story well?
The film begins, focusing in from an expansive bucolic scene of green pastures and wooded areas to an iconic 18thcentury mansion, Hartfield. We hone down to a gothic styled greenhouse and enter to a scene of peace and calm and meditative background music as Emma, played by Anya Taylor Joy, slowly, carefully moves, almost like floating in a dream, examining her blooming red roses while servant girls hover, secateurs poised ready to snip the stem of any flower Emma thinks fit. Anya Taylor’s eyes look and roam and pierce us to our souls. Oh! those eyes. She pauses, she considers, she moves on and decides, “That one.” And the flower is cut. This opening scene is very clever and says in this silent dreamlike ballet of a scene all that Austen says in the opening words of her novel.
Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her.”
The film is lit brightly and the colours, not just of the costumes, but of the scenery too has a pale pastel sheen, which can only be achieved through the cinematography.–-To read the rest of Tony Grant’s review, click this link to London Calling, his blog.
In anticipation of seeing the film, I’ve been reading Robert Rodi’s take on Emma in Bitch in a Bonnet: Reclaiming Jane Austen from the stiffs, the snobs, the simps and the saps. (Yes, he’s that sarcastic, but witty, wise, and fun.) I particularly liked this passage, which shows Emma’s animus towards Augusta Elton shortly after she paid Mr. Elton and his new missus a visit:
Eventually Mrs. Elton return the visit, and Emma has plenty of time for her options to coalesce. And she really, really, really does not like this chick. Not. One. Little. Bit.
Rodi then goes on to quote this Austen passage:
“The quarter of an hour quite convinced her that Mrs. Elton was a vain woman, extremely well satisfied with herself, and thinking much of her own importance; that she want to shine and be very superior…”
Rodi does not stop there, but I paused at these words for a long moment. The qualities Emma dislikes about Mrs. Elton are the same qualities she possesses. Augusta, of course is different from Emma. She’s coarse, grasping, and aggressively power hungry, whereas Emma is the well-bred young lady described in the movie’s publicity: a well meaning but selfish young woman [who] meddles in the love lives of her friends.
The comic characters in Emma are among Austen’s finest, and I look forward in revisiting them in this film, especially in the forms of Miranda Hart as Miss Bates and Bill Nighy as Mr. Woodhouse.
Although I won’t see the film for some time, please feel free to leave your opinions if you have them.
Meanwhile, enjoy Tony Grant’s review at the top of this blog!
Jane Austen's World 
I hope to see it soon. I’ve heard wonderful things about it.
denise
Me too!
Thanks for this, Vic, and please thank Tony for his wonderful review! I particularly enjoyed reading about Box Hill vs. Leith Hill, and England’s most magnificent, stately homes being used for Jane Austen’s characters, “second league landowners.” I’ve always thought so! Regards to you both.
Hi Diana!! Regards back. I read your take on Little Women and can’t wait to see it. I held back, hoping to see it in the privacy of my home.
Hi Diana. Thank you for your kind comment.
I’ve seen it. I thought it was pretty good. But I don’t regard it as the best version of the 1815 novel I have seen.
I’d like to know which one you like. Have you seen the one with Kate Beckinsale before her Hollywood transformations?
Thank you for your comment. It’s new and a fresh take on ,”EMMA.” I always like to look at things from a new perspective. That was one of its appeals to me. All the best, Tony
Thank you. It seemed to me Tony Grant is in this blog-review in the business of trying to find value wherever he can – reminding me of Jane Bennet’s “candour” over Miss Bingley’s cruel letter. Yes, from what he said, it seems to me there is as much to complain, though in a different direction from the TV Sanditon. Austen’s Emma is not romantic comedy; it is not sweet erotic pastoral. It is not in short chick-lit. We need not become Marxists, but the old Marxist and serious sociological moral explications are caught up in earlier Emma films, from the 1972 BBC by Constanduros, to Davies BBC 1996 to Sandy Welch’s BBC 2009. Are we to chose (I’m being reductive about both films but the adjectives are not far off and make my point) between being taken as imbeciles or voyeurs.
Ellen, I just returned from a lecture/discussion at Goucher college about the novel, Emma, hosted by Juliette Wells. We were then invited to discuss our impressions with her students. It was a delightful, refreshing two hours spent. I can’t wait to see the film next week and to digest everything I saw and learned.
Meanwhile, I love that Tony allowed me to link to his review — the U.S. audience wants to know if their money will be well spent! Tony thinks so.
Ellenandjim.Thank you for your comment. Yes I do always try and find the good in anything. It must be a habit garnered for over forty years teaching. Sometimes you have to mine deep though. I also tend to push against all those who are totally against new visions of something. I have heard so many comments by people who are against everything in this film because its not the 1996 film or whatever etc. I like to think felxibly and be able to take on new ways of seeing something. Anya Taylor Joy is a different EMMA but she has all the aspects JA wrote into her character. Again, I joked about the eyes. Maybe its me trying not to be too serious. All the best, Tony
Hmmm! I would have thought Jane Fairfax had more to endure than Frank Churchill, which was JA’s point, as expressed by Mr Knightly. If you miss this point then you are likely to have missed more of the film than caught. And the trivial relevances are simply uninteresting. Bad mouthing an old family friend is not the same as modern trolling. AndI want to know why Harriet Smith is always cast as a lumpy woman when she is described by JA as beautiful. The only recent film that got close was 2009 Emma with Romola Garai and Louise Dylan. The 1996 film had Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma and Toni Collette as Harriet, reprising her role in Muriel’s Wedding. It seems to be a chronic failure of writers and directors to put together a duo of Emma and Harriet where the women are at least of equal beauty, but class and birth counts, which is how Jane Austen wanted it. And the differences between Mrs Elton and Emma are significant, they are not the same character in different situations as your English reviewer suggests.
I haven’t seen this version yet, but it will have to be pretty good to be better than the 2009 tv series.
Thank you for that Kevin, I absolutely agree with you on the 2009 version I loved the Romola Garai series, my favourite Emma for sure. I have not yet seen this new one either but I now fervently hope someone will redo Persuasion, the latest versions fell short.
Maureen
Kevin, thanks for your extensive reply.The Jane Fairfax Frank Churchill realtionship is not ignored. The main emphasise is the emotional development of EMMA, I think, but all the other relationships are given some weight to the overall outcome of the film.We end up with a much more mature realisation of relationships at the end than compared to the beginning. Which is what JA was saying. There was a comment above about me mentioning trolling etc. I was being flippant. The film actually doesn’t make this a feature. I wanted to make people smile. My jokes come back to bight me sometimes!! Ha! Ha!
Since I wrote that para I have seen the film. I was surprised by some aspects of it, for instance, the collars. The film was about funny collars, high pointed white collars for the blokes -you could see the machine stitching around the edges-and even an orange ruff for Emma, atop a bare bosom. It was passing strange. I was pleasantly surprised by Jane Fairfax, ably played by Amber Anderson, who played the piano beautifully; the actor who played Mr Knightley I thought a bit flat when they sang together, and in person a bit rough, especially for one who lived in such a fine manor as his Abbey, which was a fair bit over the top for a middling country gentleman. To own a house like that would put him on par with Mr Darcy in terms of wealth.
Mrs John Knightley’s hysteria was unnecessary; Mr Woodhouse’s love of a screen was a nice touch as were his clothes, as was Bill Nighy’s performance even with so little to do. The two moments which had any cut through were Emma’s reposte to Miss Bates, which was nicely done, followed by Mr Knightley’s rebuke of Emma on Box Hill, but without the consideration Jonny Lee Miller added to his; and Emma self-isolating afterwards against the bust in the hallway of the house.
I thought this version lacked the moral judgement on the way Jane Fairfax was treated by Frank Churchill, with Emma’s collusion. I noticed some borrowings from the 2009 Emma in the design of some of the clothes-simple elegant cut and strong vibrant colours, and in the dance of Emma and Mr Knightley at the pub ball, although the 2009 version was far more explicit, but both versions opened to both Emma and Mr K an idea Emma in particular had failed to see and which took her until Harriet Smith made her confession to Emma about Mr Knightley to realise.
I am still inclined to think the 2009 tv series the superior version.
Mr Knightley is as aware of Jane Fairfax’s predicament as much as JA and yourself would like in the film, Kevin. Yes you are right, that comment by Mr Knighltley about Jane Fairfax’s situation along with his reaction to Emmas hurtful comments to Miss Bates makes him somebody very special. He is sensitve to others feelings and predicaments. I would like to know him personally.Maybe a pint together at my local pub perhaps?
I saw the movie recently and tremendously enjoyed the movie! The actors were fantastic. The actor who played Emma was superb. Her eyes were mesmerizing. Her eyes were the main reason why I wanted to see the movie. The interest of her appearance influenced my interest in seeing yet another version of Emma. The dance scenes were electronic and exciting. The comic timing, wit, strength and dignity of her dad was so satisfying. The two individuals who were the objects of her match making were not a clear cut and convincing in their acting as I’ve seen in the acting of say the PBS version. They were just passable. The actor who eventually became her love interest in the end was superb as well. This is a movie I could go to see again and again. It was so visually beautiful and very uplifting. The lessons learned in the end were clear, evident and satisfying.
Thank you for your enthusiastic response, Cassandra. I can’t wait to see the film!
Thanks for sharing!
I just saw the movie – (pandemic concerns aside) – I am of the opinion that each portrayal of a Jane Austen novel has it’s merits and it’s flaws. It is hard to make it fresh, and we all have such distinct opinions on how these films should be done. There were parts of it I loved – but other parts I missed. Mrs. Bates was not nearly as silly as portrayed in previous versions. Mr. Woodhouse was funnier, but not as nervous. You didn’t really “feel” Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax or Frank Churchill/Emma at all. Emma’s evolution as a person was very well done. I really enjoyed the Knightly/Emma interactions and how their love story developed. I liked how you could see Mr. Knightly’s pain. I loved the comic touches with the servants and filmography. I don’t think it was the best version, but I would definitely see it again.
Hi Barbara. I can’t comment on it as I have not yet seen it, just wondering what versions of the movies or tv series you liked.
Good review.
I’d like to know which one you like. Have you seen the one with Kate Beckinsale before her Hollywood transformations?
I’ve seen the Kate Beckinsale version. My opinion of it is about the same as this recent version. I thought it was pretty good, but not a big favorite of mine. My favorite version is the 2009 Romola Garai miniseries.
I saw the movie last weekend (lightly attended, so I could keep my distance!). The level of wealth assigned to Knightly and the Woodhouses was oppressive, and would surely have kept them from associating with someone like Mrs. Bates–disproportionate to what Austin portrayed. Rather than being cozy, or friendly, the overall effect was highly stylized, to the point of being surreal. It was all very beautiful, but real human emotion was only sometimes permitted to surface. I’m glad I saw it. I enjoyed it. But I much prefer the 2009 Romola Garai version.