It’s Miss Woodhouse’s Turn
The break is over, and the Complete Jane Austen is back with a broadcast of Emma starring Kate Beckinsale, first broadcast on A&E about ten years ago. How interesting to ponder the later careers of some of the actresses involved: Kate Beckinsale, Samantha Morton, and Olivia Williams. We also get a big kick out of Raymond Coulthard’s take on Frank Churchill in this one (as seen to the left). He’s handsome and charming, just as he ought, and yet you believe he can be feckless. We often think that we would like to combine this version with the Gwyneth Paltrow version to make a very tolerable film version; though don’t make us pick a Miss Bates. We imagine most of our Gentle Readers have seen this one by now, but we’re sure you would like to discuss it anyway.
PBS’ Remotely Connected blog has two reviews of the film: the first is by Jessica Emerson, a/k/a JaneFan of Austen-tatious.
Self-knowledge is highly regarded by Austen, so a character who is ignorant of his or her own faults is clearly in need of correction before he or she can marry a worthy partner. On this path, Emma (Kate Beckinsale) walks a very fine line. If she were fully aware of her faults at the outset of the novel (therefore acting with willful disregard towards others) she would be a horrible person, and a hateful character. It is her naivete, her self-ignorance, her “clueless”-ness, if you will, that saves her from our scorn. We certainly do not admire her, and may even pity her.
Erica S. Perl is not a fan of period films, but was won over.
And then, something happened. I’m not exactly sure when, but my hackles came down. It might have been when the egotistical, self-satisfied Emma and the absurdly-rich-yet-unpretentious Mr. Knightly swapped their first flirty smile, or it could have been when the gullible Harriet Smith (Samantha Morton) appeared like a vision to the trolling-for-a-DIY-project Emma. All of a sudden, the characters seemed complex, edgy and flawed. In a word: modern. Not in their dress, or manner of speech, of course. But their emotional frankness and sly sense of humor took me by surprise. And hooked me.
So, Gentle Readers: how YOU doin’?
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Oh for crying out loud. Agent Scully just said, “Jane Austen wrote novels in the evenings after her housework was done.” What the Frank Churchill?
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
The Paltrow Emma will always hold a special place in my heart as it was my real introduction to the world of Austen (sure, I watched P&P ‘95 instead of reading the novel in HS, but that doesn’t count). But I certainly enjoy the Churchill storyline in this version. Maybe we should take the two and edit them together… Maybe that wouldn’t work to well, though.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I guess I have a very lukewarm opinion of this adaptation. I find it faithful to the source material for the most part, with good costuming and sets, but it is damaged by a terrible lack of charisma and star quality at the heart of the casting. Samantha Morton is a fine actress who should only appear in contemporary or futuristic pieces and I think the same of Kate Beckinsale–without heavy makeup and provocative costuming she’s (and this is a bad Van Helsing joke) bloodless.
Mark Strong as Knightly is just not good enough. He’s too contemporary and doesn’t look comfortable. IMO, this is a good script and direction undone by casting, which is why it has inspired little enthusiasm in the outside world.
Frankly, I’d swap the whole dull lot of them for Robert Martin and the chickens, so at least Harriet’s choice looks logical.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
oop–the above comment was mine. :blush:
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Where is Mrs. Elton supposed to be from? She had the worst accent I have ever heard.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
As for Miss Bates, we love her in this edition because she is played by Sam West’s (i.e. the best William Walter Eliot EVER) own mum.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
She’s supposed to be from Bristol, I believe.
Personally I think this adaptation has a pretty good cast that carries the severely curtailed story a little above television movie fare–but not that far above. There’s just too much missing from the story. The feature film did a better job both of developing the Knightley/Emma relationship and of leaving in the most important plot points, but we had to put up with the insipid Gwyneth in the lead role (bleagh). And I never noticed how freaking OBVIOUS they made the relationship between Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill! Only a blockhead could miss it. And Miss Woodhouse, for all her faults, is no blockhead.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Well, I am no defender of Miz Gwyneth, but I do feel that the roles of Harriet and Knightly were far better cast in the theatrical Emma, and even Mr. Elton. And the dogs were well done.
As for Frank Churchill, no actor alive could have transcended the horror of that hair, not even Ewan McGregor who is surely to be considered a fine thespian.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Have a lolcat.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Bristol, England? It sounded most of the time like she was trying to do an American accent. Anyway. I thought Kate Beckinsale was lovely, but I’ve only ever seen her in Cold Comfort Farm and Much Ado About Nothing, so I wasn’t tainted by images of her as a futuristic action hero. And I absolutely adored Sibyl Fawlty as Miss Bates!
March 24th, 2008 at 12:59 am
I’m undoubtedly the last in the world to have never seen this adaptation before, but I was trying desperately to hold off on seeing any until I’d finished the novel (yes, I’m a baby Janeite!) Of course, I ended up breaking down and watching the Paltrow version. And, of course, I very much enjoyed Jeremy Northam, however much I disliked Gwyn. Watching this version tonight on PBS, I thought Kate made Emma so much more likable. “Mrs. E.” grated on my nerves the proper amount.
One thing that always drives me bonkers: upon Knightley’s line, “I held you in my arms when you were three weeks old.” my friends gasps in disgust and say, “How old *is* he?!” I am quite tired of this reaction, as well as the, “But Mr. Collins and Lizzy are cousins!” bit.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:07 am
I enjoy both 1996 adaptations, but like many of you, I have my favorites actors. Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law are wonderful in the feature film version. Sophie’s Box Hill scene is heartbreaking and unforgettable. An article at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_n9_v26/ai_18798907)
discusses the director’s reaction to that scene.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:22 am
The Paltrow/Northam version has the advantage of remembering that Jane Austen is FUNNY! There’s no humour in this one.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:42 am
I think it does remember the humor- for example the quick paced scene between Samantha and Kate after she’s engaged to Knightley where she worries for Harriet’s feelings. I guess this version just doesn’t exaggerate the funny parts like the blockbuster film. (And also things are laughed at in the Gwyneth version that perhaps weren’t intended to, i.e. Frank Churchill’s hair)
One thing thing I defo prefer at about the Kate Beckinsale version - you don’t have to look at a really weird crying face from Gwyneth! lol
March 24th, 2008 at 6:25 am
JaneFan/Jessica Emerson has it very very wrong IMO
Emma is one heroine who is very well balanced and rounded by JA when sketching her character
No other Austen character is so well rounded off!!!
For every *bad* thing she does, there is a lot of good that she also does.
How can a person described as;
Emma was very compassionate; and the distresses of the poor were as sure of relief from her personal attention and kindness,..
or one having a;
happy dosposition and natural cheerfulness
can be not admired or be pitied. Her filial devotion to her father alone has me holding her in high regard.
AND - was there a better aunt (maybe equal in Anne E);
Having them over at Hartfield without their parents.
Henry and John were still asking every day for the story of Harriet and the gipsies, and still tenaciously setting her right if she varied in the slightest particular from the original recital.
SUCH PATIENCE
Let’s not forget all this in our one track mind
March 24th, 2008 at 6:37 am
PS:
Personally I also go by Mr. Knightley’s opinion of Emma’s ways regarding ‘position’. Not that she is *bad* - but that she is a Nonsensical girl - expressed not in anger at all by him!!
March 24th, 2008 at 6:48 am
I like Prunella Scales, but Sophie Thompson is flat-out brilliant as Miss Bates. And having her own mother play Mrs. Bates was a nice touch. “PORK!” indeed.
And I don’t love either Gwyneth or Kate. I don’t think either version is as good as it could be.
I recently bought the “Whatever” special edition of “Clueless,” which is, after much consideration, possibly my favorite filmed version of “Emma.” I haven’t watched the new disc yet, but am looking forward to it.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Despite the fact that it’s indeed truncated down to the barest bones of the story, and Mr Knightly IMO shouts too much, I much prefer this Emma to the Paltrow version. I find the way the characters look and act so much more accurate. Miss Bates is perhaps the only exception. Toni Collette is a fantastic actress, but she was completely miscast as Harriet Smith.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:22 am
GP’s Emma ticks off more on the list of Emma’s characters mentioned in the book than KB’s.
In fact both adaptations are at an equal distance from the book - neither is *closer* to it.
As Mags has mentioned, a combination of the two would be a good idea.
Anyway, who am I to speak. I love the earlier BBC version anyway, though not absolutely correct it is closest to the book (of course, given that it was a mini series).
March 24th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Out of all Austen’s novels, Emma is my least favorite (following closely behind by Northanger Abbey). This adaptation was close to the book, but still seemed to fall flat. There weren’t any characters that I could bring myself to like or enjoy, but the only scene that came close to touching me was the Winter scene when John and Isabella came with the kids. Granted John Knightley was funny, but dead panned funny… which I enjoyed and was annoyed with (but then considering this is Emma and John is probably my fav of the bunch… ah well).
For some reason Clueless endeared me more than Gwyneth of Kate’s version of Emma did… don’t know why…
I might have to rewatch in it’s entirety though….ah well.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Frank Churchill, with his strange hair and strangely pointed teeth, made me think that he had run into Drusilla in a alleyway. Except that we keep seeing him in daylight.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I think perhaps the Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax relationship clues were dropped like cement shoes in this movie because (usually) a new viewer who does not know the story well would easily miss them. Both movies have their strengths and weaknesses, though this one tipped the scales for me in two ways: Bernard Hepton’s excellent turn as Mr. Woodhouse, and the subtext of the servants working their fingers to the bone to provide a luxurious living for the gentry. I rather like my gentlemen tall, dark, and forceful, so Mark Strong as Mr. Knightley does not turn me off. It’s significant that he largely plays villains these days. Samantha Morton played Harriet beautifully, and I prefer Sophie Thompson as Miss Bates. I’m with Ben M. - let’s combine the best of both films into one. That should satisfy us until the next adaptation.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Oh for crying out loud. Agent Scully just said, “Jane Austen wrote novels in the evenings after her housework was done.” What the Frank Churchill?
Oh dear, and we thought those horrible red-on-red “introductory comments” couldn’t possibly get any worse…
March 24th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I’m generally way too picky about Austen adaptations, but I’ve always loved this one. I think it’s a great cast overall, and Kate Beckinsale is absolutely Emma for me (it’s her later “modern” roles that I don’t care for.) Bernard Hepton I think is also a wonderfully neurotic Mr. Woodhouse. I just love the scene with Mrs. Bates and the little bit of egg that everyone seems to handle except its intended recipient
I also love Olivia Williams as she really gives her portrayal of Jane Fairfax a little “bite” that I like.
I liked many things about the Paltrow version–except for Paltrow; I thought she gave a pretty insipid interpretation of Emma. Jeremy Northam is always a favorite with me, though I have to say that Mark Strong is closer to my idea of Knightley. Maybe because like Ms. Place above, “I rather like my gentlemen tall, dark, and forceful”!
Two things do bother me about the A&E version: it could have used an extra half hour (heck, another entire hour!) and Mrs. Weston’s eyebrows were way too skinny! Go figure. They don’t call us Austen nuts for nothing….
March 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
This is the version of Emma that I like the most. It is not perfect, but then neither of the two versions are. Yet I love the supporting cast, they look and act accurately. Standouts for me include Harriet, Jane Fairfax, Frank Churchill, and Mr. Woodhouse. Kate Beckinsale is Emma for me.
As for the Paltrow version, while it has lovely sets and costumes, most of the cast was disappointing, including Paltrow. The highlight of that adaptation was Jeremy Northam’s Knightley.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Ms. Place said… “I think perhaps the Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax relationship clues were dropped like cement shoes in this movie because (usually) a new viewer who does not know the story well would easily miss them.”
Well, everybody misses them in the book the first time around. The clues are there, but are subtlety themselves. You re-read thinking, “How did I MISS that?” You watch this film thinking, “How did that dopey broad MISS that?” I don’t like thinking of Emma as a dopey broad, because she isn’t one. By the time Mr. Knightley starts dropping hints about it, you’re thinking, “Well, duh, Einstein.” There were a couple of places where they practically have blinking subtitles saying FRANK AND JANE ARE SECRETLY ENGAGED!!! It’s a bit much. Trust the viewer, please. It’s Masterpiece Whatever, not Keeping Up With the Kardashians, for Jane’s sake. (I had the misfortune of seeing Keeping Up for the first time Friday night at my sister’s house…that bunch will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes.)
March 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I love MY Mr. Knightley on the angry side, I guess. My problem with Northam’s Knightley is that he had Romantic Leading Man prominently tatooed on his forehead. When I read Emma, I had no clue who she ended up with, but as soon as JN walks in, any mystery is over. MS’s Mr. K is not so obvious.
I also cannot abide GP’s Emma going on and on at the end to Mrs. Weston, when she realizes she loves Mr. Knightley. I love John, I hate John - oh, just keep it to yourself! And where was John?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I’ll also add that I think Emma is more likeable in this one because we see her being kind and friendly to Jane Fairfax–something that is missing in the Gwyneth version (and not Gwyneth’s fault). You can see that while Emma and Jane will never be BFFs, they could develop a friendly acquaintanceship, at least.
I wish one of the films showed the lovely scene where Emma and Jane meet on the stairs at the Bates’ and Emma whispers good wishes to her, and Jane is at last open and friendly towards Emma. Also love the bit where Mrs. Elton thinks she has a secret that Emma’s not in on and is all snarky to her. Ha!
March 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am
“I wish one of the films showed the lovely scene where Emma and Jane meet on the stairs at the Bates’ and Emma whispers good wishes to her, and Jane is at last open and friendly towards Emma.”
Mags, isn’t there something similar in the Doran Godwin-John (”Mad Hatter”) Carson mini?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:52 am
There very well might be–I’ve only seen it once, and I don’t know it at all well. Guess I’ll have to watch it again.
(I like the Harriet Smith in that one–she’s just how I picture her.)
March 24th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Yes!! It’s very much there, Mags, I mean the scene with Emma and Jane Fairfax - in Doran Godwin’s adaptation.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Wait, since when is Mr. Knightley angry and forceful? Have I read a different version of Emma?
Come on. He’s even pathetic when he “lectures” Emma!
March 24th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“Mr. Knightley actually looked red with surprize and displeasure, as he stood up, in tall indignation, and said,
“Then she is a greater simpleton than I ever believed her. What is the foolish girl about?”
Emma, chapter 8.
I always saw Mark Strong’s Knightley in this scene as very accurate.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Well I must say I found this very tolerable, except for the “hit you over the head with it here is what Emma is imagining” scenes, which annoyed the living hell out of me. I hadn’t seen this adaptation before (shame on me, I am sure); I have always disliked the Gwyneth Paltrow version of “Emma” and agree with Julie P. that “Clueless” may in fact be the most appealing “adaptation” of this story out there.
I did like Frank Churchill, Miss Bates, and Mr. Knightly (whom I did NOT find to be “angry and forceful,” rather disappointed and forthright). I rather preferred Kate to Gwyneth, also, and thought Olivia Williams was a perfect Jane Fairfax. I also appreciated the fact that Mr. Woodhouse was very kindly portrayed.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
One tiny tiny but so important detail that I love about the Kate B. version of Emma vs the Paltrow one is at the very end, at the Harvest Home festival which, as I remember, might also be Mr Martin’s and Harriet’s wedding feast, where Emma goes up to the formerly-scorned Robert Martin AND OFFERS HIM HER HAND TO SHAKE.
WOW!
For those who are not quite courante with this issue, at this time, only equals shook hands (as opposed to merely bowing/courtesying) and it was up to the the one who was superior in position to offer the hand first. So the fact that Emma is offering to treat Mr Martin as an equal is a BIG THING, and shows a major change in her character. I love it. In a way, that sums up the whole movie/book to me: Emma has learned her lesson about pride and is ready to take on her role as a mature member of the Highbury society. I can forgive any other nit-picks with this group of movie makers just for this one small scene that is almost a toss-away in the movie, but is so important in revealing the movie-Emma’s character.
If you don’t quite believe me yet, think about what a horrid gaffe Mr Collins made when he went up to Mr Darcy WITHOUT BEING INTRODUCED and tried to talk to him.
Anyway, my eyes always water at this point in the Kate Emma, when, for me, she has realized the folly of her snobbery and is ready to recognize the truly valuable traits of her friends (and Mr. K’s).
March 24th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
In the Paltrow version, you really get to revel in her snobbery, pretentiousness and busy-body-ing, which leaves so much more room for redemption in the end!
March 24th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
But how do you get beyond the GP’s Mr. Woodhouse HAPPY that Emma is going to marry Mr. Knightley?
March 24th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
This Emma is a bit too stern and generally humorless, and AngryKnightley is way too hopping mad!
March 24th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Oh, yeah, and:
http://i25.tinypic.com/asbbm.jpg
March 25th, 2008 at 4:03 am
You are quite right, Allison T.
But what better than welcoming Robert Martin in her own home, as it says in the book, and in the 80s production with Doran Godwin.
I think, Karen 2L
that Mr. Woodhouse may not have been excessively happy - but he did agree;
…with a much more voluntary, cheerful consent than his daughter had ever presumed to hope for…
This relativity wasn’t mentioned in the movie.
I think that would mean ‘cheerful’ and ‘happy’ enough for Mr. Woodhouse considering how miserable at the thought and against marriage he is.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:19 am
Hi Brandy,
I think you are confusing Emma with Mrs Elton.
It is Mrs Elton who is the *pretentious* one really
Emma is not pretending at all. She *does* happen to belong where she is and Mrs Elton’s attempts at emulating her - are hilarious
Yes, I too prefer GP as she is quite cheerful and seems to have a happy disposition as she ought to, and doesn’t look mean as KB does!
(AD mentioned once that he dislikes Emma, Mr. Woodhouse, FC)
All those *extra* scenes added on to make Emma look mean are shameful!!!!
Especially the one where she meets Robert Martin when she’s waiting for Harriet at Abbey Mill farm.
That *did not* happen folks!!!!
AND THE PROPOSAL in E3!!!
YUCK!!!!
Since when does ‘I love you and want to marry you’ go together with the reminder ‘I held you in my arms when you were -months old’?????
Yuck!!! again.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Reeba, Mr. Woodhouse eventually got to the “agree” part, as shown in E3. In E2, he is seen jumping up from his chair with joy. And I love the E3 proposal. I love the way MS uses his hat to emphasize his points - “the aunt in is the way, the aunt dies.”
I’m glad there are enough adaptations to make everyone happy.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Yes, indeed. My favorite adaptation is the one that runs in my head when I read the novel, but I have enjoyed both the 90s Emmas. Jeremy Northam probably looks way too young to be a 38-year old of that time period, but I wasn’t complaining about that. In that one, they changed their age difference to be 16 years rather than 18. I wonder what psychological studies they used to determine that 16 would go down easier than 18? Is it so that he would still be a minor when she was born?
March 25th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
>they changed their age difference to be 16 years rather than 18.
Tina B, their age difference *is* 16 years.
>I’m glad there are enough adaptations to make everyone happy
But Karen 2L, what about the adaptations which make one feel so unhappy that it hurts when their favourite novels and characters are negatively tampered with.
(E3 and NA2 in my case)
>Mr. Woodhouse eventually got to the “agree” part
Unfortunately even the best of adaptations do not show *all* the steps which eventually lead to the final event.
Some go straight to the event itself.
Not that I think E2’s Mr. Woodhouse was the right one.
But neither was E3’s robust healthy looking one - He was not at all the polite and cultured Mr Woodhouse of the book who would never have compared the loss of Miss Taylor to the loss of hens (even if it was meant to be funny) nor complain about people visiting at night as he does right at the beginning.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Well, Reeba, you caught me. I was just trying to be polite. The truth is that there is so much of E2 that I cannot stand. By what I’ve already mentioned, I am quite put out about the emphasis on Harriet story to the detriment of Frank and Jane. And does anyone really think that Alan Cumming’s Mr. Elton could possibly be the beau ideal of Highbury? Ewwwwww. Emma wants to match her friend up with this guy? It’s as if Lizzy decides that David Bamber’s Mr. Collins is perfect for her best friend after all. But - on second thought - maybe he’s just right for Toni Collete’s galumphing Harriet, who kept putting me in mind of Patience, the Lovesick Dairymaid.
Redeeming qualities - Juliet Steveson, and … uh …. did I mention Juliet Stevenson?
March 25th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Like one or two others in this discussion, I’ve loved this Emma since I first saw it. I actually started it when I had about ten chapters of the book left to go (though unfortunately I’d been spoiled as to the ending), and finished it just after finishing those few bits I hadn’t read. For me, all the characters are perfectly cast and acted, the writing is witty and moving, and the directing, er, well, it’s passable.
In my discussion of the film online, I’ve discovered that few adaptations create so much ire as the debates about the two Emmas - not even those about the two P&Ps (at least, I think so). I don’t know why - though I find many aspects of the McGrath/Paltrow/Northam Emma wincingly bad (mostly in the grossly overplayed comedy - Jane Austen was subtle, not a Marx Sister), I don’t think it’s irredeemable. And while I love the Davies/Beckinsale/Strong Emma, I do have a few nitpicks with it (the directing, the placement of the chicken stealing). I also really love the was the McGrath film opens and closes - a very filmic and lovely bookend, especially with the music and Mrs. Elton’s quotation. However, when I’ve attempted to discuss the films, I find it increasingly difficult not to attack the McGrath film in defense of the Beckinsale one, because the level of rhetoric quickly becomes negative instead of positively stating the things which are enjoyable about each one. Yes, I have a definite preference for one, and I completely understand (well, maybe not, but at least accept) that some people really don’t like my favorite version. But I don’t think the kind of discussion often seen is very helpful. If one doesn’t like an adaptation, it’s great to express that. But it’s not a matter of great evil if someone else disagrees.
A pity that adaptations of this novel cause so much contention - after all, one half the world does not understand the pleasures of the other.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Wow, Reeba hates the proposal scene? I love it — I think it’s exactly right. I find this one of JA’s most moving scenes, because it’s the first moment in the novel in which Mr. Knightley makes himself vulnerable, and you suddenly see him in such a new light — he’s not Mr. Fairness and Objectivity any more, he’s just a man who’s pretty sure he’s about to get his heart trampled on by the person he loves most. I think Mark Strong plays his sudden, uncharacteristic diffidence perfectly. Andrew Davies most intelligently kept the majority of JA’s dialogue and added only the smallest amount necessary (and some addition is surely necessary, since a voiceover saying, “What did she say? Just what she ought, of course” would probably not fly too well on TV). I see the “I held you in my arms when you were three weeks old” line as being essentially an echo of Emma’s preceding line, “This is so strange”; they’re both acknowledging that this joyful moment is also a profoundly unsettling transition from their previous friendship-with-father/daughter-overtones to their new relationship as lovers.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I am sorry that I always have the most random questions to ask, but does anyone know anything about the song that Emma and Frank sing about sailing to Ireland? Even though it’s sung rather badly in the movie (though this does highlight how much more accomplished Jane is than Emma), I seem to have it stuck in my head.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
>A pity that adaptations of this novel cause so much contention
I Miller, Why should it be a pity???
The reason P&P adaptations don’t result in this kind of *contention*, I think is because none shows everybody’s beloved Elizabeth etc. in any negative way.
I don’t care much for Elizabeth Bennet and so if I were to make an adaptation I could emphasise her heartlessness and impatience with her ‘nervous’ and insecure mother.
Her meanness in making fun of poor Anne (sickly and pale).
Her marrying a ‘rich’ man and being considered as a leveller of class. If she had married a Robert Martin, then I think she would have established her right to be considered one such.
So, if one (I) think that though well made, directed, photographed, why should I not call a spade a spade when I think it is one?
It shows Emma (also FC and Mr. Woodhouse, not to mention the shouting thundering Mr. K) in a bad light then why should it not cause contention - and it be expressed by anyone who is passionate about this book - the best ever written
But I have to state here that I am neither a fan of E2 or E3 - I love the 80s version of Emma.
I prefer E2 over E3 for one reason and one reason alone - that whatever the tampering was done there (of Emma and Mr woodhouse) wasn’t negative.
As for FC’s bad hair, I think the director forgot that he should have changed the hairstyle after he had been to London for a haircut.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!
Maybe the director wanted to draw attention to his hair and then when he comes back from London with the same hair style - it was meant to arouse suspicion. Something like;
OH! He didn’t have his hair cut! So what was he doing in London???
LOL!
March 25th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Discussion is good; disagreement is acceptable; but contention tends to be hurtful. That’s why I think it’s a pity.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Okay, has no one mentioned it or did I just miss it? Mr. Knightley’s hair!!!!! I think both versions were well done, each with different strengths and a combination would probably make a very good adaptation. But if I had to choose which Emma was my favorite, Mr. Knightley’s hair would tip the scales in favor of the Paltrow version. Yes, superficial, but come on after Mr. Knightley’s lectures, there must be some redeeming quality about him–his goodness, honor, and gentlemanly decorum aren’t going to be the first things that spring to mind…
March 25th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
>Discussion is good; disagreement is acceptable; but contention tends to be hurtful. That’s why I think it’s a pity.
I think that’s exactly what we were doing - discussing!!!
I did not think your use of the word ‘contention’ as right. Did you notice my emphasis of it as *…*?
If anything is hurtful to me here is this adaptation.
So, may we carry on with this discussion???
March 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I have just re read my post and realised that I have used the word ‘contend’(wrongly written as ‘content’). Sorry about that.
I guess I Miller’s misuse of the word to label the discussion was uppermost on my mind. I wanted to establish the fact that I am saying what I feel - calling a spade a spade - is the term I have used later.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I’m going to have to rent the DVD of the Paltrow version, which I haven’t seen, so I can understand what people are talking about. I generally like Gwyneth, but maybe that’s just because I associate her with the word “bubbies” in Shakespeare in Love.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Thanks for the link! It’s great to read so many perspectives on this film. I need to re-watch the GP Emma. I was trying to get it OUT of my head while re-reading the novel, and didn’t want to make comparisons between the Hollywood film and the A&E TV movie.
AngryKnightley really was the biggest drawback for me. That character needed therapy, the way he flow off then handle about Frank Churchill’s haircut. The real Knightley is a perfect gentleman, who occasionally displays righteous indignation at Emma’s outlandish behavior.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I have to say, after rereading the reviews, I really enjoyed Ms. Perl’s piece. Funnily enough, she seems to have gotten a very similar experience from the film that I got from the book - the comments on John Knightley, the irritation at Jane Fairfax, and the gradual coming to care for Emma herself in spite of her faults. And apparently Angry!Knightley didn’t bother her to badly.
(And side note - it was great fun to see Mark Strong recently as Septimus in Stardust, with exactly the same hairdo as his Knightley. But much more evil - though some might disagree with that assessment
March 25th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Reeba, I’m with you. The more often I read P&P, the less I like Elizabeth Bennet. I find her to be rather self-absorbed and vain, and she’s not as good a judge of character as she likes to think. As I’ve said before, she could learn a lot from the likes of Fanny Price, Anne Elliot and Elinor Dashwood.
But, back to the topic at hand.
I do actually prefer Gwyneth’s movie to Kate’s. I love Juliet Stevenson, Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law. I like Greta Scaatchi. I don’t hate Gwyneth, and I do like Jeremy Northam. I don’t like Mark Strong in the role of Mr. Knightley, and I don’t like Samantha Morton in anything. I think that pretty much covers it (oh, I don’t hate Alan Cumming as Mr. Elton — I think he is perfect for Juliet Stevenson’s Augusta).
March 26th, 2008 at 1:11 am
In this most recent broardcast of Davies’ version of Emma I spent a lot of time listening to Mrs Elton’s accent and finally picked up a few of the sounds that suggested it was really supposed to be a west country brogue. In previous viewings I had only heard it as some kind of North American accent (forgive me, I grew up in Britain - but I believe I was not alone in this conclusion). Now, for a real west country piece of delight stay tuned for the upcoming Sense and Sensibility - the actress playing Anne Steele chatters away with just the right rustic burr.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:50 am
So Lucy Robinson was trying to sound the way Anne Steele does? I never would have guessed. Seriously.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:22 am
MAGS said: There were a couple of places where they practically have blinking subtitles saying FRANK AND JANE ARE SECRETLY ENGAGED!!! It’s a bit much.
Point taken, MAGS. The only defense I have for the movie maker creating such obvious hints about Jane’s and Frank’s relationship is that so many friends of mine see a movie only once. This practice puzzles me, since I revisit favorite movies all the time.
I am loving this discussion about the Emmas, and I’m with all the folks who like their M. Knightley darkly. In her blog, Jim and Ellen Have a Blog Too, Ellen Moody thinks Mark Strong’s Mr. Knightley is fairly close to abusive. It’s an interesting read, and adds to this debate.
I used to love the 1996 Miramax movie more, but I could barely stomach viewing Gwyneth’s tepid, lady-like version of Emma when I viewed my copy of the movie the other night. I have gotten so much enjoyment from Kate’s more practical, robust interpretation of Emma, that the 1996 Miramax version seemed strangely sanitized and sweet.
In addition, while I used to adore Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley, he is too short for the part of the tall, firm, and upright figure that Jane describes. Jeremy barely tops Gwyneth, whereas Mark towers over Kate.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:07 am
The NY Times interviewed Kate Beckinsale way back when Emma was first aired over here. She seemed very confident in her take on the character and didn’t like Paltrow’s interpretation. This is her comment:
“I think her portrayal was a bit dippy, I have to say,” Ms. Beckinsale said. ”Obviously she’s terribly pretty and very rosy looking, but it was a bit silly. I really don’t believe that there’s only one interpretation of anything, but I personally wouldn’t have chosen to do it like that. I wouldn’t want to waste a good character on it.”
Gotta agree with her, personally
She also made an interesting comment about Emma 2 as an adaptation:
‘Ms. Beckinsale said that she felt that ”Emma” No. 1 took so many liberties with the novel that it robbed the title character of motivation. ”They had Emma going off in a pony trap on her own, doing archery and running about,” she said. ”But she wouldn’t have to do matchmaking if she was allowed to have this permanent activity holiday. The main reason for her deep obsession with other people’s relationships is that she’s so stultified in her environment.”’
For anyone interested, here’s the link to the article:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E2DD1E3CF935A
(I hope the link works, I had trouble cutting and pasting it in.)
March 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Drat, I don’t know why I can’t get the link to work. Anyway, the article is entitled: The Other Emma Confidently Makes Her Case and it was published in the NY Times Feb. 16, 1997.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I was also struck by Knightley’s (Mark Strong’s) angry shouting. I saw an adaptation of Jane Eyre at the Guthrie Theater in the fall, and Rochester was played like that. All in one emotional register: loud and angry. It seemed wrong for both of them, although I can at least understand Rochester’s anger. Tobey Stephens brought some subtlety and peculiar charm to Rochester (along with the good looks) to balance his bitterness. But Knightley’s anger seemed uncalled for. In those scenes with Emma, it seems to me we need to feel that he’s right without feeling that he’s overbearing. He was far more pleasant and understanding toward Harriet and Jane than he was toward Emma. Oh, he’s nice to everyone else but me. I think I’ll marry him. It’s kind of a weakness in a version of Emma when you have trouble seeing what she sees in Mr. Knightley.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:49 am
1. >Ms. Beckinsale said that she felt that ”Emma” No. 1 took so many liberties with the novel that it robbed the title character of motivation. ”They had Emma going off in a pony trap on her own, doing archery and running about,”
Really, Ms Beckinsale????!!!! And your version has taken no liberties???!!!!
-Changing dialogues to mean exactly the opposite;
Towards the end in the book FC says - what an impudent dog I was! - and not I am
-Your extremely immodest declaration to the whole room that you would like to marry a man like FC whereas the Emma in the book only thinks this.
- And Mr. Knightley’s blasphemous utterance about Emma’s character;
*But her character….!!!!* sez he.
In the book Mr. K is only concerned with part of her character;
Considering how very handsome she is, she appears to be little occupied with it; her vanity lies another way.
He isn’t labelling her as having a character which is suspect.
First time viewers would definitely get that idea, especially as this is said in the same scene where you, KB, make the above declaration.
-How fashionably you are dressed!! - a big big change from the Emma of the book - who is so unfashionable that she still wears pockets which fashionable women wouldn’t have been seen dead in.
AND you should have given those hats to Mrs. Elton!!!
(There’s a lot, lot more)
2. >I really don’t believe that there’s only one interpretation of anything,
Emma is supposed to be naturally cheerful and with a happy disposition
So you think your interpretation of the aboove as mean, unsmiling, and dour most of the time is *another* way of interpreting it??!! LOL!!!
I still feel cold when I remember your look - at Mr. Elton leaving Highbury when you are on your way to Harriet’s, the look you give Robert Martin at Abbey Mill farm - which incidentally is *not* in the book, and the way you scowl and utter your dialogues when Harriet first mentions the proposal letter.
You should have gone to tend to the poor and sick to redeem yourself.
GP did that - and so well too!!
And you know! It’s in the book. No change there. No sir! None at all.
Just like in the book showing compassion AND kindness
3.>“I think her portrayal was a bit dippy, I have to say,” Ms. Beckinsale said. ”Obviously she’s terribly pretty and very rosy looking, but it was a bit silly.
Emma *is* silly sometimes. That’s the point!!!! Or *Nonsensical* - in Mr. Knightley’s words.
You should have tried that!!
March 26th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
oops! Forgot my last comment on your comments, KB!!!
4.>The main reason for her deep obsession with other people’s relationships is that she’s so stultified in her environment.”’
..As compared to ….err .. all the other Regency women?? Women who had changing environment all the time???
..Or as compared to todays women??
In chapter 1 she sits there thinking of being ’stultified’ in the days ahead - because Miss Taylor has married and gone away.
This means she didn’t feel stultified till then.
Several chapters later she confesses - it was not like that at all!!
Oh! I forgot!! Of course you interpreted that as being stultified
She was very involved at home.
-with her nephews, who visit her.
Did you know she made that lovely alphabet game by hand and wrote the alphabets lovingly herself?
-running her home!! She may not do the work herself, but tell that to a manager.
-morally supporting her father
-visiting the poor and sick
That she was doing the above because there was no other way is nowhere mentioned in the book.
In fact Emma enjoys being mistress of her own home as she says so herself.
She interfered because she thought *she knew best* - her vanity, you see??!!!
March 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I am sorry you dislike this version, but I don’t think that liking it is the mark of a lesser Janeite. Emma is my favorite of the novels as well, so I think there is room for legitimate disagreement in interpretation here.
1. I don’t think that Kate Beckinsale was saying that her film took no liberties. She is merely taking issue with an interpretational choice – and her own interpretation is one that is supported by many others in essays both academic and otherwise, such as Roger Gard in Jane Austen’s Novels: The Art of Clarity.
2. The degree of Frank’s redemption is questionable. Some think that he is completely reformed by the end, but others, like Alistair M. Duckworth in The Improvement of the Estate believe that he is significantly morally inferior. Some argue that Emma and Mr. Knightley’s comments on his letter indicate his reformation, but I think Jane Austen was really pointing out her main characters’ sense of charity, and later, when Emma talks with Frank, she thinks how fortunate she is to marry someone of greatly superior character. Thus, Frank’s acknowledgement of his continuing impudence seems very reasonable to me.
3 &4. “She always declares she will never marry” - Emma, chapter 5. I note here the “always declares” which implies to me that she is not averse to saying such things in public, or at least to intimate gatherings like the Weston’s Christmas party. As to marrying Frank, I think that the intimacy of the gathering makes the scene work for me. Additionally, I’ve always seen Mr. Knightley in the book as desperately jealous of Frank, and his anger in the film seems to me to portray that perfectly. Emma’s declaration in his hear of her dreams of Frank help to motivate that jealousy. J. F. Burrows, in his monograph on “Jane Austen’s Emma” and later in his fascinating study Computation into Criticism: A Study of Jane Austen’s Novels argues strongly that instead of being the infallible paragon of virtue many claim he is, Mr. Knightley is a very fallible human man desperately in love with Emma, and out of jealousy criticizing and upbraiding her. “I have blamed you, and lectured you, and you have borne it as no other woman in England would have borne it.” Emma, chapter 49. This quotation implies to me that at least part of his criticism he feels was unjust and overly harsh, which fits Mark Strong’s interpretation, and the specific instance you are quoting here – especially as it follows Emma’s declaration of interest in Frank, which spurs his jealously to fever pitch.
Additionally: blasphemous? The word means “impiously irreverent” or “profane” (source: Merriman Webster’s), and since I don’t think that Emma is God, any remark about her character can’t really be “impious” or “profane.”
4. I might partially agree with you about the hats. I think about half of them are very unflattering. But I do like her strawberry picking floppy one.
5. Do you disagree that there are multiple interpretations of books? I felt Kate Beckinsale was actually quite perky as a whole – from her first scene with Mr. Knightley where she smirks and teases him and comforts her father, to her little bounce as Mr. Elton rushes to London, to her good natured repartee with Mr. Knightley as he arrives in his carriage “for once as he ought,” to her delight at the ball, to her liking of Donwell and smiling at Mr. Knightley’s gentle put-down of Mrs. Elton, and finally her happiness in the final scenes. There are many times she is serious, mean, or unsmiling as well – but I don’t see Emma as smiling and cheerful in the book at all times either. I think her portrayal is more balanced that that.
6. I think Kate Beckinsale does portray silly – in many of the smiling scenes I mentioned above. Additionally, Knightley does call her “Nonsensical” in the film when he arrives in his carriage and she chides him about it. But I agree with her that Emma is not fundamentally a silly or shallow person.
7. As for Emma being stultified, I think the problem Kate Beckinsale (and Roger Gard, and many other readers) have seen is not that Emma herself thinks she is stultified, but that she thinks she is fine when she is not. Many of the activities you mention seem to be Emma living vicariously through others, instead of forming her own adult life and her own household. And while she doesn’t move out of Hartfield and form her own home until later, she is making strides toward growing up. Also, I think one aspect of her being stultified or bored is the fact that Emma is extremely intelligent, and there is only one person really who can match her intellectually – Mr. Knightley. Though she may have physical things to do, I don’t see them challenging or stimulating her mentally, which leads to an excess of intellectual and imaginative energy, which, when combined with her vanity and immaturity, leads to her meddling.
All in all, I think Kate Beckinsale’s comments make quite a bit of sense.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Dayum! What a lively discussion. Now I feel compelled to reread the book and rewatch the GP “Emma” to sort out all these ideas. Until then,
–Ms. Fly-on-the-Wall
March 26th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Paltrow’s Emma is a performance, Beckinsale’s is a person. Of all the Austen heroines portrayed in films, I feel that Beckinsale is most accurate and complex in showing me the young woman as she really would have been back in the time of the novel.
The very first scene — the turkey theft and the gunshot in the night, wakening Emma and drawing her to the window — shows her as a woman many men would like: rather than being flustered or frantic at being wakened by gunfire — surely a very unusual occurrence in the middle of the night on her own estate — she calmly goes to the window — an upper window — to look down to see what’s going on. This happens so early in the film — while the credits are still being shown — that its effect is almost entirely subconscious, because at such an early point in a film we don’t expect anything significant to be shown about the characters. Yet this moment is vital to setting Emma’s character and provides the reason why such a strong and rather overbearing Knightly (as portrayed by Strong) would love her. True, Knightly was not present at that moment, of course, but he would surely have known this about her, since he knew her her whole life and would have seen many other such moments for her to show her composure and confidence.
The very next morning we see her composed, happy for her beloved friend Miss Taylor, gently reproving her father, so unconcerned about the commotion of the night before that we forget it ourselves. Emma is genuinely happy for another person’s good fortune, and that quality — the ability to feel happy because someone else is happy — is a key element of a good character. Then we see Knightly arrive, and make the comment about a “troublesome” person, and we see Emma urgently concerned that her father not get the impression that he is the one being criticized, but that it is Emma herself, and we see Emma again concerned that another person not feel unhappy, and at the same time able to accept criticism of herself easily and with a laugh.
And then, through the film, Beckinsale takes us through so many different attitudes and emotions — her condescension and snobbery, her misjudgments, her feelings about them, etc., etc., the proposal scene, the harvest dinner scene, that she really has fulfilled the point of her comment on Paltrow’s performance: “I think [Paltrow’s] portrayal was a bit dippy … a bit silly. …. I wouldn’t want to waste a good character on it.” Beckinsale saw the potential in this rich character, and gives a performance that is really remarkable.
I enjoy the Patrow version very much, but it is fundamentally a different kind of movie than the Beckinsale version: a romantic comedy rather than a complex character study.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I´ve seen this Beckinsale Emma twice. The first time it struck me that Mr Knightley was SO ANGRY. I didn´t feel his charm though I love him in the book. The second time I was surprised that Emma was SO MEAN. Pretty, witty, yes, but mean?? Impolite?? They got them wrong.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Could a linguist, could a grammarian, could even a mathematician (Or even **an academician/acamedicians**) have seen what she did,…
I doubt very very much!!!!
Roger Gard, Alistair M Duckworth etc. etc…. But what do you think I Miller????
I mean … independent of them!!!
>I don’t think that Kate Beckinsale was saying that her film took no liberties. She is merely taking issue with an interpretational choice
Is she?? She’s practically tearing GP’s character to shreds. Now you see what I see in her personality that she brought to the screen??
1. So Frank’s redemption is in doubt.
No baddie gets a good girl!!! That doesn’t seem to be JA’s way. Unless Jane Fairfax’s character is in doubt. Is it??? Hmmm!! Must look into that.
Now I have to wait for Mr. Weston’s redemption!! He’s inferior to Mr. Knightley as well. Mr Perry Mr Coles can all stand in line.
3; >I note here the “always declares” which implies to me that she is not averse to saying such things in public,
Huh! Never realised ‘never marry’ is in the same sense of modesty as actually naming a man, a stranger at that and declaring herself. It may not bother you but I think there were limits in society then. Otherwise Mrs Weston should have come out herself and declared “Yes dear! That’s Mr Weston’s and my wish too.”
I don’t get this contradiction. Is Mr. Knightley *morally superior* as declared by ..ahem, the academicians and accepted by you…or is he not??’ Why should his fever pitch jealousy make him talk of Emma’s character? Oh, that impudent dog!!!
Blaming and lecturing is not the same as being harsh - with voice brow and thundering eyes.
Just check out John Carson in the 80s Emma to see how one can do all that without raising ones voice etc.
4. Huh!!! Emma’s strawberry picking floppy hat??’ Are you talking about the same Emma who sits in the fashion store of the town, FORD’s, and stares out from the door at the peaceful scene instead of checking out the latest in fashion in the shop???
5.>As for Emma being stultified, I think the problem Kate Beckinsale (and Roger Gard, and many other readers) have seen is not that Emma herself thinks she is stultified, but that ***she thinks she is fine when she is not.*** (emphasis is mine)
Well I am not listening to Roger Gard or anyone… BUT to JA and JA alone!!
she tells us about Emma that;
A mind lively and at ease, can do with seeing nothing, and can see nothing that does not answer.
She is fine. Very fine indeed!!!
Such is Emma for me!!!!
Yes, she is intelligent but so are other heroines.
Why should I listen to all these writers when JA herself has written that;
The real evils indeed of Emma’s situation were the power of having rather too much her own way, and a disposition to think a little too well of herself; these were the disadvantages which threatened alloy to her many enjoyments.
See?? She enjoyed herself, inspite of all this talk of boredom etc.
Unlike academicians I am not taking JA’s words with a pinch of salt.
The academicians come to results which get twisted and complicated when they mix their own intelligence with JA’s.
Me!! I am using **only** JA’s!!!
March 26th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I agree that Beckinsale’s Emma is a wonderful match for Strong’s Knightley. I think Strong got it perfectly, portraying a Knightley who is by turns, frustrated, delighted, disappointed, and besotted by Emma. I didn’t see him as angry at all, rather as a man in the throes of an emotional attachment he is still trying to figure out–and probably feeling real jealousy for the first time in his life.
KBs Emma is just perfect for me, she more than holds her own with Knightley and Frank, but her Emma for me really shows some vulnerability as she matures and realizes that she has not been as clear-eyed or perceptive as she’d like to think herself.
There are many funny moments in this production, but it is not an Emma played for laughs, which is just fine by me.
Paltrow notwithstanding, there are still many things I like about Emma 2, it just does not have the emotional resonance for me that Emma 3 does. (I will say I just adore Juliet Stevenson in Emma 2, but then I adore almost anything she does.)
I guess this discussion just proves once again that Austen, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder–or reader. Even ardent Janeites have to agree to disagree. But isn’t that one of the beauties of Austen–her ability to touch each reader in a unique way?
March 26th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Thanks to Edward Sisson and Maria L. for the inspired comments - well done, well done indeed. Like both of you, I enjoy both films, but I have a preference for the Davies/Beckinsale one. You’ve also helped me to articulate one of the things I’ve always thought about Paltrow’s work in Emma - she is performing, and beautifully. Her scene where she learns of Harriet’s love for Mr. Knightley is beautifully played, but it’s just that - played. My very great thanks to both of you.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
1. “I am using *only* JA”
a) My opinion is that expressed above - unless otherwise noted, I cite critics because I agree with them.
b) I certainly think Jane Austen is the first and last authority in such a discussion. However, if Jane Austen’s words were all that mattered, why talk to others? Why exchange ideas and opinions? Why exercise intelligence at all? As Austen herself noted:
“Seldom, very seldom, does complete truth belong to any human disclosure; seldom can it happen that something is not a little disguised, or a little mistaken.”
I think Jane Austen is noting that communication is complicated, that meaning is more than just the words spoken (or written on the page). That’s why I think that critics are worth reading, that it’s worth talking about with other people. Instead of “twisting” by using “intelligence,” I think that talking and reading about Jane Austen (and anything else) gives more perspectives, even if you end up disagreeing with them. In doing so, you can find new insights, and enjoy the sensation of “Oh, that’s just what I thought” when they agree with an insight you’ve already had. I think that discussion in community, which includes reading and writing criticism, is part of what makes us human.
c) I feel rather put down by your statements (”What do you think I Miller????” “I am not listening to Roger Gard or anyone… BUT to JA and JA alone!!” “Why should I listen to all these writers” “Unlike academicians I am not taking J’s words with a pinch of alt. The academicians come to results which get twisted and complicated when they mix their own intelligence with JA’s. Me!! I am using **only** JA’s!!!”). I don’t think that disagreeing with your personal interpretation makes me, or any of the posters here, or any of the people I cited lesser people or fans of Jane Austen.
2. “Now you see what I see in her personality that she brought to the screen??”
There’s a difference between not liking the character of Kate Beckinsale because she criticized Paltrow’s work and saying that Beckinsale claimed “her” version (really, Andrew Davies’ version) “took no liberties.” I agree that Beckinsale’s comments were a bit blunt, perhaps overly so, and that reading them might influence how you see her performance. But nowhere did she claim that her film was completely liberty-free.
3. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up Misters Weston, Cole, and Perry here.
4. “Otherwise Mrs Weston should have come out herself and declared “Yes dear! That’s Mr Weston’s and my wish too.”
You have a valid point here. Emma’s declaration never bothered me because I saw it as an adaptational choice - Davies attempting to put in an important note about Emma’s thoughts and Mr. Knightley’s jealousy. However, I understand why others dislike it.
5. “I don’t get this contradiction. Is Mr. Knightley *morally superior* as declared by ..ahem, the academicians and accepted by you…or is he not??”
When I say Mr. Knightley is morally superior to Frank, I do not mean that he is perfect. I don’t think that’s a contradiction. I like what Roger Gard has said - that Mr. Knightley is in generally a very upright and righteous man, but one of his few, and (to me) endearing weaknesses is his love for Emma, which causes him to act with less than his usual moral probity.
6. “Huh!!! Emma’s strawberry picking floppy hat??’ Are you talking about the same Emma who sits in the fashion store of the town, FORD’s, and stares out from the door at the peaceful scene instead of checking out the latest in fashion in the shop???”
I’m not sure what you are saying here - is the floppy hat fashionable? I didn’t think it was, I thought it was more just to keep the hot sun off her face. Also, I feel like I agreed with you (”I might partially agree with you about the hats. I think about half of them are very unflattering” in response to “AND you should have given those hats to Mrs. Elton!!!”) and you made fun of me for it.
7. “She is fine. Very fine indeed!!!”
The quote used here is part of Emma’s inner monologue at Ford’s, and I think it’s important to remember that Emma’s inner monologues are incredibly unreliable. Thus, while Emma might think to herself that she is fine, I don’t think we as readers can accept that Jane Austen intended us to believe her.
8. “Yes, she is intelligent but so are other heroines.”
I’m not certain what you are saying here. If you are saying that Emma’s intelligence is no different from Austen’s other heroines, I would disagree. The other heroines I see who have Emma’s intelligence are Elinor, Lizzy, Fanny, and Anne, and all of them except Fanny have an equally intelligent group of friends and family to turn to for intellectual stimulation. Emma is surrounded by too many flatterers, so her intelligence is not challenged except by Mr. Knightley.
9. “See?? She enjoyed herself, inspite of all this talk of boredom etc.”
I think Jane Austen, as noted above, knew of the ambiguities and pitfalls of language. While I certainly don’t discount (and have noted about) Emma’s other faults which lead to her meddling and near-fall, I think Jane Austen also includes a lot of things which are never stated explicitly, but are still intended by her. One of those things is Emma’s boredom. I cited other critics in this point to show that I’m not the only one who thinks this, so it’s not just my “intelligence” “twisting” Jane Austen’s words. Such a subtextual point is certainly debatable, and I don’t question that. However, I do think that it is a valid interpretation, and it helps enhance my understanding of Emma’s character.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:41 am
When one doesn’t understand a lot of what I have written - then I am done with this discussion.
But I would like to thank you for not referring to AD’s views while citing various people/acamedicians etc etc.
I love my hair on my head!!
March 27th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Well put, I Miller. I’ve enjoyed reading your insightful comments.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Thanks very much, I. Miller. The great thing about austenblog is that it gets us thinking about the characters and the stories and the performances, why they work as compared to other performances and approaches — I never recognized the key effect of the gunfire scene and Emma’s response until I sat down to think about composing a comment to add to this post, and then it suddenly struck me, and then I thought about how every single thing Emma (Beckinsale) does, until her encounter with Robert Martin, shows nothing but positive, generous, other-directed things about her character, intentions, and attitudes.
Her main criticism of Robert Martin — “totally without air,” i.e., the presence and effect of a gentleman — also captures the essence of what Beckinsale brings to the role: indubitably, she has “air.”
Beckinsale has another great performance where she shows this confident quality — her Ava Gardner in the Howard Hughes biopic The Aviator. The scene where she enters Hughes’ house during the period of his madness — entering a home in chaos and weirdness, large sections boundary-ed-off by long ropes or tape, crumpled kleenex tissues scattered everywhere, and she calmly walks in and says “love what you’ve done with the place” — priceless, the most memorable moment in the movie. And then she gets him organized, without batting an eye — this is the same young woman who when wakened by a midnight gunshot goes to the window as if wakened by nothing more than a sudden rainshower pattering against the window.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I do really love her Ava Gardner. I think it’s too bad most of her performances haven’t allowed her to show that kind or range. Actually, her performance in Emma has made her one of my favorite actresses, even though there’s very little else she’s in that I like.
I really like your analysis here - I never really considered her introduction, though I did like her little shrug. Just goes to show that you can learn new things every time you rewatch a Jane Austen film. Or reread her novels.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
>the gunshot in the night, wakening Emma and drawing her to the window
Emma in the wild west??
I’d love to see Emma do a Calamity Jane in a sequel!
Very remiss of Jane Austen to keep such things like violence (and sex) out of her books.
Still I do prefer Jane Austen’s way of showing a calm Emma during an emergency when it started snowing at Christmas Eve and they were all at Randalls and Mr. Woodhouse was flipping over.
GP’s Emma starts with a rotating globe - and I found the comment very apt - about a young woman who knew how this world should be run.
It nailed her character as mentioned in the book;
a disposition to think a little too well of herself;
That sets the ball rolling and one sees that as the film progresses.
Her acting during the confrontation with Mr. Knightley about Robert Martin’s proposal conforms to the book very well;
tried to look cheerfully unconcerned, but was really feeling uncomfortable
She never shows impatience with Harriet and I found that very pleasing.
And her visit to the sick woman reminds me of why I love Emma Woodhouse. GP has all the tenderness of a kind heart in that scene.Just like in the book
And I cannot not repeat that GP’s cheerfulness and show of a disposition which can be described with no other word but happpy is also straight out of the book.
Another example of nailing Emma’s character is towards the end when Mrs Weston discloses the news about FC’s engagement. Her regard for the Westons came before her own feelings and from one moment to the next you see her congratulating Mr Weston on his son’s engagement by calling him the luckiest father - reminding me once again why i just love the character of Emma.
Gwenyth Paltrow’s Emma satisfies so many qualities given in the book. Physically she can be supposed to have *the true hazel* eye though she has brown, but hazel eyes go with blond hair.
We know that Harriet is fond of clothes and very conscious of them while Emma is not. So we never see Emma eclipsing her by being dressed in the height of fashion.
Oh, this reminds me;
@I Miller
If we were on another website we would have been asked to take this discussion to email, but our very gracious editrix hasn’t complained yet, and I have the time to explain what you **didn’t** undersdtand.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
@I Miller
>3. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up Misters Weston, Cole, and Perry here.
That was sarcasm. Not anywhere even close to JA, I know, therefore easier to understand I thought.
I am sure a lot of men would fail to reach Mr K’s high standards, not just FC alone.
>6. I’m not sure what you are saying here - is the floppy hat fashionable?
OK, I wrote - “Huh!!! Emma’s strawberry picking floppy hat??’ because in this statement I read a sidestepping from the real issue. Which was Emma being portrayed as being fashionable. The hats were fine. In S&S95 Elinor wears one like it when riding her horse with Edward. My point was that it was too fashionable for Emma.
>>8. I’m not certain what you are saying here.
I wrote - “Yes, she is intelligent but so are other heroines.”
This answer was to your comment in an earlier post;
>>I think one aspect of her being stultified or bored is the fact that Emma is extremely intelligent, and there is only one person really who can match her intellectually – Mr. Knightley.
How many persons did Lizzy, Anne, or Elinor have to match them intellectually??
Why should it effect Emma that she has only one person to match her intelligence with? Thus my comment;
“Yes, she is intelligent but so are other heroines.”
Did Darcy interfere because he was intelligent and bored??
Did Mrs. Jennings interfere because she was not intelligent and bored?
Those times were such!!!
And that’s the reason I don’t like to read critics with their modern psychologically analysed opinion and knowledge.
One needs to feel those times!!
I find the remarks like - she was bored - very very modern.
What did the other heroines do the whole day????
As for Emma not being fine. I always thought it was Lizzy who was not fine with her remarks about being unhappy with the world.
That’s something I can never agree with.
I have my points and support from the book, but if all support from the book is going to be rubbished as Emma’s unreliable (!!!???) thoughts and hidden meanings and subtexts and what have you just because JA happened to say;
“Seldom, very seldom, does complete truth belong to any human disclosure; seldom can it happen that something is not a little disguised, or a little mistaken.”
then there is no point in discussing.
I say - don’t read the book at all - just make up your own story!!! Because **just anything** can be fitted as *subtext*, *hidden meaning*, *unreliable words* because the book says this but means that.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Re: Emma’s intelligence – I mentioned what you’ve clarified in my response, and my answer to your argument is contained in that hypothetical.
I don’t think I “rubbished” any of your quotations from the book. The one quote I mentioned as being unreliable I qualify by saying that Emma is a potentially (not necessarily) unreliable narrator. That’s only one instance, and only a possibility. And I don’t think anyone takes issue with the idea that Emma is sometimes deluded.
I think there’s room for more than one reading, both supported by the text. I don’t have a problem with you having your reading, and I think it’s fine for me to have mine. After all, it would be quite dull if we all thought the same, wouldn’t it?
March 28th, 2008 at 6:32 am
>And I don’t think anyone takes issue with the idea that Emma is sometimes deluded.
In the scene I quoted??
Is she not standing at the door of Ford’s while Harriet is busy with ribbons and muslins inside??
Is the village scene described a hallucination?
This passage I quoted is one of my favourites in the whole of literaturedom. Peace radiates from the very words one reads and can feel what Emma is feeling.
Why should Emma delude herself that she is at peace there and is absorbed in the scene outside?
Emma like Catherine Morland is delusional yes. She deludes herself about Harriet’s origins, about Elton’s interest in Harriet, about Jane Fairfax and Mr. Dixon – but even Catherine Morland is given credit for what she feels.
And I think her comment about not marrying is not delusional either.
It is just a comment of a very (overly) self assured woman. Lots of young girls say that even today in countries where marriage is considered necessary, because they are all starry eyed about a profession and independence in future.
It is a stage.
I think Emma’s *feelings* of peace, happiness, sadness, remorse, compassion, etc are genuine. Like all normal people.
Otherwise she’s a severe case for the couch. But only for one from her era, because the psychoanalyst would know how to slot her feelings into the different thoughts and feelings of that time.
Err… perhaps she’s deluding herself that she feels superior to Robert Martin. Actually she doesn’t. She’s deluding herself that she doesn’t like Jane and Miss Bates, she loves them really.
Maybe the whole story is of Emma deluding herself and actually she’s James’ daughter.
You may think I am making fun of you, but I’m not.
I’m trying to point out how her flaws are made much of, but the beautiful quality in her of being at peace in the simplicity of what she’s observing is being considered delusional here.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Reeba, I am so impressed! I knew I preferred the GP Emma, and you have pointed out so many reasons why. Brava!
March 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
You raise many good points, and Emma’s peace here should be taken very seriously. However, that’s not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that the whole reason to discuss a great book like Emma is to explore other points of view, whether or not we agree with them.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
>a great book like Emma is to explore other points of view,
Sure! That’s what we were doing weren’t we???
And after exploring other points of view I found that I do not agree with most(?) of yours and the critics you cited.
Is that not allowed when exploring views?
I am not saying my views are right - I am just standing by them till some views convince me otherwise.
Unfortunately yours didn’t.
Emma and Northanger Abbey are both a passion with me.
My views and responses are therefore passionate. No lukewarm views here.
It was a great discussion I. Miller. I have enjoyed it very much.
Thanks a lot.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I really liked the very first line of the The Jane Austen Book Club; that “each of us has our own private Austen”. I’ll take it a step further and suggest that it’s through ‘her’ eyes (i.e., the one that’s gotten nestled deep inside our own minds and personalities after reading and re-reading her work) that we understand and interpret the books. Reeba, you’ve brought up some points that are very interesting, but I think you’re also missing one of the most important points that I think I. Miller is/was trying to make.
You say you are “not listening to Roger Gard or anyone or any other critics… BUT to JA and JA alone!!”. What you forget, perhaps, is that each and every one of those people - and all of us here - have also been starting from the very same source in forming their ideas, impressions and opinions. Our reading of the texts that JA wrote. The genius of her work is that it seems deceptively simple on the surface, but can also be delicately, yet still incredibly, complex underneath. It is an awareness and keen enjoyment of this, in my experience, that separates those who are truly passionate about her writing from those who simply ‘like’ it, seeing it merely as romantic Regency era stories of girls looking for husbands that always have happy endings.
I think you yourself must agree that Austen was a very subtle and, especially, ironic writer (which is different from sarcastic). And the more subtlety and irony there is, the more open it is to different interpretations. To paraphrase what Mr Darcy said of Elizabeth, I think Austen “delighted in professing opinions that were not her own”.
As an example, at the beginning of P&P she clearly and flatly states “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a fortune, must be in want of a wife”. She ’says’ that with a very straight face - as if it’s the most widely accepted thing in human existance, but we who love the way she writes knows she is shaking her head and laughing at the machinations of all the mothers and daughters of her time who very seriously, singlemindedly and at the cost of all else took upon themselves the duty of fulfilling that very need.
That kind of irony comes out clearly in many passages of her books and, as you read and re-read her work, some people can’t help but thinking they also see it - less obviously perhaps - in other passages, and wonder what other kinds of subtle messages and complexities could be hidden in there. That is what the whole business of JA critics is all about. They are not trying to define exactly what she meant, just exploring what the possibilities could be to give us food for thought that might lead to a deeper understanding and better appreciation of what she as an author achieved.
And each and every one of them - just like you - started by listening to “JA and JA alone”, and how they reacted to her work. Later they probably went into her personal letters, which are absolutely wonderful and which definitely gave ME more insight into why, how, and the way she wrote. Have you ever read them? Then later, you exchange views with other people who are also passionate about Jane. Some you might agree with, some not, but here and there you pick up a comment or nugget of knowledge which gives you new insight or makes you appreciate her even more.
Jane Austen is not speaking alone into your private ear, Reeba. She speaks into the ears of everyone who reads her works. And we all interpret them in our own ways depending on our mindsets, our personalities, and to the extent of our familiarity with her life and times. One of the reasons I love Austenblog - AND the critics - so much, is because what you hear and read can add so much to your own store of knowledge and appreciation. You don’t have to take everything at face value, of course, but you could come across new things that you had never thought about.
And that’s the main thing I wanted to pinpoint in regards to your… well, I won’t call it an argument, but your confrontation with I. Miller. YOU are absolutely entitled to your own interpretation of what she wrote, but she is not speaking into your ear alone. She is also speaking into ours, and we are equally entitled.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
KaranLee, I can see the reason for your confrontational post here.
so that all that I have written and expressed till now looks nothing like opinion, but something else, something that you wish it to.
You want to attack me with delusional accusations
I think you should go back and read my posts. Especially the highlighted part of my last post.
You are fighting other people’s battle here and this blog is not meant for that.
You should go back to your site (I think you have one) and stop this.
I am not going to encourage you in your attack or misuse of this blog by answering any of your accusations.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
PS:
And I maintain that I listen to JA and JA alone - which in no way implies that others do not - but if I Miller quotes other critics for support then I need to mention it. Since to me they seem to be listening to themselves.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I think JA and JA alone is a very good FUP!!
It sounds great!!! A good name for a blog!!! A JA magazine!!! What about a T-shirt - ‘I listen to JA and JA alone!!!
LOL
March 29th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Thanks Julie P
March 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I’m sorry you experienced my post as an ‘attack’. It was not meant to be so. Actually, all I wanted to point out was that people do have different opinions. And, of course, you yourself have just emphasized that you are well aware that what you have written and expressed until now is just that - your opinion. I’m glad to read that. It’s just that you don’t seem to have that much patience with other people’s opinions if they don’t match with their own.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Oops, sorry, I meant if they don’t match your own…
March 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
>I’m sorry you experienced my post as an ‘attack’. It was not meant to be so.
This sums up everything!!!
Everything we write here is ones opinion).
So we are clear about;
I have misunderstood you.
You have misunderstood me.
You did not attack.
I did not say I was expressing anything but my opinion.
( Though how one could think otherwise is beyond me - I didn’t even cite any analytical critics
And yet while you seem to be conciliatory you leave with another attack on my person by saying I have no patience with other people’s remarks.
Ever heard of a rebuttal???
I enjoy that.
Why are you intolerant of my way of enjoying a discussion?
Why must I do it the way you approve of?’
March 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Sorry that should read ‘other people’s opinion.’
March 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Just to explain the meaning of *rebuttal*, because I am not sure what it could mean in American English.
*rebuttal*; as in a debate.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but I’d really like it if we could turn this discussion back towards where it started off - the merits of the different Emma versions.
March 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Agreed.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:10 am
And I would love to take the whole *clique* (guys
from your site) on again! 
AD’s views, his Emma and his NA are my favourite subjects.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Thank you, Karenlee.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Karenlee, your post #85 was thoughtful and well put.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:12 am
The expectations of the viewer re an adaptation — what do we expect, what do we require, what do we want — have a major influence on our reaction, imo. When I was younger (lo these many years ago!), I thought films which adapted novels had to be 100% faithful to the book: imagine my surprise when I first saw the Garson/Olivier version of P&P.
Now I understand that a novel cannot, generally, be translated to film verbatim (especially when the narrator has such a strong “voice,” as is true in JA’s books).
These days, I expect a re-telling, a translation if you will, of the novel into the audio-visual medium; I require that the principal characters and the principal elements of the plot be recognizable; and I want to experience the story in a way that is familiar, but allowing for the possibility of something new. (Not too picky, am I?!)
So, I like each of 3 Emma adaptations: for giving me a visual (and spoken & musically enhanced) translation of the story; for keeping the principal plot elements & the principal characters as I know them from the novel; and allowing me to experience some of what I experience when I read the novel. Emma1 gives the most complete version of the story and more of the characters; Emma2 has the most beautiful cinematography and a lovely soundtrack; and Emma3 matches the tone of the novel as I experience it when I read the novel.
Emma3 has several scenes which I find exceptional: (i) Mr Knightley cutting Mr Elton and then asking Harriet to dance; (ii) Miss Bates’s monologue throughout the beginning of the Box Hill outing (& though I agree that Sophie Thompson’s Miss Bates was brilliant, I actually prefer Prunella Scales’s version); (iii) Emma & Mr Knightley sharing a private joke at Mrs Elton’s expense at the beginning of the Donwell strawberry party; (iv) Mr Woodhouse’s initial reaction to Emmas engagement toMr Knightley (Bernard Hepton does an excellent job with just a few facial gestures of presenting Mr Woodhouse’s fears & trepidations). There are several other scenes that I also like, but this will give a flavour.
This is one of my favourite of all the JA adaptations, and I have watched it a number of times — and just like re-reading the novel, I see something new to enjoy on each re-viewing.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I love beating a dead horse
And wanted to write the 100th post!
And my clique includes only me!! LOL!! (I don’t have a site, you see)
!!!!
So, in support of me, all I will say is that your claws in silk gloves (post no. 85 which was designed to attack me) when asking me if I had read the letters by JA reminded me of a similar attack - elsewhere
March 30th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Oh, No!!!!! I thought I was the 100th
And i see the dead horse getting up!! YAY!!!
March 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Kathy, I do love the look that Emma and Knightley share when she mentions the chicken thieves to her father. “But we shall be alone at night” — heh, heh.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I’ve always thought that the Beckinsale/Strong Emma and Knightley might have some passionate disagreements from time to time even during their subsequent marriage, but that they’d also have a lot fun kissing and making up!
March 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The GP version was the first adaptation of Emma I’d ever seen, and that was only once when it first came out. I fell so immediately in love with the Beckinsale version, I never felt any urge to revisit the other. Maybe I should though, to remind myself of what I did - and didn’t - like about it. All that comes to mind is that I thought the costumes and settings were fantastic, almost too much so - it was just so darn shiny; the Emma meeting Frank Churchill when stranded in the middle of the river also disgruntled me, and as dearly as I love Toni Collette, she was just wrong, wrong, wrong as Harriet Smith. But perhaps I shall give it another go just for the heck of it.
A number of folks here are also enthusiastic about an earlier version I hadn’t been aware of. Must go look that one up too!
March 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
GP Emma was on television last night. I came in during the Box Hill picnic. Sophie Thompson really is a treat, and I do love Juliet Stevens’ snark about not enough lace.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Karenlee — I don’t think you will be disappointed with the earlier Emma adaptation. It really does do a good job of telling the whole story, AND it has by far the best Mr Woodhouse ever. (There will never be a better one, imho.)
I agree about the shiny quality of the Paltrow adaptation (I call it the “golden sunshine yellow” quality), but I did like some of the romantic aspects. And Rachel Portman’s soundtrack is really very nice: I have the CD and listen to it from time to time. I say re-watch it and listen for the music, if nothing else interests you (not even Jeremy Northam’s very handsome Mr Knightley??).
I do agree about the portrayal of Harriet, however. Part of the problem is that Toni Collette was miscast, but a bigger problem (for me) is how they wrote the part. It’s one thing to have Harriet be naive and a bit dim, but I really hated how they made her physically clumsy as well. They also didn’t emphasize Harriet’s prettiness, imo, which is one of the reasons Emma gets involved with her to begin with.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
There are so many wonderful things about the Godwin/Carson Emma. Excellent Mr. Elton, Mrs. Elton and Frank Churchill. On the downside, Jane Fairfax is not to my liking - and if Harriet bobbed and said “yes, Miss Woodhouse” one more time, I think even Emma would have lost al patience with her. And special honorable mention goes to Mr. Knightley’s hat at Box Hill.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I like adaptations where the principal character is not tampered much with - at least not negatively.
KB’s Emma though has lovely music, lovely colour, even Mr. K I don’t mind - he does look handsome - though I dislike his angry scenes. Emma has a negative aura through most of the run of the film.
In the beginning, Emma hears a gunshot and we see her at the window. She shrugs carelessly.
Is that an expectation of a viewer from not only Emma but from anybody?? For goodness’ sake, somebody could have been shot!!
So we are introduced to an Emma who is very unconcerned, shrugging her shoulders.
How difficult is it to bring to the screen what is in the book with this very scene?? Emma running to see how her father is doing. Remember the gypsy incident?’
Emma’s first resolution was to keep her father from the knowledge of what had passed, aware of the anxiety and alarm it would occasion:
Pitting a mousy Harriet alongside a fashionable Emma strengthens the negative aura around Emma.
In this pairing, GP’s Em did a better job (even if one doesn’t like that Harriet, she’s plump and well dressed), and E1 did the best.
How difficult is it to interpret the novel’s Harriet who is very fond of clothes? She’s not poor and has a generous allowance. She is mentioned buying ribbons, making bonnets, and visiting a lady who makes gowns, just before she meets Robert Martin – at Ford’s .(I know she went in there for shelter). I am quite amused with I was so miserable! I am sure I must have been as white as my gown.
A tampered ending. I don’t mind the harvest scene and the dance , but Emma FC scene in the book shows her treating FC generously – being kind and forgiving. The unresolved ending in this adaptation robs Emma of this opportunity, and shows her animosity towards him while he’s sleazing over Jane Fairfax’s neck.
Not showing them at all would have been better as in GP’s Emma.
This Emma satisfied the typical cliché – rich girls are fashionable.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Part of the problem is that Toni Collette was miscast, but a bigger problem (for me) is how they wrote the part. It’s one thing to have Harriet be naive and a bit dim, but I really hated how they made her physically clumsy as well.
As much miscast as the one in KB’s Emma.
If one is clumsy, the other is mousy, not the kind of Harriet with pretty looks, as you yourself have mentioned.
Harriet in GP’s Emma stands up for Robert Martin as in the book. I liked that spunkiness in her.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I find Samantha Morton a very pretty Harriet. She’s my favorite Harriet.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Karen 2L — after the look Emma & Mr Knightley share (following the “But we are alone at night” line), I really enjoy how Mr Knightley looks again at Emma whilst she tells her father about the chicken thieves. At first, it seems as though Mr Knightley is wondering where Emma is going with this line of persuasion, then he gets it and seems to be thinking, “How clever my Emma is!” Even though I really like the proposal scene, this scene seems more romantic to me, and also very real.
AND
Maria L — I totally agree with you regarding the Beckinsale/Strong Emma and Knightley having a passionate relationship (both in arguments and in making up).
March 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Kathy,…and he looks so nice by candlelight.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
oops!! I meant to quote Kathy E in the first paragraph of my post above.
>There are so many wonderful things about the Godwin/Carson Emma.
I agree Karen 2L. I love this adaptation, and it is my favourite.
The minor characters are the best ever.
Never saw a more true to the description -in -the -book character as this.
And Mr. Woodhouse!¨A true emaciated sickly looking one especially when compared to the healthy looking one of KB’s Emma and I won’t even mention