Jane Austen discussion
This topic is about
Emma
Austen on Film
>
Yet Another Emma and a Clueless Remake
BTW, DebGK, that's an excellent point about the script presuming familiarity with the book. While watching it I found myself wondering whether someone who hadn't read the book would get the point of various significant bits that flashed by very quickly--and your husband answered that question!
DebGK wrote: "I saw Emma yesterday. It was a bit tedious - it’s as if they wrote the script with the assumption that people already know the plot and story, so they didn’t bother to tell it. My husband didn’t kn..."I couldn't agree more. You're spot on.
Emma is available for early home viewing as of today (Verizon Fios), however, the price is more than a movie ticket so I STILL can't see it until the price comes down. I heard the costumes are exquisite and based on period garments.
I liked the women's costumes but felt the men's were a bit off; will be interested to hear your thoughts.
Abigail wrote: "I liked the women's costumes but felt the men's were a bit off; will be interested to hear your thoughts."I agree - the idea that Mr Knightley would ever go around in dandyish high, stiff collars made me want to throw something. This is really exemplary of the way the movie treats the original characters: here is an opportunity to show that Mr Knightley is not a fashionable man, but a man of sense and of the country. And what do they do? They say, "hell no, who would fancy him if he wasn't a histrionic young man at the height of fashion?"
The fashion in this movie is nice to look at, but it doesn't aide the telling of the story, any more, IMO than the rest of the visuals. They're there, they're all nice to look at, they're pointless.
Emilia wrote: "Abigail wrote: "I liked the women's costumes but felt the men's were a bit off; will be interested to hear your thoughts."I agree - the idea that Mr Knightley would ever go around in dandyish hig..."
I agree. The women's costumes were lovely and Emma's dresses showed her wealth and class, but Mr. Knightley's were odd. I didn't much like his portrayal anyway. I understand that a film has to spell things out that the book implies, but all that dashing about and flopping down on the floor was just bizarre!
I wish film-makers would use some of those exquisite little gestures through which Austen could convey so much, like Mr. Knightley raising Emma's hands almost to his lips, or, in Persuasion, Captain Wentworth removing the boisterous little boy off Anne's back as she kneels by the sick child's sofa.
Anjali wrote: "I wish film-makers would use some of those exquisite little gestures through which Austen could convey so much, like Mr. Knightley raising Emma's hands almost to his lips, or, in Persuasion, Captain Wentworth removing the boisterous little boy off Anne's back as she kneels by the sick child's sofa."Yes exactly!
I did not manage to watch the film before the theatres here closed because of coronavirus but I am not sure I want to after all, despite some very positive reviews I have read. I have just watched the proposal scene on YT (I know - but I have never been one to avoid spoilers) and I thought it awful! I am also not sure about the actor who played Mr. Knightley (judging by the little I saw of him) - to me he seems miscast (just as Billie Piper was in MP 2007).
I think I will give this one a pass.
"This Emma was unlikable. She treats Miss Bates with contempt throughout. You never see the charm that Gwyneth Paltrow portrayed in spite of her character’s foibles. We know her heart is always in the right place, but this Emma is a snob."Emma in the book is very unlikable. Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Beckinsale, and especially Romola Garai were charm themselves. this made the movies very enjoyable, but very different from the Emma of the book.
Yes, this Emma is a snob, but I feel that's true to the story. Other adaptations have tried to make her more likable, but in the book Emma is always going on about everyone else's "place" in society and whether they possess "elegance of mind." It's not just a single episode of hatefulness. She has a lot to learn before she can develop any generosity of spirit, and making her too charming erases that development arc. This version still shows her kindness toward her father's foibles, though I might have added a scene of her bringing aid to the poor instead of Mr. Knightley falling on the floor.The thing that bothered me the most about the men's costumes was the colors--ugh! Very non-period.
This is so interesting because I actually had the opposite impression of this Emma (2020). I felt she was softened considerably from the book Emma. Especially the ending with Harriet is portrayed much more warmly and their friendship much more real and deep-felt than it is in the book. Garai’s Emma struck me as the closest to the book: a managing character who is deeply lonely, who has all the characteristics of a manager and an organiser but not the knowledge of the world and understanding that come with age, maturity and experience (hence Mr Knightley and why he is necessary to her). She is a snob, that’s true, and deeply flawed, but she learns that that’s what she was and she grows.
Paltrow’s Emma was indeed too charming and rather more of a rom com character than an Emma Woodhouse.
I have only seen Kate Beckinsale’s Emma once but I recall her being quite good. Sharper than the other Emmas (and that Knightley was a bit of a stormy fellow too if I recall correctly).
That’s certainly true about her relationship with Harriet! And Harriet shows more spunk than in the book.
Emilia wrote: "This is so interesting because I actually had the opposite impression of this Emma (2020). I felt she was softened considerably from the book Emma. Especially the ending with Harriet is portrayed m..."Yes, Anna Taylor-Joy was softened from the book, but still thought she was the truest of all of them. I looked at the Romola Garai version right after it. and I thought she was adorable, which the book Emma certainly is not! It's funny how people's impressions can differ! I think Jonny-Lee Miller's Mr. Knightly was the truest, followed by Jeremy Northam who I had a major crush on. Mark Strong was certainly the sexiest! Was not impressed by 2020 Knightly as all!
I've probably said it before but I think Emma (the book) is treated more kindly by adaptations than any of the others. They all seem to be watchable and with likable main character actors. My favourite is still the 1972 version.I haven't seen the new one yet, if I'm going to pay £15.99 to watch it on my non-cinema like TV, I at least want the DVD/blu-ray to keep.
From things I'd heard I had almost given up on it, but one of the people I follow online (Emma Fyffe) really seemed to like it and she feels connected to the story of Emma so now I'm back to thinking I should give it a try.
Louise Sparrow wrote: "From things I'd heard I had almost given up on it, but one of the people I follow online (Emma Fyffe) really seemed to like it and she feels connected to the story of Emma so now I'm back to thinking I should give it a try."I think that you all should see it, anyway, and make up your own minds :) Then come back here and let us know what you thought!
I know we all feel strongly about Austen novels, but that's the fun of adaptations, right? To see them, to love them or to loath them and to have a fun community with whom to discuss it afterwards!
In some ways it's easier to pick apart the objectionable bits than to appreciate the good stuff. I thought the script was excellent and the language very close to the book--and that's rare among adaptations. And it was very beautiful to look at!
Abigail wrote: "In some ways it's easier to pick apart the objectionable bits than to appreciate the good stuff. I thought the script was excellent and the language very close to the book--and that's rare among ad..."That's exactly it! The bits that didn't fit my vision of the book rattled me, but while watching it, my daughter and I both enjoyed the film, including a couple of deviations/ additions. It did seem, though, that we were the only ones who giggled at the comic moments, leading me to wonder how suitable it is for those who haven't read the book.
Yes someone mentioned this earlier in the thread - the way the plot was handled would have, I think, made it confusing for those who didn’t know the story already. Humour-wise, I have to say, it didn’t work for me. But this is wholly subjective! There weren’t many laughs in the room at my showing, although the lady sitting next to me did gasp a few times which I found funny... I think Kermode (British film critic) said he thought it was hilarious. Clearly YMMV!
Emilia wrote: "Abigail wrote: "I liked the women's costumes but felt the men's were a bit off; will be interested to hear your thoughts."I agree - the idea that Mr Knightley would ever go around in dandyish hig..."
Yes to all of this.
Emilia wrote: "I think that you all should see it, anyway, and make up your own minds :) Then come back here and let us know what you thought!I know we all feel strongly about Austen novels, but that's the fun of adaptations, right? To see them, to love them or to loath them and to have a fun community with whom to discuss it afterwards!
That's how I've always felt about them yes, I know you are right. And I have a favourite version of Emma so I don't need this one to be good...
The reason I am hesitating is that I belong to a number of fandoms whose latest incarnations are moving further and further away from the source material, and not I feel, respectfully. It's causing a lot of bad feelings in those fandoms (on both sides of the fence). I've got to the point where I'm wondering if I want to watch anything else that I care about... stepped on?
Sanditon might have added to that feeling somewhat.
I finally go to see Emma. The price dropped to $5.99 for an HD Pay per View so my dad agreed to rent it. I enjoyed it very much but it's not my favorite adaptation. Anya Taylor-Joy was a delight as Emma. Emma is not a likable character and I felt she portrayed that. The women were pretty good. The men, however, were lacking. Larry Durrell as Mr. Elton is perfect! (Larry Durrell in Les Miserables was awful.) Mr. Knightley and Frank Churchill were terribly miscast. Since when is Mr. Knightley an emotional dandy? Those shirt points were way too high for a country gentleman who actually oversees management of his estate, walks across fields, etc. The actor was wooden and didn't have any chemistry with his leading lady. Frank Churchill cut got down in size to a minor character. I was disappointed they cut out the parts where Jane Fairfax is upset by Frank and Emma's flirting and how she was going to sell herself in the governess trade. Cutting that out ruined Frank Churchill. Mr. Woodehouse, hypochondriac, is very spritely for an invalid! Standing straight, jumping down stairs, going to weddings-that's not Jane Austen's Mr. Woodhouse. I love Bill Nighy but he's not Mr. Woodhouse.
I also felt they cut too much about Miss Bates, her garrulousness and her poverty. She's very fashionably dressed for an impoverished spinster!
The twist at the end with Harriet was stupid and unrealistic.
Yes I agree. The little gestures are needed like Mr. Knightley bringing Emma's hand to his heart.
The scenery, the houses, the women's clothes were all EXQUISITE! Emma's pink spencer and some of her other gowns were copies of actual period pieces. The men's costumes were not so great.
I had low expectations coming into this so I was pleasantly surprised. I did not at all mind Emma bearing her bum by the fire. She was alone and it's taken from a satirical print so it's possible some women did do that. They'd never admit it LOL! I didn't mind the "make-out" scene. That was way more tame than I was expecting. The nose bleed scene was funny and weird.
I'm so glad you enjoyed the movie :) QNPoohBear wrote: "Frank Churchill cut got down in size to a minor character. I was disappointed they cut out the parts where Jane Fairfax is upset by Frank and Emma's flirting and how she was going to sell herself in the governess trade. Cutting that out ruined Frank Churchill."
This is something we haven't discussed enough on this thread! I feel like this might very much be the biggest weakness of this adaptation: that they did not manage to tell the story of Frank and Jane almost at all. And it's so crucial to Emma's character growth and to the general story.
QNPoohBear wrote: "I did not at all mind Emma bearing her bum by the fire. She was alone and it's taken from a satirical print so it's possible some women did do that. They'd never admit it LOL! I didn't mind the "make-out" scene. That was way more tame than I was expecting. The nose bleed scene was funny and weird.."
I agree about the bum by the fire scene and the making out - I did not mind those things at all, and it suited the tone of the adaptation.
I am still not sure what to make of the nosebleed. I don't get it. For the most part, it seems unnecessary, but sometimes when I think back on it, I wonder if they did it to show how the situation is so entirely out of Emma's control, that she is not even in charge of her own body? I'm not sure. It's weird.
Emilia wrote: "For the most part, it seems unnecessary, but sometimes when I think back on it, I wonder if they did it to show how the situation is so entirely out of Emma's control, that she is not even in charge of her own body? I'm not sure. It's weird."Yes, that's basically it. It reminds us that we're human and stuff happens.
Speaking exclusively to RadioTimes.com, [director Autumn] De Wilde said: “I put the nosebleed in [the film]. I get nosebleeds all the time, in fact I had to change my suit today because I got a nosebleed and I had to put a different suit on! . . .
“I think almost everyone has had something super embarrassing happen, you know, when they have their first kiss, or the first time they’re having sex with someone… And for me it’s nosebleeds, I’ve been getting them my whole life, and Eleanor thought it was really funny [the idea of Emma having a nosebleed]. I also thought, like, I wanted to make that scene so romantic, and then just turn it on its head, because to say just like, they’re not perfect, they’re both just like a hot mess, and seeing Mr Knightley and Emma panic and try and solve a problem together is just as romantic as the proposal, I think.”
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2020-...
QNPoohBear wrote: "There is a proper adaptation of Persuasion. It stars Ciarán Hindsand Amanda Root. Aside from the parade and the kiss, it's basically faithful to the novel. A proper adaptation of Mansfield Park wo..."
I totally agree!
Deb wrote: "I saw Emma yesterday. It was a bit tedious - it’s as if they wrote the script with the assumption that people already know the plot and story, so they didn’t bother to tell it. My husband didn’t kn..."A great review - I feel the same. I read that the actress who played Emma produced the nose bleed on demand - never heard of that before. But the clothes and the scenery - WOW.
I really want to see Emma. again but it will have to be free before I do. I also need to rewatch the most recent BBC version with Romola Garai. Clueless is apparently in development as a reboot of the TV series. I did not like the show and this one doesn't sound like an adaptation of Emma. It's all about Dionne.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/...
Obviously the pandemic has shut down production of new shows but in the meantime we can watch the original film on Netflix.
I, too, like the Ciaran Hinds/Amanda Root Persuasion - it is my 'go to' version! I think it hits just about the right note everywhere - I think the actress playing Anne's dreadful sister Mary - a most difficult role I think, SO tiresome a female! - is brilliant. Ciaran Hinds' messy hair always irritates me though! Did they not have combs in olden days??!! I liked the way the film makes Anne look old and tired and unattractive at first, as she stares at herself dolefully in the mirror, and then gets clearly more attractive and fresher in Lyme. I also think it makes it clear that Wentworth first 're-notices' Anne after Mr Eliot has obviously 'eyed her up'!!!
Can’t wait to watch the new 2020 Emma but not going to watch Clueless!
Sounds like something I'd pay not to watch - but that's probably my age showing! Simply ghastly, darlings!
Mod
It is a tragedy that we keep getting Emma and P&P remakes and re-tellings, when it is Mansfield Park and Northanger Abbey that desperately need it.
Disagree about NA needing another remake. Personally I’d much rather have a new Persuasion! But second Mansfield Park!
I'd like a new P and P, and a new P....but the casting will be critical (NO Keira Knightley's need apply - let alone Judy Dench's as Lady C!) I still think MP is a challenge to any director/scriptwriter, as it's considered so hard to write about a 'dull but good' heroine (and hero). And could we trust anyone in this day and age not to be fatally tempted by over-doing the slavery associations???????!!!!!!
I always wonder why most JA lovers ignore the BBc sets from 1970 to 1986 except for NA they are wonderful! ( still love the P&P 1996 best but much of the older one is good)Mansfield Park is perfect no need for new one and Persuasion is very good if you can ignore her hairdo and forget about Margeret S&S is fine Emma is excellent and P&P has many good points (except Darcy is awfull)the acters are all striaght from the book (except Darcy)I watch them when I iron all the time
The TV version of P and P that I remember from my youth is the 1980 version with David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie (neither of whom seem to have been in a great deal since, or, rather, that I ever saw). I thought it excellent at the time, and it would be interesting to see it again. One of the big problems when you look at old TV versions of anything at all (including series like Sharpe), is the quality of the film (or videotape??) is so poor in comparison with what we take for granted these days. So it rather spoils things alas. Maybe they all need to be digitally remastered or whatever! The same flaw applies to the version of MP that I remember best, the TV one with Sylvestre Le Touzel who, though not being like Fanny physically I thought (Fanny always comes across as rather 'puny'!), was absolutely brilliant otherwise. But then SlT is one of those actresses who are brilliant in everything (not that one sees a great deal of her any more??)
Lady Bertram (Angela Pleasaunce - the daughter of the actor who played Blofeld in the James Bond movies!) was beyond praise - just brilliant. SO 'pathetic' and 'inert' and yet quite sympathetic as well. A 'kindly idiot' perhaps...
For S and S I still love to watch the Emma Thompson film version which is show fairly regularly on UK TV. Hugh Grant is really very good as the hapless Edward, which is a fairly 'hopeless' role to be cast in!
I have a bbc boxed dvd set disc set except for persuasion they are in fair condition the s&s star Irene richard & tracy childs and is pretty true to the book (no margret)
Beth-In-UK wrote: "The TV version of P and P that I remember from my youth is the 1980 version with David Rintoul and Elizabeth Garvie."I really liked Elizabeth Garvie's Lizzy, but David Rintoul's Darcy was so wooden... not sure if it was his acting or the writing and direction or all three. That being said, he did a reading of Mr Darcy's Diary on audiobook which I rather enjoyed.
Honestly, the only interpretation of Darcy on screen I feel comes at all close to the book is Firth's.
Mrs wrote: "P&P has many good points (except Darcy is awfull)the acters are all striaght from the book (except Darcy)I watch them when I iron all the time"
When I first saw 2005 P&P I was annoyed with so many things that were just wrong. I have since learned to love it, by deciding that it's not really P&P at all. When I watch it as a P&P-flavoured period romance it's really a beautiful movie.
I wonder if I'll be able to watch Emma 2020 that way as well one day. Once I get over the disappointment of how unlike the book it is, I might be able to enjoy it for what it is instead. Just an Emma-flavoured fun period flick with pretty dresses, some very pretty scenes, jokes and romance and all.
The 1970s and 80s versions are hard to find and old-fashioned. Plus you can't beat the hunky heroes of the 90s and 2000s! If I had bothered to watch P&P in 95 when I was 17 (hadn't read the book yet), like Bridget Jones I would have kept rewatching Mr. Darcy in his wet shirt. I started the 1980s P&P on Amazon. I like the script but the actors are stilted and the evening dresses offend my eyes. The day dresses look OK but the evening dresses are horrendous. Keep the script and update the production is my opinion so far, after 2 episodes.The best Darcy, IMO, is actually Elliot Cowan in Lost in Austen. He's tall, slender, standoffish and romantic.
David Rintoul’s Darcy was indeed wooden. Sadly,it would have worked in his favor had he melted in the final scenes with Garvie”s wonderful Elizabeth. But no. He was wooden to the last scene. A real shame and a missed opportunity.
QNPoohBear wrote: "The best Darcy, IMO, is actually Elliot Cowan in Lost in Austen. He's tall, slender, standoffish and romantic."Interesting choice! I did like Cowan's Darcy too. Unfortunately, I have to say that both he and Firth are a tiny bit too old for the role. Cowan was 32 and Firth 35 when they played the role of a 27/28 year old. The only reason I think it matters is that Darcy does behave in ways that are a little more acceptable in a 20-something than they are in a grown man in his 30s and both Cowan and Firth look their age in their respective P&Ps :/
Rebekah wrote: "David Rintoul’s Darcy was indeed wooden. Sadly,it would have worked in his favor had he melted in the final scenes with Garvie”s wonderful Elizabeth. But no. He was wooden to the last scene. A real..."Agreed! The worst scene of all is the one where Elizabeth reads his letter and there's this incredibly painful shot of him just walking and walking and walking, and omg who thought of that??
I also remember that Mr Bennet was much scarier than in any other adaptation. He's downright cruel.
Sadly, I can't remember the Garvie/RIntoul version very well at all - must look at some clips on You Tube maybe (that's the limit of my technical sophistication!). I liked Garvie's big eyes and liveliness I seem to remember. And I though DR handsome and 'standoffish' which I think is key to Darcy at the start at least.But yes, I have to vote Colin Firth exemplary as Darcy - he had a habit of rolling his eyes and looking like he was being forced to swallow a lemon that was priceless! I never cared for the wet shirt scene (diving into ponds is pretty yukky - ponds tend to be full of silt and vegetation, and he's far more likely to have emerged with weeds all over him!).
Overall, I think his interpretation was pretty faultless.
Lizzie's hair always suffered, alas, from looking far too 'wiglike' (which it was). It looked better when she had it loose, as did Jane's hair too (which looked a lot less wiggy) (maybe it wasn't?), when the two are chatting to each other in their bedroom.
I think it would be hard for any actor to be cast now as Darcy, as he would always having to be compare himself to CF. I believe in the dreadful KK film, Darcy was deliberately intended to be more shy than forbidding.
Emilia wrote: "Rebekah wrote: "David Rintoul’s Darcy was indeed wooden. Sadly,it would have worked in his favor had he melted in the final scenes with Garvie”s wonderful Elizabeth. But no. He was wooden to the la..."I know! That scene is the one I remember when I think of this version.
I love the 80s version of both P&P and S&S.Of course, compared to the later versions, the filming renders them wooden, but I tend to think of them as "theatrical" versions and enjoy them very much.
This cannot be said of Emma of 1972 which I found really bad and terribly miscast.
Melindam wrote: "I love the 80s version of both P&P and S&S."OMG I have not seen the 80s S&S! Something to look forward to :)
Melindam wrote: "This cannot be said of Emma of 1972 which I found really bad and terribly miscast."
Just had a look at this on YouTube. Knightley looks rather old and stately, and Emma looks very Gwyneth Paltrow-ish.
This Emma only became bearable once a very vulgar and snotty Mrs Elton appeared on the scene. :)
Let me know what you think of S&S. I really enjoyed it. The actress who played Mrs John Dashwood junior was so kickably hateful. :D I loved her performance.
Fanny Dashwood must be such a fun part to play, with every new actress to the part competing with predecessors as to how to make her even more obnoxious.I remember in the Emma Thompson film version it was, I think, Harriet Walter, and at the (invented?) scene at the end where Colonel Brandon scatters coins for the poor at his wedding, she urging her husband to scoop them up himself. Utterly shameless!
The casting of Mr. Knightley actually worked for me; the actor made the character more appealing to me than the book's character, whom I have always disliked. The men's costumes were pretty bizarre (those colors!!) but I loved the women's costumes and thought they well represented the social strata of the wearers.
I'd watch it again.