Which Adaptation of Emma is Best?

I just watched the Kate Beckinsdale one and really liked it. She was great. The portrayal of Knightly took a while for me to get used to, but in the end he won me over.

I'm an admirer of Gwyneth Paltrow, but I thought her Emma movie left too much out, and seemed choppy as a result.

I was given an older BBC (I think) one that I haven't watched yet. I'm not sure if there are others.

Which one is considered (or do you consider) the best?

I liked the recent BBC version with Ramola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller. I haven't seen the Kate Beckinsale one in a long time but I'm not particularly fond of her acting anyway.

I'm a Beckinsale gal. I just wish the film was longer. If it had been a miniseries I'd be satisfied.

My main problem with the Paltrow boils down to "too much sweetness and light," and I thought they got some of the characters wrong, Mr. Woodhouse & Mr. Knightley in particular. (How people buy Jeremy Northam's Knightley as being the same character as the one in the book, I can't understand.)

I watched one episode of the recent BBC version, plus ten minutes of the second episode, but had to quit. Hated it. I lodged some of my complaints in this thread on the new miniseries, and there's some good commentary from ncgraham in there:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/74485

Is the recent BBC one the same one being broadcast now on PBS in the USA? Or is the PBS one (which I thought was Masterpiece Theater) a newer one? (I missed the first broadcast Sunday night here).

What about Clueless!

> 4, yes, that's the same one. Masterpiece Theater often shows the BBC's miniseries.

I like elements of both the Beckinsale and Paltrow versions, but have always preferred the former the leetlest bit. Still, both have their strengths and weaknesses. The recent miniseries was nice from a length perspective, but I liked the other two better.

And I wouldn't count Clueless at all; it's a modern retelling, not a straight adaptation.

Definitely Kate Beckinsale. Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam didn't convince me. And the most recent adaptation was poorly cast. Ramola Garai I found totally unlikeable and more 21st century than 19th century; Johnny Lee Miller was a lovely Edmund in Mansfield Park but he didn't work as Knightley. My favourite Knightley is Mark Strong. He and Beckinsale had excellent screen chemistry and he was more than a match for the atrocious Mrs Elton, played so beautifully by Lucy Robinson. Andrew Davies did a better job of this than any of his other Austen adaptations. And I don't see how any actor can better Bernard Hepton's Mr Woodhouse. Even Sir Ian McKellern struggled to find a new way to interpret that role.

I thought the Kate Beckinsale version was the one with the hopelessly 'wrong' final scene with them all sitting round a table at what looks like a village harvest home supper, social distinctions forgotten.

Or was that some other version? Or do I misremember?

No, I think that's the Beckinsale.

The final scene is not in the book certainly, but there were occasions when the lord of the manor held such feasts for the people who lived and worked on his estate. I don't know if his marriage was one such occasion.

Not as wrong as having Mr Darcy dive into the garden pond! Tacky, or what?

>10 DianeFHill:

Very, very tacky (I wanted Lizzie, as played by Jennifer Ehle, diving in!)

I really didn't care for the Beckinsale Emma at all, and that last scene annoyed me, too. I don't think I care much for any of the film adaptations.

Addendum: Still, none of them are as bad as the Keira Knightley P&P--the filmmakers obviously thought Jane Austen was a pseudonym for Emily Bronte.

Matthew MacFadyen is a good actor, but he is not a good Mr Darcy. He's yet to be cast perfectly.

The Beckinsale version's last scene is questionable on a number of levels, but I like how it shows some sort of social stability, which is then undercut by a recurrence of the chicken-raiding sequence. Clever.

Even Sir Ian McKellern struggled to find a new way to interpret that role.
Don't you mean Michael Gambon? He played the role in the latest version.

BTW, I agree 100% on Hepton's Mr. Woodhouse. He owns the role.

Great to be a part of this group! I enjoyed watching Gwyneth Paltro in Emma.

Beckinsale never appeared to be "clueless." She always seemed very sly and very knowing -- the opposite of what Emma is supposed to be. And Mark Strong's Knightley came on too strong (pun intended). He was always yelling about something.

But the new version, with Romola Garai and Johnny Lee Miller, really touched me. I just love it.

Of course, the new one is the furthest removed from the novel itself of all the adaptations of Emma.

I just got done watching the newest version starring Ramola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller. I must say that, overall, I found it quite enjoyable. The ending threw me at first. It was much more playful that I what I had always imagined. Mr. John Knightley and Isabella running around slapping each other with sticks made me role my eyes and Garai was a little bit too bouncy. Not at all how I had imagined Emma from the book. And Mr. Knightley was a quite a bit less stoic that what I'd thought he'd be but, after awhile, Miller grew on me. Miss Bates was perfection in my opinion. I started to really like the movie once I stopped comparing it to how I had perceived the book.

The only other version I've seen was the one with Gwyneth Paltrow, which I found okay but a bit too light hearted for my tastes. I have the Kate Beckinsdale version on loan from Netflix so I hope to view it soon, and the old BBC production from 1972 is available for instant viewing so I will probably watch that as well (I hope the acting is good because the characters look about twenty years older than what they're supposed to be).

What's shocking is that '72 Emma was actually 22 years old! :O

For me, the new BBC adaptation could have been 100x better than it actually was. Garai certainly could have played that character very well, and then, well, she didn't. And then there's the fact that no one bows and curtseys. Even the common folk in the Beckinsale version are better behaved than the new Emma and Knightley!

Of all the novels where I'd suggest NOT to spoil the novel with distant adaptations, Emma tops the list. It is the one least adaptable, even by a screenwriter and director with infinite respect for the text--but the most recent Emma really is a deep deep alteration of the novel, demonstrating very little real insight into the novel itself. It really may as well be an independent story.

>18 ncgraham:: Wow, the '72 Emma was 22?!?! She looks much older!

I do agree that as for the time period, it was horrible. It didn't represent the qualities of Austen's time (like courtesy, refinement, and self control) that I expect from an Austen adaptation. I found it to be a good movie as soon as I stopped comparing it to the book. In it's own right, the movie is entertaining. But it's definitely a horrible adaptation of the book (although I must say Miss Bates was played perfectly in my opinion. She stole the whole show for me).

>19 TheUpturnedKnows:. "It really may as well be an independent story."

That's what I think. It's very fun to watch if you're not trying to make it Emma. It's downright awful as a representation of the time period and what I imagined the book to be when I read it. Basic manners and courtesies were definitely lacking.

I know, I was shocked too when I found out her age. Even Garai is a younger-looking Emma, and people complained that she was "too old" at 27! (Actually, now I've checked and found out that Doran Godwin—the '72 Emma—was the youngest of the actresses to play the role; Beckinsale was 23 and Paltrow 24.)

Everyone goes on about the Miss Bates, and I thought she did well with the material she was given, but it was definitely a different view of the character. I think Austen showed her as being happy despite her poverty, which is not at all what I got from the new adaptation.

19 -- I beg to differ. I loved the latest version of Emma, and firmly believe that Mansfield Park is the most difficult novel to adapt. So much of what happens in NP goes on in Fanny's mind and that's not easy to film well. Plus there's the fact that so many people can't stand her. I happen to admire Fanny greatly, but even I'll admit she'll never be the life of the party. The 1983 adaptation is my favorite, but even that one's not perfect. As for 1999 and 2007, well, the less said about those the better.

I'm glad you mentioned the 1999 MP, Cyberlibrariannyc, because it is the quintessential example of where GENUINE subtextual material from the actual novel was shown in the film (the material about Sir Thomas and Antigua)--whereas all the changes in the 2009 Emma were gratuitous and had NOTHING to do with the shadows in the actual novel.

Take a peek at my blog, for an idea of what I mean by genuine shadows....

sharpelvessociety.blogspot.com

Cheers, ARNIE

I love how every conversation with you turns into an advertisement for your blog.

*rolls eyes*

I do, too!

I prefer the Paltrow version. I personally liked the acting much better. I'm not a huge Paltrow fan or anything like that, but I really enjoyed the acting by all of the characters in that movie. I particularly liked who they chose for Mr. Elton, Miss Bates, and Harriet Smith. I saw the movie before I read the book, so maybe that's why I tend to like this one more-- I like it for it's own sake.

The Beckinsale version I think might have more closely followed the book, and included scenes that were left out in the Beckinsale version (if I'm remembering correctly, it's been a while), but that final scene does spoil things a bit.

On other Austen movie adaptions:

The Kiera Knightly version of P&P-- yuck, yuck, yuck. That's all I have to say about that.

Mansfield Park (directed by Patricia Rozema)-- I thought it was an excellent adaption until that jaw-dropping nude sex scene. I'm not a prude, but really, how inappropriate is that in a Jane Austen adaption? That scene spoiled the whole movie for me.

But there are numerous hints in the text of the novel itself that Maria has done exactly that with Henry Crawford--so why is it inappropriate?

27: Because Austen is not blatant. She never shows those scenes, and would be appalled to see them acted out.

I wasn't a fan of how the Rozema film rewrote the character of Fanny. No one really seems to "get" her. She doesn't have to be a spunky sassy heroine like every other spunky sassy heroine ever written. Her strength is in her weakness; even though she is naturally so timid, she still stands firm on her non-negotiables. That is what is so impressive about her... not that she writes sassy things in a secret diary. *sigh*

I totally agree that the rewrite of Fanny's character was not in any way justified by subtext from the novel itself. It was an interesting pastiche of JA's real life with one of her many alter egos, Fanny Price, but it was Rozema's creation, not JA's.

However, the rest of the stuff in Rozema's adaptation was entirely justified by the subtext of the novel itself. It is straight from the shadow story of the novel.

... which you in your infinite wisdom has discovered, though such knowledge evades the rest of us, mere mortals that we are.

No, NCGraham, actually, at the 2009 conference....

http://www.soton.ac.uk/english/news/newdirectionsinausten09.html

...fully seven of the seventy five topics were about the slavery subtext of Mansfield Park.

We're all mortals, but some of us do actually go into depth in studying Jane Austen, and others don't.

I am reminded of the following passage in P&P:

"Shall we ask your cousin the reason of this?" said Elizabeth, still addressing Colonel Fitzwilliam. "Shall we ask him why a man of sense and education, and who has lived in the world, is ill qualified to recommend himself to strangers?"

"I can answer your question," said Fitzwilliam, "without applying to him. It is because he will not give himself the trouble."

"I certainly have not the talent which some people possess," said Darcy, "of conversing easily with those I have never seen before. I cannot catch their tone of conversation, or appear interested in their concerns, as I often see done."

"My fingers," said Elizabeth, "do not move over this instrument in the masterly manner which I see so many women's do. They have not the same force or rapidity, and do not produce the same expression. But then I have always supposed it to be my own fault -- because I would not take the trouble of practising. It is not that I do not believe my fingers as capable as any other woman's of superior execution."

Darcy smiled and said, "You are perfectly right. You have employed your time much better. No one admitted to the privilege of hearing you can think anything wanting. We neither of us perform to strangers."

I found three Emma adaptations all together in the library recently--must've come close on the heels of some Austen fan. I had never seen any, actually, it's been ages since I saw any costume drama.

I liked both Paltrow and Garai (I think I'm crushing on Romola), all three Mrs. Bates and Harriets (so I'm easy), but none of the Mr. Knightleys fit the bill completely, somehow. I liked the looks of Northam (classic romantic older-man hero), the sensibility of Miller and, and, and... the height of Strong? (I feel some recognition is necessary for the originality of this casting choice.)

Overall, I liked least the Beckinsale version--her performance seemed unengaged, perfunctory...

Miller looked... runty. And way too young. But that's the problem with Emma, isn't it, having to mitigate the squickiness of this relationship somehow, to make it both attractive and believable.

But I wondered about another thing, I kept thinking about the miserable position of women in that society. There's plenty of reminders, in books and even on screen, although the adaptations are of necessity reductive. It made it impossible to enjoy the story 100%. And for the first time I felt fully how scandalous (yes, by our later-day standards) is Emma's attitude toward that young farmer.

Anyone else find their enjoyment of romances from bygone times compromised by the bitterness of women's and class inequality etc.? I mean, it must have been part of what Austen intended--she is not for nothing called a satirist--but in view of this it amazes me how popular she has become among the young. Is it due to a misunderstanding? Are more people watching the adaptations than reading the books? Or is period romance, inequality, warts and all, for some reason more attractive than contemporary romance?

Your thoughts, please.

I have really only watched the recent BBC version of Emma and have just started watching Paltrow's one... I personally have no problem with the last version except that it makes Emma look like a dumb blonde from time to time...

as for all the other accusations especially regarding Mansfield Park I can't help but replying to them... I completely agree with wisewoman.. nobody get's the character of Fanny, she was not the ghastly bouncy bleached blonde of the ghastly 2007 and she was certainly not the Jane Eyre -like Fanny of the yet again preposterous 1999 version. She is not the typical heroine and I think that if screenwriters don't consider her an exciting enough heroine then they shouldn't bother with making a film adaptation of the book... an adaptation with the heroine so disstorted is bound to be a failure because it stops being an adaptation at all

and as for MP having a "slavery subtext" please! that's just typicall overreading of things! because Jane Austen is not romantic enough for some people as far as she doesn't mention current-day topics of her time such as the French Revolution, the napoleonic wars or (yes) the Abolition of Slavery as plots for her novels, they are content with grasping the only brief lines written in the book (whose intention I gather were to highlight Fanny's superiority of mind over Julia and Maria's rather than give the whole book a slavery subtext) as a lifeline and create a modern-day complaint thinly veiled by what is supposed to be an adaptation of the book (yes the 1999 version).

If people enjoyed the movie that is fine, I'm sure it probably could stand out perfectly well on its own, just don't pretend to have enjoyed it as an adaptation of one of Jane Austen's best books.

I know you probably weren't seeking my thoughts on Jonny Lee Miller, but I must defend him ;) - he was actually 37 (Mr Knightley's age) when the series was filmed, and certainly not 'runty'. Romola Garai is 5' 9", however, so they do look to be of equal height throughout, which, if you like your heroines to look up to their heroes, can be slightly disorientating.

The 'squickiness' of Emma's relationship with Mr Knightley is all down to dodgy casting in prior adaptations (John Carson/Mark Strong), I fear, and the knock-on effect on modern imaginations. Where does Austen say that Mr Knightley is a grumpy, severe and balding old man? I love the 2009 miniseries for casting JLM, and showing that Mr Knightley can still look young, be pleasant and well-liked, and above all, a good match for Emma.

How can modern readers object to the history in historical romances? Isn't that what the genre is all about? I'm just glad that I don't have to marry for financial security, or become a governess like Jane! The class hierarchy in Emma doesn't bother me, either, although I know some readers find Emma's snobbery unbearable. That's how society operated in Jane Austen's time. I actually object more to Andrew Davies' politically correct subtext in the 1996 adaptation (Beckinsale), which finishes with a harvest festival and Emma becoming best friends with Harriet and Robert Martin.

Ah, but Davies undercuts that scene by ending with the chicken thieves robbing the hen-house yet again. Austen's attitude towards the class system near the end of Emma is fairly equivocal, and I appreciated that Davies at least tried to tackle the problem in his own way. Most of the others just overlook it.

Yes, I read that rather arrogant article by Davies (or by Monagham on Davies), too. Why should the class system of Jane Austen's time be 'tackled'? Whitewashing history doesn't change anything. That whole final scene - bar the chickens! - was unrealistic and tacked on to appease modern audiences. It didn't add anything to Emma. Austen hints that Emma, once she marries Mr Knightley, naturally grows apart from Harriet Martin - they don't have a love-in at Donwell Abbey.

I don't know which article you're thinking of. There is an excellent article by Dominic Monaghan called "Emma and the Art of Adaptation" that tackles the 3 different 90s adaptations of Emma (including Clueless). But there's also a rather bizarre interview/article with Davies regarding his adaptation, in which he reveals some plans of his that were scuttled, most of them rather bizarre.

Why should the class system of Jane Austen's time be 'tackled,' you ask? Because she did it. In Emma. There's quite a bit more about how the various social strata ought to relate to one another than there had been in her previous works (with the possible exception of Mansfield Park). And part of me prefers that filmmakers try to put those tensions onscreen, even if they get them wrong, than ignoring them for the most part, as I felt was done in the Paltrow Emma, which exists in a kind of Hollywood fairyland.

That said, I'm fairly ambivalent about the harvest scene as whole. It doesn't bother me as much as it does most viewers, but I recognize its problems and could probably do without it.

The bizarre interview with Andrew Davies was the one I was talking about, where he almost claims to be improving on Austen, but the reference to the harvest ball/chickens is from Monaghan, now that I think on. I read both articles recently, after watching 'Clueless' and then searching the Internet for sources on the different adaptations. If I had any respect for Davies beforehand, that interview would have revised my opinion post haste - doesn't he compare Mr Knightley to Humbert Humbert from Lolita?

Austen does tackle the class system, but with far more subtlety than Davies! It is not so much the 'tackling' as the 'correcting' that I object to with the harvest festival scene (and the bizarre adlibs that Mrs Elton comes out with during the Box Hill picnic). But you're right, the Paltrow version is at the other end of the scale, portraying a golden, romanticised 'chocolate box' take on Austen (and Regency England) that misses nearly the whole point of the novel.

... and then in the new miniseries, everyone goes about slouching, waving, anachronistically waltzing (???), and laying their heads in each other's laps. And Miss Bates suddenly becomes a tragic character, and bitter about being impoverished. What in the world?

Don't get me wrong, I love watching Austen adaptations (including adaptations of Emma), but it does seem as if filmmakers have trouble recreating her milieu. Of this lot, the Davies/Beckinsale is my favorite, although I try to forget about that bizarre interview as much as I can. Thank goodness some of his ideas were vetoed!

The 2009 miniseries is not perfect (although I'm fairly sure people did wave in Austen's time), but then I doubt such a specimen will ever exist for Austen's novels. Out of the four versions available, however, Sandy Welch's treatment is definitely my favourite. I watch it (over and over) for the characters, not the etiquette and deportment of the Regency era.

For me, Emma is a sunny novel, not the miserable perversion of Andrew Davies' interpretion (why adapt a novel he so obviously hated?), and Romola Garai perfectly captures the eponymous heroine's bright, lively, confident persona. Conversely, I do think that Miss Bates is a tragic character - she might be a friend to everyone, but she talks so much because she is lonely. I love Sandy Welch's interpretation of her chatty personality, which changes Miss Bates from comic relief to a slightly deeper, more poignant figure, and makes Emma's gaffe all the worse. I don't think she's bitter about her situation - Mr Knightley makes the point that the Bates ladies have fallen on hard times and should be pitied, not Miss Bates herself - only sad, which is understandable. Even when Jane is sent away, Miss Bates looks on the positive side, believing she is doing right by her niece.

And oh, that interview! Someone should introduce Mr Davies to Rachel Billington, the twisted imagination behind Emma 'sequel' Perfect Happiness. They would get on famously, pulling the novel to pieces and thinking up new and more vicious ways to 'punish' the heroine!

I think Davies is a pretty twisted person who knows how to write great television and sometimes gets things right on an adaptation level as well. But I really despise both Welch's Emma and Jane Eyre, and don't think she "gets" period drama as all. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. (And yes, I don't mind occasional waving—it's just that everyone waves, hardly anyone bows or curtsies, and everything's so informal.)

I saw Welch's Emma and liked it much more than I thought I would. However, she does add some very lame ideas (like her mystical, fate-pompous connection of Emma, Frank, and Jane at the beginning when they are children). And I wasn't overly thrilled with what she did with either Miss Bates or Mr Woodhouse. Just let the characters stand as written, memorable for the very brevity of their descriptions—instead of ponderously explicating and exploring every implication of their lives. Screenwriters who go too far in detailing the lives of minor characters miss the point that less really is more.

I didn't care overmuch for the 2006 Jane Eyre either. It's stagey, but as an adaptation the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke is still our favorite.

That being said, Welch did a lovely job with Elizabeth Gaskell's North & South. I wouldn't change a thing about it.

And I wasn't overly thrilled with what she did with either Miss Bates or Mr Woodhouse.

We've forgotten Mrs. Bates! Who was so depressed she lost her voice, and regained it near the end so that everyone got a happily ever after! *rolls eyes*

That being said, Welch did a lovely job with Elizabeth Gaskell's North & South. I wouldn't change a thing about it.

Welch's N+S both introduced me to her style of adaptation, and totally won me over! I love her treatment of the novel, and yet some of the 'key' scenes are not from the book - Thornton's 'look back at me' line, and of course, the final scenes at the station. Perhaps we are willing to forgive her manipulation of Gaskell more than her interpretation of Austen?

I don't mind what screenwriters do, so long as they remain sympathetic to the original, and I find Welch to be far more considerate than Davies, who always seems to put a sexual spin on the novels that he adapts.

Frank, Jane and Emma do share an unlikely bond in that they are all children of Highbury, of the same generation, but Frank was sent to live with his aunt and Jane with the Campbells. I do agree that Emma's statement was a bit out of left field, however. And the fact that Frank and Jane should have found each other in Weymouth is very convenient, but Austen's skill is such that nobody comments on the 'small world' element of her own writing. I also love Emma's conversation with her father about staying in her own home with her own people - anything that makes Mr Woodhouse more of a pitiful figure than the manipulative hypochondriac he is in the book works for me! Minor characters brought to life in a single paragraph work well in novels, but translating that genius to the screen often needs visual clues and additional dialogue. I don't think Welch harms any of the characters, she merely states in obvious terms what Austen's setting implies.

Perhaps we are willing to forgive her manipulation of Gaskell more than her interpretation of Austen?

I'm a purist in most matters and I'm sure if I knew Gaskell as well as I know Austen, I'd find plenty to nitpick :)

And I agree about Davies's sexual undertones... blegh. I tend to stay away from his interviews because I don't want to know what goes on in his head...

I don't think Welch harms any of the characters, she merely states in obvious terms what Austen's setting implies.

And I'd argue that that harms the characters, by ponderously spelling out what is more subtly handled in the novel. Obvious versus subtle? I'll take subtle. Yes, film and print are very different media but the best films, like the best literature, show rather than tell.

I never saw Mr Woodhouse as a manipulative hypochondriac. I should reread.

I never saw Mr Woodhouse as a manipulative hypochondriac. I should reread.

I think my imagination was corrupted, shall we say, by reading Amanda Grange's Mr Knightley's Diary first, which is definitely anti-Mr Woodhouse, but I still don't find Emma's father exactly endearing.

I'm going to re-read the novel, too - this discussion has inspired me to compare and contrast with the book fresh in mind!

#33

and as for MP having a "slavery subtext" please! that's just typicall overreading of things!

Haven't seen that adaptation, but isn't there a character whose wealth derives from holdings in Jamaica? One of those horrid Caribbean sugar plantations anyway. I agree that Austen hardly planned to insert a "slavery subplot", but if the fact is brought up in the screenplay, it is neither far-fetched nor false.

#34

The 'squickiness' of Emma's relationship with Mr Knightley is all down to dodgy casting in prior adaptations (John Carson/Mark Strong), I fear, and the knock-on effect on modern imaginations.

Clearly the response is going to be different from one person to another, but for me there is something repulsive in that relationship in essence. It's not merely a question of age difference (sixteen years or so?), but the fact that he knew her from earliest childhood, guided and mentored her. I dislike the idea of going to bed with someone you once dandled on your knee. As for modern imaginations, I believe babies weren't delivered by storks in previous centuries either, whatever the impression one may get from contemporary literature. Bodies existed, children went through puberty, hormones raged, desires were felt, physical beauty assessed and so on. Meaning, whatever Austen had to ignore, out of custom or ignorance, we simply can't, at the very least not if we are dignifying the work in question as an authentic, alive piece of art, and not some rubbishy genre fantasy.

Oh and yes, I do object--most vehemently!!--to all of human history; I am barely reconciled to the present, and marvel when people--women, at least--seem to daydream happily about the periods where most of them would be dirt poor, ill, serially pregnant, and dead by thirty. But then I keep forgetting we are princesses at home. ;)

Getting back to the theme of Asuten adaptations, I was unexpectedly delighted by Hollywood's 1939 Pride and prejudice, with Laurence Olivier as Darcy! As "impure" as possible, with omissions, inventions and transpositions galore (not to mention some truly atrocious female costumes), but a gem, really, played as straight comedy.

Clearly the response is going to be different from one person to another, but for me there is something repulsive in that relationship in essence.

Personally speaking again, I find Emma and Mr Knightley to be the most believable Austen romance, where the hero and heroine are on equal social and financial terms (not a rich man 'rescuing' a bride from a family full of girls), know each other better than they know themselves, have a lot in common, and have found romance out of long-standing friendship. Mr Knightley hasn't been 'grooming' Emma since she was a baby, but he has always loved her intelligence, vivacity and open nature, and became attracted to her on a mature, physical level when he realised that she had become a desirable young woman. A 'Gigi' moment, if you like (and I love that film, too).

Mark Strong and Kate Beckinsale might have made the match seem an unhealthy and unlikley union between a glowering older man and his unruly little sister, but in the novel, and in the 2009 series, Emma and Mr Knightley are made for each other. Austen might have been ignorant of marital relations, which is why she always closes the book on a swift summary of the wedding day, but she knew an awful lot more about the mindset of twenty-one year old women in her day than we do, so she was probably aware that Emma at the end of the novel is far different to the naive young girl at the start.

It's also worth keeping in mind, I think, that in the early 19th century, a 16 year difference between husband and wife was in no way unusual...

#44 I don't mind what screenwriters do, so long as they remain sympathetic to the original, and I find Welch to be far more considerate than Davies, who always seems to put a sexual spin on the novels that he adapts.

And see, while I am in no way a Davies fanboy, I feel like he gets things right on a whole, and the offending bits usually get lumped into one or two easy-to-skip scenes. Whereas Welch (at least in her Jane Eyre and Emma adaptations) almost totally botches both the era and the author's style (witness the macabre opening to E or the happy-go-lucky ending to JE ... can you imagine either fitting in the book?).

#47 I agree that Austen hardly planned to insert a "slavery subplot", but if the fact is brought up in the screenplay, it is neither far-fetched nor false.

The problem is that the fact is not merely "brought up"—the slavery "subtext" virtually eats up the rest of that MP movie! Rozema really should have made her own anti-slavery movie and left Jane Austen alone.

Meaning, whatever Austen had to ignore, out of custom or ignorance, we simply can't, at the very least not if we are dignifying the work in question as an authentic, alive piece of art, and not some rubbishy genre fantasy.

This strikes me as a bit snobbish (to be accurate, of the chronological brand of snobbery). I've lost track a bit of what we are saying Austen ignored here—sex?—but why must we assume that she must have ignored things out of custom or ignorance, rather than well-reasoned choice?

I've lost track a bit of what we are saying Austen ignored here—sex?—but why must we assume that she must have ignored things out of custom or ignorance, rather than well-reasoned choice?

I'm not arguing - because I'm not even sure what the original point was supposed to be, concerning what Austen 'had to ignore, out of custom or ignorance' - but do you mean that Austen simply wanted to leave the happy ever after to her reader's imagination?

By the way, I love the term 'chronological snobbery' - never heard that before!

#50

Rozema really should have made her own anti-slavery movie and left Jane Austen alone.

I can't argue about something I haven't seen, you may be perfectly right. But generally speaking, I think it's interesting to place the novels in the larger world, to be reminded of the frame (and support basis) of those cosy genteel lives.

why must we assume that she must have ignored things out of custom or ignorance, rather than well-reasoned choice?

I'm not quite following. Whatever she knew of sex, taking in account her times, upbringing etc. it's hardly likely she'd ever have been explicit about it, no? Not much choice about that. I'm not questioning the conventions of Austen's time, or why she'd abide by them, at all, nor am I condescending about Miss Austen, one of the greatest novelists ever. I suspect she could see more about people than I ever will, and it is the reality of her characters, the quality of life in her novels, that prompt these feelings of unease about Knightley and Emma, the impression of a certain awkwardness in the transmutation of their relationship.

#48

he has always loved her intelligence, vivacity and open nature, and became attracted to her on a mature, physical level when he realised that she had become a desirable young woman.

Another interesting point reflecting on the psychological verisimilitude of the relationship. IIRC, Emma's twenty--hardly the dawn of her maturity (physical at least) and desirability. Is Mr. Knightley blind? Come to think of it, is he a virgin, a big naif, or merely very tepid-tempered? I thought those English country squires all learned what's what from early age, watching the cows if not corrupting the maids. Here he is, 36 or 37, perfectly content to have teas with the neighbour and the neighbour's lovely daughter, all the while completely oblivious to her attraction, and--I must make this point--oblivious emotionally-physically, not intellectually (he SEES that she's beautiful etc.) Would it really have taken that long? If that other "suitor" of Emma's hadn't appeared, would Knightley inifinitely continue to have teas and scold Emma when she's naughty? When would he have come to his senses, literally?

These are just thought experiments. Of course, no plot needs to be defended, maybe no character, one can always invoke the particularity (virtually no men may behave like Mr. Knightley in the real world, but he damn well may do so in a book!)

A 'Gigi' moment

Wonderful comparison, terribly unfair as it is to compare Austen to Colette in regard to treatment of love, but really interesting.

Ah yes, and Gigi is fifteen. Gaston (is that his name?) behaves in that regard rather differently than Mr. Knightley--he understands (and feels) that the girl is no longer a child much faster. By the way, you should read the book if you haven't--as expected, much less sugary than the movie, rather hard-eyed.

Now I'm dying to know what Colette would have thought of Mr. Knightley. Darn!

By the way, you should read the book if you haven't--as expected, much less sugary than the movie, rather hard-eyed.

Yes, I have read the book. And the comparison of Austen and Colette emphasises the previous point, about what Austen knew, and what she was comfortable relating via her characters, against what a French author of the belle epoque was familiar with. Gaston is a man of the world, a Parisian playboy, and Gigi is being trained as a courtesan - of course such a character is going to notice the budding sexuality of a beautiful young girl before a country squire in early nineteenth century England. Who knows if Mr Knightley would have missed his 'Gigi' moment if Frank Churchill had never appeared on the scene - Austen writes that Frank arrives, flirts with Emma (who flirts back), Mr Knightley runs away from his feelings for her, Frank is engaged to Jane, and Mr Knightley takes a deep breath and declares his love for Emma.

I know I am late to this and I apologize for that but I have seen all three adaptations (including the BBC one) over the years and have read the book as well, so here it goes.

I first read Emma waaaay back in high school for a book report and tell in love with Jane Austen, I have read her other works, but Emma continues to be my favorite.

Not long after i read the book for the first time, I learned that there was a movie out that was based on it (the Paltrow one) so while at the video store (there was one walking distance from the house I grew up in) on a whim, I rented it in lieu of my normal pattern of renting horror movies ... haha.

I have a prudence for being very critical of movies that are based on books, especially ones that are endeared to me and this was no different, although I love this version of the movie and it is my favorite, and I still watch it almost daily, i will say that it is not perfect, it does have some things that bother me.

I think it could have been longer: I know they have time constraints, but I think they cut so much out that the movie almost felt ... rushed. For example, Emma in the movie detaches herself from Frank Churchill fairly quickly, and decides to set Harriett up with him where in the book, she goes on flirting with him, because like she said, her vanity was flattered.

On the characters, I have to disagree with many here, Jeremy Northam was spot on as Mr. Knightley, when I first saw the movie I remember saying to myself "THAT is how I imagined him to look!" that, and Jeremy Northam is an amazing actor and he really plays the part well.

Gwyneth Paltrow was also very good, considering she wasn't even a British actress (though it still is perplexing to me as to why they would cast british actors in every role except for Emma's ... hmmm), I think she did a great job conveying Emma's feistiness and wit.

I also liked how the movie accentuated the teasing and the banter between Emma and Knightley, it made for some super cute scenes btw the two characters.

Not long after the TV movie with Kate Beckinsale was on, and I decided to watch it. I hated it, not only was Kate completely wrong as Emma, Mark Strong's Knightley was horrid, both in temperament and physically, I mean ... George Knightley was supposed to be this handsome, dashing, "older but doesnt look older" men to which other men pale in comparision. IMO the actor that was cast the best was the guy who played Frank Churchill, he was everything that I imagined Frank to be.

The recent BBC miniseries was just vomit inducing, I tried to watch it, and I couldnt get through it ... yuck!

The last post here was 2017 and there's been a new Emma movie (2020), which I just watched tonight. I have to say that I liked it very much. I also have to admit that Emma* is perhaps my least favourite Austen novel. Something about this story is a big fail for me, so apologies to Emma lovers and Emma purists. This new movie was over the top in sets and costumes, and probably not all that historically accurate, but it was gorgeous and fresh. I also thought the casting, for the most part, was great. Bill Nighy played Mr Woodhouse and I laughed at every one of his scenes.

*No touchstones at all for Emma. LOL.

>56 Nickelini:
Emma is one of my favourite books - in my top half dozen - but I agree about the new film which I saw in the cinema (my last before lockdown IIRC) - really well done and, for me, very much in the spirit of the book; one of the best. The only slightly jarring note for me, and the only significant miscasting, was Johnny Flynn, who was far too young for Mr Knightley.

>57 MarthaJeanne:

Indeed. But when LT is running backups, the touchstones don't load. Sorry to confuse you. It makes me laugh when I get a "no results" error message for a super common book

>58 Willoyd:

I see your point about Johnny Flynn. I wonder if it is intentional because viewers in 2020 can be so squimish about big age differences in characters (or actors). My daughter -- who always comments on this -- didn't seem to notice how much older he is supposed to be.

Funnily enough, I see that Johnny Flynn is 37 -- isn't that the age Mr Knightley is supposed to be? He would have been 34 or 35 during filming? Interesting.

I own and read Manga Classics Emma adapted by Stacy King. If you've read the original novel, this manga adaptation is a delightful read! The editorial team kept as much of the story (and scenes) as possible.