strange and random happenstance

Emma is one of the perennial Austen adaptations. Every few years another one comes along. Last year we were treated to the delightful Anya Taylor-Joy version, or as I refer to it, the Miranda Hart version. Because Miranda Hart is a goddess and why oh why would they try to remake her TV series!?! Deep breath, let it go. Back to Austen... But for all the adaptations out there, from the Gwyneth Paltrow with the oddly healthy and robust Jane Fairfax to Andrew Davies' overly creepy Mr. Knightly, there are only two I feel are worth mentioning, the 2010 Romola Garai adaptation and Clueless. And then, if I'm being pedantic, the Emma miniseries wins because it's the only one of the two where our heroine is named Emma Woodhouse. This version with it's four episodes was given room to breath. Room to actually include her family for once! I mean, you wouldn't cast Michael Gambon as Mr. Woodhouse and then relagate him to a chair with no dialogue like the Gwyneth Paltrow version now would you? I should hope not! Though it's because of the inspired casting of Miss Woodhouse that this adaptation shines. Romola Garai is perfection. She brings that joy that Jennifer Ehle did to Pride and Prejudice. An infectious smile that couples well with Emma's scheming and mischievous nature. As for Jonny Lee Miller? He's the perfect balance! He himself is quite goofy with his laying about in chairs, his eye rolls, his sighs. His comedic timing is perfect. The two of them form a very good double act which makes their romance believable. Because, the thing with Mr. Knightly and Emma is that if not properly cast they come across as just a convenient not a realistic couple. They just get married because Emma doesn't want her nephew to lose out on his inheritance to a child of Harriet Smith's and well, what's good for her sister is good for her, so how about a Knightly! Here you actually believe it. Yes, there's a beautiful dance and lots of swelling music to help sell it, but what's interesting is that those aren't the moments that make my heart hurt. It's when he scolds Emma about her behavior or when she is just sitting and looking at his usual chair now empty. Their being apart or fighting or just not talking physically hurts me. Because if an adaptation can make me feel that deeply, it is indeed perfection.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Andrew Davies, Anya Taylor-Joy, Clueless, Emma, Emma Woodhouse, Fifty Years a Masterpiece, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Ehle, Jonny Lee Miller, Michael Gambon, Miranda Hart, Mr. Knightly, Romola Garai

Northanger Abbey
Based on the book by Jane Austen
Release Date: March 25th, 2007
Starring: Geraldine James, Julia Dearden, Gerry O'Brien, Sylvestra Le Touzel, Desmond Barrit, Felicity Jones, J.J. Feild, Bernadette McKenna, William Beck, Shauna Taylor, Sophie Vavasseur, Carey Mulligan, Hugh O'Conor, Mark Dymond, Catherine Walker, and Liam Cunningham
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

Catherine Moreland didn't have the upbringing or character to be a heroine. Despite how many horrid Gothic novels she's read none of her daydreams of masked bandits and vampires was ever going to come true. But just because she wasn't destined to be a heroine didn't mean her life would be without adventure. To that end the Allens, dear family friends, invite her to go to Bath with them. Balls! Gowns! Shopping! Society! And who knows, maybe a dashing stranger would ask her to dance? Henry Tilney is more goofy than dashing, but in one dance he makes a deep impression on Catherine. Her later friendship with Isabella Thorpe and the attentions of Isabella's brother John Thrope can not sway her affections for Henry Tilney. When she is invited by Henry's father under a purposeful misunderstanding to return with them to their home of Northanger Abbey nothing could make Catherine happier than perhaps if Isabella would stop flirting with Henry's older brother while engaged to her own brother James Moreland! Yet Catherine's daydreams of what an Abbey means in Gothic literature might get her into trouble. Yes, there might be dark secrets and vampirism at the Abbey, but not of the kind Mrs. Radcliffe writes about. Could Catherine's imagination get in the way of finding true love? Or is her desire to be a heroine going to pay off with a happily ever after?

In the spring of 2007 I was beyond thrilled at the prospect of ITV's Austen season. New adaptations of Persuasion, Mansfield Park, and Northanger Abbey? I could not wait! Each one had something to recommend it. Persuasion had Giles from Buffy the Vampire Slayer playing Sir Walter Elliot, Mansfield Park starred Billie Piper in her first post-Doctor Who role, and Northanger Abbey was adapted by Andrew Davies. Andrew Davies! Who understands what adapting a book is about, spirit versus direct transcription! Though he has said you can basically cut and paste Austen's books from prose to screenplay. I viewed this televisual event as a chance to reacquaint myself with the lesser read of Austen's novels, as I viewed these three at the time. What I found interesting is that my opinion and these three books radically changed on that reading. Though what surprised me the most was how much I adored Northanger Abbey. I had actually never re-read Northanger Abbey after that first read ten years previously because I was too naive to get the parody aspect at the time and therefore ranked it as Austen's worst novel. Older, and hopefully wiser, I thought Austen had never been funnier. And as for Henry Tilney? He instantly became my favorite Austen hero. Why? Because he is a fully rounded character, not some ideal. He has a sense of humor, he loves to read, and well, he's not perfect and somehow that makes him perfect.

When it came to the adaptation of Northanger Abbey my ever increasing love of Henry Tilney wasn't in the least hurt by the masterful portrayal of the role by J.J. Feild. In fact, I'm sure that my reconsideration was in no small part helped by J.J. There's only so much a book can do until you can affix a visual to a character, which is why I often dream cast books as I read them. I couldn't have done better than J.J. for Henry Tilney. Prior to his becoming Henry Tilney he'd made a minor impression on me. As Frederick Garland in the Sally Lockhart mysteries he made the most of a role that PBS almost obliterated with their editing. And when he starred in The Secret Life of Mrs. Beeton he'd made enough of a favorable impression that I just couldn't believe he'd give his wife a venereal disease! And I would have totally taken him back with that hangdog expression almost more sheepish than Hugh Grant's patented look. But it was Northanger Abbey that made him forever one of my favorite male actors. The humor? The arch looks? He's perfection. He nails the comedy but he can combine it with pathos and stern censor yet all coming from the heart. He became my heartthrob. I've watched everything he's been in since, yes, even Captain America. I even tried my hardest to like TURN with his little rat tail, but even he couldn't elevate that show. But while I'll always point to Northanger Abbey as the true beginning of my crush, the zenith is Austenland.

Though I do wonder if the little Gothic fantasies of Catherine might supersede the perfection of Austenland. These are not only hilarious, I think they are the key to the dramatization of Northanger Abbey. It's not just that seeing Catherine actually dressed up as the heroine she wishes herself to be pursued by villains is perfection, it's that these overacted vignettes show perfectly her overactive imagination and how she is later able to suspect Henry's father of murder. What's more they perfectly capture the tone Austen was aiming for in her parodying of Gothic literature. Northanger Abbey was written from a place of mocking love, you can see Austen herself has read and devoured these novels from Mrs. Radcliffe and Lewis, how else could she know them so well to then poke fun of them? Yet as I myself proved on my first reading, I was naive to what she was parodying and therefore was unable to understand the brilliance of the book. There dramatization of Catherine's daydreams coupled with excerpts from the actual books referenced by Austen gives the viewer a quick grounding in the genre and then moves onward to parodying that genre. Therefore Davies has made Northanger Abbey able to stand on it's own. Context while nice isn't necessary if this is your first exposure to Austen. If only this adaptation had existed when I first read Northanger Abbey I would have come around to loving it so much soon!

The only thing I really question about this adaptation is did Isabella really have sex with Captain Fredrick Tilney, Henry's older brother, in order to secure an engagement to him? In the edition of Northanger Abbey I recently re-read the introduction was penned by Andrew Davies and he says that Isabella's seduction and therefore her fall from polite society is supported in the text. But is it? In his adaptation of Sense and Sensibility Andrew Davies had Colonel Brandon and Willoughby duel. I of course thought this was creative license along the lines of a certain wet shirt. But if you read Sense and Sensibility knowing that a duel occurs, sure enough, it's not an exaggeration, it is supported by the text. There is a line where Colonel Brandon tells Elinor that he dueled Willoughby when recounting his sad history with Eliza. So knowing that Andrew Davies was right on the duel I was expecting to find him right on the seduction... but I at least didn't see that in the book. Catherine is away from Bath so we as readers are away from the action. So we see Isabella flirting with Captain Tilney and then Catherine gets a letter from Isabella asking for Catherine to help repair the breach with her brother and former fiance James Moreland. While Isabella's desire to return to James might seem out of character I don't think we can infer that she was trying to get back her old beau in a hurry because she was despoiled and possibly pregnant. After all the conditions under which their marriage was to take place figured in a two year engagement. So if I'm missing some key in the text I want to know! Otherwise I think it's all Davies and his desire to add a little more explicit sex to Austen.

But I will allow this license with regard to Isabella because seriously, I hate the whole Thorpe family. A bunch of low class no accounts who weasel their way in and manipulate. What I won't forgive is the clunky narration. At the beginning and the end of the movie Geraldine James has a little voice over. The beginning is actually the first lines of the book and the conclusion is a little of the end of the book and a little artistic license on Andrew Davies part. What I take issue with is that it just doesn't work. It sticks out and makes the whole movie not a cohesive whole. Look to the Gwyneth Paltrow version of Emma where at the end the narrator was revealed to be Mrs. Elton in a wonderfully fun turn of events and as also a way to incorporate the narrative device into the overall story. Here it just falls flat. Yes, I do agree that there needs to be some framing device but it needed grounding. According to IMDb Geraldine James is actually Jane Austen. Um, I didn't get this at all and I'm pretty sure it didn't say that in the credits. Also, if she was supposed to be Austen, she was 57 when this film was made... more than a tad too old to be Jane. They could have gone the root of Emma and had another character narrating it, but on further reflection wouldn't it have been wonderful for Mrs. Tilney to be the narrator? Looking down on the girl who was going to grow up and make her son happy. In order to get the point across the portrait of Mrs. Tilney could have been of Geraldine James and if you caught it you caught it and if you didn't, no matter. It would have been a cute little nod and a wink and would have made me very happy indeed. 

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Adaptation, Andrew Davies, Austenland, Bicentenary Ball, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Emma, Felicity Jones, Geraldine James, Gothic Literature, Gwyneth Paltrow, J.J. Feild, Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey, Sex

Emma
Based on the book by Jane Austen
Release Date: October 4th, 11th, 18th, and 24th, 2009
Starring: Michael Gambon, Jodhi May, Robert Bathurst, Tamsin Greig, Valerie Lilley, Romola Garai, Jonny Lee Miller, Dan Fredenburgh, Poppy Miller, Blake Ritson, Veronica Roberts, Louise Dylan, Jefferson Hall, Laura Pyper, Rupert Evans, Liza Sadovy, and Christina Cole
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

Emma Woodhouse grew up motherless, raised by a father always expecting the worst. Yet she made the best out of what she was given and dotes on her anxious father and never strays too far from home, unlike her sister who moved an unacceptable distance, less than 15 miles away to London! Therefore Emma's little community of Highbury is her entire world and they view her as their queen. Yet one might pity those in Highbury for an active imagination like Emma's trapped in a small circle of friends they have become the beneficiaries of her schemes. Even if they don't want to be her playthings. Emma thinks she excels at matchmaking, which Mr. Knightly says isn't matchmaking so much as wishful thinking that sometimes comes true, as in the case with their respective siblings and Mr. Weston and Emma's governess Miss Taylor. She will prove him wrong though with her new project, Harriet Smith. Harriet Smith is the natural daughter of who knows whom Emma plans to marry to the Reverend Elton. But Mr. Knightly is right and she doesn't really know people well and Mr. Elton has another wife in mind, Emma herself! Trying to extricate herself from this mistake and the harm it's caused to Harriet leads Emma into more mistakes. The worst might be a lack of propriety when Mr. Weston's son, Frank Churchill, finally returns to Highbury. Emma knows that he has been marked out for her. If she were the marrying sort Frank would be whom she would marry to make everyone, except her father, happy. Therefore she is more open with her feelings, more cutting with her words, all in the pursuit of a good time with Frank. But Frank has hidden motives, reasons for his being in Highbury other than paying his respects to his new mother and his old home. If only Emma would take a moment to stop and look inward versus outward she might see the world in a whole new light.

With every prior adaptation of Emma I had strong reservations, be it an oddly healthy and robust Jane Fairfax to an overly creepy Mr. Knightly, yes I'm looking at you Andrew Davies. Though in some fairness to Andrew Davies I don't think anyone could have succeeded in doing Emma any kind of just given only ninety minutes to tell the tale. Therefore when it was announced that a new miniseries of Emma was on it's way and me having just started my blog, I went a little overboard with the blog posts about the actors and the new adaptation. With four hours there was a far higher chance of them getting it right or at least keeping in everything that needs to be there in order to be moderately faithful. Four glorious episodes, four glorious hours so that they don't relegate Mr. Woodhouse to a chair and only vaguely reference him (which once you cast Michael Gambon you'd be hard pressed to do!) And while I've enjoyed it every time I've watched it, this time it just struck me harder. I adored it. Yes, it has pacing problems with the plot not clicking until Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax arrive, but that's the same problem the book has! In my initial review I was lenient on changes, because it's an adaptation so of course they're going to fiddle with it. The best adaptations aren't word perfect, look to the Harry Potter franchise for proof. But this time there were some little things, little shifts that got to me. All of them to do with Frank Churchill. My main gripe is actually one against all adaptations of Emma, why can't Frank be introduced just as Austen wrote it? Instead there must be some amusing confusion, some meet cute that is just wrong in my mind. In the Gwyneth Paltrow version Emma is driving a carriage!?! What nonsense is this? She would NEVER do this and her father would never allow it. But what I really objected to here was Frank being viewed as a resident of Highbury. No. This changes too much to be allowed. His father settled there long after Frank was off with the Churchills it was NEVER his home. This makes Emma and Frank's meeting some sort of predestination a lifetime in the making instead of just a few months. Frank doesn't deserve any more importance, he's full enough of himself already.

But anyone who's anyone has issues with Frank Churchill, it's the fatal flaw of Emma. Therefore I should console myself with what they got oh so right, and that's the inclusion of Emma's family, the extended Woodhouse clan. They are the first to go as being "extraneous" when time is considered in most Emma adaptations. But you can't really understand anyone unless you see them with their family. Their family is who forms them and whom they either surround themselves with or run away from. To omit Emma's family is to omit a true understanding of her. I can remember actually fuming in the theater watching Gwyneth Paltrow quickly showing off her slumbering father to visitors to Hartfield because that was his only real scene. No dialogue due to being unconscious! Emma's father is the central figure in her life, the figure around which everything happens and is decided! To push him to one side is unacceptable. But then again most people would be even more surprised from the aforementioned Gwyneth Paltrow version as to the importance of Emma's elder sister Isabella and her brother-in-law, Mr. Knightly's younger brother John, and all their children. Because while Emma is set apart in her community, she has love. She has a bustling family with all its pros and cons. Nephews paying extended visits and nieces to comfort her in her old age. Which makes her situation sadder. Her love has made her make sacrifices that others, especially her sister, haven't had to make. Isabella is like a mirror image Emma. That is what Emma's life could have been. And while we have the knowledge that Emma will get her happily ever after and perhaps daringly visit the seaside, when we meet her, when we get to know her she might be the queen of the castle, but it's a sad castle with a shut-in she loves dearly, but a shut-in none the less. You feel Emma's pain, Emma's loneliness amongst the bustle and familial love. This brings a little humanity to Emma by showing her as coping bravely with the loneliness of her life by being outgoing and scheming. A lonely existence no matter how little there was to distress or vex her is still lonely.

Though to bring this all across, to show the joy in the sadness, the humor in the everyday, the right actors were needed. It must be said, Gwyneth Paltrow was too haughty, too cold, and the less said about the poultry and pervy Kate Beckinsale version the better. Romola Garai though is perfection. She brings that joy that Jennifer Ehle did to Pride and Prejudice. An infectious smile that couples well with Emma's scheming and mischievous nature. As for Jonny Lee Miller? He's the perfect balance! He himself is quite goofy with his laying about in chairs, his eye rolls, his sighs. His comedic timing is perfect. The two of them form a very good double act which makes their romance believable. Because, the thing with Mr. Knightly and Emma is that if not properly cast they come across as just a convenient not a realistic couple. They just get married because Emma doesn't what her nephew to lose out on his inheritance to a child of Harriet Smith's and well, what's good for her sister is good for her, so how about a Knightly! Here you actually believe it. Yes, there's a beautiful dance and lots of swelling music to help sell it, but what's interesting is that those aren't the moments that make my heart hurt. It's when he scolds Emma about her behavior or when she is just sitting and looking at his usual chair now empty. Their being apart or fighting or just not talking physically hurts me. And while I could easily believe Romola Garai capable of this, loving her in everything from Daniel Deronda to I Capture the Castle to The Hour to The Crimson Petal and the White, the only thing Jonny Lee Miller had in his favor was Trainspotting. But the negatives were stacked against him, Plunkett and Macleane anyone? Dark Shadows? The most boring Sherlock Holmes currently around? Yes, he was passable in Dracula 2000 and that Byron movie, but the biggest negative was that he'd been an Austen hero before. Yes, our Jonny Lee Miller was Edmund Bertram in the horrid 1999 version of Mansfield Park, which is not only a bad adaptation but it is distinguished as being one of my most hated films ever. So to have this depth, this humor, this snid perfection that would give Emma perfect happiness? A delightful surprise indeed!

Then again, this adaptation was full of surprises. Mainly because it understood that the purpose is to adapt the story, make it true in feeling if not in word. While Austen purists might say "but that's not in the book." There is nothing done in this adaptation that isn't supported by the text if not directly than in supposition! Personally I hate Austen purists, and I'm sure she would have hated them too. She wrote for fun so if you have fun reading the book or watching the adaptation I'm sure Austen would be happy. As I say again and again if you question what adaption means look at the first two Harry Potter movies which are really horrid and how slavishly Chris Columbus tried to stick to the books, then look at Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and the mood is so perfect the film switched the franchise up a notch and made it not just viable but enjoyable, not something you just watched to pretend Harry Potter was real but you knew wasn't very good deep in your heart. Back to Austen, what struck me most in this adaptation was the visual imagery of dolls used throughout. This works so well because Emma basically treats those around her, especially Harriet Smith, as her playthings, and therefore to have doll imagery is a natural extension. This isn't something Austen would explicitly spell out but seems like something she'd love. The implications are all there, Emma's very nature makes it logical, so therefore it just makes this adaptation feel right. And it's not just Emma playing with her dolls under a table as a young girl in one of the best time lapse scenes with Miss Bates ever, it's that the dolls appear again when she's scheming about Isabella, then Mr. Elton, and then later Mr. Knightly even references them in passing. The adaptation has created a through line that is perfection. Added to this is the delightful opening credits that depict famous scenes from the book in silhouette, or, as they look to me, in paper dolls! But I wouldn't expect less from Sandy Welch who did two of my favorite miniseries ever, Jane Eyre in 2006 and North and South in 2004.

Yet this review can't all be glowing... there is a flaw. Now it's time for my rant against PBS. PBS, you treat your British shows and by extension your viewers like shit. You hack the shows up, aka "edit for time" and speed up the frame rate so that you can show more ads for cruises no one watching the show will ever go on. As a viewer you can only see the "original UK broadcast" by buying your DVDs. And it's your DVDs I want to talk about, in particular THIS DVD. How could you release such a wonderful show with such a sub-par release? The transfer is abysmal! What the fuck is with this transfer! I mean, seriously, WHAT THE FUCK! It's grainy and horrid. The first fifteen minutes was me trying to come to terms with having actually paid money for something that was barely a step above a bootleg VHS tape you'd buy of some lost Doctor Who episode or Red Dwarf special at a science fiction convention. The first disc has a constantly flickering weird green bar in the lower right corner of the screen. Plus there was some weird shift that made the right edge of the screen vibrate on both discs. I thought, well, it's not Blu Ray so now that I'm into Blu Ray I could upgrade, but guess what? There is no upgrade! This is the only version they released in this piss poor quality. I'm not joking when I say that the winter scenes looked like they were from a nature documentary from the 70s. I expected some Brit with out sized specs and corduroys to appear screen left and start talking about the mating habits of some birds or fluffy field vermin. I mean, I don't want to piss on PBS, they offer so much, but compared to how the channel used to be, with lovely long intros to these shows that were well researched and presented versus Alan Cumming just coming on at the beginning of only one episode of Wallander to complain about how dull and dark he was? I mean, yes, I agree about his bitching about Wallander, but I could at least use a little more Alan! Masterpiece No Longer Theatre isn't even repeated and where are the lovely old British comedies on late at night? All that is gone and instead we have shitty overprice DVDs and edited sped up shows. Not cool PBS. Not cool at all. So while I adore this miniseries, just stream it, don't give them money for this shitty treatment of their consumers.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Andrew Davies, Bicentenary Ball, Edmund Betrum, Emma, Emma Woodhouse, Family, Gwyneth Paltrow, Harry Potter, Jane Austen, Jonny Lee Miller, Mansfield Park, Masterpiece Theater, Mr. Knightly, PBS, Romola Garai

I remember it clearly. It was the last semester of senior year and after school one day in February we decided to go over to Sonja's house. Everyone, at least all the girls, could not stop talking about the new adaptation of Pride and Prejudice that was on A&E. I was surprisingly still Jane Austen ignorant, having read predominately American Classics and Shakespeare in High School. They weren't discussing the plot or anything to do with the author, they were discussing how Bingley, as played by Crispin Bonham-Carter, was equally, if not hotter than Mr. Darcy. To prove this point they kept playing the Netherfield Ball scene over and over again on the low quality VHS tape that one of the party had provided. After that day I was swept up in a whirlwind of finals and papers and one goose attack (don't ask) till I got the lovely diploma (after handing in my cap and gown, cause apparently I would want to keep that tatty old thing), but I never forgot Jane.

1996 was THE YEAR for embarking on a Jane Austen obsession. Besides the miniseries, there was the new version of Persuasion and Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility making their way to the budget cinema. Plus both the A&E and Gwyneth Paltrow versions of Emma. So in the tradition of British students everywhere (and yes, I know I'm not British, but I can dream) I took a gap year. The first few months of it was devoted to Jane. I took myself to the mall and bought one of those big omnibus editions containing Emma, Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility from Walden Books, it was even on the end cap. I lugged this tome everywhere, with it's 8 point type. I probably knocked my vision down a few pegs as I devoured these precious books. In a habit that still remains, I'd read the book then watch the movie. Sense and Sensibility was first. I remember sitting in my bedroom window crying for Elinor and later crying with the entire audience at the theater. I then tackled Emma, and remember not liking the Gwyneth version too much, I have since reconciled with this (my friend and I were very tempted at shouting "Mr. E" at Alan Cumming at The Three Penny Opera), but I still remember the people behind me saying they felt the ending was "too Hollywood." WTF! It's all Austen! Then of course came Pride and Prejudice. I'd actually been holding off on this one because it held the biggest expectations. It didn't disappoint, and neither did the miniseries. It was all asked for for my birthday that year, the big, bulky VHS set, displayed with pride on top of my dresser.

And that's the thing about Jane, she hasn't let me down yet. It's been 14 years since we've been together and she has not only entertained me with many hours of reading and viewing and discussing, but she's also opened me to other authors. From Elizabeth Gaskell to Georgette Heyer to Helen Fielding, the authors that have been influenced by her and have then influenced me are boundless. I can't picture my world without Jane Austen, and I wouldn't want to. Jane Austen has helped for me into the literate, deprecating and artistic person I am today and I quite literally don't know where I'd be without her. So how about you?

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 2 comments  

Labels: Alan Cumming, Crispin Bonham-Carter, Elizabeth Gaskell, Emma Thompson, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jane Austen, Mr. Darcy, Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility

Back in February the book group I belong to chose Emma by Jane Austen as it's selection. I had not read Emma in over a decade and thought it was long overdue to revisit the inhabitants of Highbury. I had a really hard time getting back into the book, which for me is odd. I love Austen and Emma used to be in the top three (previous Austen ranking being: Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park, Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion and Northanger Abbey). I think it's just been too long since I've read this and I'm older and, to an extent, more mature. When I was younger I thought wouldn't it be cool to be Emma trying to control everybody and move them around like her own chess pieces or living dolls. But now that I'm older, no thank you! (She's a little bit of a bitch). But after the re-reading, I thought lets watch the Andrew Davies adaptation again. I personally favor the Gwyneth Paltrow version with Jeremy Notham and Alan Cumming, but it's Andrew Davies, so it's worth another try. I still did not really like it. The adaptation was enjoyable, and I like seeing my favorite actors but I had some issues (see below for detailed list), also I personally think Andrew Davies' issues with Emma also color the adaptation. He doesn't like Emma and thinks Knightly a creep and Frank Churchill psychotic, and he's got a point. In his introduction to the Emma re-issue by Max Literary Classics, he says flat out Emma is a spoiled brat and that it's plain creepy how Mr. Knightly is attracted to a girl he held in his arms as a baby and was attracted to when she was about 13, making him the Humbert Humbert of his day. This prejudice of his, while I agree is a valid interpretation, leads to Mr. Knightly discussing how he held her as a baby twice in the film, which isn't exactly a romantic thought. But he devotes the majority of his introduction to Frank Churchill, the man who continually insults the woman he loves for all to hear. Traditionally, Jane Fairfax is more of an Austen heroine, she's poor and gets secretly engaged, yet all works out for her...but does it. To marry a man so taciturn and so willing to commit deceit to get what he wants, even if it hurts those he loves, is not exactly a happily ever after. She's really marrying a mental case, I mean at the root here is someone who gave Jane deep pain despite saying he loves her! Also she tries to break it off to no avail. Poor poor Jane. This dislike of Frank also leads to their relationship being a little less romantic in this adaptation and a little more a psychological game. All in all I don't think there yet exists a perfect version of Emma, but there is hope, the new version will be longer and has a great cast, so cling to that. Till then, this is enjoyable, but not the perfect happiness one would like. My Main Problems: Mark Strong as Mr. Knightly. He is a fine actor, but, I'm sorry, even if Mr. Knightly is far older than Emma, a receding hairline is not attractive. Samantha Morton's wig. She has yet another atrocious wig job, she had quite a few around this period, also she was heavily overused, being in Tom Jones to Jane Eyre, some working better than others. Lucy Robinson's accent as Mrs. E. And what the hell is that accent supposed to be? It's like weird posh meets badly done broad American. It's too rural, with focusing on the chickens and farmers. Only 90 minutes! At this length the book is done in such broad strokes, yet it seems to randomly jump about, like they weren't sure of how the overall thing worked so it feels patched together. Things I love:(Or maybe I should have said thing). The servants! Just watch the poor put upon servants in every scene, they are priceless. From having to carry large furniture up Box Hill to having to provide knee pads so Mr. Knightly's guests can pick strawberries "like in nature". If only nature provided be-wigged footmen holding my fruit picking basket and providing a nice cushion so I wouldn't soil my clothes. Also for anyone interested my current Austen Ranking is: Pride and Prejudice, Northanger Abbey, Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion, Mansfield Park and Emma.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Alan Cumming, Andrew Davies, eckinsale, Emma, Emma Woodhouse, Frank Churchill, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jane Austen, Jane Fairfax, Jeremy Notham, Kate Beckinsale, Lucy Robinson, Mr. Knightly, Samantha Morton