Ibmiller left a comment asking what my thoughts were on other Emma adaptations. You’ll probably be sorry you asked, because I could go on all day about this topic! For clarity I will refer to each adaptation by the numbers they use at the Republic of Pemberley: Emma1 is the 1971 version, Emma2 is the 1996 Gwennyth Paltrow version, Emma 3 is the Kate Beckinsale version, and the newest one is Emma 4.
I must say, I like all the Emma adaptations for one reason or another. Emma the novel has been pretty lucky in its adaptations (unlike poor Mansfield Park). There aren’t any versions that I consider absolutely horrendous.
The central problem in adapting Emma is, of course, the problem of how to present the mysteries of the book. When I first read the book, I had no idea that Frank Churchill and Jane were secretly engaged, or that Mr. Knightley was in love with Emma (and she with him) until all was made clear in the last few chapters, and I think that is the way Austen intended it. It is easier to hide those things in a book, because we follow the story from Emma’s perspective and she doesn’t notice everything or place importance on certain things. It isn’t until a re-read that you notice the clues that are sprinkled throughout.
In a film version, you see the story from more than just Emma’s perspective, and it’s much easier to pick up on the clues. I think it would be very difficult to hide from the viewer that Mr. Knightley is the hero. The book may leave out a physical description of him (except for his age), but a movie can’t. I have heard people express ideas about keeping Knightley in the background of shots, never focusing on his face, etc, to keep him more of a minor character for longer. That might work, but I can see viewers then saying that the lead couple had no chemistry and they couldn’t believe in the relationship.
I think some productions have tried to make Knightley not-so-obviously the hero by making him a good deal older even than the book makes him (like in Emma1), or by making him almost always very serious and scolding (Emma3). My least favourite Knightley is the Emma3 one (Mark Strong), because he just seemed too angry much of the time, with not enough cheerful friendliness toward Emma to make up for it. I know others see his portrayal as absolutely perfect, though, so my mental image of Knightley is not universal.
Anyway, I’ll tell you what I like and dislike about each adaptation.
Emma1: I do like John Carson as Mr. Knightley. He is too old, but the way he interacts with Emma is perfect. They are obviously good friends and have little in-jokes and tease each other, but he is quite stern at times and really does lecture her when she deserves it. Perfect. It definitely suffers from the old BBC production values, though, and the only way to overcome it is to think of it as a play that got videotaped. Harriet is ok, I like the Eltons, and Mr. Woodhouse isn’t bad either. I like Frank Churchill. For some reason they got a Jane Fairfax that couldn’t sing well (!), which is really annoying. And they changed a few plot details for no apparent reason, which is also annoying. But because it is long, they were able to include a lot of the book that was left out in other versions.
Emma2: Some have called this version “Emma lite” and I can see why, but I like it very well. I think Gwenneth Paltrow fits my mental image of Emma almost perfectly. I like Mr. Knightley’s banter with her in this version, too, and his scolding hits the right note. I like most of the minor characters as well, but what I like best about Emma2 is the tone. It is a romantic comedy, and that’s how I see the novel. There is so much humour in the book! Much of it comes from the narrator, and that is what is hard to transfer to the screen. I didn’t mind them putting in extra funny lines, because it made the tone of the film what I thought it should be. Of course, it’s the shortest of the versions, and leaves the most incidents out. The language is also quite modern at times, and that can jar a little. On the whole though, I really love this version.
Emma3: Probably my least favourite version because the tone is so much darker. There also seems to be a lot of social commentary running through the production with so many scenes of contrast between the rich and the poor and the masters and servants. That annoys me a bit, because while all of that is true, it’s not what Emma is about. If you want social commentary, watch Gaskell or Dickens. J And I’ve already mentioned that this Mr. Knightley is too generally stern for my taste. The scolding on Box Hill loses its punch for me, because he’s gotten angry so often before. On the other hand, there are a few funny scenes (Mr. Knightley’s line, “Very sprightly” made me laugh out loud), and Mr. John Knightley is perfect. I think this is my favourite Jane Fairfax, too. Frank Churchill is too sinister for me in this one. I am one of those people that sees Frank as immature and a bit selfish, but not really evil. He seems a lot more consciously crafty in this version. They way his talk with Emma finished at the very end of the film was odd, and not true to the book at all. I do watch Emma3, though, because it has things no other version has, and does some things extremely well.
I suppose every adaptation has things that make us cringe; a true Austen fan can nit-pick all day on any given adaptation! The test of a good adaptation is whether we can overlook those things and enjoy the rest or whether those things bother us so much that we can’t bear to watch it at all. I’m thankful that for me, none of the Emma adaptations falls into the last category.
Comments
Oct. 14, 2009 - Untitled Comment
Posted by ibmiller
Well, if I didn't want an answer, I would have just kept on lurking! I like long posts, especially about Emma.
I should probably say that my favorite version of Emma is Emma3 (and I am glad to be able to use these terms – typing “Godwin Emma” “Paltrow Emma” etc, or worse, “Davies/Beckinsale/Strong Emma” gets really tiresome after a while). I do find Strong quite intense, but I see that as his reaction to his jealousy – I enjoy the portrayal of him as a flawed, emotional man struggling with his feelings, and “blaming and lecturing Emma” who “bears it as no other woman in England would have bourn it” (which indicates, to me, that there is something to bear, and not just Mr. Knightley being self-deprecating – something I also think the new film is getting across well, with Mr. Knightley not regarding Emma's intelligence enough). So, just to let everyone know my bias, there tis.
(And I too agree that MP has gotten short shrifted – I hear that MP 1983 is good, but I just can't bring myself to watch Sylvestre Le Touzel as Fanny – I've seen and liked her immensely in other things, like Northanger Abbey and Amazing Grace, but I really cannot see her as Fanny – and since Fanny and Emma are my two favorite heroines in all literature, I am rather careful. And how do I reconcile that with having seen the 1999 and 2007 abominations? Well, clearly those “Fanny” actresses were not really playing Fanny at all. So, yes, inconsistent, a bit, but I do have my reasons.)
Interseting point about the issue being trying to adapt the mystery – I actually think the whole “mystery” aspect of the story has been rather overplayed. I think it is surprising, but although I didn't have any idea who Emma would end up with, I did guess about Frank and Jane halfway through the story. Though I also see the problem with not caring at all about the mystery, like Emma2, in making Emma and Mr. Knightley just too obviously romantic leads. It is a fine line, I'm just not sure that using the term “mystery” is the most useful way to describe the balance. But then, I have no suggestions as to what to put in its place. So I'm not being very helpful – sorry.
Emma1: My real problem with this, other than the lack of aesthetics and relatively either odd or incompetent acting/directing, is the fact that the script deliberately changes characterizations. I have a friend who's read books with interviews with the production staff, and they said they were deliberately making Emma a sexual neurotic. Um, huh? And they made her a silly babblejaw, which I don't appreciate, since my Emma is very intelligent, if not that disciplined. And the reconciliation over baby Emma is played in a nursery, with the baby in the crib. What's wrong with holding the baby? Too normal? Not neurotic enough? I don't know. I really had a hard time with this version for these reasons – I think the only time I really enjoyed myself was when Mrs. Elton was castigating Mr. Knightley for not letting her arrange his life, and you can see him trying not to laugh at her blithe effrontry.
Emma2: And this is my second least favorite – I find Mr. Knightley weak and immature (even though I love Jeremy Northam in other roles, I just don't think his suave teasing is Mr. Knightley – who has a firm, forthright manner), Emma weak and immature (lying and making lame puns and...mmm, I don't like her), Miss Bates offensive (again, I love Sophie Thompson, particularly in Sherlock Holmes and Persuasion, but here she pushes some of my “deaf culture” buttons really hard, and I don't think it's funny at all), and Mr. Woodhouse completely unrecognizable (he's delighted that they're getting married?) Additionally, the whole “banter” thing really doesn't work for me – since they are supposed to have a relationship based on intelligent conversation, with occasional teasing. Not witty sarcasm (You should go on stage, Mr. Knightley?) (Actually this version is about 20 minutes longer than Emma 3.) I think my fundamental problem is with the script, which leeches all the subtlety from the humor and makes it into limp slapstick (Harriet in the cottage or the portrait scenes) or wince-inducing “wit” (the “oh, dear/venison stew” line most egregiously). Such an approach works well with an author whose humor is broad to begin with (I did enjoy Nicholas Nickleby, but the same writer/director very much), but not with Jane Austen, whose work should be much less inclined toward the cheap laugh. But then again, I also don't view Jane Austen as a humorous novelist – I think she's a serious novelist with a sense of humor. So, paradigm thing there, I think.
Emma3: And, of course, my favorite version. I do think the social commentary bit might be overdone, but I don't think it's that distracting – and I often find it quite funny (Mrs. Elton babbling about “simple and natural” while having servants move her kneeling cushions, and the servants setting up the picnic on Box Hill). I will also agree that Frank is much too scary – Davies has said he sees Frank as a sociopath in “The Making of Jane Austen's Emma,” and I think that's quite a bit too far. But again, I don't think it's too distracting – especially since Jane Fairfax was so masterfully played by Olivia Williams. And John Knightley and Mr. Elton are really funny in this one, and not uncomfortable as they are in Emma4, unfortunately (I really, really want to like this one, as Romola is my favorite actress, and Emma my favorite novel, but I don't think it will replace my favorite).
Thank you so much for such a thoughtful, insightful post!
Oct. 14, 2009 - Untitled Comment
Posted by cornthwaite
It's funny, because I can see most of your points in those adaptations, but they don't bother me enough to make me hate the adaptation. It's kind of like Anne of Green Gables--the film is so different from the book, but somehow I can like both and not be disturbed by the differences. Of course, it probably helps that I saw the film first--I usually fare better that way. But then I read Emma before seeing the films, so I don't know where that leaves me.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. :)