I’ve now seen all of the 2009 BBC Emma (Emma 4) and I will say that I really love it! It is not perfect; it would not be perfect unless they had gotten me to write it, direct it, and star in it! J As the BBC did not have the foresight to engage me to do those things, there are several things I would change.
On the other hand, the things I do like about it are numerous and delightful. I like the fact that there are many scenes from the novel that do not appear in any other adaptation. I like that fact that Harriet is believably sweet and dense, and suitably pretty—best Harriet ever. I like that this adaptation shows Frank Churchill’s immaturity very clearly. I love the after-engagement scenes!!
The things that still bother me:
- I still would like Emma to be a little more poised, although she seems to improve in this as the series goes on (probably intentionally).
- I would still like Mr. Weston to be more jolly and Miss Bates to be more cheerful.
- I still am annoyed by the repeated emphasis on Churchill and Jane Fairfax having left their “natural” homes, and the contrast with Emma staying with her father. Frank does indeed have my pity for his situation, but in the book nobody thinks it a hardship that Jane Fairfax lives with the Campbells—she pays them long visits when she is young, and goes to live with them when she is nine years old. I think that when Miss Bates says that Col. Campbell is “quite our angel,” she really means it; she is very grateful to the Campbells for their care and provision for Jane. IMO, neither Frank nor Jane were “sent away” by their families in the sense that they were not wanted. Somebody said on a blog that this adaptation was “Emma filtered through Oprah,” or something to that effect. On this particular point, I can see that.
- The one really jarring anachronism is the head-on-the-lap scene on Box Hill. Bad judgement on the part of whoever was responsible.
On the other hand, some people have gotten their notions about historical accuracy mostly from other adaptations, and criticise what they think are deviations from reality but are actually only deviations from the inaccuracies of previous adaptations! Here are a few criticisms I’ve run across, and my little attempt to set things straight (for the handful of people who follow this blog J).
- “The dances are too wild and not genteel enough.”
Regency dances were actually very lively. Consider these words from the blog of Susan de Guardiola (“Capering and Kickery”):
As a specialist in early 19th century dance, I regularly get asked what I think of the dancing in the various films of Jane Austen's novels and how to tell if the dancing in the films or being taught by someone or other is authentic to the Regency era (1810-1820). Sadly, the answer is usually "no." Here's a little checklist you can use to judge for yourself, either when watching a film or listening to someone teach "just like it was in the Regency" or "the same way Jane Austen danced":
1. Real Regency Dancers Don't Walk
In the 18th and early 19th century, walking was not considered dancing. The music was lively (jigs and reels), and the dances were performed primarily by people in their late teens and early twenties (not known for their sedate habits). There were actual dance steps, and demonstrating the ability to perform them well was an important aspect of the dancing. In Jane Austen's Mansfield Park, Fanny is actually pulled out of the dancing because she had ceased to do proper steps:
"Sir Thomas, having seen her walk rather than dance down the shortening set, breathless, and with her hand at her side, gave his orders for her sitting down entirely."
Notice the important distinction in "having seen her walk rather than dance" (italics mine). In films, either the inability of the actors, the ignorance of the choreographers, or the needs of the director tend to result in dancers gliding sedately around the set. But "stately walking" is not part of Regency style. Those who think that Regency dancing was all slow and elegant must not be familiar with the energy level of your average teenager!
[…]
4. Real Regency Dancers Are Au Courant
Along with the peculiar notion that dance figures from the 17th century are useful for the early 19th century comes the even more peculiar notion that entire dances of that era are appropriate. Regency-era dancers were not interested in doing the dances of their great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents, any more than today's teenagers are. Dances like "Hole in the Wall" and "Mr. Beveridge's Maggot" were written in the late 17th century. Their music is completely inappropriate for the Regency era. Their style is inappropriate. Their steps are inappropriate. There is no sense in which these dances belong in the Regency era. Loving obsessions with these dances make me want to cry at the sheer ignorance being promulgated by the people who keep putting these dances in movies. And any dance advertised as "Playford" suffers from a similar problem. The Playford manuals were published from 1650 to 1728, which you may notice is significantly before the Regency era (1810-1820). You can look at a great index of all the dances in the Playford manuals. That index conveniently serves as a list of dances to avoid for the Regency era.
The whole article is fascinating; you can read it at: http://www.kickery.com/2008/03/regency-dancers.html#more
I remember a comment that Ms. de Guardiaola made last year when asked which adaption had the most authentic dances; she said that the 2005 Pride and Prejudice scene of the Meryton Assembly was the most accurate.
- Along those same lines: “What was with Mrs. Elton calling out the dances at the Crown Inn ball?”
To quote again from the blog post mentioned above, “What to dance and what music to dance it to were separate questions, both to be answered by the leading lady in the set before the dance began.” The leading lady at the ball is Mrs. Elton. So far, this is the only adaptation I’ve ever seen that got that right!
- I haven’t actually seen this next one yet, but I am just waiting to read a post that says, “Putting Mrs. Elton on a real donkey and Elton dragging it along was too slapstick.”
I think perhaps whoever planned that scene was thinking of this Regency picture:
I thought it was a great touch!
- “Where were all the servants? There weren’t enough servants in this adaption!”
I think some people have gotten their notion about the ubiquitous nature of servants from Emma3, which had a super-abundance of them. One of Jane Austen’s nephews wrote in his memoir that in his aunt’s day, servants did not wait so much hand and foot on their employers as they did in years after. He said that when his uncle taught him to shoot, the first lesson was how to clean his own gun. It’s hard to imagine that happening in Emma 3, where the footmen even move the cushions in the strawberry patch for those picking! I do think Emma 3 went overboard in this respect.
Ok, that’s all I can think of for now. I’ll add any more that I think of.
To sum up, I really did love this adaptation. Hope you like it too!
Comments
Oct. 27, 2009 - Untitled Comment
Posted by ibmiller
Great post! Such useful information, and very well expressed as well! I adored this version as well, and agree that it's not perfect. The first two episodes, especially, I think are highly unever. But the last two really did everything I hoped for, and I am more than satisfied with the adaptation as a whole. Harriet and the after-engagement scenes you mention in particular, and I thought they were both huge points in favor of the series. I like Samantha Morton and Toni Collette, but I tend to like them in different roles than Harriet Smith. Louise Dylan, on the other hand, seems almost too smart for the part – but she played it very naively and blindly, so I congratulate her for filling the part as no one else has, and hope she gets many, many more parts after this!
I do think that Jane Fairfax leaving is not the result of being unwanted, but I think that Frank is a bit messed up. Mr. Weston is not shown to be terribly cut up by being forced to let his son belong to another family, and that would tend to bother me, I think. Which is not to say I approve of all the lines referencing this in the adaptation – I like Emma's conversation with her father in the fourth episode, but her comment about the semi-mystical connection between Emma, Frank, and Jane in the first episode irritates me greatly.
As for the head on the lap, I thought it was over-the-top out of period, but it also is portrayed as very inappropriate in the characters' reactions. Emma knows Frank is behaving badly, spoiling her hopes for a day of innocent fun (already ruined by the Eltons being invited by the unthinking Mr. Weston), and behaves badly in response – each feeding off the other until this, their final impropriety is reached. After this, Emma leaves Frank, and her disappointment, both with herself and with the whole outing, is written on her expression.
I too have noticed a lot of the kinds of inconsistencies you point out. I didn't know about the dancing, but it is nice to know these things. Though I still love the dancing in the other films – it does look like fun.
Now the donkey just cracked me up – and Mrs. Elton even referenced such a plan in the book, though it wasn't put into practice there. It works brilliantly here!
As for servants, as a fan of Emma3, I enjoyed the humor derived from the servants, such as Mrs. Elton's kneepad-moving footman, and the massive army of them at Box Hill (I would also point out the use of servants in P2, though, just to be fair – as well as the terribly annoying overemphasis on them at Lady Catherine de Bourg's dinner and the rather pointless montages of the servant girl at Longbourne in the P&P3). However, I think to some extent they were reacting to a prominent dearth of servants in several previous adaptations. I know Emma2 was release roughly while Emma3 was in production, so there wasn't that much overlap, but Emma2 really takes it in the opposite direction – there are almost no servants at all, which annoyed me just as much as having too many of them.
I'm so glad you loved it!
ibmiller.livejournal.com