Emma

I have seen each of the three main video versions of Emma (this 1972 BBC version, the Kate Beckinsale version, and the Paltrow version) several times (as well as having read the book) and I love each of them. It is so rare to get gentle, subtle, nuanced psychological drama, that I find I turn to Emma again and again. I think which one you enjoy most on a particular afternoon or evening will depend on your mood. The Paltrow version is lightest and funniest, entertainment to cheer you up; the Beckinsale version engages you as a serious drama of a beautiful young woman, is the most realistic, it is what you want if you want to feel transported back to the time the story happened. This 1972 version's strength is that it presents the psychological complexity of the characters with more fidelity and completeness to the portrayals in the novel. Due to the early 1970s production values, this version appears a bit stagy, and that can be off-putting if you've never seen that kind of TV before (I am a little over 50, so I remember seeing these kinds of productions when they originally aired, which may make it easier for me to get past the artificiality). One problematic element for me is that the actress who plays Emma is about 6 years too old, and she is not as attractive as Beckinsale or Paltrow, and these factors were a problem for me on my first viewing of this version. However, on second and subsequent viewings this was not so much of an issue, and I was able to appreciate her very nuanced portrayal of Emma's feelings and reactions and the process of learning more about human nature, and about the limitations of her own ability to imagine what the hidden feelings are of other people. Also, it took a second and third viewing to realize that the character of Emma's father, as presented here, is a comic character, because here, in a novel which is so much about weddings, he always finds weddings a distressing and melancholy business. His toast to the engaged couples in the very last scene (a toast not in the book) is a humorous reversal of the praise and delight for matrimony we expect. Another element that comes out in this version is the similarity between Emma's father, an invalid who always wants his daughter Emma by his side and who opposes the idea of her marrying, and Frank Churchill's step-mother, Mrs. Churchill, who is also an invalid who always wants her stepson Frank by her side and opposes the idea of his marrying. It always used to bother me that invalid Mrs. Churchill, who is so important to the story, never makes an appearance in the story, until I realized that, in effect, she had: she is the female version of Emma's father, and everything you want to know about her, you may find in him. The negative attitude of the characters towards her is likely the same negative attitude they would have towards him, if he lived far away and all they knew about him was that he used his claims of illness to keep his daughter close. The very last scene of this version also develops a similarity in the personalities of Emma and Frank that is missing from the other versions and that is necessary, I think, to understand just how psychologically complex Austen's novel really is.

A very refreshing thing about all versions of Emma is that every character is genuinely good-hearted and wants good for the other characters, but their own quirks, self-centeredness, and inability to understand other people means they cause pain to each other despite their good intentions. The only exception to this is Elton, who justly feels that Emma misled him about her affections in her attempt to unite him to Harriet, and in unjust retaliation he snubs Harriet on one occasion. The characters' ability to find happiness depends not on whether they defeat some unrealistic 'bad guy,' but on their ability to learn more about the true understanding of what others feel, and what they feel themselves. That's what the art of story-making should focus on, in whatever form (book, movie, TV, or stage) the story is told.

The appealing nature of this adaptation is its length and its fun. Characterisaton comes close to the work Davies did in 1996 for A&E, although it differs somewhat. That might be down to the literary criticism of the day, though, and particularly in the judgment upon Harriet as a dull, stupid cow. Davies was a little more nuanced in his judgment upon all characters, but nonetheless, the work Denis Constanduros produced was very true to the spirit of the novel and made use of the comedy elements in the original text. Particularly in costume and the one character of Mr Woodhouse Constanduros produced classic comedy that was about words rather than one-liners and ridiculous situations.

Also the age-difference between Emma and her Mr Knightley is very much apparent. Knightley is not as vigorous as Mark Strong in the role, but this Mr Knightley has not the task of radiating sex-appeal, but rather radiating stability and wisdom through experience, like Austen's version.

Despite the lack of technology to make shots and filming on location truly possible, they did well. There is also no music which made it necessary for the actors and director to truly act and film the characters' feelings so the viewer could comprehend them. It is surprising how they managed to still convey the same emotional tension (or even more of it than they do now) through mainly just close-ups. That, though, might slightly bother the modern viewer. However, through it, viewers are compelled to use their own brain more than with modern adaptations of the novel.

Most of the contents is not toned down, only maybe the complicated business with Churchill and Jane when things are going wrong in the end. The main point of Emma and Knightley's blindness to each other stays upward better than in the Miramax version of 1996. And that without all that Miramx had to their disposal.

It is the only adaptation of the work as well, that uses the wordiness of Austen. It is important as a viewer that one listens more than that one watches. We could easily just make the adaptation in a hear-play, it would make little difference. The language is so expressive and the comedy is so much embedded in it that the physical acting matters less. And that is what Austen is about: it is no slapstick, but pure wordy wit. We have come a long way since the 1970s in comedy.

All in all, a satisfactory adaptation without sex-appeal, but with sweetness. I daresay, how Austen would have liked it.

I have rated this quite highly on two counts - one, the casting (largely forgotten names litter the cast including Doran Godwin as Emma, John Carson as Mr Knightley, Debbie Bowen as Harriet, Constance Chapman as Miss Bates, and Timothy Peters as Mr Elton) and two, an absorbing adaptation even if done in obviously studio (and rather cheap) sets.

Running at four hours plus, this version does more justice to the book than more cursory and recent attempts have been able to. Although both Emma and Knightley come across as a little older than they should be (21 and 39 I believe in the book), their growing understanding is believable, and you do find yourself hoping for that elusive happy ending.

What does mark it down is the annoying tune! Quick bit of trivia: Blackadder fans should note that Robert East, Prince Harry in the first series, is here as Frank Churchill.

Of the four film and TV miniseries productions available of Jane Austen's "Emma," this one is the second best. This and the 1996 independent film that stars Gwyneth Paltrow are the only two that bring out the best of the comedy and characters as Jane Austen wrote and saw them. The 1996 movie is superior. But this 1972 miniseries is very good in all aspects. The screenplay is very good, the casting is very good and the performances mostly are very good.

The cast for this BBC production was not one of big names in film. Some were more prominent on the stage, and others had short careers in film and/or TV. But, for their lack of notoriety, several gave fine performances. Doran Godwin was exceptional as Emma Woodhouse. Donald Eccles played Mr. Woodhouse to perfection – as one could see him coming right off the pages of Austen's novel. No one else has equaled that performance. It should be noted that this early miniseries gave considerable time to his character, where most later productions saved time by reducing his film time.

Debbie Bowen presents a more girlish picture of Harriet Smith than most renditions. That's not a negative, but it's worth noting where all other productions have a somewhat more adult or serious character, none of which are quite as attractive though. The rest of the cast of this series are good. At four hours, this TV series didn't add anything that the best film (1996 with Gwyneth Paltrow) might have missed, but it expanded some of the scenes and developed a couple of the characters a little more.

Very few people have rated this production. Even though it is a few decades back, it would be sure to please those who enjoy Jane Austen and any of the other productions of "Emma." And, for any who haven't yet seen the 1996 independent film with Gwyneth Paltrow, be sure to do so. It stands alone at the top of the class of "Emma" films.

I really enjoyed this version of "Emma" and my pleasure was largely due to the very convincing performance by Doran Goodwin in the central role. She was so much better than Kate Beckinsdale in the ITV version who it seems to me lacked the necessary vivacity and personality to carry the role. This Emma was very expressive, arch and satirical, very much, I Imagine, as Jane Austen must have been herself. And unlike the ITV version, which was abominably miscast (excepting Mark Strong's Mr Knightley), this casting was near perfect.

My only complaint is that too much of the action took place indoors, which made it a little claustrophobic and too much like a stage play. We were not allowed to see the village or any exterior shots of Miss Bates dwelling, just room doors opening and closing. The only time we saw anyone in a carriage was during the trip to Box Hill and that was all too brief.

But the indoor scenes were magnificent and authentic looking, too good I'm sure to be just studio sets; they must all have been filmed on location, perhaps in the very large house pictured in the opening shots.