Emma

Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen´s novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale´s interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can´t help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character´s personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure.

Of the spate of Austen films from the 1990s, this is my favorite, more even than "Persuasion," which was the one that converted me to Austeniana. Before seeing this "Emma" I had seen two previous versions, but in one Emma seemed all wrong, more like Lady Teazle, and in the other she seemed half wrong, like a possible impostor, whereas here she seemed just right, young and silly and stubborn. In general I thought the attitude and the atmosphere of the production conveyed the charm of the novel exceedingly well; indeed it is one of the sweetest, merriest things I have ever seen, rather in the nature of a Christmas treat. The script is unusually well formed, and the adapter's additions, like the shaft of light that reveals Harriet to Emma in church, are all in keeping. Mark Strong as Knightley is not what I would have expected, but I enjoyed him very much: he strongly brings out the plain-spoken, practical side of the character, in contrast with Emma's affectations, and his choleric outbursts against Frank Churchill are quite funny. Bernard Hepton makes Mr. Woodhouse a figure of almost Carrollian absurdity; Samantha Morton as Emma's protégé is exactly as soft and exactly as firm as she ought to be. And as in the same producers' "Pride and Prejudice," care is taken that the eventual couplings of characters can be believed--uniquely in some cases. For me this production was and remains a delight.

This version of Emma is far richer, more believable, and more emotionally compelling than the movie version, which seems like a flighty tv sitcom in comparison (topped off with Paltrow's horrible nasal faux British accent). Both Kate Beckinsale and Mark Strong are fabulous in their interpretations of Emma and Mr. Knightley, and Raymond Coulthardt (where is this beautiful man hiding?) is just perfect as Frank Churchill. Mrs. Elton also more cleverly annoying than in the other version. This BBC version of Emma is in the same league as the BBC Pride & Prejudice, the Emma Thompson Sense and Sensibility, and the 90's version of Persuasion.

Sorry, Jeremy Northam (Mr. Knightley in Paltrow's Emma), you're normally brilliant, but you just signed up for the wrong one.

I had just finished reading Emma by Jane Austen when I took a fancy to watching a screen version to see what was made of it, and chose to watch the TV version starring Kate Beckinsale. I was surprised to see it getting an overall rating on IMDB of 7.1

Don't get me wrong: it isn't at all bad and for its kind quite good, but after reading Austen's subtle novel and having fresh in mind the nuances with which she conveys all the - essentially trivial - goings-on in Highbury, I do feel it somewhat misses its target. Not a lot, but enough to challenge that 7.1 overall rating.

Naturally, a screen or TV adaption of a novel is in many ways restricted, and I have borne that in mind. But there are one or two other details which I feel don't do the novel justice. For example, Emma is undoubtedly a rich woman - her 1816 fortune of £30,000 translates into 2018's more than £2.6 million, and she and her father can afford to live a life of ease.

But their circumstances as portrayed in the TV film do over-egg the pudding to an alarming degree. They - and George Knightley - were most certainly not titled. They were simply well-off landed gentry able to live off the rents they received for their land. So the super grand homes they are shown to live in - and the number of uniformed flunkeys the Woodhouses are shown to employ - are, to be blunt, ludicrous. This is TV early-19th century life.

The social divergences and disposable income in the early 19th century were certainly far, far wider than they are today (at least here in Britain - I can't speak for the US), but the Woodhouses, Knightley and the Weston's were fundamentally well-off middle-class folk. Yes, they had no financial worries, although fate and fortune could, and very often did, pitch such families down the social scale quite fast as they had no way of insuring themselves.

In those days, a candle falling over and starting a fire which could burn their houses to the ground was a perpetual fear for them and did easily bankrupt many a well-to-do family. (A good example is how TV portrays the ball at the Crown: despite the availability of staff, in the novel it was very much a small-scale DIY affair, more a fun gathering than the full-blown event shown.)

The TV film portrays them otherwise. As shown in the film they would be living as minor aristocracy. In this regard Knightley's grand pile is especially ludicrous. Austen herself and her family, however impeccably middle-class, were certainly not well-off and were forever teetering on the brink of penury, all to often relying on the goodwill of family. Hence the then sheer necessity of a young woman 'marrying well'. These might be minor points, of course, and after all it is fiction. But as in this regard it does not reflect on Jane Austen's world, other infelicities also creep in.

My second reservation is that the TV film falls short of conveying the subtleties of the different situations the characters find themselves in. Again to be blunt it is all just a tad too cut and dried.

Screenwriter Andrew Davies, the go-to chap for this kind of stuff, otherwise does reasonably well: though at times a little broad-brush, he does Austen's characters s0me justice, although his script does rather take too little account of Austen's sharp with and satirical eye.

The plot of Austen's novel is also far to syncopated in this adaptation, with the various developments simply not being sufficiently established to make much sense. Overall, I was disappointed and would recommend anyone so inclined to head for the far more substantial novel. But that said, as a piece of costume drama this version can still hold its head high for those who go a bundle for this kind of thing.

This is a better adaptation of the book than the one with Paltrow (although I liked that one, too). It isn't so much that Beckinsale is better -- they are both very good -- but that the screenplay is better. Davies is a master at adapting Austen for filming, and the production values here are very good. It's not quite as glossy as the Hollywood treatment, but it's close, and I thought that the locations and the costumes actually worked better.