For everyone who is excited about BBC's new Emma adaptation

[kiki1982]

There is coming a new adaptation of Emma on the BBC this Autumn...

... and...

... there is a preview!

It was not watchable on the BBC if you were not in the UK, but it has been put on YouTube.

Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjPMEopKtDs

[Nightshade]

OOOoh, I am so behind on my TV knowledge its a bit ridicculous.( no time no time no time)
Anyway who is that actor playing Knightly? I regonigse him but cant place him , and I just LOVE that actor who is playing Mr woodhous ealthough his name also slips my mind. Hopefully his will be better than that awful other version with whosit and whatsit in it.

[Niamh]

really? i'm not a fan of Emma but i'l watch it.
Johnny lee miller plays Knightly. He was Edmund Bertram in Mansfield Park movie.

[Nightshade]

Meh neither am I, What I don understand is why they always get blonde people to play emma, I never saw her as blonde in my head somehow.

[Niamh]

the version with kate beckinsdale(sp?) in it she is obviously a brunette.

[Nightshade]

Emma? Wasnt emma Gewenth Paltrow? :confused:

[Niamh]

she was but there have been more than one version! :D
think the beckinsdale one is from the late 80's early 90's. :)

[wessexgirl]

she was but there have been more than one version! :D
think the beckinsdale one is from the late 80's early 90's. :)

The Beckinsale one was rushed out on the back of Andrew Davies's success with P&P, which means after 1995, and it was awful. I like the look of this one, although as some commentators have said in the comments, the leads look too near in age, Knightley doesn't look like he could have held her as a baby! Never mind, they are good actors, and at least JL Miller has an appeal about him, unlike Mark Strong had in that dire production. I also spotted Michael Gambon as her father I presume? Wonderful. I do wish we would get some other classics from the canon though, as I would like to see some ones which aren't done as much. Having said that though, I'll be watching, and trying to expunge the Beckinsale version from my mind. Thanks for posting Kiki, as I didn't know about this, (where have I been :lol:?)

[kiki1982]

Glad to see that my thread provoked so many reactions! Amazing. :p

I recently saw the Beckinsale version (A&E) from 1996 and the Paltrow version also from 1996 (Miramax). This BBC project that is coming out now was already panned in 1996, but they put it in the fridge (can you sa that?) because of the two otehr versions in that same year...

I didn't like the Miramax version, because they toned it down too much, by which it became a sugary romance in the end... (what else can you do if you do not include an Emma and Knightley who are deeper than the arrogant facade? Then your coming to terms inevitably ends in sugary romance with violins in the background). Mark Strong did not have that initial spark, but I don't think Knightley has that in the beginning either. He is deemed handsome, but not stunning. As it seems, he was less pleasant to Emma (at least) than Churchill... Knightley is an old friend and can speak unreservedly and comes across as a jerk sometimes because he tells her off.

I have doubts with blonde Emmas as blonde girls come across as easier and more superficial. No offence to the blondes, but it is like that in film. It was not for nothing that Davies put his Emma on the screen as a brunette and Churchill as a blonde, gay boy. Not that blonde people cannot be normal people with more to it than meets the eye, but it is like the man on the white horse: he is a heroic figure. As such a blonde Emma (like the next one) comes across too girly and not strong enough. I think it islike with their last adaptation of Jane Eyre: their guy looks too young altohugh he is the right age.

But we wlll watch it.

[Nightshade]

I do wish we would get some other classics from the canon though, as I would like to see some ones which aren't done as much. Having said that though, I'll be watching, and trying to expunge the Beckinsale version from my mind. Thanks for posting Kiki, as I didn't know about this, (where have I been :lol:?)
The one I would pay good money to see is Belinda. But only if it were well made, which is always the danger I guess.
Humm maybe after I reread the ausetns in my binge this month I should have an adaptations binge.
:brow: :D

[wessexgirl]

Glad to see that my thread provoked so many reactions! Amazing. :p

I recently saw the Beckinsale version (A&E) from 1996 and the Paltrow version also from 1996 (Miramax). This BBC project that is coming out now was already panned in 1996, but they put it in the fridge (can you sa that?) because of the two otehr versions in that same year...

I didn't like the Miramax version, because they toned it down too much, by which it became a sugary romance in the end... (what else can you do if you do not include an Emma and Knightley who are deeper than the arrogant facade? Then your coming to terms inevitably ends in sugary romance with violins in the background). Mark Strong did not have that initial spark, but I don't think Knightley has that in the beginning either. He is deemed handsome, but not stunning. As it seems, he was less pleasant to Emma (at least) than Churchill... Knightley is an old friend and can speak unreservedly and comes across as a jerk sometimes because he tells her off.

I have doubts with blonde Emmas as blonde girls come across as easier and more superficial. No offence to the blondes, but it is like that in film. It was not for nothing that Davies put his Emma on the screen as a brunette and Churchill as a blonde, gay boy. Not that blonde people cannot be normal people with more to it than meets the eye, but it is like the man on the white horse: he is a heroic figure. As such a blonde Emma (like the next one) comes across too girly and not strong enough. I think it islike with their last adaptation of Jane Eyre: their guy looks too young altohugh he is the right age.
But we wlll watch it.

How dare you madam? I am a blonde, and I think I'm normal and not too girly, and I am pretty strong in character too :lol:. I preferred the Gwyneth Paltrow version, and I loved Jeremy Northam as Knightley. He had him down to a tee, well in my eyes anyway. I hope this next version is as good and does the novel justice. As you say we will be watching it nonetheless :).

Oh and I think the phrase you were looking for was to put it on ice, or on the back-burner, but to put it in the fridge sounds good ;).

[kiki1982]

Ah, thank you for the 'putting on ice', Wessexgirl. I'll remember it. Or we could maybe say 'on the rocks'. :lol:

Sorry about the blondes. But you can also guess that I did not like the Paltrow-version in the least? I found it much too simple. That said, though, there is no reason whatsoever that a blonde Emma cannot work, but I'm afraid that Sandy Welch will not do the novel justice. But as I said, I will keep an open mind (however it may look strange).

But, there you go, tastes differ. Fortunately, because otherwise, Miramax hadn't had any viewers.

[mollie]

I think "put it in the freezer" was used in an episode of Friends, about a book that everyone found too sad to read and stashed in the freezer to make it go away :)

I'd think Evelina would make a good TV adaptation, and would appeal to those who liked the Jane Austen adaptations.

ETA I didn't like Gwynneth Paltrow as Emma either - nothing wrong with the way she played the part, it just wasn't how I saw her!

[Niamh]

Mollie that was Rachels copy of Little Women that she gave to Joey to read. :D

I want to see Ruth by Gaskell adapted.

[wessexgirl]

Mollie that was Rachels copy of Little Women that she gave to Joey to read. :D

I want to see Ruth by Gaskell adapted.

Ooh Niamh, Ruth is being broadcast on R4 at the moment, as the Classic Serial. Have you been listening? Unfortunately I missed episode 2 this week as I was out, but I will try to get it on iplayer, or the listen again facility. It's repeated on Saturday night too. I have the book on my TBR pile, but needless to say I haven't got around to it yet :rolleyes:.

[Niamh]

Ooh Niamh, Ruth is being broadcast on R4 at the moment, as the Classic Serial. Have you been listening? Unfortunately I missed episode 2 this week as I was out, but I will try to get it on iplayer, or the listen again facility. It's repeated on Saturday night too. I have the book on my TBR pile, but needless to say I haven't got around to it yet :rolleyes:.

No i havent. i dont have R4. Its really good. touches on topics no one else did at the time. very sad story. Maybe it will be podcasted?

[kiki1982]

Don't get over-excited...

It's pretty dumbed down and does not do justice to the original work. It is very similar to the Miramax-version, clearly infrior to Davies's version of 1996. Nice and colourful, but not more than that. The Independent was not very favourable and viewers neither, judging by some of the comments:

'There is another 3 hours of this', and 'I switched off after half an hour'.

As for myself, somehow I expcted this a little, as Welch mucked up Jane Eyre seriously. This, though, is an even worse advert for her writing.

However, it is for you to judge...

[Niamh]

I didnt see it on Sunday. was on work.

[kiki1982]

It is repeated this Saturday on BBC2 at 17.50 GMT. And also sometimes in the middle of the night. More on the Emma-page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n7pk1

[prendrelemick]

Well there we go, the series is over. The BBC is so good at this sort of thing, and once again it delivered with aplomb. (Compare it with ITV's cheap, sexed up, Wuthering Hieghts a couple of months ago.) It was well written - the story unfolded seemlessly, the characters revealed themselves engageingly and subtley. It was well acted- great performances from all the cast without exception.
The only slight quibble I had was the casting. Emma was not how I had imagined her, I imagined her prettier, a bit more sophisticated a bit more spoiled spoiled and dark haired, rather than the slightly clumsey naive portrayal here, but the actress in the role was very accomplished.
I can see why the first episode was not so well recieved, it takes time to get used to everybody, but once it hit its straps it was pure enjoyment, I loved it.

[wessexgirl]

Well there we go, the series is over. The BBC is so good at this sort of thing, and once again it delivered with aplomb. (Compare it with ITV's cheap, sexed up, Wuthering Hieghts a couple of months ago.) It was well written - the story unfolded seemlessly, the characters revealed themselves engageingly and subtley. It was well acted- great performances from all the cast without exception.
The only slight quibble I had was the casting. Emma was not how I had imagined her, I imagined her prettier, a bit more sophisticated a bit more spoiled spoiled and dark haired, rather than the slightly clumsey naive portrayal here, but the actress in the role was very accomplished.
I can see why the first episode was not so well recieved, it takes time to get used to everybody, but once it hit its straps it was pure enjoyment, I loved it.

I agree with you. I really enjoyed it. Much better than the rubbish version from Davies some years ago. Kiki, why do you think Welch messed it up, that and Jane Eyre? I thought her versions were fabulous. I thought the cast in this were really good, I really liked the two leads. Emma can be an annoying, irritating little madam, but I warmed to Romola Garai's adaptation, which I didn't to Kate Beckinsale's. I felt Garai and Miller had a real empathy and charisma between them, there was a real easiness in the relationship, more so than the overly stern Mark Strong. Michael Gambon was great, humorous but not too much to make him a buffoon, and his relationship with Emma was lovely. I saw much more of Emma questioning herself and seeing her faults here than with the other version, but it was over 4 hours and not just a feature film length, but that made her more warm and less annoying. Great version all round, with much more nuanced performances from the leads. The relationship with Stong and Beckinsale didn't work for me, he was too stern, and then the ending was unbelievable. Here, although Miller scolds her, and keeps her in check, it was believable. You could tell they got along, the relationship seemed real. I loved it, and will watch it again.

[kiki1982]

Good??!

All Austen's language was thrown out of the window. All Austen's deepness in her characters was out of the window. All loveliness was out of the window.

Nothing was left of that book (which is one of the wittiest in Austen's work) apart from the setting and that is a minor theme of a series. You'll never win Emmies with setting alone (not for 'Best Miniseries' anyway).

This story was toned down to the level of mere melodrama with a sugary, cheap and crying proposal as a result.

They even forgot the two single most important things of that work: 'we are not so much brother and sister to make [dancing] improper' and the storm. As a result, the viewer was in the wrong mood: cheerful with wistling birds and bright green plants; so the sadness of Emma seeing Knightley resulted in Eastenders-like melodrama (without seeming cause apart from excessive useless emotion).

And what was with Mr Woodhouse? Has he suddenly gone from hilariously funny to sad old concerned father? A hell of a lot of difference with hilarious Mr Woodhouse from 1972. Even Davies managed to gve him a funny part. Miramax did not use him very much, but still made him a funny figure. Here there was crying at the end. Really...

One cannot, by no means, picture this Emma and this Knightley as two real people. One could to a certain extent with Paltrow and Northam, and certainly with Beckinsale and Strong. Even Godwin and Carson could pass, just as Emma and her father-figure Knightley. Strong was more real in the sense that one could picture him as a man who still wants a wife and children, who is in the prime of his life. Northam was only a man without frills.
This Emma and this Knightley, there was just the outside. They were like the simple characters in a comic strip. We had a series of 4 hours, we should now be able to judge all characters' actions and what-not by their performance. Which we cannot.

Despite only 1.5 hours, Davies managed to tell more than Welch in 4. Even Miramax went deeper than this!

SPOILER ALERT EMMA!

What was with Box Hill? Everyone seemed to be adamant not to enjoy the day. Did Wech mistake Churchill's complaint about the heat at the strawberry party for real, or what? He was not cross because of the heat (that was wishful thinking on Emma's part again), he was cross because he had made an argument with Jane. Box Hill was an abomination of the biggest kind. The atmosphere was totally wrong: it wasn't a gay party, it was a party that was bound to end badly. Churchill and Emma were dowright disgusting. For me, it would be enough reason not to spend time with them at all anymore ever.

Churchill was all wrong. He is supposed to be a lovely, charming figure who loves Jane to death but cannot tell his aunt. He seemingly courts Emma, but he knows she is only flattered. He was never as suggestive as this one has been. Miramax was bad, I thought, but this one was thrice as bad. Had I been Jane, I would certainly have dumped him (lying in the lap of another woman while your secret fiancée is watching, it is really too much). Unless, of course, they wanted to make Jane want money, and not him alone... But that is not her at all.

Emma's thoughts went much too quickly from anguish and sadness over Harriet's affection for Knightley to the acknowledgement of her own love for him. Even Miramax spent more time on that, or at least seemingly by having Emma tell of her continuous thoughts of him for a week in her diary. Why then have Emma go through those emotions all at once while you could have had more time. Even Davies, in a night of storm manages to draw the real time longer than the film time. There was more emotional tension in 1972 than there will ever be in the proposal of 2009.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS EMMA OVER

On ITV's WH:

Maybe it was little sexed up, but that had its use. There was no heir after 3 years in the book. That is very implausible when the bride is only 21. In a work of literature, this works, but not on screen because you are dealing with real people (actors). The perception of viewers is different to the perception of readers. Romantic coincidences (literature wise then) work in books, but not on screen. Writers need to find a solution for that. So, for the 3-year lack of an heir they find the plausible solution that the marriage has not been consumated yet. Ground for annulment, we could say, were it not that Catherine has already made love with Heathcliff and as a result cannot prove she is a virgin (marriage not consumated). This would have been a ground for Edgar to annul his marriage and as a result, Catherine would have fallen in status. She would have been thrown out of the Grange and her brother would not have wanted to know her, Heathcliff was not interested anymore. One needs to stay within the story ad solve the inconsistencies in it for film.

Heathcliff was the most real Heathcliff of the screen so far. Not in terms of unnatural being (fairy), but in terms of detracked man with a high Monte-Cristo percentage. He became more real, and less implausible; he became less fairy and more man. Why is it that fairytales only really work in animation and not on real film? Because they are too implausible: real actors spoil that supernatural atmosphere. The only real problem with this film which was on all sides wrong in terms of superficial and implicit plot, was Heathcliff's suicide. That was wrong as he can never join his Cathy if he has committed suicide. On the other hand, it really draws very much attention to his desire to die in the end. They could have changed death to make it less supernatural, and more real, by having him collapse at some point for ex. That would have granted him heaven and would still hint at divine interference.

[prendrelemick]

I agree with almost all you say(Wessexgirl). The Emma here was simply more likable than in other versions- including, dare I say it, Austins own. As you say the leads were good, Miller was perfect, but the whole cast deserves praise, there was not one weak link anywhere. I think the Jane Fairfax actress deserves special praise, I have never been able to envision her till now.

[prendrelemick]

Kiki, what can I say. Our views on the two productions are the exact opposite. Do not the arguements you put forward excusing WH, apply to the Emma? you cannot simply film the book, you have to make choices. So they made Churchill a little nastier and Emma a little simpler, and it worked. Everyone has their own personal vision of favourite books, this one was the closest to my Emma I have yet seen.

[kiki1982]

I agree with you. I really enjoyed it. Much better than the rubbish version from Davies some years ago. Kiki, why do you think Welch messed it up, that and Jane Eyre? I thought her versions were fabulous. I thought the cast in this were really good, I really liked the two leads. Emma can be an annoying, irritating little madam, but I warmed to Romola Garai's adaptation, which I didn't to Kate Beckinsale's. I felt Garai and Miller had a real empathy and charisma between them, there was a real easiness in the relationship, more so than the overly stern Mark Strong. Michael Gambon was great, humorous but not too much to make him a buffoon, and his relationship with Emma was lovely. I saw much more of Emma questioning herself and seeing her faults here than with the other version, but it was over 4 hours and not just a feature film length, but that made her more warm and less annoying. Great version all round, with much more nuanced performances from the leads. The relationship with Stong and Beckinsale didn't work for me, he was too stern, and then the ending was unbelievable. Here, although Miller scolds her, and keeps her in check, it was believable. You could tell they got along, the relationship seemed real. I loved it, and will watch it again.

Welch messed up Jane Eyre because she turned it into a story of mere heartache. It is by no means that. Rochester is by no means a sad man by the end and it is certainly not Jane's decision whether she has to give up his life or not (ifanything that is irrelevant). In Welch's version Rochester was rude in the beginning, over passionate and sweet in the middle, and too pathetic at the end. In terms of Rochester alone (not the story because the film was too short) Ciaran Hinds did a much better job. It was just a shame the script wasn't long enough. Other than that, that version was much better and carried much more of truth in its mere story than Welch's version will ever do.
Jane is no pathetic girl who keeps crying at the thought of Rochester when she has left him. She gets on with her life and then returns a strong woman with money who knows she is strong enough to resist if he is still married. She seeks confirmation for a marriage with St John and realises at the point where she finds out that Bertha is dead, Rochester is blind and lost a hand, that God's plan is not marriage with St John. Toning all that down to crying at the thought of leaving (regretting it for that matter) is not having read any criticism, and not even being able to discern meaning in a work of literature.

So she did with Emma. The wit seems not to have filtered through in Welch's brain, and she puts certain details in her adaptation, but then does not use them as Austen intended. How can you possibly make one of the most endearing, most lovely, most attractive, most sparkling characters only in words (!) so far (and I have read a lot of books) into a dick (sorry for the swearword)? Austen made Churchill so likable, so sparkling, like she says, everybody loves him at first sight or at first read! And yet you make him into that?! It is an enigma how Jane can love that man! He is bound to cheat on her!

Beckinsale was a true lady with a proper aducation and proper decorum, not a teenager who tells everything that comes into her head and then has to apologise for it (like the gaf with Mr Weston). Strong was stern, yes, but Knightley was in the original. I don't see people complaining about Firth being stern and proud. That is what Darcy was. Knightley should be so too. He is not one to chat nonsense, he is one that speaks truth and lectures Emma with fatherly authority, something that her father fails to do. JLM didn't even come close to the father-figure. Not only because of his looks (that is a minor problem), but mainly of his script. He was only allowed to look a (virile) man. The Independent said that they wondered how Knightley in this version did not become the object of Emma's matchmaking. Strong was believable in being overlooked; JLM is totally not: he looks too good, too interested, and not the self-confident, content bachelor enough. Despite Davies's version being very short (hence the fast and somewhat superficial nature of it), it had more contents than Welch's. Critic agree.

Let's say the sets were great, the costumes too (despite a few quibbles but who cares?)... But what is that? That is an empty box with a nice ribban, that is all.

[kiki1982]

Kiki, what can I say. Our views on the two productions are the exact opposite. Do not the arguements you put forward excusing WH, apply to the Emma? you cannot simply film the book, you have to make choices. So they made Churchill a little nastier and Emma a little simpler, and it worked. Everyone has their own personal vision of favourite books, this one was the closest to my Emma I have yet seen.

Making choices fine, I agree. But they need to be according to what is the contents. Austen did not intend Churchill a negative figure, so much is clear (why would she redeem him at the end?). She did not even intend Emma a negagtive figure. A laughable figure, yes. And misery/humiliation and comedy lie very close to each other (John Cleese). Welch changed Emma to the point of childishness. One should almost ask the question why Knightley possibly wants to marry her.

ITV did not make Heathcliff any more positive, if anything even worse. Not in deeds, but in his head. The writer obviously read the criticism about Monte-Cristo and Heathcliff very well.

Welch changed Austen's characters totally, without need. If anything, they became more unreal, than even Miramax made them and that was on the edge. They also practically ignored the seasonal thing in the novel which is very important.

So no, those arguments do not apply.

[wessexgirl]

I believed in these 2 leads much more than others I've seen Kiki, they were much more real to me. And as for Frank Churchill, Austen may say that everyone loves him, but couldn't that be her famous irony in play? Knightley obviously doesn't, and Emma has shown herself to be so wrong about people on many occasions. Surely we've all seen people like him, who go through life being a brat, only to have those around them singing their praises, often their parents, who will defend them and their behaviour. It's made obvious that Frank's "sparkle" is just a veneer. I don't think we'll ever agree on the adaptations Kiki, but for me, this was the better one of the 2 tv ones I've seen.

[prendrelemick]

Making choices fine, I agree. But they need to be
according to what is the contents. Austen did not intend Churchill a negative figure, so much is clear (why would she redeem him at the end?). She did not even intend Emma a negagtive figure. A laughable figure, yes. And misery/humiliation and comedy lie very close to each other (John Cleese). Welch changed Emma to the point of childishness. One should almost ask the question why Knightley possibly wants to marry her.

ITV did not make Heathcliff any more positive, if anything even worse. Not in deeds, but in his head. The writer obviously read the criticism about Monte-Cristo and Heathcliff very well.

Welch changed Austen's characters totally, without need. If anything, they became more unreal, than even Miramax made them and that was on the edge. They also practically ignored the seasonal thing in the novel which is very important.

So no, those arguments do not apply.

I reckon Churchill was revealed as negative figure in the end, but was redeemed by Austin as another of her ironic comments on the society that surrounded her.- He acted badly, but now he was rich as well as handsome he must be forgiven.

I can't remember the exact quote but Austin said that in Emma she was going to invent a character no one would like but herself. So there is a definate and intended negative side to her.

Actually I found the protagonists more real and natural than in any former production. The ease with which Emma and Knightly interacted with each other showed they already had a special relationship, their conversations were on a different level than those within the rest of society. They were already a couple, when they realised this, of course he wanted to marry her. I think this was absolutely true to the book and very well done.

The interpretation of Emma's father, slightly confused and fussy, was also true enough to the original, I have always seen him as a semi tragic figure, rather than a hilarious one. All the supporting roles were just that - supporting and understated . I liked this approach, it may have comprimised the comedy aspect but I think it actually added to the realism.

I don't know where to start with Wuthering Hieghts. The whole thing was altered, chewed up and spat out, made without care or any regard to the original work. The imperative seemed to be to provide modern motivations so that an audience of Jerry Springer officianados could understand them.

[kiki1982]

Certainly, Emma was wrong on lots of occasions, but Churchill's lying side has a lot more to it than meets the eye:

1. He makes use of the 'notion' that people should marry within their class. Just as Emma believes, as her discussion with Knightley about Harriet suggests. Knightley also believes that, but he has the opposit opinion on Harriet. Yet the two arguments hang on the same principle. Superiority or inferiority of birth makes ones chances in marriage. As everyone is aware of this notion ('it is a truth univerally acknowledged', almost) everyone, including Emma, finds it normal that Churchill will pay his respects to Emma. And even pay his addresses to Emma, because 'naturally, she is the most important eligible lady in Highbury so he must be interested'. Nobody whosoever expects him to know Jane in the first place and certainly not that intimately. 'Naturally, he can by no means be truly interested in her', so Churchill can do all his careless stuff and everyone is still fooled (apart from Knightley, although he has still an isue with Frank). So, when just even slightly flirting with Emma, Churchill is directly presumed by her and by the rest of Highbury to be in love. Naturally. How could it be otherwise?


2. Emma, aware of everyone's heart, is not even aware of her own as her shock in the end emphasises. Churchill is an important force, as he will be the first to touch her as far as infatuation goes. Before him, she never thought about a man in that way, after him she realises that it wasn't even love, just infatuation. Churchill is equally important for Knightley, because without him, he would not have examined his own feelings without believing Churchill to court/slight Emma.


3. The negative picture in the head of Knightley, and Jane's problem with Churchill are likely to be the result of wishful thinking from the other side of the spectrum. Where Emma is gratified in her vanity by Churchill's flattery/flirting (no more), Knightley becomes jealous and doesn't know why. Jane, also, results in 'wishful' thinking when she grows insecure. Obviously, their engagement was a swift affair and we could him picture rushing into it. Yet, bethinking himself when he has to tell his aunt, because she could be as devious as Willoughby's aunt to disinherit him (also the case with Edward Ferrars f.e.). Now, of course, Mrs Churchill still has her husband, but we could picture her as devious as Mrs John Dashwood because at the end the uncle on his own seems to be more clement (he already had to disown his sister, so he will not do it again). So, Churchill hopes for the best and counts on the disease of his aunt to take care of his lot... But, the months go on and Miss Campbell engages herself so Jane is left to seek a post of employment which she wasn't allowed to do if she was engaged, or she could stay with the Campbels but that could not go on forever. So, she decides to take holidays for the time being, but she can't do that forever, and become an old maid to finally have the engagement broken off because the aunt decides she will marry Frank off. So she starts to doubt... By the time that Frank is courting Emma and she is continually being pressed by Mrs Elton to take the post of governess, she can't hold it anymore and decides to do away with the engagement. Frank and Jane's quarrel on the road (after which she decides to break the engagement off and take the post of governess) is important: he is angry after it and she dissapointed. He obviously does not want to tell his aunt and prefers to wait (because the end is near, he keeps telling her we could suppose) and she orders him to tell her while he is afraid of the consequences (what does a Churchill do without money: being useless). Jane cannot believe him anymore when he says loves her (why is he courting Emma, then?) while he cannot really prove his love for her with any real means. Does pianoforte really count as a proof of love?


4. A clue as to his dispositon we could find in Mr Weston's history: he was married to a Miss Churchill out of which marriage came Frank. Mr Weston had been ardently in love and had married Miss Churchill, but Mrs Weston (née Churchill) was not happy with their reduced income and longed for all the comfort that she had had at home. Still, she grew unhappy. The result was that Mr Weston, at the death of Mrs Weston (née Churchill) after only three years of marriage had a lot less money than at the start of it. When Churchill writes in his letter at the end of the novel that he had his father's disposition to always hope for the best, and always see the good in people, then would he be likely to also have his mother's dispsition when it comes to money? Now, that would be ironic, wouldn't it? Here we have a man who cannot chose between his money and his love, who even refuses to choose! And who is able to have both by a stroke of luck.


5. That brings us back to the initial discussion of Emma and Knightley about Harriet. Her status of illegitimate daughter makes her for Emma the daughter of a gentleman, whereas for Knightley an inferior girl of little intelligence (although there is no mention of him ever speaking to her). Marriage is a matter of status and money, that is what they both think. Therefore, she can by no means marry Robert Martin: that is beneath her according to Emma, while Knightley finds that a good choice because there is no gentleman who will run the risk of the shame when her parentage comes out. Both will have to reconsider their opinions on Harriet. Knightley will be surprised by her conversation, and Emma by her low birth. For Churchill, raised in the same frame of mind, it is of no importance that his fiancée is the daughter of a mere captain and a clergyman's daughter, and has no money into the bargain. As long as he can lead the life of a country-gentleman, he will be happy (which his mother was not, naturally, because of her reduced income). It is a quite selfish statement, but so was Mr Weston's desire to not settle before he could buy Randalls... Father and son are so alike... The balance of money and love was much sought after by Austen, moreover.


There could be an ironic side to the forgiveness of the whole of Highbury (we want to like him), but really, the fact that the whole of Highbury is fooled because they are blind for Churchill's excessive eccentricity (having his hair cut in London) would mirror Emma's own blindness (something which is in accordance with the glasses being fixed by Churchill too). It is almost a case of 'we want Churchill to court Emma'.

Knightley in the end also is wrong about Harriet so why would he not be wrong about Churchill? Why would his own motives/contents of his heart not matter like Emma/Jane's when Churchill is flirting with Emma?

[prendrelemick]

I can't see how this latest version contradicts your excellent assesment above. The only place the director lost her sure touch was when Frank rested his head on Emma's lap in front of Jane. That was a step too far for we initiated viewers, who knew of the engagement. In fact within the drama the characters acted just as you describe, they expected Frank and Emma to be an item. However to become entangled with a girl you are not free to pursue, is ungentlemanly to say the least. To do so intentionally, in fact to use her as a decoy, can only be regarded as a negative when all is revealed, and this must have been Austin's intention. It puts him firmly in the Wickham/Willoughby bracket. The other major hint of Austin's intentions regarding Franks character is his corrupting influence on Emma, that leads to her insulting Miss Bates on Box Hill.

[kiki1982]

Not everyone agrees on the negative side of Churchill. Why? Because in the first place, Emma was not exactly entangled and the attachment is in everyone's head without actually being reality. (perception v reality)

Secondly he works as a plot-devise for self-gratified Emma. Only with his letter we can get him as a character. Even Knightley whose judgment we all value, does not know what to think after reading his letter and realises that he was predisposed to think ill of Churchill like the rest was positively prejudiced. (predisposition v reality)

As there was no attachment, is there still violation of propriety? That is a problem. One cannot slight another without involving the other in something. As Emma was not involved (she says so herself), Churchill was not exactly at fault. There are people who do like to flirt, but whose flirtations never go any further (Emma). Would Emma have flirted further if she had not been drawn to that? The only one who could really be angry at him was Jane. Why would Emma be angry apart from out of shame for her own blindness?

They went too far with Churchill on several occasions:
1. At his 'proposal' to Emma. It is good that the viewers should think that he wants to propose, but seizing her hand was too much. A man who does not love a woman does not do that.
2. At the ball, he comments on Jane's bad hairdo. This comment, in the novel, was only meant for Emma. When he goes to tell Jane off on her hair, he actually goes to compliment her on it (placing himself conveniently between Emma and Jane).
3. Lying in Emma's lap at Box Hill. A man in love with another who is watching on does not do that.

The original Frank Churchill is much cleverer than this. He only goes for words, never for acts. The only thing that Jane can reproach him with is that he is cowardish (something that Knightley also does), but it depends on what one thinks about money.

There is a sad and selfish side to Churchill, but he is by no means a fickle man.

[prendrelemick]

We'll never agree Kiki (except to differ) I think Frank acted improperly.

Of course impropriety is a judgement made by society, rather than individuals. Emma may proclaim herself imposed upon, though not injured, but she isn't the final arbitor. Frank goes around seeking forgivenesss for his behavior at the end. He is given it, partly out of the good will that exists for the Westons, and partly because Austin is once again gently holding up a mirror to that society where the end justifies the means.

[kiki1982]

Even if he was improper, which would be down to the misperception of the rest of Highbury... Then still, he is not a fickle man. Careless maybe, but fickle definitely not. Had he been that, he would have fallen in love with another and it is clear that that was not the case.
In suggesting too much they went too far. Over the ironic and far into the negative side of Frank. He is not Willoughby, although he has something of him, he does not elope with Jane and then does not marry her.

This version made him uncharming and disgusting, which he is by no means. The ironic side of his character, his mirror function, dies because his courtship of Emma is not the perception of others but is real. Then where is his role as mirror? He did not fool Highbury, he was blatatly courting Emma. There is a huge difference between the original Frank who did only do as much as was necesary and this one who goes way over the mark.

[prendrelemick]

I would not say he was uncharming and disgusting here, rather charming and sly. The producers interpreted him by his actions rather than his personality found in the book.
I think they were guilty of pandering to modern sensibilities certainly, but it is only a matter of degree. I think they were right to show Frank appearing to seriously flirt with Emma, and had to make it recognisable to a modern audience. Was it way over the mark? It is important to the plot.
I have been trying to cast my mind back to the first time I read Emma. The shock of learning he and Jane were an item is one of the books pleasures. It is the final blow for Emma, not romantically, but a blow of self-revelation, how foolish and wrong she has been and what damage she had almost done.

[kiki1982]

What is the most important in a character: his personality or his actions? As his actions are definitely influenced by his personality, I would say the first. What is left of a character if you take away his personality?

Making it recognisable to a modern audience is not an excuse. There is flirting and flirting. There is firlitingwith words (also now) and there is flirting with actions. The first is innocent (as in Emma too), the second is the nature of a fickle man. It suggests that he does not love her ad will cheat on her afterwards. Then why did he not finish it at the point where she finishes it? He even goes to great lengths and risks everything (his inheritance) in order to keep her. Ok, it is a littel 'now I can't do anything different', but still, he does it. I cannot picture him doing what he did on Box Hill. People are able to see what flirting is, even in its most subtle form. Why di they have to descend to physical flirting. That is not how a relationship starts... A relationship starts with flirting in words and then ges up to the level of flirting in action. If one doe not want to go the whole way, then one does not make suggestive actions.

As his secret engagement is one of the great pleasures, then why make it so negative? They toned his courting of Jane down to almost invisible to the lay-viewer and then his flirting with Emma over-evident. Austen was much more subtle... Up to the point of total brilliance.

[Dixon]

I would not say he was uncharming and disgusting here, rather charming and sly. The producers interpreted him by his actions rather than his personality found in the book.
I think they were guilty of pandering to modern sensibilities certainly, but it is only a matter of degree. I think they were right to show Frank appearing to seriously flirt with Emma, and had to make it recognisable to a modern audience. Was it way over the mark? It is important to the plot.
I have been trying to cast my mind back to the first time I read Emma. The shock of learning he and Jane were an item is one of the books pleasures. It is the final blow for Emma, not romantically, but a blow of self-revelation, how foolish and wrong she has been and what damage she had almost done.

I have to admit I am serieously in love with this new adaption of Emma. After watching the first two versions with GP and KB I had never felt the urge to read actually the book. But after watching this outstanding new production I´ve read the book and fell in love with the characters.
And I really like the way they show Frank Churchill´s character. His unsteadiness, his uncertainty, even sometimes his bad temper. And I found all those behavings and personality of him also in the book. I think Rupert Evans did a great job. His ill-tempered Frank is well-balanced, he is badly behaving but still attractive and warm-hearted.
The praise also goes to the wonderful script-writer Sandy Welch, who also has done the newest "Jane Eyre", the divine "North and South" and the charming "Our mutual friend". What a talent!
I hope she will do "Mansfield Park" sometime.

Wonderful actors are part of Emma: Romola and Johnny are Emma and Mr. Knightley ideed. They suit each other perfectly. And Michael Gambon as Mr. Woodhouse is so adorable!

I especially like the dancing scene. It has such a subtle charm and is very well set as a plot change as Mr. Knightley discovers his feelings. Or shall I say that the watcher discovers his feelings? That´s very Jane AUsten-like. In the book you only get to know the feelings of the males by their speaking and by their acting, but she doesn´t tell the reader their inside thinking. So it´s quite charming and well decided for a more modern version to show the emotions of Mr. Knightley earlier.

And to conclude:
There is this last scene, where Emma and Mr. Knightley are standing in front of the sea!
I have to admit it somehow took my breath away when I watched it first. It is such a nice picture of two dear old friends, who become lovers and choose to share their life together always trying to respect the needs and wishes of the partner, never doing anything against his character like deserting the old father.
I think Mr. Knightley (Can anybody tell me his first name? Charles?) and Emma could be a role model for an almost perfect partnership.

Well, i actually didn´t want to get that agitated!!

Best wishes to everyone
Dixon

[aliengirl]

I think Mr. Knightley (Can anybody tell me his first name? Charles?) and Emma could be a role model for an almost perfect partnership.

Dixon

Mr. Knightley's first name was George.

[Dixon]

thanks a lot

[Period_Dramas97]

I thoroughly enjoyed kiki1982 and prendrelemick's comments on the way the character of Frank Churchill was portrayed in Sandy Welch's version of Emma, and how that reflects on her ability to properly adapt a Jane Austen miniseries.

Yes, there were flaws, but there were also strengths. That is why it is called an interpretation. Nobody, I think, could ever really capture everything that is Austen, or re-create perfectly all of the wonderful techniques she employs to tell a story. All they can do is try, and I think this latest effort was a brilliant insight into yet another facet of the characters and story that is Emma.

What I really admire about this series was it's ability to make me feel like I was really apart of the characters lives and inner-most thoughts. I especially liked the way Sandy Welch added visualizations to Emma's day-dreams and imaginings. I thought Romola Garai was the perfect Emma for this adaptation, and that she had great and believable chemistry with both Mr Knightley and her father. Sandy Welch was clever in providing a reason for Mr Woodhouse's worries, and in doing so, made him a more sympathetic character.

What nobody has commented on yet in detail is the wonderful support provided the main character's by the supporting actors. Jodhi May was sublime as Miss Taylor/Mrs Weston, and I really warmed up to Robert Bathurst's Mr Weston. While Louise Dylan's Harriet could get annoying at times, I rather grew to like her as the story went on, although I could have wringed her neck right along with Emma when she told her about being in love with Mr Knightley. However, providing scenes which could help explain how Harriet could believe he was in love with her was well-done. Christina Cole's portrayal of the infamous Mrs. Elton rivaled Juliet Stevenson's, and made a great foil for Romola's Emma. I particularly liked Emma's rant after first meeting her.

The back-ground given as to why Emma wanted to go to Box Hill was well-set up, although the actually execution of that fateful picnic was rather heavy-handed. I also take issue with the direction of the ending, as they did not let us see Harriet's reaction towards Emma and Mr Knightley's engagment, or how she eventually came to realise that it was Robert Martin whom she loved all along. Another sticking point would be the language used, which was sadly way too modern, as evidenced when Emma tells Mr Knightley she needs to 'set the record straight'.

That being said, the fact that all the story-lines, particularly Jane and Frank's, were expanded on a lot more on the whole than in any other adaptation works in its favour, and is the natural advantage of a miniseries.

I would give this version 8/10.

[kiki1982]

The only thing that I found good was the opening/closing credits and the colourfulness of it all. The rest was, yes, an interpretation, but not the best one.

The only supporting character who was adequate and close to its original was Miss Bates. She could compete with Prunella Scales who played her in Davies' version. The rest was weak, to say the least.

The chemistry thing:

What people do not realise is that Austen characters have tension, not chemistry, and not with everyone at that. Elizabeth and Darcy have chemistry, but so have Darcy and Miss Bingley (a great deal more in fact); Wentworth and Anne do not (or very little as they both believe their time is over); Catherine and Henry Tilney have, but mainly from his side; Eleanor and Edward have and then have not, then she's got something with Colonel Brandon; Emma and Knightley should have very little, because to her he is like an always present uncle. They speak their mind to each other (as in that first argument that was much too much modern screaming in the adaptation). Indeed, they have been around each other for such a long time and she has grown up with him there that it is inconceivable that there would be any kind of tension between them, apart from in their last conversation that also went, totally up the creek. She was thinking that he was coming to tell her that he was going to marry Harriet. He was thinking that she was going to tell him that she was sad because of Churchill. So she keeps making out not to want to address the subject of love, despite his tries, out of fear he is going to mention Harriet and he keeps trying to address it because he wants to know whether she was really attached to Churchill and if not, he wishes to ask her for her hand in marriage. It is a piece of great prose and Welch played it down to the lame 'what, do you mean to say you love me'-surprise.

Frankly, it is as I think The Observer said, the chemistry was too much with Emma and Knightley for Knightley to be a surprising love object. All through the novel, and necessarily the adaptation, Emma is looking for a match for Harriet, got it wrong about three times to finally be faced with the truth of life: the fact that she cannot lure Harriet away from Mr Martin (in spite of his station) and that she herself is not immune to Cupid's arrows. It has been under her nose for about 10 years, and still she is too blind despite professing she is all-seeing. That is the big joke.

The other big joke is that Mr Woodhouse's worries are so overdone he turns into an old lady and is by no means still a man in the early 19th century sense of the word. A man is supposed to be robust, ride through wind and rain, manage his household with an iron fist and so on. H is supposed to be the rock a family can be built on. Instead, we are faced with a 'master of the house' who is always cold (even needs a fire in July when Frank Churchill is so hot he gets cross - he wasn't cross because of that, but it's always nice to think so), he is the one sitting at home with a rug and telling his daughter to cover up. He is more a mother figure than a father. It is so exaggerated that it can hardly be missed and still... Sandy Welch made Mr Woodhouse too real (played down his whining to the bare minimum) so that he is pitied rather than laughed at. Indeed, his ailments can be put down to diseases or blood circulation problems, but that is not the point Austen wanted to address, clearly not. Consequently, the whole ending went up the creek and turned into a tearful scene instead of the laugh you get in the book about the chickens (which runs in the background of the whole novel).

To me the only strength of that adaptation were the graphics, costumes etc. as, incidentally, has been the case in all 'award-winning' Welch dramas, I believe.

[Period_Dramas97]

kiki1982, you are certainly decided in your opinons, and while I can't agree with all of them, they were very elequantly expressed. I wouldn't say from my point of view that the graphics, costumes, etc.. was this adaptations only strength, but they were certainly very good and highlighted the character's personalities and characteristics.
I guess what it comes down to for me is how the adaptation makes me feel, and how well it draws viewers into the story and the character's lives. I look at this version of Emma as a moderately well-done, enjoyable production in its own right, because if I tried to compare it to the actual book, it would come up so short it's not even funny.