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?Quote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
Printable View
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
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...
I didnt see it on Sunday. was on work.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
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 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
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.
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?
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.