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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dixon

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.

thanks a lot

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.

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.

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.