Emma 2009: my verdict

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty much all Austened-up and Austened-out for now. I think this will be the last Austen-themed post for a while.

I've been a bit hesitant to write this post, partly because my opinions of new Austen adaptations inevitably change over time. . . I suppose all I can do is write down what I think of Emma '09 now, even though (like I said) my opinion is bound to change. Ideally, I would have liked to have watched it a second time before writing my verdict, but I don't really have four hours to spare right now. . . 

The cast: I thought about 70% of the actors in this series were well-cast. 10% were hopelessly miscast, and the remaining 20% were not exactly miscast, but. . . but - they didn't seem perfect for their roles, either. I'm thinking of the two leads in particular - Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller. In spite of my early misgivings , JLM was really pretty good as Mr. Knightley, but I think most of you will agree he didn't look like Mr. Knightley. . . even though his acting was good, he just wasn't the Knightley that I imagine when I read the book. 

Romola Garai is a good actress, and she did well as Emma, but her gestures and mannerisms really bothered me! She went over-the-top with her facial expressions, and her posture was so bad - she had this annoying habit of hunching her shoulders forward, giving her an awkward, ungainly appearance. I know they were aiming for a "modern" feel with this production, but I would have been very grateful if they could had the cast's deportment a little more accurate for the period. . . maybe it sounds like I'm nitpicking here, but it was just something that annoyed me throughout the series.

The rest of the cast were mostly good - though I wasn't entirely convinced by Laura Pyper's Jane Fairfax. She was very sweet, but she seemed too small and mousy - more like a Harriet Smith than a Jane Fairfax. Rupert Evans was okay as Frank Churchill. . . better than Ewan McGregor, anyway. 

I really loved Mr. and Mrs. John Knightley in this adaptation. This is the only version in which we get to see much of them. The other real stand-out was Christina Cole as Mrs. Elton - she played this part almost to perfection, snobby and obnoxious and unwittingly hilarious. Blake Ritson was excellent as Mr. Elton. Michael Gambon was good as Mr. Woodhouse, but this certainly wasn't his most memorable role in a BBC costume drama (think Wives and Daughters or Cranford). 

I admit I was quite disappointed by Sandy Welch's screenplay. After her brilliant scripts for Our Mutual Friend and North and South (and an okay one for Jane Eyre) I was expecting something really special. . . I mean, a screenplay for a Jane Austen movie written by someone other than Andrew Davies? Of course I was looking forward to seeing what the translation from novel to screen would be like. Like I said, I was disappointed. Only a relatively small amount of Austen's dialogue was retained, and I was also disappointed by the proposal scene and the "badly done, Emma" scene. They didn't seem nearly as powerful or as poignant as they were in the two 1996 adaptations.

It's a big-budget BBC costume drama, so of course the production values were high. Costumes, music, filming locations. . . all were gorgeous, but. . . it just seemed a bit too sanitized, too flawless. Would Mrs. Goddard's school really have been as vast or as beautiful as it is in this production? I don't know, I just found all of the perfect gardens and perfect country homes to be a bit stifling after a while. . . I was crying out for some dirt, some disorder, some brooding skies. I guess it's the Bronte side of me coming out, LOL. . . 

But in spite of all of my quibbles, I really did enjoy it. It may not be the definitive Emma we were hoping for, but it is still definitely worth watching, particularly since it includes quite a few scenes from the book that weren't in the 1996 adaptations. My prediction was correct - sort of. Like Sense and Sensibility 2008, it's not brilliant, but it's good. I'll probably end up buying the DVD in spite of myself.

Top 10 Austen adaptations: #1

~No. 1 - Sense and Sensibility 1995~

And so we finally come to #1! Most of you have probably guessed what it is by now. :-)

Well. . . where to begin? I think this review is going to be the hardest to write in this series. . . probably because I like this film the most! So try to be bear with me. It's hard for a fangirl to write a well-written critical analysis - "Oh, I LOOOOVE THIS MOVIE SO MUCH!!!" :P Oh, and prepare for a barrage of pictures. . . I have literally hundreds of S&S pics saved on my computer, and I had a hard time choosing which ones to include in this post. Hopefully my blog doesn't take too long to load these days. . . 

This film is, in a word, exquisite. Unlike other Austen adaptations - such as P&P05 - there's scarcely a false note in the entire movie. Everything - cast, screenplay, score, etc. - seems to fall into place, creating a glorious symphony of a film.

Gotta love this scene, even though it's not in the book. . . 

The cast was just about perfect. Yes, Emma Thompson was too old, but her performance as Elinor Dashwood was brilliant - she's such an incredible actress. In light of this, the fact that she was technically several years too old to be Elinor isn't so very important! It simply adds a slightly different dynamic to the film, having an older Elinor, on the verge of "spinsterhood". 

Elinor (Emma Thompson), Marianne (Kate Winslet) and Mrs. Dashwood (Gemma Jones)

In fact, you could argue that having an older Elinor actually helps rather than hinders some plot points - for instance, when Colonel Brandon is telling Elinor about Eliza. A retired old soldier like the Colonel, telling his life story to a 19-year-old girl? I know Elinor is supposed to a very mature 19, but in the context of the story, I don't think it hurts to have an Elinor in her late 20s. (Emma Thompson was actually in her 30s when filming S&S, but she could pass for a 28/29-year-old.)

Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon

Alan Rickman was lovely as Colonel Brandon, Greg Wise was suitably dashing and romantic as Willoughby, while Harriet Walter, Gemma Jones, and Elizabeth Spriggs were all excellent as Fanny Dashwood, Mrs. Dashwood, and Mrs. Jennings, respectively. Hugh Laurie was unforgettable as Mr. Palmer, and Emilie Francois was delightful as "Captain" Margaret Dashwood! Hugh Grant was okay as Edward Ferrars, though I'm not really a big fan of his. . . 

The real standout in the cast - alongside Emma Thompson - was, of course, Kate Winslet. She embodied the role of Marianne so beautifully. And there was great chemistry between the two actresses - they were very believable as sisters. Many of the best scenes in the film were those between Emma and Kate.

Greg Wise as John Willoughby

Sense and Sensibility, the book, is unlike any other Austen novel in that it concentrates (this is just my opinion) more on two female characters and their relationship, than it does on the romance. This is, after all, the only Austen book with two heroines. The heroes, on the other hand, are not as well developed as most of Jane Austen's other male protagonists. S&S 1995 does a great job at emphasizing Elinor's and Marianne's relationship, and rounding out the male characters in the story.

Beautiful Neo-Classical architecture

Emma Thompson's Oscar-winning screenplay is brilliant. She does manages to condense the novel into a feature-length film, while still preserving the wit and richness of Austen's prose. Much of the dialogue is taken straight from the book.

Patrick Doyle's score is. . . hm, I'm trying to think of an adjective that doesn't sound too gushy! It is sweepingly beautiful and romantic, one of my all-time favourite movie soundtracks. The soundtrack CD is a must-buy for anyone who loves the film - whenever you're in need of a bit of romance, just put the CD on and re-live the film all over again. . . 

The soundtrack contributes enormously to the depth of feeling in this film. This is one of only two Austen movies (I think Persuasion '07 is the other one) that has had me in tears!

LOL, poor Alan Rickman seems to be straining a bit. . . Kate Winslet wouldn't be the lightest actress to carry around

Visually, it's a beautiful film to look at. Gorgeous locations, and some of my favourite costumes from a Regency-era movie. I much prefer the early Regency fashions - 1790s and very early 1800s - to those of the 1810s and 1820s. S&S95 is set around 1800.

A devastated Marianne

Like I said at the top, this is an exquisite viewing experience, spanning a range of human emotions and experiences - particularly love, in its different forms. This is, after all, Jane Austen. :-)

All this talking about Sense and Sensibility makes me want to watch it again. . . I've probably seen it 50 times, but I'm not sick of it yet!

P.S. - many of my photos are from KateWinsletFan.com

Top 10 Austen adaptations: #2

~No. 2 - Pride and Prejudice 2005~

First, a disclaimer. This is a list of own personal 10 favourite Austen adaptations - it isn't supposed to be a list of the 10 best Austen movies. Then again, there's really no such thing as a list of the ten best Austen adaptations. Such a list would always be subjective. All anyone can ever do is list their own personal "best" Austen films, which is what I'm doing here anyway. . . 

Okay: why is this interpretation of Pride and Prejudice my favourite? 

Fish out of water. . . poor ol' Mr. Darcy

Firstly, Matthew MacFadyen's interpretation of that Fitzwilliam Darcy is, in my opinion, better than that of any other actor to have taken on this role. Some Janeites have complained that Matthew plays Darcy as "shy" rather than "proud". Personally, I think it's pretty clear from the text of P&P that Darcy's haughty exterior is the result of a combination of pride and social ineptness - "shyness". I thought MacFadyen's portrayal of Darcy was spot on.

Love the light in this scene. . . LOL, look at the little dog! I never noticed him before

I think there's more "life" in this adaptation than in any of the other screen interpretations - probably partly because of Joe Wright's direction, and partly because of the youthful cast. This is one of the few Austen adaptations I can think of where the main characters are actually the ages they're supposed to be - from the five Bennet girls, to Mr. Darcy, Mr. Wickham, and Mr. Bingley. 

Kitty Bennet (Carey Mulligan), Mrs. Bennet (Brenda Blethyn) and Lydia Bennet (Jena Malone)

The only characters who looked too "old" were the Gardiners and Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet, and since their appearances onscreen were relatively brief, this wasn't a big issue. The younger Bennet sisters looked and behaved like the giggly, hormonal teenagers they're supposed to be! Lizzy was portrayed as a very young woman, with a lot to learn about herself and the world. Mr. Darcy was shown as a vulnerable, serious young man, perhaps not quite comfortable in his own shoes, and still coming to terms with himself and his responsibilities.

Keira is so beautiful in this movie. . . 

I'll be the first to admit that P&P 2005 has its faults. The omission of various characters and scenes from the novel is one of the most obvious downsides, but considering that they only had two hours to work with here, I think they did a brilliant job. It didn't feel overly rushed to me. I've read the novel so many times, I can fill in the scenes and dialogue that are missing with my imagination. :-)

The rain scene!

What bothered me more than the two hour runtime were the various glaringly historically improbable scenes and situations that popped up through the course of the movie - such as Mr. Bingley walking into Jane's room to check on her when she is ill (why? just why??). Then there was Mr. Darcy proposing to Elizabeth in pouring rain in the middle of Stourhead Gardens. Though I have to confess I didn't mind that alteration so much. :-) Seriously, it wasn't much more silly or historically inaccurate than Darcy casually going for a swim in the lake before bumping into Elizabeth in P&P95. Another destination to add to the "Places I've got to visit to see when I go to England" in Stourhead. 

The second proposal scene was too mushy, I'll admit. And the U.S. alternate ending, ditto. But I'm such a hopeless romantic, I didn't really mind *sheepish grin*. . . 

Finally, I believe that one of the main purposes a literary adaptation should serve is to bring to light certain aspects of the book that you may not have thought about before. A film adaptation shouldn't try to be a replacement for the source text - rather, it should complement the novel. And above all, it should make you want to read (or re-read) the book upon which it is based! For me, P&P05 fulfills all the above criteria.

Keira Knightley with director Joe Wright

I can't wrap up this review without mentioning the wonderful artistic vision lent to this film by director Joe Wright - not to mention the gorgeous piano-based score by Dario Marianelli. I'm well aware that stunning visuals and a nice soundtrack do not a good movie make, but they certainly don't do any harm!!

What more is there to be said? I can't convince you to like P&P 2005 better than you do already, I can only try to state my reasons for liking it myself!

Love this moment of the film. . .

Pride and Prejudice 2005 may not be the "best" P&P (though that in itself is debatable - see my disclaimer), but it is my P&P. In spite of its imperfections, this is the movie version that manages to encapsulate what P&P is all about - for me, anyway. When I'm need of a dose of P&P (something that occurs at least once every few weeks) and I don't have time to read the book, this is the version I turn to.

Exhilarating. . . one of the most breathtaking scenes in the movie