EMMA
A film review by Desiree Sy
Copyright 1996 Desiree Sy
First, a general caveat; this isn't actually a review of EMMA, per se. I have a strong interest in Jane Austen, and a strong interest in film adaptations, and this is an examination of how I think the adaptation of EMMA works, and where it fails. In terms of the film itself -- I think it's about a 7 out of 10, and had a great time.
As a self-professed fanatic Janite, I must meekly confess that not only do I care for this novel the least of the set (yes, even less than MANSFIELD PARK!), but that I actually dislike both Emma and Mr. Knightley (actually, the latter fact probably accounts for the former). Of all the little self-deprecatory remarks we've glimpsed from Austen's correspondence abt her writing, the only one I agree with personally is her assessment of Emma Woodhouse as a character that no one will much like but her -- I find Emma spoilt, snobbish, interfering, and worst of all not living up to her potential. In turn, I think Mr. Knightley condescending in his admonitions to Emma -- however well-deserved they are.
I have to compliment Gwenyth Paltrow for accomplishing what I thought wdn't be possible; for making me like Emma. This feat is only outstripped by Juliet Stevenson's Nora in the TV adaption of A DOLL'S HOUSE. Jeremy Northam also entirely alleviated my feelings abt Mr. Knightley.
On the whole, I think people who like movies based on English classics with a lot of anglothespians acting in it shd get out and see EMMA, and I think such people will have a good time. I certainly did -- it's funny, and the performances are wonderful. Having said that, I like the film less than many critics do.
As I cannot really discuss why I feel this way without talking about what happens in film and book, I add the obligatory spoiler warning here.
EMMA is about the uncovering of truth, and about the restoration of equilibrium through change -- and again, in perfect Austen fashion, there are two levels to watch; the novel comments on the societal discovery of truth, social imbalance and large changes *using* personal misunderstandings, inequalities and changes of heart.
In Douglas McGrath's film, unlike Emma Thompson's brilliant rendering of SENSE & SENSIBILITY, the larger framework is entirely absent -- he has essentially stripped the film down to a comedy on the personal level. I had been hoping for more when the opening credits look down on Hartfield through a metaphorical telescope which includes the scope of the whole world (like when you were six and you wrote in your exercise books "Desiree Sy, Street Name, City, Province, Country, Continent, The World"). But frankly, like much of the movie, this is just a glib and clever one-off effect.
All the characters have, in a sense, three sets of values: their societal place, their monetary worth, and their truest worth, as humans. The uncovering of truth in EMMA is the gradual revelation of what these values are for each of the characters, as the first two values can obscure the most important value of self worth. The restoration of equilibrium in EMMA is depicted as the central characters achieve the place in society that they should through their self worth; in Emma this can only happen through change.
For example, there are Emma and Mr. Knightley -- both gentlepersons, but Emma very rich and Mr. K rich, but not *very* rich. (It's this fact as well as the age disparity which confuses Highbury -- and Emma! -- abt the sometimes too obvious perfectness of the one for the other.) Emma herself believes she will never marry because there is no one who is her match in pos'n or wealth -- this subtext is missing from her witty explanation of wealthy old maids in the film. Of course, the biggest disparity between Emma and Mr. K is that he's genuinely considerate and can see true worth in others (even eventually discerning the goodness in Harriet after his initial dismissal of her qualities), whereas she often acts for the appearance of kindness -- at least they punched her realization of this in the film, but the film doesn't often enough depict her acting in a way that *she* sees as kind, but is just interfering.
Mr. and Mrs. Weston -- The film briefly alludes to the fact that Miss Taylor "married up" in class (though not in terms of her worth).
Miss Bates -- A "decayed gentlewoman", but poor and silly
Harriet -- Illegitimate, poor, ignorant but kind (and beautiful)
Robert Martin -- Above Harriet and below everyone else, a farmer, and on terms of friendship with Mr. K and worthy
Elton -- As the vicar, above Martin, but below Mr. K and Churchill; of course, a total cad in terms of personal merit.
Mrs. E -- The comic masterpiece of this tableau: from trade, married into gentility, rich -- and fantastically vulgar.
Jane Fairfax -- An orphan, dependent on the Bates and thus even poorer than they, but raised by a friend of her father's -- gifted in intellect, elegance and beauty (more gifted, in fact, through application, than Emma, which accounts for E's dislike of J) but reserved. Jane's is the greatest disparity between true and perceived worth -- in a Bronte novel, *she* would have been the heroine, not Emma. Since it's not, Austen manages to make her so pallid we don't care for her much.
Frank Churchill -- The most complicated situation of all: raised above his station through upbringing, as was Jane, but through adoption able to maintain his higher status of position and wealth. However, though charming and merry and witty, he lacks integrity and consideration; he's a more harmless incarnation of Willoughby, Wickham, and Henry Crawford.
The full range of knowledge about all these situations has to be made absolutely clear for the impact of the misunderstandings and changes to register, and in the film, they are *not* made clear. In particular, the positions of Jane and Frank -- key to part of Emma's self revelation -- are not explained in a way so that people who don't already know the story will understand them. This not only dilutes the "larger picture" effect, but leaves some pretty big holes in the personal plots.
In the group I saw the film with, there was a clear division between those who had read the novel and who hadn't, because those who hadn't read the novel didn't understood the entire Fairfax/Churchill subplot -- why was their engagement a secret? One person went a step further -- he couldn't understand at all why Emma suddenly falls out of love with Churchill and why everyone is criticizing him -- what did he do wrong? (In CLUELESS, Amy Heckerling's recent updating of EMMA, as this person pointed out, the Frank analogue is depicted as gay, so it makes sense. I think this viewer was half expecting Frank to turn out to be gay. :) )
Churchill's delight in fooling everyone, and his ongoing flirtation with Emma is only depicted in the piano scene -- he's almost immediately shown as running after Jane Fairfax. [Aside: In this film, not only do we hear modern piano noises coming out of a small pianoforte, but Paltrow plays the piano with elbow length gloves on! You try it sometime; I have.] Also, we aren't given nearly as many clues in the novel about the true sit'n with Jane and Frank -- in the book, we don't clue in until Mr. K does -- about three quarters through the book. He only suspects Frank of trifling with Jane, figuring that Emma is his matrimonial object; our suspicion of Frank grows through his eyes -- and so it should have in the film, too!
The film also missed a superb way to illustrate the social pos'n/worth dichotomy by omitting the scene where Mrs. E must proceed Emma in leading the ball, through her increased status as the new bride. "Emma must submit to stand second to Mrs. Elton, through she had always considered the ball as peculiarly for her. It was almost enough to make her think of marrying."
Also, to bring off Emma's transformation with panache, she *has* to be shown as more of a snob -- recognizing only a person's first two values, except in those situations where she already likes the person, in which case she *ignores* the values (in the novel, Emma is clearly shown as having fabricated in her head a noble bastardy for Harriet -- "the stain of illegitimacy, unbleached by nobility and wealth, would have been a stain indeed!" -- the film actually reverses this for a comic effect, having Emma guess that Harriet's parents "might well be pirates!" after hearing of H's love for Mr. K). Near the beginning of the story, even when confronted with clear evidence of Martin's true worth -- his letter of proposal to Harriet -- she chooses to ignore it. In the Elton proposal scene, she rejects him not only because she thinks that he has no integrity, but because she considers *herself* above him in class and wealth.
In fact, Emma's gradual realization that she isn't in love with Frank is linked in the novel to her inability to discover any tangible evidence of his true worth. When she asks herself the question of whether she's in love with him or not (which occurs over a much longer period in the book -- sort of like a daily temperature reading), all she comes up with is the general expectation of Highbury, and particularly of the Westons that she *should* be in love with him -- he's rich, he's a gentleman; there's never any measure of the man himself. Should have left the haircut scene in the film -- it's a lovely realization in Emma of his surface qualities. The climax of this should have been at the revelation of his engagement with Jane Fairfax -- when Emma realizes that he's been using her as a shield. Except of course, in the film, he *hasn't* been -- the degree of overfamiliarity and flirting is not marked or extended enough.
E's second major self revelation is at the picnic when she unworthily guns down Miss Bates. Here, Mr. K delineates exactly why she did wrong (if Miss Bates were Emma's social and monetary equal, then she could tease her, but as a true gentlewoman, she should not have with those disparities in place -- Mr. K sees this as he influence of Churchill), and unlike the other disagreement that they have over Harriet and Robert, Emma realizes the truth in what he is saying.
One thing the film gets absolutely right, through Paltrow's performance, is Emma's essentially transparent nature. Unlike any of the other Austen heroines (well, possibly Catherine Morland, too), Emma is not reserved -- she doesn't reflect in her bedroom, she doesn't think, and she certainly hasn't mastered the social lie (the lie for personal gain, sure). She's limpid and witty and a very surfacey person -- but gradually, towards the end, she must reach down deep. And it's here that the film fails.
First, after the Miss Bates incident. This is the first instance in the novel where Emma is shown as "reflecting". Unfortunately, in *time* terms, there's not enough weight given to this reflection in the film -- even if the editing had been slowed during the scenes of self realization it would have been better. Still, this isn't the biggest problem.
The film doesn't depict Emma's gradual understanding of Churchill's lack of true qualities, and fails to capitalize on her attempts at self improvement after the picnic. But worst of all, it entirely misses the climax of Emma's journey to self awareness, her most truly heroic act.
This is during the crucial, linchpin scene when she first hears of Harriet's admission of love for Mr. K, and hears Harriet's belief that he loves her back. This is the moment when Emma, lit with her own personal understanding, finally reaches the moment of eclairissement about the dichotomy of class, money, and true worth:
A few minutes were sufficient for making her acquainted
with her own heart.... She touched -- she admitted --
she acknowledged the whole truth. Why was it so much
worse that Harriet shd be in love with Mr. K, than with
Frank Churchill?
This leads, naturally to her self understanding:
It darted through her with the speed of an arrow, that Mr. K
must marry no one but herself!
The point is that it's the one realization that *leads* to the other -- this is the exact opposite of her approach to trying to understand whether or not she's in love with Frank Churchill. She finally understands that she and Mr. K must match, because their true selves match.
And then she does the most amazing thing in the whole novel: she sits and listens:
Some portion of respect for herself....and a strong sense of
justice by Harriet -- (there wd be no need of *compassion* to
the girl who believed herself loved by Mr. Knightley -- but
justice required that she shd not be made unhappy by any
coldness now,) gave Emma the resolution to sit and endure
farther with calmness, with even apparent kindness.
She has reached the height of her own growth. Like all good Austenian heroines, she learns to think of others, and suffer in silence -- and our hearts ache.
It's absolutely wrong that the most poignant part of the film should be the Miss Bates incident -- it must be *this* moment, where love is revealed by truth, and then honour follows.
McGrath, in a fashion typical to the whole film, throws away the emotion in favour of burlesque. We cut immediately to an improbable conversation with Mrs Weston where Emma is *explaining* that she realized her love for Mr. Knightley -- we don't see her listening to why Harriet thinks that he loves her -- and McGrath immediately plonks in some funny lines. We laugh, but this isn't the right moment -- this is the point where we should feel like crying for Emma, except that we know that K does love her.
This isn't the only scene where we get emotions and impressions once removed; there's altogether *too much* expository -- it's exactly because Frank Churchill's situation is explained at dinner before we ever see him that the information doesn't register. Then we never understand that Mrs. Weston always wanted Frank to marry Emma, and planted that romantic notion in her head -- while the *reader* has "met" the imaginary Frank before he appears in the novel, the *viewer* does not. (The chance to do this -- the letter Emma is trying to hear from Frank -- is instead used as a comic device to depict Elton's att'ns; this is funny, but misses the larger point.) To this we add the chaser of Mr. K improbably saying *during his proposal*, "Why do you think I never liked Frank Churchill?"
How much better it would have been to have *shown* his dislike of Churchill *before* Frank arrived, and then his growing suspicions as he noticed Frank's attentions to Jane. The perfect vehicle for the former is the converstaion he and E have before Frank arrives, where he criticizes F for not coming to pay his respects to his new stepmother; for the latter, the letter that F and E use to tease Jane, as they are observed by Mr. K at the picnic.
And how *infinitely* better it would have been to simply *see* Emma's realization of her love for Mr. K -- Paltrow's expression is luminous and clear enough to make that perfectly obvious to us without her having to tell us. What that conversation with Mrs. W should have been used for was to show us that she understood the *other* point -- that Churchill and Mr. K were equally available to Harriet using E's old, flawed measure of worthiness, but that obviously Mr. K's true worth did not match Harriet's. And the scene, if inserted, should have been a flash-forward, so we could cut back to Emma w/Harriet.
Another problem is that by not staying, we never *hear* any reasons why Emma thinks Harriet may be right. One peculiar consequence of this is that the double edged tone of the walk with Mr. K before his proposal is lost. My brother said he thought that when Mr. K said that he had "one reason to envy Frank Churchill", he thought that Emma thought Mr. K was referring to *Jane* -- at no point did my brother ever think that Emma truly believed that Mr. K might love *Harriet*.
What a mess!
It also makes the balance of the film seem wrong that there's all that stuff after Mr. K and Emma get together -- in the novel, of course, it's further evidence of E's progress that she accept Harriet and Robert's marriage. The film that McGrath was making -- without the social context -- shd have collapsed this incident quickly -- it would have been better even if Mr. K mentioned it immediately after his proposal ("Oh, by the way, you'll be sorry to hear that....")
Okay. You know what *else* I didn't like about the film? I thought the cinematography was *atrocious*! First, the lighting was weird through the whole film. Obviously they were trying for tricky window lighting, but the overall effect was distracting and obscuring. At many points, there are noticable lighting imbalances between shots, and weird stuff:
- In a dinner scene, the candles seem to give off warm tungsten balanced light, then from the reverse angle, bluer light
- At one point during the dance, it looks as if daylight through a window, not candlelight, is shining on Harriet.
- During the tea scene (after the archery), the lighting levels on (1) Emma shots, (2) Emma and Mr. K shots, and (3) the medium of Mr. K are not the same!
- That weird choice at the door when people are moving out of light into darkness, then speaking, and then moving back into the light (why?).
- Lots of others.
And God -- those cheesy, cheesy pan and dolly shots! The two worst were the overhead through the bower shot swinging down to a front medium -- and Paltrow obviously instructed to pause her speech to wait for the swing -- when E first learns of Robert Martin; and then that swing around to a two-shot of E and Mr. K, with the hall in the background. Ptui! Right up there with the worst shots in FRANKENSTEIN! (Actually, I begin to get a taste of what horrors Branagh might have inflicted on us for S&S had he and Emma Thompson not mercifully come to outs first.) And that thunderclap at that crucial moment -- please, someone call the taste police!
Okay, I've vented.
Having said all this -- it was still a damn funny film. It manages to get away with itself because all the performances are so fine. It will undoubtedly launch Paltrow's career -- she looks so much like Blythe Danner in some shots; I think she has the most beautiful neck since Audrey Hepburn's.
Go catch it, but it's not even close to being in the same class as S&S, or PERSUASION.
-desiree
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews