Emma—a Heroine to Love or Hate?

Andrea here, musing today about books, movies, and Jane Austen . . . and when the three collide. I just saw the new iteration of Emma on the silver screen, and have some thoughts and reactions to share.

“Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her.”

To begin with, Emma (the novel) is not my favorite Austen. (Though I do find the opening sentence nearly as witty and clever as “It is a truth universally acknowledged . . .) That distinction lies with P&P (though Persuasion is a very close second . . . pip, pip, for the Ps!) But it isn’t my least favorite either —I have to say that rating lies with Northanger Abbey, which JA wrote as a parody of Horace Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto, considered the first gothic novel.

 

And so, (for those of you who are adding and subtracting) it comes fifth out of six finished novel that Austen penned. As Jane herself said, “I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like.” It’s true—Emma has a number of unattractive traits, which Austen quickly reveals in the first few pages of the book. “The reals evils, indeed, of Emma’s situation were the power of having rather too much her own way, and a disposition to think a little too well of herself . . . .”

Now onto the new film adaptation, directed by Autumn de Wilde. (You can read a very interesting piece on the director and her take on Austen’s Emma here.) As a pure piece of filmmaking, there are a lot of things to like. The the English countryside and house interiors are gorgeous, though everything is achingly picture-perfect. (The village doesn’t have a blade of grass of out of place and the home of the genteelly impoverished Bates mother and daughter is a little too charming)

As for the fashions, they’re quite spectacular . . . never mind that they are totally unbelievable for the characters. Emma’s eye-popping outfits look like she’s just stepped off the catwalk of an Alexander McQueen haute couture show, and even Harriet, a girl of uncertain parentage who assists at the local girl’s boarding school, struts her stuff in one stylish outfit after another.

But let us turn to the story. The screenplay is actually amazingly faithful to the book. Much of the dialogue is Austen’s words. So what could possibly go wrong? Well, my reaction was . . . rather a lot. I was so disappointed with the film that I went back and re-read the book to figure out exactly why it felt so “off.” Indeed, I also watched the Gwyneth Paltrow film version from 1996, just to have another frame of reference. (I very much enjoyed it . . . Jeremy Northam is a wonderful Knightley.)

The problem for me is that the whole heart of the story is the relationship between Emma and Mr. Knightley, and how the 16 year difference in age is a key factor. In the book, Austen develops that in a very quiet, nuanced way. There are several scenes—done subtly—that show the change slowly happening between them. All of which make Emma’s realization of her own feelings for him, and his admission of his own feelings both real and satisfyingat the end of the book. Emma’s flaws—and there are many—aren't entirely erased, but maybe that’s what makes it all the more real. (Who of us is perfect?) She does learn and grow.

In the movie , however, the character of Mr. Knightley is totally turned on its head—a deliberate decision by de Wilde, which just really didn’t work for me. She chose Johnny Flynn, a current British heartthrob who looks Emma’s age, to play him, and ramps up the sexual tension between them from the get-go. (Ahem, not that I am complaining about having to look at a naked Flynn’s sculpted form from the rear . . but the scene just didn’t make a lot of sense.)

So this film version of Knightley had nothing to do with Austen’s character, and thus I found Emma never really changed from a Mean Girl, which left the film feeling very disjointed. In all fairness, it very hard to film a story where so much of the action is interior thoughts, and I give de Wilde credit for daring to give a modern interpretation to the story. Still, the complex interactions between the characters didn’t come off well for me. (One of the qualities that helps redeem Emma in the novel is her true love and compassion for her elderly father, and how patient and protective she is of him, even when he’s being absurd.)

That said, there are some delightful bits, if one is willing to forget Austen’s actual story. Emma’s father is very amusing, and the scenes of his concerns with catching a chill are very funny—in fact, the last scene in the movie is wonderful! And Elton and his snob wife are done very well. I'm glad I saw it, but . . .

So what about you Have you seen the new Emma? If so, what do you think? Are you a fan of the book? And what do you think in general of trying to bring Austen to the screen?

Comments

[Janice]

I haven't seen it yet. I will wait for the dvd.

That said, I have seen the photos of Johnny Flynn as Knightley and he is so wrong for the Knightley of the novel that I wanted to throw my diet coke at the TV screen when I saw the preview.

The photos of Frank Churchill make him look like a dweeb - not the sort of good looking lightweight fast talker that could ever distract a sensible, sensitive girl like Jane Fairfax.

Emma has rabbit eyes (they did have cosmetics then) and thunder brows (they had tweezers too).

I will be watching the movie for Bill Nighy, who has never been less than delightful in anything I ever saw him in. I recommend a rewatch of Love Actually and The Girl in the Cafe in the interim.

[Theo]

I won't be watching it. I've gotten to the point where I don't want to see a 'new interpretation' of a classic. There's a reason the book is a classic in the first place and changing things to suit a 'modern age' only does a huge disservice to the author. Just like so many these days will read a book placed in Edwardian or Victorian times and then rage about the way things are. Yes, they were often not what we expect now, but it's not set in the now and one shouldn't be looking at it through current times.

[Marianne McA]

That's interesting, because I think I liked the film and thought it the best of the adaptions because I don't see the heart of the story as the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley.

For me, the more important relationship is the friendship between Emma and Harriet, and I think most adaptions get that wrong - you can feel Emma is condescending to Harriet out of boredom, rather than she's lonely, and has suddenly found a BFF. I thought this film allowed the girls to actually be friends.

My quibble would be that I've seen the Jane Fairfax/Frank Churchill relationship portrayed better - but I suppose you have to lose something when you're adapting a story into a two hour film. But because Mr Knightley is so front and centre as a desirable love interest it's harder to understand Emma's motivation in playing with the idea of being in love with Frank.

But I enjoyed it a lot - Miranda Hart and Bill Nighy were so good, and I loved the way the servants were portrayed, and it was very beautiful to look at - I left the cinema wanting to go back and watch it all again.

[Christina Courtenay]

I completely agree with your JA book-ranking - Emma is definitely fifth on my list too. I went to see this film with some misgivings, but actually ended up liking it more than I thought I would. As you say, there were things that were wrong, but I loved the funny scenes, the OTT clothes and the settings. And I did like this new Mr Knightley! (Not so much Frank Churchill though - you can't beat Ewan McGregor!) I must admit I really disliked the Gwyneth Paltrow version, so that has probably influenced my judgement, but I will definitely be adding this film to my DVD collection when it comes out.
PS. Isn't Autumn de Wilde a fabulous name??

[Andrea Penrose]

Janice, it's definitely worth seeing just for Bill Nighy! He's delightful—a very different character than Jane wrote, IMO, but he captures the same spirit of the character. The screens to protect from drafts actually become animate characters in the movie and are pricelessly funny.

And there are a lot of other fun touches. So, a lot to like. But Johnny Flynn—who did a fine job acting—was just ALL WRONG as Knightley.

[Andrea Penrose]

All very good points, Theo. My first impression was that it was a fun, snarky movie, with a tongue in cheek take on a Regency comedy of manners. Then, the more I thought of the original novel, the more it bothered me. For me, it missed the whole heart of Austen's story. When you put that aside, and simply view it as "inspired" by Emma,it's enjoyable entertainment.

[Andrea Penrose]

Marianne, I agree there's a lot to like, especially if one is willing not to compare it too closely to the novel. The secondary characters are wonderfully fun. And it was gorgeous, and the fashion so fun to look at.

[Andrea Penrose]

LOL on Autumn de Wilde's name, Christina! It's wonderful for a director. And yes, she did a lot of fun things. I'm very glad I saw it, and enjoyed the fabulous scenery, fashions, and many of the scenes. And I liked Johnny Flynn, and thought he did a good job of acting—it's just that he felt all wrong to me as Austen's Knightley. For me it was an entertaining movie—and even moreso when I didn't try to compare it to the novel.

[Mary Jo Putney]

Very nice analysis, Andrea! It confirms my belief that I don't want to see this movie even though pretty. *G* My rating of Austen books is similar to yours, though I have a sneaking fondness for the Gothic satire of Northanger Abbey. I've never liked Emma since I have deep distaste for controlling bullies who never listen.

Now why do I always forget Mansfield Park? I guess I fine it forgettable...

[Jana]

The actor they got to play Knightley would have made a creditable Frank Churchill. Miscast because he’s popular.

[Sue McCormick]

I won't be seeing the movie, because i thoroughly dislike Emma the novel. I actually reverse your ratings, Andrea. For me Northanger Abbey is 5th and Emma is 6th. This is because I so thoroughly dislike Emma. I agree with Emma that the book is very well written, but I just don't want to visit there.

Northanger Abbey fails to come off, but there isn't any active wrong doing in it, so it doesn't bother me so much.

[Andrea Penrose]

LOL! I don't much like Emma either. Self-centered people are very distasteful to me.

And a second LOL on Mansfleid Park. It is a bit unmemorable!

[Andrea Penrose]

Sue, that's an excellent point about Northanger Abbey having no negative traits. I find it forgettable because I read it as a parody, not a real story with real people/emotions. But I do dislike Emma as a person you may be right that it belongs at the bottom. I shall have to re-read NA to see what I think now.

[Janice]

Oddly enough, my favorite Austen is Mansfield Park, followed closely by Emma. They contain the most complex characters and the best sense of the times.

[Janice]

But but but ... Emma's story is an arc of character. She is much different at the end than she is at the beginning. It's a journey of growth and self-knowledge for her. To me the only flaw in the novel is that Mr. Knightley (one of Austen's few pointer names) is so damn perfect.

[Martha Tonkin]

As I have re-read Emma over the years, I have come to pity her rather than dislike her. Her father is the ultimate control freak, using his fears and anxieties to manipulate and control Emma, to the point that she has not even been allowed to visit her sister and brother-in-law in London even though it is less than 20 miles away. No wonder Emma attempts to control others; she has no control at all over her own life. And her marriage will not lessen her father's iron grip on her life, as the only way she would agree to marry Knightley is if he will come live in her father's house, even though he lives within walking distance of Hartfield. Emma demonstrates Austen's masterful psychological insight.

[Janice]

It also demonstrates a different attitude toward family responsibilities. Now as soon as a kid wants to, they can blow out of the house and leave their parents behind and not worry much about what happens to them. Now there are social safety nets that will at least keep their parents breathing. In Emma's time families had to pool their resources and stay as closely connected as possible because family was the primary resource - nobody else was going to rescue them if something went wrong. Also Emma genuinely loves her father even with his foibles. He has always been kind to her. I thoroughly understand and approve of her decision not to abandon him :)

[Andrea Penrose]

Ha, ha, Janice—Knightley is pretty perfect, but IMO, not in a terrible way.

Yes, Emma does seem to grow and mature, but Austen hasn't quite convinced me that she really gets it.

[Andrea Penrose]

That's a very interesting take, Martha.However, we have to remember that in that era (and her father was elderly , so came from an earlier century) the pater familias did run the show. It wasn't out of the ordinary. Yes, he has foibles, but he's kind to his neighbors, and though his son-in-law is impatient with him, Emma shows her best side in how she deals with his fears.

[Mary M.]

I wonder what readers of the day, coming to the books with their contemporaneous social mores and prejudices, might have thought about the Austen characters.

[Sue McCormick]

They thought well enough of her to have bought and read all six of the published works. "By the writer of Pride and Prejudice" was enough to send the readers to borrow (rent) or to buy those six books.

Modern regency writers use this info-bit frequently –– BECAUSE it has a basis in reality (letters, diary entries).

[LilMissMolly]

I did see the new Emma movie and thought it was better than expected, despite a few flaws with it. I’ve not been a fan of casting Johnny Flynn as George Knightley because he’s not handsome enough. Plus, had you not read the book or seen other movie versions, you’d have no clue that Mr. Churchill was engaged to Jane Fairfax. At least in the book and when when Ewan McGregor played him you saw lots of hints as he was continually stopping in to see Miss Bates (and Jane) before visiting with Emma that when the engagement is finally revealed you kick yourself for not noticing it sooner.

However, in this new version I loved the meaningful looks Mr. Knightley gave Emma throughout the movie that demonstrates his long suffering and inner turmoil that he developed for his much younger sister-in-law. Like you, I went back and listened to the audiobook to make sure I remembered it correctly. The Kate Beckinsale and Gwyneth Paltrow versions gloss over the fact that the Westons have a baby and that Miss Smith finds out who her father is at the end. I was extremely pleased when this newest version includes those juicy tidbits.

[Martha Tonkin]

Still, Mr. Woodhouse differs markedly from, say, Mr. Bennet or even Sir Walter Elliott, neither the ideal dad, one neglectful and the other an all-around jackass. Yes, Emma was kind to him, but that doesn't mitigate that he had an anxiety disorder that limited her life in ways that her comfortable financial circumstances didn't make up for, and it makes her controlling behavior towards others understandable. And another thing, while the age difference between Knightley and Emma was not uncommon for Austen's time, where younger women as mates were desirable because of their greater fertility, modern eyes might look amiss at teen-aged Knightley (1) holding baby Emma in his arms, and worse, (2) saying he first fell in love with her when she was 13, i.e., when she hit puberty. With what we are bombarded with in the news today, from churches to the Boy Scouts, it would raise warning flags. Hey, I love advice columns.

[Teresa Broderick]

I agree with you totally Andrea. I was very disappointed with it but to be honest I didn't have high expectations having seen the trailer.
If you look at it as just another period drama, there were parts in it to like but as an Austen adaptation, no!!
Every time I saw Mr Elton on the screen all I could think of was Uriah Heep from Dickens! What a twat. I think he totally over played it.
Miranda Hart was the best part of it for me. I love Bill Nighy but Mr Woodhouse he was not.
Great post.

[Opisica]

Sorry, but having read your review I am even more anxious to see this movie. That's pretty much because if you dislike Emma and Northanger Abbey so much I cannot give much credence to any of your opinions. Northanger Abbey is my favourite JA story, with Emma number 2. So it seems to me that we see things from very opposite perspectives! Thank you for the recommendation!

[Andrea Penrose]

Martha, I try not to slide down the slippery slope of judging the thoughts and actions of characters in a historical novel by our own current way of thinking (which will change over time!)

The Knightley situation may stir alarm bells in some modern readers, but as you point out, society was different back then, and had different ways of thinking about it. (And I know of a lot age differences in relationships that work very well.) It's just always hard to make generalizations.

[Andrea Penrose]

Very good point, Sue. And Austen clearly hits elemental themes and aspects of human nature that resonate over the eras. She still immensely popular—the cult of Jane!—so readers take delight in her stories today.

[Andrea Penrose]

I agree—there is a lot to like in the new film. However, I did have a problem with making Knightley look her age. It was confusing when the brother and kids arrived and I had to keep reminding myself that George was the older brother.)

[Andrea Penrose]

Teresa, the secondary characters did play it a bit "campy." It worked for Miss Bates because she was a parady to begin with, but a little over the top with Elton. And yes, Bill Nighy was wonderful, but not Jane's Mr. Woodhouse.

[Mary T]

I can't say that EMMA is my favorite work by Miss Austin, but I have always enjoyed it. I read the book so long ago, that I must admit that the movie versions (I've seen at least three) are more fresh in my mind. My favorite was a BBC production from several years ago. I don't remember the name of the actress who played Emma, but Johnny Lee Miller played Mr. Knightly. The two characters had great chemistry in the movie.

I have not seen the latest version, and probably won't until it comes on TV. But I bet I will enjoy it, even if it is not the best version.

[Joan Wolf]

Emma is my favorite Austen novel. I re-read it every few years. As Lionel Trilling once wrote (I think it was he) 'I feel kindly toward Emma.). And I do. She has so much energy and only a small sphere in which to expend it. But she is happy in her small world, where she is undoubtedly the queen. She loves and respects her father. She loves and respects her ex-governess. And she's jealous of Jane even though she would never admit it. But by the end of the novel she is less self-satisfied and definitely humbler. Well, a little humbler. And she gets Mr. Knightly whom she has loved all along.
She's someone I would love to have lunch with.

Don't think I'll see the movie. It doesn't sound like my Emma.