I really liked this. Not as much as I like the miniseries, but more than I like either of the 1996 movies. Emma herself doesn't have as much heart as the Romola Garai version does, but that's not necessarily a complaint. Let's face it, Emma's kind of a snob. She comes across as unlikable in the book at times, and she does so here, too. In that, it's a very good adaptation. Emma is stuck up and self-centered, and you can see how damaging her actions are. She's a twenty-one-year old who thinks she's got it all figured out, and thinks she's doing right. This adaptation also really underscored how caught in her wake Harriet is. Since it's a two hour movie, of course the story itself is condensed--for example, the outing to Donwell Abbey and Box Hill are combined, but not really to any detriment. The only thing I would slightly complain about is that so much time is taken up on the principal characters, you don't really get a sense of who the side characters are. Of course, I know, since I've been through the story backwards and forwards, but I wonder how someone who has never read the book or watched another adaptation would feel.
As for things feeling not fleshed out, I'm sure it was said somewhere that the Knightleys were brothers, but all I remember hearing is that Isabella is Emma's sister. You really barely get to know Frank Chruchill, and I would say the same of Jane Fairfax, except not knowing her is really the point in the book. There wasn't nearly enough Mr. and Mrs. Weston (Rupert Graves! Gemma Whelan!), though I feel like I did know who they were as characters. I'm also not sure we really got a handle on how Mr. Woodhouse is and how much he affects Emma's life, besides the fact that he's a fussy old man. But these are all really minor nitpicks. The movie is gorgeous, and the house they filmed in for Hartfield is especially so. That pastel pink room--give it to me now. The costuming is gorgeous. All the other sets are gorgeous, if a bit samey? Don't get me wrong, it goes with the aesthetic of the film, but for instance, the shop in town and the church are both done up very similarly in light bright colors, the same as Hartfield is. There are also servants EVERYWHERE, lol. Not that there wouldn't be--a house the size of Hartfield would have an army of servants. But it certainly makes you realize how awkward it is from a modern sensibility, just having people hanging around to open doors for you or move screens for you. But did I mention that the house was gorgeous?
All in all, I thought this was a very enjoyable time, and I will definitely be watching it again.
As for things feeling not fleshed out, I'm sure it was said somewhere that the Knightleys were brothers, but all I remember hearing is that Isabella is Emma's sister. You really barely get to know Frank Chruchill, and I would say the same of Jane Fairfax, except not knowing her is really the point in the book. There wasn't nearly enough Mr. and Mrs. Weston (Rupert Graves! Gemma Whelan!), though I feel like I did know who they were as characters. I'm also not sure we really got a handle on how Mr. Woodhouse is and how much he affects Emma's life, besides the fact that he's a fussy old man. But these are all really minor nitpicks. The movie is gorgeous, and the house they filmed in for Hartfield is especially so. That pastel pink room--give it to me now. The costuming is gorgeous. All the other sets are gorgeous, if a bit samey? Don't get me wrong, it goes with the aesthetic of the film, but for instance, the shop in town and the church are both done up very similarly in light bright colors, the same as Hartfield is. There are also servants EVERYWHERE, lol. Not that there wouldn't be--a house the size of Hartfield would have an army of servants. But it certainly makes you realize how awkward it is from a modern sensibility, just having people hanging around to open doors for you or move screens for you. But did I mention that the house was gorgeous?
All in all, I thought this was a very enjoyable time, and I will definitely be watching it again.
no subject
Date: 23 March 2020 12:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 March 2020 12:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 March 2020 01:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 March 2020 02:05 am (UTC)That sounds like a movie worth watching. Personally, I end up comparing every Emma adaptation to Clueless -- while, yes, it's a very different setting, I like that Emma/Cher is still rather sweet and likeable, despite her snobby and sheltered opinions and how utterly wrong her first impressions are. I need to still like Emma and with the 1996 movies I... didn't especially care about / for Emma.
no subject
Date: 23 March 2020 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 March 2020 11:39 am (UTC)Hearing that this adaptation doesn't shy away from Emma's most unpleasant traits is definitely an enticement, because those are one of the things that make her such an enjoyable character for me, so when I can I'll give this film a shot ^^ (I'd like to re-read the book first, since it's been... almost ten years? Since I read it. But eventually, yes, I'll watch it. Thanks for the rec!).
no subject
Date: 24 March 2020 01:02 am (UTC)And I'm all about the Austen adaptations, though I am HARSH, lol.