Emma
admin | Feb 18, 2010 | 5 comments
Description
Beautiful, clever, and rich Emma Woodhouse is convinced she is good at matchmaking after her older sister and her governess both marry suitable husbands. No matter that as Mr Knightley drily observes, in reality, she had nothing to do with these relationships. Yet Emma, certain of her talents, plays a dangerous game as she persuades her new friend, the young, pretty and socially inferior Harriet to reject an advantageous marriage proposal to a local farmer in favour of dash… More >>
Filed Under: TV Shows
In the most recent TV adaptations of various Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy, and Bronte novels, a trend seems to have developed, that of poor casting. For example, the otherwise excellent 2006 BBC version of JANE EYRE was marred – if not ruined – by the casting of an actress who is endowed with extremely distracting, John Merrick (AKA the “Elephant Man”)-like lips in the titular role; the 2009 ITV adaptation of WUTHERING HEIGHTS featured a Heathcliff who has a cartoonishly small mouth and lips that are far too full for a man of his complexion (also, the Catherine Earnshaw character was portrayed by an actress with a very masculine jawline); the lead actress in the 2008 version of TESS OF THE D’URBERVILLES has a long lower face, lips that are far too thick for someone of her pigmentation, and a voice so shrill that it can puncture eardrums; and the 2007 ITV remake of MANSFIELD PARK starred Billie Piper, who has also has freakishly full lips for someone that fair-skinned and a mouth that is cartoonishly large and spaced unusually far from her nose (compared to the length of her chin) (NOTE: these comments aren’t meant to imply that I expect or desire indisputably good-looking actors to get all of the leading roles, BUT there is a BIG difference between a “normal-looking” face [be it beautiful, plain, or whatever] and a funny-looking one, which tends, as I alluded to above, to distract the viewer from the story and the performances – things were already bad enough having to put up with stick-figured Hollywood actresses and rail-thin runway models who have masculine facial features, such as wide, square jawlines, but this is too much; no wonder so many people have eating disorders or are addicted to plastic surgury).
And, even when producers and casting directors don’t select lead actors who possess freaky-looking facial features, they still somehow botch it by casting actors who simply do not fit their roles in regard to appearance, as was illustrated by the actors chosen to play the lead parts in the 2007 ITV adaptation of PERSUASION (Anne Eliot is supposed to be a woman who was pretty in her youth, but is now well past her bloom yet the actress who portrays her doesn’t look like she’s EVER been pretty and Captain Wentworth is played by a “pretty boy” whose face definitely doesn’t look like it’s been weathered by years spent at sea).
Such is the problem with the recent remake of Jane Austen’s EMMA: the actress in the title role is, once again, sporting lips that are far too full for a woman with such fair skin (geez, no wonder collagen-related procedures are all the rage among consumers of popular culture) and has an absolutely crazed look in her eyes whenever she’s animated (she also appears to be more than a few years too old for the role) while this version of Knightly comes across as a priggish, boyish wimp, which is definitely not what Austen had in mind (not to mention the fact that this George Knightly definitely doesn’t look 16 years older than this Emma, which is supposed to be the case). Indeed, the casting of this film is very poor across the board (even Michael Gambon, whom I’ve enjoyed in several other movies, seems out of place here – and why exactly is someone as hypochondriacal as Mr. Woodhouse going for a walk outdoors?). There are, of course, many other problems with this EMMA (the re-working of Austen’s dialogue, the actors’ out-of-place mannerisms, etc), most of which have been noted by my fellow reviewers, so I won’t/didn’t bother going into them.
Fortunately, poeple who would like to see EMMA on DVD can always purchase the 1996 ITV version, which though abbreviated, is more or less true to the book AND is very well cast and acted, starting with Kate Beckinsale as Emma and Mark Strong as Knightly. And, not only is it a much better adaptation than the latest one, but it’s also sold here at Amazon for a lot less. Buy it.
Hello fellow Austenites! This is a review of the reviews of the new Emma with Romola Garai, which I just ordered. I loved the reviews and I can’t wait to watch it myself. I now all the actors from previous works and the casting was brilliantly done, to say the least. There is one comment about Gwyneth Paltrow’s “fake British accent” which does not ring true. Gwyneth Paltrow’s British accent is not fake in any shape or form. Gwyneth was raised by her mother,Blythe Danner,an excellent British actor in her own right. Gwyneth’s British accent is flawless, to say the least. You will read more from me after I watch the new Emma!
Romala Garai as Emma Woodhouse bugs her eyes out no less than several dozen times in four hours; you may depend upon it.
This version contains a plenitude of eye rolling, eye bugging, smirking, shrieking, giggling, slouching, and slang.
It also contains no subtlety, whatsoever. It spells out every implication of every plot and character shift out loud, in bland, modern English, as if the best they expect from the audience is for them to keep the drool wiped off their chins.
It lacks Jane Austen’s dialogue (nearly 75% of the script is new or altered), wit, and charm.
Mr. Knightly, Miss Bates, Mr. Woodhouse, and Harriet were all fine enough.
Jane Fairfax and Mrs. Weston were insipid dopes with two expressions a piece in their pockets.
Frank Churchill is so wretched that when this Emma hoots and delights, preening like a glittery peacock at his flattery, it is clear she is a woman who could never be worthy of Mr. Knightly. It is the first Emma where I actually hoped against all odds that he might end up with Harriet.
Badly done, indeed.
Sorry, Ms. Garai, this is almost a complete waste of time . . . Kate Beckinsale and Gwyneth Paltrow have said all that needs to be said. This version interprets the heck out of this thing, and adds a lot of dialogue to clarify their interpretation while cutting much of Austen’s (superior) dialogue . Harriet’s voice is grating, although they do develop her character more than some of the other versions. Emma constantly echoes Gwyneth Paltrow’s portrayal–not surprisingly. I do like some of the points they make and some of the contrasts they draw: Emma’s childhood fate, Miss Bates’ poverty. All in all, though, not worth it. I would highly recommend either of the ’97 versions over this.
This is a wonderful adaptation! It ranks up there with the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice. It is a new favorite that I look forward to watching again and again.