Jane Austen discussion

From seeing the first part of Emma last night on PBS, Masterpiece I certainly like this full length version. I like that it emphasizes many of these young folks have lost their parents early on. It seems to give a little more insight into feeling. And many of the lines of the novel are included that aren't in the shorter films.

I was a little put off by the "prequel" aspects, particularly since no attempt was make the actors look younger. The scene where Isabella and John are romping in the shrubbery was somewhat odd, IMHO. I also thought the scene where Harriet was looking to Emma for instructions in table etiquette was peculiar - at Mrs. Goddard's, even if they did not have the number of spoons and covers at their own table, dining etiquette would have been taught. It was absurd to suggest that Harriet would not have known what to do with her napkin or how to use a spoon. Even in the unlikely event that it had not been taught, Mrs. Goddard would have taken Harriet aside before the dinner and given her the run-down.

Since film attempts to reach a broader audience, I believe these were heavier attempts at plot exposition. For example, the Harriet table manners, maybe emphasizing for those who don't know that Harriet has stepped into a higher social sphere than her everyday. I didn't like that part, but didn't dislike it either -- mainly I like the extra plot exposition -- because actually in the past, the Emma films maybe depended too much on "here is a romantic comedy about this attractive wealthy girl who sets people up." I like that maybe THIS version wants to tell a little bit more.

I agree with you though in principle, J, and thought the same thing actually just at that moment! That this was unrealistic of Harriet. But it was way of explaining that didn't really denounce her character -- we still like her, but we understand her social place.

YUCK. I'm only through the first two chapters (on the on-line version) but already I have to ask, WHY DON'T THEY TRUST JANE AUSTEN TO KNOW HOW TO TELL A STORY?

If Austen had thought all this prequel nonsense was necessary to tell her story, she would have put it in. Getting this information developed gradually throughout the story is part of the development and a bit of mystery which Austen deliberately put into the novel. Now all that mystery, all the fun of discovery, is gone. Kaput.

So far there is nothing at all in this version that I think is superior to past versions of Emma. There is, so far, no reason at all I can see to have made this new version other than to find a way to use public funding monies to give work to some actors, stagehands, etc.

Everyman wrote: "YUCK. I'm only through the first two chapters (on the on-line version) but already I have to ask, WHY DON'T THEY TRUST JANE AUSTEN TO KNOW HOW TO TELL A STORY?

If Austen had thought all this preq..."

It doesn't seem that the brief scenes at the beginning reveal anything mysterious -- for example, it just shows that the Bates were poor and couldn't care for Jane and they felt the Campbells should take care of her. This probably helps viewers who aren't Austenites or aren't familiar with that era and what families dealt with when parents died.

I enjoyed this version of Emma. The Gwyneth Paltrow version was played as a romantic comedy. This version has a much more serious side. It was even sad at times.

I like the chemistry between Emma and Knightley. I just seems real to me. I like it when she “rolls her eyes” at him behind his back. He’s so serious and down-to-earth. I think it’s close to how Austen wrote him

Everyman wrote: "YUCK. I'm only through the first two chapters (on the on-line version) but already I have to ask, WHY DON'T THEY TRUST JANE AUSTEN TO KNOW HOW TO TELL A STORY?

If Austen had thought all this preq..."

I can't decide about the introductory scenes or the scene at the dinner table with Harriet (I agree, she would have been taught how to behave at dinner). A lot of the book's story is told by a narrator or in Emma's thoughts, so I suppose it's a choice between added scenes, a narrator's voice-over, or invented dialog. I was glad that the added scenes were short.

People can debate a director's or an adaptor's vision and never agree. Everyone lauds the BBC P&P version as being true to the book, but Andrew Davies added some scenes that weren't in the book (Colin Firth in wet shirts comes to mind). Just have to either enjoy what you are given or not. It's more a bit of personal taste. (I prefer the 2005 version of P&P!) Everyone says the next episodes of Emma are even better -- I'm looking forward to them!

Jeannette wrote: "People can debate a director's or an adaptor's vision and never agree. "

Very true!

I tend to be a purist. I think if people are going to present a work under an author's name and using the author's reputation as an enticement to get viewers, they have an obligation to respect what and how the author decided to tell this story they created. I think that to significantly change the way in which an author decided to tell his or her story is fundamentally dishonest.

You are a true purist. I don't think I've seen very many films that remain true to the book. I have decided that as long as a film doesn't insult my tastes or the spirit of the work, that I am willing to judge a film on it's own merits. This was the case with the recent filming of The Lord of the RIngs trilogy. Some things were left out, some things were changed, but I really enjoyed the films and the filming didn't damage the story in any large way.

I always wonder when books are adapted repeatedly, as with Austen's works, what the film maker will do to put his/her spin on it. Many people love Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson in it, but, Emma Thompson was really too old for the part! It was still a very enjoyable film.

I aree with Everyman--the prequel seems unnecessary and I prefer the way Austen began Emma. I also really don't like Romola Galai as Emma at all. I think she and Harriet Smith look too much alike. And just to add grist to the mill, I really didn't like Colin Firth's wet shirt scene, unlike most women. I thought it was silly. (I beg forgiveness in advance to all those who loved it.) I think Jonny Lee Miller is wasted here, also. I liked Kate Beckinsale's interpretation from the 1996 tv series and Jeremy Northam's Knightley from the 1996 film version--I would have loved to see them together in the same version!

My heart belongs to Jeremy Northam!! :)

I think the prequel was a bit of wasted filler, too. That background info could have been revealed through telling the story. I feel that the film maker wanted to make the story a bit more melancholy. Poor Mr. Weston crying, which wasn't how Austen describes it in the book.

But, in general, I like Garai and Miller in their roles. I think they will grow on us as the movie progresses.

Sarah wrote: "Everyman wrote: "YUCK. I'm only through the first two chapters (on the on-line version) but already I have to ask, WHY DON'T THEY TRUST JANE AUSTEN TO KNOW HOW TO TELL A STORY?

If Austen had thou..."

I definitely agree. There are times in Austen's writing when she reveals something as a narrator and not in the conversation of the characters. This is hard to convey on screen without a voice over, so putting in a few extra scenes to let those who have never read the book in on everything. I think we sometimes forget that people who aren't already Austen fans might watch.

And then they might read the books. This is what happened in my case. I hadn't read any Austen four years ago, but I enjoyed the 2005 P&P so much, I finally read the book. :)

I really liked the opening scenes with the children being sent away. It certainly emphasized Emma's priviledged upbringing.
I just love this version so far and I liked Gwyneth Paltrow's version also.
At first I was thrown by Harriet's confusion at the table but I attributed it to her seeing the men stuffing their napkins into their shirts. As for the soup, I had assumed that she was very nervous and afraid of doing the wrong thing, especially after almost following the men with their napkin method.

Yes, she was probably very nervous. Maybe she didn't pay attention at school? She was portrayed as being especially sweet, but not too bright.

While discussing Frank Churchill on the book discussion thread, it occurred to me again that the filmmaker is trying to shade this production just a bit on the sorrowful side. Here we see that Frank has been within the neighborhood of his father's house many times, but never stopped to see him. Why is this? Resentment, regret, diffidence? So far, this Frank isn't as apparently carefree and careless as the way Austen wrote him.

Everyman wrote: I tend to be a purist. I think if people are going to present a work under an author's name ..."

I think that when you translate a novel to the screen it is necessary to modify the work. what works on the printed page does not work on the screen and vice versa.

I like all the different versions of Emma that have been produced for film. The variety of interpretations add to my enjoyment of the original Austen story. I could never say one film was my favorite because there are aspects of each that I like as well as parts I don't care for. I'm particularly enjoying the banter between Emma and Knightly in the newest version.

Cathy wrote: "I like all the different versions of Emma that have been produced for film. The variety of interpretations add to my enjoyment of the original Austen story. I could never say one film was my favo..."

I really enjoy their interactions, too. I think I will enjoy seeing how their relationship evolves. (And we get to see Parts 2 & 3 on Sunday!)

Bill wrote: "Everyman wrote: I tend to be a purist. I think if people are going to present a work under an author's name ..."

I think that when you translate a novel to the screen it is necessary to modify ..."

Hi Bill,

I agree. When we hear of or actually begin to watch a movie based on a written work, they make no secret that is an adaptation. That means it has been adapted in some way and for some reason. Very seldom I see a direct transfer of written words to film. I enjoy visual artistry and the director's interpretation, especially in period films -- it adds to my world and my enjoyment.

Sarah wrote: "Bill wrote: "Everyman wrote: I tend to be a purist. I think if people are going to present a work under an author's name ..."

I think that when you translate a novel to the screen it is necessary..."

I do love it when the film maker uses beloved passages from the book. It really adds to the enjoyment of an adaptation and brings back memories of the written work. :)

Absolutely, Jeannette. I should have clarified by saying seldom do I see ONLY a direct transfer of the original written words used as the screenplay of a film.

Sarah wrote: "Absolutely, Jeannette. I should have clarified by saying seldom do I see ONLY a direct transfer of the original written words used as the screenplay of a film."

I meant to supplement your post, not contradict it! :)

Jeannette wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Absolutely, Jeannette. I should have clarified by saying seldom do I see ONLY a direct transfer of the original written words used as the screenplay of a film."

I meant to supplemen..."

No, on the contrary Jeannette, I reread mine and thought maybe it sounded like I was saying I like to totally diverge from the original text when seeing a movie.

I've been so busy I haven't had a chance to watch this yet but I'm hoping to do so while it's still posted on PBS to watch online. I'll look forward to participating more in the discussion then, even if belatedly. "Emma" is probably my favorite Austen so I'm quite eager :-)

What I liked about the prequel scenes is that it visually and verbally explained why each child grew into a particular person through an emotional connection when seeing each sad child's face (or unknowing in Emma's case). But mostly for me it impacted more on explaining why Emma's father is extremely protective.

I don't think it reveals any secrets. But it doesn't flow into the story like how Austen wrote. It's simply different. And I enjoyed that interpretation. It wasn't highly offensive.

The Harriet part confused me yes. I think she might have been extremely nervous and embarassed and OOOPS forgot all her lessons. But...that's still a stretch. I was more bothered by that.

What does everyone think about the opening credits? Personally, I LOVE the paper cut outs and the music over the Paltrow version. Maybe b/c it reminds me of the paper cut outs my mother painstakingly did.

I forget where Episode 2 ends. I've watched the whole miniseries. So I don't want to jump ahead of anyone.

What does everyone think of the sets and costumes? Do you agree with the multiple locations? To clarify, in the old BBC miniseries, there seemed to be 2-4 sets. This one seems to spread what I think (my memory of the book is fuzzy) was one conversation in one room to one conversation stretched across 2-3 sets.

Bill wrote: "Everyman wrote: I tend to be a purist. I think if people are going to present a work under an author's name ..."

I think that when you translate a novel to the screen it is necessary to modify the work. what works on the printed page does not work on the screen and vice versa."

I understand modifications to some extent. Obviously some things need to be left out, depending on how much time is allowed for the production, an sometimes cost plays part (as in the film of Tess where Hardy has a wonderful scene of mowing, but Davies changed that to just hoeing, and said in an on-line discussion that he regretted not being able to do the mowing scene, but it would just have been too expensive for a minor scene).

But inventing whole scenes or episodes that never existed in the book, changing the location to create a completely different atmosphere (as when they moved the cottage in Sense and Sensibility from a country area to the seaside so they could put in seascapes and more dramatic walks which Austen never wrote in), and other changes which are specifically untrue to the way the author told the story are things I object to.

I much prefer when they simply rewrite the story under a different title and not claiming it to be the work of the original author, as with, for example, West Side Story. I have no problem with derivative works which are not claimed to be the work of the original author (Shakespeare had at most three or so original plots in all his ouvre). But when you're going to put an author's name on a work, and use their reputation to get viewers to watch the film, I think there is an obligation to be as true to the text as it is possible for a film to be within the limits of time and budget allowed.

Tanja wrote: "What does everyone think of the sets and costumes?"

I think Highbury is well done, and the Woodhouse home is very appropriate. In the book I hadn't seen Donwell Abbey as such a huge structure, but it doesn't play that large a role in the book. I'm not sure it's ever really described.

Most of the costuming seems right on to me, but I had a problem with some of the outdoor outfits where the coat or whatever it is splits at the waist. I found that unattractive, and haven't seen it in other costume dramas of the age, so don't whether this is authentic and the others aren't, or vice versa.

I just watched the last two episodes (our PBS station ran both tonight) and really enjoyed the ending. The last two episodes did seem a bit condensed, but the ending was well done.

I rather enjoyed this new version. I loved that it expanded and went more into the characters than the GP version. I was quite disappointed there was no wedding between Emma and Mr. Knightly, but having Emma see the ocean at the end almost made up for it.

The ending was very sweet. Makes me want to hurry up and finish the book, just for the little details I always forget between readings.

I liked it even though there were parts that would have been considered inappropriate (Frank Churchill lying his head in her lap, He and Jane kissing in the middle of the street). I thought it was so sweet and I love Johnny Lee Miller as Mr. Knightley. I can hardly think of him as Edmund after this. It was cute. I wouldn't mind owning it.

All of the newest adaptations have added these kissing scenes. I really liked Frank Churchill once he got together with Jane -- they were free! I do think him lying with his head in her lap was a bit much, especially since Emma had decided not to be in love with him. They really played up Emma's immaturity in this adaptation.

I definitely want to see it again.

Jeannette wrote: "All of the newest adaptations have added these kissing scenes. I really liked Frank Churchill once he got together with Jane -- they were free! I do think him lying with his head in her lap was a..."

This scene in particular really showed that Frank went over the top and caused the discomfort and unhappiness at Box Hill that day. He didn't like the Eltons and was clearly trying to embarrass them and of course was angry at Jane by this time. He was being spoiled and flirty and improper on purpose. I think when Ewan McGregor played this scene in the other Emma version, he did it all more mildly. But this Frank really led these people into a bad day. The whole group was uncomfortable.

After this scene, when Emma goes to the Bates' the next day, it was done more accurately. Miss Bates has forgiven her and they have a conversation mainly about Jane being ill, etc. Miss Bates was wiser than we give her credit I think, realizing Emma's immature action and forgiving her for it -- as you would for a misbehaving niece maybe (not that I would know!).

I realize some of the scenes were embellishments, especially the kissing scene in the middle of the street. Hey, apparently the girl likes impulsive men or we wouldn't even have this storyline!

I liked the scenes that showed Emma and Jane's friendship growing. And Mr. Knightley making sure Emma has a honeymoon. He thinks of everything doesn't he, realizing how nice it would be since she has never traveled and ultimately has been the caretaker of her father.

I liked the way Ewan McGregor played Frank, because it was a "kinder" portrayal. I'm still working through the book, so I'm not sure which was truer to Austen. I think the newest Frank was rather petulant and unfeeling. But, again, I think the film maker wanted to make this one sadder/darker.

I didn't care for Mrs. Bates at all. What was the ending -- one of those miracle recoveries?

I really liked the actress who played Jane. But, again, I have a feeling it wasn't quite true to Austen. Better get to the book today! lol

Sarah wrote: "I realize some of the scenes were embellishments, especially the kissing scene in the middle of the street. Hey, apparently the girl likes impulsive men or we wouldn't even have this storyline!

I..."

I really love that part of the story in both the book and the movie. When I read it in the book I was like "Oh! He took her to the ocean! That's so sweet!" I just thought it was the sweetest thing since she talked of how she'd never been there before early in the book. I was really glad they put that in the adaptation.

The ocean scene at the end was the sweet adorable twist I hadn't expected! It was better for me than seeing another wedding scene!

Laura Ashlee wrote: "I liked it even though there were parts that would have been considered inappropriate (Frank Churchill lying his head in her lap, He and Jane kissing in the middle of the street). I thought it was ..."

I agree here. Especially with the Frank putting his head in Emma's lap. It seemed widely intimate and inappropriate for the time. My feelings is that they put that in so that there could be more drama when Emma finds out about Frank and Jane.

hmm i watched the first 30 mins of episode one and turned it off as I didnt feel it captured Emma right. Emma was totally unlikable and smug. Felt Romola Garai was wrong for the part and didnt have the natural grace and charm Emma had in the book and I dont know why but I just didnt beleive in any of the characters-i was so aware they were all acting!!

Was so dissapointed as Sandy Welsh was involved and I loved her version of Jane Eyre a few years ago..... however maybe i have too rash and looking at some of the postiive reviews here i may rent it out and seeif it has grown on me!We have been spoiled with such great adaptions of P&P, north and south and Jane Eyre that i expect maybe too much from my tv adaptions!

Lushbug wrote: "hmm i watched the first 30 mins of episode one and turned it off as I didnt feel it captured Emma right. Emma was totally unlikable and smug. Felt Romola Garai was wrong for the part and didnt have..."

Try again -- it kind of grows on you. You can watch it online for free on pbs.org (look under Masterpiece)

I thoroughly enjoyed the scene with Mr. Elton dragging on the mule. Loved the look on his face!

Both Emma and Mr. Knightley seem less dignified than I imagine them. And Mr. Knightley is supposed to be tall. Other than that, I like the first 3 hours, and I'm looking forward to the last part.

Jeannette wrote: "I thoroughly enjoyed the scene with Mr. Elton dragging on the mule. Loved the look on his face!"

I enjoyed that too. You can tell he was regretting marrying Mrs. Elton for a moment.

Alicia wrote: "Both Emma and Mr. Knightley seem less dignified than I imagine them. And Mr. Knightley is supposed to be tall. Other than that, I like the first 3 hours, and I'm looking forward to the last part."

Is there one more part? I thought it concluded last night.

Some stations ran it over two weekends and some over three (so they have one more to go). Sorry, Alicia, if some of us mentioned spoilers. It appears that quite a few of us watched all 3 parts already.

I only saw episode 2 today (that's all they offered in the on-line option), so haven't yet seen some of the things being commented on, but I was much happier with this episode. Seemed much closer to the book, and covered all the major events very nicely. Mrs Elton is a wonderful piece of work (but looks considerably younger than I had thought her to be, will have to see whether Austen mentions her age). I wondered how they would deal with Mrs. Elton calling him Knightley, and liked the way they handled it.

The only problem I had is that they seem to be making the Emma/Knightley attraction quite a bit too obvious. To first time readers of the book, it usually comes "out of the blue," though when you look back it is well justified. But here, given the number of scenes where telling looks, long glances, Knightley's mental replaying of the ball, et. all., nobody will be surprised when Knightley proposes.

But that was the only quibble I had with this section.

Everyman wrote: "I only saw episode 2 today (that's all they offered in the on-line option), so haven't yet seen some of the things being commented on, but I was much happier with this episode. Seemed much closer ..."

I'm glad you liked the second episode so much better. I'm not sure that Mrs. Elton was much older than early 20's, since she did have a nice fortune to bring to a marriage. And, Mr. Elton was in the mood to be flattered when he met her.

With all of the long glances from Knightley, Emma should have seen that he was thinking of her. So, it was a bit too obvious compared to the book. Someone mentioned on another thread, how nice it would be to be able to go back and read Austen for the first time, with no prior knowledge of the outcome. I would like to be able to do that!