Page to Screen: "Emma."
I have fond memories of “Emma” — not only is it my favorite Jane Austen book, I love the 1996 version of the movie with Gwyneth Paltrow, and I obviously adore “Clueless.” I had made plans with a friend to go see this in the theater, but in this era of social distancing, that was no longer an option. Instead, I rented it Sunday afternoon, and I spent a relaxing afternoon going back in time.
Short version of my review: I really enjoyed this one — it was a slow and shaky start, but it built to such a satisfying and beautiful conclusion. Well worth the $20 to rent it.
Long version? Sure, pop some popcorn and settle in.
I had high expectations with this movie, and they were mostly met — I don’t know if it’s curmudgeonly of me, but I don’t always see the need to constantly redo movie adaptations. This train of thought has the chance to devolve into a “why does it seem like there are no unique ideas?!” rant, so I will keep it short: when I first saw that there was going to be a new adaptation of “Emma.” coming out this spring, my first thought was, “is this really needed?”
I’m not sure that it was really needed at this moment, but honestly, it was a fun frolic through one of my favorite stories, and beyond that, it was absolutely gorgeous. Emma is easily my favorite of Jane Austen’s works, and I love how unapologetically herself she is — so famously “handsome, clever, rich.” She’s also imperfect, so easy to judge, and super charming, despite her many flaws. Unlike the other Austen heroines, there is no impediment to her happiness; she’s beautiful, she’s rich, she’s able to live her life outside of the rigors or matrimony, and she’s bored and meddlesome. I’m not going to rehash the plot here because Autumn de Wilde (director) and Eleanor Catton (screenwriter/author of “The Luminaries”) were faithful to the bones of the book; all of the major story elements are there, and in the appropriate chronological order.
It started almost disastrously slow — I did not enjoy the first 20-25 minutes of the movie. However, it finally started to hit its stride around the time that Harriet and Emma encountered Mr. Elton, and the best parts of the novel were lovingly told on the screen. This screenplay doesn’t take the source material too seriously, and I mean that as a total compliment. There’s a lot of love and heart injected into the story, and that’s exactly what I needed this weekend.
Let’s talk about the costumes! Honestly, this is one of the best parts of the film for me. It was like stepping back in a rococo fantasy, styled by Wes Anderson; neither of those were expected (the Regency/Georgian period in British art and history is not so ruffly or over-the-top) but it was such a treat. I’m not a fashion critic, so I will refer you to these better discussions: “Emma and the Importance of Costume Design” and
Also a treat? Bill Nighy as Emma’s hypochondriac father. He’s easily my favorite non-visual part of the film. The casting for this movie was on point, in my opinion; this is a film that’s mostly about talking and not action, and so much of it centers on how people react to Emma. I thought that our Emma, Harriet, and Knightly were cast extremely well, and their chemistry — both friendship and romantic — was spot on.
All in all, I’d give this movie 3.75ish stars. I enjoyed it a great deal, and it’s one I suspect might be better upon later watches because there will be more time to recognize the details.
Have you seen this movie? Do you plan on it?
If you click on one of the links in this article and make a purchase, She’s Full of Lit may receive a small commission. It doesn’t add anything to your price — we promise! Thanks so much for your support.
