Very decent film adaptation and probably the closest to the text of the available to date four. I cannot judge with absolute certainty, since the mini-series with Romola Garai and Emma 2020 in canary tones is familiar very superficially, but it seems to me that it is.
It’s no secret that ostinomans from 20 to 80 are primarily concerned about Mr. Darcy or Mr. Knightley in the film adaptation (Edmund Bertram and Edward Ferrars worry them a little less, but can also be a nice bonus to viewing). Well, Mr. Mark Strong's Knightley passed my exam, if not immediately. At first he seemed to me heavy, emotional, too "Italian" for the buttoned-up rational English gentleman who came out of Austin's pen. There are no such contrasts in Mr. Knightley’s character as Darcy, but he is also far from being a simple lover of the Austin universe, and perhaps even more difficult to play. He's an infinitely positive character, but he's got to stay damn interesting. It's not easy. What's the conflict in his life? Nothing. He has it all, he falls in love with the family circle, and he doesn’t even have an angry aunt who forbids him to marry. However, it must remain attractive until the very end.
Mark Strong took a slightly different path to embody this character than I imagined. He just filled his hero with absolutely positive energy. No, you haven't heard it in another life. His Mr. Knightley simply shines with a restrained warmth and, incidentally, an outspoken love for Emma from the very first appearance in the frame. True, he quarrels with Emma in the tenth minute in a completely Italian way, but you can see that with love. He may not have the same sense of humor as Mr. Knightley-Jeremy Northam's Hollywood, but you won't lose it. In my personal ranking of Mr. Knightley, Mark Strong is still in first place.
All the other actors are in their seats. Emma is a young Kate Beckinsale, the choice is not perfect, but still good. Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax are generally canonical, baby Harriet is very good (Samantha Morton is a strong supporting actress). Elton is moderately pompous and ridiculous. The scenery, costumes and object world neatly correspond to the era. There are some liberties in the dialogues, but they are needed in order to “fit” the action in time and put the vicissitudes of the plot in the allotted hour and a half.
It is a pity that this film adaptation was in the shadow of its more high-budget Hollywood counterpart - the film adaptation of Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow, released in the same 1996 (a similar situation was in the Franco-English film Valmont in 1989, which turned out to be completely overshadowed by Hollywood Dangerous Liaisons). Television "Emma" with Kate Beckinsale is not bright and seems to have its "highlight". But this is only at first glance. If you look closely, it has soft humor, and some very special charm. And absolutely atypical Mark Strong, which is interesting.
This film adaptation of the book 'Emma' turned out to be chamber; it has more drama than comedy. Despite the small timekeeping, the script successfully reflects all the vicissitudes of the plot. However, Jane Austen's humour remains little. It is mainly expressed in the funny fantasies of the main character. As for the heroine herself, Kate Beckinsale’s Emma turned out to be a charming, slightly capricious young lady, as in the book. You believe that out of boredom, this girl decided to get married. However, this Emma is not an intriguer. Sometimes it seems that she made a mistake with choosing a suitor for Harriet’s girlfriend because she didn’t know what to do, not because she planned to impersonate someone else initially. However, this indecipherability of the heroine without a shadow of cunning and cunning also takes place. Emma turned out to be such a good-natured, slightly naive girl.
The duet with Mr. Knightley (played by Mark Strong) was harmonious. There was a little lack of conversation from the book. But Mark and Kate managed to show a strong partnership, which could really develop into deep feelings and a great marriage. Mr. Knightley is a pretty strict character. There were times when charm took over and I wanted more of them. In my opinion, Knightley could have been more charming, I got this impression from reading the book.
Miss Smith actress Samantha Morton played very convincingly. Harriet turned out to be a trusting naive, but growing up every day girl. Almost a book heroine, but not on the outside. The girl is quite a puppy, and she looked painful not only when she was sick in the plot.
The most successful characters of this film adaptation, in my opinion, are Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax. Frank performed by Raymond Coolhard is a crooked handsome man with feigned grins and pretentious manners, through which a huge charm invariably beats into the eyes. This is how Frank appears in the book. His fiancée Jane is beautiful, modest, but she knows her worth and can make decisive decisions. Actress Olivia Williams with her unusual noble beauty perfectly suited for this role.
Fans of historical melodramas with a good picture and a pleasant aftertaste, this film will certainly like.
Compared to Emma, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, I like Emma Kate Beckinsale better. Probably, I just love this actress a lot more, playing Paltrow to me always seemed tortured and fake. I will not say that the choice of Beckinsale is one hundred percent hit in the image, but closer - tried to make the appearance and behavior of the heroine look like a book character. I'm really annoyed that normally Emma is played by pale blondes - "What eyes! The purest brown color - and what a shine in them! Right features, open expression, and blush!
Why this particular work of Jane Austen is not lucky with film adaptations - this film also does not convey the brilliant witty dialogue between Emma and Mr. Knightley. That's sad.
Mark Strong (Mr. Knightley) - how unusual it was to look at him with hair. And although there are no questions about his game, but I imagined Mr. Knightley quite differently.
And yet the cast, costumes, music, the very atmosphere of the film reflects the book quite strongly, so the overall rating is higher than that of the film adaptation of Douglas McGrath. Although both premieres date back to 1996.
Bottom line: a good example of a film adaptation based on the work of one of my favorite writers, but I hardly want to reconsider.
7 out of 10
In 1996, two adaptations of Jane Austen's wonderful novel "Emma" were released. The first American with Gwyneth Paltrow and the second British with Kate Beckinsale. I've seen both of them, and honestly, I love both of them. Undoubtedly, Austin's novel is of great value, and it is beautiful. All film adaptations are a pleasant addition to it. The film brings us closer to that story, but the book itself is naturally better.
Meet a sweet and kind girl named Emma. She lives with a rich dad, and the heroine is in a secular society. She loves to arrange someone’s personal life. Helping her friend again in this, Emma will finally have to experience this feeling herself and meet her man.
Of course, the British adaptation of this story turned out a little more, closer to the book. It has the spirit and atmosphere that is present in the novel. I watched this movie with great pleasure, and it is beautiful. Despite the fact that this television adaptation, it was shot with dignity and quality.
Pay attention to all the surroundings in the background, and it is perfect and takes us back to the era of that time. Dresses, costumes, everything at the top. Playing actors pleases the eye. A film is like a breath of fresh air, something clean and interesting. I want to pay special attention to Kate Beckinsale. I have loved this British woman since childhood and always enjoy watching movies with her participation. In this film, Kate approached the role of Emma wonderfully and revealed her character with a soul. Everything was held on her, she was the fragile heart and soul of this film.
This costume painting has many advantages, but there was something I didn’t like. I'm talking about the actress Samantha Morton. She overplayed, and the creators got it wrong. This is the only obvious drawback that catches your eye. What is interesting with the choice of her heroine and in the second adaptation was also mistaken. Tony Collette also played this character badly, and I can’t keep quiet about it. But in any case, in general, this did not affect the whole movie.
Emma is a 1996 television, costumed melodrama directed by Diarmuid Lawrence. The film adaptation of the world famous story of the writer Jane Austen turned out to be pure and ironic, sweet and real. For all fans of this genre. Thank you very much.
I watched both movies in 1996, first Hollywood and then this one. In my opinion, the English film is much more accurate and better.
Harriet is based on the book "short stature, plump and blond, with bright blush, milky white skin, blue eyes and correct facial features." In the American version, there is a hit in the word “puffy”, while it is red, tall, clearly not 17-year-old. In the English version, the actress is very suitable for the description (blond hair, good appearance), only thin.
Mr. Knightley in this version is serious and strict, as in the book. That's how I imagined him. In the American version, he glows, and his criticism of Emma sounds too kind, in the book he is more severe.
Emma's both good. Brunette she or blonde I never understood, for some reason I thought that blonde, but this film did not become worse.
The actors for the role of Eltons are also better selected: in another version of this year they are too unpleasant appearance, even for them.
Miss Jane in the American version is very beautiful, but not refined enough, he is more of a fatal beauty, and bursts with health. In the version of Dyarmuid Lawrence, she is more like a sophisticated girl with poor health.
When reading, I almost did not understand how it would end, and in this film all the cards are not open at once, which is great. In another version, there are so many typical Hollywood hints that everything is immediately clear. And she's very crumpled. The English version is consistent and reflects almost all the important points. I’m glad I saw it, although I didn’t plan on seeing it again after seeing it, because I think it’s pretty.
In general, I liked this version better, although both are not bad, not to mention the film adaptation of my favorite Mansfield Park. There is nothing better than a book.
8 out of 10
Jane Austen is not only one of the most respected inspirers of the romantic genre in literature and cinema, but her novels are still actively filmed. And although the story of Emma Woodhouse is not as familiar to most people as “Pride and Prejudice” or “Sense and Sensibility”, the young English pimp repeatedly graces the screens with her appearance. In addition, even if you have not read the original, it hardly hurts to give yourself a relaxed good mood with an Old English flavor.
Jane Austen wrote about what she saw around her and the environment she grew up in. Therefore, in the field of her attention here again got the high society of England at the beginning of the XVIII century. The problems of the working class remained behind the literary scene, but we should not be upset about this, because we expect beautiful public scores, pretentious manners, biased cavaliers and the subtle science of organizing profitable marriages. Since this is a television project, not originally designed for a large rental, it is distinguished by the relative modesty of the production. This is immediately striking even in quality and color rendering, which reminded me of the VHS era. In general, the book atmosphere is conveyed quite subtly, and it literally hangs in the air. The narration develops slowly, and a fair share of time your attention will be focused on picturesque landscapes and recreated interiors.
The main character is a brave image of a girl who does not want to live in captivity of social stereotypes or under the influence of the opinions of others. She takes care of her father and in her head pumps motley images of weddings of friends, which will arrange. Gathers imaginary applause, meanwhile charming quite real cavaliers. It is interesting to watch a young Kate Beckinsale in the image of the aristocrat Woodhouse. Her British ancestry and colourful British accent benefit the book image and the film.
7 out of 10
Emma is another adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel. I liked the book itself, it had interesting characters with their memorable characters, with their advantages and disadvantages. And all of that had to be reflected in the film. And it reflected! Pretty good, I think.
Yes, the actors were well selected, but in my opinion, Kate Beckinsale, who played Emma, did not reveal the character of the heroine in the way I actually imagined it when reading the book. Emma seemed to me a noble, important person, a little proud with a beautiful posture and raised her head. But I didn’t see all those qualities in the film. In Emma, played by Beckinsale, I saw only a little girl who wanted to be useful by doing disservices. Of course, in the book, Emma had the same intentions and her opinions were also wrong, but I did not get the impression that these were just pathetic attempts by a teenager. This is one of the shortcomings of the film.
The role of Harriet Smith was played very well, and that is how I imagined this timid, simple girl. And Mr. Martin was really like the book - a simple-minded charming farmer.
I think Mr. Knightley could have been a little softer and more lively. Watching the movie, I didn't really believe he and Emma were good friends. Overall, I liked his work.
Of course, I couldn't help but notice the actress who played Mrs. Bates. A kind, deaf and apparently mute old woman. And she was the only thing I laughed at. And this is the second drawback of the film, because the description speaks not only about melodrama, but also about comedy, and the film does not shine with humor. Unfortunately, I had to settle for one Mrs. Bates.
All the other heroes were wonderfully played. All of them were the embodiment of the book heroes Austin.
But the best part about this film is that it all unfolds as the author of the book once described to us. Of course, some moments were cut out so that we didn’t have to sit all day watching one story. And watching such films, not departing from the original, I want to shake hands with the director. Unfortunately, not everyone can restrain themselves from their pulsating streams of fantasy. And most often this fantasy is not a fountain.
The third reason I don't give the highest grade is emotion. I love movies that play on the nerves and feelings of the viewer, but this film was not. My emotional range didn't surpass the toothpick again. This picture is just a beautiful story that has the right to exist.
“Your interference is likely to have done more harm to yourself than good to them.”
To date, of the four Jane Austen novels I have read: Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Reason and Emma, the latter seemed to me the most hilarious and difficult to develop. And the English adaptation of 1996 vividly expressed these qualities.
Emma Woodhouse, unlike other heroines of Jane Austen, did not aspire to marriage. She is rich, a powerful mistress of the house, lives with her father, who does not revere her soul and considers weddings evil, because they separate girls from their home: These marriages are an empty affair, and for the family circle they are continuous damage. And Emma herself decides that it is much more interesting to arrange other people's marriages, especially as she thinks she has talent, because Miss Taylor married Mr. Weston. So why don't Emma find a wife for the young vicar, Mr. Elton? And Harriet Smith won't be introduced into a better society so she can forget about the farmer! Roberta Martine? So what if Harriet is someone's illegitimate daughter, maybe her father turns out to be a baron, everything happens in life! And no matter what Mr. Knightley says, Emma knows better who is who and who is better suited to whom. And of course, Ms. Woodhouse can unravel the secret inclination of even an introverted man like Jane Fairfax and explain Frank Churchill's behavior. This was Emma’s reasoning, and everything went well until it turned out to be just a chain of misunderstandings, after which Ms. Woodhouse tried to be more reasonable, but still continued to be wrong.
Knowing the novel, it’s fun to watch Frank Churchill, whose every sentence has a double meaning, and Emma’s dreams. I particularly liked the idea of a lively portrait of Frank showing Ms. Woodhouse's expectations.
Jane Austen’s novels, in addition to irony, are also distinguished by the expressiveness of the characters. In the film, it seemed to me, the secondary characters were not so deeply revealed as in the work, but their main features are expressed clearly and accurately: the sophistication and some coldness of Jane, the chatter of Miss Bates, the eccentricity of Mr. Woodhouse, the excessive conceit and tactlessness of Mrs. Elton and the duplicity of Mr. Elton, the care and friendliness of the Weston couple, the grumpyness of John Knightley, by the way, his family was given little time. But the main characters are exactly the same as those described in the work: charming and a little mysterious Frank Churchill, presented by Raymond Coulthard, simple-minded Harriet, played by Samantha Morton, Mr. Knightley Mark Strong reasonable and sedate, but, in my opinion, not quite solid, and lively, kind, intelligent, but at the same time naive Emma, in a wonderful performance by Kate Beckinsale.
Properly selected landscapes, interiors and costumes serve as a harmonious background that helps to betray the atmosphere of the novel.
The film, without following, strictly according to all the lines of the work, retains plot twists, but on some points missed in the novel and accentuated in the film adaptation, you can guess about the mystery of Frank, and I was surprised by Robert Martin. Although Mr. Knightley said of him that he was an intelligent and decent young man, I doubt that the farmers of the time could dance on a par with the nobles. But the end of the film with three dancing couples is very beautiful.
A pleasant, interesting, ironic and kind adaptation of the beautiful novel by Jane Austen.
9 out of 10
P.S. It is unwise, unacceptable to take such an active part in the arrangement of the fate of two strangers.
Jane Austen "Emma"