There are so many screen adaptations of this seemingly confusing story that it is impossible not to compare them with each other, not to compare the staged part and the heroes themselves.
When I first saw this Emma, after the film adaptations of the 90s, she resented me with this her hyper-faciality, snares, behavior, completely normal on a modern set, but not “at that time”.
However, now the whole film seems to me very bright, kind, with beautiful music and atmosphere, beautiful, whole and real people, not just the heroes of the book. They are here with the whole range of feelings, believe them and already wave your hand at the inconsistency of the behavior of the main character. After all, it causes sympathy, despite the lack of status, manners and dignity in presenting themselves. I feel a similar sympathy for Emma-Gwyneth, only that Emma really, lady.
Mr. Knightley is very good here too, he's quite a bright and handsome hero. In general, the whole film is very beautiful and does not seem lengthy.
I recently revised the 20th version and returned to the 2009 version. To get back this Emma, alive and direct, and quickly forget that porcelain-doll thing. . .
Now I no longer interfere with her facial expressions, I just sit and admire the atmosphere of this film.
People marry the people they choose. There is no need to encourage useless marriage. (John Knightley)
The multi-episode adaptation of Jane Austen’s 2009 book “Emma” turned out to be quite high-quality. Timekeeping and quite good casting allowed to reflect the content of the book most accurately. All the actors played smoothly, equally well coped with the roles.
But I'm a little confused by Emma herself. Actress Romola Garay, who played the main role, reacts too emotionally to everything, protrudes her eyes, creates grimaces with an open mouth. This is striking, especially compared to the restrained coquetry of the heroine Gwyneth Peltrow from the 1995 film adaptation. Although after a couple of episodes you gradually get used to the behavior of the heroine Garai, but the strength of her game, in this case, such emotionality can not be called. We must pay tribute to the naturalness of the actress, her artificial charm. In addition, Romola showed the same Emma stay-at-home, a very economical lady, whom you believe that she does not really want to travel. I was also embarrassed that the actress is constantly slouching, it seems, still because of his emotional play. Although she eventually caught herself thinking that Emma looked like her future husband, Mr. Knightley. Thus, they looked together quite organically, and the development of their relationship was a natural continuation of many years of friendship.
Mr. Knightley in the film is energetic, but staid; homely, but loving to walk or ride a gentleman. In public, he is always perfect, and with Emma and other loved ones he behaves very confidently, giving Emma instructions, and always on the case. I don’t mind his doubts about Emma’s feelings for him. He was really worried that Emma would see him as just a tedious mentor, an older relative, not a lover. The actor in this regard played everything convincingly. And the funny scenes with Knightley dozing at his desk are a very good find.
I must say that the whole series is built on the emphasis of the duet of Emma and Knightley, which, of course, is logical. Each episode ends with a scene that is one way or another a milestone in the development of their relationship, including the final beautiful scene at sea. And all the characters bring the narrative to the main characters. At the same time, the secondary characters themselves are not deprived of individuality and significance. Especially compared to other adaptations of the book, in which not all the characters have enough screen time.
I was very pleased that they paid due attention to the Knightley family (in the film adaptations of Emma this is not often). I liked the wonderful John Knightley, who poured sarcastic remarks right and left. Many episodes, precise dialogues that finally reveal the identity of the brother of the protagonist and show why he is even needed in the work. Actor Dan Fredenberg, who played John, is not without charm. He managed to embody on the screen the youngest Knightley, who could be called a grumpy, but no one would reproach him for dislike of his family and home.
As a result, the film adaptation is good, filled with the right aesthetics and mood. And finally we were shown the snowy landscapes, not just the green meadows of Britain.
So, first of all, it is worth mentioning that viewers familiar with the original novel, on which the film adaptation is shot, are much more picky about the latter - this is not a secret. And as a person familiar with the original novel, and got acquainted with it relatively recently (which means the plot is still fresh in my head), I positively appreciated this work and recommend watching it!
Of course, the similarity with the original plot is not 100% (but still very high, maybe somewhere 80% is a plus). Obviously, the creators always have their own original vision and want to bring something of their own to the work. There are minor differences from the book (something has been added to the plot somewhere), but I think most of them were successful! For example, the very beginning, when we are introduced to the main characters of the picture, showing them as a child, in my opinion, was a great decision and made it easier for the viewer, unfamiliar with the original novel, to understand who is who. From time to time, you could see other small scenes that were not in the book, but they perfectly complemented the picture (although there were a couple of moments that I did not particularly like, but we will close our eyes to this). The creators managed to perfectly film the novel and at the same time make their own highlight.
Regarding actors: beautiful castes. Everyone did their job perfectly. However, I will make some comments. Of course, Romola Garay, playing the role of Emma, played great, but, nevertheless, in my opinion, she overplayed a little. Her Emma sometimes turned out too emotional, with very rich facial expressions. Of course, in a comedy where the action takes place in our time, that would be more appropriate. But in those days, England, the beginning of the 19th century, such behavior could be considered bad manners, and after all, according to the original plot, Emma had impeccable manners. To be honest, I would have taken another actor to play Frank Churchill. Rupert Evans did well, but the look, those sad eyes, didn’t look like Frank Churchill. In turn, pleasantly surprised Louise Dylan (Harriet Smith) and Tamsin Greg (Miss Bates) perfectly conveyed the characters of their heroines. And how nice it was to see Michael Gambon as Mr. Woodhouse, who, as always, did a great job!
I cannot but mention the visual aspect. The creators perfectly conveyed the spirit of that time with the help of magnificent interiors and costumes. The situation in the picture is absolutely beautiful, starting with accessories, and ending with luxurious views.
7.5 out of 10
The creators managed to create a wonderful adaptation, conveying the main essence of the novel by Jane Austin, and endowing it with a beautiful lightness of comedy. I recommend it!
The limit of dreams for every man is a woman who will delight feelings without too burdening her reason. Emma.
Only one woman in the world will I allow to invite my guests to Donwell.
- Is that Mrs. Weston?
-Nope. Mrs. Knightley. And while she's gone, I can handle it myself.
Mr. Knightley is Mrs. Elton.
This film adaptation I liked more than others, firstly, because the others did not have Johnny Lee Miller. Although there were occasional associations with his Sherlock, in my opinion, the role of gentlemen suits him very much. It's like he came from that century. Second, it's more detailed than the same movie with Gwyneth Paltrow. All events are told in detail, there are no questions about what caused certain reactions or actions. And there is no saturation with star faces, each of which draws attention to itself.
As for the main character, her obsession with marrying everyone sometimes caused irritation. And thank you for these real emotions beautiful Romole Garay has not seen her work before this series, so I can appreciate without comparing with other roles. She really captured the character of the character.
I never get tired of admiring the BBC, which can make really high-quality mini-series. Costumes and decorators conveyed the spirit of those times. The actors played well, a lot of fresh faces. Overall, the picture was wonderful. I advise all Jane Austen fans to appreciate this picture.
7 out of 10
Province. There is nothing to do when there is no Internet, TV, or even radio in the 19th century, and if you do not like reading. Eh, in general, there is nothing to do but chat with everyone, go to dinner parties, try not to catch a cold (thanks, Dad) and guess who likes who. Oh, yes, I have to argue with this unbearable Mr. Knightley!
Emma is very young, her irrepressible energy has to be put somewhere and the people around her become dolls for the grown girl. By chance, her first guesses, such easily recognizable sympathies, inspire her that she is a master in love relationships and the path of subsequent disappointments for her is very painful, to ruin fate is not dolls under the table to rearrange. There is always a wise teacher next to her.
Images and atmosphere:
Austin’s story certainly has its charm of a closed world the size of several estates, its dimensional life and the stories of the people brewing in it. The main character is Emma, at first glance, an unpleasant girl, yes, this is the first impression, she differs from the typical image of the ideal of the main character of the novels by D. Austin. She is gossip, too talkative, sarcastic, has a great opinion of her abilities and does not like to read.
The actress conveys such a frivolous character well and with enthusiasm, but she also transfers the path of becoming Emma into a girl who makes mistakes, corrects herself, asks for forgiveness and rethinks her worldview. If not too expressive facial expressions and peasant gait, Romole Garay could put five.
The main character is an astute Mr. Knightley, not the brightest character, not the most eloquent, but he always hits the point and behind him as behind a stone wall. Emma does everything while Knightley carefully looks after her from her old upholstery chair. Controversy, but as soon as he flashes his eyes disapprovingly, all the fervor disappears as if it never happened. Their path was paved through numerous guesses and omissions, she thought that he liked the other, and he that she was in love with the other.
Johnny Lee Miller is a good candidate for the role of Knightley, not a written handsome man, but there is something like this in him, and he paved the way for films based on romantic novels.
9 out of 10
'Emma' book and 'Emma' serial are almost twins. The authors tried to make the film as close as possible to the meaning and spirit of the book, not to lose the details that make the plot.
Perhaps Harriet Smith couldn't have been so uncouth that she couldn't use a napkin properly and eat soup. But I think it's just an allegory of how Harriet's mannerisms and her hold-up improved after meeting Ms. Woodhouse, as other characters in the book have noticed. Somewhere may be historically unreliable manners of actors or there is a replay, but it does not spoil the film.
The costumes are beautiful, the scenery is delightful, everything is so real, but at the same time attractive, without any disgusting moments ' pseudo-naturalism' inherent in the film adaptation of Jane Austen ' Pride and prejudice' with Keira Knightley, when a pig walks right around the Bennett house.
Romole Garai (Emme) may not be 21, and Mr. Knightley may not have had such a mournful expression in the book. But I think the couple succeeded, and again the essence was conveyed. Emma is not a high-society lioness, but a lively, open girl, with a kind heart and naive eyes, who did not know problems and grief in life. She is honest with herself and others. Mr. Knightley is reserved, not prone to sentiment, but not indifferent person. He should not seem like some pillar and super man, it is enough that the deep movements of his soul are perfectly shown, from superiority and guardianship to lively interest and heartfelt awe. And how wonderfully scattered throughout the film are the signs of their mutual sympathy, it would also seem so ordinary, but if you think about what can be more magical than the awakening of mutual feelings of two people who have known each other all their lives and this makes it even harder to understand themselves, and change the existing relationship, and open up to each other.
Mr. and Mrs. Elton are good, John Knightley is memorable, Westons are quite bookish, and Miss Bates generally hits the bull’s-eye by a thousand percent, a comic character, but at the same time tragic and touching the living., convincing sloppy Frank Churchill, disturbing Mr. Woodhouse, may be Jane Fairfax uncanonical, but such a reading also takes place, the eye does not cut.
Grade 9 out of 10 for mood, Emma and cool sets.
It is a very beautiful and sunny film. Not a fan of Jane Austen, I don’t watch a lot of movies from her books. To my taste, they are verbose and contain too much moralizing. This film was a lucky exception.
I liked everything: the atmosphere of the English province, amazing landscapes, excellent acting work. The tape is just sunny. The heroine with her matchless velvet skin and charming blond hair in its rays is simply dazzling.
The plot is quite in the tradition of Austin and the finale in the same vein.
Young Emma was raised by her widowed father in adoration and constant trepidation for their health with her sister. Turning into a charming girl, the heroine was the first to recognize the feeling that broke out between her sister and neighbor John Knightley, and then between her governess and widower Mr. Weston. She believes that she has contributed to their happiness and decides that she is given the talent to connect lovers. From this moment, Emma, and, of course, the audience is waiting for a lot of adventures, embarrassments, mistakes, paradoxical situations and the final general well-being.
The film is made easily, the heroine causes delight and sympathy. And it is quite clear that it is in such a lively, attractive and direct girl can fall in love without memory all the gentlemen around. Romola Garay's game is great. By and large, I liked Johnny Lee Miller as Mr. Knightley, just the type of thin-nosed and sharp-nosed lover hero is not too close to me. Somehow Colin Firth or Toby Stevens is more like it. However, overall, the acting ensemble is good. This costume melodrama will certainly warm the soul with its sentimental simplicity.
The tape is very kind and bright, there is nothing tragic about it. It is quite clear that the film is designed primarily for a female audience. However, there is nothing wrong with weeping lightly over other people's dramas and rejoicing at the happiness that has come to replace them.
The ability of the English to love their culture and cultivate their own history, to glorify the past and to recreate it in works of art constitutes their ethnic identity. Moreover, often this aspiration within its history and culture becomes a true artistic motive. British series based on literary classics are a real pleasure for a moviegoer and angloman.
In 2009, Jane Austen’s novel Emma was once again filmed (directed by Jim O’Henlon). It must be said that the venture was quite risky after two films in 1996 - Douglas McGart and Diarmuid Lawrence, the audience success of which has not yet been forgotten. But this did not prevent the creators of the mini-series brilliantly embody the spirit of perhaps the most witty novel of the great writer. Probably, there is no point in retelling the plot of “Emma” – more than one generation eagerly reads into it.
Interiors and costumes, light, music and mood – all tell us about the grace of a bygone era, the beautiful script of Sandy Welsh allows you to enjoy dialogue, and acting brings to life the pages of your favorite book. Romola Garay in the role of carefree Emma adds so much radiance and lightness to her character that it is impossible not to fall in love with her. Next to such predecessors in this image as Gwyneth Peltrow and Kate Beckinsale, she looks less sophisticated and more sincere, as if the actress and the heroine exchanged qualities of character.
The film features Johnny Lee Miller as Mr. Knightley. Such an exact hit in the image - after watching this version in another way Knightley can no longer imagine - impeccable, restrained, kind, intelligent and ironic. The embodiment of a true gentleman without a mixture of snobbery. You believe in the story of the main characters, and after all, this is what cinema should achieve when meeting the viewer - so that no one doubts the story told. So do you believe with the love of Darcy and Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice (1995), or in the lives of two old sisters Deborah and Matty (Cranford), and in many other destinies created by the wonderful Air Force studio. The BBC series is a brand of British television.
It is here that they are able to embody the mood of “English nostalgia”, when the past comes to life with such clarity and beauty, and you see every detail – up to the pattern on the wallpaper, and still not reach... One has to get a little closer to this perfect picture, as everything disappears, dissolving into the ether – heavenly and television. Perhaps this is why Emma is the best warming agent for the whole family on long December evenings. It is nice for everyone to get together in front of the screen, wrap themselves in blankets, hold a cup of hot tea or cocoa, plunge into the charm of good old England. When people lived leisurely, but managed to enjoy the beauty of nature, good conversation and long walks alone.
Like many women, I can’t hide my love for Jane Austen. The first film adaptation of her work, which fascinated me, was the series Pride and Warning (1995). Then, a few years later, I was thrilled to see Emma.
I just want to say that I did not watch the version of this film with Beckinsale or Paltrow, as this film adaptation absolutely fascinated me.
It may be strange to invite an American actress to the role of a British aristocrat, but how wonderfully Romola Garay performed the role of a cocky, windy and carefree Emma! And Mr. Knightley, who became for me the most perfect man for Jane Austen, performed by a true Briton and gentleman Johnny Lee Miller, became simply the standard man of the time.
These two interesting characters and one by one attract attention, forcing with enthusiasm to be interested in the rehearsals of their lives, and only when they are together, it is impossible to take your eyes away from viewing their most fascinating relationship.
And even despite the love dramas in the film, it is captivating and makes with interest to watch what will end several stories woven together. This film makes incorrigible romantics believe that everyone will eventually meet their soul mate.
I’m not a fan of Jane Austen’s novels, and have read only her most famous books, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, and Emma. The first two novels are considered to be her best works, but the last one stuck in my heart. In books, Austin usually tells the stories of girls from poor families, whose worldview was shaped by the environment in which they were raised. They are unpretentious, unambitious, and are trying with all their might to become worthy of a higher society, to which, if they belong by position, then by no means within their means. These girls are well brought up, because only their impeccable behavior and beauty become their property in their modest lifestyle. Emma, on the other hand, is the exact opposite of the prudent Elizabeth and Eleanor – she is rich, beautiful and free. She does not need to think about tomorrow, because she is well-off, intelligent and educated, and as a result, she has absolutely nothing to do in the huge house, the owner of which she became after marriage and the departure of her older sister. And fleeing from boredom, this young woman begins an adventure with the matchmaking of all unmarried ladies close to her age. Unfortunately, unsuccessful, but very instructive, both for Emma herself and for the readers.
The screenplay turned out very decent, almost a letter with a book. Of course, the writers have added something of their own, but this does not spoil the film at all, but only adds another small detail to the overall picture. Emma performed by Romola Garay turned out to be somewhat contentious, but very charming and does not cause antipathy, and her love of life is transmitted not only to others, but also to the viewer. It's funny watching her make a mistake, trying to correct herself as this girl grows up. The actress perfectly managed to embody the book image of Emma as I imagined her. Her Emma Woodhouse from the Hartfield estate is intelligent and courteous, she can keep the conversation on almost any topic, and any awkward situation tone down and smooth. She is kind and compassionate, for which everyone loves her. At the same time, the girl is very arrogant and intolerant of those who can somehow condemn or besiege her. But few dare, and one is Mr. George Knightley, a longtime family friend and owner of the nearby Donwell estate. In the book, Mr. Knightley did not impress me very much, he recalled Colonel Brandon from the book Sense and Sensibility, and it is not surprising that men are close in age and in relation to their beloved women - the same tenderness without signs of any intrusiveness. But if the colonel blindly loves his flimsy chosen one, whose dignity was only beauty, Mr. Knightley sees in Emma not only her best qualities of character, but also shortcomings and tries to educate her as best he can. Since I was not delighted with the book Knightley, the screen did not surprise me much. Johnny Lee Miller is a wonderful actor, but here he applied only the necessary minimum of the game - yes, it is clear that his character is not indifferent to the sweet Miss Woodhouse, but there was no light in his play, making Knightley empathize. Although the development of the relationship between Emma and George is shown perfectly - hints Knightley Emma, which she does not even notice, fascinated by the younger Frank Churchill, the son of their friends the Westons, studs, sometimes thrown by Mr. Knightley in relation to his rival for the heart of Emma, which the girl takes on the bayonets, she is not touched even by the open offer to become the mistress of Donwell, albeit expressed in a joking form. Only later, in the separation from Knightley, Emma realizes her feelings, but does not see reciprocity from George.
The supporting characters were excellent, especially Mr. Woodhouse and John Knightley, George's brother and husband of Isabella, Emma's older sister. If in the book, Emma’s father was a short-sighted, but very good-natured, albeit pampered, person, the filmmakers took the liberty to slightly correct this image. Screen Mr. Woodhouse is not at all as simple as a book. He added a drop of cunning, which an attentive viewer will surely notice. I personally think Mr. Woodhouse saw what was going on between George, Emma and Frank. It is worth remembering one scene where Emma, waiting for an invitation to a dinner party, speaks positively about Frank under George. George is expectedly annoyed at the mention of the opponent, there is an exchange of barbs between him and Emma. And Emma's father, who's here, is watching both of them with irony. Here we are made to understand that Mr. Woodhouse does not like Frank Churchill, but he rightly relies on the prudence of his daughter.
A separate mention is made by John Knightley. Being happily married to Isabella, whom he loves, he is very warm to Emma and sometimes allows himself to tease the girl a little, which adds humor to the film. He is also close to his brother and clearly aware of what caused George’s mental anguish, but prefers to stay away, and forces his wife to stick to this. Screen John is much more interesting than book, which goes in addition to the film.
Summing up, I will only say that this version is the most reliable and close to the original source, although not without its disadvantages, which, however, are not worth mentioning. Of course, not Pride and Prejudice with the brilliant Colin Firth, but no less interesting.
I ran through the reviews and thought: the preference for film adaptation is a subjective and even intimate question; most assess the production from the position of “not so represented the hero / heroine, the actor / actress does not look like and does not play.” Obviously, it is difficult for a real person of flesh and blood to conform to an imaginary image, especially if everyone has their own images, and the audience is millions, so you can not please everyone.
"Emma" is my favorite Austin novel, and the film adaptations I've seen so far have been more or less an abuse of my love.
The first I was “lucky” to see so much loved by many escreening with Kate Beckinsale. Inauthentic dialogues, a simplified plot, unkempt heroes and... have a satiated Emma. I actually like Kate, especially in The Prince of Jutland and Intuition. But her Emma - what can I say? - is not the Emma I imagined reading. Face similar to a mouse; irritated distinguishable even through makeup strip dark gun over the lip; Kate is not bright, not charismatic and not uninhibited... she is funny and elitist – meanwhile, this heroine is the only one of her kind in Austin, she is described as beautiful, intelligent, about open and confident.
The second version was with Alicia Silverstone; but to mention her, perhaps, is not serious. The screening with Gwyn Paltrow (the third in a row) was so disappointing, I do not want to remember. It turned out a modern Hollywood romantic comedy, the time and place of which were transferred for some reason to Georgian England. The plot was overturned, accents were placed in the wrong place, the characteristics of the characters changed jokes for the sake of (what is the transformation of Harriet from a simple naive sweetie into a fat stupid cow); casting was very surprised (unpleasant), scenery and props - vulgarity is unimaginable. Paltrow is a beautiful woman, a fact... but not Emma. Her Emma has no personality, there is a feeling... that she, so cute and graceful, just looks good against the background of Harriet, rude, weak-minded, and Jane, silent and cold, like Morra from Moomin troll. Emma Paltrow is another stereotypical heroine of novels in paperbacks, authors like Barbara Cartland.
And finally, I had the opportunity to see "Emma" 1972. According to Kinopoisk, Doran Godwin (Emma) was 22 years old at the time of filming, but apparently she was swollen with personal data there because she looks all 52. This version is characterized by static scenes, unnatural theatricality and pathos, and lifeless so much that my husband fell asleep in front of the TV, before Emma had time to make friends with Harriet.
And here's Emma 2009. Romola Garai does not fully correspond to my idea of my beloved Emma, but this is the first actress whom I believe. To hell with her non-aristocratic facial features and supposedly thick lips, she is so organic and convincing that I could not take my eyes off her, although I was skeptical before watching. What do you mean she doesn't look like an aristocrat? Who looks like Keira Knightley in The Duchess, maybe? Have you ever seen a portrait of an English aristocrat, the Duchess of Georgian Spencer? Look, for example, the brushes L e or Ganesboro, - Romola is much more like an aristocrat than Beckinsale, Paltrow, and than Keira Knightley or the beloved Jennifer El. And Romola is charming and radiant, cheerful and optimistic - and Emma can not have other eyes than children, she has never been anywhere, did not know deprivation, suffering, grew up in satiety and contentment, she is the universal favorite and soul of local society; where does sadness or sophistication come from in her eyes? After watching “Emma” again, I realized that although I imagine the heroine externally a little different, and in the book her image is deeper, more developed, but still the performance of Romola – is that, that makes me believe in what is happening in this mini-series.
I kept thinking about what color to paint the review – the mini-series definitely liked, DvD bought it, I will review it. Dialogues, music, costumes, landscapes, houses; actors — Michael Gambon, Jodie May, who changed the romantic role to the characteristic Christina Cole, Blake Ritson — Mr. Elton, Tamsin Greig — Miss Bates, Rupert Evans — Frank Churchill — all filled my heart with joy when watching. The incarnation of Harriet is a little depressing - she lacked femininity, softness, her simplicity should bribe... and not strain, but in fact in a duet with Romola they did well, so be it - the test. And I still don't understand why Jane Fairfax is so sensitive, unhappy and even hysterical in all the film adaptations. All the performers of the role of Jane lacked inner core and integrity; lacked the inner fire and temperament that Austin specifically attributes to her in the novel. Jane Fairfax is a kind of Irene Forsyth, the embodiment of beauty and harmony, which everyone submits to, despite the fact that she is in difficult life circumstances. But in fact, and neurasthenic Jane I am ready to accept, because she is not the main character. In short, I like everything, except for a small detail.
DThe hero.
I don’t know what kind of problems Johnny Lee Miller has, but in this film adaptation he is frankly alturistic. Someone here wrote that Johnny was created for costume roles and urged to recall "Planckett and MacLaine" as confirmation. I remember that sparkling film, and that’s why I say that playing Knightley was a slob. He didn't understand his hero, he didn't get interested, he didn't get impressed, he didn't love him. Because with a good technique of the game, the inner light is so weakly lit that the feeling that an unknown actor, approved for the role of Knightley, did not go on the set, and Johnny Lee, who accidentally wandered onto the set, out of kindness of heart, gave replicas to the other actors to make it easier for them to play. Accidentally got into the frame; and there the director watched the filmed material, decided not to bother with the search for an actor-Knightley, and released “Emma” with Johnny on the screen.
As I have seen Mr. Knightley, no one has convinced me—Jeremy Northam may have come a little closer to perfection, but he is far from perfect.
Mr. Knightley was an intellectual; principled, rather introverted, and unquestionably positive. And Lee Miller is infantile, and it is difficult to call him an intellectual (like anyone else who played Mr. Knightley), so they managed to reveal the character. Perhaps, as in the case of Sherlock Holmes, Mr. Knightley could be convincingly played by an actor-intellectual, like our good old Vasily Livanov, Mikhail Kozakov - the very "spoonful" of writing, interested in politics, history, music; intellectuals and intellectuals, men definitely mature; and, moreover, actors with a talent to make the boring image of a positive provincial gentleman raisin, interesting.
Bjudgement:
8 out of 10
Cons of Johnny Lee Miller and interpretation of the image of Jane Fairfax; the color is still green, although the failure of the main male part deprived this film adaptation of a convincing finale, which killed the joy of the previous 3.5 hours
Tired at times of our noisy and fussy reality, where there is no room for refined manners, cordial conversations and deep thought, I turn again to the English province of the last century, almost a model of serenity and tranquility. And Jane Austen gives us a chance to plunge into this world with the heroes of the novel “Emma”. Having familiarized with the work of another writer of that time, George Eliot, her novel “Middlemarch” and having a happy opportunity to compare not only works, but also styles, let me note that in wit, and in subtle irony, and in the depth of the problems studied, Austen is clearly inferior to Eliot, but surpasses in the ease of narration, she has fewer heroes and is easier to understand, because it is not surprising that Austen’s novels have become so popular for film adaptations, because the deeper the work, the more difficult it is to adequately transfer it to the screen.
“Emma” has a lot of movie incarnations, but I decided to start with this, firstly, because it is a series, which means you can hope for a more detailed plot, and secondly, because it was shot by the Air Force. In general, I liked the film, but I must admit with regret that I expected something more from the actors, or rather, a little different. Romola Garai is not very good for Emma. The main heroine of the novel I imagined not so arrogant at times and too emotional, the owner of refined manners it can hardly be called. Right here, someone noticed that she would have been more suited to the role of Miss Bates, who in turn turned out to be somewhat constrained. Very surprised her mother, Mrs. Bates - in the novel she "as always, as if she understood little", but was not represented by a wordless doll with a completely absent appearance. But the touching attitude towards her daughter is shown perfectly, remember at least a shot where she takes her away from Hartfield in a wheelchair (also invented by the authors of the film). Mrs. Wenston lacked femininity; Mr. Woodhouse was much more concerned with his health and those around him, but again, his relationship with his daughter was very touching. In general, it seemed to me that with emotionality and promiscuity all the actors somewhat overdid, because the XIX century after all. In the only film adaptation of Middlemarch, this task was much better coped with, and the actors there were selected ideally.
But overall, the film leaves a very pleasant impression, for me mainly due to the magnificent English landscapes. The seasons are excellently shown here, from a hot summer day to a rare English snow, and most importantly, nature is an integral part of the plot, it is not depicted separately as an intermediate frame for separating scenes; the characters live in it - this is indicated by the views of Highbury or Donwell every time from different points, and the camera following the characters in one frame across the house, immediately testifying that they were filmed not in any scenery, and the same views from the windows as on the street, neat gardens and parks, not to mention the Boxing train ... Which is a little surprising - too sunny for foggy England.
As for the detail of the plot, I can not say that he repeats the novel exactly. Yes, some scenes are recreated verbatim, others, described by Austen casually in the form of a comment on another event, had to be added to introduce the viewer to the course of the matter - it is understandable, in some places the creators saw strange phenomena, such as parallels of the fates of Emma, Frank Churchill and Jane Fairwax or the same Mrs. Bates.
The film leaves behind a good sunny mood, because Austen everything ends well.
9 out of 10