Some Thoughts on Emma: 1996 vs. 2020

Recently, I watched the latest film adaptation of Jane Austen's novel Emma with my mom and a friend. Emma is considered her most lighthearted work and is the fourth novel of her six. The story takes place in Regency England and revolves around Emma Woodhouse, a young woman from a high social class who enjoys matchmaking. She decides to help Harriet Smith, a schoolgirl of unknown origins, find a match but ends up causing more harm than good. The book has been adapted several times in different formats, such as BBC series, feature films, and even web series. Despite the numerous adaptations, we still decided to watch the latest movie version and had a great time. My friend was not familiar with Jane Austen's works and was not aware that the movie Clueless, which we had watched recently, was based on Emma. I forgot to mention this until after the movie, but she immediately noticed the similarities between the two and was entertained. Overall, it was an enjoyable experience for all of us.

The film was overall a fun and enjoyable experience, particularly because of its comedic take on the story. Every scene was slightly ridiculous, which added to its charm. Mr. Woodhouse's constant paranoia about drafts in his house was particularly amusing, as he relied on his sixth sense as if he had been bitten by a radioactive spider. I believe that any new adaptation of a story that has already been adapted should strive to do something new or better, and this movie succeeded in doing so. It took straightforward and simple scenes and infused them with an extra level of unexpected absurdity, as seen in the nosebleed scene. However, despite my enjoyment of the film, I did have a few reservations.

Firstly, I didn't care much for the casting or characterization choices in the film. Mr. Knightley's appearance was too juvenile and frat-boyish for my liking, and I didn't find him dignified enough for the character. Interestingly, Johnny Flynn, who played Mr. Knightley, is actually in his late thirties, which surprised me. While some on the Internet have praised his performance, I didn't love it or hate it - it grew on me as the movie progressed. Similarly, Mia Goth's portrayal of Harriet came across as too naive and childish, which made it difficult for me to view her as an equal to Emma. On a more trivial note, I found Mr. Elton, Frank Churchill, and Robert Martin all looked somewhat similar, which was a bit frustrating. Overall, no one stood out to me as exceptional, except for Gemma Whelan's portrayal of Mrs. Weston, who I thought was excellent. Fans may recognize her from her roles in Game of Thrones and Gentleman Jack.

In my opinion, Emma's character in the movie was too snarky. I think that Emma's strengths are her sociability, charm, and genuine concern for those around her, even though she can be a little bit self-righteous. Anya Taylor-Joy's portrayal of Emma was too overtly haughty and scheming. If I were in Jane Austen's world and watching Emma from afar, I would probably think of her as a mean girl, which is not what Emma is like. Austen did originally describe Emma as "a character whom no one but myself will much like," but I believe that it's crucial to highlight Emma's positive traits when adapting this story. Since her flaws are so apparent to readers, the film needs to show her as her peers see her. Overall, I found this version of Emma less likable than my favorite adaptation, the 1996 feature film with Gwyneth Paltrow. I'll spend a lot of this post comparing the 2020 Emma movie to the 1996 version.

The 1996 version of Emma has a comforting warmth to it that I love on a surface level. But what really impresses me is the way it uses the disparity between Emma's worldview and reality as a storytelling tool. The film is mostly told through Emma's point of view, with voice-overs revealing her thoughts during her interactions. So when that point of view is broken, it's more impactful. For instance, when Mr. Knightley speaks up about a topic, you sense that he knows what he's talking about. This breaks Emma's fairytale and pulls you back into the real world. One of my favorite scenes is the archery scene, where Emma tells Knightley that Harriet refused Robert Martin's proposal. Knightley finds this appalling, as Martin is a perfectly respectable man with a home and occupation, good enough for a woman like Harriet. However, Emma has convinced herself and the audience that Harriet deserves someone better than a mere farmer. Knightley's interpretation seems more deliberate and satisfying as he makes solid points. The use of arrows and targets in this scene to illustrate Emma's "missing the mark" regarding Harriet is a clever touch.

I want Elizabeth to be wearing one of those buttons that says,
 "If you can read this button, you're too close."

I love how this film employs delayed gratification to build anticipation towards Emma and Knightley's eventual union at the end of the movie. In the 1996 version, Mr. Knightley's profession of love comes as a bit of a surprise, which I find more satisfying than the 2020 version's numerous hints and glances between the two. Emma is still busy with other matters, such as keeping Harriet away from the Eltons and flirting with Frank Churchill. In the book, which the 1996 version follows more closely, Emma only realizes her own feelings for Knightley after learning of Harriet's attachment to him. This makes more sense to me, as it shows that Emma is not as self-aware as she thinks she is about her own feelings.

I had a similar issue with the 2005 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, starring Keira Knightley and Matthew McFayden. There were many moments of romantic tension between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy before she had a chance to process her feelings and figure out how she truly felt about him. For instance, when he assists her into the carriage even though they spent the weekend exchanging insults, and she's in awe of his gallantry. It just didn't seem to fit the story. In the iconic scene where Darcy first confesses his love for Elizabeth in the rain, there's a moment where they're only inches apart and seem on the verge of kissing. I found this confusing because Elizabeth still despises Darcy at this point, and thinks he interfered with Jane's relationship with Bingley. Moreover, during his proposal, he managed to insult her family once again. Despite all this, there was this odd tension between them that I felt was inappropriate. She still thinks you're the scum of the earth, so take a step back!

...What was I talking about?

Oh, right—Emma. Romance aside, I thought Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam had better chemistry as friends, even before any amorous feelings toward each other are revealed. They have a comfortable and affectionate rapport, whereas Anya Taylor-Joy and Johnny Flynn are bickering like children most of the time. I get that their push-and-pull is is a large part of their relationship, but it's not the only part. They are lifelong friends, after all, and their interactions should show that. They have each other's best interests at heart, and frankly, know each other better than anyone else. I thought this was most evident between Paltrow and Northam. Even when they disagree, they seem to respect and reach out to one another, which is what I love most about their relationship.

And finally, to hone in on the characterization of Mr. Knightley. Sorry, Johnny Flynn. You seem like a great actor. I just didn't love him in this role. I didn't buy him as the steady rock that keeps Emma down to Earth. I think this is partly because the two actors looked so close in age, so I didn't get the sense that Knightley had any more maturity or wisdom than Emma (for the record, I'm all for equalizing age double standards in Hollywood, but in this case, I think it's fitting for Knightley to appear older). I think a second part is that this Knightley seemed a lot more emotionally reactive to events in the story, which I also didn't like. This seems like more of a directorial choice than anything else. I've heard reviews from people that they liked seeing the "real" side of Knightley (such as when he desperately runs after Emma's carriage or when he rips off his clothes and collapses in frustration). To me, however, it just seemed out of character. I prefer to think of Knightley as sensible, grounded, and above the drama of Highbury that Emma gets sucked into. Sure, he's not perfect. He admits that he was jealous of Frank Churchill, but he doesn't let it show, and he doesn't let it guide his decisions. 

I hope this wasn't too harsh of criticism on the newer adaptation of this classic story. I just found it such a stark contrast that from the previous renditions that I wanted to share what I loved about each. I've heard from plenty of people who loved the new movie and prefer it to previous adaptations, so I don't think it's in want of praise. I said earlier that I didn't think Emma needed another adaptation. However, I'm glad when any classic story is refreshed for a modern audience if it means more people are able to appreciate it. I've since seen various compilations and edits on Youtube and Instagram that just go to show the admiration this film is receiving, which is really great. Although they can seem inaccessible at first, Jane Austen's stories are truly universal. Austen has a way of creating such real people and illustrating real emotions. It doesn't matter whether they're set in the 19th century or 21st century—Jane Austen's tales are timeless. 

Brain on Fire

“It is only through mystery and madness that the soul is revealed.” - Thomas Moore

I finished reading Brain on Fire: My Month of Madness, a memoir by Susannah Cahalan. Susannah was a young woman living in New York City. She had landed her dream job at the New York Post, had a loving boyfriend, and everything seemed to be going well for her. All of a sudden, she started experiencing paranoia and hallucinations. She was convinced she had bedbugs, despite all evidence to the contrary. She went through her boyfriend's email, though he had given her no reason to mistrust him. Then she started behaving unpredictably at work, lashing out in hysteria one moment, then appearing on top of the world the next. She also experienced physical symptoms, such as insomnia, headaches, and numbness on the right side of her body.

First, a doctor chalked it up to mono. Then Susannah was told she was drinking too much and experiencing withdrawal. After suffering multiple seizures, Susannah was hospitalized. She went through many misdiagnoses, including bipolar disorder, multiple personality disorder, and schizophrenia. She was in the hospital for 25 days before she was finally diagnosed with anti-NMDA receptor autoimmune encephalitis, a disease where her body was essentially attacking her brain.

The memoir was made into a movie for Netflix. I decided to watch it because I always enjoy watching the movie after reading the book. It feels like a reward for doing all that hard work. I’m glad I did read the book, though, because I have the feeling that seeing the movie alone would leave me with many unanswered questions.

Simply put, there was far too much yelling in this film. Every character was so intense and completely unhelpful in aiding Susannah through this difficult experience. Susannah’s father was portrayed as emotionally distant and quick to anger, while her mother was shown as cold and uptight. This was a far cry from the warmth and support emphasized by Susannah in her memoir. Even through manic episodes, paranoia, and a complete detachment from reality, Susannah’s family and friends appear to have stuck by her side, and Susannah’s gratitude and love come through in her writing. In the film, I got the feeling that the parents and coworkers were the main characters, and the story was about how Susannah’s behavior affected them and made their lives difficult. Honestly, it was a bit painful to watch certain scenes. As a person who has struggled with anxiety, it made me think about the people who shamed me and belittled me for reacting a certain way in a situation, rather than comforting me and trying to identify the problem.

Rather than focusing on the, in my opinion, fascinating series of misdiagnoses that shaped her time in the hospital, they spent most of the movie showing Susannah’s descent into madness while living her day-to-day life. They emphasized the burden it was on her family and coworkers, rather than demonstrating what Susannah was actually experiencing, such as the auditory and visual hallucinations. If I were the director, I would have put Susannah’s own consciousness at the forefront, and leave it to the audience to deduce what is part of reality and what is merely happening in Susannah’s mind. I think it would have been more interesting if they illustrated Susannah’s symptoms as if they were real because they were very real for her. For example, there’s a moment when Susannah is having dinner with her father and his fiancee. She hallucinates that the fiancee calls her a “spoiled brat.” Unfortunately, the audience doesn’t see or hear this happen. We only see Susannah’s reaction to it, which to me is a huge detriment. This makes Susannah appear intemperate and impulsive, almost as if she is intentionally lashing out.

At one point in the film, Susannah’s parents are understandably upset after learning the possibility that she may be transferred to a psychiatric ward. A psychiatric ward generally means ongoing mental health treatment, rather than further insight into a possible neurological disorder (Think One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest or Girl, Interrupted). However, her father attempts to defend her by stating matter-of-fact, “She is not psychotic.” This is simply inaccurate. One of the defining symptoms of Susannah’s illness is psychosis. Psychosis means a severe detachment from reality, which is often why the subject isn’t aware of and doesn't remember her own behavior. Regardless of how scary the world seems, the fact is that Susannah was psychotic. Denying her symptoms doesn't bring her closer to a diagnosis. I found this ignorance of medical terminology frustrating.

I thought the end of the movie was super rushed. It felt like the movie stopped halfway through the story. In the memoir, Susannah discusses her gradual steps in recovery. She had to slowly become herself again, learning to talk, to read, to write, develop her fine and gross motor skills, and be in social situations. One of the most interesting parts was that she passed through similar stages in her recovery as she did in the regression of her illness. But the movie completely skipped all of this. It shows her diagnosis and her family’s jubilations, and then it jumps forward in time. All of a sudden she's laughing with Stephen and walking (albeit very slowly) with her Dad and returning to her job. I think the most powerful part of Susannah’s story was her gradual return to normality, the struggle it took to become herself again, and her self-awareness during this time.

In conclusion, I believe the movie left a lot to be desired. However, I’m really glad I read this book. It gave me a lot of insight into the reality of mental illnesses of this nature. Towards the end, Susannah points out that many people diagnosed with autism or schizophrenia may actually be suffering from autoimmune disorders similar to hers, gradually wreaking havoc on the patient's body. If left untreated for too long, the chances reduce that the patient could ever return to her former self again. Susannah acknowledges the privilege she had of having access to the medical resources she did and is working to help others attain the same resources. As advanced as modern medicine is, we still have a long way to go, but stories like Susannah’s are helping bring awareness. As Susannah says, “I wouldn’t take that terrible experience back for anything in the world. Too much light has come out of my darkness.” By speaking out, Susannah is bringing light to others as well.