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.