Emma 3

Amy, Amy, Amy...;)

] Amy, Amy, Amy...;) __ What does that mean, exactly, Kali? You don't really want to do combat over this do you? Please say no.

Okay, no.

29 hours to go eastern time

There is a review of Emma in the NYTimes on the web today entitled: 'Jane Austen's Emma': Smart Spirited Version: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/arts/tv-emma-review.html You might have to register for the times. If it expires, I have a copy if it. Here is a sample: "In this and almost every other way, this new television "Jane Austen's Emma" represents the flip side of last year's film version with Gwyneth Paltrow. Though both are faithful to Austen's plot, the earlier film was all about brightness and pretty gardens. It was a slick commercial "Emma," whose appeal depended on Ms. Paltrow's graceful looks; not a bad idea, but not nearly what Austen had in mind. Among the flood of recent Austen movies, this new "Emma" has the most in common with "Persuasion," sharing smaller scale, a darker tone and a focus on psychological nuance..... "After so many Austen films, it would be easy to overlook this latest, but its charms are those Austen herself might have valued. It is understated and sly, loaded with a sense that even a society as well-ordered as Emma's leaves plenty of room for comic misjudgments and happy endings. " From the New York Times

There is a review of Emma in the NYTimes on the web today entitled: 'Jane Austen's Emma': Smart Spirited Version: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/arts/tv-emma-review.html You might have to register for the times. If it expires, I have a copy if it. Here is a sample: "In this and almost every other way, this new television "Jane Austen's Emma" represents the flip side of last year's film version with Gwyneth Paltrow. Though both are faithful to Austen's plot, the earlier film was all about brightness and pretty gardens. It was a slick commercial "Emma," whose appeal depended on Ms. Paltrow's graceful looks; not a bad idea, but not nearly what Austen had in mind. Among the flood of recent Austen movies, this new "Emma" has the most in common with "Persuasion," sharing smaller scale, a darker tone and a focus on psychological nuance..... "After so many Austen films, it would be easy to overlook this latest, but its charms are those Austen herself might have valued. It is understated and sly, loaded with a sense that even a society as well-ordered as Emma's leaves plenty of room for comic misjudgments and happy endings. " From the New York Times

OOPS.

Another review at http://www.tbvg.com/ "click" on Upcoming videos,scroll to JA Emma A&E "click" and your there.

Moved from archived Emma topic 113: ___ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Topic 113 of 190 [austen]: EMMA Response 17 of 21: Anne3 (Anne3) * Wed, Feb 12, 1997 (08:10) * 55 lines I found this article online somewhere. It was one of those very long URLs and I thought it was easier just to copy the article here. JANE AUSTEN & `EMMA' -- WOMEN FOR ALL SEASONS By Nancy Jalasca Randle Twenty-three-year-old Kate Beckinsale had little trouble relating to her character, Jane Austen's beloved headstrong heroine, for A&E's ``Emma'' (which premiers Feb. 16). Photo by Neil Genower. (c) 1997, A&E Last year 3.7 million viewers watched ``Pride and Prejudice,'' making it the highest-rated program in A&E's 12-year history. In England, episodes regularly boasted audiences of more than 11 million. The program won multiple awards, including Best of Festival at Canada's Banff Film Festival. TV Guide and Time magazine both picked it for their 1996 best-of-television lists. Now comes Jane Austen's ``Emma'' (Feb. 16 on A&E), a poignant comedy/drama co-created by the ``Pride and Prejudice'' team: writer Andrew Davies (``Moll Flanders'') and producer Sue Birtwistle (``Hotel du Lac''). Kate Beckinsale (``Cold Comfort Farm'') plays the title role of Emma Woodhouse, and Mark Strong (``Fever Pitch'') gives an inspired performance as romantic hero Mr. Knightley. Birtwistle spent eight years finding a home for ``Pride and Prejudice.'' A place for ``Emma'' came much more readily. The triumph of the miniseries combined with the box office success of the award-winning feature film adaptations of ``Sense and Sensibility,'' ``Emma,'' ``Persuasion'' and ``Clueless'' made the producer's television film ``my easiest sell ever.'' Worldwide the Jane Austen phenomenon just keeps growing: Contemporary audiences are falling in love with the author who signed her first book, ``By a Lady,'' more than 200 years ago. After ``Pride and Prejudice'' aired, thousands of letters poured in to Birtwistle from people of all nationalities, professions and ages. Epistles are still arriving. Some enthusiasts send follow-up notes, complete with photos, to keep the producer abreast of family developments -- like their daughter's ``Pride and Prejudice'' wedding. Norway and Sweden have mounted large Jane Austen exhibitions. This Austen mania simply proves what devotees like Birtwistle always knew: Austen's sensibility is timeless. ``Austen asks the big questions,'' the producer observes. ``She asks, `How are we going to live our lives?' '' The writer's universal subject matter -- love, marriage, social climbing, money, power -- and her psychological and emotional perceptions are as valid now as they were in Austen's age. ``If she were just writing chocolate-candy-box, ribbon-tied romances between perfect people, we wouldn't be watching them today,'' actor Strong says. What is it about Austen's stories that make them as relevant in 1997 as they were the day she wrote them? In a recent issue of Vanity Fair, Laura Jacobs proposed that Austen is in tune with society's prevailing mantra: Knowledge is power. This is most true in her ``Emma,'' in which self-knowledge liberates the heroine, transforming her from a young girl into a woman and bringing her love. ``Emma is about the education of a young girl,'' Strong says. ``I think in Jane Austen's mind Knightley is a possible teacher for her. His rebukes are designed to give her knowledge about the way her society works and make her a better person. The characters who do not have self-knowledge -- like the Eltons -- are given their comeuppance.'' All of Austen's main characters share this satisfying pattern of eventually coming to their senses. Birtwistle points out that all the people we identify with end up having learned something about themselves and the world and accepting it. They're not fully matured, but you know they've moved forward. And yet, Austen never paints them with a single stroke. It is the flaws of her characters that engage us as much as their ability to mature. Their shortcomings mirror our own imperfections. Emma's acts of folly humanize her and allow us to put ourselves in her shoes. ``That too,'' Strong says, ``is what makes Jane Austen's books endearing over such a long period of time. It is just as true now as it ever was.'' Twenty-three-year-old Beckinsale found she could ``easily see eye-to-eye'' with the headstrong heroine she portrays. The actress is representative of contemporary women who see themselves in Austen's willful protagonists. ``I think Emma and Lizzy Bennet are both incredibly strong,'' Birtwistle says. ``These women are not afraid to be brighter than the men ... or as strong. Quite often Emma gets it wrong, but she certainly does it with energy and courage. She won't be put down by anybody. And Lizzy, she's completely uncompromising. Those girls have no money. Unless one of them marries well, they'll be destitute when their father dies. And yet, she turns down the richest man in Derbyshire because at that point she thinks she hates him.'' ``And they have this huge energy,'' she continues. ``Andrew Davies says this is the nearest Jane Austen can get to describing their sexual energy. Elizabeth Bennet walks across the field. She arrives, mud on her petticoat, and she's got this glow. That's why people find them attractive, they have this driving force in them.'' So Austen's heroines provide points of recognition as well as role models to follow. But what is it about her male romantic heroes that inspires women to eagerly canvas the contemporary landscape in quest of a reasonable facsimile? ``There is something universal about these chaps that gets to us,'' Birtwistle agrees. The letters the producer received crossed all age barriers, ranging from a 7-year-old schoolgirl to a 92-year-old woman who penned the postscript: ``Mr. Darcy can share my shower any day of the week.'' Mr. Knightley, while less dashing than Mr. Darcy, comes close to being the ideal man. He displays in abundance what all of Austen's heroes ultimately have in common: strength of character. Honesty is Knightley's consummate virtue, and from that honesty springs the trust that enables Emma to surrender her heart. ``Mr. Knightley is the moral center of the book. The clue is given very early on that Knightley is a good man, and he is good for Emma,'' Strong says. ``And the fact that he `gets the girl at the end' is Jane Austen's stamp of approval on that kind of man.'' Strong was shooting ``Fever Pitch'' with Colin Firth, who portrayed Mr. Darcy, when the news came that he had the ``Emma'' part. The actors put their heads together and tried to figure out ``why those men engender such a feeling of warmth and love in people. We realized,'' Strong explains, ``the characters we admire have one thing in common: They have eyes for only one woman.'' A man with a true heart -- certainly a concept with everlasting appeal. In the world of Jane Austen, that concept brings a romantic resolution in keeping with the overriding effect of her work: a sense of harmony. ``Emma and Knightley complement and harmonize with one another,'' Birtwistle says. There is the psychological harmony that comes of self-knowledge. And there is the aesthetic harmony of a universe beautifully conceived and brought forth. Little wonder that audiences are bowing down to the lady from Georgian England. Her stories provide the perfect antidote for the discord of the modern world. (c) 1997, Nancy Jalasca Randle. Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate for Marinex Multimedia Corp. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Topic 113 of 190 [austen]: EMMA Response 18 of 21: Mari Topitzes (Mari) * Wed, Feb 12, 1997 (13:42) * 5 lines Excellent article. I would like to add an observation of my own; Austen's heroes and heroines are NOT politically correct. They judge people. They judge their own actions by principles that they have internalized. They act and react to others based on their judgement of these people, gathered through observation of the actions and values espoused by these others. They are sometimes wrong in drawing the conclusion that they have reached, and have to revise it, but Austen clearly expects them to contin e to judge and refine these judgements about everyone in their world, and make life decisions based on these judgements. She does not respect those that act and live without reference to their own internal values. This is to me part of the appeal; that we have to have the courage to make these decisions, which in today's world is not popular. The larger world that we inhabit acts very much like the London society that was so disapproved of in Mansfield Park; if you learn to act well you have been taugh well, no matter that there is no value behind your actions. Discussion? Talk amongst yourselves.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Topic 113 of 190 [austen]: EMMA Response 19 of 21: Cheryl Sneed (Cheryl) * Wed, Feb 12, 1997 (14:54) * 4 lines Mari: Discussion? Talk amongst yourselves.... Mari, your review was like buttah! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Topic 113 of 190 [austen]: EMMA Response 20 of 21: Ann (Ann) * Wed, Feb 12, 1997 (16:59) * 1 lines What a nice image: Darcy (Firth) and Knightly (Strong) sitting down for a chat about why women like them so much. That would have been an interesting conversation to hear. I wonder if Firth warned Strong about the dangers of playing an Austen hero--instantly becoming tabloid fodder. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Topic 113 of 190 [austen]: EMMA Response 21 of 21: Karen Bowdre (Karen) * Wed, Feb 12, 1997 (19:14) * 1 lines Mari - I heartily agree with you regarding JA characters judging people in order to determine the character of others. It is true that it is not a popular sentiment today. I know people sometimes act in ways that are inconsistent with their morals but over a period of time actions do reflect your belief systems.

A review of Emma3 may be found in today's (2/16/97) Washington Post at http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-02/16/057L-021697-idx.html No registration is necessary. This reviewer likes it; she likes it very well indeed. The more I read about it the more I find that I am quite looking forward to seeing it. My favorite quote from the review is: "Created by the same English adaptater and producer who gave us "Pride and Prejudice" last year, this "Emma" has all the lovely authenticity of that five-part series without making us feel we have to rearrange our entire lives to enjoy it." I wonder if she realizes how much some of us have continued to rearrange our lives in the enjoyment of P&P2?! :)

For months now, I have been prepared to hate the new EMMA. Then last week, when P&P aired, they kept showing commercials for it - and each time I saw one, it looked better and better. I have a feeling that this is going to be better than the Miramax one [GASP!], but I've decided that I can like the new production better without acknowledging any superiority in the portrayal of the new Mr. Knightly. :)

I noticed that A&E has Emma scheduled to run over 2 1/2 hours that is 150 minutes for a 100 minute show, so one third of it is going to be commercials. I think I am going to be annoyed!

At least it probably means that they haven't cut anything.

Ann: At least it probably means that they haven't cut anything. yeah, right! I'll believe it when I hear it from someone who has seen it on A&E and also the tape! I'm getting so cynical in my old age!)

I must say I'm also looking forward to seeing it. Yesterday the NY Times review was excellent and the Washington Post's today was even better. And I'm also cynical, Cheryl; I'm going to tape it (hopefully without commercials if I can pause for all of them) and then go out and buy the tape at the earliest opportunity. In our Wash. Post TV guide today there's an article on popular videos headlined "the British are coming--on Video". They list new videos as: A Royal Scandal, six installments of "Dr. Who"; five volumes of "Are You Being Served"; "Nostromo"; "Martin Chuzzlewit"; and "Jane Austen's Emma" ($19.95, 107 minutes, 1-800-423-1212). I don't know what that phone # is, could be A&E.

"Dr. Who" This was one of my high school obsessions! I have all of the books based on the 5th Doctor's episodes and I used to be able to recite all of the episode titles in order. If I weren't an obsessive personality, I wouldn't be here ;-)

In general, I liked it, though I do not prefer it to my dear Miramax version. I appreciated the fact that we got to see more of John and his sourness (and kindness, too), and very much appreicated the attention given to the Jane-Frank thing. They sqeezed the alphabet-blunder scene in at Box Hill, which is really the only major omission the other adaptation made. As I have stated before, i think this scene is very important for three reasons: 1) we become painfully aware of the connection b/t Frank and Jane, 2) we become aware of Mr. Knightley�s jealousy of Frank re: Emma, and 3) we realize that Mr. knightley is an incredibly smart and perceptive guy. But we already knew that. I was also happy that they fit in the Mrs. Elton-Mr. Knightley strawberry conversation. MarkStrong dogged her good. As far as Strong�s portrayal of Knightley...I�ll admit it, he was quite good. Not as charming or attractive as Jeremy, but against any other standard, he was great. The scene at the Crown ball (�Whom are you going to dance with?/With you if you shall ask me�) and the proposal I found perfectly touching. An excellent portrayal of such a character, Jeremy�s or otherwise, cannot be discounted. A rose is still a rose, even if his name is not Jeremy Northam. Strong was perhaps a little too outwardly inten e at times, though, and reacted to Emma almost spitefully (esp. re: Frank, which I agree is natural but i�ve always considered Mr. Knightley too gentlemany and indulgent to be to be so witchy...incidently, I think Emma�s open admiration for Frank was way off...she never admitted as much in the book, and even her defense of Frank to Mr. Knightleywas more devil�s advocacy than anything else). He was not enough of a confidant, and more of a bad-cop parent. His scolding at Box Hill, and subsequent �Badly do e, Emma! Badly done indeed!�, however, were sufficiently grave and perfectly intense. I guess you lose something at both ends. Speaking of witchy, I must say that Beckinsale�s Emma was, for the first two-thirds of the film, downright bitchy. Emma certainly has strong opinions of others, but in the novel, as in the Miramax adaptation, was reasonably successful at keeping them to herself. While the perfect Emma may not be quite so energetically sweet as Paltrow�s, she would have never have spoken with such an acid tone about anyone (even Jane or Robert Martin). Beckinsale�s Emma was decidely more selfish and bitchy than delusion l, and I�m not sure if that makes Emma more believable as a character, less believable as a phenomenon/cipher for delusion, or both. I guess it matters not, unless these points directly bear upon your interpretation of the novel. Okay, now for Frank and Jane. This guy was tons cuter than Ewan MacGregor, but his Frank was way too slimey. I did, however, appreciate his attempted confession to Emma, however, as it showed him to be more sensitive than purely selfish poser. On the whole, though, he and Emma made me ill when they gossiped together - they were pure, catty evil, which strikes me as entirely wrong. Frank was slick and knowing with Emma in the novel, but he wasn�t this greasy. And Emma, though we know she felt threaten d by Jane, was not such a bitch that she would derive such obvious and malevolent glee from cutting her down. I did like the treatment of the secret engagement, however. Jane�s and Frank�s reactions to eachother at Box Hill were heated beyond accuracy, but they pushed the point accross. Showing Jane as she pushed past Frank at Donwell, and Mr. Martin spying Jane as she sobbed through the field were also nice touches. The latter leads us to believe that Martin passes the observation on to his friend Mr. Knightley, who is then reconfirmed in his suspicions. Well, that�s all for now. I know you guys though I never could, but I do love this version, and not at all inspite of myself. Though I do much prefer the Miramax version, I am too fond of Emma as a novel and as a premise to let a simple adaptation subvert my enjoyment of its spirit, wherever I may find it.

I can't believe that they are from the same book,and are so different in everyway. It amazing to me how different the humor is in this version to the other. When I saw all of the "animated hankies" I roared with laughter. I found all of Emma daydreaming schemes very funny and her conversation about being cross with (this cuter) Frank Churchill very entertaining.Emma acidity was what JA was trying to show,but we all end up liking her anyway. I love this Emma and (Miramax)that Emma. We are all very fortunat indeed to have such choices.

I have to agree with Kali about what she calls Beckinsales witchines and Donna calls acidity. I did not get so much of that disdainful nose in the air from the real Emma, the book Emma. I know JA said she did not believe we would like the Emma character much (though I have a sneaky feeling she was hoping we would like Emma all the same). I loved the character before I ever saw her portrayed by an actress. And I don't remember thinking she was quite such a bad snot, just a cute snot.

Did I just give the impression I didn't like Beckinsale's Emma. That would be a wrong impression. I did like it. In that post just above, I guess I swept myself up in one little aspect of the portrayal. Overall, I thought it an intelligent performance . Nicely done.

I liked the glimpses of the "real people" in this production...the servants moving cushions down the row for the ladies to kneel on and pick strawberries "I consider myself quite the shepherdess..." and all the hauling and toting and elaborate set up for the Box Hill "picnic"! Good heavens! I know we have all fantasized about being transported back in time to the Regency, but if we were, it would be an almost sure bet that we would be the poor people moving cushions for Mrs. Elton! ;-)

The cushions were kind of a jolt for me, too, Cheryl. I never imagined such a thing from reading the book. I wonder how authentic is was. I was also a little disappointed to see Knightley's servants in wigs and livery. I know he's ruling class all the way, but he does teach Emma something about being more egalitarian and I'd sort of hoped to see him not so traditional. I did like his house, though. (Cartherine Morland is my inner child.)

Amy: I did like his house, though. (Cartherine Morland is my inner child.) Oh yes! She would have seen all kinds of wonderful shadows, and heard sinister whispers echoing...I'm quite sure there were plenty of secret passageways as well! ;-)

I really liked the casting in this Emma. Harriet was the right age and had the right look about her; Mr Elton was not quite so smarmy; and our Mrs Hurst (Lucy Robinson) as Mrs Elton - she got another chance to play super snob! It certainly wasn't as "pretty" a film as the Miramax version, but I too liked it a lot -- when I could get over the commercial breaks, that is. I am looking forward to rewatching my taped version (fastforwarding through the ads), and then purchasing a good tape as soon as possible. The flow of the story suffered incrediby with all the breaks. I appreciated some of the scenes mentioned by above posters. I also liked that they had Emma suggest the Dixon connection to the piano (as she did in the novel). And the chicken thieves! They started and ended with the chicken thieves. Poor old Mr Woodhouse (well written by Davies, and well played by Bernard Hepton who played Sir Thomas in the BBC Mansfield Park). Mark Strong is certainly no Jeremy Northam (but then who is?), but I liked the intensity of his performance and the intensity of his gaze, especially when he looked at Emma. It was not perfect, but no adaptation of a perfect novel could ever be. ;-)

The 1st version of Emma I did like well, but A&Es, for me, was even better! I have not yet seen JN Emma (I know, I know...) so I can not compare the 2. But the A&E one was wonderful! At first I did not think I would like Mr Knightleys character in this one but even thow his looks were not as handsome as JN, his acting won me over! But I will say at the end when she had tears comeing down her face I knew I had seen her cry before in a nother movie, then after a awful 15 min. I remembered I had also seen the actress in the movie Much Ado About Nothing. Now back to Emma, it didn't add up to P&P2 but what ever in the world could? But of the 2 Emmas I have seen, it was the one I loved the most. Kessa

I was very disappointed by this production. For one thing, if I hadn't read the book I'd never have known it was a comedy. The Miramax production may have been too light, but this one was downright dreary, except when Mrs. Elton came into the picture. And it was literally dark as well--I know they didn't have electricity in those days, but I like to see the actors and the sets without having to squint. My biggest objection was to the screenplay. Davies made some very curious choices, expanding some things (that harvest festival!) and eliminating or shrinking others. Emma's matchmaking activities were so underplayed that someone who didn't know the book would probably be baffled by her promises to "reform." I was shocked to hear Emma announce her interest in Frank Churchill out loud, in front of Mr. Knightley, and was amazed at Davies having Mr. K say, after Emma has accepted him, "I held you in my a ms when you were 3 weeks old." What an un-loverlike thing to say! The acting was good, although I didn't care for Mark Strong. He seemed severe and angry most of the time, and there was no sense of comfortable companionship between Mr. K & Emma. The scene in which he reprimands E for her treatment of Miss Bates was badly done by both the actors and the director. It didn't come across as particularly important and was certainly not affecting. This was one scene I liked in the Miramax version very much. Prunella Scales was funny and charming as Miss Bates but didn't ouch me the way Sophie Thompson did when Emma hurt her. I agree with Kathleen that the commercial breaks broke up the flow of the story and will hope for a better impression when I re-watch (I cut out the commercials when I taped).

One thing a few of us talked about last evening was Mrs E accent?! I thought a few words sounded like my friend Carol from New Jersey, because I guess, some of the words were clipped. One of the things I thought was funny in P&P was the Bingly sisters laugh (Betty and Wilma). I liked the servents scenes also. Have any of you picked berrries? It did seem out of character for Knightly, I thought he was land rich but cash poor. I think I want more than ever to visit England,the outdoor scenes were spectacu ar.

Loved it.Loved the music,loved the treatment of the secondary characters, especially Jane Fairfax and Miss Bates.Really liked the "unprettified" look, more like "Persuasion" than "P&P2".Highbury looked more like Cotswold country than Hertfordshire, but that's being way too picky.And I found the trailer at the end to be Absolutely Riveting!

Re post#27- Mrs E's accent.It was supposed to be Bristol-overlaid-with- posh, but it came out more as Posh-with-a-bit-of-Bristol.And, as Bernie says, seems to wander all over the Atlantic at tmes! My Bristol relatives think it's a hoot!

Mrs E's accent I have to say as a non-American that she definately sounded like an American putting on a British accent - I found it rather distracting, acutally. I thought Emma not terribly likeable, and Mr Ks coment that she didn't make an effort to be an accomplished young lady seemed quite appropriate, with all her scowls and bitchiness. Frank was MUCH better than in the movie. I just hated his hair in the movie - I mean, why would he go to London to get it cut when it was so unfashionable? This Frank was heaps more believable as a man who was understood to be handsome. By the way, has anyone seen the actress who played Mrs Weston before? I think(that's meant to be in italics, but I don't know how to do them) that she was in Rumple of the Bailey (do you get that here?) as one of the young barristers in the later episodes. Red Ned's daughter, if that makes sense to anyone. Is it true that the Harriet actress (who I thought waa really insipid and rightly so) is going to play Jane Eyre - it seemed to be her in those trailers they were running. Don't much like the look of the Mr Rochester. I also liked the bits of the servants doing all the hard work. And I think it not at all unlikely that Mr K would have had his servants in livery and moving those cushions. I mean there's being kind to one's inferiors and there's bucking the system (does that expression mean anything in north america?)

Kate: has anyone seen the actress who played Mrs Weston before? She played Maria Bertram in the t.v. Mansfield Park in the eighties. You can learn how to do italics and other neat stuff in Ann's HTML tutorial. There's a link on the main page.

Maria Bertram - she was one of Fanny's cousins, right? And by the way that should be RumpOle of the Bailey (though he was rather rumpled)

Kate, we usually take it easy on correcting spelling. Maaaaakess thingks less intimidating -- helps freer flow of ideas to imagine you won't be critisized. Yes, Maria was the infamous Fanny cousin, the married one willingly led astray by Henry Crawford.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to weigh in on the Not Like side for this production. You guys have covered most of my basic objections, above, which are: 1) Kate Beckinsale playing Emma with shades of Caroline Bingley (very sharp & non-genteel) 2) Lucy Robinson's extremely puzzling "American" accent - has she been talking to my Aunt Sadie? 3) The unctiousness of Frank Churchill (smackability much higher even than Wickham's) 4) Those ridiculous "fantasy" sequences as when Churchill steps out of his portra t. With all due respect to Davies, IMHO, what worked like a house on fire in P&P when handled WITH RESTRAINT became overly blown up & ludicrous here. 5) The utter lack of HUMOUR in the show (hello, this is a _comedy_.) Though I wasn't that thrilled with the Paltrow version, I actually found it more enjoyable, since it was played with a much lighter touch. The tones & tone of this production were as heavy as JANE EYRE. What happened?

I liked it, although I would have liked it more if I hadn't already seen the perfect Emma. For me, its tone was way off-much too dark and serious. Emma is essentially light-hearted. I too was wondering-hey this is a comedy. On the postive side, I enjoyed the performance of the Eltons(especially Lucy Robinson) and Mr Woodhouse. I also liked the emphasis on Jane and Frank with the Donwell strawberry party and the "blunder"-Jane actually spoke in this version. On the down side(this will be longer)-I hated the pianoforte scene-the song-the performances. For the first part of the movie-this Mark Strong guy was either standing about, staring blankly(what was he trying to do anyways-vainly imitate CF's intense stare????) or shrieking uncontrollably. My friend and I nearly fell off the floor when the camera cuts to his-HE WENT TO LONDON-TO CUT HIS HAIR! I'm not surprised they cut the line-there are not one and a hundred men with gentlemen so plainly written across t em. Yes-I'm biased-but for me had no burst of true feelings until very near the end. The proposal scene was alright-they cut out some of the best lines though about his trip to London-the torture of seeing Isabella. I admit though-I kinda started to tune out during the proposal scene when he started to shriek again about Frank-I can't see Mr Knightley saying/doing that. As for Beckinsale, she was a more down-to-earth Emma, but I missed GP's sparkle and looks/reactions to JN's Knightley. Personally, KN a d MS had no chemistry. HIs with whom will you dance-UGH!! He looked like he was going to find her another partner-much too cool. For me, the movie raced from scene to scene-it didn't have the balletic grace of the Miramax version. Plus-they cut some of my favorite scenes-Harriet seeing Mr Martin and his sister at the store-Emma bending to fix her shoe, thus leaving H and Elton alone. And finally-The DREAM SEQUENCES-worse, much worse than I had been led to expect: Emma shrieking NO-to Mr knightley and Harriet's wedding-Mr dixon leaning over Jane. It was like some Episode of Days of Our Lives when they begin inanely talking to themse ves. But, overall I did like it-it was Emma after all????

I shall risk your collective approbation by coming down on the side of liking the "fantasy" sequences. ;-) Emma is a very fanciful girl, always seeing things that are not there, why not show that? I hooted at the Mr. Knightly getting married to Jane scene, Emma standing in the aisle holding the hand of the injured William! (Is that right? I'm blanking on the child's name!) One gripe, and it's not really about this production, it's really about P&P2! Why, pray tell, did Mr. Davies allow Emma and Mr. Knightly to kiss during the proposal scene when he wouldn't allow Lizzy and Darcy to even touch! And we had long post-engagement scenes in Emma where practically as soon as Lizzy and Darcy were engaged, P&P2 was over! Very vexing indeed! ;-) I know, sorry...my obsession is showing again...;-)

"And we had long post-engagement scenes in Emma where practically as soon as Lizzy and Darcy were engaged, P&P2 was over! Very vexing indeed! ;-) " I can only guess that the producer and writer have been secretely visiting here after all, and have learned from their earlier mistake with P&P2. Unfortunately their realisation comes too late for them to put the proper ending on P&P2.

I got up this morning and watched it again. I was very disappointed last night, but liked it better in the light of day. It was choppy to begin with and the commercial breaks made it choppier still. In general, I liked the performances. I watched with a friend who has been an actor and she said she thought that it was poorly directed. Perhaps we are missing Simon Langton. I didn't like the fantasy sequences (sorry, Sis). I was appalled when Emma announced that she had always thought that if she were to marry it would be to Frank Churchill. I thought the Harvest Supper unnecessary, as well as the final "thieves in the henhouse scene". I liked Lucy Robinson's Mrs. Elton, but kept getting distracted by her accent. Kate Beckinsale's Emma was awfully snarky throughout the first 3/4 of the film. I thought that the actress who played Jane Fairfax came closer to that character than any portrayal I've seen. And this Mr. Elton was able to be smarmy without being ludicrous. Bernard Hepton's Mr. Woodhouse seemed much more on target than Mr. Woodhouse in the Miramax Emma. I think that the Frank and Jane relationship was given more weight in this version but perhaps at the expense of a good look at Emma's matchmaking. Well maybe there's nothing wrong with this that another four hours wouldn't have fixed. And, it is true, any Austen is better than no Austen at all. I'll watch it again.

I must say that I absolutely loved it! And I loved the Miramax version! I loved them differently. Like you love your children, different but loving them each completely all the same. Where as the Miramax version was bright and sunny (which by the way alot of reviewers panned as too pretty, I always felt that if you wanted dark, then do not read JA, read Dickens for gosh sake), I did also love the sepia tone look to this new version. It made it look very countryish rather that the Miramax look of small town. The music, I believe also accomplished the country feel as well. I also thought that the fantasy scenes were very effective and funny. This filled in where the book described rather than dialogue explained. The miramax version did this just as effectively by Emma writing in her diary. Now for how I felt about the characters -- I found Emma delightful, not bitcy what so ever. Although GP was the ultimate Emma, this actress just played her different, which I appreciated as I would have been diappointed in a carbon copy. Mr. Knightly, true played a little too servere, but who could resist that wonderful gaze. I did like him very well indeed. Mr. Woodhouse was perfection! I giggled every time that he was on the screen. In fact I liked them all. Now, to A&E -- commercials are one thing, but to place them in the middle of a scene as opposed to between them was quite a different matter...and so many of them! Very badly done, A&E. Very badly done indeed.

I agree with everything Anne3 said in her post #26. Is is possible that I'm a P&P Fan as opposed to a Jane Austen fan? The magic was in P&P as it has not been in the others.

Oh,how I miss the gruel from the old BBC Emma ! I consider that Mr Woodhouse to be the best, maybe due to the time available for all that concern about draught and digestive problems. And Miss Bates is so well done in that version.So hurt, yet so kind and forgiving when Emma visits. But the Jane Fairfax in This Emma3! Is she not just what you have imagined? Mr Knigthley is found in Emma2, although a bit too young and handsome(but those faults are easily overlooked)For Emma I would like some of the busybody qualities from Emma1 as well as her insight and selfreproach, but Gwen has the silly light and butterflyish humour and this a bit spoilt younggirl-appeal , that I think Knigthley loves to rebuke;=).I can't quite make up my mind on Emma/Kate. I do not get to know her well enough...And Knigthley /Mark was not at all bad, but I had thoughts similar to what Ca s said above:what was he trying to do anyways-vainly imitate CF's intense stare????) Only one Austenman has that ability... Agree with Cheryl on those kisses, even Frank could kiss Emma's hand, why did we not even get to see Darcy kiss Lizzy's??

I have not much to add to the above except that Mrs. Elton's accent put me in mind of Farmer Hoggett's wife from Babe. :-0

I am glad I am not the only one who misses "a thin, smooth gruel"! Truly what was missing from this version were all the little details that make the characters come alive in the book. They spent so much time racing from one pivotal scene to the next that the gentle pace that makes it such a happy book is gone (as well as much of the humor). But I did think it was more authentic than Mirimax's, which I think tried a little too hard to be hip (Please don't shoot me!) Still, any Austen is good Austen. Wh t is there to look forward to now? P.S. How is Emma1 ?

Michele: P.S. How is Emma1 ? It's very good indeed, the best of the old BBC adaptations...

I thought that this is was a good production, but not great. I do not want to view it again and again, like P&P2.

"Badly done, Emma. Badly done, indeed." Mr. Knightly's comment at the end of the Boxhill picnic just echoes my sentiment toward this 1996 BBC adaptation of "Jane Austen's EMMA." I expected so much just because of the producers (the main guy, Andrew Davies) but was terribly disappointed instead. The cast was ill-chosen, the both the script and actor interpretations were in disaccord with the Jane Austen's original work. Why must Mark Strong as Mr. Knightly be in constant anger through out the film??? Am I the only person to find Kate Beckinsale be better suited for one of the housemaids?? Harriet Smith should be little on chubby side. Miss Fairfax looked too ordinary in the film as opposed to the beautiful character in the book. I liked the Miramax version very much but find some things omitted and some aspects objectionable, so naturally my expectation was to see a movie more faithful to the book Emma. My expectation was especially heightened because of the quality I saw in the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. I have a bunch to say about this Emma, but I must go now.

"Badly done, Emma. Badly done, indeed." Mr. Knightly's comment at the end of the Boxhill picnic just echoes my sentiment toward this 1996 BBC adaptation of "Jane Austen's EMMA." I expected so much just because of the producers (the main guy, Andrew Davies) but was terribly disappointed instead. The cast was ill-chosen, the both the script and actor interpretations were in disaccord with the Jane Austen's original work. Why must Mark Strong as Mr. Knightly be in constant anger through out the film??? Am I the only person to find Kate Beckinsale be better suited for one of the housemaids?? Harriet Smith should be little on chubby side. Miss Fairfax looked too ordinary in the film as opposed to the beautiful character in the book. I liked the Miramax version very much but find some things omitted and some aspects objectionable, so naturally my expectation was to see a movie more faithful to the book Emma. My expectation was especially heightened because of the quality I saw in the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. I have a bunch to say about this Emma, but I must go now.

"Badly done, Emma. Badly done, indeed." Mr. Knightly's comment at the end of the Boxhill picnic just echoes my sentiment toward this 1996 BBC adaptation of "Jane Austen's EMMA." I expected so much just because of the producers (the main guy, Andrew Davies) but was terribly disappointed instead. The cast was ill-chosen, the both the script and actor interpretations were in disaccord with the Jane Austen's original work. Why must Mark Strong as Mr. Knightly be in constant anger through out the film??? Am I the only person to find Kate Beckinsale be better suited for one of the housemaids?? Harriet Smith should be little on chubby side. Miss Fairfax looked too ordinary in the film as opposed to the beautiful character in the book. I liked the Miramax version very much but find some things omitted and some aspects objectionable, so naturally my expectation was to see a movie more faithful to the book Emma. My expectation was especially heightened because of the quality I saw in the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. I have a bunch to say about this Emma, but I must go now.

"Badly done, Emma. Badly done, indeed." Mr. Knightly's comment at the end of the Boxhill picnic just echoes my sentiment toward this 1996 BBC adaptation of "Jane Austen's EMMA." I expected so much just because of the producers (the main guy, Andrew Davies) but was terribly disappointed instead. The cast was ill-chosen, the both the script and actor interpretations were in disaccord with the Jane Austen's original work. Why must Mark Strong as Mr. Knightly be in constant anger through out the film??? Am I the only person to find Kate Beckinsale be better suited for one of the housemaids?? Harriet Smith should be little on chubby side. Miss Fairfax looked too ordinary in the film as opposed to the beautiful character in the book. I liked the Miramax version very much but find some things omitted and some aspects objectionable, so naturally my expectation was to see a movie more faithful to the book Emma. My expectation was especially heightened because of the quality I saw in the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. I have a bunch to say about this Emma, but I must go now.

Can't believe how many comments have been left already! I have read them all and am in agreement with many. I'll try to be brief in my own. Liked this Emma very much (the show and the actress). I am not such a purist that I can't love any JA adaptation -- I'm thrilled just to have one! I thought Mark Strong did fine, but like everyone else, I felt his confrontational mode was not how Mr. Knightley would have reacted. He was too reserved and too much of a gentleman to respond in such a way. However, in the scene at Box Hill and in the proposal scene, I thought Strong's intensity was appropriate. I also liked this Harriet a lot, and Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax. However, I did not care for this Mr. Woodhouse at all -- his eccentricity and laughable personality definitely did not come through. And Lucy Robinson's portrayal of Mrs. Elton completely missed the mark, IMO. I still don't understand why the same group of people who made P&P2 would think they could do Emma in two hours. I agree with an earlier comment that they tried to race from one pivotal scene to another so that important points were lost. I can't believe that anyone watching who had never read the book would have any idea what was going on. I still find the BBC version to be the best, and that may be in large measure due to the length of it, but also some of the characters were played much better than in either of the two-hour versions.

Maybe it's because it's the same producer/writer, but some scenes in Emma reminded me so much of P&P2 -- at the ball there were the same shots of carriages pulling up to the door, the longways dancing, the band playing, etc. Plus the costumes, hairstyles, pianofortes and even some of the same lines were as in P&P. I watched it again this morning, and it's also like P&P2 in that you could watch it again & again and still see and hear things you missed before. Emma was well done indeed, but P&P it's not. I miss Simon Langton, and agree Emma and Knightley under-played the pivotal scene: she didn't seem ashamed of herself and he could have been angrier, it wasn't emotionally intense enough. To my American ears, Mrs. E. (Mrs. Hurst in P&P) sounded like an Englishwoman trying to affect an American accent. She got some pronunciations of individual words right, but the rhythm was British. It was sort of funny and sort of obnoxious, which I guess goes well with her part. Colin Firth will also be doing an American accent in his next film, it will be fun to see how he pulls it off!

I must admit to being on the side of those in favor of Emma3. I really liked it, even to the snippiness of Emma/Kate, but that's the way I've always seen her whenever I read the book. I guess, I'd better put in some caveats here: 1)In the book,I've never really liked the character of Emma, but do like Knightley and Jane F. and always thought Mr. Woodhouse hilarious if annoying, ditto Miss Bates; 2)I've only seen the Miramax version once in the theatre and came out thinking it was a series of pretty vign ttes which had very little of the entire story in it. I recently saw Emma1, the old BBC version, and liked it because it told the complete story. So I like Emma3 because it's closer to the story and closer to the way I see the characters than the Miramax version. I liked Kate Beckinsale as Emma; Mark Strong got better as the show went on and I agree with whoever said he tried to stare (unsuccessfully IMHO) like CF (Maybe that comes from Darcy talking to Knightley while making Fever Pitch!!). I liked this Frank except for his toothpaste commercial smile - just a little too slimy for my taste. Lucy Robinson was good as Mrs. E, but I kept thinking she was going to go into her nasal laugh as in P&P! Mr. Elton was better than the Miramax one - but Alan Cummings was ard to separate from his horrible role in Circle of Friends. And I liked Miss Bates well enough in this one. I really liked the fantasy scenes - I thought of them as a shorthand for all the pages of interior dialogue and Emma's dreaming about all the various matches. Oh, this Harriet was definitely better than the Miramax one - to me she looked the part. One of the most interesting things for me was that Highbury was filmed in Lacock, the same village where P&P was shot; the village only has two long streets and P&P was filmed in one (Main St. I believe) while Emma was entirely filmed in Church Street, so they never looked the same. Since I was there last summer, I kept seeing places I recognized, which was really fun. Donbury Abbey was actually Sudbury Castle in Gloucestershire (near the Cotswolds) as someone above mentioned - it wasn't Surrey, but then Surrey today isn't what it was nearly 200 years ago! That's all for now. Have to watch it again. I taped it without commercials so it should be easier viewing from the tape. When I can get a tape of the Miramax version I'll really be able to compare them.

I am of two opinions. I thought that this production did a better job of choosing what to leave in and what to leave out from the book. I also thought that much of the casting was better. Harriet and Jane were MUCH better cast in this film than the other. I also enjoyed the new Frank - although I enjoyed Ewan McGregor's performance as well. On the other hand, they managed to leave the humor out completely. While reading the novel, there were several "laugh out loud" scenes - and this was played as straight drama. Also, (and, honestly, I do not think my attraction to Jeremy is relevant to this) I do not think that Mark Strong conveyed any emotion besides displeasure. He didn't even appear to like Emma, much less LOVE her! And the scene at the dance (Not brother and sister) - he dashed off the line like an afterthought - there was no surprise/ ispleasure that she might even consider him to be her brother! If I could have everything, I would want to pick and choose from the two productions. Some casting and scene choices from the A&E one along with the humor and passion of the Miramax one.

The key lesson that future producer, writers, directors, of JA adaptations should learn is go for broke and do a serial - especially if you have a television audience. I know that you cannot take everything from the novel and put it in the adaptation but be creative and put as much as possible in there - particularly those parts after the hero and heroine get together. Yes, producers are thinking costs but lets be honest; the audience that these movies are made for want more (well done, of course) than ess. As for the film, I liked it. To me it captured Emma as I pictured her. Yes, Emma may have been witchy and selfish but she was not malicious (as Mr. Elton). Mr. Knightly did seem strict but he appeared to care for Emma deeply.

Some more thoughts: The more I think about it, the more I dislike this new Emma. One of things that bothered me the most(besides that poor CF imitation) was the matter of fact reading of lines, especially the proposal scene-I do love you, I think I always have. If one hadn't read the book, only seen KB's and MS' performance, one would never have guessed/known. One of the great things about the book is we know, before Emma does, just how deeply she loves Mr Knightley. The Miramax film, I think, did the bes in conveying these subtle hints: I love the scene in Emma2 when Harriet and Emma are reading Mr Elton's riddle/love letter and Emma suddenly says-if only Mr KNightley were here to read this. Another thing-I didn't feel/see Emma's growth in the new version. It was rushed. There's the crucial box HIll scene(Miss Bates' humilation again inferior to Sophie Thompson's performance)-then the crucial Scene with Harriet. And finally the cut to Emma's nightmare and tearful-God what Have I done speech. I Personally, I didn't feel anything. thought the Miramax film did a much better job in conveying Emma's sincere remorse and realization that she loves Mr Knightley and only she must marry him. I liked th way they handled it-the conversation with Mrs Weston, even with the I love JOhn/hate John speech!

I agree with everyone who loves it. From Mr. Woodhouses lament "Six hens from the hen house and now Miss Taylor" to Emma's dream sequences to the harvest festival, I felt that they did an admirable job of telling this story in so few minutes. No one can tell a story like JA, but I love the efforts of people who attempt to retell JA stories in new mediums.

I've been thinking about EMMA all day, but can't rewatch for a week -going on a trip. I couldn't concentrate on it last night (a friend called in the middle of it) But I enjoyed it. I prefer the movie version because of the way they treated the story. But both did a good job telling the story. I've gone on a campaign to civilize my neighborhood and have loaned out my copies of P&P and EMMA. I'm sure I'll have a few converts! Did any of Mr E's shots remind you of Darcy shots? The shots not the looks? I thought he was trying to play his part like CF did Darcy.

Whoever said that the A&E Frank was Wickhamesque, I think you're right on. For some reason, I suspect they used Davies' Wickham as a template for this Frank though Frank is tons slimier. In defense of the girl who played Jane, I must say that she was very beautiful, even striking. She had great skin, eyes, and hair, even if she did look very young. When she would turn her head, she looked very much like Polly Walker, whom I thought was a great Jane Fairfax (perhpas too beautiful?). Obviously, this girl didn't have the movie star chest and eyes of Walker...but is that inaccurate? Emma's development, I agree, is less marked than in the Miramax version. Sometimes, the chronology of events/emotions is even skewed. I think it was kind of lame to wait until after Frank's attempted confession for Emma to show us that her interest in him is waning. If anything, the confession scene confirms for Emma (wrongly, I know) Frank's interest in her, and as far as we know in the A&E version, Emma is still intersted in HIM, which would logically take us to the conclusion that Emma would be exci ed and encouraged by his interest and confidence rather than discouraged. Indeed, in the Miramax version, the scene leaves Emma more convinced than ever that he is in love with her, but by this time, of course, Emma has admitted the weakening of her own attachment to him.

I have a few comments I'd like to share. I agree with the comment above that I never cared for Emma in reading (my least favorite JA), but appreciated her through the level-headed eyes of Knightly. His appearances in this version are more like what I'd expect from an "older" unmarried man, not the wonderfully-dashing JN at all, thogh JN is indeed very dashing. Knightly is so used to suppressing his love for her in the friendship which is his place. He does seem a bit broody, though. But I like his em tion in chastising her at Box Hill. His anger, shame for her, all mixed up with his long standing love. I preferred this Jane. Thought her classically beautiful. Frank, ugh. (still see him as the young Ebenezer from Muppets Christmas Carol) Mr. Woodhouse I thought was a decent mix of the ridiculous taking himself too seriously while no one else could. My biggest problem with this (as with the Miramax) was as stated above, that we didn't have a serial out of it. There's easily so much that would fill it out which was left out.

I have not seen this production yet but in the clips Mr. Woodhouse looks a great deal like Bernard Hepton, the actor who played Sir Thomas Bertram in Mansfield park. Does anyone know if it was indeed the same actor?

Mich: Mr. Woodhouse looks a great deal like Bernard Hepton, the actor who played Sir thomas Bertram in Mansfield park. Indeed, it is the same actor, Mich.

Well I only saw it yesterday, I taped it Sunday nite, because nothing was coming between me and Jane Tennison. I found KB's Emma to be okay, Harriet was excellently cast. Even Mr Knightly grew on closer acquaintance. But he seemed very angry to me. Bernard Hepton had Mr Woodhouse done cold. I thought he was very good. I loved the actor who played Frank Churchill and the woman who played Jane Fairfax. Prunella Scales who never disappoints was also good. But she is no Sophie Thompson. Well all in a l I give it a 7.

Here's my theory (albeit, a harsh one): I think that Sue B. and Andrew D. were so flush from their enormous success with P&P2, they decided they could foist this hasty EMMA upon us & still receive our full approbation. I think they took elements which were successful in P&P (the fantasy sequences) and made them overblown & ludicrous here. I'm not a huge fan of the book, but I certainly recall its lightness of tone, something that was completely missing here. And the love story between Emma & Knightley seemed the work of a day ("I just realized yesterday I've been in love with you) instead of many years. I think the filmmakers approached this project with a preconceived arrogance, and it shows.

INKO: In the book,I've never really like the character of Emma,... So glad that I am not alone in not liking the character of Emma; she is too snobbish, insensitive, unfeeling for my tastes. I also dislike the character of Frank Churchill. I felt that they were insensitive to the point of cruelty to Jane Fairfax. While Frank was trying to conceal his attachment, there was no excuse for Emma. Now about Emma3. I have viewed Emma1, but not Emma2, and, Emma3 only once. In general, I liked this one although I felt that it was really rushed; don't think that I would have understood the story had I not read it before hand. KateB's portrayal of Emma was close to my opinion of her from reading the book; not a very nice person. In this adaptation, we don't really get to see her changing a great deal, because it went so quickly. I preferred the Mr Woodhouse and Miss Bates of Emma1 although these characters in Emma3 were good. I really like the Jane Fairfax in this one and Mr. Knightley was fine. I thought that the Harriet Smith of Emma1 was much better; the Emma3 Harriet did not seem simple enough. And Mrs. Elton did not seem offensive enough. The fantasy sequences were okay, but I did not see the need for the poultry robberies nor the Harvest Festival. They seemed like time that would have been better spent with more scenes from the book. All in all, I always enjoy any Jane Austen anything. I will watch this adaptation many times, I'm sure and will probably come to like it more. I ordered the tape from First Choice Video weeks ago. And, I will rent Emma2 just as soon as it is available. I wish that someone would do an updated, 6-hour, at least, version of Mansfield Park. Linda

Amy2, I had the same sort of feeling about the Davies-Birtwistle team and their motivation -- even before seeing the film. They must have pitched a longer rendition of Emma and got cut back to 2 hours. I guess I wish they'd have said, "No, thanks anyway. We know all the greats can do stories in 2 hours to throw up on the big screen, but... well, we'd rather not do Austen that way. Maybe next time."

Let me rant a little. I'm vexed, severely displeased. Two and a half hours spent watching with high hopes, Davies and Birtwistle's latest. What a disappointment. Not up to P&P. They should have stayed closer to the plan of the book. Film should have ended with a marriage ceremony, period. And what is all this business about harvest festivals and Emma's fantasies or dreams? Why oh, why did they start a Jane Austen story with chicken stealers breaking into a hen house? What's that all about? Filming period pieces must be very expensive. Why waste valuable production resources on such devies? Kate Birkensale's a little too nice for my Emma. Why is Mr Strong's Knightly always raging at Emma? I understand a rage at Emma's interefence in the Harriet/ Mr Martin affair, but once is enough. The actor playing Mr Woodhouse is great. Same for Prunella Scales' Miss Bates. The actress playing Mrs Elton was also top drawer. But Frank CHurchill is little more than an unpleasent clown, kind of cheep Las Vegas standup commedian. Jane Fairfax wooden. Most everyone else, so-so. Accents sounded OK by me. A few good points. GREAT scenes of the English countryside, interiors of the great houses,abbeys and beautiful English gardens. Do thank D&B for this. Also, hats off to Davies and Birtwistle for GREAT music and dance scenes. Oh, and nice pointing out the poverty surrounding the wealthy whig aristocracy of the time. Something that I am sure JA would have appreciated. But all told, on a scale of zero to 100. I'd have to give it about a 70. Not too well done, D&B. Sorry.

Wow! So much to digest, but here goes.... I saw the end on Sunday night (live), and watched the beginning (up through the Box Hill lunch) last night. So I saw the proposal first, and the rest later. I thought Strong good as Knightly, but the proposal scene on her side was very weakly written. This would have been the place to convey the growing measure of her feelings, but it was poorly, thinly done. He was very fine, I thought, but we already feel him to be much older, and the line about holding her at three weeks was a bad choice; it takes s backwards on the journey he has made from seeing her as almost a sister to a lover. Jane was perfectly cast; in Emma2 I couldn't quite believe that she was resigned to a life as a governess; I pegged her as someone who would have found her dinner ticket, and been ruthless about it if needed. She was not a put upon innocent, which was perfectly done here. Frank is merely a Willoughby who lucked out upon his aunt's death. He thinks only of himself; Knightley's evaluation of him is perfectly justified in this version; again, well done. Harriet I also liked better here, but to me the relationship and matchmaking by Emma on her behalf was better done in Emma2. It was hard to follow here, and as many have said, none of the humor was evident in this production. Amy, I think you called it rightly; while I liked many scenes, and performances (Mr. Woodhouse was also better done here, wonderful fussing), the whole was less than the sum of it's parts. Transistions are bad or missing, the story does not flow; in fact the whole presentation smacks of a script that was cut back, rather than cut out of whole cloth. Emma can be told in 2 hours, just as S&S, or Emma2, but only if that is your bent from the first. Linda; I'm with you; bring on Mansfield Park!

Linda: I did not see the need for the poultry robberies Carl: Why oh, why did they start a Jane Austen story with chicken stealers breaking into a hen house? When I first saw it, I was in great hopes of getting a glimpse of Mr Knightley getting out of 'their bed' to get his cane and scare off those paltry,poultry robbers.But it all came to nothing... And after all that scene would have been much more enjoyable with Jeremy Knightley. The white nigthgown would have been so becoming to his tanned face.

Please excuse my long post even if I write previous similar comments. At my first viewing, I could not believe this, it gave me a Northanger Abbey feeling. At second viewing yesterday, I appreciated Mr. Strong all the more as most supporting characters and the movie was then more palatable. Third viewing, I regret very much to say I couldn�t stand finishing it, stopped it and return after vociferating minor harsh words. Anne 3 said "dreary", right on ! Although closer to Persuasion than P&P2, in general there is a gloomy feeling to this adaptation. A darker depiction of what I expected to be a comedy. And I didn�t expect to see Miramax, but at least an as-bright rendition than P&P2, with witty humor, tongue and cheek winks to the book. I did not really laugh once. Instead, they utilized two major moments of the novel and bluntly overdone it : 1. The � Not brother and sister � phrase is used at least twice : during the ball, in a dream sequence and at the Harvest feast. 2. The � Badly done Emma � is used numerous times as well : when Knightley discover of Emma�s plan to marry Harriet to Elton and the Box Hill event. 3. The dream sequences way overdone, might have worked if in a more upbeat context. 4. Holding her at 3 weeks old : when they see John, Isabella and the kids (Strong was absolutely scrumpcious but the � man with the baby � picture I�ve seen to many times just like an add) and at the proposal, no lover would say such a thing ! (UHG) Appreciated to see John, his wife and the children. Both parents were much more elaborated and humanized as character than their counterpart of Miramax�s Emma. Mrs and Mr. Weston very believable characters and just right. Mrs Elton made set my teeth on edge just perfectly (English mot being my mother tongue, could not note the subtlety of accent to dislike it) and Mr Elton was weak and despicable enough to be in character. Harriet was delightfully naive and fresh. Frank was The villain of this story (but Emma depicted as a close second), slick as a snake and charming a rat. More meat to him than the pretty-boy portrayal of Miramax. Liked his more open and almost frank ways at his almost confession to Emma. Jane was absolutely beautiful and beautifully played, just the right amount of emotions, down-to-earth knowledge of who she is and delightful charm. She my preferred character of the lot and she shines like our heroine should have, a less exotic Polly Walker (st iking resemblance). So charming in fact that I wondered to Mr. Knightley�s admiration of her talents, his soft gaze at her and him constantly at her side. A lot more chemistry would have come out of those two than the picked pair. Which brings me to Knightley and of Strong�s performance. Agree with Kali�s comment 17 and as she said : Not as charming or attractive as Jeremy, but against any other standard, he was great. I liked him or should I say both very much. He has strong and expressive features unfortunately we see mostly one side of Knightley, the serious/angry side. His Badly done at Box Hill rendition was heartfelt, the Who are you going to dance with was really touching and he played the proposal with enough emotions (in h s eyes). He does has a pair of fine eyes... To some comments as to his CF�s look-a-like gaze, maybe it reminds us to much of P&P and so any such gaze would have us associating with Firth�s. Thought it showed his reserved self. And I liked his � Abominable scoundrel � and downright brusque indignation to Frank having it easy. But have some serious misgivings to this portrayal, and would attribute this to being wrongly directed (what�s his name) and badly written (Davies). Most of the time K�s repartee is either too strong or sounds too angry when probably suppose to sound plain serious. How can Mr and Mrs Weston even smile after K blurts out his � Forb... nonsense....just the sort of thriftling silly fellow � speech. If it was meant to be comedy-ish, badly done indeed ! And how about the Emma�s line : � we see him during the d y but we are alone at night � this didn�t register as regency ladylike conduct or did I get this wrong ? How could write a scene with Frank chasing and trying to use a crop on children ! even if their thieves. Nice view of the English country side. Anybody with me, Donwell Abbey�s interior seemed like a bachelor�s path, furnitures just scattered around, is this a beer bottle on the table ? Needs a woman�s touch ;) Appreciated the Harvest feast ending but the � Happiest man on earth � line didn�t ring true (we see him still beside Jane, uhum) It lack chemistry between Strong and Berkinsale. At the beginning we can understand his brotherly advice, but I always add the impression of him being more of a brother than a friend or a lover, even at the end. In fact, I didn�t feel is change of heart all that much (and neither of hers), despite a few furtive looks. Could not believe neither of their love confession to the other. And the Kiss...seen in this prudential light, it look staged ! Did they divide it in 3 steps or what ? Beckinsale�s Emma was ore bitchy and mean spirited than in my perception of her in the book. Looking down with disdain and haughty view of the world, as in Amy�s comment. Her reform was not that obvious. Against Strong she was miscast (yes, she would have been perfect as a maid). So I echo to Amy, Kali, Cassandra, Amy2, sage, Mari and Myretta and despite my comments above I will watch it again and think overall they did a good job for 107 minutes. A 7 out of 10 is reasonable.

The scene would have been much more enjoyable with Jeremy Knightley-the white nightgown would have been so becoming to his tanned face! Oh GOD! YES ANN2! YES!!! Along with JN's obvious and much admired charms, I loved the vulnerability and charm to the Mr KNightley role. I never thought it possible, but I am even in more awe of his acting talents. He was Mr Knightley! I remember when I was watching EMMA3, paricularly the scene when Mr Knightley is chastising Emma for writing Harriet's refusal letter-MR Elton may talk sentimentally, but he will act rationally. Upon hearing MS's reading of that line, I immediately thought of JN's subtle, vo ce inflections. He didn't have to resort to shrieking.

How much did they go the other way just to distinguish this version from the Miramax's one? And this goes for Strong's harsh portrayal of Knightley too. What did the director said to him too help him visualize some scene. Very curious and it brings to mind one Langton said to Firth ;)

Johanne, perfect as the maid? Those are harsh, harsh words. Not many people have said much about Harriet. Personally my favorite part of the movie was seeing the trailer for the new Jane Eyre with CH. Little things get me excited. Oh and to see it twice. Like I said before, I did not watch it Sunday nite because it clashed with the second part of Prime Suspect and I wanted to tape the Meryl Streep movie, because my sister has seizures. So I know what it is like. Anyway not to stray, and to get back to Harriet. I found her to be agreeable, prettish, and all together not too bright, which is how Austen termed her in the book. I thought the scene with the Gypsies was right on. The dream sequences bothered me but not as much as the scene in the church at the beginning with the light shining down on Harriet making up believe that she is the one for Mr Elton, that was just way over. Emma had Mr Knightly with practically everyone but herself, Jane Fairfax and Harriet. Too absurd for my liking. Well I feel that it just boils down to my not liking Emma, I did not like the book, I could not like the character at all. I would say that Emma on the whole is just not that interesting to me.

I missed Harriets nonsense (the burning of Mr. E's stuff) In this one she seemed so oblivious. Knightly's speech so un-romantic - why did he not tell her about hurrying back in the rain because of what he heard? As well as watching Isabella. If some guy had told me he held me at 3 weeks......Gag. Miss Bates didn't seem as hurt in this one. The other was almost painful to watch. Where is the humor!?!?!? I also thought Jane F. stunning. She had to be wooden. I thought this was portrayed well - we could see that she knew what Frank was doing yet she got fed up and we knew it. Donwell had only a man's touch. England looked so brown!! I thought it was always green?? I know, I know. The best part was the trailers. Ivanhoe looks dang good.They are going to make me wait until fall for Jane Eyre!!! And CH as "my Edward" Sigh. I think I will return my ordered tape, I didn't care for it. I'll take GP's Emma any day!!! I love John - I hate John!!

I'll take GP's Emma anyday! I heartily agree. For me this wasn't Emma. I had no sense of Emma's blindness and painful, desperate realization that she loves Mr Knightley and only she must marry Mr Knightley. I felt nothing in this new version, as a result of the screenplay and the performances. One of my favorite passages in the book is when Mr KNigtley finally comes back and Emma is afraid he is going to confide in her that he plans to marry Harriet. For me, the actors raced through their lines-no chemistry, no emotion. Once again, the Miramx version best evoked this passage-both in terms of JN and GP's performances and the text itself. It incorporated some of my favorite lines-This must be adream and You are now my Mr Knightley. ANd JN's reading of "I have lectured you and blamed you and you have borne it......SIGH! SO vulnerable, so sweet. I completely melted, along with most of the women in the audience. MS sounded like he was still angry with her.

Johanne: How much did they go the other way just to distinguish this version from the Miramax's one? I've been wondering exactly the same thing. Emma3 was filmed after Emma2 had opened in England, and it must have put the producers on the defensive, forcing them to justify another new vesion so soon after that one. So they probably exaggerated certain aspects of their production intentionally (the seriousness, the drabness especially) just to be different.

I am going to jump back in on the positive side. I agree that some of the scenes moved too fast; an example is the pause that Emma takes before encouraging Mr Knightley to continue his proposal -- it isn't long enough. But, as many have said, no screen adaptation can do a good novel completely and perfectly. I picked up my copy of "The Making of Emma" today. (The local bookstore owner knows someone who has a friend who works in a bookstore in Dublin, Ireland is the connection I used!) There is much less material about the production than in the P&P2 book, but the screenplay is included. Some tidbits I found interesting: When Emma is staring at Frank's portrait and muses that she might be tempted to marry him, the screenplay direction indicates that it is supposed to be a playful remark on her part. And Mr Knightley's responding negative comment about Frank is supposed to be only heard by Emma. I enjoyed it more on second viewing, and with the screenplay as a guide, I am certain I shall enjoy it more and more. I look forward to getting a tape without commercial breaks, however.

Kathleen: "The Making of Emma" . . . the screenplay is included Hmmm, I wonder how much of Davies's stage directions made it into print? ("Emma looks like she just stepped in dog doo. Frank, hidden behind the chair, is playing with himself.")

Anne3 - LOL! Thanks for the laugh!

Wait, did somebody mention Jeremy Knightley...? Thanks to Anne for directing me to this photo in the March Cosmo...;)

OH MY GOD!!!!!! I fear I shall faint!!

Well, all in all, it is slightly the case of the DL/Valmont syndrome, isn't it?

Emma3 was filmed after Emma2 had opened in England, and it must have put the producers on the defensive Anne3, that can't be the case. Emma3 was filmed last June/July (I saw a thank-you letter from the producers at the Red Lion pub in Lacock at beginning of August) and Emma2 didn't open in England till September or October (they get films long after they open in the U.S.) I know it had not opened by the 20th of August, when I left. Of course, Sue Birtwistle could have had a copy just for her info. but I doubt whether they'd do any major changes at that late stage of the production.

The Emma3 team may have gained intelligence about the other production. I'd be surpirsed if they did not know something about the tone and sought to differentiate.

I found this version of Emma to be very enjoyable but I do agree that it was far too short and seemed rushed on many occasions. I especially enjoyed Mark Strong's portrayal of Knightly (I know this is going against the general opinion here). What many viewers saw as anger, I perceived as strength of conviction united with passion. He had a clear sense of right and wrong and wasn't afraid to lecture Emma even at the risk of her displeasure. His was a personality that could command other men. I especially liked the scene where he defended Jane Fairfax from Churchhill's insistance that she keep playing the piano. Churchful was reduced to silence while maintaining his superior smirk. Speaking of Churchill, this actor reminded me of the blond kid that used to be on Saved By the Bell-- possibly an evil twin? My favorite Churchill was from Emma1. That version of the character was very likable. Other characters I enjoyed from this production were Jane Fairfax (very beautiful), Miss Bates (more realistic then in Emma2), and Emma herself (much more lively then Emma2). All in all I rate it 8 out of 10. Is this the last JA production we will see? I hope not! I do have a couple of questions which I hope someone can answer. First, the actress who played Jane Fairfax looked familiar to me. Does anyone know what else she has been in? Second, going back to S&S, both my wife and I know we have seen the actress who portrayed Lucy Steele before but for the life of us we can't remember where. What else has she been in? Thanks for any help. Brad

So making of Emma has the screenplay, but we can't get it for P&P2. Life's not fair!!

As to Olivia Williams (Jane Fairfax) there is no other movies know by IMDB : http://us.imdb.com/cache/person-exact/b85142 As to Imogen Stubbs (Lucy Steele) since S&S, she was recently in Twelfe Night, played first wif to Richard E. Grant/Jack in Jack and Sarah, here's the link to her filmography : http://us.imdb.com/cache/title-exact/48036

I've seen a suggestion that Jane Fairfax of Emma3 looked like Nancy Kerrigan, of ice skating fame. I think that's why everybody thinks she looks familiar, because she does remind me of Kerrigan.

I can't believe it. Only one reaction...and from Cass to boot, who's already converted to Northamism...Are you guys all DEAD????!!! ;)

This adaptation will be broadcast again on A&E on Friday, 2/21, 9:00pm EST; and also on A&E Classroom on May 21 and May 28. Linda

]Are you guys all DEAD????!!! He' s beyond gorgeous. what else is there to say?

Please bear with my long comments - was unable to post them Mon... I did think this Emma was a little too....well, let me put it this way, I didn't think that they showed that Emma really was a good person, she had a good heart, despite her meddling. She meddled partly because she had nothing better to do, but partly because she wanted to see people happy. There is no visit to the poor here. I did feel that things were rushed here, even when I watched it a second time w/out the commercials. Why did they keep it to 2 hours? Why not two night for a total of 4 hours? They didn't show enough of Emma's growth, because she really does grow up a great deal in the book. They didn't show enough of Mr. Knightly's gentle sparring, calm praise and admiration and genuine affection for Emma. Emma said she was reformed, but you cannot really tell what she has reformed from. you can't really tell that he really pushed Harriet (who was good I thought, jus the right age) into falling in love eith Mr. E. I thought the harvest supper scene was too contrived. They could have devoted this time to more talk btwn E and K. I though it was a bit too dark. The sets were great (probably a bit more true to the period than the Miramax ones; there was too mush stuff in some scenes, too much of what WE think of as Victorian, instead of what JA would have seen - someone here said "too hip", which is true). I know it was dark then, but I can get this feeling without the scense being pitch dark - besides, they were pretty well off, and could have afforded the candles! I though the colors of the rooms and the dresses were a bit plain, too. Please don't think I hated it. I did enjoy it, though not quite as much as the Miramaz one. Most of what I like about it has already been said: Jane Fairfax was good, Frank Churchill was good - I liked how they got so much more air time in this version. And Frank - in Miramax one you wondered what any of the women saw in him with all that hair! And this version shows more of Mr. Knightly's jealousy of Frank, how he really things Emma loves Frank. But then in the proposal he doesn't come right out an say he envies Frank Emma's love. I missed the comedy- it wasn't as lighthearted as I could have wished. ("Even Harriet Smith could not be expected to be in love with more thatn 3 men in one year!") One thing you don't really see is how Emma is really unsure of Mr. Knightly's feelings for her. Mr. K says "I should like to see Emma in love and in some doubt as to its return" and in the Miramaz version, you see this (I love John, I hate John scene). in this one, one day she realizes she loves him, the next day he proposes! I agree with those who have said too many JA's is better than none, and I'm all for a producdtion of Manfield Park, also one of Nothanger Abbey - this one is one of the funniest of JA, if you read one of the Gothic novels first, to see what she is making fun of. Might I say one thing more? I watched P&P2 again yesterday, on the six videos, to copare it to what I taped off A&E...what a difference!! I hope the price goes down on the six video set! I am lucky to have a boss who appreciates JA as much as I do (although she's not addicted like I am) because I work in a college library, and she bought the set for our collection!! Thanks for your patience!!

P.s. I do love JN!!! I loved his Knightly, even if he was too young!!

I had not read the book nor seen the theater production of Emma....I have to say that I did not get that the focus of Emma was that she was a matchmaker...I found it very hard to like the character of Emma for a long time into the movie...I did like Mr. Knightly (Darcy has no reason to feel threatened, however). Compared to Lizzy, who I liked immediately....I found myself not caring if Emma found someone or not....I look forward to reading the book, especially after reading your comments here....I wanted to like the production since Andrew Davies wrote the screenplay and I did...I guess I was just disappointed that it was not anywhere near the production that P&P2 was....and even without the money...I think the character development could have been better....I still feel like I don't know any of these characters......

I think the Jane Fairfax of Emma3 was in Anne of Green Gables.

To clarify my previous post just a little, if she is who I think she is, she did not play Anne. She was a secondary character that I can't remember the name of who was always extremely perky and kind.

Kali - 'I can't believe it. Only one reaction...and from Cass to boot, who's already converted to Northamism...Are you guys all DEAD????!!! ;)' I'm here, I'm finally here, to appreciate your booteeful picture! Thanks a million! ---There, how was that? ;)

Does anyone know the name of Davies production company? Is it in England?

He looks like the kind of men who commands other men: DO you mean the scene with MS on the horse, surveying Donwell? I respect your opinion, but for me, especially in that scene, they looked like that had to prop him up. HE looked like he was going to fall off. Personally , MS was overwrought, trite, and wooden. I think he could make a passable MR Woodhouse, given a few years. Maybe not, he lacks humour. And YES! KALi-I couldn't have said it better. ARE you guys dead? MY heart is still pounding over that pic!! Perhaps the experience of seeing MS the other night has induced everyone into some somnabulist state from which they will only awaken come APril 15th. JN IS MY MR KNIGHTLEY!!!!! AS for his age, HE's 34. Mr KNightley is only 37/38.

Even if I did prefer Miramax's version of Knightley and Mr. Northam is so scrumpcious, and with all the faults in this A&E version, let's not stone Mr. Strong all the same. The guy sure has merit if to play rather very decently in this not so agreable production. Cannot wait to see him in Fever Pitch. I really feel for Strong, the poor guy not only has to be compared to Jeremy Northam and all his charms, a wonderful written part of Miramax's Knightley, the an equally wonderfully written part of Darcy but also the charming presence of Colin Firth. He was almost doomed from the started. This does not disregard any well known happy thoughts we have on Firth nor Northam. But I give Strong some points just having to face those two (or should I say four).

Thanks, Kate and Mari...I was beginning to wonder how so many could continue to address the banal cares of mere mortals whilst in the presence of such JEREMY!!!! (who, incidentally, is now 35...Col. Brandon age...will he EVER be old enough for you people???!!!!) BTW, I like Mark Strong a lot, but his Knightley was not what I had envisioned read after read...When I saw Jeremy in Emma2, I just about died becuase he portrayed Mr. Knightley as I had always imagined him. Jeremy's Knightley is a whole man. Strong's is almost entirely a jealous lover.

Kali - 'I can't believe it. Only one reaction...and from Cass to boot, who's already converted to Northamism...Are you guys all DEAD????!!! ;)' Not dead, just speechless....stunned...at a loss for words...can't catch my breath.....

Good save, Carolyn. I'll let you live, but only becuase I love you! ;)

Lynn, speaking of the $ for the 6-video set, watch closely. My dearest hubby got me a set for Christmas for a mere $60. He hasn't seen me since.

'Good save, Carolyn. I'll let you live, but only becuase I love you! ;)' Oh Kali! What dreadful death do you envisage for me? and will the punishment fit the crime??? But hang on..... I have nothing to fear.....I must be dead already!

Kali : re 100 : you have no faults of understanding :) underneath my trying to be just, I do agree very much with you

and I'm not afraid of you :)

Johanne: ;) Hilary: GOTCHA!!! ;-P

I really liked the actress who played Jane Fairfax in this EMMA. Has anyone read the Aiken novel, JANE FAIRFAX? Is it any good?

Cindy - thanks for the tip. I will keep watching - I do all the mail for the library, so I usually check all the video catalogs. My DH volunteered to get PP2 for"us" for our anniversary - is that love or what?! My boss is borrowing my tape of Emma, and she loves it so far - she's hasn't seen the Miramax version because she says she doesn't want to see an American trying to do a British accent--I though GP did well with the accent - any British who agree? I agree, that we shouldn't be too hard on MS - he did do well with what he was given.

Mrs. Elton's accent in the new Emma is far more annoying than Paltrow's in the Miramax Emma. Even the Brits said Paltrow did a good job with it. I agree with the person who said it sounded as though Mrs. E. was a Brit trying to fake an American accent.

I watched the whole thing again last night, and I think I'm now convinced that the biggest problems I have are with the choice of scenes - whether that be the screenplay or the editing, I don't know. Of course Knightley comes off negatively, all the time he's chastising Emma and we rarely get to see him doing anything else. We spent sooo much time with her and her annoying little Frank. I thought we should see her spending a lot more time with Harriet, and her dad. The chicken theives, the dream sequences (tho' too sappy), even Mr. Knightley's rantings, wouldn't have been such a waste of time if we'd have had more time (like 4 more hoours, maybe?)

'Gotcha' What did you catch Kali?

You REACTED, Hil...that's all I wanted! ;)

Evelyn....what character do you think she played in Anne of Green Gables? The only dark haired girl I remember really is Diana...is it her?

I have now watched Emma3 for the second time (it was a busy week and this was my first chance) and I have changed most of my opinions. First, Mark Strong has now earned my ardent support. I originally thought he was a little too strident, but in watching it again, the only scene where I really felt he went over the top was when he was so upset about Frank going to London to get his hair cut. In the context of the film, Knightley was unhappy because he had cancelled an appointment to meet Frank and the atter could not be bothered to show up because of a haircut. I have to admit that Strong's portrayal in that scene was very un-Knightley-like. However, in other scenes, his actions were appropriate and not inconsistent with the book. When he does come on somewhat strong (no pun intended), it is generally because he is disgusted with someone's lack of manners. In the scene where Knightley tells Mrs. Weston that he'd like to see Emma "in love and in some doubt of a return -- it would do her some good," I interpreted this as his wanting Emma to feel the effects her actions had had on Robert Martin, and not any reflections of his own feelings, which I don't think he had realized at that point. He simply wants her to become more aware of others. In the ensuing scene, when Isabella and John Knightley are visiting and Emma is holding her namesake, Knightley and Emma share many looks across the room and he tells her he once held her like that, breaking the ice between them. Knightley also shows a lighter side of his personality in playing with his brother's children. I felt this showed their relationship, and how long it had been in being established. Also, when Knightley helps Emma out of her carriage at the ball, they banter together playfully nd their affection is clear. Later at the ball, Emma is dancing with Frank and catches Knightley's eye and gives him a big smile which he doesn't return -- her own quickly dies. At Box Hill, even while he is berating Emma, Knightley reaches in the carriage and arranges her seat. As for Emma and the lack of comedy felt by many, I thought the dream sequences perfectly fit her matchmaking character. Since she was so sure of her skill and delighted in imagining its results, it was not unreasonable to assume she would daydream about her schemes either being very successful or quite the opposite. I really love when she is daydreaming about Knightley's proposal and her acceptance, and she remembers Harriet with a start: "Oh lord, Harriet!" This is perfectly in keeping with Emma's de ree of self-absorption. I particularly liked the scene where she is in the village with Harriet, and Miss Bates calls out the window to let Emma know that Jane Fairfax is there. Emma quietly groans to Harriet, "Oh lord, Miss Bates!" and then when told that Jane will be delighted to see her, says with full smile and clenched teeth, "I doubt it!" However, I felt Emma went out of her way to disagree with the disparaging comments Frank makes about Jane as a cover. She doesn't agree with any of them, and actually tries to stick up for Jane. I felt the proposal scene was much closer to the feeling of the book than previous versions. I love how Emma wants to run away when she sees Knightley coming, but instead turns away only long enough to compose herself and then turns back with a ghastly attempt at a smile. One of my favorite lines has always been, "you have borne it as no other woman in England would have borne it." In Emma2, I was so disappointed in how they changed that line to make it more politically correct. Here it is done as in t e book, and their kiss, even if out of place, at least is more appropriate. When he tells her that he held her in his arms when she was three weeks old, I felt that he was telling her he had loved her all his life in one form or another. I liked her asking, "Do you like me as well as you did then?" Of course he does, but in a totally different way. I'm sorry for such a long post, but I was really enthusiastic upon my second viewing. Anybody else have a change of heart?

Susan -- what a wonderful analysis of your second viewing. I liked it better the second time as well, but I do not believe I could express myself with such clarity. Another scene which shows Knightley's range of emotions is when Mrs Elton is telling him she would have been glad to arrange the party at Donwell for him. His sly smile and side glances at Emma are quite amusing, and Mrs E does not have a clue.

Susan Christie: Wonderful analysis, nicely done indeed! Good to hear from another MS supporter and one far more articulate than myself. I liked JN in Emma2 (especially during the picnic and proposal scenes)but prefer MS. Here's a question to ponder-- what if JN was in Emma3 and MS in Emma2? How would it have changed the overall feel of the movies? Would you still feel the same way about the actors?

] what if JN was in Emma3 and MS in Emma2? How would it have changed the overall feel of the movies? __ Great question!

I think that my dream Emma would be the screenplay from Emma2 with the cast (except Frank, he makes me squinch my nose) from Emma3. i like KB in this better than GP. After just watching 3 again, I prefer (blasphemy, I know) MS to JN as Knightley. Harriet, Miss Bates, Mr. Woodhouse, John Knightley, the Eltons, - really the whole cast. Okay, I admit it, it's just been soo long since I saw 2 that I could just be disappointed with 3's weak points But, as wonderful as JN is, there are a few places where I feel ga-ga about the appearance of 3's MS: the exchange with Mrs. Elton about trusting only MRS. Knightley to arrange things at Donwell, the brown coat/hat look wonderful with those light brown eyes!

#119 I prefer (blasphemy, I know) MS to JN as Knightley. Oh, Cindy, me too! I know there a lot of big JN fans on here, but for some reason, he just leaves me cold. Glad to know I'm not alone. Also, JN and GP were about the same height, and they never seemed "right" to me as a couple. Knightley is referred to several times in the book as being tall, and JN is just not that tall, nor would he appear so even with a shorter actress. Petty, I know, but there it is. I thought Mark Strong and Kate Beckinsale did a very good job, they looked "right" together, and I was also very glad to finally see a dark-haired Emma. Rightly or wrongly, I've always pictured her that way.

Susan, my sister, thank you!!!!!!!

HMM JN in EMMA3, that is a good question. AS you all know, I've converted to Northanism and although I think Davies' sreenplay was inferior to Doug Mcgrath's version(Emma is supposed to be fall down funny at times. I don't think I laughed once.), I'm sure JN would have still entranced and captivated me. For many of us he is Jeremy KNightley. I think JN hit on the key to understanding MR KNightley-his romantic reticence. In the course of the book, he has to come to terms with his changing feelings for Emma with the arrival of Frank Churchill and the threat he presents. Just as Emma has to confront her blidness. This struggle is best exemplified by the dance scene in EMMA2-the whom are you going to with and brother and sister-indeed we are not:The dance is the first time he allows himself to show his true feelings for Emma.Personally, MS threw away this crucial line in the same scene in EMMA3. JN's is the definitive reading, so vulnerable, tentative-as if he were afraid she was going to refuse him. Then, wit a very strong, assertive emphasis on the indeed we are not. As for the proposal scene-the scene in Emma2 was the way I had always imagined it. I hated that there was no mention of the trip to London and the ride through the rain, the torture of seeing Isabella. And of course-the you are now my MR knightley speech. Watching the movie, I felt the same way I had when I read the book. The wonderful awkwardness of the first meeting(Emma is afraid he's going to marry Harriet) and the exultant declarations of love. The staging of the scene was also superior with the "do not speak it" speech, followed by the close-up of Jeremy's longing, suffering face(compare his reaction to MS's-JN really looked like she had given him pain). IN comparison, the proposal scene in EMMA3 seemed too rushed, contrived, even false. As i've said, KB and MS had no chemistry/sparks. Granted JN was blessed with a wonderful, charming script which for me, captured the champagne effervescence of the book. But again, the difference for me betwee JN and MS is not a matter of looks or manners, but the subtle voice inflections, engaging looks, charm, and vulnerability he brought to the Mr KNightley role.

okay, okay, I admit, utterly and completely, that JN and NOT MS had the proper inflection, nay the perfect inflection, combined with the facial expression, on the No, indeed. But I think that may be the only place I can think of where I prefer JN

OH SUSAN-JN and GP had to be one of the most charismatic couples I have seen on the screen in years!!! The pianoforte scene immediately comes to mind-doesn't she play marvelously? The sparks were flying from the moment of Jeremy KNightley's arrival at Hartfield-who cried the most at the wedding? Just as in the book, you knew they were perfectly matched from the start. The fun is how they will find their way to each other. I know everyone thinks I'm gaining up ON MS(believe me I disliked other things-the script-the leaving out of certain beloved scenes-Harriet Smith's treasures), but he never made the leap from indifferent lover to a man who rode all the way from London in the rain to see how his dearest, beloved Emma was bearing the FC news.

The only place-what about his EMMA! You wrote her answer didn't you? Or, Mr Elton may talk sentimentally, but he will talk rationally. Or better yet-Badly Done, Emma. BAdly DOne.(the second rendered in a tortured whisper) JN never ceases to amaze me with his varying, endearing expressions and witty, interpretations of lines. HE makes MS seem all the more one-dimensional and angry.

I like both versions -- by the 7th viewing, Emma2 had grown quite comfortable for me, even the badly cast parts. By the second viewing, Emma3 is making its own warm spot in my heart as well, and is likely to seem better and better with additional replays. Always difficult to imagine a different actor in a movie, especially when (s)he has acted the same role in another version. Casting-wise, I still think MS & KB were best for Mr Knightley & Emma, but a little of the lightness of the McGrath script or some additional scenes or maybe just a slower pace would have been nice. Anyway, as soon as the video comes on the market for Emma2 I shall purchase it so I can split my Emma viewing time. Neither of these versions (nor Emma1 for that matter) is perfect. The novel is the only perfect version of the story, after all! :-)

The one thing we all agree on, however, is that we all love Mr. Knightley, the character -- and in the end, isn't that what's most important?

I don't know about anyone else, but I loved Mr. Knightly more in the Miramax production. ;-)

Oh yes, indeed, if polyandry were allowed I believe I should want to marry Mr Darcy & Mr Knightley both! (But, Pemberley is probably a long distance from Donwell Abbey -- more than 50 miles of a good road I would suppose.)

Once again, I agree with Cassandra. I did like Mark Strong's performance, though I believe his portrayal was too angry and one-dimensional to be perfectly in tune with my impressions of the novel. In any production, Jeremy Northam would have been an asset, as he shows the depth and development of Knightley's character while at the same time providing enough interaction for the development of Emma's (it could be said that Knightley's sole purpose in the book is to wake Emma up, rather than to stand as a haracter in his own right, though I couldn't agree with that). His Knightley has a certain sweetness about him, and a sense of humor, which I think is crucial to understanding how he could, for so long, deal with her iniquities and yet still respect and love her. I've always viewed Mr. Knightley as a complete and magnanimous person - a friend and confidant to the heroine, who has willingly and quietly given her all the moral support she has needed and deserved throughout her life. He is not simply a stern father figure, and he does not allow personal desires to overwhelmingly color his interactions with her. Strong's Knightley doesn't interact with Emma, he reacts to her - bitterly, even selfishly - and then pulls away from her, which makes it difficult for me to understand how they could have ever established amicable, let alone fraternal or romantic, feelings for eachother. Both the love-attraction and parental concern are there in his portrayal, but to backward extremes! Strong's Knightley is intensely and overtly jealous, and his "parental" anger, even, is bitterly infused with sexual tension. Knightley's parental concern should be tender, not spiteful (Strong's read of the line about Emma being in love with some doubt of its return, for example). No tham's Knightley utilizes and entire range of roles/reactions/"tools" in his dealings with Emma - he humors her, he laughs at her, he reprimands her, he encourages her, &c. - but he always stands by her, as a sort of silent, benevolent sentinel (remember how JN watches her reaction sduring the pianoforte scene at the Coles'? And in the book, when Knightley goes to sit with her? What a great guy!). Even his distrust and dislike of Frank is ultimately more out of fear that Emma will be hurt or that her g odness will be altered for the worse, in concordance with the Knightley in the novel, than out of his own jealousy. In short, Mr. Knightley is a giving person, so secure with himself and with the world that he can give of himself and share his resources with others (lending his use of the carriage to the Bateses, dancing with Harriet at the ball and talking with her at the Donwell Strawberry outing, dealing daily with Mr. Woodhouse, &c., &c., &c.) without dumping upon others the inner torment he may be eeling. I, too, prefer the McGrath screenplay, though I did miss the alphabets scene. Add that, and a bit more attention to Frank and Jane, and you have as close to a perfect 2-hr screenplay for Emma as you can get. Having said that, it's also important to note, for Northam's sake, that even without that scene, his Knightley is still sufficiently aware and involved to suspect Frank's motives without appearing jealous and small. What's more, Strong managed to play the scene with nearly enough fire to convince me that his reactions were out of pure spite. Emma2's screenplay catches the lightness of tone without losing too much of the plot...and even with some of the embellishments (as in the proposal scene, which I loved), you have a touching and believeable version of the story. I, too, read the film review in which the reviewer likens the Persuasion adaptation to a shot of brandy, S&S to a glass or red wine, and Emma2 to a glass of champagne, and I agree. Emma has bite, but it should be light, optimistic, and pleasant-tasting at the same time. As far as Gwyneth Paltrow, I didn't know what to expect, so I expected nothing. I was pleasantly surprised. As I stated before, perhaps her portrayal was too syrupy (to quote Mr. Darcy, "she smiles too much."), but even then, her take is not beyond the realm of appropriateness. Her Emma is sweet, impulsive, charming, intelligent, capable, self-assured, and well-meaning, which certainly fits Austen's creation. She is certainly not the definitive Emma, but then again, neither is Beckinsale (too egotisti ally self-absorbed, even bitchy). Given that the book leaves so much to the imagination, I'm tempted to say (like Kathleen) that there will never be a definitive portrayal of any of the characters (except maybe Jeremy's of Knightley).

If I could have only one, I would choose Mr. Knightley. Mr. Darcy was my first literary love, and I will always have a perverse fascination with Frank Churchill, but Mr. Knightley will always be number one with me.

Perhaps our problem is not with MS as an actor, or even what he did with the role, but the direction? Just a thought... One thing that they don't quite say in Emma3 is that it was a big concession for Mr. Knightly to move to hartfield. Emma really does say that she can't marry him because she can't leave her father. In those day, a man NEVER left his home to go to his wifes, at least a man in Mr. Knightly's position. I love the scene when Mr. Knightly says that no one but Mrs. Knightly will beallowed to invite whomever she wishes to Donwell. Mrs. Elton assumes that because she is the recent bride, that everything is done for her. She forgets her real place in the community as the vicar's wife (which in those days was an important role, but not quite on the same level as Mr. K.). I am so glad they made more of the whole Jane Fairfax thing in this one...Emma realizes that she herself really is not as accomplished as she could or should be.

I'm going to throw this in here, since I seem to be spending a lot of time here, anyway. Also, I think somebody before mentioned having trouble with Emma's "we're alone at night" (HOW COULD SHE HAVE POSSIBLY SAID THAT?!?!) as contrasted with not even one little kiss for Darcy/Lizzie before the final scene. Also, I thought I might ought to put it in "Has anyone noticed...", but that seems full of sean Connery pseudo-drool, so I'll go to it at long last: I'm sure this was discussed and put to bed long ago BC, esp. since I'm a relative new-comer, but didn't he lean down and kiss her during their walk? I swear he's doing that right after the "dearest, loveliest Elizabeth", but then the scene just cuts to more of their walking down the lane. I'm left so unfulfilled!!!

I hear you, Lynn...rich and clever she may be, "but she will never submit to anything requiring industry and patience, and a subjection of the fancy to the understanding." I love that line! Yes, Emma certainly does have a long way to go, but I think both recent adaptations showed that. I don't think Mark Strong's PROBLEM (if it really is one) lies in a lack of talent, understanding, or good direction...rather, it lies in a neglectful script! If you go straight by the text, Strong's portrayal wasn' t really "wrong," but it does heavily accent the negativity in Mr. Knightley's character. There are a few friendly moments, and he plays them well, but they are so few and brief you barely notice them! This is because Davies seems to highlight scenes of anger (or scenes which can potential y be played angrily), and then ignores other points of character (including other characters' descriptions of Mr. Knightley's kindness, &c.).

YES! I still think I want the 3 cast in the 2 production

It is almost as if the Emma3 people went to see Emma2 and made a list of all the things that production did, then set out to do the opposite. Blonde Emma/Brunette Emma. Handsome Knightley/Not-so-handsome Knightley. Light and fluffy script/dark and brooding script. No chicken thieves/chicken thieves. Charming Knightley/Angry Knightley.

Tempting generalizations, Ann...

Lynn makes a good point about the importance of the director in influencing the actors' performances. We can't ever know how much of what we're seeing originated with the actors and how much with the director. It was my impression, while watching Emma3, that the direction was poor, but I'm not expert enough in these matters to be able to state that with any confidence. But I was interested to hear that Myretta's actress friend thought the same thing. For what it's worth, I though that JN was the perfect Mr. Knightley (and I'm a non-drooler on the Northam front), but I agree with those who have said that he was too young and too small in relation to GP.

Too young and too small????? Those are pretty shallow objections. NOr, do I agree with them. JN is 35, that's not much of a stretch, especially given the nuance and charm he brought to the Mr KNightley role. As FOR JN And GP, I thought they looked wonderful together-his striking, dark good looks and her Grace Kelly-esque features. Moreover, one of my biggest objections to Emma3(and yes-I'm willing to admit that it wasn't just MS's fault or inabilities. It had a lot to do with Andrew Davies' humourless script) was the way they presented the KNightley/Emma relationship. For most of the movie, he was always angry at her-no burst of true affection or feeling. I like what KAli said-JN was MR Knightley-the complete man: He humors her, argues with her, and above all stands by her!! And I hated KB saying that she had always favoured FC as husband. Overall, I didn't believe KB's-I love you-I think I always have. As I've said, one of things I love most about the book is Emma's road from blindness to realization that she loves Mr KNightley. There are so many subtle hints in the book-I remeber one part when Emma and Harriet are talking and Emma can remember exactly where Mr KNightley was sitting-what he said. Personally, EMMA2, as a result of the screenplay and the actor's performances(I've already said enough of my admiration for JN's subtle voice inf ections and expressions. And as for GP-she wasn't perfeect, but she surprised me too) best captured the spirit of the Emma/Knightley romance. Again, I agree with KAli-For me, JN is the definitive Mr KNightley. NO adaptation of a beloved novel is going to be completely faithful or perfect. Even P&P2-I would have liked to see Lizzy tell Mrs B that she is going to marry Mr Darcy, or ask Mr Darcy when he fell in love with her. As for Emma2-Granted, more Frank and Jane would have been desirable, and the blunder scene. Still, for a two-hour movie, Emma2 came pretty close. I think JN once again deserves praise for conveying so much in terms of his bod language and interpretation of Mcgrath's wiity script. Watch/listen to his reading of the "badly done Emma" and "this is not pleasnt for me, but I must tell you the truths while I can." He's the genuine Mr KNightley: HE's concerned, vulnerable, angered by the treatment of Miss Bates(but more that Emma is under FC's influence) and passionately in love with Emma, fearful that she will be hurt.

Shallow considerations...very true, Cass...yet another instance of alternative realities! I don't mean to degrade anyone's opinions, but the general dislike of Emma2 seems to be of a most curious and invidious nature, and I must comment upon it! Maybe I'm oversensitive, having allowed this to build up for several months now. Maybe I'm magnifying the issue. But for some reason, there is a sizeable group out there which seems unnecessarily harsh on Jeremy's Knightley/Gwyneth Paltrow/Emma2...for whatever reasons: The production is too light. It mangles the plot. It leaves stuff out. The actors are all wrong. More often than not, the considerations expressed are certainly not grounds for resounding negativity regarding the entirety of the production. (Remember, this isn't a five-hour P&P2 clone, and Emma is not the heaviest Austen book known to man.) But even those complaints don't bother me that much. It's the actor-bashing that bugs most! Northam is lucky enough to serve as the focus for most of the complaints about this production. But not one of the detractors has had a thing to say about his actual performance - rather, it's his looks, his age, his height, &c. On Austen-L, one woman even criticized his performance on the basis that he was too much of a "pretty boy." Incidentally, Cass and I, and several others, appreciate the fact that he ISN'T a prettyboy. What's up here? Are we all living of different planets or something? And poor Gwyneth! She's not the definitive Emma, but she's certainly a great one! So what if she's a tall girl? Was Emma specifically a shorty? Too often, it seems that we get carried away with our own images and impressions from the novel, and forget to preface our comments with that fact. Even more importantly, we seem to get caught up in near-irrelevancies and thereby ignore some of the more positive and redeeming qualities of the actors/performances/scripts/entire productions. Again, this isn't directed at anyone in particular, and I understand why some people might not be perfectly satisfied with Emma2 or its actors...but for Pete's sake, can we refrain from getting carried away with certain inadequacies which aren't blatant sacrelidge?

Let me be the first to say that I thoroughly enjoyed all the Emma adaptations, E2 included. I intend to watch it again when the video is available and maybe my opinions will change somewhat, just as they did with a second viewing of E3. People's tastes being so different, I think it is miraculous that we all totally agree CF is the definitive Darcy. It could be that there will never be a consensus on the definitive Knightley (makes me love him all the more that he's indefinable!), but it doesn't mar my njoyment of any Emma adaptation. I've also enjoyed the discussions here about why people like one adaptation better than another. It's just fun to be discussing it, period -- there's only one person in my 'real life' who even knows or cares what I'm talking about!

Only seeing Emma2 once, I can see the difference in the script and directing. It is lighter and much more romantic. The comedy was between the people Emma and Herriot, Emma and her father, Emma and Mr. Knightly ect. Which overall makes for a much better movie. In Emma 3 the comedy was Emma's daydreaming scenes which were funny, but not enough to be called a comedy. While watching the proposal scene(Emma3)I found myself losing interest. JN is not a "pretty boy" ,but a very good (handsome) actor and is a very effective kisser. I did read somewhere that GP said he was a very nice "man". I have watched the trailer (and the kiss and archery scene are on the trailer) I download from the Miramax site and it brings out many happy feelings which are better then anger.It is definitely what he does with facial expressions and his voice. GP and JN version will have a wider appeal for all age groups. I can't wait for the video.

Linda....My own sister may have lead me astray in believing Jane in Emma3 was in Anne of Green Gables. She said that Jane was the shop clerk character (of whom I have no memory). I fixed in my mind a character that I now have found out to be in Road to Avonlea named Olivia! When it is a more reasonable hour, I will check with my sister to find out who she thought Jane was in Anne of Green Gables/Road to Avonlea. As to the JN/MS debate, I have to agree with those that feel that JN was much more enjoyable to watch. As others have noted, MS's lesser performance is due in part to the way Birtwistle and Davies decided to film Emma3. It may have been more faithful to the novel that Knightly was not especially tender, but it does not make for very good romance, much less comedy, for Knightly to be so rigid and angry all the time. Yet, all in all, JN did a better acting job and it does not hurt that he's quite the han some, young man. I found that the memory of JN (and to a lesser degree, GP) really distracted me and kept me from enjoying Emma3 as much as I would otherwise have done.

In the book, it is written that Mr. Knightley "had a cheerful manner, which always did him good." And at the ball, Emma notes how handsome and youthful he looks...and how Frank is the only man in Highbury who rivals him. So there we have it. He's not crotchety, nor is he old. He's also a friendly, giving guy - which is backed by numerous little details about his kindness and attention to the feelings of others.

I want to voice my praise for our new Harriet! She did so well with her expressions, esp. in the scenes when she's trying to make up her mind: "I'm now quite determined, yes, I'm sure" to refuse Robert Martin, the "yes, ...yes" to compose herself when calling on the Martins, eeven her delivery of the explanation (to Emma) of her engagement "Mr. Knightley encouraged him, he is so good". I don't recall the 2 Harriet being quite so endearing. One other place I really do chuckle is at Mrs. Elton's face after Knightley refuses her help as Lady Patroness. It's classic

The new Harriet was so convincing as a vapid thing that I wonder how she will play Jane Eyre. Or am I mistaken or did I dream somebody said she would play Jane in the new CH JE?

No dream. I am quite sure she was Jane in the promos shown during Emma.

I cast my vote for JN in the JN vs. MS debate. I thought he encapsulated the image of "a true gentleman" more. It's funny, I didn't like Emma 2 that much when I first saw it, but Emma 3 is making me look on it more favorably. The lightness of tone might have gotten silly at times, but at least there was the effort to preserve some of Austen's comedy. And I too thought that Gwyneth did great, considering that she's not English & this was her first "classical" film role, as far as I know.

reg. #145: Again, I agree, Kali. I have never understood this perception of Mr Knightley as less dashing than Mr Darcy: this perpetual elder(much emphais on elder) brother figure. It's clearly stated in the book that there are not one and a hundred men with gentlemen plainly written across them. And I love the dance scene. Emma is most disturbed by the fact that he is not dancing "so young as he looked". "He moved a few steps nearer....proved how gentlemenlike a manner, with what natural grace, he must ha e danced, would he take the trouble." This description certainly fits JN. I agree one of the biggest weaknesses with the DAvies' script is that for most of the film, we never see Mr KNightely doing anything, except blankly staring,(maybe Davies has become condescending with success-throw in a DArcy-like stare for the masses. I wonder if he's even read the book) or shrieking. Mr Knightley is above-all a gentlemen who thinks surprises never enhance enjoyment but considerably increase inconvenience;he lends his carriage to the Bates, gives them his store-apples, and rescues HArrie at the ball. I thought it was a brilliant touch on Mcgrath's part that it is Mr KNightley who is the first to speak after Miss BAtes' humiliation, asking her to take a turn with him. As for the supposed lightness of Emma2, Emma is not Tolstoy. It's the story of a girl who has rather too much her own way and thinks a little too well of herself. NOr, do I understand the view that they somehow perverted the plot.With the exception of the blunder scene and the Donwell strawberry party, most of the major scenes/dialogue are intact. Personally, they did a much better job with Emma's matchmaking-especially the inclusion of the scene in Emma2 when she bends to fix her shoe, thus leaving Harri t and Mr E alone. As for GP, the more I saw KB, the more impressed I became with her performance. She was charming, intelligent, even touching(especially the No one must marry Mr KNightley but me scene), perfectly capturing the faultless in spite of her faults theme. And I am going to go against the opinion here and argue that I preferred Toni Collette's Harriet. She's a brilliant actress/comedian who fit description of a girl who fell in love with three men in one year. In particular, I thought she was wonderful/hysterica when she runs into Mr MArtin and sister at the store.

See, Amy2? We never really were in disagreement...;)

Cindy (#146): I want to voice my praise for our new Harriet! According to The Making of Emma book, Samantha Morton (Harriet) was only 18 when they filmed Emma. Very talented, indeed, as well as looking the part. As for Mr Strong's portrayal of Mr Knightley, the actor himself says, "At this point I worried that, because I was always having a go at Emma, the audience might not see the love behind it. . . . Jimmy Hazeldine [Mr Weston] said . . . said not to worry, . . . that people don't take that kind of interest in somebody unless they have very strong feelings for them."

Sounds from resp 152, that Mark Strong was aware the script made Knightley appear too harsh on Emma. Before my 2nd viewing of Emma3, I watched Emma1. This I felt would help me get over the fact that Emma3 was hugely less light-hearted than Emma2 and to some extent, that JN or should I say, Jeremy knightley was not playing 'himself' But this was to no avail!! On my umpteen time reading the book, I feel that it was intended to be somewhat more lighthearted than that put across in Emma3. Though Emma2 may ave commercialised it a little to suit a wider audience. Hollywood style comes to mind. But here's how I fare the various adaptations : Emma1 - No chemistry came across between hero and heroine. Way too clinical. Though the minor casting were mostly spot-on. Emma2 - (Watched 3 times) Personally, had me and all my friends and other cinema patrons overwhelmed with the pair from the all the 'hmms' that were expressed. Jeremy just seemed to capture the Jane Austen's cheerful Knightley and from his body language, and always standing visibly in the background, was able to capture his unselfish care for Emma - "whatever the event of this hour's conversation" - regardless of whether she rejected his proposal or accepted, she would be loveliess,dearest Emma. Emma3 - Again, I felt there was no attraction between the two. KB came across a little bitchy and too condesending even towards Mr Woodhouse. Mark Strong's protrayal has already been critised and talked to death. Might watch Emma3 once more to be absolutely sure.

You've all mention so many good points I will simply add. I liked this adaptation but thought the characters & story line were under developed. I was hoping for more of the underlying passion and character depth I appreciated so much in P&P2. It's to bad since this team had the ability to so much with Austen's work. I agree with those of you who liked Mark Strong in the adaptation. I thought had he been able to really to grow the character he would have given Firth & JN a run for their money. I can hardly believe I said that... Will I be forever banished from the drool conference?

"Upset that Jeremy Knightley was not playing himself...he was able to capture his unselfish care for Emma, regardless of whether she rejected his proposal or not..." YES!YES! SERENA! Such is Jeremy's talent and presence that even in those background shots, one cannot keep one's eyes off him. Even without the "blunder puzzle scene", you still sense Mr KNightley's keen powers of insight and observation. Personally, it's his eyes-so eloquent and expressive; you always feel he's actively observing/protecting Emma. I love the bemused, knowing grin on JN's face when Elton sits between them at the Christmas party. This is why I can't fully accept the argument that MS would have been just as effective/charming/warm with the benefit of a lighter/wittier McGrath screeenplay.There's the Darcy factor and then, there's the "JN factor". I'm particularly struck by the Badly Done, Emma scene. MS played it much too venomously for me. Compare it to Jeremy's subtle(again the body language, the eyes and the VOICE-that most eloquent and intimate of human instruments) and multilayered version. I've said a million times how much I admired his secondYou "Badly Done"-so tortured, so concerned. I always felt that Mr KNightley was more pained by this scene than even Emma. You really feel the complete range of emotions. I particularly loved the way he stood back and gently said "this is not pleasant fot me. BUt, I must tell you the truths while I can." Yes, he's angry, but more fearful that his dearest Emma, the sweetest of creatures, will be hurt.

I just ran across this again (I had read it before I saw Emma and forgotten about it) and couldn't resist posting it. It's from a comparison by Bernie of the Darcy factors of Mark Strong in Emma and Rupert Graves in Tenant of Wildfell Hall. Even I, a Mark Strong supporter, wouldn't have said this (other than the perfectly convincing part): Mark Strong is a perfectly convincing Mr. Knightley but he is probably too sweet for viewers who prefer their heroes to indulge in occasional outbreaks of nostril�flaring and boot�thwacking. I guess everyone looks at things differently!

Sorry, I was misleading in the above. Bernie didn't say that; the article she was reading said it.

What about Gwyneth paltrow's reaction during the "badly done" scene? The tortured expression on her face...almost to the point of explosive, dry sobs. Gwyneth's Emma feels from her gut...quite literally, especially in the scene where Harriet admits to Emma her belief that Mr. Knightley is in love with her...GP turns away from her, grasping her stomach, fighting back the tears, and gasps, " Mr. Knightley is the last man in the world who would intentionally give any woman the idea of his feeling more for er than he really does." THAT is the reaction of a girl who has suddenly realized, with the speed of an arrow, that a certain man must marry no one but herself! We need to feel, hot, wrenching thrills in the pits of our stomachs! Kate Beckinsale's reactions are unmemorable...she kind of glares spitefully at Mr. Knightley from the carriage after her scolding at Box Hill, and after listening to Harriet's pipedream, she merely looks surprised and disbelieving (I am, howver, with the waterworks she produce a bit later on...crying on the spot is tough!).

I am casting my vote on the side of Emma3. I thought the casting was right on and appreciated the more subtle portrayal by the actors. I will agree that the romantic treatment of the story in Emma2 makes it very appealing, but it wasn't until I watched Emma3 that the mis-match of actors to their roles was made apparent to me. Just as in P&P2, the actors compliment both their roles and each other. I will not enjoy Emma2 less when I see it again, it has some wonderful scenes. I can't agree that Mark Str ng was a harsh, uncaring Knightley; far from it. Even in the earliest of his scenes, his looks and expression betray his feelings despite what he is saying to Emma. For it is how it says it that gives him away (to me). Like Darcy, he is his own man, responsible for a hugh estate and all that live on it. A man like that has little patience for silliness and the irresponsible. I find I cannot watch my tape enough!

I can't agree that Mark Strong was a harsh, uncaring Knightley; far from it. Even in the earliest of his scenes, his looks and expression betray his feelings despite what he is saying to Emma. For it is how it says it that gives him away (to me). Like Darcy, he is his own man, responsible for a hugh estate and all that live on it. A man like that has little patience for silliness and the irresponsible. I find I cannot watch my tape enough! Thanks for your comments, Mary -- ITA, but we are in the minority, I warn you!

reg. #158: I agree. Gwyneth was just as heartbreaking in the badly done scene and the subsequent scene with Harriet. KB's reaction and subsequent waterworks seem all the more cold and artifical(perhaps the result of glycerine). You really feel her sincere remorse and despair;how "totally ignorant of her own heart" she had been." And the torture that she might lose him. Her acting style was well-suited to Jeremy's. I remember reading that for JN, one of the biggest pleasures in making Emma2 were the spontaneous reac ions/looks they generated, notably in the pianoforte scene. Both JN and GP can convey more emotion/depth than most actors can with pages of dialoque. I really loved the way GP's eyes shone with tears and silent admiration at Mr Jeremy Knightley when he rescued Harriet at the ball. Here really is a girl who is on the verge of discovering who is most dear. Overall, GP's portrayal was much more in keeping with my impression of Emma. I never saw her as "silly or even irresponsible" or cold and unfeeling, like KB. Like Mrs Weston, I see Emma, even with her faults, as an excellent creature-also well-meaning:a good daughter, kind sister.. Her biggest fault-she seems forever doomed to blindness.

Indeed - faultless in spite of her faults, and right 100 times for every wrong!

The phrase "agree to disagree" comes frequently to mind when reading this thread. Did I miss it, or is there indeed not a thread for Emma2? Would it help if we had one?

I'll make one, Susan...we're up for one anyway, when we VirtView it in April...

So, now that there's an Emma2 thread, does that mean we MSers have this bed all to ourselves? (it's a joke, get off my back)

A comment from "The Making of Emma" book (in the screenplay) confirms that Mrs Elton's accent is supposed to have "strong traces of a Bristol accent." From what people in the know around here have said, however, it appears that the actress did not succeed. I thought she did a fine job, otherwise, however.

Looking some more at the screenplay (getting ready for another viewing!), I realize how much I like the scene where Mr Knightley dances w/ Harriet. Emma3 shows him reacting to Mr Elton's rudeness, and it also shows how grateful Harriet is. A very touching scene.

I'm not so sure, Kathleen, that Mrs. Elton didn't succeed! The Bristol accent may be slightly different - to me she sounded slightly west country and lower class, which is what she was supposed to be and sound like. BTW - where did you get your "Making of Emma" book? Did you get it from JA books in Chicago?? I want to get one.

In Behind the Scenes of Emma on A&E online, Mark Strong says: Darcy and Knightley have a similarity in the sense that they're both very brusque. Darcy is proud, where I think Knightley is honest. Strong sees Knightley as "an older brother figure" to Emma and says the character is "responsible for educating Emma. He wants her to be the best person she can be." This is how I've always felt about this story, and this is what I thought he conveyed. The more I watch this version, the more I enjoy it. There were a lot of scenes left out, but not the ones that concerned Emma and Knightley, which of course interest me the most. I think his portrayal and this version overall are very close to the intent of the book and of the period in which it was written as far as how people would really behave. I didn't care for Mrs. Elton the first time through, but appreciated er a great deal more on a second watching. All in all, I'm very pleased.

maybe because of his seriousness as portrayed, I get a very strong(ha) appreciation for his tenderness in the proposal, as his dreams are dashed and then so soon fulfilled Also, the strawberry party in the brown coat and hat (tho' not a big liability, hiding the receding) and those beautiful brown eyes "Perhaps not"

Susan, I believe we're preaching to the choir Okay, finding a use for the chicken theives - provided a quick and easy argument for Emma to use on her dad (we know it took a bit longer than this). Also, it ties the package neatly. I remember an old movie my mom and I used to watch (my dateless Sat. nights). I think it was Anthony Hopkins(or not) playing a younger man having a fling with a married, neglected lady(why do I want to say Ingrid Bergman?). Things move along, the man finds out (or gets suspicious or warned or...), resolves to mend his wa s, Mrs. breaks it off with the young guy (this is where the crying comes in - so verry hard to break off this wonderful, loving relationship), things get much better for Mr. and Mrs., then ends when hubby sinks back into old ways. So beautiful in its symmetry. Chicken theives at beginning, things happen, chicken theives at the end. Okay, granted, it's not the same at all. something, tho'

A few more things, then I promise to shut up at least until I watch it again. First, I don't understand what is lacking in MS's manner when he says "Brother and Sister? Indeed not!" And just before that, when he says "Will you?" when Emma says she'll dance with him if he'll ask her. I thought he seemed very vulnerable on the latter and indignant on the former, just as he should. Also, at Box Hill, I hear his voice nearly break with emotion on the word "indeed" when he says "Badly done, indeed." And ast, when Emma says, "Then don't speak it!", he looks pretty devastated. And yes, Cindy, he looks pretty darn cute in his brown hat and coat. I really like this guy!

I too like this version of Emma and Mark Strong's performance. To give some background on his hair - I read in an English newspaper last summer that he started losing his hair very early, before he was 30 or so, and as a result decided to shave his head a la Yul Brynner. Not sure whether he's still got it that way, but that definitely was a wig - he doesn't have nearly that amount of hair to grow.

Yes, Inko, a friend has seen him in a lot of BBC stuff and says he's real bald. And he does look a little like Andy Garcia as someone mentioned earlier.

Resp. 169 - "There were a lot of scenes left out..his portrayal and this version overall are very close to the intent of the book and of the period in which it was written as far as how people would really behave..." Susan, I agree here, but perhaps if Emma3 had included scenes where only Emma and Knightley were seen together discussing, bantering..afterall he was a frequent visitor at Hartfield, and their characters were allowed to grow, I'm sure Mark Strong's Knightley would have come across, even though he is not Jeremy. But I don't think I can say the same for KB's performance.

BTW - where did you get your "Making of Emma" book? Did you get it from JA books in Chicago?? I want to get one. I got my copy of "The Making of Jane Austen's Emma" through a local bookstore. They have a student helper who has a friend who works in a bookstore in Dublin, Ireland (I believe) -- that's how I got my copy of The Making of P&P, BTW. The ISBN number is 0-14-026141-9. The cast pictures show a very short haircut for Mark Strong, and a heavily receded hairline. But I agree that his eyes are marvelous -- so large and dark and deep. I have grown to like his performance more and more. I also liked the way this adaptation presented Mr Elton -- less henpecked by his wife, and more complicit in the couple's ill bred behavior. They were both jerks, and that showed in this version. Emma's rejection of his proposal was funny, too, as she seemed to shooing off a pesky insect (come to think of it, she was!).

Ladies (and Gentlemen), we have our own Emma3 thread now, and no one's posting to it! Where are all my fellow supporters? I'll start by responding to Kathleen's message above. I do love MS's eyes -- they are gorgeous and luminous; very expressive. And I grow more and more enchanted with his performance, as you do. I reread parts of the book over the last few days and I must say his portrayal was really close to "my" Mr. Knightley. A lot of the dialogue in this production was also verbatim from the book. I, too, really enjoyed Mr. Elton in this production, although I cannot say I saw the resemblance between him and CF that others did. He did seem to be more a part of Mrs. Elton's illbred behavior in this version; the others seem to cast him more as condoning, not abetting, her behavior. Last, this is not an attack on Emma2, so please don't anyone take it that way, but I look on it as more of a "Hollywood," Americanized production of a British novel. It was not a "bad" adaptation -- it had lots of good points and I will watch it again with pleasure, but I think the British productions are better able to create the feel of the books, as Emma3 did. Now -- that should be enough fodder for all sorts of comments, both pro and con!

Susan, I'm so glad you posted that. I agree with you. I just got a copy of Emma 3 (new, on sale at Border's)and am looking forward to watching a "clean" version of it. I also thought it stayed truer to the book, but, on the other hand, I've only seen Emma2 once in the theatre, so all real comparisons will have to wait till the video of Emma2 is available. But when I saw it my reaction, on coming out of the theatre, was that it was a very pretty lot of vignettes without too much cohesion to them. I missed having nearly nothing of Mr. Woodhouse; certainly they omitted his funny and annoying talk of food that's good for you and draughts, and general illnesses, etc. I also didn't see the similarity between Mr. Elton and CF. Emma3's Mr. Elton wasn't as slimy as Emma2's, but equally obnoxious if not more so. More to come when I can watch one tape right after the other! (Between watching P&P over and over, that is!)

Susan -- thank you for restarting us. After rewatching a few more times, I have found even more things that I like! I think you may have verbalized the different reactions I was having to Emma3 vs Emma2 (I tried to explain myself to an English professor, and I could not -- he has not yet watched Emma3, but loved Emma2). In any adaptation, the scriptwriter adds/deletes. The Emma3 lines about "But we are alone at night" would of course not have been part of JA's novel. But I love the look Emma & Knightley give each other right after she says this to her father. Another scene that was spot on in agreement with the novel was when Mr Knightley takes leave before going to London. He finds out that Emma has been to visit Miss Bates, and Emma's expression makes it clear that it's because of his opinion. He takes her hand and almost starts to raise it to his lips. This has always been a powerful scene in the book for me, and I think they did it just right. The actors' expressions are wonderful. [Susan, if necessary, we can carry on a small fan club discussion by ourselves!]

Since you invited opposing arguments....... Overall, I really respect and enjoy the differing views presented here. I love to debate. However, I hate how much of the criticism directed at Emma2 tends to be of a largely superficial nature-"the Hollywood-Americanized" argument. Or as KAli pointed out, a lot of the criticism is vented at the actors-GP being an American actress and JN is often criticized largely because of his youth and good looks. Since we have already exhausted much of the JN/MS debate, I'll just focus for a moment on GP. Firstly, ev n the Brits admitted that her accent was good, almost flawless in fact. Julia Roberts-GP is not. More importantly, she gave a wonderful, charming, touching performance. As I've said, her Emma was much more in keeping with my overall impressions and "the faultless in spite of her faults" theme. As for EMMA2, itself: Yes-It was directed and the written by an American, Doug McGrath. And personally, he did a helluva job, capturing(IMO) the spirit of the book. He is a brilliant, witty screen-writer. Bullets over Broadway immediately comes to mind-"don't speak!". My point, then, is that he should be judged on the basis of his work, not because he's an American. Overall, I think it's a gross generalization to say that the Brits are better able to capture the feel/look of these novels. After all, it was a British actress who won the most coveted role in Hollywood, making the most convincing of southern belles.

Kathleen, Susan, please don't leave me out of your little (the emphasis seems to be on little) fan club. I still consider myself to be a staunch Emma3er. I won't be getting my video for another couple of weeks, based on the schedule when ordered. Gosh, it'll be nice not to have to ff through all those commercials! It will be nice to do a truly direct comparison once 2 is released, but I don't anticipate a huge change of opinion.

Cassandra -- I am sorry you took Susan and my comments as criticisms of Emma2. I certainly did not mean it in any negative way. I was trying to verbalize my reactions to the two adaptations. I very much liked both of them -- I saw Emma2 seven times in three weeks. Your opinion is that Emma2 better captured the spirit of the book, and my opinion is that Emma3 did. They neither of them presented the whole story, of course, and I simply reread the novel for that. Anyway, I hope that we can discuss Emma3 without getting into a debate about which is the better adaptation -- I for one cannot say which is better, only what I prefer about each. (The only JA adaptation which I cannot bring myself to rewatch is the Olivier/Garson P&P.) Friends? :-)