Emma (1967) 
Emma (BBC – 1972)
Emma (1996) 
Emma (A&E – 1996) 
Emma (2020) 
Clueless (1995)
Emma Woodhouse, a child of privilege, is so proud of her successful matchmaking of her ex-nanny to respectable Mr. Weston, and lonely without her company, that she sets out to find a new friend, and seek a match for her. She adopts Harriet Smith, a girl of lesser birth, as her next project, and chooses for her the parson, Mr. Elton, ignoring the girl’s interest in a simple farmer. This infuriates Mr. Knightley, an old and close friend of the family and the lord of the manor. In tutoring Harriet on the fine arts of high society, Emma and Harriet frequently go on visits to the poor and infirm, often encountering Miss Bates, a nearly senile old maid whose beautiful and accomplished, but overly secretive niece, Jane Fairfax, comes to stay with her. With her plans going less than smoothly, Emma is distracted by the arrival of Frank Churchill, a charming man who immediately shows an interest in her. It is just a matter of time before relationships are formed, secrets are revealed, and even Emma’s hypochondriac father is as contented as he can be.
There is a similarity between all the stories of Jane Austen. Narrowing our focus, both Emma and Pride and Prejudice follow a strong-willed, witty, single, young woman dealing with questions of marriage and social position Her world is that of the lesser rich, wealthy, and obscenely opulent; even those who are greeted with sympathy for their humble state have servants. The most powerful man in the area is romantically interested in her, but prejudices, pride, and misunderstandings stand in the way of a happy resolution. She must also deal with an absurd parent and the advances of an inappropriate suitor. Then a tall, dark, and handsome stranger comes to town, a man that is not what he appears to be and has a number of secrets. He befriends our heroine, much to the distress of the lord of the manor. The details of who will marry whom are worked out at a series of dinner parties, dances, carriage rides, and daytime visits, with very little passion and absolutely no eroticism. Certainly the two works have major differences, but they have more in common than not.
The largest difference is in tone. Pride and Prejudice is a cross between a romantic drama and a satiric comedy (as is Sense and Sensibility though perhaps “dramady” is a better word in that case). Emma is satire first, comedy second, with romance being a very distant third. It reveals an idle and self-absorbed upper class where the greatest tragedy is not being asked to dance, and society is structured to give women no choices and men few, and almost no one can see that the world needs to change. The workers go completely unnoticed and must slavishly answer to the whim of people who are incapable of taking care of themselves. While Pride and Prejudice has a few farcical characters for comic relief, everyone in Emma is ludicrous to some degree. For some it is shown in everything they say or do; Emma’s father bemoans the poor state of anyone getting married or having a baby as it is bound to give them a severe chill. For others, like Emma herself, it is most evident in an over inflated manor of speaking. It is hard to find a line that isn’t ironic. This makes Emma a much lighter viewing experience.
The trick with any adaptation is to make the humor shine, and to make Emma likable. The first can be difficult because there is plenty of droll dialog, but little that’s laugh-out-loud funny. The second is even harder due to Emma’s numerous flaws. Austen thought that no one would like Emma except Austen herself. After all, the character is vain, prejudiced, simplistic, domineering, shortsighted, and a busybody on a massive scale. But then everyone in the story shares at least one of those traits, and often to a much greater degree. Do you have to like Emma to like the story? Yes, but that doesn’t mean she as to become a good person. You can like her because she would never purposely harm anyone, or you can just find her so compelling that you’d happily bring the shovel to bury the bodies.
There is also the issue that most of the adaptations want Emma to be more of a romance than it is. This requires a bit of work. New scenes and lines could be added, but thankfully it’s generally realized that you shouldn’t mess with Jane Austen that much. So it is a matter of how lines are delivered, how scenes are shot, how the actors gaze at each other, how the lighting strikes them, and often, how they dance.
Emma (1967) – Lola Cardona/Arturo LĂłpez
As Jane Austenâs works are so very English, it is odd to start with a Spanish take on the material. But, while there were multiple earlier TV adaptations of Emma, both British and American, none are available or even still exist, making this Spanish-language miniseries the earliest version that exists.
This one gains little from the format as each of the five episodes is only 27 minutes long, so the whole is less than an half an hour longer than the theatrical versions. That means a good deal of cutting was necessary. The Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax subplot is sliced to the bone, but then everything is simplified. There are a lot of âAs you know Bobâ sentences, both in who everyone is, and what they want done. âMr. Knghtley is like family so comes over often as his brother is married to your elder daughter.â Emmaâs friendship with Harriet has nothing to do with her own loneliness, but is solely about getting her married to Mr. Elton, and all of their early conversations are related to that. Nor is anything impliedâitâs stated. Everything happens quickly, clearly (too clearly), and on top of each other.
They also happen in only a few locations. Money is limited, so Hartfield has one room. Randalls similarly contains only one room, and it looks like the same room, redressed. There are no carriages, so the famous Elton and Emma carriage scene takes place at Randalls. The streets are very simple sets that have little resemblance to anything outdoors. It looks very much like a stage performance.
The title character is beautiful and in many ways softened, while simultaneously being the most imperial of any adaptation; I wonder if Gwyneth Paltrow studied her. Her first sighting of Harriet is particularly noteworthy as it would not need to be altered for a vampire film, with her predatory smile and absolute command. More often I think of Emma as pleasantly manipulating; Here she is more forceful.
The rest of the cast is passable if little more. This is, perhaps, the prettiest Mrs. Elton, more so than Jane Fairfax, which I donât think is fitting. Harriet is perpetually moping, which is an odd choice.
For the romance of Emma and Mr. Knightley, they have de-aged him 4 years, and while not aging-up Emma in the script, the actress is a full decade older than the character. Mr. Knightley is also very mellow in his objections to Emma’s behavior, and while everyone talks about how they argue, we see less of it, mostly with Emma being the more forceful one. This is the most amiable Mr. Knightley of any version. While he doesnât strike me as a romantic figure, he is kind and gentle, with little of the righteousness that so often makes him hard to handle.
But any pluses are countered by the cheapness of the production, some bland or out of place acting, and the edits. With so many better options, I can recommend this one only as a curiosity.
Emma (BBC – 1972) – Doran Godwin/John Carson
The earliest English-language version you are likely to find, the 1972 BBC Emma is a 6-part miniseries running 240 minutes. It was for many years the choice of your average Janeite (devoted fans of Jane Austen’s writings who tend to have little patience with changes to their beloved author’s works) since it sticks closely to the book, cutting little. With so much time to work with, character relationships are clearer than in the later versions and plot points that can be foggy in shorter adaptations are explained, sometimes repeatedly. For anyone studying the story, this is a huge advantage, but for simple entertaining viewing, it can be tedious. Multiple times, I found that the scene I’d just watched could have been removed with no loss of information or emotion. Some of the jokes are run into the ground. Mr. Woodhouse’s incessant harping on drafts and disease was amusing for a time, but long before the end I was praying for one of the often mentioned viruses to finish him off. Likewise, Miss Bates’ prattle crosses the line between fun and annoying. The filmmakers showed more concern with matching the book than for what works best on the screen.
Emma ’72 is more successful as satire. It is clear from the first moment that there is something odd about these people. Everyone speaks their lines in a staccato fashion, making it all feel unreal. These aren’t actual people, but the representations of the silly qualities of people. That makes it almost drama-free, but also the least charming of the available Emmas.
Class distinctions are highly visible, with great deference given to those of higher station. The common rich folk display bizarre levels of joy whenever Emma deems to grace them with a word. Mrs. Elton’s greatest sin (and she has many) is here seen to be not keeping to her place in society.
Is Emma likable? More or less, particularly in the beginning, although my affection for her wavered as I got deeper into the series. Her questionable behavior is explained by her place in society. Since the rich and mighty are always silly, and no one but Mr. Knightly has ever been in a position to correct her, it is no surprise that she would have some faulty views on how to carry out her good deeds. Plus, since it is all artificial, it is hard to feel that she is ever hurting anyone, or that she herself has any human feelings of any kind.
Doran Godwin is an amicable Emma, though some of her facial movements, particularly with her eyebrows, are difficult to interpret. It is almost as if the director told her to change her expression, but didn’t say to what, so she chose randomly. While Godwin is nearly the proper age, she looks somewhat older. Similarly, John Carson appears to be ten years too old to be Mr. Knghtley. He brings dignity to the part, but not warmth.
As for the rest of the cast, Robert East fits the role of the roguish Frank Churchill, although he doesn’t overwhelm. Timothy Peters is too handsome for Mr. Elton, and fails to take advantage of the comical opportunities. Debbie Bowen’s Harriet Smith is more child-like than I’ve seen elsewhere, making it easy to accept that this flibbertigibbet would hang on Emma’s every word and do whatever she said. The others do acceptable jobs, but no one is memorable.
Since it was shot for British television (and in the ’70s), don’t look for exciting camera work, diverse music, or extravagant sets. It resembles an old episode of Masterpiece Theater. If that doesn’t ring a bell, think of the production as somewhere between a big screen release and a live play.
I was quite sympathetic toward this version for years, when there were fewer options. But now, with superior alternatives, there’s less reason to put up with the languid pace and somewhat unpleasant character interactions.
Emma (1996) – Gwyneth Paltrow/Jeremy Northam
This 1996 theatrical version enhances the romance, flattens the comedy, and eliminates the satire. And with the last of those, it takes the interesting view that Jane Austen was incorrect to satirize romance novels of the time, as this Emma is not only good-natured but the finest being in existence. Yes, she makes a few mistakes and causes harm, but that only somehow makes her more exquisite. As an angel, she should not be judged as mere mortals. This is a fairy-tale, where Emma is a princess and Regency England is a fairyland that would be wonderful to live in. Ah, the lives of women and the poor were so much better then. Yes, this is the adaptation least like the book.
A pastoral, almost fluffy picture, the eccentricities of all the characters have been dialed down, as if they are meant to approach normalcy, though never reach it as this is fantasy. Mr. Woodhouseâs hypochondria falls within believable limits for bizarre older relatives. Harriet Smith (Toni Collette) is an average, weak-willed girl placed among her betters, and Mrs. Bates is an annoying, lonely, elderly woman not unlike many you will meet in your life. Only Frank Churchill and Mr. Elton (Alan Cumming, who captures perfectly his humorous pomposity and oozing sycophantic nature) tend toward the ridiculous.
So much of Emmaâs crueler dialog is softened and Mr. Elton and Frank Churchill become the instigators of follies normally belonging to Emma. Yet, with most of the characters less comedic and more dramatic, Emma feels even more like a haughty brat than usual. However, the lighting that is always perfectly set to show off Paltrow to best effect, announces at all times that Emma is without flaw.
Two hours shorter than the miniseries, some trimming had to be made to fit it into the running time. It is the Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax plot that loses out in favor of the Harriet Smith one. If this is your introduction to the story, you are likely to need a second viewing to determine who Jane is related to, why she is there, and what Frank is up to. Jane has almost no personality and few lines. She does hold yourself not as if she is hiding a secret that is destroying her nerves, but as a queen visiting her lessers. Frank makes much more of an impression due to Ewan McGregorâs grandiose performance. McGregor has said since that he is not be happy with his work here, but I am. He brings life and humor that is much needed. Clearly writer/director Douglas McGrath watched Clueless, where the Frank character is flamboyantly gay, and decided to one-up that. It works for the reduced screen time.
Unfortunately, the Harriet subplot faulters in the casting of Toni Collette, who was too old for the part, and looks it. Instead of a naive teenager, this Harriet is a mentally compromised adult. Collette has been a fine actress in many parts, but she doesn’t seem to grasp the role, and is fighting it out with the Spanish-language Harriet for worst portrayal.
The romantic story-line is aided by a congenial Mr. Knightley. Still a judge of Emma, his criticisms (and the tones he uses to deliver them) are reasonable if not enticing. Jeremy Northam is doing his best fairy-tale prince, at least as much as the text will allow. I wouldnât have chosen the âBrother & sisterâ line to repeat more than in the novel, but apparently they decided to hang a lampshade on the family closeness, and brother and sister is better than father and daughter I suppose. We’re also given new scenes of Emma dwelling on Mr. Knightley and an extension of the proposal scene, all of which do their job of making Emma seem more like a romance.
Multiple scenes are moved about and lines are switched from scene to scene. It does little harm, but I find it it does even less good. Compressing the story no doubt was at least partially the reason, but it sometimes felt they were doing it just to make it different.
As a reasonably budgeted theatrical release, it isnât surprising that Emma â96 looks and sounds better than the TV versions. The cinematography is pleasant (though nothing more), and the costumes are attractive and effective (though not period accurate). Itâs a large production with elaborate sets, lush colors, and music that fits every moment. As a date movie, it has my recommendation. For lovers of the novel, I would point to any of the other English adaptations.
Emma (A&E – 1996) – Kate Beckinsale/Mark Strong
Released a few months after the Paltrow/Northam Emma, it is hard to imagine that the makers of this TV movie weren’t intimidated by their much bigger sister. However, it acquits itself well.
Kate Beckinsale is a warm and caring Emma with a child-like glee. Her mistakes are those of a kid who is still learning how the world works. While not as graceful as Paltrow’s, she is also not as distant. This is an imaginative and clever Emma, whose failing come from a lack of the experience she needs to overcome the worst that society has pressed upon her. She just needs to grow up. No other version presents such a youthful Emma. Beckinsale is so appealing that I find it impossible not to love her. When her Emma is happy, she shines.
While a satire first, and a comedy second, A&Eâs Emma is calmer in its presentation than the previous BBC version, and lacks the fairy-tale feel of the same yearâs theatrical version. It is closer to reality than previous adaptations. Peopleâs behaviors need to make some kind of sense (not a requirement of Paltrowâs or the more comical ones). I can almost imagine people acting this way. Almost. And this is a grittier world, with dust in characterâs hair, and mud on the hemâs of gowns. The poor are visible (totally lacking in most versions), and it is dark and a bit grim at night. Servants are more visible as they must constantly wait or struggle while the upper class do nothing. This is not a world you want to live in, and much like Jane Austen, you are likely to want the rules to change for women; I did anyway.
Once again, cutting was necessary (this is a TV movie, not a miniseries), though less than I would have thought. Instead of cutting any of the storylines, they simply rattle it all off at high speed, with no pause to rest. But itâs done with a great deal more skill than in the Spanish version. Luckily everything is quite clear, as there is no time to consider on what you are watching. This has the most complete take on the Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax subplot of any of the movie versions, and Iâd call it the equal of the mini-series. It helps that Olivia Williams is a better than average Jane, and more, that Raymond Coulthard makes a perfect Frank, charismatic enough that his actions, and the acceptance of those actions, are easy to believe.
It does not shortchange the Harriot Smith story, who is appropriately youthful and sweet, and reminds me of the 1972’s take on the character. She is not a clever girl, yet I can see why people find her charming.
If it had a bit more humor, Iâd give my nod to this rendition having the finest mix, but it stumbles where the same yearâs theatrical Emma was steady, and a later one will excel, with Mr. Knightley. He steps out of the absurdity, and is played as a straight, dramatic character, and an unpleasant one at that. He scolds and lectures without any sign of affection, and often in a manor which is not only unseemly, but no fun to watch. The idea of this winsome, innocent Emma getting together with this tyrannical Knightley is tragic. As nothing is added to fill out their “courtship,” Romance fans will have little to cheer about. Happily, the focus of Emma is not on that relationship.
Emma (2020) – Anya Taylor-Joy/Johnny Flynn
I didn’t know we needed another film version of Emma, but we clearly did as this is a wonderful adaptation. It is the most beautiful version, lush and colorful with expressive shots. And it carries off the amazing feat of keeping all the satire, while giving us romance, and humor. This is the funniest version. I tend not to laugh loudly while watching an adaptation of Emma. This time I did.
As all features must cut, this one chooses to reduce the Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax story such that it is hardly part of the plot, but a mere side quest. But that doesn’t mean the focus is then on Harriet and Elton. Rather, it’s about Emma, and to a lesser degree, Mr. Knightley. This is the only version where the Emma and Mr. Knightley romance works issues. Partly this is due to making Knightley clearly an object of sexual desire. Focusing on that from the beginning counters all the father/daughter and brother/sister baggage that a romantic take on Emma has to deal with. Seeing him stumble a bit helps as well. Knightley is so often portrayed as an instructor in moral behavior, which might make him a good person, but not a desirable one. Humorously, I’ve often heard people saying that Johnny Flynn is too young for the role, but he’s actually exactly the age he should be. People have just gotten used to Mr. Knightley looking old.
The cast as a whole is the strongest of any Emma. Josh O’Connor brings out the humor of Elton, ranking over even Alan Cumming. He’s slimy and weird, which is consistently funny. Mia Goth gives us a different Harriet. In ’72, ‘A&E 96, and ’09, we were given, to different degrees, a kindly but simple Harriet, one who was beautiful and a little lost. Here we have a full on comic portrayal that I’d almost call wacky. It works. Callum Turner is a congenial Frank Churchill, though makes less of an impression than others have in the part, and I admit a prejudice against his hair style; while I’ve heard it is appropriate, it strikes me as too modern. Amber Anderson is one of my favorite Jane Fairfaxes, and she gets an extra point for playing her piano parts live (Taylor-Joy did as well). Bill Nighy is far and away my favorite Mr. Woodhouse, as neurotic as any, but more energetic and sharp, which makes him more likeable.
But it is Anya Taylor-Joy who makes all the difference. Her Emma is simultaneously the most biting and most desirable. Taylor-Joy can tell the entire story with her eyes. There is something otherly about her, a creature that stands apart from humanity, and that fits Emma perfectly. This version doesn’t try to make Emma a better person, but rather one where you’d happily bring the shovel to bury the bodies for her.
This film is a delight. Yes, the cuts are a bit harsh, and I wish we had an extra ten minutes of Frank & Jane, but if you are going to do it all in 2 hours, I can’t imagine it being done better.
Clueless (1995) – Alicia Silverstone/Paul Rudd/Brittany Murphy
Emma goes modern and teen and it’s never been treated better. Clueless is smart, witty, engaging, and more fun than a barrel of Beverly Hills teens. Austen’s dialog may be hard to find, but her characters, plot, and spirit are easy to spot.
Emma has become Cher Horowitz (Alicia Silverstone, delightful in every way), the queen of her high school’s in-crowd, whose successful matchmaking of her teachers is incentive for her to try again. Harriet is now Tai (Brittany Murphy), a lower class girl from the East who doesn’t know that “It is one thing to spark up a doobie and get laced at parties, but it is quite another to be fried all day.” Cher tries to set Tai up with Elton (Jeremy Sisto), who is pretty much Elton. Some things never change. Of course, Tai would fit better with skateboarder Travis (Breckin Meyer), but Cher doesn’t see him as a member of fit society. Naturally a good looking stranger comes to town, although his name is Christian instead of Churchill, and while he looks to be a good match for Cher, it is clearer than in other Emmas that they will never be a couple. As for Knightly, he is Josh (Paul Rudd), whose brotherly connection to Cher is every bit as confusing as Knightly’s has always been to Emma.
Many of the scenes play out as Jane Austen fans would expect. Elton asks for Cher’s picture of Tai, and later tries to pick up Cher on the ride home from a party. Josh asks Tai to dance to save her from embarrassment. Christian rescues Tai from attack. Tai sits with Cher to burn her treasures from her “relationship” to Elton, etc. If you know the story, you can guess how things will play out.
But it is also fresh. The dialog, an invention based on high school slang that then became actual teen slang, is hysterical and quotable:
“As if!”
“That’s Ren and Stimpy. They’re way existential.”
“Christian said he’d call the next day, but in boy time that meant Thursday.”
“Unfortunately, There was a major babe drought at my school.”
“That was way harsh”
“I felt impotent and out of control. Which I really, really hate.”
“Wasn’t my mom a total Betty?”
Clueless is the all out satire that Emma is meant to be, but it also works as a romantic comedy. The key, besides the sharp screenplay, is Alicia Silverstone’s Cher. I don’t usually use the word “adorable,” but I couldn’t help thinking it during much of my latest screening. My wife, who has no hesitation with the word and sat with me during all of my many viewings since I first saw it on the big screen, must have said “Isn’t she adorable” ten times. And so she is. Her less than lofty deeds do not damn her as she has several motivations running simultaneously, and somewhere in the mix is the real desire to do good. For a story about shallow people, Cher is anything but two dimensional.
Few comedies are as repeatable as Clueless. It has the right actors, a stylish director (Amy Heckerling, who is also responsible for Fast Times at Ridgemont High), a tight, funny script (also by Heckerling), bouncy, integrated, music, characters you care about, and Austen’s novel as a base.
There’s been a lot of Jane Austen on film recently. I have reviewed the versions of Pride and Prejudice.