I’ve now seen the first episode of the eagerly-awaited new BBC adaptation of Jane Austen’s Emma starring Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller, slightly belatedly since I was working on Sunday evening.
Michael Gambon, Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller
I’ve actually watched it twice now – initially I was impressed by the gorgeous costumes, sunlit green landscapes and chocolate-box houses, but disappointed that there seems to be little of Austen’s own language and above all her wit. However, I liked it better the second time, which I find is how I often react to adaptations of favourite novels. Screenwriter Sandy Welch’s previous adaptations include Our Mutual Friend (1998) and Jane Eyre (2006) – I came to love both of these, but they took a time to grow on me, and I think the same might be true of her version of Emma. (The director of this version, Jim O’Hanlon, has directed many contemporary series for British TV, but I think this is his first historical drama, so I don’t recognise his style as yet. )
So far, I do like Garai as Emma – she gives the character a sort of mischievous, luminous quality, making her seem younger and more naive than I’d imagined her, but also making it believable that she can get so many people to do her bidding. I’m not so sure, yet, about Miller as Mr Knightley – he seems a little stuffy so far, and his remonstrating with Emma too often comes across as one-upmanship and nagging rather than the desire to bring out what is best in her. Though maybe that is intentional, I suppose, and he will be shown changing later.
I was reminded of the start of Jane Eyre at the beginning of this new version of Emma, where Welch daringly begins with back story, going right back to Emma’s birth and early childhood, and weaving in the early childhood of Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill. A male narrator’s voice describes how the “sun shone on Emma” from the first, but not so much on Jane or Frank. None of the children playing the young versions of these characters have many lines to say – there are just glimpses of their faces registering emotions.
I was taken aback at first by this beginning, which perhaps feels more like Dickens or Hardy than like Austen . But, thinking it over, it does make the background of the story clear to anyone coming to it fresh without having read the book, and it also helps to give a surprising poignancy to the character of Mr Woodhouse, brilliantly portrayed by Michael Gambon. In this version, Emma’s father is shown not just as a fusspot hypochondriac, but as a man who has lost his wife (the coffin is carried out before the opening titles) and is now nervously insistent on keeping all remaining family and friends in sight and checking on any threats to their health, however remote.
Tamsin Greig as Miss Bates
The humour of it is still there when he wants to veto a wedding cake in case it makes anyone ill, or worries over Harriet not wearing a shawl in her portrait, but his fussiness always has that extra poignant element underlying it. The relationship between Mr Woodhouse and Emma is nicely understated – she is outspoken and determined with others, but with him she has just the right note of being slightly worried and always checking that he is all right.
Similarly, the opening sequence also makes it clear from the start that there is more to Miss Bates’ constant talk about her niece Jane Fairfax than just garrulous boasting. In this version, we have actually seen the young Jane sent off to live with others, after her aunt lost her money – and we have heard Miss Bates say reassuringly to her mother: “Jane will write to us.” So that memory is there behind the endless scenes of her proudly reading out letters.
Tamsin Greig does strike me as rather young and pretty to play Miss Bates, but, looking her up at the imdb, I see she is 42, which I suppose is about the right age – so maybe it is just that I am surprised to see a Miss Bates younger than me! And she does play the character beautifully, making it clear that a lot of the chatter is a case of putting on an act for her silent, disapproving mother. I was particularly struck by a scene where she stokes up the fire and you can see her putting on a brave smile as she explains to her mother that Miss Woodhouse has no time to visit them today, but will be calling in tomorrow. “And in the meantime we have a letter from Jane to warm us.” I think Miss Bates and her mother must have influenced Gaskell in writing Cranford.
The opening scenes are also probably designed to provide some explanation for Emma’s character, with Welch perhaps thinking back to Jane Eyre, and how the older Jane relies on the self-sufficiency she had to learn as the orphan living at her aunt’s house and at Lowood. By contrast, Emma is shown as always taken care of, constantly holding the hand of her governess, Miss Taylor (Jodhi May, who also appeared with Romola Garai in Daniel Deronda).
Romola Garai and Louise Dylan as Emma and Harriet
One opening scene shows the little girl sitting beneath a table, hidden by the white tablecloth, as she watches with amusement while Miss Bates reads out yet another letter – and later on Mr Knightley recalls this when he tells Emma that Harriet and Robert are not her playthings, not dolls she can play with beneath the table.
I did feel this line was spelling things out a bit too much, perhaps, and I had that feeling in general at times – that the same points could be put across more subtly, without telling viewers what to think. For instance, arguments between Emma and Mr Knightley tend to be loud, with moments of downright rudeness, whereas in Austen’s books I think that often conflict is going on beneath smiles and polite conversation – and all the more devastating for that. Here there is less feeling of stifling etiquette hemming in the characters than there is in the novel.
As with other recent costume dramas, there are many scenes outside, most of them in good weather. In one of the early back-story scenes, Emma’s older sister, Isabella, is glimpsed jumping over hedges with her suitor, John Knightley, something which seems a bit unlikely – surely Mr Woodhouse would veto it immediately in case they broke their ankles! And there are also lovely outdoor scenes with Mr Elton (Blake Ritson, here smarmily unrecognisable as the Edmund Bertram from the 2007 Mansfield Park) and Harriet Smith (Louise Dylan). It does rain in one scene, so that Mr Weston (Robert Bathurst) can let Miss Taylor share his umbrella – but apart from that it is all sunshine so far.
I do still find myself regretting the loss of so much of Austen’s language, and with it inevitably a lot of her wit. However, not many new adaptations of classic novels do seem to keep much of the original language, so I think for that you really have to go back to earlier versions, like the fine 1970s mini-series of Emma which I hope to write about here in the future.
Wow, well I’ve got a bit carried away here – can’t promise to write this much about all the later episodes, but I will try to post something about them!
Thank you for this review, Judy, and I hope you don’t mind if I send the URL to friends on WWTTA and ECW.
I can see that Welch is psychologizing the novel in a 19th century “development” way: 18th century novelists, Austen included, give us full-blown universal types whose history is offered to exemplify what they are, and is seen as only in minor part responsible for what they have become.
A film adaptation can teach us what a text is by its difference. I’m persuaded to start with that _Emma_ is fundamentally satiric and we are to look at the heroine from a more distant stance of irony, even if we gradually are to see ourselves (if we are women) there too. Again the adaptor moves away from this and turns the story into a Jane Eyre or other developmental 19th century novel.
She is making Mr Woodhouse more believable and persuasive and gives us a “read” on him: Austen doesn’t. She leaves the figure ambiguous so we could see him an unconscious tyrant (he’s probably (partly) based on a man on her family Caroline Austen described as forcing his daughter to play backgammon with him nightly and was an only partly conscious tyrant) or innocent kind of simpleton (a type we don’t much believe in any more and isn’t seen in movies or plays though they once were a staple of Dickens’s adaptations, for example; and Sir John Middleton is made this type in the 1971 S&S adaptation).
On Miss Bates’s youth, in life she probably was not that old, but there’s a tradition since the mid-20th century to make her old as in our world we live longer. Sophie Thompson was another youngish Miss Bates.
But the first important character is Emma and since they are taking 4 episodes, you probably can’t tell very well what will be the attitude towards her. I think were it to be of the faithful type, it should make Emma somewhat dislikable and show a bunch of alienating characteristics. That’s what was done in the 1972, at the same time as we grew at least to accept and see her good traits too. In a more distance thin way (but not as emphatic), Davies left us to see Emma as seriously at fault and at the end going to be dominated by Mr Knightley.
Mr Knightley is hard because like other of these characters he’s not quite real in our sense, and I’ve never seen anyone to do it as well as John Carson. He was not rude and yet they had high quarrels; we’d see him be hurt and control himself and tell her off with wisdom yet not reach her. He commanded her respect, need and affection. Davies’s Mr Knightley is an aggressive male who edges into potentally abusive, and McGrath’s a poignant lonely young man in need (Northam), very different from the book, though loving and respecting Emma and a man of integrity. Jonny Lee Miller is such an old hand at these film adaptations maybe he was trusted to get it right.
The reality is the real Austen is at a greater and greater distance from us — ironically as these sequels and movies keep using her name, stories and characters.
I look forward to seeing it. I have no idea how to download and Jim tells me it’s hard when you have several films with the same name.
Ellen
I saw the 1972 BBC adaptation of EMMA but…it is so stiff and rigid … unbearable for modern TV adiences. For this reason, I try to understand and accept the necessity of changes in modern period drama…when they do not totally spoil the original work… Lots of sunshine to reflect Emma’s lightness and vivacity, good choice. Very good detailed review. Thanks Judy.
1. I came to the production knowing that Welch would not adhere too closely to the original dialogue. She hasn’t in the two productions I’ve seen so far (North and South and Jane Eyre), and yet she managed in both dramas to create an internally coherent world of dialogue which was intelligent (if simplified) and pleasant. My current argument is that as long as it doesn’t warp the characterization (as the dialogue in the 1972 Emma did), I’m okay with a certain amount of shifting, simplification. After all, I can always get an audio book if I want to hear the dialogue word-for-word.
2. I actually like the potential in Miller as Mr. Knightley – as one of my good friends has observed, he does improve once you get used to his gesturing (which she makes a good case for being the director’s idea, rather than the actor’s). I also think that his remonstrations being more like a personal rivalry is actually a really interesting take. While I in no way adhere to Claudia Johnson’s ideology or dominant interpretation of Emma (in “Jane Austen: Women, Politics, and the Novel” and “Equivocal Beings”), I do like the way she points out both Emma’s virtues and intelligence and Mr. Knightley’s flaws. J. F. Burrows, in his incredible “Computation into Criticism” demonstrates (conclusively, in my opinion), that Mr. Knightley begins not as a reliable advice-giver, but as a flawed figure who must learn to accept Emma as an equal. Thus, I really enjoy the way the new adaptation is giving Knightley a less “perfect” image (and would argue that the Davies/Beckinsale/Strong telefilm does a similar thing, instead of advocating Knightley as some kind of quasi-abusive mentor figure). Additionally, I think by fully presenting his conversation with Mrs. Weston about Emma and Harriet, and in the argument scene (more below), the longer adaptation length really works in his favor. Not so much in the scene with Robert Martin – that felt too twee and knowing, with it’s rather obvious dance around what Martin and Knightley were really referring to.
3. I completely agree that the introduction feels like Jane Eyre. I also think that it’s the weakest part of the episode dramatically. The scenes lack a strong sense of momentum, and the whole first act of the episode feels a bit dry and forced. Only when Emma is finally played by Romola Garai (with very pretty teenager hair) does the pace pick up a bit. Actually, I would argue that the entire episode struggles to find its way until the argument scene, where the interactions between the characters really gel into a dramatic narrative. I’m hoping that this film with follow the pattern of the 2008 Sense and Sensibility, which started off rather shakily, but ends powerfully.
4. I do love the way Mr. Woodhouse and Miss Bates are brought out into a more realized way – I think it really sets up the ending with Mr. Woodhouse, and Miss Bates, whom I’ve always identified too much with Emma to find anything but tiresome, actually moved me. I’ve said several times on various forums that I may actually cry for her at Box Hill, which I’ve never done before, for film or novel.
5. As I mentioned above, I find the argument the most compelling scene in this episode. And that’s because of the way it presents both sides as having validity. In the past, Emma has been presented as wholly wrong (not in the novel, of course, but in usual interpretation and adaptation), and Mr. Knightley wholly right (though not, perhaps, in the Beckinsale/Srong version, in which I think the anger shows Knightley’s flaw of jealousy affecting his judgment). But in this one, I love how Emma points out Knightley’s personal stake in the issue – it is his advice to Martin that is ignored – and her point about “men of sense” who marry “silly wives,” though dismissed by him, is quite an Austenian theme (Mr. Bennet, as the most obvious example). I also am very excited that they kept the line about Harriet being just the sort of girl for Mr. Knightley – which I’m hoping comes back to haunt her in the last episode.
(Side note: what about Sense and Sensibility, in which most of the outside scenes were in very bad weather ;-)
(In response to Ellen’s comments):
6. I’m not convinced about Austen’s wanting us to have a more detached perspective on Emma. I have always read the novel identifying quite intensely with Emma – seeing myself in her flaws, and understanding why she interprets reality in the way she does. Again, though I don’t agree with Johnson on Emma ideologically, I think her points about why people dislike her are well made, and often disregarded by misogynist critics. Additionally, from comments Garai has made, I am very persuaded that at least she has read Johnson or critics of a similar persuasion, as her view of Emma’s character is very close to Johnson’s (Garai just finished a degree in English from the Open University, which makes me more sure of this position).
7. I think the way Miss Bates is presented here is much more appealing than Sophie Thompson’s portrayal. Though I think Thompson is a phenomenal actress – she is a towering Mary Musgrove in the 95 Persuasion (made all the more incredible compared to the wretched incompetance of the 2007 Mary) and a very interesting servant character in the 1993 Sherlock Holmes film “The Master Blackmailer,” I found her very offensively written in the McGrath Emma. Here, she is shown to be a deeply feeling, if intellectually vapid character, and I am very drawn to this portrayal.
8. Again, I rather strongly disagree that to be faithful to the book you have to show Emma as dislikable. I think that despite the language issues, this film shows Emma in a very rounded way – arrogant, immature, and snobbish, but also intelligent, sensitive, kind, loving, humorous, mischievous, and eminently loveable. And as I’ve argued at length elsewhere, I don’t think that Knightley is meant to be seen as dominating in the Davies Emma, but instead struggling with an intensely flawed jealousy, which he renounces at the end in his “I have blamed you and lectured you, and you have borne it as no other woman in England would have borne it.” (Oooh, I got the quotation right! I love having the script to check things! :-)
Conclusion: While I remain loyal to the Davies/Beckinsale/Strong film as my preferred version so far, I think this episode much superior to the McGrath/Paltrow/Northam and 1972 films. I remain quite excited about the next episodes.
Ellen and Ian – many thanks for your detailed responses, which are much appreciated. I don’t have time to reply in detail now, but will bear in mind what you have both said when writing my review of episode two and hope to come back on some of the points then.
You have both given me a lot to think about. I don’t remember the other TV versions as well as you do, and clearly need to see those again before summing up my views on this series – I do have them all on DVD or video so just need to find the time!
Maria – thank you for visiting and commenting – lovely to hear from you and I hope you get to see it soon. I must say I enjoy watching the 1970s versions, and love the way they include so much of the original language, but then I was growing up in the 1970s so they don’t seem as dated to me as they do to a younger viewer – I haven’t managed to persuade my daughter to watch them with me as yet.
The aesthetics of the 1972 Emma is quite different from our time — and you have to enter into it to get how intelligent and accurate is the take. I have to ignore the costumes for Mrs Weston and (paradoxically) how Mrs Bates is done realistically as an older English woman of that era. As I’ve said on my blog, the actress reminds me closely of my mother-in-law’s behavior. I have to agree to differ with Ian on his views on _Emma_. I also probably have a deeper disagreement: I see Austen as never really moving out of the satiric mode she began with, only changing its surface to be novelistic. Her art is quite different from say George Eliot’s and other mid to later Victorian writers, which from Judy’s description and Welch’s other work she is closer to.
Dear Judy, if you know of where Roma Garai writes of _Emma_ and shows she’s read the criticism or at least Emma, I’d love to read it. I find the commentary by intelligent people in these productions illuminating. I too am sorry there is this return to the popularizing trend of the 1940 movie to drop Austen’s language. Perhaps this is part of our increasing distance from her. I never thought of this before, but maybe the free adaptations are another sign of this distance. 18th century art is so far from the pop (unacknowledged) emotional trends of the 20th to 21st. These films teach us about her books :)
Ellen
Ellen, here’s a nice interview where she doesn’t actually quote critics, but it’s clear she’s familiar both with the novel and the discussions surrounding it in the academic world (she just finished up an English degree from the Open University).
I don’t think my dislike of the 1972 Emma is purely an aesthetic one, though I don’t deny the poor pacing and unsatisfyingly written ending is a contributing factor. My real problem is how the dialogue distorts Emma’s character – from a fundamentally intelligent person, she becomes a chatterbox who doesn’t know when to stop talking. And while I know Emma’s not “tender hearted,” I do think she’s a warm, open person, while I feel Doran Goodwin plays a very cold person.
You’re perfectly right we must agree to disagree, though I think it’s still enjoyable and profitable to discuss. I’m a bit curious about this notion of Austen remaining a satirist. I certainly see elements of satire, but to claim that her entire body of work is satire? I think that might be stretching a bit far.
Rats, I forgot the link to the article: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/2009/10/04/romola-garai-interview-91466-24844232/
Sorry, Judy, I don’t mean to quarrel on your blog.
Thanks to both Ellen and Ian for the further comments – I’m now intrigued to watch the 1972 Emma again and give my own take, though it may have to wait for a bit thanks to things like work.:) Thanks also for the link, Ian, and no worries. I’m looking forward to episode two on Sunday.
What’d you think of episode 2? I liked it, though not so much as episode 1. Still hoping that the last episode’s the corker, like (for me) S&S 2008.
Hi! I’ve been late in seeing it again because I was working Sunday, but agree with you that I quite liked it, though I think I preferred the first episode too. Planning to watch it again tonight and then maybe write something about it tomorrow…
An absolute farce of an adaption, i cannot understand why your review is so complimentary! Indeed Garai’s presentation of Emma is utterly incorrect, far too earnest and animated, clumsy and foolish; hardly a representaion of a woman of her status, one wonders if she has even read the book. Jonny Lee Miller as Mr Knightley has been entirely incorrectly cast, short and stubby with a walk reminiscent of a waddle and no class or distinction in his manner. The additional plot of Emma, Jane and Frank being tied together is utterly unecessary and sickeningly sypathetic, the same goes for the mothers death. Austen covers Emma’s mother in one or two sentences because she truly plays no part in Emma’s life and has no importance in the book, so why this should provoke Welch to include a nauseatingly soppy opening is quite incredible! Garai is awkward throughout, acts only with her face, says her lines as if they were, well, lines and has but two expressions; ‘stroppy’ and ‘surpised’. I can at least give credit to Miller for trying, it is hardly his fault he is so unfortunately squat, and he did make me laugh once or twice. As to the rest of the cast they are adequate, though Elton is too handsome and affected, Harriet not pretty enough and too stupid, Knightleys brother too average (and what in the world happened with the thing about Elton talking about his children, where did that come from?) and Jane Fairfax, well i just forgot her.
It’s a pity you know, i do love Austen and costume dramas and i had hoped this “highly anticipated adaption” would live up to my expectations. Yet instead i am left feeling slightly insulted and dissatisfied, i feel as if its all wrong. We are dependant on Garai yet she lets us down enormously, she never stands straight with any trace of elegence or sophistication and one gets the feeling she is all body and no thoughts and how am i supposed to believe her as Emma when the Emma she presents to me has no thoughts? As i said, what a pity!
I am indeed sorry you disliked the adaptation so. Since this is so far one of the only places left that hasn’t been visited by this kind of vitriol, I think I’ll actually do a bit of defense of this adaptation.
I think what you are not doing is accepting the director’s choice of modern body language. While I do not agree with this choice, I can accept it. Most of your objections lie with this point.
I’m not sure what you mean by “sickeningly sypathetic” – if you mean “sympathetic,” I don’t understand why sympathy is bad.
A further chunk of your dislikes are with looks – and your objections seem purely subjective. I find Garai’s looks much more varied, Miller’s stature much less objectionable, Harriet and Elton’s intelligence and looks quite in the right proportions. Jane Fairfax is a pale shadow of Olivia Williams, I grant you, but even that has been quite hotly disagreed with on other forums.
Again, I am sorry you did not enjoy this adaptation, but I think your vehemence is out of place.
Have to agree with Barn Owl here. I’m open-minded about adaptations of fantastic work, as long as the adaptations don’t play havoc with the original. In the case of this particular adaptation, though, even the big scene between E. and K. in the last episode was curtailed and cut down to the point of parody.
I object to license-payers’ money being wasted on (yet another) adaptation with nothing interesting to say.
I also felt Garai awkward, yet who wouldn’t have been, when Austen’s own elegant words were yet again shoved out in favour of text so much less meaningful? I feel that she did her best under the circumstances.
A. M.
Which opinion is certainly your perfect right! :-) I am a bit confused about your comment that “the big scene between E. and K. in the last episode was curtailed and cut down to the point of parody.” – which big scene, and how was it cut? If you refer to the proposal, I thought that was presented in a remarkably full presentation. And though the dialogue is often modernized, I feel it’s as often directly from the text – as I reread the novel alongside the film, I often came across lines that I noted were reproduced literally or in only microscopically shortened forms.
Have to agree with the Barn Owl Society and Alice. I thought the series was pretty well cast (loved Tasmin Grieg as Miss Bates) with the exception of Romola Garai. I thought she portrayed Emma as unrefined and a little clumsy. Not at all the elegant, wealthy, educated young woman that Austin describes.
When she smiled at people it was as though she was asking “do I have something on my chin?”. Have to agree with the comment that she acted with her face.
As for the final episode, I was disappointed that so much was cut out. What happened to the period of silence between Emma and Harriett? What happened to Emma receiving Robert Martin in her home? What happened to Frank Churchill’s explanation to Emma of his behaviour to her and Jane Fairfax?
I know I’m late here – but I wanted to add that the motif of the marrying dolls appears in Joan Aikens “Jane Fairfax” – glorified fanfic telling Emma from the point of view of Jane Fairfax, IMO without being able to convey the characters’ feel adequately. Once you accept it as completely different from Austen, it’s even enjoyable. Anyway, Emma and Jane play as children together and Jane is unnerved by Emma’s favorite game, having dolls court and marry.
Maybe that’s where the idea came from? Aiken also lets the story start when Jane Fairfax and Emma are girls.
I confess that the series was a huge disappointment for me but I’m glad so many others liked it. For me, Kate Beckinsale was closest to the snobbish, over confident, meddling Emma I saw in my mind when I read the book – many times before I ever saw an adaptation. Samantha Morton’s Harriet is closer to “my” Harriet than any other, and the setting seems to be closest, too.
I saw the new series a lot of times and tried my best to like it, I’m disappointed with myself that I’m disappointed. It seems too much to cater to the expectations of costume drama freaks. Too much fluff, too little Austen – in dialogue, atmosphere and overall outlook on the world.
Romola Garai, whom I usually like very much, overplays completely here. I remember her performance as Barbara Spooner in “Amazing Grace” – that was much more like I imagined Emma, a bit snotty but intelligent and, once you got closer to her, warm. It was a small part but I felt that it contained much of what was needed for Emma. So I felt it was an act of inspired casting when i heard she was to play Emma.
But how disappointing! Her popping eyes, modern mannerisms, hysterical giggle, slouchy shoulders, lack of self control – this is not Emma, and it’s not Garai either. I feel that her talents were really wasted here.
Miller looked and sounded the part, his voice is beautiful and he’s a feast for tired eyes (as is Garai) – but I felt none of the strength Mr Knightley projects.
the young lady who played Harriet was completely silly and over the top, not even pretty – none of the shy, admiring warmth and vulnerability that is essentially Harriet.
And don’t get me started on Jane Fairfax, one of the most intriguing characters in Austen’s universe for me – the perfect cool facade. The pretty face who played her ruined everything with her whiny little voice. She was absolutely no rival for Romola’s luminous and loud Emma – and it’s vital for the plot to have Emma envy Jane’s accomplishments and elegance. Olivia Williams IS Jane Fairfax, her beauty and grave grace are just the way I imagined her.
No no no, I’m sorry, it’s a gorgeous series and many lovely scenes (some of the dances, the landscape, the interiors, the costumes – all very beautiful), but for me, it stayed hollow.
And I wanted so much, so much to like it, to go with it.
I watched it about six times and will do so again.
I didn’t watch the older version yet. (There is no point in even mentioning the ridiculous Paltrow version – just an operetta piece with people named like in Austen’s novel – only some of the secondary characters are well done).
Oh, but I have to mention the characters I liked: I think that the Westons and Frank Churchilll were played very well. So was Miss Bates. She actually moved me. I liked Ms. Scales very much but Ms. Greig did a great job and interpreted her very very well. I have always like Ms. Bates and she is an important figure, giving many hints.
Sorry this was so long – everybody’s comments here were so clever and inspired me ;-)
Well, as a die-hard Emma (the character) fan, I disliked “Jane Fairfax” (the novel) rather muchly. It was rather uselessly vicious towards Emma in portrayal – which makes a bit of sense, but I feel that the author, not just Jane the character, disliked Emma, which sort of misses the point.
I am pleased to find another fan of the Beckinsale version – though I’m curious to know if you actually like Emma as portrayed, or think she’s portrayed accurately and that’s why you like the film. I myself enjoy both the Garai and Beckinsale films immensely.
There was a bit of fluff in the dialogue, but I thought the quality improved dramatically in the third and fourth episodes, which stick closer to the structure and words of the book, while elaborating more effectively on the unspoken than the first two episodes.
While I agree that Garai’s very fine performance in Amazing Grace was much more, perhaps, period-appropriate (according to our notions of period appropriateness), I felt really drawn in by her choices in this series. I can definitely see why people would describe it as you do, but I was won over rather than off-put.
I was actually surprised that Miller projected the authority I felt Mr. Knightley has – I was originally really disappointed with his casting (after the MP99 fiasco – though he was actually quite decent in that garbage). He’s not quite as masterful as Mark Strong, but I quite liked his take – much more vulnerable and often wrong than frequently seen – but I think it’s completely in keeping with the text.
Sadly, I don’t really see the problem with Louise Dylan as Harriet – I actually rather prefer her to Samantha Morton – who is nonetheless a wonderful actress.
However, I completely agree about Laura Piper as Jane Fairfax – though to be fair, not everyone can have the amazing deep and smooth voice and demeanor that Olivia Williams effortlessly projects. But she is definitely one of my few disappointments with the series
Glad you gave it such a determined chance, even if you didn’t enjoy it.
Sorry not to have been around here lately, as life has been getting in the way of TV viewing, but I’m interested to see the discussion about this adaptation keeping up. I obviously liked this version a lot more than many people did – and I think we will have to agree to disagree! However, thanks to all and to Ian in particular for the thoughtful replies on this thread.
Lila, it certainly sounds as if you gave the series a good try even if in the end it wasn’t your favourite version. I preferred it to the Beckinsale one but I did like that version too. I haven’t read ‘Jane Fairfax’ but did enjoy Joan Aiken’s ‘Mansfield Park’ sequel, ‘Mansfield Revisited’, though it was not at all like Austen – Aiken is a writer I loved as a child for her wonderful historical stories such as ‘Black Hearts in Battersea’, and she had me under her spell again here, so I may give JF a try although, if I do, I will bear your comments in mind, Ian.