After watching the Sandy Welch BBC adaptation of Emma, I’ve been meaning to re-watch the older versions I own to see how they compare – and have now got round to seeing the short TV movie scripted by Andrew Davies and directed by Diarmuid Lawrence, which stars Kate Beckinsale as Emma and Mark Strong as Mr Knightley. Here are just a few slightly rambling comments before I get on to the other versions!
After the more leisurely pace of a four-episode version (though even that was much faster than the older adaptations), this dramatisation does feel very short at just 107 minutes. It almost seems as if Harriet is introduced one minute and turning down Robert Martin the next, with Mr Knightley bitterly upbraiding Emma a minute after that. However, despite this fast pace, I felt as if Davies manages to pack in all the key scenes from the novel – it would be fascinating to see how he would have treated the story if he had adapted it at greater length.
I think the most striking difference between this version and the Sandy Welch version is possibly in the character of Mr Knightley. As played by Jonny Lee-Miller, he is someone who holds back and stays silent about his feelings much of the time, standing in the background and watching. Mark Strong gives the character a more brooding, smouldering presence, at times recalling Colin Firth in Davies’ Pride and Prejudice. I also think Strong seems more angry and frustrated than I’d imagined Mr Knightley being – there are more scenes of him hectoring Emma, and he shouts “badly done!” at her about the Robert Martin incident as well as about Miss Bates. In this version, Mr Knightley is probably grumpier than his brother John, one of the characters who is semi-squeezed out because of the short running time. At times I do feel he is too angry and it’s hard to see why Emma can put up with it – but they do a lot with their eyes and body language to show the real affection that is there between them.
Olivia Williams as Jane Fairfax
The dance scenes are beautifully done and I was pleased to see that we do get songs from both Emma and Jane (Olivia Williams) despite the shortness of time. The landscapes and country houses are photographed in soft colours, and combine with the music and costumes to create a feeling almost of getting inside an 18th-century landscape. I especially thought this in the little scene where Emma looks at a painting and imagines the painted face of Frank Churchill coming to life and speaking to her – which is in a way what the whole series is doing, bringing pictures from the past to life. The dream and daydream sequences in the Sandy Welch version intrigued me, so I was interested to see how many of them there are in this version too – often with Emma imagining a series of possible marriages for Harriet. Davies also used dream sequences in his adaptation of Northanger Abbey, where they were more Gothic. I suppose they are partly a way of bringing out the real tensions and fears beneath the polite surface and it strikes me they might work especially well in a short adaptation, as a sort of shorthand in images to show what the character is feeling.
Kate Beckinsale and Mark Strong
Perhaps because of the shortness of the dramatisation as a whole and many of the scenes within it, I think the Highbury of this version has quite a claustrophobic feeling to it, more so than in the Sandy Welch version. Watching this version, it really struck me how much time everyone in this world spends trying to organise everyone else, from Emma’s matchmaking to Mr Woodhouse (Bernard Hepton) trying to prevent marriages, along with Frank’s bossy aunt and Mrs Elton’s interfering efforts to find Jane Fairfax a job.
I also suddenly realised just how many similarities there are between Emma’s attempts to organise Harriet’s life and Mrs Elton’s to organise Jane’s – both are equally convinced that they are doing the best thing for their protegee and that she should be grateful! Emma and Mrs Elton are both also convinced it is up to them to decide who is a “gentleman” or a “lady” – I realise this is all there in Austen’s words, but I’m not sure I’d thought about it enough before. Davies seems to put a lot of stress on the snobbishness and rivalry in this little world. I really feel that in the opening scenes Emma isn’t very likeable – in the most recent version, Romola Garai seems quite sensitive to what others are thinking from the start, but in this version Kate Beckinsale makes Emma seem a bit more self-possessed and ready to ride roughshod over people. I didn’t warm to her at all in the first half hour or so, but I think that is probably intentional and that Davies is wanting to keep the audience at a distance.
Samantha Morton as Harriet
I especially like Samantha Morton as Harriet in this version – there is a delicacy to her which somehow makes it more believable that her character could be in love with Robert Martin and yet not know her own feelings. I like the change at the ending where Harriet has already decided to accept Robert before she knows about Emma and Mr Knightley – a twist which gives her greater independence and also draws a parallel between her and Emma, that neither of them really knew their own hearts. Harriet is less of a “silly girl” in this version and more of a younger friend who lets herself be persuaded.
I also like Olivia Williams as Jane Fairfax – she doesn’t have enough screen time, but she gives the character just the right kind of reserve and stifled emotion. Prunella Scales is also great as Miss Bates in this version, an older version of the character than in some other adaptations. She does seem to ramble on breathlessly just as the character should – you’d think she would be less long-winded in a short film, but she manages to get more words into every scene than you’d think possible. I do think she gets the right blend of comedy and poignancy – the Box Hill incident is passed over quickly, but her feeling of hurt is unmistakeable. In this version, I thought Emma realises what she has done immediately, trying to laugh it off, but with the laugh freezing on her lips.
One part that grates with me slightly in this adaptation is the grand dinner at the end where Mr Knightley announces his engagement to his tenants and there is so much stress on just how rich he is and how much he has – a sort of feudal ending which goes beyond the scenes with Darcy at Pemberley in Davies’ Pride and Prejudice. I do like the proposal scene, though, which was very close to how it was done in the Welch version.
Some of the cast in the sunshine
In general, I suppose I like the Welch version the best – but I do really like this one too, and especially Samantha Morton, who is one of my favourite actresses and was wonderful as Jane Eyre in another production I’ve written about on this blog. All Davies’ costume adaptations are worth watching time and again, and I just hope he gets the chance to do some more of them before too long, despite the current cutbacks by TV networks.
I utterly agree with you, after watching EMMA 2009, this ITV adaptation has lost its supremacy in my list of EMMA film versions!
Thanks, Maria – maybe not supreme, but still well worth watching.:)
Definitely. Andrew Davies is an absolute master in Austen adaptations! :)
Dear Judy,
As I just watched the 1996 ITV Emma by Davies & company, I can make a few comments. As I wrote on my blog, point of view is played with here: one of the dreams begins as Mr Knightley’s suggesting he has inklings of desire for Jane Fairfax and longs to see Emma upset at the loss of him, but then it ends with Emma waking so we have been in her mind too. This brings out how in life we often do feel we are sharing the same thoughts and in this case the unspoken attachment of Mr Knightley and Emma.
Good thing in a way because I agree this movie presents a far more hostile Mr Knightley than any of the others. I have seen Strong play torturers in two movies (Syriana was one of them); his typology includes physical abuse and cruelty. And not only does he say “badly done” twice, he and Emma twice allude to their not being so much brother and sister, and the second time at the end of the movie. When he proposes, he remembers holding her in his arms as a baby. Davies is aware of what he’s doing: he’s suggesting odd or unconventional feelings going on here, even if he does not develop what’s suggested. In his interview on the film, he says something to the effect there’s something “odd” going on in Austen’s hero — 16 years apart they are.
And yes Emma is dislikable in this one, far more than any since the 72. Welch makes her somewhat dislikable but also very childish; here she is more malicious over Mr Martin and Mr Martin smoulders resentfully (and rightly too). Davies thinks this true to Austen’s meaning.
I felt too that early on in the movie the viewer who has not read Emma could guess Frank and Jane are lovers, and that Olivia Williams did project abject if uncomfortable love. She’s been hurt and will be hurt again.
Much as I liked Sandy Welch’s movie, all this made me want to re-see it to see if it _adds_ something to the book. Yes Davies seems to include a good deal of the book; so what did Welch add for her extra 2 and 1/2 hours. Just lengthening the scenes is not enough. One thing I can remember: the really complicated nuanced portrait of Knightley which presents him differently and more like Austen’s than any one since Carson. I did note in an email that the voice-over in the 2009 is Jonny Lee Miller and he has more flashbacks in this version than Emma, and we have more scenes without Emma than any other version. So she is doing something with her extra time. I feel in a way after seeing Davies’ excellent adult version, Welch must justify hers you see.
The book does set up a parallel between Mrs Elton and Emma. Critics have noticed this: Mrs Elton is a much nastier version of Emma, but they are alike, down to their use of women (Emma uses Harriet too and pushes her in directions and Harriet does not resist in the way Jane does). Again I felt the Mrs Elton in Davies was stronger as a presence than in the 2009 Emma; it seems a number of the characters are more muted in the 2009 version and made more psychologically rounded (Miss Bates is in the 2009 version) though kept conventional in outlook and presentation (unlike Davies’ intriguing portrait of Knightley).
But here we could say caricature is what is meant, and for me Fiona Walker is the outstanding Mrs Elton of all the Emma movies.
Samantha Morton delivers a memorable performance — and she has not much screen time really. She’s probaby the best Harriet I’ve seen.
Again the voices are ambiguous — as point of view. Yes Mr Knightley stands among his tenants and says he’s boss in effect and will remain so; he makes for continuity. But notice the scene where Emma tells Harriet “all this belongs to Mr Knightley,” and (anachronistically no doubt but all these movies are continually sliding into relevance to us) Harriet says it doesn’t feel right and does he own the sparrows; to which Emma says no, not the sparrows but certainly the woodchucks and something else (game birds).
That’s critical of him. Continually we have servants at everyone’s beck and call, even laying down pillows for the upper class to gather strawberries. I don’t think this is contradiction; the self-satisfied powerful man and the people in contained servitude and the oblivious spoiled types waited upon are meant to make us think. Davies includes Jane’s lines about governess slavery too.
Really his movie is as complicated as novel reading experience. It’s a tribute to him to do it in such little time.
I agree: great performances by Samantha Morton – as usual – and Ollivia Williams. Sure, this Emma, snobbish, conceited, overbearing, is rather unlikable, but to me not more so than in the novel.
Indeed the final “feudal” scene felt totally out of place for me as well. Davies must have thought for a moment he was adapting Walter Scott…
And of course this adaptation was too short to do the novel justice. I can’t wait to see the new one!
Thank you, Catherine. Morton and Williams give two of my favourite performances – I’m sometimes tempted to think what would be the perfect cast for Emma if you could pick out actors from all the different versions, and I’d probably go for these two as Harriet and Jane.
I’m sure you will enjoy the new Sandy Welch version – hope you get the chance to see it soon!
Just a quick note to say very many thanks indeed to Ellen for the wonderful detailed comments and also to Catherine – I do really appreciate it, but have had a very long day at work today and am in early tomorrow, so I can’t get to grips with replying properly tonight. I hope to do so tomorrow after work!
Ellen, hi, I’m back again and have just reread your comments once again – many thanks again for sharing all these thoughts, which are again making me think a lot more about the production and indeed the novel.
I’ve been trying to think what it is that Sandy Welch does with the greater length of her version, as you ask. I suppose all I can come up with really is to echo you and say that she does use the time for the greater psychologising you discuss – filling in the motivations and backgrounds of characters. Maybe we could say that Davies sketches the storyout in brilliant lines where Welch fills it all in – but I’d agree with you that perhaps we don’t need a lot of psychologising for a satirical portrait like Mrs Elton. I do agree it is a wonder how much Davies manages to do with so little time.
On the “feudal” ending, I like what you say about the way the conversation about the game birds earlier undercuts this. Having read your thoughts on this scene, it now strikes me that the fact that Harriet questions his ownership of so much land (and by implication so many tenants) here perhaps paves the way for the scene where she tells Emma she is marrying Robert Martin – proving they are free to make their own decisions, like the wild birds which Mr Knightley doesn’t quite own.
I’m now starting to watch the McGrath version, so more on ‘Emma’ from me soon.:)
I just recently watched this version of “EMMA”. I liked it very much. But I don’t love it as much as I do the Paltrow and Garai versions. There is something slight heavy handed about the entire production. I realize that one of the themes from “EMMA” is the effect of the British class and financial systems upon individuals. But I believe that Andrew Davies went too far in touching upon this theme. In fact, I found his handling of it rather heavy handed – especially in the harvest festival dinner sequence.
Kate Beckinsale gave a nice performance. But I could see that she had become a better actress within the next 3 or 4 years. I think her Emma was a bit overshadowed by Gwyneth Paltrow and Romola Garai’s portrayals. And I found Mark Strong’s Mr. Knightley a bit intimidating. However, I feel that Raymond Coulthard might be the best Frank Churchill of the bunch.
A good adaptation, but . . . I don’t think I would ever love it.
Thank you very much for visiting and commenting, Rosie – I do agree that the harvest festival dinner felt rather heavy-handed. Interesting that you especially liked Raymond Coulthard as Frank Churchill – it is a little while now since I saw this version and my memories of him have faded, but when I watch it again I will think some more about his performance. I probably like this version more than the McGrath one starring Paltrow, but the Sandy Welch version is my favourite.:)
This is probably my least favorite version of “Emma”. I just recently watched the ’72 version and I liked that one even more. It’s strange that I would harbor such a low opinion of an Andrew Davies production. It’s not that I disliked this version, I just don’t find it that impressive.
Thanks, Lavinia, sorry to be slow in replying but I’ve fallen behind lately. I do like this version but I think it’s a shame Davies didn’t get a chance to do a full mini-series version, as then we would have really seen what he could do with this great novel.
Just watching re run of Emma, ITV3. Any idea what the Irish air is? Played on the piano brought in through the window. Jane fair fax is playing it. Ta.