Ah, dear Miss Woodhouse! As I have been ordered by Miss Woodhouse to say exactly what I am thinking, I shall begin with a few points of disclosure. Like many who write reviews of the various Jane Austen adaptations, I am something of an Austen fanatic. Therefore, any Austen film adaptation is worth something to me, no matter how poorly done, simply because it provides another “take” on the novel. I own all of the available film adaptations based on the six Austen novels and do not regret the presence of any of them in my collection, having watched each repeatedly. Nevertheless, I recognize the difference between the great adaptations and the lesser ones and appreciate that the average film-lover will have no patience for the poor ones. Unlike most Austen fanatics, I am not quite an Austen purist! I don’t object when a film occasionally deviates from the corresponding novel – I merely require that the alteration be one that works effectively! I join the purists, however, in decrying alterations that detract from the greatness of an Austen story.

Let’s start out, here, by putting this A&E film version of Emma in the perspective of the entire collection of Austen film adaptations. It will reveal why this version of Emma is of special interest. There are, in total, thirteen available film adaptations of the six Jane Austen novels, plus three films loosely based on the stories. In order of release, they are:

Adaptations:

Pride and Prejudice (1940), MGM, 118 min, starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier
Persuasion (1971), BBC, 225 min, starring Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall
Emma (1972), BBC, 257 min, starring Doran Godwin and John Carson
Pride and Prejudice (1980), BBC, 226 min, starring Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul
Sense & Sensibility (1986), BBC, 174 min, starring Irene Richard and Tracey Childs
Mansfield Park (1986), BBC, 261 min, starring Sylvestra Le Touzel
Northanger Abbey (1987), BBC, 90 min, starring Peter Firth and Googie Withers
Sense and Sensibility (1995), Columbia, 136 min, Emma Thompson & Kate Winslet
Pride and Prejudice (1996), A&E, 300 min, starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth
Emma (1996), A&E, 107 min, starring Kate Beckinsale and Mark Strong
Emma (1996), Miramax, 121 min, starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam
Persuasion (1996), BBC, 104 min, starring Amanda Root and Ciaran Hines
Mansfield Park (1999), Miramax, 112 min, starring Frances O’Connor
Pride and Prejudice (2005), 127 min, starring Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen

Films Loosely Based on Austen Novels:

Clueless (1995), Paramount, 97 min, starring Alicia Silverstone and Paul Rudd
Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001), Miramax, 94 min, starring Renee Zellweger & Colin Firth
Pride & Prejudice: A Latter-Day Comedy (2003), Excel, starring Kam Heskin and Orlando Seale
Bride and Prejudice (2004), Miramax, 112 min, starring Aishwarya Rai and Martin Henderson

So, prior to 1970, the only film adaptation of a Jane Austen novel was the MGM version of Pride & Prejudice. Austen purists despise the 1940 film because it – to be blunt about it – does extreme violence to the storyline of the Austen novel. It omits one of the two most highly revered scenes entirely, completely changes the significance of some characters, and adds new scenes (which is the least of the three sins). On the other hand, the casting of the 1940 film is superlative, with the magnificent Olivier as Darcy. The casting of the Bennet sisters, taken collectively, is better than in any subsequent version. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are also delightful and Frieda Inescort as Miss Bingley is vastly superior to her counterparts in the later versions. I have learned to enjoy the 1940 version of Pride & Prejudice by approaching in the same way that I watch Clueless or Bridget Jones’s Diary. It sure ain't Jane Austen, but it's entertaining taken on its own terms.

Next, between 1971 and 1986, we were provided with five lengthy BBC adaptations produced for television. These productions, while providing the most complete adaptations of the various novels, are simply not up to big screen standards. They are sluggish, at times, and the casting is singularly uneven. There are some performance gems, here and there, but too many irritating performances as well, such as Rintoul’s unfortunate rendition of Darcy. Among the BBC adaptations, Sense & Sensibility is the best of the lot, in my opinion, but falls short of the later version of the same novel in several respects, including the omission of the youngest Dashwood sister.

Among the seven post-1986 films, two are only medium quality films, not worthy of recommendation to other than unabashed Austen fans: Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park. Mansfield Park is the least accessible of the Austen novels for most readers, anyway, (though a favorite for some Austen devotees) and for Austen purists, the film sins egregiously by significantly altering the essence of the main character, Fanny.

That leaves five Jane Austen film adaptations to which greatness can be arguably attributed: the practically perfect A&E version of Pride & Prejudice (one of the greatest achievements in film history, in my opinion), Sense & Sensibility starring Emma Thompson, the new BBC version of Persuasion, and two wonderful renditions of Emma. Thus, Emma is the only one of the Jane Austen novels for which there is more than one high quality film version. Add to that the fact that both of these films were produced in the same year, and you have a circumstance where the temptation to engage in comparison of the two is irresistible. What makes that comparison process especially fun is that each of the two versions has points of superiority to the other.

The problem of picking between the two is really only an issue for film-lovers who are not also Austen enthusiasts, because no Austen aficionado could do without either of these two fine films. For one thing, the pleasures are different! For those who are interested in watching or purchasing only one or the other, which is to be given preference? Well, to be honest, it comes down to a question of why you’re watching the film.

The story, Emma, like all Austen novels, is a love story, but also much more. The story follows the life of Emma Woodhouse, a young lady of privilege, who, following an initial match-making success, is inspired to attempt a repetition of the success through intrigues and gossip. Mr. Knightly – her friend, mentor (of a kind), and brother-in-law’s brother -- attempts to discourage Emma from this “career” of match-making but is unable to do so. Her efforts go further and further awry until, in the end, they ultimately become a direct obstacle to her own newly-discovered romantic ambitions. A more complete synopsis of the story can be derived from any of a number of reviews already written for the Paltrow version of Emma.

Let me observe, speaking as a male fan of Jane Austen, that I am as susceptible to a good love story as most any female reader of Austen. My idea, for example, of the perfect woman is pretty well captured in the form of Elizabeth Bennet in Pride & Prejudice: intelligence, wit, courage, warmth, character, and bright eyes – what more could one ask for? When I watch Pride & Prejudice, the development of the love between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy is foremost on my mind. Emma, as a character, is also delightful, attractive, and respect-worthy, but not as appealing to me as Ms. Bennet. Emma, in my opinion, is a woman’s woman while Elizabeth is the rare case of a woman who is both a woman’s woman and a man’s woman. Emma’s preoccupation, for example, with social intrigue and match-making is not something that most guys care about two whits. Although some males may consider all Austen films to be “chick flicks”, Emma is the only one that I feel I appreciate differently, perhaps, than does the average female viewer. My impression is that the emergence of Emma’s love for Knightly is a bigger part of the overall delight of this story for female viewers than it is for me. I think, however, that the intrigues between Emma and the secondary characters – Frank Churchhill and Jane Fairfax for example – are a bigger part of the value of the film for me than for some other viewers.

If your interest in the story centers on the romance between Emma and Knightly, you will find the Miramax version with Paltrow and Northam the more satisfying rendition. The advantage in the Miramax version has much less to do with Paltrow vs. Beckinsale than with Northam vs. Strong. Northam is far superior to Strong as Knightly – in looks and manner. My biggest problem with Strong’s Knightly is that he never exhibits any hint of tender feelings towards Emma until very near the end of the film, which makes it appear to come out of nowhere. Strong overplays the parental or big-brother, scolding aspect of Knightly’s complex relationship with Emma at the expense of the affectionate aspect. Although Beckinsale plays Emma a bit differently than does Paltrow, I experience those differences as much in Beckinsale’s favor as Paltrow’s. Beckinsale’s Emma seems more intelligent and calculating, while Paltrow’s Emma seems more capricious.

Weighing against this advantage for the Miramax film is the distinct superiority of the casting of the secondary characters in the A&E version. Olivia Williams is magnificent as Jane Fairfax. Though fans of Ewan McGregor will object, his counterpart in the role of Frank Churchill in the A&E production is far superior. Likewise for the casting of Miss Bates and Mrs. Weston. For those as much enamored with the interactions between Emma and these secondary characters as with the central love story, there are distinct advantages in the A&E version.

The bottom line is that if you already know that you enjoy Emma, from reading the novel or having seen one film version, consider seeing both of these fine Emma adaptations. If you insist on settling for one, ask yourself whether you’re more in it for the romance or the intrigue – then pick accordingly

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: Good Date Movie
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older