Irresistibly Austen

Movie Review:
Emma

1996 / 2 hrs., 1 min. / PG

Director: Douglas McGrath

The people of Jane Austen’s novels talk.  And talk and talk.  For the English ladies of that era, there was not much else to do.  It was, by and large, a man’s society.  But one can accomplish quite a lot by talking, especially if one says the right things.  Austen’s world was one in which “Mr. Knightley” was proper, “Knightley” revealed unwholesome familiarity, “My Mr. Knightley” was reserved for the bride alone, and women who knew the difference held the power.

In Miss Austen’s tale of Emma, the author created a heroine who says much, and in doing so manages to wreak a polite havoc on her circle of friends and neighbors.  Douglas McGrath’s film adaptation of the book does a wonderful job of taking all that talk and turning it into something comical, something sweet, and something very beautiful.

Emma Woodhouse (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a young lady who fancies herself to be rather perceptive in the area of match-making, and the film opens at a wedding she firmly believes herself to be the cause of, since she had the foresight to introduce the couple to each other.  “What a triumph!” she declares to her father (Denys Hawthorne) and her friend Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam).  And based on that triumph, she plans to do it again, this time by connecting her new friend Miss Harriet Smith (Toni Collette) to the local parson, Mr. Elton (Alan Cumming).

Unfortunately, Emma and Harriet are the only two who do not see the obvious: Mr. Elton and Miss Smith will never go together.  Class differences, as well as Harriet’s lack of breeding, put them in two separate worlds, even if they do live in the same neighborhood.  Although Harriet is temporarily crushed when Mr. Elton ends up proposing to someone else, she is willing to bounce back.  And Emma is determined to try again.

One of the positive delights of the film is the number of cleverly written supporting roles, which is also one of the negative frustrations of trying to concisely summarize the plot.  Let me quickly say, then, that the rest of the film involves such fun as the obnoxious Mrs. Elton (Juliet Stevenson) that the parson brings home after his sabbatical in Bath, the arrival of the extremely eligible Frank Churchill (Ewan McGregor) which prompts Emma’s brain to turn over every possible combination (“Harriet and Frank,” or “Frank and Emma,” or ... ), the dotty Miss Bates (Sophie Thompson) and her practically mute mother – there is a quiet hilarity to the oft-repeated phrase “Mother couldn’t stop talking about it” – and Mr. Martin (Edward Woodall), the simple farmer who is spurned by Harriet at Emma’s suggestion.  By the end of the film, Emma has failed completely in the art of match-making, only to discover one who was patiently waiting to make his own love for her known.

This is Douglas McGrath’s first directorial effort, after writing “Saturday Night Live” material and a couple of forgettable screenplays.  His script for Emma, together with his creativity in the director’s chair, results in a film that is sparkling in every way.  Had I been assigned to write a screenplay for this novel, I would have been at a loss to find the comedy in it; I just can’t visualize personality types in Austen novels.  McGrath has infused his characters with a wide but very human array of quirks that turn an ordinary story into a jewel.

Other film versions of Emma have us ready to spank a bratty child, but the portrayal by Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love) has us shaking our heads in bemused disbelief at her blindness; like a parent comforting a child, and while the child’s head is buried on our shoulder, we smile at the little life lesson the child just learned, perhaps even having to stifle a laugh.  We watch, helpless but bemused, as Emma misinterprets every single affectionate cue from Mr. Elton as being for Harriet instead of someone else.  But then we also cry along with Emma when she realizes the pain she has caused Miss Bates at the picnic.  This Emma has a heart.  I’m not sure which focus Miss Austen would have preferred, but I personally like Paltrow’s version better.

I could praise every performer in the film, for there is not a single actor out of place; but my favorite is Juliet Stevenson (Mona Lisa Smile).  Her take on Mrs. Elton is so funny!  Her facial expressions, her gutteral little laugh – and listen for that hideous sniffing while she talks with her mouth full.  It is an expert presentation of an obnoxious elitist I would never want to be stuck at the dinner table with.

The script in itself is quite joyous.  It’s a feel-good film without the usual smarminess that comes with that genre.  The characters breeze through the day, doing whatever it was they did back then; no one ever seems to ever really work at anything, not even paperwork.  They engage in lively conversations, lively parties, lively picnics – they were lively back then, in an untainted, innocent way.  They engaged in true wit, not caustic sarcasm.  In fact, it is Emma’s single instance of barbed humor that has everyone so shocked during the picnic on Box Hill.  They were gentlemen and ladies in those days – I find that any film from this era has a certain appeal to me.

As with any adaptation, new scenes have been invented to bring out elements of the book that would otherwise be unfilmable.  One particularly creative piece of symbolism has Emma and Mr. Knightley practicing their archery while they discuss Emma’s plans for Harriet.  As Mr. Knightley presses harder and harder his criticism of her match-making skills, our female cupid’s arrows go further and further afield, until Knightley has to request, “Try not to kill my dogs.”

The costumes are both simple and beautiful, and the lighting often serves more purpose than just the illumination of the set.  Watch Emma burn with jealousy as she passes through a single shaft of lamplight during Jane Fairfax’s (Polly Walker) piano recital.

Music by Rachel Portman (The Cider House Rules, Nicholas Nickleby) won an Academy Award for Best Comedy Score.  It is a beautiful main theme, often accompanied with very simple harmony and instrumentation, but it is full of the same joy and life that the film is infused with.  This was the first I had ever heard of Portman.  I have since heard much more of her music, and I’m surprised she is not yet a bigger name in cinematic conversations.

A couple of the film’s elements draw my interest specifically as a student of film production.  First, the editing department created some fun transitions between scenes.  One technique I found clever, and thankfully not over-used, was the cutting of a scene right in the middle of sentences.  It happens twice that I recall, both times serving to save a lot of dialogue elsewhere.  Emma is speaking to her former governess (Greta Scacchi) about what she plans to say to Harriet: “I shall say to her, ‘Harriet ... ’”  A sudden cut shows her seated opposite Harriet as she finishes with, “I have some news.”  It’s simple and effective; editing students should take note of it.

The other element is something I consider a flaw, but analyzing it has been educational.  Every film has a point of view, a perspective for the audience.  We live out the story through the main character’s experience, for example; or perhaps we are given a more omnipresent view as we move back and forth between scenes of the hero and of the villain.  In Emma, McGrath keeps the perspective on Emma the whole time – the camera is always with her; and if Emma doesn’t know something, we don’t know it either.  With one exception.

At one point during a dance party, Emma and Mr. Knightley are outside talking together.  The conversation ends, Emma steps away – and Knightley says one more thing.  “Arrgh!” I wanted to cry.  (I think I did, actually.)  The line itself was not necessary for us to perceive what was going on; and in letting the audience hear something that Emma does not, for one brief moment McGrath’s unfailing perspective is diverted elsewhere.  Some will argue that this does not spoil anything at all, and I guess it does not, really; but I was intrigued by a film that could maintain a solitary perspective for the course of the story, and was a little piqued that it could not hold on for a mere three seconds more.

Sweeping that complaint aside, I have nothing but positive admiration for Emma.  It is well-written, beautifully cast, the production design is spectacular in its quiet way.  It teaches about life without preaching, and what it teaches is wholesome and uplifting.  With the exception of young ones who might be rather bored, or cynical teenagers who won’t find enough explosions, swearing, and sex to keep them interested, this is a film for the whole family that leaves us cheering on the happy couple at the final wedding, and cheering on life as the end credits roll.

And I plan to keep cheering on Mr. McGrath for as long as he chooses to take classical novels and turn them into films.

Artistry: 10
Entertainment: 9