Emma

I have rated this quite highly on two counts - one, the casting (largely forgotten names litter the cast including Doran Godwin as Emma, John Carson as Mr Knightley, Debbie Bowen as Harriet, Constance Chapman as Miss Bates, and Timothy Peters as Mr Elton) and two, an absorbing adaptation even if done in obviously studio (and rather cheap) sets.

Running at four hours plus, this version does more justice to the book than more cursory and recent attempts have been able to. Although both Emma and Knightley come across as a little older than they should be (21 and 39 I believe in the book), their growing understanding is believable, and you do find yourself hoping for that elusive happy ending.

What does mark it down is the annoying tune! Quick bit of trivia: Blackadder fans should note that Robert East, Prince Harry in the first series, is here as Frank Churchill.

If you are a Jane Austen fan and considering to buy a film of Emma i would recommend this version. This because , as a TV series it's longer then any movie and therefor includes more of the original story. Also the acting is very good and the whole production has a Austen feel about it. Yes it's been mostly filmed in a studio but to me that gives it a more intimate feeling. Also i have to say that i did like the version with Kate Beckinsale but do not really care of the version with Gwyneth Paltrow. This TV series lasts about 4 and a half hours. So, if you look for a shorter version , take the Beckinsale and if you really want to dive into it, take this one. I would like to single out Donald Eccles who , as Emma's father, is very funny as is Mary Holder as Mrs. Bates.

I have seen each of the three main video versions of Emma (this 1972 BBC version, the Kate Beckinsale version, and the Paltrow version) several times (as well as having read the book) and I love each of them. It is so rare to get gentle, subtle, nuanced psychological drama, that I find I turn to Emma again and again. I think which one you enjoy most on a particular afternoon or evening will depend on your mood. The Paltrow version is lightest and funniest, entertainment to cheer you up; the Beckinsale version engages you as a serious drama of a beautiful young woman, is the most realistic, it is what you want if you want to feel transported back to the time the story happened. This 1972 version's strength is that it presents the psychological complexity of the characters with more fidelity and completeness to the portrayals in the novel. Due to the early 1970s production values, this version appears a bit stagy, and that can be off-putting if you've never seen that kind of TV before (I am a little over 50, so I remember seeing these kinds of productions when they originally aired, which may make it easier for me to get past the artificiality). One problematic element for me is that the actress who plays Emma is about 6 years too old, and she is not as attractive as Beckinsale or Paltrow, and these factors were a problem for me on my first viewing of this version. However, on second and subsequent viewings this was not so much of an issue, and I was able to appreciate her very nuanced portrayal of Emma's feelings and reactions and the process of learning more about human nature, and about the limitations of her own ability to imagine what the hidden feelings are of other people. Also, it took a second and third viewing to realize that the character of Emma's father, as presented here, is a comic character, because here, in a novel which is so much about weddings, he always finds weddings a distressing and melancholy business. His toast to the engaged couples in the very last scene (a toast not in the book) is a humorous reversal of the praise and delight for matrimony we expect. Another element that comes out in this version is the similarity between Emma's father, an invalid who always wants his daughter Emma by his side and who opposes the idea of her marrying, and Frank Churchill's step-mother, Mrs. Churchill, who is also an invalid who always wants her stepson Frank by her side and opposes the idea of his marrying. It always used to bother me that invalid Mrs. Churchill, who is so important to the story, never makes an appearance in the story, until I realized that, in effect, she had: she is the female version of Emma's father, and everything you want to know about her, you may find in him. The negative attitude of the characters towards her is likely the same negative attitude they would have towards him, if he lived far away and all they knew about him was that he used his claims of illness to keep his daughter close. The very last scene of this version also develops a similarity in the personalities of Emma and Frank that is missing from the other versions and that is necessary, I think, to understand just how psychologically complex Austen's novel really is.

A very refreshing thing about all versions of Emma is that every character is genuinely good-hearted and wants good for the other characters, but their own quirks, self-centeredness, and inability to understand other people means they cause pain to each other despite their good intentions. The only exception to this is Elton, who justly feels that Emma misled him about her affections in her attempt to unite him to Harriet, and in unjust retaliation he snubs Harriet on one occasion. The characters' ability to find happiness depends not on whether they defeat some unrealistic 'bad guy,' but on their ability to learn more about the true understanding of what others feel, and what they feel themselves. That's what the art of story-making should focus on, in whatever form (book, movie, TV, or stage) the story is told.

I have just finished watching this adaptation of Emma for the first time and I feel I must openly declare here that it seems to me quite shameful that the Paltrow and the Beckinsale versions should be more often remembered. How that is to be explained I am at a loss to tell. It is true that John Carson may not look to be the epitome of Knightleyness, but he does a most excellent job of acting like Mr Knightley, and that is what one should care about, I say. Indeed, I was gratified by the sheer intelligence and sensitivity of all the actors in it, the director, the screenwriter and even the dress-maker or whatever she is called. The clothes and dresses may not all have been true to the times but most certainly they were thoughtfully true to the characters.

Also, wonder of wonders, there is no musical soundtrack to pester one's feelings telling them what to feel at every turn. What that does is it helps to make dialogues sound truthful, natural and issuing from people who are thoroughly engaged – both as actors and characters – in listening to each other.

Another thing that has contributed to place this in my estimation as the best extant adaptation of Emma is that there is no symbolic meddling with the story (excepting perhaps on the last tableau). One thing I love in Jane Austen – which is of course not what there is to be loved in other authors – is that nothing she writes has any symbols: every little thing is whatever it is, no less, no more. And I unconditionally praise the director John Glenister, the screenwriter Denis Constanduros and the producer Martin Lisemore for having seen that simple fact about Jane Austen and for having brought the book to life so clearly and so lovingly.

So three cheers for them, and five to Doran Godwin.

The appealing nature of this adaptation is its length and its fun. Characterisaton comes close to the work Davies did in 1996 for A&E, although it differs somewhat. That might be down to the literary criticism of the day, though, and particularly in the judgment upon Harriet as a dull, stupid cow. Davies was a little more nuanced in his judgment upon all characters, but nonetheless, the work Denis Constanduros produced was very true to the spirit of the novel and made use of the comedy elements in the original text. Particularly in costume and the one character of Mr Woodhouse Constanduros produced classic comedy that was about words rather than one-liners and ridiculous situations.

Also the age-difference between Emma and her Mr Knightley is very much apparent. Knightley is not as vigorous as Mark Strong in the role, but this Mr Knightley has not the task of radiating sex-appeal, but rather radiating stability and wisdom through experience, like Austen's version.

Despite the lack of technology to make shots and filming on location truly possible, they did well. There is also no music which made it necessary for the actors and director to truly act and film the characters' feelings so the viewer could comprehend them. It is surprising how they managed to still convey the same emotional tension (or even more of it than they do now) through mainly just close-ups. That, though, might slightly bother the modern viewer. However, through it, viewers are compelled to use their own brain more than with modern adaptations of the novel.

Most of the contents is not toned down, only maybe the complicated business with Churchill and Jane when things are going wrong in the end. The main point of Emma and Knightley's blindness to each other stays upward better than in the Miramax version of 1996. And that without all that Miramx had to their disposal.

It is the only adaptation of the work as well, that uses the wordiness of Austen. It is important as a viewer that one listens more than that one watches. We could easily just make the adaptation in a hear-play, it would make little difference. The language is so expressive and the comedy is so much embedded in it that the physical acting matters less. And that is what Austen is about: it is no slapstick, but pure wordy wit. We have come a long way since the 1970s in comedy.

All in all, a satisfactory adaptation without sex-appeal, but with sweetness. I daresay, how Austen would have liked it.