Posted by greg on August 31, 1997 at 01:05:55:
In reply to Re: I watched Emma2 again (long post alert) posted by Peggy Haley on August 30, 1997 at 04:24:46
I've only seen Emmas 2 and 3, but neither was even close to being satisfactory IMO...
So neither one was really able to get to the heart of the character. As a result, they sell the novel short...
This is so much more than a comedy of marriages. The "book" Emma is misguided by her arrogance in ways that cause real pain, real harm, well beyond her loss of favor in Knightley's eyes. She is shamed - and she should be. Paltrow's Emma gets off with a mere slap on the wrist, and suffers very little; the focus is all on *her* feelings toward Knightley, and not nearly enough on her humbling with respect to Jane Fairfax and Miss Bates. This typifies the whole of Emma 2, which to me, has all the moral and dramatic heft of a paperback Regency romance. Emma 3 is *slightly* more thoughtful, but still misses out. I also found it rather drab and boring...
] A final Emma 2 query: Did anyone *not* see the eventual union between Emma and Knightley coming, almost from their first scenes together? The way it dawned upon me while reading was one of the most delightful surprises the book had to offer. Moviegoers, you were robbed!
] All just my opinions, of course. Any other novel lovers out there?
i don't see how an emma lover can resist weighing-in on this thread, so here goes:
very interesting and thoughtful posts, kathy f and peggy(julia, too, but her accusation of ms being 50 is unforgiveable ;-) ). i agree with most of what kathy f said, but think she should lighten-up a little on e2. most of the character changes weren't all that big, and i find it hard to fault a movie which is so enjoyable and uses the general plot of emma. and i find it amusing that kathy f is so upset about emma lying, even if it would be unthinkable to ja. look at e2 on a spectrum that includes clueless and i think you'll have a better perspective(and i DON'T mean that as a cut to e2!).
now, as far as e3 goes, i think most here still fail to appreciate its great - dare i say it - janian subtleties. it is not dark, not drab, and not boring , it's just different than e2. exquisite e3 is how i'd refer to it. and don't even think of raggin' on kate beckinsale!
having gotten that off my chest, i think you both are understandably somewhat disappointed that no version seems quite definitive, and i agree. the book is just TOO GOOD! like other great novels(e.g., jane eyre)producers keep taking shots at it from different angles, but none quite hit the bulls-eye.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.