Posted by Sylvia on June 29, 1997 at 17:25:02:
In reply to Alternative Realities...again. posted by Kali on June 29, 1997 at 14:22:24
] I think perhaps the "magic" that everyone sees in Emma2 is a lot like the "conceptual genius" others see in Clueless (which I didn't like). Some people are sticklers for original detail, in which case the settings and costumes of Emma3 would have it out with the scripts and portrayals of Emma1 for the "best." Others find a tone - a feeling - which strikes them (perhaps something akin to the frequency of a dog whistle!) just so and absolutely MUST be recreated in every subsequent experience of the story, and no amount of faithful detail will make up for its absence. Modern conceptualization - whether in Doug Mc Grath's incarnation or Amy Heckerling's - involves maintenance of a tone and a structural coherence rather than strict adherence to a list of original scenes and quotations.
] I've come to liken the comparison or ratio of orthodoxy or whatever you wanna call it to the differences between photographs, impressionistic paintings, and modern cubist stuff. Some people want realism - perfect copies in visual media, just like a photo or a carefully-painted portrait (oftentimes these lack feeling - how many times have we seen a perfect portrait with a dead expression?). Others are touched by fresher, more inventive means of expression - records of shape, light, and color which capture the mood and general form but not the crisp details of the real thing. Others will take the tendencies of the latter to a farther extreme, demanding not merely inventiveness but entirely new ways of expressing the subject and tone. At this point, many of us will stare at the canvas (or whatever) and ask, "How the hell did she get ______ outta ______?!" And some people can see the good in (and LIKE) just about everything, as long as the tone is consistently and masterfully kept throughout. While few of us fit the opposite extremes, I think we all generally fit into one of the three (four) categories.
] While people like us may be so receptive to art in general that we no longer question the validity of even the oddest artistic progressions, I think the example works.
I confess, old friends, that I am an unabashed romantic and anything (whether film or literature) that is furtherest from MY reality is agreeable! (You can see where I stand on the preference for realism!) I've enjoyed this lively debate and it appears that we have such different opinions that we will only distress ourselves in convassing the matter. But to throw my opinion into the fire, I liked Emma2 so much because of its light tone, romantic heroine and hero (let's face it, neither GP nor JN were difficult to look at) and the beautiful outdoor settings. I loved Emma the book because of JA--her wit and humor, plot and storytelling (the Jane Fairfax/Frank Churchill mystery is a gem) and all the superlatives that others have posted. But with film, I want escape!! (Because I am supposed to be so serious IRL). And the more romantic the hero and heroine and the film, the better for me.