Emma. | Film Review

Emma is one of my favourite books. I’ve watched several adaptations, from the 1996 film starring Gwyneth Paltrow to the 2009 mini-series starring Romola Garai and even the web series Emma Approved. I was really hoping to find another film to add to my long list of favourite Austen adaptations. My problem with the new Emma movie is that it was almost perfect, but there were a few things that really impacted my overall enjoyment of the movie.

First: let’s get my issue with the movie out of the way. The humour in this movie worked really well most of the time, but for me there was one moment that felt utterly misplaced. When Knightley made his proposal to Emma, she had a nose bleed. None of the dialogue was really changed, at least, but this moment felt extremely wrong. This is the big romantic moment in Emma, and it was played for a joke. I really think this took away from the film, as just because it was more of a comedy than other adaptations have been doesn’t mean that it can’t have a genuine moment. For the relationship of Emma and Knightley to be believable, they need to be able to have a serious romantic connection. I genuinely think that if this scene – and a few others- were executed more seriously this film would be up there with the 2009 version of Emma as one of my favourite Austen adaptations. It is beautifully made, the cast is fantastic, the costumes are gorgeous. But it just lacks that sense of heart that for me is central to making a period drama re-watchable. I probably wouldn’t watch this film again.

Now that my problems are out of the way, let’s talk about the good stuff about this film. There are a lot of great things about this film. Firstly, the use of colour and setting makes the film look fantastic. The pastel colour palette is sickeningly sweet, the costumes more extravagant than in other adaptations of Austen. This really helps to emphasise the over-indulgence and lack of action that characterises the lives of these upper-class characters. The cast is also fantastic. Bill Nighy was seemingly made to play Mr Woodhouse. Everything from his costume to his movements was perfect for this version of the character. Johnny Flynn plays a convincing Mr Knightley, though he is perhaps too much in earnest to match the tone of the film. Anya Taylor-Joy was also wonderfully cast as Emma, as she plays Emma’s meanness in a way that feels more true to the book, whereas other adaptations that tend to make her more sympathetic. This also makes the character development of Emma from the beginning to the end of the film more apparent after the turning point where she is called out by Knightley for insulting Miss Bates, and realises her rudeness.

The scene where Knightley and Emma dance is one which gets it right: showing their feelings for each other in a way that is not mitigated by unnecessary comedy, and I wish there were more moments like this in the film, as the cast and crew were clearly capable of achieving it. Scenes with Mr and Mrs Elton were hilarious, and they worked well because in the book they (particularly Mrs Elton) are characters who are supposed to be seen as somewhat ridiculous in the way that they act.

I would recommend this film to be seen at least once, because I think there is plenty to like about it. It is a well-made film, and as the response to it has shown there are many enjoyable moments. If you are like me and are a big fan of an older adaptation or the book, then don’t go into this film expecting a similar portrayal as past iterations of Emma. Personally, I don’t think that this film got the tone quite right. While I always saw Emma as a romantic story with comedic elements, this version is primarily comedic with romantic elements. If you like that idea, then you’ll like this film.

David Copperfield | Film Review

David Copperfield is a breath of fresh air. Funny, clever, and not afraid to be innovative, this adaptation of Dickens’s novel directed by Iannucci is an entertaining addition to the period drama scene.

Dev Patel is both hilarious and moving as the film’s titular character, and is joined by a talented cast including the likes of Hugh Laurie, Peter Capaldi, and Tilda Swinton. The casting for this film was very well done. Each actor seemed to almost perfectly fit their role. I also think that many of the funniest moments of the film would not have worked as effectively without this specific cast and their interactions with each other.

The film is structured through a frame narrative, with the adult David telling his story from his birth through his childhood and schooling, up to showing him writing his autobiography. Much of the film is involved with writing, telling stories, and paper. An interesting aspect of the film was its use of projection style images to impose one scene on another, or removing a ‘wall’ so that the audience sees into another scene. These experimental aspects were intriguing but they did also break suspension of disbelief, as they made it apparent that what the audience is experiencing is constructed. This could have been intentional, however I don’t think that it always worked.

The strongest moments of the film were when it leaned most into comedy. I remember leaving the film wishing that it had gone more comedic rather than trying to achieve a balance between comedy and seriousness that – for me at least – didn’t quite work. It is understandable why the film didn’t become a complete parody of Dickens, as they were clearly trying to be somewhat respectful to the story as a classic piece, but knowing what Iannucci is capable of in terms of comedy, as well as what the amazingly talented cast is capable of, I think that it could have worked if the film had been even more satirical and comedic.

There were many laugh out loud moments throughout this film, including any scene involving donkeys, and some ridiculously well-executed scenes involving rather unappetising looking cakes. A lot of the more subtly funny moments were achieved through the way the characters stood or sat in relation to one another, or how they talked to one another.

However, there were also serious moments to the film. Though I think the film worked best with its comedic elements, this is not to say that all of the serious moments were weak. I think that the way that the film showed the young David (played by Jairaj Varsani) being treated badly by Mr and Miss Murdstone and being separated from his mother genuinely felt upsetting and showed the fear that a child can feel of adults. Scenes with Mr Murdstone were often shown from the young David’s perspective as if the audience is looking up at him, which was very effective.

In terms of characters, it genuinely felt as if every character worked extremely well as part of the cast. But some stand-out performances would have to be Morfydd Clark as Dora Spenlow, as her character’s abundance of awkwardness with Dev Patel’s Copperfield meant that their every interaction was very entertaining and funny. Tilda Swinton also stood out in her role as Betsey Trotwood, as did Hugh Laurie as Mr. Dick. Though she played a relatively minor character, Nikki Amuka-Bird was also very convincing as the proud and uncompromising Mrs Steerforth.

Overall, this film is definitely one to watch for fans of period drama. For people who aren’t, it is still probably one to watch because of the different approach that it takes. Though at times it may feel like it veers into being too experimental, it is never boring.