Skip to main content

A Sharp and Stylish Austen Reinvention


It’s sometimes difficult to remember why filmmakers keep returning to the well of Jane Austen …until the next Jane Austen adaptation comes along and sweeps us up. There’s just something innately interesting and endearing about the work, as far removed by both era and class as we may be from such stories and characters. Perhaps it is the charming Regency elegance paired with social, domestic, and economic critique, or her sharply drawn, compelling, immortal female protagonists like Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, Elizabeth Bennet, Fanny Price, and of course Emma Woodhouse; or it could just be that her romances are so incredibly likeable. Whatever the reason, it’s no particular mystery why in 2020, yet another Jane Austen movie has reached the big screen in the form of a new version of Emma adapted by novelist Eleanor Catton and directed by acclaimed photographer and music video director Autumn de Wilde, in her feature debut.
The film certainly shows the signs of having been made by someone with a background in portraiture, full of a lot of centred compositions, medium to close shots, elaborate backdrops, vibrant lighting and costuming choices, and an often still camera that gives it at times an almost Wes Anderson or Ozu appearance. However, de Wilde is no strict stickler to style. She keeps the films’ pace dynamic and its imagery versatile as she stages and arranges each scene so as to emphasize the story’s overall comedy. 
Emma is perhaps the most light-hearted of Austens’ novels, driven by a vain, spoiled, and over-confident title character who in Austens’ own words, “had lived twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her.” The stakes aren’t terribly serious and the plot is beheld to a lot of matchmaking, and near farcical levels of misunderstanding. As such, de Wilde and Catton play the story as a kind of screwball comedy, with fast-talking, intelligent, incredibly witty characters bouncing off or at times over one another as sexual or romantic tension builds within a rigid social and class framework highlighted primarily for its absurdism. Anya Taylor-Joy definitely appears to be channeling Katherine Hepburn in more than a couple scenes and her exchanges with Johnny Flynn’s George Knightley wouldn’t be out of place in It Happened One Night, His Girl Friday, or indeed The Thin Man. And yet they’re still quintessentially Austen, though being incorporated under this particular approach allows them and the movie itself to attain a unique rhythm and tone all its’ own.
Taylor-Joy is delightful in the title role, sharp and confident and modern for all of her flowery language and etiquette. In her greatest moments of determinism and deceitful cordiality she strikes me as someone who would play Thackeray’s Becky Sharp extraordinarily well, but her softer instances are just as unmistakably true. More than other actresses who have played this part, including Gwyneth Paltrow and Alicia Silverstone, she gracefully reveals the at-times conflicting layers of the character subtly alluded to throughout the film, so that she’s never quite as unlikeable as Austen intended. Of course it helps that much like the characters at the forefront of Blackadder or Blazing Saddles, she seems to be the only self-aware figure in her entire world. Through much of the movie she is the unofficial mistress to Mia Goth’s sweet but naive Harriet Smith, who she attempts to contrive into a marriage with the foppish local reverend and worst person of the story Mr. Elton (Josh O’Connor).
The offbeat pairing of Emma and Harriet is actually the cornerstone of the film, one of the ways de Wilde and Catton reinvent the story to be as much about the evolution of a female friendship as a romance; and Harriet has as many potential partners as Emma, including the enigmatic though irresponsible Frank Churchill (Callum Turner) and the shy and humble farmer Robert Martin (Connor Swindells). Given the finite scope of its setting like many an Austen story, the impressionable and eccentric supporting characters of Emma have plenty opportunity to pop in now and again throughout the narrative -creating a real, tangible sense of community- and de Wilde assembled a terrific ensemble for it that has no weak link. Bill Nighy as the drearily sardonic father and Miranda Hart as the obtrusive gossip are natural choices of course, but the film features good turns as well from a pompous Tanya Reynolds, a talented but quietly sad Amber Anderson, and two couples: the delightfully mismatched in-laws Chloe Pirrie and Oliver Chris, and the just as delightfully charming neighbours Rupert Graves and Gemma Whalen.
Chief among this supporting cast though is obviously Johnny Flynn as Knightley, Emma’s most prominent love interest and clever verbal sparring partner; dashing yet awkward as Flynn plays the part with amiable charisma and matching levels of sincerity and humour to Taylor-Joy -with whom he shares great chemistry. The scene between them, and indeed the rest of the cast, each of whom have their own story threads at work simultaneously, at the Christmas dance is exceptionally nice and charming. Flynn also sings the beautifully whimsical closing folk tune “Queen Bee”.
The rest of the films’ soundtrack is lovely as well, composed by David Schweitzer and Fleabag’s Isobel Waller-Bridge; which alongside the luscious art direction and exquisitely decadent costuming conveys the Regency atmosphere and fashionable taste with such munificent aplomb it might be in danger of subverting the story’s socially satirical aims.
But de Wilde accounts for that rather brilliantly, the film ultimately fulfilling every objective of the story while still being a distinct specimen in style and vision. Though perhaps not as vividly modern or thematically urgent as Little Women, Emma (though it likely didn’t intend to) follows amicably in its footsteps -just as creatively passionate and indebted to the work its adapting as Greta Gerwig’s recent masterpiece. I would hope that future classic literary adaptations are a fraction as joyful.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...