"Emma." and the matter of adaptation

by Cláudio Alves

The COVID-19 pandemic has confined us to our homes, making social distancing the rule and going to the movies an impossibility. Faced with such a threat, some studios have made their most recent movies available for rental and streaming online. Universal, for instance, has made it possible to watch Autumn De Wilde and Eleanor Catton's Emma. within the safety of our homes. After watching it, you might even like to read some reviews on the subject. As it often happens with challenging works of Art, many contrasting opinions can be found if you care to look. More interesting is the manner of these contrasts -- different people seem to have watched completely different movies…

Emma is Jane Austen's longest novel, its heroine being, by the author's own words, the most unlikeable protagonist of her canon. There's also the matter of the story's ungainly complexity, full of colorful characters and numerous parallel plots of matchmaking, snobbery and social manipulations. All coexist in a narrative that seems always unsure if it's supposed to be a biting satire or a comedic romance. Most scholars would probably agree that a satirical sensibility is the best one to interpret Austen's work, but many of her fans will defend the importance of romance in her canon's legacy. 

Whether you're supposed to laugh scornfully at Emma Woodhouse's shenanigans or learn to forgive her by the novel's conclusion will vary from reader to reader. I'd say the author's intention probably lies at a humanistic middle point between mordant social commentary and sugary love stories, but that doesn't matter. After all, an author's intent only goes so far and it's the audience that ends up defining the work's individual and ever-changing meaning. Whatever the case may be, this new Emma is as likely to annoy lovers of satire as those who adore gooey romance, as ready to irritate Austen purists as to infuriate the least literary of cinephiles.

The archness of the comedy of manners paired with the lush visuals can be understandably grating for those not ready to find entertainment in the exploits of a slightly tyrannical, spoiled mean girl. The formalistic excess of the film only makes it more noticeable that Emma is a creature of monstrous privilege, her destructive behavior partly born out of the entitlement that comes with wealth. The happy ending and romantic lenience of the film's second half is thus seen as tonally abrasive, asking the audience to root for unworthy cretins who don't deserve happy endings.

Strangely enough, you'll also find people put off by the film's mordant irony. They're unsatisfied with the way Emma. seems more interested in making its heroine into a ridiculous harpy than in shaping her into a romantic heroine. Is it too cruel to its characters or not harsh enough? Is it too full of romantic nonsense or not romantic enough? Is it too attached to the novel's complicated structure or is it already too revisionist? After all, what constitutes a good film adaptation of a literary work? Some would say a good adaptation must first and foremost be a good work of cinema. 

In other words, if you want to experience the book, read the book. Others may disagree and fight against such scurrilous attacks on the sanctity of the written word. There's also the question of preserving the original novel's true meaning. Although, that would suppose that a work of art can only have one valid interpretation. If two filmmakers read Emma in opposite ways, their movies may be faithful to their interpretation and still be deemed betrayals of the original novel when compared to the other production. Even in the fantasy world where there is only one way of interpreting a book, other issues appear.

Repetition is one of those issues, for it would only take a good faithful adaptation to render all future versions completely obsolete. It'd be boring if all the Emmas were the same. Thankfully, we don't live in such a hellish reality, so we have many different Emmas to appreciate. If you want to see a pastoral rendering of the tale, you have the Miramax version. If you want the plot and characterizations of the novel but little of the humor, go for the ITV TV movie. Clueless encapsulates the themes and comedy of the book, though it strips it of Austen's wit and period setting.

Autumn De Wilde's latest version is far from perfect, but it dares to make Emma into something slightly grotesque, unsettling and prickly. Jane Austen viewed from the perspective of a lepidopterologist, her characters pinned to the screen most clinically with their bold colors on exhibition as well as their pointy fangs. Pretty and unsettling, Emma. is vaguely unsatisfying for some, enchanting for others. Is it a good adaptation? It depends on what you think a good adaptation is – which, as elaborated by this piece, can be a beastly thing to define.

This might not be your Emma, it might not even be my Emma, but I'm glad it exists in all its off-beat glory.

Other takes on the new Emma.
Lynn Lee's Review
Nathaniel & Murtada's Podcast