Movie Review to Lighten the Mood: Emma with an unnecessary punctuation mark
I saw Emma. (period not optional) yesterday. Just as the period is unnecessary, I think the film was.
Was anyone asking for another version of this story?
Of course, it's beautiful and colorful. Not realistic, but pretty to look at. Some very good performances, in a sense. Some of Austen's irony works. But I left the theater. . . I don't know, disappointed. The flaws I found:
1. Just too long and slow. There isn't enough story there for a film over two hours.
2. Interesting but anachronistic or culturally misplaced bursts of music and singing between scenes. I love "How Firm a Foundation" --been singing it for years--but what in the world did it have to do with the film?
3. While the sets and costumes are beautiful, people back then didn't have that many clothes. In every scene Emma. wears a different gown and hat. OK, she's rich. But Miss Bates is poor, and also wears a different dress in every scene (this actress is quite good). The house of Mr. Knightley looks like Downton Abbey; these people aren't aristocrats. They are landed gentry, although it's unclear how Mr. Woodhouse could even have managed that. At least we see Knightley working. Perhaps I don't understand the economy of Regency England. All I know is that living like that as a woman would be stifling. Many women yearn for that period--not me!
4. We get to see that people didn't wear underwear back then, apparently.
Was anyone asking for another version of this story?
Of course, it's beautiful and colorful. Not realistic, but pretty to look at. Some very good performances, in a sense. Some of Austen's irony works. But I left the theater. . . I don't know, disappointed. The flaws I found:
1. Just too long and slow. There isn't enough story there for a film over two hours.
2. Interesting but anachronistic or culturally misplaced bursts of music and singing between scenes. I love "How Firm a Foundation" --been singing it for years--but what in the world did it have to do with the film?
3. While the sets and costumes are beautiful, people back then didn't have that many clothes. In every scene Emma. wears a different gown and hat. OK, she's rich. But Miss Bates is poor, and also wears a different dress in every scene (this actress is quite good). The house of Mr. Knightley looks like Downton Abbey; these people aren't aristocrats. They are landed gentry, although it's unclear how Mr. Woodhouse could even have managed that. At least we see Knightley working. Perhaps I don't understand the economy of Regency England. All I know is that living like that as a woman would be stifling. Many women yearn for that period--not me!
4. We get to see that people didn't wear underwear back then, apparently.
Comments