Watched: 05/07/2026
Format: Disc from Library
Viewing: First
The funny thing about
Jane Austen adaptations is that I guess, because I've never read any Jane Austen, is that Austen is the spring from which
rom-com tropes flow. So, even when you're watching a faithful or semi-faithful adaptation of Austen, you may feel the beats or arcs once the many, many moving pieces of an Austen story settle in.
But that's okay. It's not like people can't pick out the beats in a Spider-Man movie.
I do recall this one being advertised, but seeing it came out in 2020 means it may have played to empty movie theaters, but I'm also seeing it is not embraced and beloved as other Austen adaptations. And Jamie's reaction was pretty muted when the movie wrapped up. That said, while I was goofing off with CB and JAL on Sunday, she watched
Clueless,* which is loosely based on the book of
Emma, so maybe too soon?
The challenges of these movies are manifold. You need to adhere largely to the book or the Austen-heads will make sure that if you don't, they can drag you. Of course, the books do not follow the "wisdom" of modern screenwriting rules, which are intended to serve audiences who can only handle knowing who is good and bad, and when will the final boss show up.There are far more characters than modern screen-writing guidelines usually will say are a good idea. And that can include characters who are discussed and not seen for quite a while - we're not meeting everyone important in the first five minutes as Modern Screenwriting Law would insist. And we're certainly not clear on everyone's specific deal. Communicating the social rules of
Regency Era England to modern audiences - especially Americans who bristle at these things - can be hard.
And yet - we keep making these movies and people tend to like them, because Austen knew how to write/ created a very specific kind of fantasy that's as satisfying in its way as any "male" fantasy story. And they've already stood the test of time - which means they just already work for a wide audience.
The cast is punctuated with actors who would soon be more familiar. The eponymous Emma is played by
Anya Taylor-Joy - I think very well. Her pal Harriet is
Mia Goth.
Josh O'Connor plays Mr. Elton (and is hysterical, imho). But there's also
Bill Nighy as Emma's father and
Miranda Hart as Miss Bates.
This is my first exposure to the story of Emma other than seeing Clueless one time in the theater. I don't know. It was a thumbs-up from me. Anya Taylor-Joy and Mia Goth were solid. Bill Nighy was terrific (and I guess Emma laid the groundwork for the oft-repeated solo-girl and her daddy sad-house). It was a good mix of silly and semi-serious - including characters both rich and cartoonish. The life-lessons imparted were non-bullshit and I didn't roll my eyes, which is not nothing. It's well shot, and I thought it got honestly better as it went along, versus what too many movies do.
I have no idea if any of it was historically accurate, but it was pretty to look at.
Weirdly, this was the last IMDB movie credit for director Autumn De Wilde who I *do* know, but only from her many
Florence + The Machine videos. She's super good at those. Three thumbs-up.
Anyway, the best uncommented upon gag in the movie is the casting of the 6'1" Miranda Hart with the 5'1" Myra McFadyen as her mother.
*I am unapologetic in my loathing of Clueless, so it's best I was gone. If I never have to watch it again, I'm good. And walking in on the last ten or fifteen minutes did nothing to make m rethink my case.
