I was really scared to watch this film. but
what can I say? not all heroes wear bonnets. hello and welcome back to my channel. now if you haven't been here before. you
might not know..... [coughing] I do say by me I have been caught in a draft.
hello and welcome back to my channel. my name is leena norms and if you haven't been here
before, you might not know the world's on fire. well the world is on fire but it's
important to occasionally maintain a love of the trivial. are women's voices trivial.
are you a secret misogynist Leena? I would recommend when pondering any climate of crisis
to take a brief period drama break. and that's what Universal Pictures gave me the opportunity
to do the other day. they let me see the new adaptation of 'Emma' early. god bless. send it
up. not spon by them. I was gifted obviously a screening to see the film. and I was jubilated
and also incredibly nervous as I know a lot of Jane Austen fans have been. for those of us that
are still reeling from the funeral of 'Cats'. god rest it's soul. it's a nervous time to be dipping
into new adaptations of old loves. my true love of all the Jane Austen's is 'Emma' and on top of
that, my true film adaptation love is the 1996 Gwyneth Paltrow adaptation. so today I thought
I'd fill our lives with fun and frivolity and review the two films. why do it with nuance? we're
literally going to pitch them against each other Ahhh I'm fainting. frightfully
overcome with the excitement. if you have continued past this point and
honestly have never seen or read 'Emma' before and don't want to be spoiled.. I mean you're
a few sandwiches short of a picnic and I can't help you there mate. I guess this is mainly for
fans of 'Emma' like me who might be nervous about seeing the film or people who have already seen
the film and want to talk about the nuances and how they feel about it because I have a lot of
feelings. now there will be a winner here and a loser. none of your socialist sharing today. I'm
serious about this. there are categories. we're gonna do overall look and feel. otherwise known
as world building. we're gonna do casting. yes, I'm gonna go through every single character.
we're gonna do most loved / most important scenes. then finally we're going to discuss
the portrayal of Emma, the character. I'm not going to lie, when I first came in to
this film I didn't really warm to it for the first third of the film. I was expecting it
to be more starkly directed and I struggled to immerse myself in the world. there was a
little bit of a Brechtian gap between how I was expecting to feel immersed and how
immersed I actually was. I think that was intentional it really reminded me of Marie
Antoinette. block colours, weird camera angles, a general staggered awkwardness to the way it
was cut, which I like. it's just not the... I was warned from the trailer that it would be
like that. but it was also just such a contrast to the warmth and the nostalgia and the gentleness
of the 1996 version that it first felt weird to be immersed in an environment that was associated
with 'Emma'. I'm really attached and just a real big advocate for the way the 1996 version opens.
it establishes an ethereal voice which I think is the voice of mrs. Weston in it actually. and they
used that narrative voice the whole way through the film which mimics the satirical narrative
voice of Jane Austen herself. they have this shot of the globe and it's zooming in to this painted
globe that emma has and there's this line about 'when you live in a small town and you lived in
this era, this was your world. your small town was your world and everything in it became incredibly
important to you.' and I think that was a really self-aware way of saying 'look, we know these
people are privileged. we know this is frivolous, but to these people it is important. let yourself
care about this small town for this hour and a half. make this town your world.' which for a
modern audience I think is really important and I love the way it's set up. you don't get that
with the new 'Emma' but you get a different kind of intimacy. we see the characters in more private
moments. moments that aren't in the book or the other film where they're just sitting alone in
their houses. sometimes naked. getting dressed. assembling themselves. reminding us that naked and
alone these people are very similar to us and it's only when around each other that they are more
performative and seem more distant from us. yes, Johnny Flynn is naked in this film. please ready
yourself because I was not. but all that being said, as I got into the 2020 version of 'Emma' I
started to really love it and I started to compare it to 'The Importance of Being Earnest' film
and the kind of whole tone of 'The Importance of Being Earnest' and Oscar Wilde. which is a
lot closer really to the way Jane Austen wrote, particularly towards the end of her life when
she wrote 'Emma'. it's more satirical than sentimental. this is a comedy of errors and the
sound design as well made things more echoey, more distant, more stark. in the new version
we also see more of Harriet's digs. Harriet is the girl that Emma befriends and hopes to
bring up into society even though we don't know who Harriet's parents are. and she has
just graduated from this school for orphans where she was left by her anonymous parents
and still has digs there. that's where she lives. that's where she hangs. while her future
hangs in the balance. Emma meeting her at this very integral stage of her life and also Emma
lowering herself to entering spaces like that when she's so elevated in society is not what
happens in the books or in the other films but it is an interesting choice that a lot of the
scenes that are supposed to be set in Emma's house are in fact set in the humble lodgings of
Harriet. so overall, surprise win of round one: I actually think that the 2020 version is better.
not warmer to my heart. not something that I feel so emotionally close to. but objectively more
close to what I think Jane Austen intended. and in what it achieves. much more interesting.
ding ding. one point. also I'm not sure about the symbolism of seeing Harriet's other orphans.
but there was some weird 'Handmaids Tale' imagery going on that they had to have been aware of. and
I'm not sure what the point of that was. but let me know in the comments below what you think your
theory is as to why they would have done that. the casting. let's talk about the casting. mr.
knightley. mr. knightley is, let's be clear, 16 years older than Emma in the book. which
is uncomfortable for modern audiences to watch and also more unbelievable. harder to warm to.
especially when mr. Knightley has a certain amount of social power over Emma. he's much more friends
with her dad than he is her and there is a lot of weird daddy issues that can be inferred from the
book where it's like, she won't leave her father so she marries a friend of her father and then the
father and the father live together and she gets to stay in her family home. that is objectively,
by modern standards, really weird. and I think it's good to transpose that a little. so casting
Johnny Flynn... ahhhhh. who I [inaudible]. I genuinely love. and I'm not really somebody who
gets very attached to public figures but I think he's amazing. he was in 'Lovesick' which should
have been and was called 'Scrotal Recall.' and for that I recommend it alone. he was in 'Beast'
which he was incredible in. and he's also an incredible musician. and I think he was a really
interesting choice for this role. Jeremy Northam, while very slick, presents a very two-dimensional
mr. knightley. however hot he is in this film. and I feel like Johnny Flynn brought a soft
masculinity to it that is necessary for the role and that I loved. he is a lot younger in
this, they look the same age. he has a very moral heartfelt quality to him. but he also brings a
more bumbling, fumbling side to him which i think is really nice. and especially at the end, makes
a lot more sense. especially when he's stumbling over his words. he actually dares to cry twice in
this film which is obviously off-book but great. we spoke before about how I love a man who cries.
and you really feel for him in this. there's also a really interesting setup of seeing him getting
dressed in the morning. him being assembled into period clothes. when often it is a trope in
period dramas where you always see the woman being buttoned up. but you see him naked. don't
be a perv, leena. we live in an equal society, come on. we see him vulnerable and naked. we see
him being dressed by butler's. and seeing how uncomfortable period clothes are for men as well
and how he is putting on a front of masculinity and strength. and I thought that was a really
interesting choice. overall I just loved him in this. he brought a real kind of English
awkwardness. he made mr. Knightley funny. I don't know how he did that. he's now my one true
Knightley. the other ones can f**k right off. I was disappointed in the casting of Harriet. let
me know what you think. Toni Collette plays her in the 1996 version. and in this it's Mia Goth.
and Mia Goth really plays on her stupidity which I thought was a shame. in the book and in the
1996 version it's much more clear that Harriet, while a bit scatty, while a little bit slow
on the uptake, is really Emma's equal in personality. she has as much personality as
Emma. she can match her in conversation and it's much more clear why Emma would befriend
her despite the social class disparity. to me it's much more clear in the original narrative
that they have an intimate friendship. it's only really at the end of the new film that we see
them physically touching. laughing together. having any kind of connection. in this new film
Harriet is shown much more as really easy bait. in this one Harriet is clearly prey for an
Emma with claws. she's not somebody Emma sees, appreciates and however self-centered-ly wants
to help. I've no opinion on mr. Elton casting. nor do I want to. I really hate this character.
they're quite an easy character to play and both mr. Elton's do it justice. so I don't.... points
for all the houses. everybody gets a point. let's be Dumbledore at the end of every f*****g
Harry Potter book, where everybody gets a prize. Bill Nye is mr. Woodhouse. I'm not even gonna
bother learning the name of the 1996 guy because god damn it, Bill Nye is now my original mr.
woodhouse. he doesn't get as much screen time in the 2020 film as he does in the 1996 one. which is
a shame because there's so many funny moments in the book with mr. Woodhouse and I love him and he
really makes the book for me. they did this really clever device thing with being obsessed with
draughts and blinds and stuff in the new film. and I loved that. and I think Bill Nye is such
a clear and crisp actor that he can get across a very big character in a very small amount of
screen time. so he was a perfect choice. and it's also really funny because he admits in interviews
that he's never read a Jane Austen book. never watched a Jane Austen film. but very much enjoyed
wearing the breeches. which I appreciate. oh my god we're going to very briefly talk about this
because it's such an easy one. okay. mr. Martin is played by Adam from 'Sex Education'. it's so good
and need I... I don't need to say anything else. okay so they go and give us Juliet Stevenson for
mrs. Elton in the 1996 version. 'get your lesbian feet out of my shoes.' and then you go and throw
Tanya Reynolds into the mix. and I'm supposed to choose?! if there's ever an am dram performance
of Emma, please cast me as mrs. Elton. I think all would be incredible at it. this is my life
calling. Tanja stands up to this part so well. she has this incredibly long neck that for some
reason I now see is perfect for the character of mrs. Elton. she's much more starkly rude than
the 1996 version. and you kind of like... with the 1996 version I love it because literally everybody
knows that's mrs. Elton in the 1996 version. but I also just love the way Tanya played it and I
think, God... points for everyone. points. I'm sorry. there are points for everyone here. Frank
Churchill. why are you putting this random hot man in this character. look we had Ewan McGregor for
Frank Churchill in 1996. it was very hard to top that. but I felt like they went in a completely
different direction with the 2020 version and I'm not really sure how I feel about it. in the 1996
version Frank Churchill, who is a bit of a rake, convinces Emma that he's in love with her. when
he's f*****g not. he's secretly engaged to Jane Fairfax. but we're supposed to warm to him, we're
supposed to believe that he is an equal companion of Emma. we're supposed to be excited about them.
and Ian McEwan plays a very cheeky, amiable Frank Churchill. whereas... who is this guy? Callum
Turner. this guy just reeks. like the way he plays it he just reeks of STI's. he's like the f**k boy
that you're immediately just like, 'I will attain some kind of disease or heartbreak from this man.'
he's so clearly a rake in this that it's hard for us ever to believe that Emma might be with him.
which is such a fun part of the plot to be sucked into. and you're just not in this film because of
the casting. and I just like.. I'm just like 'no' to this Frank Churchill. no, no. points for Ewan
McGregor. a cake for him. 4 for you Glenn Cocco. I am.. [police sirens in background]. somebody
is committing a crime again. who was it? crimes against humanity. the police are coming for
you.. people who cast Frank Churchill. now, Miss Bates. Miss Bates. okay I love Miranda. I do.
I'm such a fan of it. I was so excited to see that she was in it and I think it was a really good
casting. however, weird choice, because the whole comedy and what's so funny about Miss Bates is
that she has a comedy duo with mrs. Bates. who is mute. she doesn't speak. and Miss Bates translates
to her very loudly. and what's so funny about what's written about them is that they always
come as a pair but one of them doesn't talk. you get the idea that she kind of disapproves of
Miss Bates. and Miss Bates won't stop talking. and that's what's funny. in this there is a
complete absence of mrs. Bates. where is she? she's occasionally there. there's nothing funny
about their relationship and actually I was kind of disappointed because Miranda plays this quite
straight. Miranda Hart plays this as a serious part and occasionally will add humour. she really
just uses her blank face look that she does with everything. to insert the humour rather than using
pacing and intonation and more script... I don't know. oh my god, is Ruth Jones in the 1996...? we
need to go back. it looks like she plays the Bates maid. we're gonna go with Sophie Thompson for
this one. she did such a good job and I'm sorry Miranda, but the stakes are high here. what can I
say? casting round over. we're now onto most-loved / important scenes. what did I see what did I
not see? how did we see that? let's find out. There's a scene I really loved in the 1996
version that I didn't... I don't think it's even in the book. but it's definitely not in
the 2020 film. and I really missed it. and it's Harriet's most precious treasures bag. all the
things she obsesses over with the men that she's in love with in how she burns them. and it's
such a sweet.. like summarises her character. well-rounds and '4d's' her character so well that
I really missed it as a scene. and I'm sad. also in the new one we don't get the crash of Emma
going into the lake and then Frank Churchill rescuing her which is weird. why omit that?
that was such a great visual scene. could you not afford a pond? and also they slightly mess
up the storyline. maybe to make it more obvious for audiences that haven't seen or read another
version of 'Emma'? but also it's such an easy thing and makes it so much better. in the new one
Harriet realises that emma is also in love with mr. Knightley before it all kicks off. they have
a back and forward about it. she's like, 'hang on, you also like mr. Knightley?' now in the book
what's magical about that and in the 1996 film is that Harriet is so innocent that she doesn't
realise why it would be bad that she liked mr. Knightley or why Emma is so upset. and then you
can't really wait for it to kick off and you don't know what's gonna happen and it's very exciting.
for that to happen so early on and for it to not be what really happens and for that to be so
obvious and 'you've got my man when it's my man, well I love him. no, you love him.' is so.. like
it cheapens it. I think it cheapened the story. and I don't.. maybe I'm just being a stuck in the
mud grump. but like why would you do that. it's so much more interesting when she doesn't know. and
then emma has to make a decision later as to how to tell her and whether to go for Knightley. and
you know? it's the main foil of the book. the main moment of, 'oh s**t'. but the biggest change and
again more spoiler alerts. the biggest change that I loved in the 2020 version was the insertion of
a nosebleed at the most pivotal and romantic point of the film. where in every other adaptation we
have got a kiss and a zoom out on the mountains and you're all so happy for everybody. in the 2020
version he confesses her love, she goes to kiss him and she gets a massive f**k off nosebleed. and
it's so good. it's so funny. and it's absurdist. I like it. it's in the tone of the book. it's
what Jane Austen would have wanted. a nosebleed. genius. it makes it more frantic and awkward
and it shows how panicked emma is about hurting somebody else. and it shows how preoccupied she
is with what other people think of her and how she makes other people feel which ultimately I think
is more accurate for Emma that she wouldn't just jump into something and start kissing somebody
and being like 'it's fine because I'm in love. who cares about everybody else.' it's a minor
moment of horror that a modern adaptation of any Jane Austen film requires and I loved it. maybe in
the 2090 version we can have Emma on her period? just a suggestion. and the other big moment that I
think was done so much better in the 2020 version was the dance. after mr. Knightley saves Harriet
from all the embarrassment and asks her to dance, Emma's so impressed with how thoughtful and
caring he is that she effectively asks him to dance. and then they go 'well we can because
they're not really brother and sister. we're not related.' not brother and sister at all and
it's sexy. and then they go into this dance and in the 1996 version it's so.. like it's just
them repetitively holding hands then letting go of hands and being happy... and it's not really..
it's supposed to be the moment they realise they're in love with each other. and it's kind
of like not as much in the 1996... [inaudible] I'm so excited. in the 2020 version it's so
hot. it's the hottest dance scene. oh! I feel a little... can we open a window? it's all about..
you need to watch it. but like the way they touch each other. and how unspoken it is and the way
they brush up against each other and the sound design. you can hear them touching each other's
clothes as they dance. it added a rare moment of sex to an essentially sexless film. and finally
ding ding last round - Emma herself. who will win? You might have noticed in the casting round I left
Emma out. that's because I have many opinions. and it links to how I generally think the character
of Emma was portrayed in both films. and why I think the casting was successful or unsuccessful.
and so we have Gwyneth Paltrow in the blue corner. and in the red corner Anna Taylor Joy. which miss
Woodhouse will win? well it all depends on how you feel about Emma as a character. what you want
her to be and what Jane Austen wanted her to be. well I tell you what Jane Austen wanted her to
be. Jane Austen said 'I am going to make a heroine whom no one but myself will like.' at this point
in her career Jane Austen has already knocked out 'Sense and Sensibility', 'Pride and Prejudice'
and 'Mansfield Park'. she's already here. she's already famous. she's getting to that point where
she's like 'f**k it. I'm gonna write a b***h that nobody likes.' and honestly, as a teenager
when people were like 'I am just like Elizabeth Bennet.' I was like, 'I think I'm kind of more
like Emma.' what I love about Emma is she's somebody with a default setting of selfishness
that she knows about and is constantly railing against and trying to become better. I felt the
casting in the 2020 version was a lot meaner. she played Emma a lot meaner. in the beginning of the
film she was quite two-dimensional with the way she played it. there were less exhausted *trying
to do the nicest thing* faces. and more like 'ha! everybody thinks I like them but literally I hate
everyone' kind of looks. and it's not really what Emma's like in the book. and I thought it kind
of took away from the beginning of the film and that's why in the first part of the film I felt
a little deflated and a little worried. however. no actually, not however. let's first go back to
why I feel this way. gwyneth Paltrow in this film plays Emma less satirically. and I'm not saying
that's good or bad. but she plays her in a more sentimental way. a way that's really sincere.
there's this scene at the beginning where we really see sincerely Emma's love of mrs. Weston
and her leaving being the catalyst for her making friends with Harriet and creating a plotline for
this novel in the first place. we see how much she really loves her and cares about her and how she
is the center of her world rather than just in the 2020 version she kind of knocks on her door and is
like 'I'll miss you. don't leave me. I don't want you to leave me because I need you and I don't
want you to get married.' and in the 1996 version it's more about how much she really genuinely
cares about mrs. Weston. it's not just the way the actress plays it, it's also the opportunities
in the 1996 version that Emma is given to show her more compassionate side. in the book and in the
1996 version Emma acknowledges mr. Martin - the farmer that Harriet is secretly in love with and
is supposedly below Emma. she still acknowledges him. she still says hi. in the 2020 version she's
really rude. it's really out of her station. out of her character to not have any manners and
completely ignores him. doesn't look at him. won't talk to him. completely snubs him rather
than being polite but also being like 'haha I think you're quite poor.' then in the 1996 version
at least pretending to be interested in what he said and saying 'hello'. in the 1996 version emma
is at ease around poor people. she's the person, when they go to help people in poverty, she's the
one who easily tends to the sick. gives them food. looks after the children. and it's Harriet who's
supposed to be of a lower-class than Emma that looks awkward and doesn't really know what to do
and doesn't really want to help the poor people. she's humbled much earlier by Harriet's behaviour
in the 1996 version and says 'now I see I should be lucky to resemble you in any way' to Harriet.
it's quite early on that she's like 'I think you might be inherently a better person than me. you
may not have as many manners and graces or as much money as me but I acknowledge early on in
our friendship that I think you're just like a purer person than me.' which doesn't happen in the
2020 version at all. they very much sensationalise the idea of Harriet being a pet that emma keeps
around rather than emma being deeply lonely and needing company and finding it in this very pure
hearted girl. however, all of that being said... 2020 emma - there's more of a journey that
we go on with her because if she starts off a b***h and becomes definitely not a b***h it's a
more dramatic change for us. it more effectively shows us the difference in her personality and
what she's gone through and her character arc. ultimately the point of Emma's character is, I
think, similar to her other books but in another way - showing that women need to operate within
their class systems. the restrictions of their gender to be happy and succeed. for Emma, she
knows that her freedom and the fact that she doesn't need to marry is afforded to her because
of her wealth and class. she sees that Harriet doesn't have that. in fact Harriet has nothing.
we don't know who her parents are for most of the book. and that she could descend into poverty
and ultimately death. Harriet is half a vanity project for Emma but also partly to raise her out
of a situation that particularly won't benefit Harriet because she is a woman. and getting her
married off to somebody with wealth is a way of saving her. she wants to teach her how to hold
a fort so she can get her a roof over her head. in the end its executed badly and she does.. her
snobbery means that she snubs the one person that harriet really loves, who is a farmer. but a very
middle-class genteel farmer who can write and wear top hats and is friends with her love mr.
Knightley. but in the film what is interesting is that she doesn't only in the end except Harriet's
match to mr. Martin and accepts him round to her house. she also accepts what is revealed to be
Harriet's dad, who is a tradesman and invites Harriet's dad around to the house. which is..
I can't emphasise... much more of a shift than inviting Robert Martin around. and that's
something that doesn't happen in the book or the 1996 version but is an emblem of social progress
and something that I think is really cool to insert into the 2020 version. and I liked that. so
while I'm not in love with the casting, weirdly I think I'm gonna let the 2020 film win this round.
and points aside I'm gonna let the 2020 version win. what I haven't mentioned so far in this
video is that 'Emma', despite being one of the most famous books by a woman ever and to be about
a female protagonist, has never had an adaptation of it made, both screen written and directed, by
women. who are by the way fifty f*****g percent of the population. the director deficit is deafening.
as I mentioned when I talked about mr. Knightley, I think this film is really shot in the female
gaze. we see a lot more of the men. the softness of the men. we also see a lot more of a separation
between the men and the women. how Emma is often sidelined when mr. Knightley and her dad are
talking. generally I think it's shot more true to form of how Jane Austen might have intended
it. that means I didn't get my warm sentimental supermodel Emma. I got mean, slightly spoiled
Emma. it means I got a more distancing satirical setting and overall look to the film. I got a more
brisk and less fluffy adaptation of the novel and that was down to Autumn de Wilde, the director.
and the screenwriter who was Eleanor Catton who is of 'Luminaries' fame and won the Man Booker
Prize a while ago. what this film taught me is that I think the world is ready for a meaner Emma.
she's a truer Emma and I believe by Jane Austen's standards, a more accurate Emma. so while the
beloved 1996 version will always be close to my heart and an OTP. the 2020 version wins. it wins
the battle. you can all go home and have a coke now. and women win the war. not this woman, this
woman is dead. she's very much on the way out. thank you so much for watching. have you
watched Emma yet? what did you think? tell me in the comments below. I really want to talk
about it more. if you haven't been here before, consider subscribing for more videos like
this one. and if you want to support these videos you can join The Gumption Club for
as little as $1 per thing and get lots of amazing perks. I have been leena norms.
you have been whoever you are behind the screen. this has been whatever this
is. and until next time, frog snog out!
