Mel: that's what I thought to *shrugs*

For example, the scene when Emma is talking with Mrs. Weston about the fact that Emma is in love with Mr. Knightley. She goes from "I hate John!" to "I love John!" almost too drastically.

I hated that part. It was way too...cheesy...

I do love the Miramax version as well since it was the first version of Emma that I saw, but I feel that they were trying too hard to make it a comedy. Emma is supposed to have its comic moments, but I felt that Miramax was really pushing it.

It was a little much, but I do think this version had it down better than the Paltrow version (which had too much/cheesy comedy) and the Beckinsale version (which had hardly anything at all...)

I didn't mean that she had negative emotions, but rather that she was maybe over-dramatic with her emotions. For example, the scene when Emma is talking with Mrs. Weston about the fact that Emma is in love with Mr. Knightley. She goes from "I hate John!" to "I love John!" almost too drastically. The over-dramatics mostly isn't situation specific but more throughout.

Ah, okay, my wrong wording/mis-interpretation, etc. Well. Could you still give me some more instances, though? Even if they aren't entirely situation specific, I'd very much like to know. One thought though, in that scene she's talking about Mr. Knightley's brother, right? (Just trying to keep things straight here). I think I'd much rather any over dramatic moments (as long as they are not so extreme it makes one want to fall over laughing) in Emma (the character) then expressions and other actions that don't fit the time period, such as what I don't like so far in how Garai's Emma is written.

Is that what that was? I had no idea. I interpreted it as Frank's exuberance and general over-the-top "I don't care what people think" attitude and/or a 'let's do a dance step but we don't have music so I'll make it up as I go along'.

It was partly Frank's exuberance and the "I don't care what other people think" attitude too, I think, which led to them doing that, and perhaps the script writers wanted to show how Emma and Frank, er, cross the boundaries in some ways. But then, if so, the Westons' reactions certainly were not of disapproval which would be a clear way of showing the audience that what Frank and Emma did would be considered improper back then. If their reactions had of been such, I wouldn't have minded as much, but they weren't. (Now that I think of it, I suppose they weren't exactly "waltzing", but dancing like that just wasn't done back then, from what I understand. And certainly not approved of for some time.) Maybe I'm just making a mountain out of a mole hill, but to me it's important to be historically accurate as much as possible, even in the little things...

Pardon me for just jumping in here, I haven't seen as many period dramas as I would like to have (since the ones I've seen have all been good!) so I've kept quiet. The ones I have seen are Pride & Prejudice 1995 (and 2005), Sense & Sensibility 1995, and... this is just sad. Just those and parts of Emma 2009, I think. I caught the second hour of Emma after the football game (not my choice, but there wasn't much I could do about it, except watch Robin Hood instead of the game) and what was on last Sunday, and I liked it, for the most part. Sadly, I won't get to see the rest this coming Sunday. (I'll be out of town and can't guarantee that I'll be able to watch it, so I'm just planning for not being able to.)

What made me decide to jump in was this:

Now that I think of it, I suppose they weren't exactly "waltzing", but dancing like that just wasn't done back then, from what I understand. And certainly not approved of for some time.

When I watched that part I immediately thought, "Oooh, he has his hand on her back! How scandalous!" And it was, for the time period. I don't think that it was considered socially acceptable for gentlemen to dance touching the lady's back until somewhere around the American Civil War. I could be wrong though; I have no idea where I read that. But anyway, you're not alone, I thought that part was slightly off too.

I do like that version's Mr. Knightley very much. And I also feel that Harriet was well done, as was Jane. I was wildly confused for a moment, coming in in the middle who was Jane and who was Mrs. Weston. Does anyone else think they look alike in that version? I can tell them apart now, but it gave me so much trouble at first, working out who was who. I don't think that I can say much more about it, given the scattered pieces I've seen, so I'll just let it be.

He did? Obviously, I needed to be paying closer attention. I thought he grabbed both her hands... but then, I don't know anything about dancing, so it's easy for something like that to slip past my notice.

Oh, and Maddy, Masterpiece Classic seems to be allowing people to watch online.

Masterpiece has it up!? I had to watch the whole series on youtube !

I'm afraid I really don't understand all the fuss about North & South. I watched it one day when I was sick and it was alright, but not fabulous.

Maybe it was because you were sick when you watched it? Everyone I know simply adores the third Bourne movie, and while I like it I just can't get over my experience in the theater. My dinner disagreed with me and I had to go throw up in the bathroom

I haven't seen the new Emma yet. I'll probably catch it on DVD. I've only seen the Beckinsale version once and wasn't overly impressed, but I do want to watch it again. The Paltrow version is my favorite, so fun. Portman's score for it is just lovely too.

I felt that Mr. Knightley was pretty much exactly like the book, and I thought he was the perfect age. (Jeremy Northam seemed a little bit too old, though I still like him!)

You do know that he is supposed to be a full twenty years older than Emma, right? If anything, Jeremy Northam looks a smidge too young!

And for the record, I love the "I love John... I hate John!" line in the Paltrow version. It's hilarious

The main thing I don't like about it is the modern inclusions...

I really hate when historical films are packed with modern ideas and conventions. It kind of destroys the point of making a historical/period drama film, no?

That's nice- but the fact remains it's above all a period film, we watch it because it gives us- hopefully- a glimpse of what life was like back then.

Precisely!

I just had seven ladies from my church over my house last Saturday to watch the beautiful, incomparable, nearly perfect 1995 P&P. Oh bliss! Most of them had never seen it (all they had seen was the Keira Knightley version), and they simply adored it. It was SO much fun and we're already planning the next one... which will probably feature Wives & Daughters. Another of my favorites!

I'm surprised no one has mentioned any of the Jane Eyre adaptations yet. I've seen three, the old one with Joan Fontaine, the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton, and the 1973 version with Sorcha Cusack. The Dalton version is by far my favorite, even though it *is* a bit stagey and the cinematography isn't fancy. It was the actors that sold me on it. Dalton is very good as Rochester! And they were so faithful to the book... that always wins points with me

You do know that he is supposed to be a full twenty years older than Emma, right? If anything, Jeremy Northam looks a smidge too young!

I thought in the book Mr. Knightley was 16 years older than her...

I haven't seen Jane Eyre as I haven't read the book and I always watch the movie after I read the book. I might watch Wives and Daughters soon, even though I've never read the book. My mom borrowed it about 5 months ago from one of our friends and she still hasn't seen it, so she wants to watch it later this month...I'll probably watch it only b/c I'd rather watch it than spend the whole afternoon alone in my room or something...

Is it sixteen? Ach, I ought to know better! I reread it not that long ago. In any case, I thought Jeremy Northam looked a very young 37. I would not have wanted him to look any younger. In fact, he could have done with a judicious sprinkling of gray.

I saw Wives & Daughters before reading the book and I don't think it spoiled it for me. It's just so exceptionally well done, and so faithful to the original story in everything... characters, dialogue, events. Having those actors in my head as I read the book for the first time enhanced the experience rather than detracted from it. Enjoy it, GtG, it's brilliant

I do recommend reading Jane Eyre before seeing any of the films... though you may not adore it so much as I did. I think that younger readers often have issues with Rochester that older readers don't. I wrote this on LibraryThing after reading a review which said that JE satisfies our "inner twelve-year-old":

I disagree with that reviewer about my inner twelve-year-old or whatever. Every younger reader that I know who has read Jane Eyre has, without exception, either mildly or violently disliked Mr. Rochester. It isn't about "getting" or understanding him at all. They think him old and creepy and at the end, very pathetic and contemptible. Who would want to waste herself on him?

The younger people I know who are reading/have read this book also have strong objections to Rochester's morality and do not think him worthy of Jane in the least. While I agree about the morality issues, I have a broader life experience at this point and find it easier to forgive... because I know how easy it is to err. And I can recognize the artistry of the character sketch; Rochester is so well written.

And lastly, I read this book in my teens and liked it well enough. But it was only during this last reread, at age 26, that I finally fell in love with the book and felt that I fully appreciated the characters (Rochester included). My inner twelve-year-old has no use for Rochester. My grown-up self, while not swooning over him (except when teasing my husband, lol), sympathizes with his weakness while not condoning it — a fine distinction my younger self could not make.

I saw Wives & Daughters before reading the book and I don't think it spoiled it for me. It's just so exceptionally well done, and so faithful to the original story in everything... characters, dialogue, events. Having those actors in my head as I read the book for the first time enhanced the experience rather than detracted from it. Enjoy it, GtG, it's brilliant

Ok I'll watch it then, feeling slightly less guilty

I don't know if I'll like Jane Eyre or not, but I definetly do want to read it. Hopefully soon, though I'm reading around 4-5 books for school at the moment and 3 of my own picks, including Persuasion...I got the movie for Christmas so I'm reading the book in order to watch the movie *coughsomysisterswillstopnaggingmecough*

wisewoman: Very nice response to the Jane Eyre satisfying our inner 12 year old- I think I've come to realize that with some books or stories you really can only properly like them when you're really old enough to understand the themes of the book. I'm sure when I read Jane Eyre again I'll gain even a slightly better appreciation for it, although I doubt I'll ever actually love it. But that's not wrong, right? We each have different tastes and if we all were the same life would be pretty boring.

That being said, I would still like to see a version of the story in film, preferrably (for some reason or other) not the one from 2006, or whichever one it is with Georgie Henley in it. When I get the chance I'll try to check out some of the ones you mentioned above.

It kind of destroys the point of making a historical/period drama film, no?

I think it rather does! For me at least, to be able to enjoy something. I know I'm not 100% or even 90% a book purist (that's why I can like the '05 Pride & Prejudice) but I think that as I gain in years the more it matters to be that the events in the book are as historically accurate as possible- even if the event may not have happened entirely that way in the original story.

I don't think that it was considered socially acceptable for gentlemen to dance touching the lady's back until somewhere around the American Civil War. I could be wrong though; I have no idea where I read that. But anyway, you're not alone, I thought that part was slightly off too.

I think you're right- the behind the scenes video for Return to Cranford mentioned something about that sort of thing just coming into acceptance, which was about that time, I think.

but then, I don't know anything about dancing, so it's easy for something like that to slip past my notice.

Don't feel too bad- after all, it actual event only took place in a couple of seconds story wise, so it's rather easy to miss.

(that's why I can like the '05 Pride & Prejudice)

yay! Someone who likes it besides me! All my friends always say it's lame and the 1995 version is the best, but I reallly enjoy the 2005 version...

preferrably (for some reason or other) not the one from 2006, or whichever one it is with Georgie Henley in it.

why?

For me at least, to be able to enjoy something. I know I'm not 100% or even 90% a book purist (that's why I can like the '05 Pride & Prejudice) but I think that as I gain in years the more it matters to be that the events in the book are as historically accurate as possible- even if the event may not have happened entirely that way in the original story.

I'm not entirely a book purist either and I do think historical accuracy is best but it's such a little thing, the dancing I mean. I don't really see it as a big deal, I think Frank's head being in Emma's lap is more of a big deal than him dancing with his hand on her back...

I'm surprised no one has mentioned any of the Jane Eyre adaptations yet.

How could I forget Jane Eyre? I have only seen two versions, and unfortunately can only recall the most recent one with Georgie Henley(I'm always forgetting what years things come out in so the only way I can keep things straight is if there's an actor I know of in it). I didn't really like it after the first half.

I might watch Wives and Daughters soon, even though I've never read the book.

I've never read the book either. If you know someone who has read it, I suggest watching it with them and they can explain something that doesn't make sense. My sister and I watch a lot of movies like that since she reads even faster than I do and I can retain things better if I have a mental picture of what's going on.

All my friends always say it's lame and the 1995 version is the best, but I reallly enjoy the 2005 version...

I have to agree with your friends, the '95 is the best. But the 2005 is the best substitute when you don't have five hours to spend watching it.

I actually haven't seen the 1995 version yet (although I do have it ) so I can't really make a comparison...but no one I know likes the 2005 one at all, so that's what I object to...

I have been really busy of late, so though I have been watching this thread with interest, I haven't really been able to comment until now. This is quite sad, as being a lover of classic literature as well as a bit of a cinephile, period drama films definitely serve as one of my guilty pleasures!

At the bottom of this post I'll try to assemble my own list of favorites, but first I'm going to respond to some of the preceding posts, many of them about the new Emma.

Miss Bates was toned down a whole lot for some reason.^^

Yeah, I know. From the interviews and commentaries I've read, it seems as though Sandy Welch (whose work continues to drive me to distraction) thinks of Miss Bates as a tragic character, who tries to cover up the disappointments life has thrown her with incessant chatter. While her circumstances are regrettable (we learn later in the novel that she used to be wealthy and is now poor), Austen does not portray her as at all tragic: "and yet she was a happy woman, and a woman whom no one named without good-will. It was her own universal good-will and contented temper which worked such wonders. She loved every body, was interested in every body's happiness, quicksighted to every body's merits; thought herself a most fortunate creature, [etc.]"

Little Women--the little-known '70s miniseries with Greer Garson as Aunt March and William Shatner as Professor Baer. It was the best adaptation ever and William Shatner is the only Professor that I really like.

I'd love to see Greer Garson as Aunt March, and production values of that miniseries are supposed to be very high (Edith Head did the costumes, and I believe the music was by Elmer Bernstein), but William Shatner? As the Professor? That just sounds scary. I'm afraid I couldn't even begin to take him seriously.

And do you really think the new Emma feels rushed? It has many faults, but I don't think that's one of them - after all, they got 4 hours to tell the story, as opposed to the 2 granted it in the two 90s films.

Fanny, I think you've come to the root of the problem with this new Emma - it's way too modern in its sensibilities. Not just the waltzing and the laying of heads in laps (though those might be the most obvious of the bunch), but also all the stooping, waving, and general lack of propriety. Some critics have said that most of the time everyone looks like modern people wandering around in period costumes, and I agree. Compare the way the characters interact here to some of the better Austen films. There is a distinct social and physical vocabulary to this time period, and I think this was just glossed over in this instance in the interests of "relatability." As to your other points, I do think this Knightley rather close to the book, even though I didn't find him all that interesting - he made for a good balance between Knightley's good-nature and his censorious treatment of Emma. Harriet's a bit too giggly for my tastes; I prefer Samantha Morton in the Kate Beckinsale version. And I think the Frank would have been perfect if he hadn't been so outright rude. Again, a fault of the screenplay.

Gotta disagree that the new Mr. Woodhouse and Jane are the best yet. Gambon way too healthy-looking for his role, and anyway Welch seems determined on making an out-and-out tyrant out of him. Gah. The Jane was fine, but I preferred Olivia Williams in the Beckinsale version.

As for over-the-top (and since we're comparing), I'd have to say that I find sometimes the way Garai's Emma was written, especially with her facial expressions, to be too much for me sometimes, too expressed, maybe almost as if she was trying too hard to be witty/funny/clever/etc. Not exactly weird, but just it feels out of place for a period film (even one that they've tried to make feel more modern) and even border line annoying.

While I'd like to fault the writing for this fault, I'm afraid the blame belongs entirely to Garai and the director. I love Romola - she's one of my favorite actresses - but sort of like Bette Davis, she can be very overexpressive and theatrical when there's not a strong director to reign her in. This is especially the case with the more comic scenes. Otherwise, I think you're right on the dot. Her expressions and gestures are often totally unconvincing as a young gentlewoman of the late 18th/early 19th century. A pity, because I've been hoping Romola would play this role for years.

It was a little much, but I do think this version had it down better than the Paltrow version (which had too much/cheesy comedy) and the Beckinsale version (which had hardly anything at all...)

Why is it that everyone finds the Beckinsale so utterly humorless? I think it's quite witty. "Six good hens, and now Miss Taylor."

I do think I should say in passing the things I do like about the new Emma, as most of my comments heretofore have been negative. First, I thought Johdi May was perfect as Mrs. Weston, Christina Cole and Blake Ritson (as the Eltons) made a deliciously evil couple, and I liked Dan Freedenburgh as the "other" Mr. Knightley. The ball scene was awesome, even though they omitted the brother-and-sister lines between Emma and Knightley ( ). And the scene in which the gauze is removed from Emma's eyes is magnificently acted by Garai, as are several other of the more introspective scenes - if only she had played the whole role so sensitively!

And while I'm talking in positives, here's the list I promised. I hope I'm not omitting anything! (They're in no particular order.)

Daniel Deronda - A brilliant adaptation of the George Eliot novel, and possibly my favorite miniseries of all time. I might even like it better than the book! Everything that's in there is, everything that shouldn't isn't (well, with the exception of two unnecessarily sensual scenes), it's all splendidly crafted and acted. Hugh Dancy actually makes David interesting, and at only eighteen years of age, Romola Garai turns in a bravura performance. A glance at the cast list will reveal such miraculous talent filling the piece from top to bottom - why, Amanda Root plays Gwendolen's mother!

Persuasion (1995) - Speaking of Amanda Root, she and Ciaran Hinds give some of the most wonderful performances in period drama here. What they can communicate with even a single glance is breathtaking. This is probably my favorite Jane Austen novel, and it's mind-blowing how well the screenwriter, director, cast, and crew were able to translate the tone of the novel to film. Avoid the most recent adaptation; it's just silly.

Les Misérables (1998) - One of my favorite movies ever, period. Unsurprisingly considering the size of the original novel, it streamlines much of its source material, but what is left is pretty true to the book. The first half of the film is particularly satisfying, and I love the soundtrack. Geoffrey Rush's Javert looks like he stepped right out from the pages of the book, and while Liam Neeson's Valjean isn't quite as I pictured him physically, he has the character down pat.

Amazing Grace - What "Christian filmmaking" should be. This is a beautiful, moving, truth-filled movie. It's the story that really draws me to this one, a fascinating true tale, but just look at that cast: Ioan Gruffud, Rufus Sewell, Ciaran Hinds, Romola Garai, Michael Gambon, Albert Finney - and all of them great, too.

Sense and Sensibility (1995) - This is the movie that got me into Jane Austen books and movies in the first place (yes, I watched it before I read the book! ), the latter of course being a staple of the period drama genre. I still love it. Emma Thompson proves her worth both as an actress and a screenwriter, Ang Lee frames his subjects gorgeously, Patrick Doyle provides one of his most bewitching scores, and Kate Winslet just is Marianne Dashwood.

A Christmas Carol (1951) - Also known as Scrooge, this is by far the best version of the classic story. Alistair Sims plays the role to the hilt: I swear, he's one of the only actors I know of who can make you roll on the floor one minute and have you tearing up the next. Great stuff. Also watch out for a young Michael Hordern as the ghost of Jacob Marley.

Miss Austen Regrets - A wonderful Jane Austen biopic, and my favorite Austen-related film of this decade. Olivia Williams is absolutely wonderful as Jane, as are Phyllida Law, Greta Scaachi, and Imogen Poots as her mother, sister, and niece respectively. This one gave me goosebumps. Highly recommended.

Jane Eyre (1944) - As long as you can ignore the whole Dr. Rivers subplot, what you have here (as in Les Misérables, many of the supporting characters were sacked) is a very deft and exciting adaptation of the classic novel. This film shows old Hollywood at its best, with gorgeous B&W photography and classic performances form Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles.

David Copperfield (2000) - Though I very much like the popular BBC adaptation of the previous year (and, to lesser extents, the old MGM film and the 60s British film), the changes made for this TNT film make it even stronger as a piece of filmic art, in my opinion. And it has by far the most charismatic David in Hugh Dancy; the role is usually played as a schmuck.

The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) - I enjoyed this even more than the Oscar Wilde novel. Like the '44 JE, it's old Hollywood at its best, although unfortunately it does not have as strong a lead as JE: Hurd Hatfield is just wooden in the title role. But along with the wonderful writing, direction, and cinematography, this is worth viewing for the performances of Angela Lansbury and George Sanders alone, which are among the best of their very good careers.

Robin Hood (1938) - If Mel can count it, well, so can I! Great old swashbuckling fun, in gorgeous Technicolor! And who can resist a movie with Errol Flynn, the beautiful Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone, and Claude Raines? "Why, you speak treason!" "Fluently."

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) - Another one that's a bit of a swashbuckler, quite unlike the book, but wonderfully entertaining all the same. One of my family's favorite popcorn flicks.

I'd love to see Greer Garson as Aunt March, and production values of that miniseries are supposed to be very high (Edith Head did the costumes, and I believe the music was by Elmer Bernstein), but William Shatner? As the Professor? That just sounds scary. I'm afraid I couldn't even begin to take him seriously.

Don't let William Shatner get to you. Once you get past the original reaction of it's-Captain-Kirk-with-a-weird-haircut you'll love him. Or at least, I loved him, my older sister loved him(and she's hard to please), and my younger sister loved him. He is the Professor. I can't take any other actor seriously in the role now; he was just so good.