Movie Review: Emma

Emma (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a twenty year-old child of privilege. Having successfully arranged a match for her beloved governess, she now proceeds confidently as an expert in matches. She definitely wants what is best for her friend Harriet (Mia Goth), who is a person of low circumstances. When Harriet receives a proposal from a farmer whom she loves, Emma steers her away from him. She wants Harriet to marry up from her situation.

Mr. Knightley (Johnny Flynn), Emma’s brother-in-law, looks askance at Emma’s presumption. He lectures her more than once that she is being arrogant, and even has prejudices (in a positive way) about some son of privilege whom they have never met, but who is due to visit.

Emma and Mr. Knightley keep locking horns. Is Emma doing the right thing for Harriet? How will this turn out?

This is the third version of Emma that I’ve seen. (Yes, Clueless starring Alicia Silverstone is a reimagining of Emma, but it doesn’t count.) My favorite has been a 1996 version starring Kate Beckinsale. Readers familiar with the book by Jane Austen say this is the most accurate version, and besides, I think Kate Beckinsale is the loveliest woman in Hollywood. I saw a different 1996 version with Gwyneth Paltrow, but hardly remember anything about it. The one with Kate Beckinsale has the lowest production values, but it was filmed inside real stately manors, with all the darkness and cramped camera angles that implies. It feels authentic.

I wasn’t going to see this year’s Emma because I was put off by the opulence of it. Jane Austen occupied the lowest rung of the upper class, and the Kate Beckinsale version stays faithful to that. The new version with Anya Taylor-Joy is set in a much higher level of Regency society, which put me off.

But I saw it anyway. Yes, this is a higher strata of society. The incredible wealth of the mansions is hard to feature. The actions of the menservants as they obey every whim of Emma’s father look comical. And this was the first movie I’ve seen that shows what it looks like for the nobles to have their servants dress and undress them. (A couple of rear end scenes were brief.)

Somehow, this year’s version won me over. Emma is usually portrayed as an incredibly vain, arrogant woman who only changes when her folly comes crashing down on her. In this version, there is an underlying sweetness to her that grows, especially in her unending friendship with Harriet. In all three versions, the dance scenes at the ball are the emotional nexus of the story. I have to say that this year’s version had the best dance scenes I’ve seen in any Jane Austen movie. I mean it. The best. Even better than in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. (Yes, that counts as a Jane Austen movie.)

So whether you’re a Jane Austen fan or not, I recommend this most recent version.

P.S. Emma is shown playing a small piano and singing. I was pleasantly surprised to see in the end credits that it really was Anya Taylor-Joy.