Emma (1996) (TV) is an adaptation of the Jane Austen novel. Screenplay is by Andrew Davies. The film was directed by Diarmuid Lawrence. Kate Beckinsale portrays Emma Woodhouse, a young woman who is very sure of her social position and her abilities. She isn't basically cruel, but she tends to assume that she has skills that she doesn't actually possess. As with other Austen novels, marriage is the expected ending for all but the most unfortunate women. A good marriage is better than a bad one, but many women must settle for the husband they can get. I point this out because Emma actually has three female protagonists--Emma, Jane Fairfax (Olivia Williams) and Harriet Smith (Samantha Morton). The novel's plot involves the pairing of these three women with three appropriate men. Who will end up with whom isn't obvious. That's what makes the novel and the movie interesting. As you'd expect from A&E, production values are high, and the actors in supporting roles are well cast. Williams and Morton were excellent. I thought Beckinsale's Emma was a little darker in spirit than Austen meant her to be. In a film adaptation of Emma, the actor portraying Emma has to grab and hold your attention. For me, that didn't happen.This movie was made for TV, so naturally it works well on the small screen. If you're an Austen fan, you'll want to see this film.Incidentally, I think that the Gwyneth Paltrow version (also produced in 1996) isn't as good. Paltrow if fine, but an absolutely central scene was omitted. This scene involves Emma and the character Miss Bates. It's a pivotal plot moment, but it was left out of the Paltrow version. It's played perfectly in this film.

The makers of the ITV and A&E TV film of Jane Austen's "Emma" may have had fits in 1996. An independent group was making a film for the silver screen about the same time (to be distributed by Miramax), and it was ahead of ITV's film in production and its release. This has happened a few times in film history when different groups plan on and actually film the same novel or story for a movie. Both films had new rising stars as their leads. Gwyneth Paltrow in the theater film and Kate Beckinsale in this ITV/A&E film. The only other widely known cast member here is Prunella Scales as Miss Bates. Scales will be remembered always for her Sybil in "Fawlty Towers." But the theater film had more recognizable cast members – including Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightly and Ewan McGregor as Frank Church.Both films won awards – this one received two Emmys, and the theater film received on Oscar and one more nomination. The critics seem divided on these two films, mostly over the lead role. Those who prefer the girlish, romantic Emma gave the nod to Beckinsale in this TV film. Those who prefer the more lofty, class conscious Emma gave the nod to Paltrow. Each actress does a very good job in her respective role for the script she had. And, that's where I think the theater film screenplay was truer to the character as Austen portrayed her. The ITV script is more serious and somewhat dark. The theater film has its serious moments but they don't suppress the lightness and humor. So, Paltrow's character seems to more closely embody the Emma we read on the pages of the novel. That will likely remain a matter of taste between viewers of two camps, but an important aspect to consider is the rest of the cast and the screenplays. For those, this TV film falls behind the theater movie. The two-hour theater movie was able to better cover the main scenarios of the novel. This TV film is more serious and more of a drama, where I think Austen wanted the humor to be more apparent. And the casting was far better in the theater film. Mark Strong is a fine actor, but his Mr. Knightley was not the gentle soul and good-natured teacher and sparring partner to Emma. His was far more serious, bold and nearly belligerent in his protestations. The rest of the cast are a mix. Scales was fine as Miss Bates, but she couldn't equal Sophie Thompson's role in the theater movie. Some of the other characters seemed quite weak in this rendition. Anyone who enjoys Jane Austen should enjoy this film. But if one has a choice, the best and most entertaining film of "Emma" is the 1996 theater movie that stars Gwyneth Paltrow.

Having been a fan of Jane Austen and of Emma since GCSEs, I was eager overtime to see as many adaptations as possible. Aside from the loose, contemporary spin of the story in Clueless, a fun film full of energy, I've seen four versions. My least favourite is the Gwyneth Paltrow film, though I still like it very much for the beautiful cinematography and witty screenplay. I also love the 1972 and 2009 mini-series, the 1972 series had the best Frank Churchill and 2009 the best Mr Woodhouse, but after re-visiting it after years of just having fond memories of it I consider this 1996 TV film the best version. It is beautifully photographed, with some of the loveliest costumes and scenery of any period adaptation I've seen recently. And I loved the emphasis on the classes after seeing adaptations like 2007's Mansfield Park where they don't get enough attention, and didn't actually find it too heavy-handed. The music is effective in how simple in melody and orchestration it, the story is charming and evenly-paced and the writing is controlled and has wit and charm throughout. Kate Beckinsale looks absolutely radiant as Emma, just as much as she did in 1993's Much Ado About Nothing, it helps that she's young and she leaves room for her character Emma, a flawed and multifaceted character, to grow. Mark Strong is a perfect Knightley, not as dashing as Jeremy Northam or Jonny Lee Miller, but still gentlemanly, handsome and compassionate. Bernard Hepton is perfect as the funny if tiring Mr Woodhouse, Samantha Morton is a firm Harriet and Raymond Coulthart is very magnetic as Frank Churchill. Olivia Williams, Prunella Scales, Samantha Bond and Lucy Robinson are also excellent. All in all, my favourite Emma, I agree the ending is a little too friendly, but other than that this is great. 9/10 Bethany Cox

As winter approaches, our state-owned broadcaster, the ABC, has decided for some reason to have a partial Jane Austen Festival on Sunday nights. This commenced with a twelve-year old movie length version of "Emma" last Sunday; more recent versions of three other novels, "Persuasion", "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" are to come.The curious thing about this production by A&E Television Networks, with script by the ever-reliable Andrew Davies, is that it appeared almost simultaneously with two much bigger budget movie versions, one starring Gwyneth Paltrow, and "Clueless", a "modernized" version, starring Alicia Silverstone, which transported the plot to Beverly Hills. Perhaps as a result, even with Kate Beckinsale in the lead, this production sank without trace.As a general rule, much is lost when novels are shrunk to fit feature movie length. The adaptations one tends to both enjoy and remember are those which have adequate room to develop both story and characters. An outstanding example is "Brideshead Revisited" which had 13 50-minute episodes back in 1982. You only have to compare the very ordinary movie-length version of "Pride and Prejudice" in 2005 with the brilliant 1995 six-part TV mini-series. It's not that a novel should be filmed page by page, and some novels (often not very good ones) adapt wonderfully to film ("Atonement" is a recent example), but novels of the Jane Austen sort need some time and space to exert their full charm.Given the shortcomings of this type of adaptation, this production is OK. Kate Beckinsale gives Emma the right mix of self-assuredness and vulnerability and Mark Strong is a forthright Mr Knightly (he reminded me that Jane tended to recycle characters – Knightly is a more articulate version of the moody Mr Darcy of P&P). Samantha Morton was a rather limp Harriet but Prunella Scales got the blabbermouth Miss Bates perfectly – Sybil Fawlty on speed. Bernard Hepton as Emma's feeble father was also excellent. We saw the damp countryside, the mud and the poverty as well as the posh interiors, in case anyone thought this was a particularly idyllic age for everybody.Even though this was a condensed adaptation it was oddly slow in places – some of the conversations were rather stilted, even allowing for the formalities of the times. I'd have to look at the film again to be sure, but it might be due to the under-use of reaction shots.If you do like filmed period stuff this is a perfectly nice example, and compares well with the Paltrow version. Anyway, there is more to come!