Directed By Autumn de Wilde

Starring – Anya Taylor-Joy, Bill Nighy, Mia Goth

The Plot – Jane Austen’s beloved comedy about finding your equal and earning your happy ending, is reimagined in this. Handsome, clever, and rich, Emma Woodhouse (Taylor-Joy) is a restless queen bee without rivals in her sleepy little town. In this glittering satire of social class and the pain of growing up, Emma must adventure through misguided matches and romantic missteps to find the love that has been there all along.

Rated PG for brief partial nudity

POSITIVES

– Leading ladies. Both Taylor-Joy and Goth are at the forefront of some vitally important material that only a few storied actresses before them have adapted. But where the blessings begin and end with this duo’s unique gifts is their boldly expressive faces that give way to these mesmerizing eyes, outlining a window into the soul of what they’re feeling. In this respect, the film not only proves that both are equally capable of captivating the presence of the screen and their audience, but that they both immerse themselves in roles that made their distinct appearances feel lost within the beats of the characters. Taylor-Joy’s cunning honesty slices with a knife that makes the titular character more brash than previous installments, and Goth’s Harriet maintains a constant innocence while wearing her heart on her sleeve that makes her the vulnerable opposite to Emma’s often reserved interaction with male suitors, which allow both of them to feel desirable for especially different reasons.

– Alluring production value. Everything is engaging here. From the vibrancy of the color coordinating in vibrant set designs, to the technical mastery behind the lens that documents artistic photography, this is a complete achievement from former professional photographer de Wilde, who somehow masters so much in only her first feature length direction. Autumn casts great importance in location designation, so much so that she includes details in each actor frame she manufactures, giving us a constant reminder of the kind of world that we and the character in frame are enveloped in. The interior characterization is only surpassed by the inescapably gorgeous rendering of the English country village, with all of its fields of green and Bohemian designed mansions there to humble us. de Wilde cements authenticity behind every shot and subtle focus, and provides no shortage of rich textures and upper class tastes that are so close that we can practically sink our teeth into with all of its vivacious appeal.

– Straight to the point. The name “Emma” has been used for nearly every adaptation of the Jane Austen’s literary novel of the same name, but this one has such a unique twist in its one word title that you could miss if you blink. The title is actually displayed as “Emma.”, and while that period at the end has opened up the door to interpretation, de Wilde herself has solidified that it’s meaning is even more simplistic than you’d expect. Because this is a period piece above nearly everything except the title character, it’s displayed front-and-center to make its chronological setting distinguishable. It also allows this particular version of the time-cherished story to stand on its own originality with even the smallest of identifiable marks, proving meaning for every new addition that this story has endured.

– Character honesty. Another refreshing aspect to this film that other movies abashedly revert from is its motivation to make Emma a flawed character, both in ideals and conflict resolution. She isn’t downright detestable, but the movie has no problems pointing the finger at her wealth as a reason for the ravenous, and really cements her being a product of her environment. As expected, her morality does offer some optimism towards the end of the film, but the script’s desire to remain firmly committed is one that I admired thoroughly, if only because it never tries to portray the character for being something she so clearly had no chance at being. That’s not to say that all wealthy people are ignorant, but this adaptation feels like the most synthetically natural movie adaptation of the story, regardless of where it ends up in grade.

– Threads and heads. The wardrobe and hair department for the film knocked it out of the park, and brought forth what could be the first Oscar nomination for the 2021 Academy Awards. Not only is there variety in the many elegant styles and colorful layers that these characters don, but the wardrobe changes happen so frequently, which in turn gives us an accurate depiction of upper class neuroticism at its finest. On the hair styliing side of things, the production dazzles with so much intricacy that differentiates with curls, ties, and anything else these artists can get their hands on. It’s not often in a movie that I credit the hair department for making a lasting impression on me, but the variations in textures, styles, and colors constantly impressed without feeling dull or repetitive.

– Compositional creativity. There’s a two person credit to the film’s musical score, which peacefully immerses us in operatic and classical music with a complete quartet of instruments to stir film’s emotional pallet. Composers David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge leave a permanent impression on the film that is nearly as resonant as its title character, remaining a constant presence on the film, just in varying volume capacities that move in and out like the characters in each frame. Speaking of which, the music itself is used creatively in a way that shifts and contorts with each fresh face that turns up. Specific instruments and tones are used for specific characters, giving the audible capacity an identifiable grip on character proximity, even when they shift slightly out of frame. It’s an interesting way to stir up conflict and diversion in the compositions, and makes for a complete score with a surprisingly pleasant amount of experimentation for a genre of music that I usually deem dull.

– Beneficially different. While not the most faithfully adaptive film based on one of Austen’s biggest literary works, the film does capitalize on its female perspective by relishing in a contemporary spin with its lone risque moment of the entire film. As mentioned in my rating section, the film does have a moment of brief (male) nudity just because. This serves no purpose other than to articulate the same circumstance that actresses have faced for decades with male directors. This gives the film far more contemporary commentary than it does the very age it depicts, and feels as meaningful as a male’s bare ass ever could to cinema. It’s a one-off refreshing take that switches gender roles, and feels most effective because it deposits it during a point in the film that isn’t easily ignorable, nor creatively pivotal.

NEGATIVES

– Too long. At two hours flat, this film’s narrative conjures up more than a couple of slow spots that could’ve easily been edited or removed to maintain the momentum needed to appeal to a crossover audience. For my money, much of the first act and our initial engagements with these characters move in and out of frame with very little importance for their inclusion. It unfortunately took a love triangle before I ever felt interested in character well-beings, and even then the film’s complete lack for dramatic flare keeps it reserved at bay from ever developing into something that feels truly compelling. The minutes itself isn’t so much the problem for me as the material’s ratio to such, asking for far too long than a narrative this simplistic rightfully deserved.

– Lukewarm humor. It fills me with disappointment that the funniest parts of the movie were entirely featured in the trailer, leaving everything else feeling like the most adolescent kind of British humor that won’t appeal to the majority of American audiences. I myself love British humor, but the kind featured in the film focused more on annoyances or repetition, and it never gave me one solid laugh throughout the picture that I could hang my hat on and maintain optimism for the rest of the movie. Considering this is marketed as a romantic comedy, the second tier of the deal comes nowhere close to living up to its end of the bargain, leaving us with no shortage of flatly written moments that alienate this film and the literary predecessor alike.

– Script disappointments. There’s a hint at this film reaching for ambitious social commentary with women’s rights during the time period, as well as a teasing of the deconstruction of income divisiveness that much of the film resides on. My single favorite scene of the movie even features a turning point for Emma that makes her confront such polarizing words that she says to a loveable character, but its failure to explore deeper leaves it feeling like a temporary hiccup instead of the character defining moment that she needs to find total clarity. Unfortunately, these are just instances of a bother from characters somewhere off in the distance, and never feels important enough to dissect in a screenplay that requires something original to stand out among its predecessors.

My Grade: 7/10 or B-