Emma (1972) User Reviews

very good adaptation, highly recommended

[sissoed · 8/10 · 24 September 2006]

I have seen each of the three main video versions of Emma (this 1972 BBC version, the Kate Beckinsale version, and the Paltrow version) several times (as well as having read the book) and I love each of them. It is so rare to get gentle, subtle, nuanced psychological drama, that I find I turn to Emma again and again. I think which one you enjoy most on a particular afternoon or evening will depend on your mood. The Paltrow version is lightest and funniest, entertainment to cheer you up; the Beckinsale version engages you as a serious drama of a beautiful young woman, is the most realistic, it is what you want if you want to feel transported back to the time the story happened. This 1972 version's strength is that it presents the psychological complexity of the characters with more fidelity and completeness to the portrayals in the novel. Due to the early 1970s production values, this version appears a bit stagy, and that can be off-putting if you've never seen that kind of TV before (I am a little over 50, so I remember seeing these kinds of productions when they originally aired, which may make it easier for me to get past the artificiality). One problematic element for me is that the actress who plays Emma is about 6 years too old, and she is not as attractive as Beckinsale or Paltrow, and these factors were a problem for me on my first viewing of this version. However, on second and subsequent viewings this was not so much of an issue, and I was able to appreciate her very nuanced portrayal of Emma's feelings and reactions and the process of learning more about human nature, and about the limitations of her own ability to imagine what the hidden feelings are of other people. Also, it took a second and third viewing to realize that the character of Emma's father, as presented here, is a comic character, because here, in a novel which is so much about weddings, he always finds weddings a distressing and melancholy business. His toast to the engaged couples in the very last scene (a toast not in the book) is a humorous reversal of the praise and delight for matrimony we expect. Another element that comes out in this version is the similarity between Emma's father, an invalid who always wants his daughter Emma by his side and who opposes the idea of her marrying, and Frank Churchill's step-mother, Mrs. Churchill, who is also an invalid who always wants her stepson Frank by her side and opposes the idea of his marrying. It always used to bother me that invalid Mrs. Churchill, who is so important to the story, never makes an appearance in the story, until I realized that, in effect, she had: she is the female version of Emma's father, and everything you want to know about her, you may find in him. The negative attitude of the characters towards her is likely the same negative attitude they would have towards him, if he lived far away and all they knew about him was that he used his claims of illness to keep his daughter close. The very last scene of this version also develops a similarity in the personalities of Emma and Frank that is missing from the other versions and that is necessary, I think, to understand just how psychologically complex Austen's novel really is.

A very refreshing thing about all versions of Emma is that every character is genuinely good-hearted and wants good for the other characters, but their own quirks, self-centeredness, and inability to understand other people means they cause pain to each other despite their good intentions. The only exception to this is Elton, who justly feels that Emma misled him about her affections in her attempt to unite him to Harriet, and in unjust retaliation he snubs Harriet on one occasion. The characters' ability to find happiness depends not on whether they defeat some unrealistic 'bad guy,' but on their ability to learn more about the true understanding of what others feel, and what they feel themselves. That's what the art of story-making should focus on, in whatever form (book, movie, TV, or stage) the story is told.

Gently good

[henry-girling · 7/10 · 15 October 2003]

This old BBC serial from the 70s is a slow ramble through one of Jane Austen's great novels. Like all slow rambles there are lots of incidental delights on the way. Time is given for the development of character and the unravelling of the plot. The later film with Gwyneth Paltrow is faster but shallower. This is plainly filmed and there is none of the gorgeous lighting effects that decorate the Paltrow film. Some of it is shot outdoors, notably the Box Hill scene, but it is mainly unfussy interiors.

Doran Godwin's performance as Emma is fine. She brings out the contradictions and weaknesses in her character as well as her many strengths. Jane Austen wanted a heroine that no one would like but herself, then proceeded to create a fully rounded character who is very likeable. The length of the mini-series enables there to be many scenes between Emma and Harriet and Emma and Mr Knightly that illustrate all their characters well. Debbie Bowen and John Carson give excellent support.The rest of the cast of British actors are good. Constance Chapman as Miss Bates is touching and Fiona Walker rips into the part of Mrs Elton with great relish. Donald Eccles is perfectly tiring as Mr Woodhouse.

There seem to be two ways to film Jane Austen. The slower but more complete version like this film and 'Sense and Sensibility' (1971) or the modern upbeat shorter film like 'Emma' (1996) or 'Mansfield Park' (1999). Perhaps only the BBC's 1995 mini series of 'Pride and Prejudice' created the perfect fusion.

This 'Emma' is well worth seeing. If you adjust yourself to the gentle pace there is plenty to enjoy

A version that grows upon further acquaintance

[LitCritChas · 8/10 · 22 March 2007]

This version I admit I did not particularly like upon first viewing. Doran Godwin seems to be too old for her part, as does John Carson. I will admit that Debbie Bowen, who portrays Harriet, does have the annoying tendency to overact. However the character is almost written as such in Jane Austen's novel, so it's not completely her fault. Also the obviousness of being confined to the studio annoyed me as well. However a look at the year of it's production brings many explanations. It after all was the style of filming, especially for television, in the 1970s. If you doubt me take a look at "The Six Wives of Henry the VIII" with Keith Mitchell that was made for television (not the film version). In that one for all the different palaces they use only one plain set, and only on a handful of occasions show outdoor scenes. Yet the brilliant writing and acting counterbalances these deficiencies quite well. I also would like to blame that we as modern audiences have become spoiled on "life-like" movies, like some posters obviously have, that this style of filming has become under appreciated.

However upon a second or third viewing this version grows on you. I like the way Doran explores the complications, paradoxes and perplexities of Emma's character much more than Gwenyth Paltrow's quick shallow one faced version. Although I will say that Gwenyth has much more of Emma's charm than Doran ever does.

The nice slow pace reminds me quite well of the style of Jane Austen's novels. They are slow paced, like a country stroll, but still they have their many entertainingly wry jewels along the course of the movie as it explores the less hectic and more relaxing early 19th century life. This style of filming also allows for character development and exploration to occur much better than modern films tend to accomplish.

Modern films are more concerned about either action, romance, or special effects so much that proper character development seems to end up on the cutting room floor. So in modern films we are given stereotypical characters that everyone can relate to in substitution to proper character development and exploration. This gives the film makers more time to give you long sweeping kisses, sexual tension, explosions, CGI effects, and unnecessarily long action sequences featuring the gun slinging hero. However we as a people have grown to have such short attention spans that these changes in film making seem almost a necessary thing. For proper character development to occur, one almost has to sit through watching actual real life occur, which no one wants to do anymore, because there isn't enough "time in the day" to have the patience for it. But enough rambling.

Jane Austen's books are not so much about romance (as modern film interpretations seem to think) as they are about the self-discoveries and journeys each heroine and hero undergoes into learning more about life, the person they come to love, themselves, and the world/community around them. With Emma it is learning to not put her nose where it doesn't belong (for it causes more grief than joy), and that marrying a man she can truly respect is more like growing up instead of her childish proclamations of staying a single rich matchmaker for the rest of her life. The Doran Godwin version especially explores this, and after you get used to the style of filming one can take away from it the lesson that Jane Austen intended in her writing, that nosy gossiping and idle busy bodying cause more grief, harm, and drama than there needs to be. And that marriage should not be looked upon as a restriction or need based form of improving a woman, but a way of joining two people into a happy state of being where respect, trust, friendship, and love can be explored upon a more intimate playing field. After all that's what Jane Austen's books are all about, a celebration of marriage, virtues, and middle class English country living.

I also like how Jane's character is explored and I find Ania Marson to be the best cast Jane Fairfax of the three versions. She explores Jane's weariness at having to conceal almost everything in her life and her suppressed frustration at the interferences of other more vocal characters (Miss Bates and Mrs. Elton), quite well. I also think that Robert East who portrays Frank Churchill is the best of the three versions as well, capturing his similar sly Emma-like nature as well as his gentlemanly manners quite well.

So if you have nothing to do for a night or an afternoon, this version is a nice way to appreciate Jane Austen's most well written book.

A very loving and literate adaptation; how Austen would have liked it.

[kboddaerd · 15 October 2009]

The appealing nature of this adaptation is its length and its fun. Characterisaton comes close to the work Davies did in 1996 for A&E, although it differs somewhat. That might be down to the literary criticism of the day, though, and particularly in the judgment upon Harriet as a dull, stupid cow. Davies was a little more nuanced in his judgment upon all characters, but nonetheless, the work Denis Constanduros produced was very true to the spirit of the novel and made use of the comedy elements in the original text. Particularly in costume and the one character of Mr Woodhouse Constanduros produced classic comedy that was about words rather than one-liners and ridiculous situations.

Also the age-difference between Emma and her Mr Knightley is very much apparent. Knightley is not as vigorous as Mark Strong in the role, but this Mr Knightley has not the task of radiating sex-appeal, but rather radiating stability and wisdom through experience, like Austen's version.

Despite the lack of technology to make shots and filming on location truly possible, they did well. There is also no music which made it necessary for the actors and director to truly act and film the characters' feelings so the viewer could comprehend them. It is surprising how they managed to still convey the same emotional tension (or even more of it than they do now) through mainly just close-ups. That, though, might slightly bother the modern viewer. However, through it, viewers are compelled to use their own brain more than with modern adaptations of the novel.

Most of the contents is not toned down, only maybe the complicated business with Churchill and Jane when things are going wrong in the end. The main point of Emma and Knightley's blindness to each other stays upward better than in the Miramax version of 1996. And that without all that Miramx had to their disposal.

It is the only adaptation of the work as well, that uses the wordiness of Austen. It is important as a viewer that one listens more than that one watches. We could easily just make the adaptation in a hear-play, it would make little difference. The language is so expressive and the comedy is so much embedded in it that the physical acting matters less. And that is what Austen is about: it is no slapstick, but pure wordy wit. We have come a long way since the 1970s in comedy.

All in all, a satisfactory adaptation without sex-appeal, but with sweetness. I daresay, how Austen would have liked it.

studio bound but surprisingly good

[didi-5 · 7/10 · 11 July 2006]

I have rated this quite highly on two counts - one, the casting (largely forgotten names litter the cast including Doran Godwin as Emma, John Carson as Mr Knightley, Debbie Bowen as Harriet, Constance Chapman as Miss Bates, and Timothy Peters as Mr Elton) and two, an absorbing adaptation even if done in obviously studio (and rather cheap) sets.

Running at four hours plus, this version does more justice to the book than more cursory and recent attempts have been able to. Although both Emma and Knightley come across as a little older than they should be (21 and 39 I believe in the book), their growing understanding is believable, and you do find yourself hoping for that elusive happy ending.

What does mark it down is the annoying tune! Quick bit of trivia: Blackadder fans should note that Robert East, Prince Harry in the first series, is here as Frank Churchill.

Very faithful

[kayper54 · 6/10 · 17 December 2009]

I rather liked this. Given that the film makers were not limited to two hours, they were able to be faithful and true to the book. The few alterations were negligible and in many cases improvements. For a taped, studio-bound TV production, the sets and props were attractive and varied. The costumes were lovely and I liked the variation from the blatant cleavage-bearing dresses of more recent productions. I really appreciated Emma's expressing out loud to various characters the thoughts and feelings that in the book she keeps to herself. Her ranting about Mrs. Elton to Knightly and his endearing amusement in her irritation was a wonderful touch.

I'm not sure I cared for several of the characterizations here as compared to how they're described in the book or played in other adaptations. Mr. Woodhouse and Jane Fairfax are both much too harsh and sharp. Though I loved the actor playing him, Mr. Woodhouse should be much more sweet-tempered and warm-hearted. Jane Fairfax should be more gracious. Her shouting at Miss Bates in her first scene is completely out-of-character, however her emotional stress and discomfort comes through much better here than is described in the book and really seems more authentic. For some bizarre reason, good-looking, 23-year-old Frank Churchill was cast with an unattractive, 40-year-old actor and his performance does not excuse the poor casting choice. He was the only real disappointment.

It was hard not to be reminded in some ways of the 1996 theatrical production. I really wondered if Gwyneth Paltrow saw this and decided to base her portrayal of Emma on Doran Godwin's. I saw many similarities, though I prefer Paltrow's depth of feeling. I prefer Debbie Bowen's Harriet to Toni Collette's. Miss Bates and the Eltons can each be played only one way and they are well-served here. All in all, if you're a fan of the book, this is a very satisfactory interpretation.

A good and faithful adaption of the book.

[johnbol · 10/10 · 7 June 2005]

If you are a Jane Austen fan and considering to buy a film of Emma i would recommend this version. This because , as a TV series it's longer then any movie and therefor includes more of the original story. Also the acting is very good and the whole production has a Austen feel about it. Yes it's been mostly filmed in a studio but to me that gives it a more intimate feeling. Also i have to say that i did like the version with Kate Beckinsale but do not really care of the version with Gwyneth Paltrow. This TV series lasts about 4 and a half hours. So, if you look for a shorter version , take the Beckinsale and if you really want to dive into it, take this one. I would like to single out Donald Eccles who , as Emma's father, is very funny as is Mary Holder as Mrs. Bates.

Boring and unmemorable

[marspeach · 6/10 · 2 May 2011]

It wasn't terrible, it really wasn't. Yes, it's got the usual sub-par production values and theater-like acting custom from the period dramas of the time, but I've thoroughly enjoyed other adaptations made in the same way. Despite its length, it made a few changes to the story (such as making the Dixons a couple who wanted to hire Jane…?) that puzzled me. And it felt slightly boring and draggy at times as well. But I think the main reason I couldn't connect with it was the actors. Or really, one main actress- Emma herself.

She was my main problem with the series. I just couldn't connect with her at all. She came off as much older and more mature than the Emma of the book. I was shocked to read she was only 22 at the time, because I would have guessed her to be at least 30. I think it was the way she spoke- a very clipped, fakey aristocratic accent. At least I hope it was faked and that she didn't really talk like that in real life! I never saw any real emotion from her- it was all so artificial.

This is really one adaptation that I found so boring a lot of the time that I couldn't even find enough to say about it. I can't really recommend it except to complete a Jane Austen collection.

excellent & clever adaptation, and who cares about the settings?

[pabzum · 10/10 · 11 January 2008]

I have just finished watching this adaptation of Emma for the first time and I feel I must openly declare here that it seems to me quite shameful that the Paltrow and the Beckinsale versions should be more often remembered. How that is to be explained I am at a loss to tell. It is true that John Carson may not look to be the epitome of Knightleyness, but he does a most excellent job of acting like Mr Knightley, and that is what one should care about, I say. Indeed, I was gratified by the sheer intelligence and sensitivity of all the actors in it, the director, the screenwriter and even the dress-maker or whatever she is called. The clothes and dresses may not all have been true to the times but most certainly they were thoughtfully true to the characters.

Also, wonder of wonders, there is no musical soundtrack to pester one's feelings telling them what to feel at every turn. What that does is it helps to make dialogues sound truthful, natural and issuing from people who are thoroughly engaged – both as actors and characters – in listening to each other.

Another thing that has contributed to place this in my estimation as the best extant adaptation of Emma is that there is no symbolic meddling with the story (excepting perhaps on the last tableau). One thing I love in Jane Austen – which is of course not what there is to be loved in other authors – is that nothing she writes has any symbols: every little thing is whatever it is, no less, no more. And I unconditionally praise the director John Glenister, the screenwriter Denis Constanduros and the producer Martin Lisemore for having seen that simple fact about Jane Austen and for having brought the book to life so clearly and so lovingly.

So three cheers for them, and five to Doran Godwin.

Most faithful version of Emma, though the 2008 is very close and much more engaging for modern sensibilities. But it has its charm.

[mickman91-1 · 6/10 · 5 February 2022]

The most faithful version of Emma, though the 2008 version is pretty close too. Very dry and dusty due to its age. Very similar to Mansfield Park (1982) and Pride and Prejudice (1980) in terms of its production: thorough and highbrow but low budget and dry. But this was not as entertaining to watch as the others from around this time. Because the 2008 version is very close to as faithful as this, I think there are few reasons to dig this out. Probably only for the oldies who saw it first time round.

Pretty thin gruel

[currie-652-932814 · 4/10 · 3 February 2010]

I too was a bit surprised at the glowing reviews some had for this version. Not that it's really bad, but it's pretty bland, and often off key. Doran Godwin is a rather plain Emma who stuck me as having little real charm, wit or animation, and John Carson is about 10 years too old for Mr. Knightley. There seemed no real chemistry between them, and really, considering his avuncular manner and her drabness, why should there be? Robert East, as Frank Churchill, seemed ill fitted at 40 to the part of the dashing young rake, and Ania Marson, while pleasant enough looking, hardly presented the figure of the highly accomplished Jane Fairfax with her poor voice set against poorer piano playing. If that was meant as a snide commentary on what was considered accomplishment in Austen's time, it fell flat.

The whole production just seemed lacking in wit, humor and zest. It's not helped either by what seems now to be a very 1970's style in dress and makeup. I can't judge how accurate the costumes might have been, but they were almost all unremittingly ugly. For the most part, this whole production could have been a stage reading without missing much in the way of performance, with a small number of exceptions. Fiona Walker's Mrs. Elton was suitably insufferable and pushy, Debbie Bowen's dithering Harriet Smith was all right, Donald Eccles also did all right as Mr. Woodhouse, and Constance Chapman's Miss Bates was decent. I'll give the production a star for each of them. I don't think any of them surpass the performances in other versions, but they at least stand up to the comparison.

I suppose for an Austen fan, any Emma is better than none, but of the four I've seen (Beckinsale, Paltrow and Garai being the other Emmas), I'd rank this one a pretty distant fourth.

A Classic

[MelanieJS · 10/10 · 13 April 2008]

If you liked the book Emma by Jane Austen I do not think you will be disappointed with this dramatization. They did change a few things from the book but those who have not read the book will get most of the content. I particularly enjoyed the costumes. The gowns, hats and caps of the ladies were spectacular. The detail, even down to the ornate hat pins, helped make this a delight to watch. The characterizations were quite faithful for the most part. Mr.Woodhouse, while perhaps not quite the same as the book, was an interesting and quite funny character. This mini-series did a very good job of capturing a great deal of the humor of Jane Austen (she is incredibly funny!) which is not all that easy to translate from her elegant prose to the camera and dialog of video rendition. When I see something like this that is so well done it makes me appreciate anew this art form and especially that of script writing....not to mention blocking....editing.... I think the mini-series is friendlier to a good adaption of Jane Austen's novels rather than the movie. This is my favorite of those I have seen with the A & E 1996 version as a close 2nd and the 1996 movie as my least favorite. I have not seen 1948 & 1960 BBC versions - wonder where I can find them???

A worthy production crippled.

[rebekahrox · 7/10 · 30 April 2018]

I have seen this version of Emma at least 3 times, and on this viewing, bumped my rating up 2 stars. The casting of Doran Goodwin is still a major sticking point. Though she gives Emma more complexity and is the truest to Jane Austen's portrayal, her older looks, pasty complexion, and lack of charm, fight with the positive. She is not helped by an unfortunate choice of hairstyle: severely scraped back to an inch of it's life with tight ringlets pulled out and glued against her forehead. Ugh. The other main problem I have with this production is two poorly done major scenes. The picnic on Box Hill is a waste. Practically meaningless with several important characters missing in action, it has none of the drama or importance in character development of any of the recent remakes. The second scene is Emma and Mr. Knightly's conversation after Mr. Knightly rescues poor Harriet from Mr. Elton's rudeness. It is crucial in the relationship building between Emma and Mr. Knightly in all of the other remakes. It is almost meaningless in this one due to the direction the actors were given. The ending is way too drawn out as well. Never thought I'd say that about a movie. I usually love my endings to be long and detailed.

Well.....

[judithhegewald · 2/10 · 1 March 2008]

I dearly love the long version of Pride and Prejudice and Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility. So, I rented the 1972 version of Emma, hoping for another really great evening of Jane Austen. After watching it for about an hour I was totally bored to death. It was obviously made on a tight budget, or else there was a shortage of outside settings. I felt like I was sitting on the front row of an old, rustic theater watching a stage production. The acting seemed forced and rather bland. So, today I am returning this video and checking out the other two versions, hoping again for a great evening of Jane Austen.

The best version of "Emma" so far.

[keng5 · 9/10 · 25 November 2005]

I really enjoyed this version of "Emma" and my pleasure was largely due to the very convincing performance by Doran Goodwin in the central role. She was so much better than Kate Beckinsdale in the ITV version who it seems to me lacked the necessary vivacity and personality to carry the role. This Emma was very expressive, arch and satirical, very much, I Imagine, as Jane Austen must have been herself. And unlike the ITV version, which was abominably miscast (excepting Mark Strong's Mr Knightley), this casting was near perfect.

My only complaint is that too much of the action took place indoors, which made it a little claustrophobic and too much like a stage play. We were not allowed to see the village or any exterior shots of Miss Bates dwelling, just room doors opening and closing. The only time we saw anyone in a carriage was during the trip to Box Hill and that was all too brief.

But the indoor scenes were magnificent and authentic looking, too good I'm sure to be just studio sets; they must all have been filmed on location, perhaps in the very large house pictured in the opening shots.

Older but best miniseries of Austen's "Emma"

[SimonJack · 8/10 · 17 April 2017]

Of the four film and TV miniseries productions available of Jane Austen's "Emma," this one is the second best. This and the 1996 independent film that stars Gwyneth Paltrow are the only two that bring out the best of the comedy and characters as Jane Austen wrote and saw them. The 1996 movie is superior. But this 1972 miniseries is very good in all aspects. The screenplay is very good, the casting is very good and the performances mostly are very good.

The cast for this BBC production was not one of big names in film. Some were more prominent on the stage, and others had short careers in film and/or TV. But, for their lack of notoriety, several gave fine performances. Doran Godwin was exceptional as Emma Woodhouse. Donald Eccles played Mr. Woodhouse to perfection – as one could see him coming right off the pages of Austen's novel. No one else has equaled that performance. It should be noted that this early miniseries gave considerable time to his character, where most later productions saved time by reducing his film time.

Debbie Bowen presents a more girlish picture of Harriet Smith than most renditions. That's not a negative, but it's worth noting where all other productions have a somewhat more adult or serious character, none of which are quite as attractive though. The rest of the cast of this series are good. At four hours, this TV series didn't add anything that the best film (1996 with Gwyneth Paltrow) might have missed, but it expanded some of the scenes and developed a couple of the characters a little more.

Very few people have rated this production. Even though it is a few decades back, it would be sure to please those who enjoy Jane Austen and any of the other productions of "Emma." And, for any who haven't yet seen the 1996 independent film with Gwyneth Paltrow, be sure to do so. It stands alone at the top of the class of "Emma" films.

Exasperating script and dreadful acting

[alfa-16 · 11 February 2009]

This is what period adaptations used to be like in the Dark Ages.

I checked this out in preparation for the eagerly awaited Sandy-Welch-plotted version due from the BBC later this year.

Ouch! This version takes frightening liberties with the script, not only by creating all the narrative events of the novel in new dialogue between the main characters but inventing new and alarming chapters in the drama, not all of which are at all helpful and some of which are downright indigestible. The dialogue runs on and on at 100 mph, no breath for a pause, no respect whatsoever for Austen's original language, and worse, no sign of its author getting anywhere near Austen's wavelength. Mr Woodhouse, for example, trolls about at a large party at Hartfield (26!!) snatching plates of food out of his guests hand and behaves so like a nutter that it seems quite appropriate for Knightley to rudely ignore him as he stomps off after the row with Emma about Robert Martin.

Dorin Godwin is not nearly talented enough to produce a multi-faceted Emma and the rest of the cast are dull, mechanical and under-rehearsed. I was so put off I had to stop before getting as far as the party at Randalls. I simply couldn't take any more.

Pretty Terrible

[lizardqueen17 · 3/10 · 24 May 2006]

I also was surprised to find positive feedback on this series. As a huge Jane Austen fan I wanted to see this lesser known version of the story and found it for $3 online which should've been my first warning. It's terribly acted and just reeks of low-budget all around. I'm not saying a good film/series can't be made on a low budget but this ends up being like a badly produced amateur play rather than a mini-series. I usually see better from the BBC but maybe it's too old or fringey? I now own it (for $3) and will never, ever watch it again. If you like Jane Austen and/or the story of Emma, stick to the Gwyneth Paltrow version which despite it's brevity is a very good portrayal of the story.

Wonderful

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 1 June 2012]

I haven't seen Kate Beckinsale's version in a while, but I do have fond memories of that and shall re-visit it soon. I did enjoy the Gwyneth Paltrow film though that's probably the least effective adaptation-wise, and while the 2009 series with Romola Garai had one or two scenes that didn't work I loved that one too. But I consider this Emma the best version. I too would've liked a few more outdoor scenes to have more of a glimpse of the outside world, and Debbie Bowen does play Harriet a little too broadly. However, it looks beautiful, the interiors more than made up for the lack of outdoor scenes and the scenery and costumes are likewise sumptuous with the photography not too stiff. The writing is thoughtful and witty, and the story is leisurely and gently told in a deliberate way and in spirit and in most details it is true to Jane Austen. Doran Godwin may be too old for the titular character, but what mattered more to me was how she interpreted the role, and I think she did a very good job with Austen's most multifaceted character. John Carson is the same as Knightley, but still turns in a likable performance. Mr Woodhouse is very funny and splendidly played by Donald Eccles(though I personally think Michael Gambon in the 2009 series was a tad more dimensional), while Ania Marsan, Robert East and Constance Chapman give the best Jane Fairfax, Frank Churchill and Miss Bates I've seen, great performances and their characters are very well developed. Overall, wonderful. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Excellent Emma!

[Greenman58 · 10/10 · 16 September 2008]

This delightful offering was made in 1972 - right in the middle of what plenty of people remember as a golden age for Classic Drama on telly. This adaptation of EMMA is no exception. It's one of the finest pieces of work of its kind. Yes, it's studio-based - but it's none the worse for that. For a start, the sound is better! Please remember that television drama was described at the time as 'electronic theatre, not poor man's cinema'. Technical resources have changed in 30 years, but think of the resources on offer here: stunning costume, well-designed and beautifully lit sets, superb actors who not only look but sound good, delicious writing that captures so well the essence of this lovely book - I'd rather see this a dozen times than an overpolished piece of slick location filming where all you end up with is pretty pictures of a supposedly 'all star cast'. The problem for some people of course is the fact that the series is six whole episodes that are allowed to breathe - it's given time to develop. Be glad. Take the Woodhouses and the Knightlys and the Bateses and the Westons to your family bosom and let them take root and grow. There isn't a dull moment in this little gem.

Lovable adaptation

[faust1og2 · 9/10 · 22 June 2006]

Yes I see this production is low budget and all, with an amateurish feel about it, and yet still I found it quite excellent - admirable indeed. Doran Godwin gives an expressionist portrayal of Emma which suits the character, and John Carson is a likable Mr. Knightley. All in all the casting is mere perfection; Thimoty Peters is a funny, yet realistic Mr. Elton; Debbie Bowen as Harriet Smith might be to much of a good thing, but then again Constance Chapman is most excellent as Miss Bates. Whats great about this "cheap" production is you feel the uneasiness of family gatherings, the ugliness of character and how irritating and limited this polite language can be. In more updated Jane Austen films, things might seem a bit artificial, as if the characters live in glossy prints. Certainly Austens times were just as "real" and shitty as ours, and this comes to front in this brilliant, yet quite forgotten, miniseries of Emma. The best dramatization of this marvelous novel so far.

Just about perfect

[ofumalow · 8/10 · 15 May 2020]

I saw this as a kid and loved it so much that the theme music stayed in my head for 50+ years, so when I ran across a cheap box set, I picked it up without expecting much beyond a satisfaction of nostalgic curiosity. But actually this is the best "Emma" I've ever seen amongst traditional adaptations (not including "Clueless," etc.), and seems most faithful in spirit as well as specifics to Austen. The casting is perfect, no one is too glamorized, and Emma herself is rightly portrayed as just as irritatingly manipulative and misguided as she is sympathetic and charming. (As familiar as this story is, the portrayal is so astute, there's still some suspense as to whether she'll turn out a terminal embittered brat or effect her own salvation.) John Carson was a wonderful Knightley, and all the other roles were ideally filled.

If later versions both on TV and the big screen were able to take advantage of technical advances and/or bigger budgets to have more splendid production values (including more outdoor sequences), the relatively claustrophobic feel here actually feels more realistic to the lives depicted--these are gentlepeople who spent most of their time indoors, particularly the women, and their homes weren't palatial for the obvious reasons of practical heating. Anyway, it's a very straightforward "Emma," but as good as you could wish for. If the production feels slightly dated, the craftsmanship and acting nonetheless have a timeless quality that is likely to date better than many more recent attempts to make a more "modern" slant on this material. Yes, it's "just" an old BBC miniseries, without any spectacular elements--but this is "Emma," a comedy of manners. Spectacle would be beside the point.

An Absolutely Delightful Adaptation , Catching thr Novel's Spirit Perfectly !

[johnpelaro · 10/10 · 12 April 2019]

Every now and then an adaptation of a classic is so good it gives you a better grasp of the book you read , and this gem certainly does that for me . Doran Godwin ( absolutely fetching ! ) and John Carson portrayed Emma and Knightly to perfection ; I could not keep my eyes off them .Ania Marson , Debbie Bowen , Ellen Dryden , Constance Chapman , and Fiona Walker ...as Jane Fairfax , Harriet , Mrs. Weston , Miss Bates and Mrs. Elliot respectively.....played their parts to perfection . The costuming was superb and the party scenes were done to perfection as well . Nothing in this production was overdone , and nothing significant left out . It deserves far more notice than it gets . My only disappointment , and a big surprise , was how little exposure most of the stars here , especially Godwin , ultimately had to the big screen . BBC productions have certainly developed more eye catching cinematography in 40+ years ( as has cinematic technology in general ) , but for casting and screen adaptation this production will certainly stand the test of time .

Truly touching

[AngelofMusic1998 · 9/10 · 13 October 2019]

Emma is a book of Jane Austen that I like a lot. It has the most outgoing and extrovert character of all her novels-Emma.The actress who played Emma did a good job.The rest of the caat was good as well.Sets and costumes are nice,nicer than in 1971 Sense and Sensibility and 1971 Persuasion.This is the first filmed version of Emma that is saved.Very good Emma.9/10

Better than I remembered

[sinclair-64549 · 8/10 · 2 October 2021]

I mean, it's from 1972. And BBC. So the production quality really is horrible. But the acting is actually better than I remembered it, and I enjoyed it this recent time around. Everyone is actually English so the English accents are genuine, which is nice for a period piece that's supposed to be taking place in...England.