Real late to the game . . .
Anyway . . .
As far as direction, casting, & most of the production - considering it's a period piece -this movie is done pretty well, Probably worth a solid 8 for those basic things.
Unfortunately, I give it a 2 because it is totally lacked rating, and seemed to be pigeon-holed into being really only about a dissatisfied, immature woman who fulfills her lusts. True enough, in essence that IS what the story is about. This movie adaptation did try to delve more into the internal dynamics of the main character if indeed that was the intention, but this internal narration was shallow & repetitive.
I've never read the book, but we all know that usually the movie is by necessity, as well as often uneccesarily, very lacking and/or critically changing the authors real intent. This is the second version of this movie I've seen, and tho somewhat better done than the other in some ways, I still would not have bought this (Amazon) DVD if it had shown an R rating.
This was a TV movie - so I assumed it was PG-13. Apparently the explicit scenes were cut from the TV version, because I did not see the most explicit scene listed in the parents guide.
(however, I have since posted it) Typically, usually, 'made for TV' movies are PG-13. The DVD cover has no rating either, I suppose because it is a BBC film . . .?
However, it is definitely an R movie, not only for obvious reasons but thematically as well, not for the kiddies. And in my opinion, also unecessarily over-indulgent and condescending in its explicity for adults.
The story here, if forced to be explained concisely-in a nutshell-very basically, is about a particular woman with a sexual addiction.
Some of the movie is told - randomly - thru Emma's internal thoughts as we watch her move thru life discontented at every turn. Her attention to morality appears to be nothing more than a pretense: she's actually coy, using a 'front of morality' as a challenge to her pursuers to chase & break her, which doesn't take much, due to her immaturity.
One could possibly say that the two main points of the film seem to highlight the disgust, jaded views, or some motivation of the author and/or the movie maker to portray as follows; First the weak man; The doctor, somewhat weak minded, acquiescing sort of man, still under his mothers thumb, always diplomatically trying to please his mother & wife. Simply a mostly passive, insecure, whipped guy, tries hard to be non-confrontational, will excuse anything to try to get along. Possibly has some sexual repression and/or disfunction as we are shown Emma quite bewildered on her wedding night. The viewer is left to infer men are fairly easily controlled and led.
Then Emma, the 'tragic' female, who's dissatisfaction is born mostly of immaturity & her own lack of knowledge, as well as her own selfishness. Dissatisfied at every turn, she indulges her lusts (addictions) whether sexually or materially, becoming more unhinged & tyrannical, only rushing faster to her ultimate downfall - the viewer is left to infer the portrayal of women as weak, immature, sexually immoral, self-indulgent, not naturally nurturing, and totally inept at managing anything financially due to all the previously mentioned traits.
Bewteen these two - loss & ruin is inevitable.
Along with all that, there's the portrayal of the rather over-bearing, demanding, vocally opinionated mother-in-law, trying to control this obvious disastrous, impending ruin.
Overall, what is portrayed is a peter-pan-syndrome husband that symbiotically fit perfect with a wife's tinker-bell magical-thinking-immaturity; Emma and her husband are a perfect match - for all the wrong reasons.
At least the mother-in-law finally lets go of her reigns, wisely bowing out before more events culminate in the family doomsday onthe horizon.
The most entertaining character was Emma's charming, sweet, & cute old father.
But all the actors played their parts well.
One interesting thing, although it may or may not have been intended - is the relevance of a different era then, today, and all the decades between as it adequately portrays the lives of an addict and a co-dependent.
Emma is basically a sex & material-things addict. She indulges all her lusts, which overrides her responsibilities as a wife and mother, and even as a daughter, and these things brought herself, husband, & child to ruin as well.
We see the doctor-husband being the epitome of co-dependency, constantly excusing, in denial (turning a 'blind eye'), and trying to fix, hide, cover up, etc.
Under that lens, the movie is relevant across all eras of history regarding addiction, co-dependency, and enabling.
Just about everyone has some level of familiarity with these dynamics which seem to occur more & more often in so many families via prescription or street drug addictions, addiction to food, sex, and many other kinds of addictions.
Anyway . . .
As far as direction, casting, & most of the production - considering it's a period piece -this movie is done pretty well, Probably worth a solid 8 for those basic things.
Unfortunately, I give it a 2 because it is totally lacked rating, and seemed to be pigeon-holed into being really only about a dissatisfied, immature woman who fulfills her lusts. True enough, in essence that IS what the story is about. This movie adaptation did try to delve more into the internal dynamics of the main character if indeed that was the intention, but this internal narration was shallow & repetitive.
I've never read the book, but we all know that usually the movie is by necessity, as well as often uneccesarily, very lacking and/or critically changing the authors real intent. This is the second version of this movie I've seen, and tho somewhat better done than the other in some ways, I still would not have bought this (Amazon) DVD if it had shown an R rating.
This was a TV movie - so I assumed it was PG-13. Apparently the explicit scenes were cut from the TV version, because I did not see the most explicit scene listed in the parents guide.
(however, I have since posted it) Typically, usually, 'made for TV' movies are PG-13. The DVD cover has no rating either, I suppose because it is a BBC film . . .?
However, it is definitely an R movie, not only for obvious reasons but thematically as well, not for the kiddies. And in my opinion, also unecessarily over-indulgent and condescending in its explicity for adults.
The story here, if forced to be explained concisely-in a nutshell-very basically, is about a particular woman with a sexual addiction.
Some of the movie is told - randomly - thru Emma's internal thoughts as we watch her move thru life discontented at every turn. Her attention to morality appears to be nothing more than a pretense: she's actually coy, using a 'front of morality' as a challenge to her pursuers to chase & break her, which doesn't take much, due to her immaturity.
One could possibly say that the two main points of the film seem to highlight the disgust, jaded views, or some motivation of the author and/or the movie maker to portray as follows; First the weak man; The doctor, somewhat weak minded, acquiescing sort of man, still under his mothers thumb, always diplomatically trying to please his mother & wife. Simply a mostly passive, insecure, whipped guy, tries hard to be non-confrontational, will excuse anything to try to get along. Possibly has some sexual repression and/or disfunction as we are shown Emma quite bewildered on her wedding night. The viewer is left to infer men are fairly easily controlled and led.
Then Emma, the 'tragic' female, who's dissatisfaction is born mostly of immaturity & her own lack of knowledge, as well as her own selfishness. Dissatisfied at every turn, she indulges her lusts (addictions) whether sexually or materially, becoming more unhinged & tyrannical, only rushing faster to her ultimate downfall - the viewer is left to infer the portrayal of women as weak, immature, sexually immoral, self-indulgent, not naturally nurturing, and totally inept at managing anything financially due to all the previously mentioned traits.
Bewteen these two - loss & ruin is inevitable.
Along with all that, there's the portrayal of the rather over-bearing, demanding, vocally opinionated mother-in-law, trying to control this obvious disastrous, impending ruin.
Overall, what is portrayed is a peter-pan-syndrome husband that symbiotically fit perfect with a wife's tinker-bell magical-thinking-immaturity; Emma and her husband are a perfect match - for all the wrong reasons.
At least the mother-in-law finally lets go of her reigns, wisely bowing out before more events culminate in the family doomsday onthe horizon.
The most entertaining character was Emma's charming, sweet, & cute old father.
But all the actors played their parts well.
One interesting thing, although it may or may not have been intended - is the relevance of a different era then, today, and all the decades between as it adequately portrays the lives of an addict and a co-dependent.
Emma is basically a sex & material-things addict. She indulges all her lusts, which overrides her responsibilities as a wife and mother, and even as a daughter, and these things brought herself, husband, & child to ruin as well.
We see the doctor-husband being the epitome of co-dependency, constantly excusing, in denial (turning a 'blind eye'), and trying to fix, hide, cover up, etc.
Under that lens, the movie is relevant across all eras of history regarding addiction, co-dependency, and enabling.
Just about everyone has some level of familiarity with these dynamics which seem to occur more & more often in so many families via prescription or street drug addictions, addiction to food, sex, and many other kinds of addictions.