list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Emma on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Emma/93496/default.aspx Title: Emma
Year: 1996
Director: Douglas McGrath
Plot: Based on the novel by Jane Austen (who in the '90s seemed to be in the running alongside William Shakespeare and Stephen King for the honors of most adapted author in Hollywood), this period romantic comedy stars Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma Woodhouse, a young woman who imagines herself an authority on matters of the heart. With the best of intentions, Emma plays matchmaker for her friends, most notably her friend Harriet (Toni Collette), who Emma links up with the Reverend Elton (Alan Cumming), and her governess, (Greta Scacchi), who she introduces to her future husband, Mr. Weston (James Cosmo). However, Emma is not nearly as good at playing Cupid as she likes to imagine, and she spends so much time trying to solve everyone else's romantic problems that it takes her quite some time to realize that she's fallen in love with Mr. Knightly (Jeremy Northam). A television miniseries based on Austen's book appeared a year later, while a year prior to Emma, the story appeared in modernized form in the popular teen comedy Clueless. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 3
Number of Lists: 14
Number of blog posts: 2
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:01:32 GMTEmma1996Douglas McGrathBased on the novel by Jane Austen (who in the '90s seemed to be in the running alongside William Shakespeare and <a href="/players/P____97473/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Stephen King</a> for the honors of most adapted author in Hollywood), this period romantic comedy stars <a href="/players/P____54871/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gwyneth Paltrow</a> as Emma Woodhouse, a young woman who imagines herself an authority on matters of the heart. With the best of intentions, Emma plays matchmaker for her friends, most notably her friend Harriet (<a href="/players/P____14165/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Toni Collette</a>), who Emma links up with the Reverend Elton (<a href="/players/P____16130/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Alan Cumming</a>), and her governess, (<a href="/players/P____63446/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Greta Scacchi</a>), who she introduces to her future husband, Mr. Weston (<a href="/players/P___123890/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James Cosmo</a>). However, Emma is not nearly as good at playing Cupid as she likes to imagine, and she spends so much time trying to solve everyone else's romantic problems that it takes her quite some time to realize that she's fallen in love with Mr. Knightly (<a href="/players/P___200549/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jeremy Northam</a>). A television miniseries based on Austen's book appeared a year later, while a year prior to Emma, the story appeared in modernized form in the popular teen comedy <a href=/films/92274/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Clueless</a>. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide3Slightly Tagged (1-5)14223http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t02045oykkh.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Emma/93496/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/14/39525.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/14/2009 2:01:32 PM
Body: Each day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Scott Hicks’ Shine (1996). 1996 was a monumental year for independent film. It began with a Sundance Film Festival that, according to Peter Biskind’s book Down and Dirty Pictures “would go down as Ten Days That Shook the Indie World,” because of the tremendous buying frenzy that occurred, including the infamous acquisition of The Spitfire Grill by Castle Rock for $10 million. The year then transpired with a slew of popular specialty titles that boosted business at many arthouse multiplexes while also exposing them as being unsuited for large crowds (the boom in indie film attendance was something I experienced first hand, having that year begun my first career at NYC’s Angelika Film Center). And the year ended (in 14-month Hollywood terms) with an unprecedented number of specialty films receiving nominations for Academy Awards. Most astonishing, certainly, was the fact that four of the five Oscar nominees for Best Picture were specialty titles, one of which had been discovered at Sundance. The film, Shine, might not have had a chance at such an honor, however, if Miramax and Harvey Weinstein had gotten their way. As much as the 1996 Sundance Film Festival was remarkable for its number of films sold, it was also noteworthy for producing negative stories, too. Before The Spitfire Grill opened to empty theaters that summer to become the greatest embarrassment of that year’s festival, Harvey Weinstein and Miramax had a particularly humiliating experience during the fest involving their unsuccessful bid for Shine. The full details of the story can be found in Down and Dirty Pictures, but basically Weinstein thought Miramax had picked up the film until he heard official word stating otherwise, that Shine had in fact been bought by Fine Line. The incident was defended as a miscommunication but treated by Weinstein as a boldface lie and resulted in a nasty fight between him and Shine producer Jonathan Taplin. Miramax’s Tony Safford, who ended up getting fired as a result, was hardly at fault, despite it being his task to seal the deal on the film. There was never any way that Miramax was going to get Shine, because its director, Scott Hicks, had had a bad experience with the distributor and had no intention of working with them. As Biskind puts it, “the Shine folks would rather have taken less money than go with Miramax.” And there was great reason why Shine was better off anywhere else but at Harvey’s house — well, besides the fact that Weinstein was known for being a jerk with scissors for hands. Miramax had the Oscar-bait epic The English Patient (not to mention fellow eventual Oscar nominees Sling Blade, Kolya, Ridicule, Emma, Marvin’s Room and Trainspotting), and although Shine likely would have still picked up at least a Best Actor nod (and win) for Geoffrey Rush, it probably wouldn’t have received all of its six other nominations, especially not the one for Best Picture, with Weinstein’s attention primarily on that other, more costly film. Of course, The English Patient won the top award and earned more than twice the box office gross of Shine. But the film’s reputation and esteem were still positively affected by the controversial sell to Fine Line over Miramax. And hopefully it taught subsequent Sundance filmmakers about the need to sell to the distributor that’ll give the best attention to the film, instead of the distributor that’ll pay the most. Below is a clip from Shine featuring Rush’s Oscar-winning portrayal of pianist David Helfgott. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:01:32 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/14/2009 2:01:32 PMEach day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Scott Hicks’ Shine (1996). 1996 was a monumental year for independent film. It began with a Sundance Film Festival that, according to Peter Biskind’s book Down and Dirty Pictures “would go down as Ten Days That Shook the Indie World,” because of the tremendous buying frenzy that occurred, including the infamous acquisition of The Spitfire Grill by Castle Rock for $10 million. The year then transpired with a slew of popular specialty titles that boosted business at many arthouse multiplexes while also exposing them as being unsuited for large crowds (the boom in indie film attendance was something I experienced first hand, having that year begun my first career at NYC’s Angelika Film Center). And the year ended (in 14-month Hollywood terms) with an unprecedented number of specialty films receiving nominations for Academy Awards. Most astonishing, certainly, was the fact that four of the five Oscar nominees for Best Picture were specialty titles, one of which had been discovered at Sundance. The film, Shine, might not have had a chance at such an honor, however, if Miramax and Harvey Weinstein had gotten their way. As much as the 1996 Sundance Film Festival was remarkable for its number of films sold, it was also noteworthy for producing negative stories, too. Before The Spitfire Grill opened to empty theaters that summer to become the greatest embarrassment of that year’s festival, Harvey Weinstein and Miramax had a particularly humiliating experience during the fest involving their unsuccessful bid for Shine. The full details of the story can be found in Down and Dirty Pictures, but basically Weinstein thought Miramax had picked up the film until he heard official word stating otherwise, that Shine had in fact been bought by Fine Line. The incident was defended as a miscommunication but treated by Weinstein as a boldface lie and resulted in a nasty fight between him and Shine producer Jonathan Taplin. Miramax’s Tony Safford, who ended up getting fired as a result, was hardly at fault, despite it being his task to seal the deal on the film. There was never any way that Miramax was going to get Shine, because its director, Scott Hicks, had had a bad experience with the distributor and had no intention of working with them. As Biskind puts it, “the Shine folks would rather have taken less money than go with Miramax.” And there was great reason why Shine was better off anywhere else but at Harvey’s house — well, besides the fact that Weinstein was known for being a jerk with scissors for hands. Miramax had the Oscar-bait epic The English Patient (not to mention fellow eventual Oscar nominees Sling Blade, Kolya, Ridicule, Emma, Marvin’s Room and Trainspotting), and although Shine likely would have still picked up at least a Best Actor nod (and win) for Geoffrey Rush, it probably wouldn’t have received all of its six other nominations, especially not the one for Best Picture, with Weinstein’s attention primarily on that other, more costly film. Of course, The English Patient won the top award and earned more than twice the box office gross of Shine. But the film’s reputation and esteem were still positively affected by the controversial sell to Fine Line over Miramax. And hopefully it taught subsequent Sundance filmmakers about the need to sell to the distributor that’ll give the best attention to the film, instead of the distributor that’ll pay the most. Below is a clip from Shine featuring Rush’s Oscar-winning portrayal of pianist David Helfgott. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Romantic_Films/190/35892/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: filmgal81
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 10/4/2008 7:33:10 AM
Body: Ah, Sense & Sensibility has always been one of my personal favorites as well. I've heard the argument against chivalry before, and i think that just because the lines between chivalry and chauvinism were blurred at times doesn't mean that theer wasn't a distinction. As you said, you can be chivalrous without being patronizing. There was a politeness, a gentlemanliness then, that is sorely lacking today, in many ways. No, this does not mean women are looking/waiting to be rescued, we can cut the heads off our own dragons, but i think it nice to know that a guy would try. [quote user="rjsprague"] In order of preference: 1. Emma 2. Sense and Sensibility 3. Sleepless in Seattle 4. Pride and Prejudice 5. Memoirs of a Geisha As you can see I'm a sucker for period films, and chivalry. While feminists say that chivalry is just veiled chauvinism I personally think it was significantly more noble, an attempt to honor and respect the opposite sex. I put sleepless in there (and was considering You have mail) because it's a very classic romantic film that I enjoy thoroughly, but is certainly American. [/quote]
]]>Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:33:10 GMTfilmgal81Top 510/4/2008 7:33:10 AMAh, Sense &amp; Sensibility has always been one of my personal favorites as well. I've heard the argument against chivalry before, and i think that just because the lines between chivalry and chauvinism were blurred at times doesn't mean that theer wasn't a distinction. As you said, you can be chivalrous without being patronizing. There was a politeness, a gentlemanliness then, that is sorely lacking today, in many ways. No, this does not mean women are looking/waiting to be rescued, we can cut the heads off our own dragons, but i think it nice to know that a guy would try. [quote user="rjsprague"] In order of preference: 1. Emma 2. Sense and Sensibility 3. Sleepless in Seattle 4. Pride and Prejudice 5. Memoirs of a Geisha As you can see I'm a sucker for period films, and chivalry. While feminists say that chivalry is just veiled chauvinism I personally think it was significantly more noble, an attempt to honor and respect the opposite sex. I put sleepless in there (and was considering You have mail) because it's a very classic romantic film that I enjoy thoroughly, but is certainly American. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Romantic_Films/190/35872/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 10/3/2008 4:50:56 PM
Body: In order of preference: 1. Emma 2. Sense and Sensibility 3. Sleepless in Seattle 4. Pride and Prejudice 5. Memoirs of a Geisha As you can see I'm a sucker for period films, and chivalry. While feminists say that chivalry is just veiled chauvinism I personally think it was significantly more noble, an attempt to honor and respect the opposite sex. I put sleepless in there (and was considering You have mail) because it's a very classic romantic film that I enjoy thoroughly, but is certainly American. Lastly, memoirs of a geisha probably isn't considered a romantic film, but I felt that it depicted an aspect of traditional Japanese life where, traditionally, romance didn't exist, but romantic elements are certainly there. I also recently learned that until the Japanese came into contact with the West they didn't have a word for romance. They write the word romansu in katakana because it is a borrowed word, which essentially means that they lacked the concept most likely because marriages were arranged (and romance wasn't a factor in that arrangement). I really enjoyed this film, despite it being about Japanese life (pre and post WWII and the bombing) and using a predominantly Chinese cast! Zhang Zhiyi (pronounced jong jurii or something close to that) is definitely chinese!
]]>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:50:56 GMTrjspragueTop 510/3/2008 4:50:56 PMIn order of preference: 1. Emma 2. Sense and Sensibility 3. Sleepless in Seattle 4. Pride and Prejudice 5. Memoirs of a Geisha As you can see I'm a sucker for period films, and chivalry. While feminists say that chivalry is just veiled chauvinism I personally think it was significantly more noble, an attempt to honor and respect the opposite sex. I put sleepless in there (and was considering You have mail) because it's a very classic romantic film that I enjoy thoroughly, but is certainly American. Lastly, memoirs of a geisha probably isn't considered a romantic film, but I felt that it depicted an aspect of traditional Japanese life where, traditionally, romance didn't exist, but romantic elements are certainly there. I also recently learned that until the Japanese came into contact with the West they didn't have a word for romance. They write the word romansu in katakana because it is a borrowed word, which essentially means that they lacked the concept most likely because marriages were arranged (and romance wasn't a factor in that arrangement). I really enjoyed this film, despite it being about Japanese life (pre and post WWII and the bombing) and using a predominantly Chinese cast! Zhang Zhiyi (pronounced jong jurii or something close to that) is definitely chinese! http://www.spout.com/blogs/windbreaker/archive/2008/2/23/25503.aspx Post By: Windbreaker
Post To: Windbreaker!
Post Date: 2/23/2008 11:22:58 AM
Body: Men - don't let your women bring this home for you to watch.Women - if you love your men, don't bring this home for them to watch. Keep this DVD on the shelves at Blockbuster and reduce the nation's divorce rate.Becoming Jane is painfully slow, not terribly interesting, and sloppily written. Since next to nothing is known about Austen's life, some genius thought that Jane Austen's life must have been a combination of her novels. So we, the movie viewing community get conned into this. I'm not an Austen hater -- Pride and Prejudice is very good (movie and TV mini versions) and I didn't mind Emma either. Here's an example of the sloppy story, which makes you unsure of how to judge the characters: Jane is furious at a boy who leaves her to take care of his family... later he comes back to her, they're both happy, then she leaves him because it's best for her family. Both times we're supposed to side with Jane. Come on. Consistency people.
]]>Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:22:58 GMTWindbreakerWindbreaker!2/23/2008 11:22:58 AMMen - don&#39;t let your women bring this home for you to watch.Women - if you love your men, don&#39;t bring this home for them to watch. Keep this DVD on the shelves at Blockbuster and reduce the nation&#39;s divorce rate.Becoming Jane is painfully slow, not terribly interesting, and sloppily written. Since next to nothing is known about Austen&#39;s life, some genius thought that Jane Austen&#39;s life must have been a combination of her novels. So we, the movie viewing community get conned into this. I&#39;m not an Austen hater -- Pride and Prejudice is very good (movie and TV mini versions) and I didn&#39;t mind Emma either. Here&#39;s an example of the sloppy story, which makes you unsure of how to judge the characters: Jane is furious at a boy who leaves her to take care of his family... later he comes back to her, they&#39;re both happy, then she leaves him because it&#39;s best for her family. Both times we&#39;re supposed to side with Jane. Come on. Consistency people. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/marriage/MemberTagFilms.aspxmarriage
Number of films tagged: 3471

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 267

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:11 GMT347167267Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/based-on-a-book/MemberTagFilms.aspxbased-on-a-book
Number of films tagged: 173

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 278

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:52:06 GMT17337278Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/upperclass/MemberTagFilms.aspxupperclass
Number of films tagged: 143

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 12

]]>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:11:19 GMT1431012Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/janeausten/MemberTagFilms.aspxjaneausten
Number of films tagged: 17

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 23

]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:38:59 GMT17723Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/matchmaker/MemberTagFilms.aspxmatchmaker
Number of films tagged: 160

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 8

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT16078Tag