After watching the film, you’ll know that there are several ways (in this case, quite clear ways!) in which this adaptation departs from Austen’s novel. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, of course. Adaptations needn’t always be entirely faithful to be good or to be interesting or to be worthy of analysis. We should think of any adaptation as an interpretation of its source text, an argument about what’s important and how the source text creates meaning. That said, we needn’t agree with every interpretation, either!
In a comment to this post, discuss one decision made by the creators of this film that you find particularly worthy of analysis. First, explain what the decision is and (more importantly) how it interprets the novel (for example: does it turn a verbal pattern in the novel into something visual? does it highlight a certain theme? does it make explicit something that is only implicit in the novel? etc.). Then, say a bit about what you think about this decision. Is it a solid interpretation of the novel? Is it an interesting (but ultimately failed) departure? Does it miss something crucial in the novel? Does it deepen your appreciation of that aspect of the novel? You can be honest here, but the important part is to explain why you think the decision works or doesn’t work (or something in between).
Before I begin I feel that I have to state that clueless is one of my favorite movies. I remember watching it in the 7th grade, when it first came out, and I have seen it countless times since.
Now that I know the movie is an adaptation I can appreciate the movie in a whole new way. After reading Emma, I am amazed at how incredibly similar the stories are to each other, despite the one hundred and eighty year span in the creation of each. Because Clueless is an adaptation there were many changes, and the one I found to be interesting is the Harriet/Tai angle. In 1815, when the book was published, it was not desirable to be a child born out of wedlock, or be an illegitimate child of a married man. Even association with a child of the kind could be social death for someone. Now fast forward to 1996, in America, and no one would bat an eyelash at such a person. Most people wouldn’t shy away from someone of taboo parentage. So how do they make Harriet a social outcast in 1996? They turned her into a red-haired, grunge wearing, drug using, punk rock wannabe; the 1996 version of the social outcast. I think this was a clever change. And it works because high school students are mostly concerned with fitting in and being cool. Instead of Harriet climbing the social order in 1800 England, Tai was going from uncool, to popular. Something relatable to 1996 culture.
I have always loved Clueless. Watching this movie after reading Emma made me appreciate and enjoy it even more. I never imagined that a story published in 1815 could ever be adapted with the same basic plot to become a modern movie in 1996. The change that stood out to me immediately was the character transformation of Miss Taylor, who later becomes Mrs. Weston into Dionne. In the modern version of Emma, it would not make much sense if Cher’s closest friend was her governess or anyone who worked for her family. Changing the setting from a small little town to a high school, also meant that her best friend would need to be someone her own age and in her own social circle. While the age of the best friend character changes, their qualities remain the same. They are both the more experienced, yet supportive friend who Cher and Emma can always go to for anything. I think this was a appropriate change and I am also very happy that the character type remained the same, despite the change in age. Even though Cher and Emma both lost their mothers, they still had someone to lean on no matter what.
First, I would like to say that Clueless is a really fun and funny adaptation of Emma, which I wasn’t a great fan of. The creators of the film where smart in how they so comically portraid Emma as a spoiled, Beverly Hills raised high school girl. The relationship between Cher and Tai perfectly matched Emma and Harriet’s in the novel. Of course, it was a very 90’s take on the whole ordeal, but well played. Cher lost her mother and took care of her father, just as Emma did in the novel as well. I felt that the film brought the novel to life using just the right kind of humor for the audience at that time.
Emma and Cher share similar characteristics and the film does a good job at dropping the story into the world of a girl in high school to further explain why Cher (Emma) truly is, for lack of a better word, clueless. A change in the film adaptation that I found particularly interesting is the removal of Mrs. Weston’s importance. In the film, she’s simply portrayed as a regular teacher who has very little impact on Cher’s life aside from her grades. It’s an interesting departure because, despite Mrs. Weston’s constant presence in the novel, her authority and guidance doesn’t have much effect on Emma. Emma does as she pleases. It seems as if Mrs. Weston only real importance, in both the novel and the film, is the fact that Emma/Cher believe she has successfully matched her with her husband, inflaming Emma/Cher’s ego. And, for the most part, it is her ego that gets Emma/Cher into much of her trouble.
I thoroughly enjoyed Clueless and thought it was a great modern adaptation of Austen’s Emma.
One of the key differences that I noticed was the scale of social awareness. In Emma, the wealthier people take on the responsibility of helping the poor people. Emma constantly visits the poor people in her home town and provides them with food hampers. She is characterized as socially conscious, but in a proud manner. Her material generosity does not always extend to her heart. In Clueless, Cher’s social awareness is more carefree and ignorant. In a foreign policy debate, concerning the immigration of Haitians to the United States, Cher says, “We could totally party with Haitians” if the wealth was distributed more evenly. It is very apparent that Cher has good intentions and means well, but also that she has little to no idea of the large scale issues involved in the immigration of the Haitians.
For the first time, I enjoyed both the novel and the movie very much. I usually prefer the novel because often times the film adaptation cannot interpret the novel entirely within the allocated time frame, but Clueless was just as amazing and meaningful as Emma. Both Emma and Cher were equally oblivious to situations in their own respective eras. One thing I really enjoyed about the film is that the beginning and ending parallels each other even though Cher matures throughout the film.
Cher devotes her entire being to contributing to society by taking care of her father and being a matchmaker. She feels a sense of importance and worth from matchmaking because she truly believes that she is helping others. Although by the end of the film she learns that what she has done is wrong, she finds a different method to contribute to society. Cher begins to volunteer, donate, and run campaigns to replace her previous hobby, matchmaking. She transitions from matchmaking to contributing in various volunteer events to fuel her desires to feel significant. Although Cher finds more meaningful ways to contribute to society, she is still quite silly when she donates her ski equipment to villagers who have lost everything claiming that their exercise equipment must been destroyed as well. I like that Cher learns a meaningful lesson but it doesn’t lessen her silly qualities.
Clueless is one of my top five favorite movies and I’ve watched too many times to count. Before taking this class I read Emma because I had read that it’s what Clueless was based on. I always enjoy looking at how different moments in the novel were modernized in the movie. This time while watching the movie I tried to focus on how Jane Fairfax was put into Clueless. This was a little difficult to distinguish because this adaptation took some creative liberties when it came to Jane. After watching I feel that Amber was suppose to be a mix between Mrs. Elliot and Jane Fairfax. They took the rivalry between Emma and Mrs. Elliot/Jane and intensified it. There is an apparent dislike between Cher and Amber but there’s no real reason for it except for Cher’s vanity, like with Emma and Jane. Although, Amber doesn’t end up with Christian, aka a homosexual Frank Churchill, but she does end up with Elliot who Cher wanted to set Tai up with. For these reasons I concluded that in this adaptation Jane Fairfax and Mrs. Elliot were combined to make Amber.
Emma’s father Mr. Woodhouse is Mel Horowitz in Clueless. In Clueless, Mel Horowitz is a very active lawyer whose shrewd demeanor strikes fear in others. Mr. Horowitz’s ability to persuade and manipulate others appears to have passed on to his daughter Cher. Cher uses her skills to get her own way, just like Mr. Horowitz does by profession. When Cher matches her two teachers, she does it for her own self-interest. In Emma, Emma Woodhouse takes credit for matching Miss Taylor but George Knightley is dubious of Emma’s role in the match. Mel Horowitz is unlike Mr. Woodhouse in eating habits, Horowitz has an affinity for unhealthy food, especially fast food. When Cher chases him down with freshly squeezed orange juice, he isn’t happy about it. Unlike Horowitz, Mr. Woodhouse would be repulsed by the idea of fast food, and he would gravitate to the vitamin c rich Orange Juice. Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Woodhouse display concern for their daughter. Both are limited in their roles, Mr. Woodhouse is limited because he is an invalid, Mr. Horowitz is limited because he is too busy working. Clueless does a good job in its adaptation of Mr. Woodhouse. Mr. Horowitz makes more sense in relation to his daughters character. In Emma, Emma’s actions cannot be attributed to her father, as the narrator makes it clear that Mr. Woodhouse is a simple-minded man. Mr. Horowitz is far from simple-minded. I believe the producers of Clueless did this because Cher’s manipulative abilities could be attributed to her father. This may give Mr. Horowitz more depth of character than Mr. Woodhouse. Mr. Woodhouse is more of an anchor to Emma than Mr. Horowitz is to Cher. What is interesting about the adaptation is that even though both fathers have distinct differences, they both have a modest hand in the development of the story. It is hard to relate Mr. Woodhouse to Emma’s actions, however, I believe you can say more about Cher’s abilities by observing Mr. Horowitz.
I truly enjoyed watching Clueless and I believe that it is a great adaptation of Emma. The most interesting choice the film makers made in my opinion was turning Mr. Knightley in to Josh, Cher’s older step brother. The film stays true to Mr. Knightley’s character through Josh in many ways except one. Mr. Knightley is a father figure for Emma, in the same way that Josh is a brother figure for Cher, both men scold, advise and help Emma and Cher respectively. In the novel Mr. Knightley dances with Harriet at a ball, as does Josh with Tai at a dance. The one important aspect that the film does not portray is the sixteen year difference between Cher and Josh, as is in the novel. Overall, I enjoyed the film and I believe it was a great adaptation of Emma.
Josh’s description of Cher’s behavior towards Tai is that Cher is “acting out on that poor girl like she were a barbie doll”. This clearly reflects the relationship between Emma and Harriet in the novel. Tai has red hair, an unusual hair color, and is introduced in baggy clothing. In the beginning of the film one of the PE classmates refers to her outfit to be similar to that of a “farmer”. I particularly liked Tai’s transformation as it was made visual through her change of clothing, hair color, and use of words such as “sporadic”. The only thing that deviates from the novel is the fact that Tai has a talent for drawing whereas in the novel Harriet had no talents and was only portrayed as dim witted. In the film, however, Tai is portrayed as coming from another country and culture. This is a more comprehensive and respectable way of demonstrating Tai’s cluelessness around her instead of portraying her as unintelligent. Tai’s lack of knowledge about America is quickly apparent with her surprise of the ready availability of soda. The conversion of social class status with popularity presents a hierarchy that a 90’s audience would easily understand and makes the film more engaging and relatable because we all know what it is like to go through our teen years.
-Monica Rivera Esturban