It always amazes me to see these old movies and how much some newer movies resemble them. In the case of "Emma" it seems like a variant of the movie "Knives Out"--or more appropriately, "Knives Out" seems like a variant of "Emma."
Emma of the eponymous movie is played by Marie Dressler. Marie was more famously known as Tillie in the hilarious Charlie Chaplin movies: "Tillie's Punctured Romance," "Tillie's Tomato Surprise," and "Tillie Wakes Up." After I watched "Tillie's Punctured Romance" last year I couldn't help but think that Marie Dressler should've been a star. She had the screen presence and the skills, she only lacked the Hollywood look.
"Emma" is about a housemaid/nanny. She worked for the Smith family and looked after the four Smith children. She became like a mother to them when the mother died giving birth to Ronnie (Richard Cromwell), the youngest.
Emma is a very lovable character, though she can be tough to love at times. She's extremely humble--I'd even say humble to a fault, self-deprecating, and more concerned with the welfare of the Smiths than her own. And that last quality is actually her biggest flaw. She can't even bring herself to take a vacation for fear the Smith family would collapse without her. It's like serving others was encoded in her DNA.
Her servile (too) good nature was put on full display after the patriarch, Mr. Frederick Smith (Jean Hersholt), died and left all of his assets to Emma. He knew that 1.) he couldn't trust his kids with his wealth and 2.) Emma would use it to further care for the family he left behind. Every spoiled child was furious with this decision with the exception of Ronnie. The moment Emma heard that she'd inherited Mr. Smith's fortune she wanted to abdicate the wealth and give it to the children. Before she could make her intentions known they were viciously attacking her and threatening her with lawsuits to wrest the wealth from her.
Their tactics reached a nadir when they got the DA to prosecute Emma for the murder of their father. While Emma's defense attorney was roasting the Smith children in his closing argument Emma would have nothing of it. Though they were trying their best to assassinate her character and get her locked up, Emma still loved them and couldn't bear to hear an ill word spoken about them.
To go further into Emma's (weak) character; when she beat the case she STILL gave ALL of the wealth to the kids leaving nothing for herself.
Let's recap:
First the spoiled adult children said that their father was crazy and that they'd swear to it to get the money. When that didn't work they got the DA to charge her with murder, which carries a minimum of a life sentence. And after the brats tried to, in effect, kill her, she handed over the inherited fortune like a dutiful trustee.
So, as an old and nearly penniless woman who couldn't afford to retire she had no options but to work. The rotten Smith clan penitently offered her her old job back, but she didn't accept. Emma didn't reject the offer due to any harbored enmity, but because she wanted to start fresh in a new home with young children. So, she went back to working as a nanny for another, not so rich, family where she was as happy as a pig in poop.
So I ask: What could possibly have been the moral of this tale: Servants love nothing more than to serve? Servants don't need money, just a surrogate family to love? Nannies grow so attached to the children they raise that even if they attack them later in life it's all forgiven?
I don't know what could be gleaned from this movie except that the rich will remain rich and the poor will remain poor. How is that? The rich are cold-blooded and will do anything to acquire and retain their wealth while the poor are too soft, kind, and generous to ever be wealthy. I just wanted more from Emma--more fire, more backbone, more believing that she deserved a break. And in the end I think that's what bothered me most: that she didn't believe she deserved a break.
Emma of the eponymous movie is played by Marie Dressler. Marie was more famously known as Tillie in the hilarious Charlie Chaplin movies: "Tillie's Punctured Romance," "Tillie's Tomato Surprise," and "Tillie Wakes Up." After I watched "Tillie's Punctured Romance" last year I couldn't help but think that Marie Dressler should've been a star. She had the screen presence and the skills, she only lacked the Hollywood look.
"Emma" is about a housemaid/nanny. She worked for the Smith family and looked after the four Smith children. She became like a mother to them when the mother died giving birth to Ronnie (Richard Cromwell), the youngest.
Emma is a very lovable character, though she can be tough to love at times. She's extremely humble--I'd even say humble to a fault, self-deprecating, and more concerned with the welfare of the Smiths than her own. And that last quality is actually her biggest flaw. She can't even bring herself to take a vacation for fear the Smith family would collapse without her. It's like serving others was encoded in her DNA.
Her servile (too) good nature was put on full display after the patriarch, Mr. Frederick Smith (Jean Hersholt), died and left all of his assets to Emma. He knew that 1.) he couldn't trust his kids with his wealth and 2.) Emma would use it to further care for the family he left behind. Every spoiled child was furious with this decision with the exception of Ronnie. The moment Emma heard that she'd inherited Mr. Smith's fortune she wanted to abdicate the wealth and give it to the children. Before she could make her intentions known they were viciously attacking her and threatening her with lawsuits to wrest the wealth from her.
Their tactics reached a nadir when they got the DA to prosecute Emma for the murder of their father. While Emma's defense attorney was roasting the Smith children in his closing argument Emma would have nothing of it. Though they were trying their best to assassinate her character and get her locked up, Emma still loved them and couldn't bear to hear an ill word spoken about them.
To go further into Emma's (weak) character; when she beat the case she STILL gave ALL of the wealth to the kids leaving nothing for herself.
Let's recap:
First the spoiled adult children said that their father was crazy and that they'd swear to it to get the money. When that didn't work they got the DA to charge her with murder, which carries a minimum of a life sentence. And after the brats tried to, in effect, kill her, she handed over the inherited fortune like a dutiful trustee.
So, as an old and nearly penniless woman who couldn't afford to retire she had no options but to work. The rotten Smith clan penitently offered her her old job back, but she didn't accept. Emma didn't reject the offer due to any harbored enmity, but because she wanted to start fresh in a new home with young children. So, she went back to working as a nanny for another, not so rich, family where she was as happy as a pig in poop.
So I ask: What could possibly have been the moral of this tale: Servants love nothing more than to serve? Servants don't need money, just a surrogate family to love? Nannies grow so attached to the children they raise that even if they attack them later in life it's all forgiven?
I don't know what could be gleaned from this movie except that the rich will remain rich and the poor will remain poor. How is that? The rich are cold-blooded and will do anything to acquire and retain their wealth while the poor are too soft, kind, and generous to ever be wealthy. I just wanted more from Emma--more fire, more backbone, more believing that she deserved a break. And in the end I think that's what bothered me most: that she didn't believe she deserved a break.