One of my favorite aspects of how Clueless transforms Emma is in the way money is manifested as culturally significant. Of course, it would be incorrect to suppose that wealth is not a professed limiting factor within Austen’s Emma and does not explicitly serve as a means for separating class. In fact, it does. However, in Clueless I believe frivolity of money, and how people view it, is shown with sharp significance. There is a scene where Cher is being praised by her father for being able to negotiate her way from a C+ to an A- without having to do any extra credit. The scene itself is brief, but it can be viewed as a comment on the blind view the wealthy seem to have with regard to world. I say this mainly by the way, after bringing in a tray of tea for her father, Cher simply reaches out the study window and plucks an orange from the outside tree. It is so simple, so minute, but it is a perfect example of how complacent they are to fecundity of their wealth.

What I love about Clueless are the small, almost invisible, moments that seem to flit by, but also cause the viewer to pause. There are, as is to be anticipated, quite a few similarities between Emma and Clueless. But what is truly wonderful about the adaption is that they way Clueless capitalizes on the themes of social class (Tai vs. Elton), romantic meddling (Miss Geist and Mr. Hall), romance between Emma and Mr. Knightley (Cher and Josh), and so on. Yet, the romance between Josh and Cher does differ from Emma and Mr. Knightley. While either version bears its own level of “sweetness,” in Clueless it seems less about Cher having to change who she is, but rather learn to be more mature. Whereas in Emma, Emma is almost forced to surrender who she is to fit Mr. Knightley’s idea of acceptability. That is the greatest and more jarring distinction. Josh, while playfully antagonistic, is far more accepting of who Cher is and doesn’t seek to change her; he just waits for her to grow up. And I love that.