Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers

http://community.livejournal.com/denchfans/6598.html

'Jane Eyre' Fresh Take on a Classic Novel

* Mar. 11th, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Movie review: ‘Jane Eyre' offers fresh take on classic novel
Movie review: This stylish and impressive translation of the Charlotte Bronte classic “Jane Eyre,” starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell and Judi Dench and directed by Cary Fukunaga, should earn a prominent place on movie bookshelves.

Published: March 11, 2011

Any filmgoer looking askance at yet another adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's often-filmed 1847 novel “Jane Eyre” can rest assured that the new one by up-and-coming director Cary Fukunaga is a smart, worthy addition to the book's burgeoning, multimedia canon.

Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska embrace in a scene from director Cary Fukunaga's screen adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre."

Since 1910, Bronte's sprawling, multithemed, five-stage tome has spawned 18 film versions, at least 10 TV adaptations, a radio drama, a two-act ballet, a stage musical, an opera, a symphonic interpretation, a graphic novel, numerous literary spinoffs, prequels and sequels and more.

So what's new to glean from this heavily worked literary artifact whose 38 chapters are chockablock with florid motifs and allusions (from romanticism to Gothic horror; from the Byronic hero to the madwoman in the attic) and whose five sections range through hefty matters of morality and religion, social class and gender relations, love and passion, independence and the search for home and family, as well as atonement and forgiveness?

In the fairly flinty but lovely performance by Mia Wasikowska (“Alice in Wonderland”) as Jane, in the cannily configured script by British playwright Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and in the bold, richly visual direction of Fukunaga this film seems surprisingly fresh, more tough-minded and less melodramatic than previous versions.
Fukunaga, a film phenom who earned a Student Oscar at the University of California, Santa Cruz and launched his career strongly with the tough immigrant thriller “Sin Nombre,” seems an odd choice to helm this elaborate period piece. But it seems his fresh eyes and contemporary sensibilities serve the material well.

Unlike previous versions (notably the 1944 Orson Welles-Joan Fontaine film and the lush 1996 Franco Zeffirelli picture), this film radically shuffles the story's chronology and opens with a nifty framing device before condensing Jane's cruel Victorian childhood into concise flashbacks.

The movie opens with Jane fleeing Thornfield Hall and Rochester's dire secret into a sodden, storm-swept night on the desolate moors. After a shivering Jane is taken in by the pious clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell of “Billy Elliot” fame) and his kindly sisters (Holliday Grainger and Tamzin Merchant), we hark back to the chapters that brought her here.

There're scenes of the spirited young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) being brutally mistreated by her hateful aunt (Sally Hawkins) and priggish cousins. There's Jane being shipped off to the parochial Lowood charity school where she suffers the brimstone abuses of the zealous headmaster (Simon McBurney) and sees her gentle best friend (Fraya Parks) die of consumption.

There's a grown Jane who survives the rigors of Lowood, emerges as a beloved teacher and accepts a position at Thornfield Hall as tutor to the young French ward of the brooding Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender, too handsome by half). Judi Dench lends dramatic heft here as the kindly housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax.

The rest of the story unfolds in familiar fashion, with some spooky, well-placed shocks and dire Gothic flourishes and a proper but perhaps too-slow developing respect and ardor growing between Jane, all demure and noble, and Rochester, tortured and temperamental. But that slow-burning chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender does eventually ignite into full-blown passion, and its compelling glow finally manages to ensure this stylish and impressive translation of Bronte's classic a prominent place on movie bookshelves.
— Dennis King

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/138084-jane-eyre/

'Jane Eyre' As Feminist Hero?
By Renée Scolaro Mora 11 March 2011
Haunted

What is your tale of woe?
—Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender)

Jane Eyre opens with Jane (Mia Wasikowska) running away. Those familiar with Charlotte Brontë‘s novel will immediately recognize this as the moment their heroine is fleeing Thornfield Hall, as well as a departure from the original text, at least in its order of events. Jane wanders sobbing across the moors until she collapses in a heap on the doorstep of St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters. Slowly, her story is revealed in flashback.

This is not an ineffective means to beginning Jane’s story, assuming the intent is to create an air of mystery for novices, aligning those viewers with the Rivers family as they try to learn about the circumstances surrounding this quiet, unknown girl.

As they soon learn, her story is a sad one. An orphan taken in by her Aunt Reed (Sally Hawkins), Jane is treated cruelly by that woman and her son John (Craig Roberts), before being sent away to a charity school, Lowood Institution. The film does not shy away from the brutal violence that Jane suffers and Amelia Clarkson is especially wonderful as a fierce young Jane, brave enough to retaliate, but young and childish enough to be hysterically frightened of ghosts.

When she grows older, Jane is hired on as a governess for Adele (Romy Settbon Moore), the young French ward of a wealthy and brusque landowner, Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). What follows is a gothic romance with Jane and Rochester falling in love, but then forced apart by the little matter of the insane secret wife, Bertha (Valentina Cervi), he has had stashed in his attic for the last 15 years.

The film throws Jane’s own brilliance into high relief by reducing other characters to gross oversimplifications and broadly drawn villains. While no one would deny the loathsome Mr. Brocklehurst (Simon McBurney) wields Christianity as an instrument of condemnation and excuse for cruelty, here Jane’s dear schoolmate Helen Burns (Freya Parks) is all but deprived of her noble piety, which in the novel helps Jane to learn forgiveness, enabling her to look back on her harsh life and tell the inquiring Rochester, “I have no tale of woe.” Likewise St. John, repressed and legalistic, but also earnestly believing in the necessity of self-sacrifice in Bronte’s novel, is in the film harsh and reproachful, even threatening.

Diluting the good or exacerbating the terrible in the minor characters raises Jane up as something of a feminist forerunner. This isn’t a new reading of the source, but it’s unnecessarily exaggerated here. When she arrives at Thornfield, Jane looks out the window across the expanse of Mr. Rochester’s land, telling a shocked Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench, wonderful as always): “I wish a woman could have action in her life… like a man.” Or later, as she traces British shipping routes on a globe for Adele, she pines for freedom: “On these distant horizons, you will find all manner of men.” So you can’t miss the point, Jane voices her ideas freedom and her free will inside rooms with grim stone walls, behind leaded glass windows or in enclosed gardens.

In these scenes and elsewhere, the film’s imagery is lovely as well as heavy-handed: Jane at a literal crossroads when she flees Thornfield, or in a golden bonnet framing her face like a halo when she returns. When she is with Rochester, the season always seems to be spring; when she is away from him, the landscape in wintry and barren.

And then there are the birds. Rochester repeatedly refers to Jane (and other women) as birds, a fitting, if obvious analogy, considering how she often finds herself trapped and longing for escape. The first scene from her childhood has her hiding from her tormenter cousin, hiding behind a drape and looking at the pictures in an ornithology text. Again, in case you’ve missed that allusion, the film underlines: when Jane flees St. John to run back to Rochester, the sound of flapping wings infiltrates the musical score.

Other metaphors are handled with more finesse. When Jane struggles almost frantically to free herself from the laces of her wedding gown and fit back into her dingy gray governess dress, the close-ups beautifully, if painfully, mirror the moment from her childhood when she arrives at Lowood and is ordered out of her “fine clothes” and into the austere required uniform of the school.

Such visual insinuations remind us of the obvious: a two-hour adaptation of a story like Jane Eyre must cut back and even leave out aspects of the plot that will bother purists. The mysterious Grace Poole (Rosie Cavaliero) is barely a factor here; the film offers no explanation for Adele’s situation as Rochester’s ward and no overtly satisfying “Reader, I married him” at its conclusion.

But given the focus on Jane’s resistance to gender and class conventions, it is curious that Bertha’s story is given such scant attention. The suspense and gothic horror of Bronte’s novel and other various screen and television versions are missing here. The movie provides no sense of something truly frightening and dangerous lurking in the attic at Thornfield—not to Jane, who asks no questions about the few strange incidents, and probably not to any viewer unfamiliar with the story. Without Bertha convincingly haunting Thornfield, Rochester seems less tormented than he does merely gruff and a little sadistic. The film’s mistreatment of Bertha serves as a double-erasure, repeating Rochester’s actions towards her. And like Rochester, the film pays for it. Bertha’s absence takes a toll on its energy and tension.

Rating: 5/10

http://www.likesbooks.com/blog/?p=6096

Jane Eyre: We’ve Got Ourselves One Heckuva Mr. Rochester

Last night I went to a screening of the new Jane Eyre, due to open in many cities next Friday. As the Washington Post film critic told us at the movie’s conclusion, this is something like the 18th adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s classic. I’ve seen about five or six and I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that Michael Fassbender is my favorite Rochester, but Mia Wasikowska, while quite good, remains a bit flat as Jane.

The movie is a quite literal adaption of the story, despite some time shifts in the narrative that make sense for film as a medium, and manages to tell the entirety of the tale in just two hours. It’s also gorgeously shot, conveying the sweep of the bleak landscape around Thornfield Hall, as well as a few bright patches of sunshine in spring. You get a real sense of the isolation of Thornfield.

But the high point is Mr. Rochester. Michael Fassbender is an actor on the fast track and it’s easy to see why. Many probably know him from Inglorious Bastards, the Quentin Tarrantino movie, but heck, those of lower brow (like me) also know him from 300 and the guilty pleasure British TV series Hex in which he played fallen angel Azazel. He’ll also be seen as the young Magneto opposite James McAvoy’s Charles Xavier in the upcoming X Men: First Class. For the record, I was already excited about that movie, but now I’m even more so.

Jane EyreIt’s tough to cast Mr. Rochester with a conventionally pretty boy handsome actor because Bronte is specific that he is not handsome – in fact, in one of the book’s and the movie’s most memorable scenes, Jane tells him that he is not. Fassbender, while blazingly hot, is attractive in a sort of craggy way, allowing Hollywood to have it’s handsome leading man, without really doing so. But, more to the point, his performance as Mr. Rochester blazes with passion. From his casual cruelty to his ward and housekeeper to his gradual awakening to the passions banked within Jane, he is playful, passionate, and brooding. And, oh yeah, sexy.

Anybody who saw Mia Wasikowska in the excellent HBO series In Treatment, knows she is an incredible actress. But the important thing about Jane is that, while she is as ruthlessly controlled as the world has forced her to be, there is a fire and a passion within her that Mr. Rochester recognizes when he meets her. With that said, it’s hard to tell why here. Her face remains flat and she doesn’t respond to the twinkle in the eyes of Rochester as the two engage in their early debates. She looked right, but it just wasn’t there.

The bottom line? If you’re an Anglophile (and you know who you are), then this movie is your drug since it is an excellent adaptation of a beloved tale. And, in case you can’t tell by now, Mr. Rochester is to die for. Seriously. And, yep, he’s my favorite.

My mother was a frustrated casting director and Jane Eyre was one of her favorite books. According to my mom, the two casting insults she could never get past were Vivian Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara (an Englishwoman playing the great Southern heroine was something my born and bred Southern mother could not accept – she wanted Susan Hayward) and George C. Scott as Rochester in a 1970s TV version of the story. While I got awfully tired of hearing about both these cases, she had a point. With Katherine Heigl playing Stephanie Plum and set to be Diana Gabaldon’s Claire, I’m beginning to understand the outrage. Heigl as Claire? No freakin’ way.

So, my questions are these:

* Are you looking forward to Jane Eyre?
* What do you think of the casting of Jane and Rochester?
* Are there any particular casting abominations you’re still grinding your teeth over?

- Sandy AAR

http://wedrinkyourmilkshake.blogspot.com/2011/03/jane-eyre-she-said.html

Friday, March 11, 2011
Jane Eyre- She said

Directed by Cary Fukunaga
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench and Jamie Bell
Synopsis: A simple governess finds herself falling in love with her employer only to find out he's hiding a terrible secret.

Like Austen's PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, Charlotte Bronte's classic, JANE EYRE, seems to be remade every few years whether it be in a TV miniseries, movie, or play. This version, from director Cary Fukunaga, plays up the more Gothic elements of the classic story. Even though the story is over 150 years old, the rich characters, sweeping scenery, and epic romance still hold up today.

We follow our heroine, Jane (played by Mia Wasikowska), through a troubled childhood where she is sent away to school by her aunt, and because of her unaltered and tenacious spirit, is constantly punished and scorned by her teachers. Eventually, she becomes the governess of the manor, Thornfield, to care for Adele, the ward of the elusive Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender). When she finally sits down to talk with Rochester, he abrasive manner doesn't faze Jane. She sees right through his demeanor and verbally keeps up with his snippy remarks. This fascinates Rochester. He becomes infatuated with her and believes she's the one that can shine light into his dark world.

Wasikowska and Fassbender are fabulous portraying these iconic characters. Wasikowska's Jane is subtle yet strong. She reminded me of a somewhat quieter Elizabeth Bennet from PRIDE AND PREJUDICE; same amount of wit and charm but on a lower key. She makes Jane Eyre a complicated, dynamic figure where we see her history and how it's shaped her internally. Fassbender takes an interesting approach to Rochester. In the book, Rochester can come across as extremely arrogant, which he is, but never really likable. Fassbender shows his arrogance coupled with a flirty nature almost similar to "the guy" in high school that all the ladies longed for. He humored them, but he was never interested because he was looking for someone deeper and more intellectual. Then all it takes is one girl to match his wit and snarkiness, and he's infatuated and in love. This Rochester was enjoyable and fit into the dashing, dominant, yet has-a-weak-spot-for-the-one-he-loves, Victorian gentleman perfectly.

While they individually embodied their characters, I never fully believed their chemistry. This is to no fault of the actors. When an epic novel rich in detail is adapted into a movie, it's very difficult to not only establish the relationship but wholeheartedly convince us of their love. Even though the movie runs at a healthy two hours, I wanted Eyre and Rochester's relationship a little more developed, so that we feel the weight and tragedy when the "secret" is finally revealed.

Fukunaga makes use of the breathtaking manor and picturesque scenery of England. The visuals alone are worth the price of admission. Thorfield, the Rochester manor, becomes it's own character as it's so mammoth and ancient we almost hear every creak and movement throughout. Fukunaga plays up the Gothic aspect and makes use of our imaginations when Jane explores the house at night with only a candle for light. There is no extra light provided, so we're just waiting for a ghost or someone to pop out around any corner.

All in all, this adaptation will bode well in the Jane Eyre catalogue. Will it be everyone's favorite? Probably not. However, when taking such a classic novel and really taking to it with a fresh perspective, it makes the movie memorable.

Posted by Jonesy at 8:24 AM

http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/03/11/jane-eyre-review/

'Jane Eyre' Review: Much More Than Bodices and Betrothals
By Todd Gilchrist (Subscribe to Todd Gilchrist's posts)
Posted Mar 11th 2011 9:00AM

It's not merely because much of the new version of 'Jane Eyre' is shrouded in shadows, but it seems like film adaptations of classic literary works are a little bit like (of all things) glow sticks: in their original form they already possess all of the materials needed to be interesting, or if you'll pardon the pun, brilliant, but they need to be sort of broken or cracked open in order to unlock the emotion that gives them resonance. Remarkably, in Cary Fukunaga's interpretation of the Charlotte Bronte classic, you can almost see the text exploding with energy as the actors bring it to life -- which is why even audiences disinclined to embrace period pictures or laborious literary adaptations will find themselves enchanted, even perhaps swooning in 'Jane Eyre.'

Mia Wasikowska plays Jane, a curious and fearless orphan who is sent off to a strict religious school to break her of the independence that was deliberately misdiagnosed as insolence by her adoptive mother, Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins). Suffering the loss of a friend during the early days of her matriculation, she grows up experiencing nothing but solitude and loss, but endures long enough to procure a job as governess to the French daughter of Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender), a handsome but restless landowner. Because of her own febrile intelligence, she soon captures Rochester's attention, and the two find themselves in a furtive but unspoken courtship. But when Rochester simultaneously begins to entertain the attention of a local girl, Miss Ingram (Imogen Poots), Jane is forced to decide whether her continued independence is worth the cost of losing the man she has grown to love.

About halfway through 'Jane Eyre' there's a scene in which Jane is beckoned to Mr. Rochester's side and asked a series of questions about her life -- her background, her experiences and her opinions in general. While the film is certainly sumptuous and deeply-felt up to that point, the conversation between Jane and Rochester crackles with an energy that brings the film to life, and suggests, if only briefly, that the whole production might have been that much stronger if only Fukunaga had elected to excise the rest of the plot and simply chronicle a series of drawing-room conversations between these two exquisitely-drawn characters. Not only do we see the first glimpses of Rochester's thoughtful if sometimes brusque compassion, but we see the grown-up manifestation of Jane's lifelong self-protection. The two find an odd common ground in their mutual contentiousness -- divided by class privilege, or lack thereof, and willful, deliberate politeness -- that feels like a more profound connection than either realize at the time.


Depicting a 19th-century romance with the frivolity of a contemporary hook-up would undermine the source material's repressive but undeniable passion, but Fukunaga, enabled by a terrific script by Moira Buffini ('Tamara Drewe'), makes their disputes seem more like connections, and in the most complimentary way possible creates a perfect equal for the other that transcends shared interests or even the immediacy of physical attraction. For her part, Wasikowska seems remarkably at home in a corset and dowdy governess' dress with her hair finely, modestly styled to suit her poverty-level class status, but she exudes the kind of attractiveness that comes from a person who knows her own self-worth, and refuses to settle for a value less than she deserves. Meanwhile, Fassbender is so effortlessly sexy as Rochester -- born for breeches and a fancy-lad shirt that somehow only further showcases his masculinity -- that the actor's natural intelligence only enhances his attractiveness. He gives the character a palpable connection to the young woman who has captured his fancy, and less because she happens to be genuinely, secretly beautiful underneath her businesslike appearance than the fact that her own irrepressible charm and personality fairly enchanted him.

While it will come as no surprise to fans of the course material, Fukunaga's approach to the text is unique in that it almost treats Bronte's novel as gothic horror, revisiting supernatural possibilities throughout the film and giving its story an elevated, melodramatic tone that only facilitates greater depths once secrets have been revealed and feelings have been exposed. But the director also never loses his firm grasp on the film's central thread, Jane's unrelenting resilience, self-sufficiency, and sense of independence, and that's precisely why her eventual efforts to secure the affections of the man she loves take on much deeper emotional significance. As she says in the film, "I must respect myself," and she has, and her reward for protecting that is a relationship that shows her as much consideration as she shows it.

Because literary adaptations can often be tedious, stuffy affairs that show more fealty to their subject matter than the prospect of entertaining an audience, Fukunaga's film manages to tread the line between fidelity and self-actualization with more success than most. That said, strategically speaking it's almost disappointing that this film was released so early in the year, because it seems likely to have earned greater critical acclaim were it introduced to potential voters in the thick of Oscar season. But if every decade must have its own adaptation of Bronte's novel, then this one will more than suffice, and its emotional weight should endure at least until the next one comes along, if not for years beyond that.

At the risk of further drawing out a tenuous metaphor, the film manages to sustain its glow long after it disappears from theaters, thanks in no small part to Fukunaga's efforts to shake up the source material. Ultimately, this particular 'Jane Eyre' feels like the story of a modern woman who finds love precisely because (rather than in spite) of freeing herself from the shackles of patriarchal values, and the film as a whole succeeds by sharing with its audience that sense of integrity and empowerment. All of which really means is that Fukunaga communicates an authentic sense of tone and time period with his interpretation of Bronte's novel, but also makes it relevant for audiences who think of bodices and betrothals as literary devices rather than inescapable lifestyle choices.

http://www.getmoreinside.com/celebrity-awful-truth/jane-eyre-needs-more-fire/

Jane Eyre: Needs More Fire
Fri, March 11, 2011

Multiple miniseries and movies have taken on Charlotte Bronte’s -, so is another adaptation of the classic novel really necessary? Perhaps not, but director Cary Funkunaga’s beautifully shot retelling is still a worthy addition to the previous versions of the tale. It stays loyal to Bronte’s material while retaining the book’s gothic soul.

- stars as the literary heroine, a governess at a sprawling but dreary estate called Thornfield Hall. The film begins when a distraught Jane flees Thornfield and is taken in by clergyman St. John Rivers (Jaime Bell). Though Jane won’t tell John about her past or where she comes from, the audience sees all of it via flashbacks, beginning with Jane’s difficult childhood under the watch of her cold-hearted aunt (Sally Hawkins). Fed up with Jane, the aunt sends her away to the strict Lowood charity school, where Jane grows up with little human connection. Once she’s old enough, she lands the job at Thornfield under the aloof Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender) and mysterious events begin to occur in the house. It’s a lot of ground for the film to cover, but by encapsulating Bronte’s story, we get more insight into Jane, instead of focusing on her relationship with Mr. Rochester. The downside is that their romance could have benefited from the extra attention and development.

Find out why it’s worth seeing after the jump.

Jane and Mr. Rochester’s relationship gets off to a rocky start. Jane first meets him while walking through the Thornfield property; she spooks his horse, he falls, and the two have a brief interaction that’s more abrupt than flirtatious. But Wasikowska and Fassbender’s chemistry continues to have a difficult time getting off the ground as the film progresses. While they’re excellent when verbally sparring — Jane’s quick wit versus Rochester’s harshness — the movie struggles to build the longing between them needed to get fully swept up in their melancholy love story.

Wasikowska embodies Jane with a mousy wig and bare face. As Jane, she’s often quiet and pensive, but you can see the gears turning in her head as her feelings bubble beneath the surface. Fassbender on the other hand, isn’t what you might expect from the Byronic Rochester; for one, he’s much more handsome. Even so, Fassbender makes Rochester perfectly repellent and attractive at the same time. He’s brash one minute, sympathetic the next, and dare I say, I found him more interesting than Jane. While the two actors together struggle to generate heat, Fassbender is often smoldering on his own.

Though Funkunaga could’ve played up the mystery of Thornfield more (Rochester’s secret in the attic isn’t nearly as intriguing as it should be), Bronte’s gothic vibe is alive and well in the director’s hands, and the scenery is gorgeously gloomy. As Jane plods through the sodden moors or stares out the window of Thornfield, you can feel her isolation and anguish. But I was left wishing that her romantic feelings and her happier moments were equally stirring.

http://www.cctothep.com/blog/2011/03/10/jane-eyre/

Jane Eyre
by Carson Patrick on March 10th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Posted In: Reviews, 2011
REVIEW: JANE EYRE (2011)

This new iteration of “Jane Eyre” based on novel by Charlotte Brontë makes you wish that every costume drama/period piece were made in the same fashion. This is simply a phenomenal film bursting with life, wonderment, and a chill-inducing darkness that gives it one hell of an edge. It’s more badass than most action movies nowadays, and contains a creepiness that’s practically unmatched in the current state of horror.

Mia Wasikowska is fantastic as the titular Jane Eyre, a young woman with an abusive upbringing who becomes a governess for Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). During her employ at the dreary and potentially haunted Thornfield Hall, a romance is sparked between Jane and Rochester, and a secret involving the latter’s past is unearthed. Fassbender is excellent as Rochester, owning the role like a complete badass. We should all take note of his pimp persona, specifically his way with words. Rochester has pick-up lines that are forces to be reckoned with. His “bleed inwardly” spiel that he says to Jane when confessing his love to her is dynamite.

I have never read “Jane Eyre” so I can’t comment on how accurate it is to its source material, but I imagine so. It just feels that way, and even if I’m completely off what they altered here is for the better. Writer Moira Buffini’s script is deliberately poetic and beautifully rendered by the entire cast. The dialogue is so lush and the actors are clearly having a ball feasting on every word. And I don’t know if it was scripted or an editing choice, but the film’s structure is a dream. I would imagine it’s a bit of both and I salute both parties wholeheartedly.

Director Cary Fukunaga is a hero. I never saw his debut film “Sin Nombre,” but after seeing this I definitely want to check it out. He breathes a sense of life into this story that is unmistakable. There have been countless adaptations of “Jane Eyre” and Fukunaga achieves in creating a vision that’s vivid and fresh. His approach is sensational and really must be experienced in a theater to understand it fully. Also, the idea to infuse this picture with an underlying aura of dread and terror is awesome. It’s wonderfully used and the payoff is sublime. I really want Fukunaga to do a horror movie next because I can’t even imagine the spookiness he could cook up.

I absolutely loved that Fukunaga and DP Adriano Goldman shot what appeared to be in all natural light. It’s especially apparent during night scenes where the only thing illuminating the actors are the candles they’re holding. It’s very “Barry Lyndon”-esque and creates a sense of atmosphere that really draws you into this time and place. Every shot could be framed and hung on a wall. It’s stunning and awe-inspiring to look at.

“Jane Eyre” is the epitome of superb. It’s a masterfully crafted film in every form, and when it comes time at the end of the year to put together my Top 10 list this will certainly be on it.

http://cinesnatch.blogspot.com/2011/03/movie-review-jane-eyre-2011.html

10 March, 2011
Movie Review: Jane Eyre (2011)

When we first meet Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska), she's on the run and keeps moving with fierce conviction through swaths of gorgeous English countryside lit by an overcast sky. Exhausted, drenched from downpour, she stumbles upon a lonely cottage. We find ourselves in the director's stealthy choice of framing the story from the fourth portion of the novel when she meets the Rivers family (headed by grown up Billy Elliot, Jamie Bell).

We're whisked through her backstory as an abused and unloved orphan, transferred from the wardship of her bitter aunt (Sally Hawkins) to the charity school she's sent to under false punishment. From there, she begins her first job as a governess for the French child under Edward Rochester's (Michael Fassbender) care. All the while, this young woman's heartbreaks pile one on top of the other, which makes her resilience that much more admirable.

Willful from the beginning, no one can crush this girl's spirit; she turns into an equally passionate, yet heavily guarded young woman who can take very good care of herself. As a woman mid-19th century, she certainly doesn't have the choices of her male counterparts, but she'll be damned if she doesn't have the fullest life she can have for herself.

The cruel world may have left her even-tempered, but that fire in her belly tapered to a tiny flame waits pessimistically, yet patiently to reignite. And even when the right man comes along, Jane isn't swayed at all by good looks or riches. Her soul has carefully developed through her harder years to expect more and it will take a man wealthy in emotional intelligence to even begin to charm her.

Fassbender as the Byronic hero is perfectly cast with his deep, resonant voice and manly swagger as the sarcastic, uneasily amused landowner who immediately takes a shine to Ms. Eyre. Their initial fireside chat is a searching exchange of wit and character, each testing the other of their metal. Wasikowska is quite good. She serves the story well. It becomes a mystery then as to why the two have an odd chemistry. The housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) warns Jane to be weary of Rochester's affections, alluding to her youthful inexperience. Perhaps that may explain the lack of heat, though Wasikowska provides everything else necessary for her role.

Scenes bathed in a palette of muted beige and ivory are often washed out by the glaring daytime, as night scenes are lit by 19th-century candlelight. The physical and emotional landscape is bleak and surely tragedy can only impinge upon any good that can arise in this arousing and intense story. This is not a stuffy, rote Victorian romance that one might expect. Director Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) injects a fresh and justified modern sensibility into this period piece, serving up a great piece of Gothic pie. There are jolts here and there and it wouldn't be a stretch to call this Eyre a ghost story of sorts, an excellently told mystery that masks a secret that brings the film full circle and ends things as all great tragedies do: impeccably. B+

Posted by Da Vinci Smetana at 11:25 PM

http://austenprose.com/2011/03/11/jane-eyre-2011-a-film-review-by-syrie-james/

« Winners Announced in the Only Mr. Darcy Will Do Giveaway!
Jane Eyre 2011: A Film Review by Syrie James

11 March 2011 by Laurel Ann (Austenprose)

Jane Eyre (2011) movie posterInquiring Readers: We are very fortunate to welcome author, screenwriter and Janeite Syrie James for a guest film review today. She recently attended an advance screening of the new movie adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s classic Gothic romance Jane Eyre which premieres in limited release today in the US.

Welcome Syrie – and thanks for the timely review!

Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre has been my favorite book since I was 11 years old. I’ve read it so many times I’ve lost count. The tale of a feisty governess who finds true love in a spooky mansion, while pouring her heart out on the page in lush, romantic prose, has made it to the top of every “Best Love Stories” list since it was first published in 1847, and with good reason.

Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska in Jane Eyre (2011)The perfect Gothic novel, Jane Eyre melds all the requisite elements of mystery, horror, and the classic medieval castle setting with heart-stopping romance. The story is also very appealing: the rise of a poor orphan girl against seemingly insurmountable odds, whose love and determination ultimately redeem a tormented hero. And the book has serious things to say about issues that are still relevant today: women’s struggle for equality, the realization of self, and the nature of true love. The novel appeals not only to an audience’s hearts, but also to their heads.

Of all the classic 19th-century novels, Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre has been by far the most filmed, with at least 18 film versions (including a 1910 silent movie) and 9 made-for-television movies.

The Secret Diaries of Charlotte Bronte, by Syrie James (2009)I have seen nearly all of them—some multiple times—both out of my deep love for the tale, and as part of the research for my novel The Secret Diaries of Charlotte Brontë, the true story of Charlotte’s remarkable life, her inspiration behind “Jane Eyre,” her rise to fame as an author, and the little-known story of her turbulent, real-life romance. (My novel was named a Great Group read by the Women’s National Book Association, and the audio book version was just nominated for an Audie Award, the Oscars of the audiobook publishing world—very exciting!)

Every screen version of JANE EYRE has its merits, and it’s always a thrill to re-experience my favorite, beloved scenes from the book with each new adaptation. I especially loved Timothy Dalton’s portrayal of Mr. Rochester in the 1983 mini-series, and the 2006 Masterpiece Theatre mini-series starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens.

I was very curious to see how the new JANE EYRE adaptation from Focus Films would measure up. I am happy to report that the film, which I saw Monday night at an advance screening, is very good indeed, with marvelous visuals, terrific performances, and enough unique elements to make it a worthy new addition.

The most notable distinction of this film that sets it apart from the rest is its structure. Rather than telling the tale in a straight-forward, linear fashion, it begins at a crisis moment that occurs later in the story, and tells the majority of the tale in flashback–similar to the structure of The Secret Diaries of Charlotte Brontë–and it works wonderfully well here, enabling screenwriter Moira Buffini to effectively compress a long novel into a two-hour time span.

Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) on the Moors in Jane Eyre (2011)The movie opens as Jane is fleeing Thornfield after having discovered Mr. Rochester’s dark and heartbreaking secret. We fear for her as she becomes lost on the stormy moor. The mystery continues as St. John Rivers (well-played by a sympathetic yet appropriately stern Jamie Bell) and his sisters take her in. Who is this lost lamb? Why does she call herself Jane Elliott? Who or what is she running from? As Jane ruminates about the past events that led to her escape, we are treated to the story in flashback.

The casting of Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Tim Burton’s ALICE IN WONDERLAND) as Jane Eyre also sets this production apart, since she is closer in age than most actresses who’ve played the role to the character in the novel, who was about 18 years old in the Thornfield section. Although I wish Mia’s Jane was a bit more “swoony” over Mr. Rochester earlier on (yes, she is supposed to be stoic, but I missed that phase where we get to see her blossom as she falls in love with him, and then is utterly crushed when she believes him to be in love with Miss Ingram), Mia truly inhabits the role, beautifully portraying Jane’s sense of self-respect, integrity, and restraint, as well as her passion and vulnerability.

Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) in Jane Eyre (2011)Michael Fassbender was also inspired casting. He embodies Mr. Rochester with the ideal blend of charisma and sinister brooding, while at the same time allowing glimpses of his underlying desperation and the wounded depths of his soul. When Jane and Rochester finally admit their love for each other, it is romantic and exciting, with sparks flying. (As this is my favorite part of the story, for me it was also far too short!)

Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Reed, adorned in stiff ringlets and satin gowns, effectively portrays the icy ogre who menaces the young Jane (a spirited and appealing Amelia Clarkson.)

Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) and Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska ) in Jane Eyre (2011)And how can you go wrong with Judi Dench as housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax? As always, Dench gives a rock-solid performance, with subtle nuances that make the role her own.

The film’s locations do justice to the novel’s often gloomy, atmospheric tone. Haddon Hall in Bakewell, Derbyshire, built atop a limestone outcropping and one of the oldest houses in England, stands in for Thornfield Hall. According to location manager Giles Edleston, Haddon Hall has “more rooms and sets than a filmmaker could ever wish for,” and Director Cary Fukunaga makes terrific use of it, emphasizing its dark, Gothic, masculine feel, especially effective in a particular, chilling attic scene.

The exterior locations—gardens, cliffs, craggy rocks, stone walls, and seemingly endless fields—make an arresting, dramatic backdrop for the story. The press notes state, “Although we made it seem like Thornfield is in the middle of nowhere, just beyond the edge of the frame was modern civilization.” Rest assured that the illusion is complete; you truly do feel as though you are in the middle of nowhere.

Rochester (Michael Fassbender) and Jane (Mia Wasikowska) in Jane Eyre (2011)

The film also effectively makes use of the top of the gardens surrounding Derbyshire’s Chatsworth House—a location more commonly associated with Austen’s Pride and Prejudice—to film Jane Eyre’s dramatic first encounter with Mr. Rochester, when he appears out of the mist and fog astride his horse.

I have only two minor gripes with the film (WARNING: minor spoiler alert. If you aren’t familiar with the classic story, you might want to stop reading now.) While the revelation of Mr. Rochester’s secret was very well-done, I felt it was a little too “prettified.” And the ending was too abrupt for me. An explanation (for the uninitiated) of Rochester’s condition in the final scene would have been nice, and I would have preferred another minute or two to relish the lovers’ emotional reunion. But that aside, the filmmakers have done a masterful job translating the novel to the screen.

Please share your thoughts and comments about Jane Eyre. When did you first read the novel? Which film adaptations are your favorites, and why? If you’ve read The Secret Diaries of Charlotte Brontë, did it enhance your appreciation of Jane Eyre?

You can learn more about the new film at the Jane Eyre facebook page, where there’s a trailer and a “Jane Eyre Challenge” with a kindle as a prize. The movie opens today, March 11. I highly recommend it! Go see it soon at a theater near you!

http://noberts.com/jane-eyre-2011/

Jane Eyre (2011)
By admin

Would that I was able to tell you that, having seen every screen adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's classic Jane Eyre, including the BBC production(s) that reportedly dwarfs all other incarnations according to true Brontinites, I could now write of this latest adaptation, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, with a sure sense of where it falls in the lineage and, if it really matters, how faithful Moira Buffini's script has kept to its source material. Sadly, however, this is only the second adaptation of the tale that this particular reviewer has seen, the first being Franco Zeffirelli's splendid 1996 version, starring a young Charlotte Gainsbourg as the eponymous governess and William Hurt as the brooding Mr. Rochester, the employer for whom she falls hard.

As it turns out, however, Fukunaga's take on Brontë's gloomy vision of class, religious austerity, and the most closely guarded chambers of the heart needs no contrasting or comparisons to earn its rightful praise. A huge step forward from the director's middling, beautifully shot border-crossing debut, Sin Nombre, Jane Eyre puts far more stress on Fukunaga's exquisite sense of composition and working relationship with actors. It also thankfully sees him working from a script by Ms. Buffini, who did solid work adapting Tamara Drewe for Stephen Frears, which helps skim away many of the heavy-handed allegories and histrionic liberal handwringing that plagued Fukunaga's first film.

Buffini's largest contribution here is in the structure, as the film begins just as the titular heroine (Mia Wasikowska) escapes from her room at the Thornfield estate and finds herself in the company of kind strangers, namely St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his two sisters. The story of how Jane was cast out by her heartless aunt (the invaluable Sally Hawkins) and went on to survive years of cruelty masked as discipline and the death of her best friend at a school run by a dictatorial clergyman (Simon McBurney) then snake its way in, until Jane's first days at Thornfield, where she meets the volcanic Rochester, played here by the brilliant Michael Fassbender in a ravenous performance.

Jane's years at Thornfield take up the greatest portion of the narrative. That allows Fukunaga, once again working with the talented cinematographer Adriano Goldman, to detail the alternatingly lush and bleak estate and the neighboring landscapes, not to mention the simple but breathtaking costume design courtesy of Michael O'Connor and Will Hughes-Jones's immaculate production design. So, as we witness Jane's growing affinity for her French pupil (Romy Settbon Moore), Thornfield's housekeeper (Judi Dench, a welcome addition as always) and, indeed, Mr. Rochester, we are also privy to the changing of the seasons, the glorious pallette of bright and dark colors that Fukanaga masterfully disperses within his frame, and the light curving around the gardens of the estate and the neighboring grand hills. But Fukunaga also employs great bleak space when trying to convey Jane's protective, almost comforting isolation.

That being said, there are more than a few facets of the production that scream of overcompensation on the director's part. Even before we gaze upon the madness of Rochester's first wife, we hear her and sense her in ghostly scenes that seem out of place, for no bigger reason than they are earnestly crafted to deliver cheap, insincere suspense. There's also the matter of Dario Marionelli's score, which overwhelms the scenery and the performers in several crucial moments, spoiling the subtle emotional charge the images speak to in the characters.

Whenever these failings are in danger of ruining the fluidity of the story, however, the cast seems to come more into focus and remains unwaveringly riveting. Fassbender is as stunning as ever, adding a lethal aggression and sexuality to Rochester, a character measured in sarcastic wit, knowledge, and silence in Hurt's earlier interpretation. As for Wasikowska, so funny and charming in The Kids Are All Right, she gives another wonderful, though wholly different, performance as Jane, sporting rhythmic delivery and simple, precise physicality. Their supporting cast matches the passionate lead turns, an essential ingredient in preparing period costume dramas as well-tread and dependent on manners as Jane Eyre or any popular Austen novel. But in the case of this latest incarnation, a rare balance has been struck between the dramatic choices and structure that delineate adaptations of Brontë's work, and the gentle, unique style of the director's vision.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/03/10/2574828/jane-eyre.html

'Jane Eyre'
By KENNETH TURAN
- Los Angeles Times
March 10, 2011 9:56pm EST

LOS ANGELES — The book is called "Jane Eyre" but when it comes to its numerous movie versions, whether it's Orson Welles in 1944 or Michael Fassbender right now, the actor playing Edward Rochester often ends up with the lion's share of the attention.

That's because the brooding master of Thornfield in Charlotte Bronte's 1847 novel is one of literature's archetypal romantic heroes, a complex and troubled individual who is sensitive, poetic and, as Lady Caroline Lamb famously said of Lord Byron, "mad, bad and dangerous to know."

A part like that is catnip for performers who can play the rogue male, and Fassbender swallows it whole. He's a German-born Irish actor who is about to break big with roles in the next "X-Men" movie, a Steven Soderbergh thriller and "Prometheus," Ridley Scott's "Alien" prequel. Fassbender energizes not just his scenes with Mia Wasikowska's accomplished but inevitably more pulled-back Jane but this entire film.

Bronte's romantic novel of a young governess engaged in a classic struggle for equality and independence has, as noted, been filmed a lot: One count lists 18 theatrical feature versions plus nine telefilms. But it's not always had a director with as much of a flair for the five-alarm-fire dramatics of its plot as Cary Joji Fukunaga.

As his first film, the Sundance success "Sin Nombre," demonstrated, Fukunaga is an intense, visceral filmmaker with a love for melodramatic situations. His no-holds-barred style is more successful here than in his debut because the necessity of working within the boundaries of Bronte's narrative provides just the right amount of structure to showcase his talents.

One of the shrewd choices Fukunaga has made is to emphasize the natural gothic aspects of the story. Thornfield, where much of the action takes place, is an old dark house after all, and expert cinematographer Adriano Goldman beautifully captures both the building's candle-lit spookiness and the desolate beauty of the surrounding Derbyshire countryside.

Fukunaga has also invested heavily in the film's physical details, working with his production team, including production designer Will Hughes-Jones, art director Karl Probert, set decorator Tina Jones and costume designer Michael O'Connor to create a period world where even the badminton equipment looks fearsomely authentic.

Similar care has also gone into casting, with equally good results, including the impeccable Judi Dench as redoubtable Thornfield housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, Jamie Bell as the obtuse cleric St. John Rivers, and Sally Hawkins of "Happy-Go-Lucky" smartly cast against type as Jane's awful aunt, Mrs. Reed.

Wasikowska, Tim Burton's Alice and the daughter in "The Kids Are All Right," looks exactly right as a heroine the author famously described as "plain and small as myself." Wasikowska acquits herself well here, but without a lot of access to the book's florid recounting of her rich interior life her performance is of necessity restricted to the narrow view the world has of her. And that, especially for people not well-acquainted with the book, does hamstring the proceedings somewhat.

Because screenwriter Moira Buffini ("Tamara Drewe") has shrewdly chosen to tell the story not chronologically, as the novel does, but through flashback, it is Wasikowska's adult Jane whose acquaintance we make first.

Clearly a determined young woman, if a distraught one, Jane is shown fleeing a house in what we soon see is complete despair. A woman with no resources in the middle of nowhere, she lands, drenched and exhausted, at the doorstep of a home occupied by two sisters and their minister brother St. John Rivers. They take her in and gradually the film reveals what brought her to this state.

It starts with a dreadful childhood, raised by that aunt who has no use for her followed by an even bleaker period in a charity school run by people who delight in mistreating children. A passionate truth-teller whose goal is to experience life as anyone's equal, Jane hopes for the best when she takes a job as a governess for a wealthy man's young French ward.

That man would be Edward Rochester, and from the moment he enters the film on his famously stumbling horse, things take a turn for the better. If the depiction of Jane's younger years veers dangerously close to hysteria, the film gains its footing as Rochester's horse loses his.

As convincingly played by Fassbender, best known so far for roles in British indies "Hunger" and "Fishtank," Rochester is mercurial, bad-tempered and very sure of himself. And yet, almost as much against his will as against her own, he finds himself appreciating the qualities in Jane that others have ignored or reviled.

Someone who wants distraction from "the mire of my thoughts," Rochester is visibly energized by the spirited give-and-take conversations he has with Jane. With Fassbender's charisma igniting his co-star as well as himself, these sparring interchanges, both captivating and entertaining, are where this "Jane Eyre" finally catches fire.

Kenneth Turan: kenneth.turan@latimes.com

JANE EYRE

MPAA rating: PG-13 for thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content

Running time: 1 hour, 50 minutes

Playing: In limited release

http://boyculture.typepad.com/boy_culture/2011/03/by-nightfall.html

March 10, 2011
Inspect Yourself

I've enjoyed an existential one-two punch this past week, finishing Michael Cunningham's brilliantly written By Nightfall and seeing the new film adaptation (the 29th!) of Jane Eyre.

"I must respect myself!"

Jane Eyre was another treat, albeit no joyride. I got to see it at in a small theater in TriBeCa after a cocktail party, the perfect atmosphere in which to absorb the film, which we both found mesmerizing from the start. I was of course familiar with the story; it reminded me that when I'd read it in high school in Mrs. Borek's British Tradition class, I'd for some reason blurted out that Jane was "spoiled" or "willful" or some other ridiculous word and never heard the end of it. Perhaps I should have read the novel more carefully! But we wound up having to write a short story in the same style, and I did a full novella that I should re-read sometime...it was filled with over-the-top passion, ghosts, castles and family treachery.

Jane_eyre05 The new film stars Mia Wasikowska as the titular pin cushion, a girl born with backbone to spare but a bad-luck magnet embedded in her that finds her orphaned, uncared for by her ward (Sally Hawkins as the perfectly dreadful Mrs. Reed), shipped off to a school that could double as an S&M dungeon and eventually delivered into a governess position that will teach her a thing or two about suffering. Michael Fassbender plays a rugged, sexier-than-he's-supposed-to-be Rochester, the mysterious nobleman for whom Jane Jane_eyre06 works, tutoring his illegitimate French child, Adele (a charming Romy Settbon Moore). Before things can end well for Jane, she also runs away into the at first caring and eventually a bit too caring arms of St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell, all growed up from his Billy Elliot days).

Jane_eyre03Perhaps they should have shacked up to begin with

The chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender is intense and the atmosphere perfectly claustrophobic; Jane's desire to be more than what society seems willing to allow is beautifully underscored by Wasikowska's note-perfect performance. And for s$@%$! and giggles, the movie scored Judi Dench to play Mrs. Fairfax. She doesn't have oodles to do, but she probably couldn't pass up taking an iconic role in a quality rendering of this iconic story.

Jane Eyre opens tomorrow and is also highly recommended.

Posted by Matthew Rettenmund at 09:18 AM

http://atonce111news.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/2011-movie/

2011 Movie
Posted on March 12, 2011 by tariqnc

Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) stars as Jane, and brings to her character such a perfect balance of strength and timidity you can’t help but fall under her spell. We first meet her fleeing across the countryside. Caught in a pounding rain storm she soon falls at the doorstep of the young pastor St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) who shows her a caring hand.

From here we get brief glimpses at her tumultuous childhood and her time at an all girls school as eight years quickly pass by. She begins work as a governess at Thornfield Hall where she cares for a young French girl and ultimately falls in love with her employer, Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender).

Fassbender and Wasikowska are perfect in the two lead roles. Their characters’ lonely and isolated souls feed into the initially despairing story line. As Jane and Edward grow closer so does the audience to the story.

http://wilderside.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/jane-eyre-movie-kimberly-and-stephanies-wild-adventure/

Jane Eyre Movie: Kimberly and Stephanie’s wild adventure
Posted on March 12, 2011 by kwilder
Kimberly: March 11, 2011

Kimberly Wilder at Jane Eyre premier

I love the book Jane Eyre! I love studying various movie and mini-series of Jane Eyre.

So, I just had to find a way tonight to go the premiere of the new Jane Eyre movie, directed by Cary Fukunaga, with Mia Wasikowska. It is only at select theaters this week. Well, my friend Stephanie and I ended up taking the Long Island Railroad into the city, and went to The Landmark Sunshine Cinema. The movie was wonderful, and we had a great time. (More photos of me and Stephanie at the theater: here.)

The show we picked started at 7pm. At about 6:40, an announcement said that Jane Eyre was sold out.

The Landmark Theater is very warm and interesting. There is a cafe type section. And, for this event, they had one of Jane Eyre’s gray dresses displayed in a glass case (I am guessing it was from the authentic wardrobe). Also, some free movie posters were stacked near the dress case.

I will post more here as I have time to write and polish. But, some preliminary thoughts:

1. The movie was overall very good. The audience applauded at the end (I love when that happens at movies).

2. The movie was definitely different from those versions that have come before. It was very visual. Very dreamy. And, you could feel an artsy-ness to Fukunaga’s style that added emotional resonance, and gave it its own, unique, reality.

(Warning! Definite plot spoilers ahead. If you haven’t read the book, and want to be surprised at the movie, save this for later!)

3. As Stephanie pointed out to me, the big difference in this movie was that it came from Jane’s personal perspective. So, scenes which other writers or directors have featured were left off. No Rochester as Gypsy. No long wallow in Rochester’s happiness at the end of the movie. Stephanie explained that it was like being inside Jane’s mind. Stephanie felt like Mia Wasikowska truly brought to life the fact that Jane genuinely had all these complicated and passionate feelings, but they were controlled and hidden.

4. The movie opens at a different place in time than the book. And, the movie goes back and forth between Jane’s childhood and a more grown-up Jane. I think this serves the purpose well of truly making the audience connect with how Jane’s childhood informed Jane’s adulthood.

5. I felt like this story was enlightening about recovering from abuse. It showed the abuse of Jane and the children at Lowood School more starkly than some other versions. And, with very moody music, and with scenes of gradual healing, it seemed to almost tell a story of someone recovering from post traumatic stress disorder.

6. While other movie versions seem like “The Adventures of Jane Eyre” or “The Love Story of Jane Eyre and Mr. Edward Rochester”, this story was like a character sketch of Jane Eyre. And, it succeeded in creating a believable and poignant picture of a woman in struggle. It was interesting that the writer had Jane articulate that one of her decisions was based on “self respect”. I don’t think Charlotte Bronte ever uses that word, but it is the crux of Jane’s character. I felt like by spelling this out, and making other issues more blunt and clear, this movie changed the story from the enigma of old literature, to a living breathing story. And, it did so in a good way, a way that might capture the imagination of young people.

7. There was some good chemistry between Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. Like some critics, I don’t think the kissing was always so steamy. Though, right after the first kissing scene, when they run back inside from the rain, you feel chemistry in their frolicking and hand-holding. And, the “after the wedding scene” is full of the passion and angst of true love.

8. I heard one critic say that Michael Fassbender did not rise to the role of Rochester. I think that this movie was so focused on Jane, that Rochester was structurally more in the background. (And, I, personally don’t like versions, such as the Orson Welles version, where Rochester becomes the focus). Though, there were some emotional highlights that Fassbender embodied, which I have not seen portrayed so well before. One example was the youthful glee that Rochester carries with him as he sets Jane up for the proposal.

9. With Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, you have to give the housekeeper a more juicy role. Judi Dench was excellent. The writer took liberties with her character, and that added to the story, and the sense of sisterhood which is such a valued part of the movie.

More to follow in the next few days, as I sort out my reactions and polish up my writing.

-Kimberly

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies/2011/0312/Jane-Eyre-movie-review

Jane Eyre: movie review

Brontë’s novel 'Jane Eyre' is recast as a middling horror film, but Mia wasikowska plays a spirited Jane.

Mia Wasikowska stars as the title character of the romantic drama ‘Jane Eyre,’ directed by Cary Fukunaga.

By Peter Rainer, Film critic / March 12, 2011

I'm generally opposed to using "Masterpiece Theater" as a way to characterize a fusty movie derived from the classics. For one thing, most "Masterpiece Theater" productions are a lot better than most movies. Still, the pejorative is not always misplaced. "Jane Eyre," the latest cinematic adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel, is like "Masterpiece Theater" without the masterpiece.

It lacks what it most needs – passion. Without it, this "Jane Eyre" is a lot closer to a middling horror film than a brooding piece of deep-dish romanticism. I remain far fonder of the 1944 version starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine, hammy as it is. (Less memorable was the 1996 Franco Zeffirelli film. I did not see the 1983 miniseries, which at the very least must have crammed a lot more of the novel onto the screen.)

For this latest incarnation, the screenwriter Moira Buffini and her director, Cary Fukunaga, have framed the Brontë novel utilizing a framing device featuring a grown-up Jane (Mia Wasikowska) fleeing in fear across the English moors. She is taken in by a kindly missionary (Jamie Bell) and his two sisters and proceeds to methodically recreate for herself a makeshift family to replace the harrowing one she left behind.

In flashbacks that seem more Dickensian than Brontëan, we see Jane's punishing childhood years overseen by a cruel aunt (Sally Hawkins) and brutal headmaster (Simon McBurney). When she is made governess at Thornfield Hall, which resembles Dracula's castle, Jane falls under the spell of the mysterious Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender), the lord of the manor, for whom the word "sullen" is inadequate. Rochester is not the kind of guy you invite over to liven up the party.

Brooding can, of course, be romantic, even sexy. It can also, as here, be blah. I don't think this is Fassbender's fault, exactly. He is an actor who can be dynamic even in repose. In "Hunger," he played an IRA prisoner on a hunger strike and it was one of the most physical performances I've ever seen. My guess is that Fukunaga straitened Fassbender's energies to fit the narrow confines of Gothic melodrama. Perhaps he feared that a more exuberant performance might seem too contemporaneous. Or something.

At the opposite extreme is Wasikowska's Jane, who is as tamped down as Rochester is morose. She's still the best thing in the movie. As she demonstrated last year in films as disparate as "The Kids Are All Right" and "Alice in Wonderland," Wasikowska is a marvelously intuitive actress, and she does manage to convey Jane's fierce spiritedness. (Jane falls just short of being an official feminist precursor, which is probably all for the best. Not everything from the past needs to be brought into the present.)

I wish the filmmakers had trusted us to feel our way through the story rather than trying to wow us with a high-strung score and unhinged camera flourishes across darkling landscapes. When I wrote earlier that this "Jane Eyre" lacked passion, I should have qualified that statement. It has passion all right – in the stylistics. Those star-crossed love birds Jane and Rochester are no match for the tracking shots and throbbing violins. Grade: C+ (Rated PG-13 for some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content.)

http://www.yourhollywoodgossip.com/gossip/jane-eyre-film-review

Jane Eyre: Film Review

by Jen on March 12, 2011

The latest film adaptation of Charlotte Bronte 1847 English novel Jane Eyre is a masterful retelling (and reimagining) of one of literature’s most enduring coming-of-age tales. Directed by Cary Fukunanga, the film avoids the obvious pitfall of being little more than a dainty costume drama that looks pretty enough but fails to engage the rich characters and plot mystery of the source material. Fukunanga has assembled a fine cadre of actors (including Judi Dench, Michael Fassbender, and Mia Wasikowska as the eponymous heroine) that bring the story to life in ways we haven’t seen before on the big or small screen: Jane is this time presented as a much fiercer creature than her past incarnations, and though she softens slightly as she approached womanhood, her inner steel remains intact.

On a completely separate aside, I should mention that Wasikowska is fast becoming the most engaging young actor from Down Under since, well, Cate Blanchett. There’s something about her ability to attract quality material that allows her to shine consistently, no matter the genre (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids are All Right) that has made legions of reviewers (including this one) anticipate whatever she will appear in next.

Judi Dench is her dependably remarkable self in the picture, cast as Lord Rochester’s housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax who acts as both gatekeeper and Fairy Godmother to the wayward Jane. And perhaps not surprisingly, Michael Fassbender dominates the proceedings in an unforgettably brilliant portrayal of Rochester who is at once commanding and cowardly, romantic and resentful. The chemistry between Fassbender and the much younger Wasikowska is something to behold: it almost borders on creepy at times but Fassbender plays Rochester in such a way that it becomes impossible for the audience to imagine Jane Eyre’s nubile heart belonging to anyone else. Credit should also go to the expert screenplay written by Moira Buffini.

For those of you who never read the original novel in high school or college, here’s a brief recap: Jane Eyre is a young orphan being raised in abject misery by a wealthy aunt who refuses to grant Jane even the smallest kindness. She is shipped off to reform school where she is punished and beaten by austere mistresses who care nothing for the young girl’s broken heart. Eventually, she emerges as a soft spoken but resourceful individual who finds herself working as a governess in the manor of a wealthy lord and landowner named Rochester. He is taken by her quick wit and her guilelessness (calling her a “rare, unearthly thing”), eventually falling in love with the young woman despite the fact that he harbors a deep, dark secret that threatens to undo their entire romance.

Buffini adds elements of horror and suspense to the story in ways that were never intended by Bronte: Lord Rochester’s manor becomes a haven for fallen demons and screams in the night, leaving both Jane and the viewer puzzled as to what exactly transpires between the cold walls of his isolated home. But the heart and soul of the film are Jane’s quest to have her own heart and soul affirmed, a crusade that takes her from cruelty to kindness, from obscurity to understanding. A definite must-see.

http://bhswhatsthebuzz.com/2011/03/12/jane-eyre/

12 Mar 2011, 3:29pm

by andreadbhs16

Jane Eyre

Samantha and I were recently given the opportunity to attend a movie screening at the AMC Theater in New York City through Mr. Puchinsky’s recommendation to the agency Moxie! Moxie is an agency that we are associated with that gives opportunities, such as these, to many of our high school students. The movie that we were asked to preview over a week before its release date was Jane Erye, an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s classic novel. Prior to the movie, we did some research and found that this was the story of a girl who was was presented with many obstacles and misfortunes. However, this information in no way prepared us for what we were soon exposed to. We were pleasantly surprised when this seemingly morose tale was actually a beautiful one of love as it chronicled a young girl’s life and coming of age.

There was not a moment when Samantha and I were not fully captivated by this story. This story took place in 19th Century England, and the modern adaptation and set design was absolutely phenomenal. It felt as if we were fully immersed in this old world. The movie began with Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) fleeing, but from what we had yet to find out. After this journey had physically taken it’s tool on poor Jane, she was kindly taken into the home of a missionary St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his two sisters Diana (Holliday Grainger) and Mary (Tamzin Merchant). During this point in the movie, some of the creative devices used by the director, Cary Joji Fukunaga, were noticed and added a tremendous amount to the scene. For example, it is evident that this was a very low and confusing part in Jane’s life, and Fukunaga allowed for the audience to experience this through the blurred and fuzzy screen. This device was used in a very skilled manor throughout the movie and it was much appreciated by the audience!

The majority of the movie after this introduction was composed of a series of flashbacks. The audience was given a glimpse into her past when she was a child being punished by her cruel aunt Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins) and an even more heinous figure, the headmaster Mr. Brocklehurst (Simon McBurney). After Jane finally left this dreadful school, she then became the governess to a young French girl, Adele (Romy Settbon Moore) at Thornfield Hall. It was at Thornfield Hall where she was not only treated with kindness by Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench), but where she fell in love with Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender). However, the walls of Thornfield Hall held many secrets, but there was one secret of Mr. Rochester’s that drove Jane far away.

Jane Eyre was a modern adaptation of a classic novel, however the themes that were presented are timeless. Jane’s story was extremely inspirational, just as the story of Charlotte Brontë. Brontë’s novel was written during a time when women were inferior to men in all aspects which make the preservation of this beautiful story quite astonishing. Thank you Mr. Puchinsky and Moxie for this wonderful experience!

http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2011/03/12/jane-eyre-the-movie/

Jane Eyre the Movie
John Mark Reynolds
Culture, Misc.
03.12.2011

Bottom Line: the new Jane Eyre film is the best movie adaptation yet, but has some serious flaws.

My wife loves Jane Eyre enough to have named a daughter Jane. It is my favorite English novel and saved our marriage from my Wuthering Heights view of romance.

This our twenty-fifth anniversary and we would not have made it to ten without Charlotte Bronte.

As a result, we have seen and own every version of Jane Eyre. The fullest and most satisfying is a dated (Eighties hair creeps about the edges like a hirsute horror in the attic) but romantic turn with Timothy Dalton as Rochester. It is too pretty, but it retains the central moral message of the book best.

Last night we saw the new adaptation by the BBC, which must have an entire Jane Eyre division, directed by rising talent Cary Joji Fukunaga. If we had watched this film instead of reading the book on a date decades ago, we would have loved it, but Jane would never have been born.

It entertains without challenging the viewer.

The acting is superior with Judy Dench stealing every scene in which she appears as Mrs. Fairfax. If Rochester were really wild, he would have noticed his housekeeper was the most interesting person in the house.

If Mia Wasikowska is too luminous for plain Jane, then this is a problem shared by all film adaptations. Evidently light makeup and a perfect complexion are what filmmakers think makes a woman plain. More problematic is her acting: solid, but still immature when compared to Dench’s range and her opposite Michael Fassbender (Rochester). He is too smoldering handsome for the part (Rochester is not hot), but oddly the women with me did not complain about this as they did about Jane’s looks.

The locations are, since the Brits always get this right, perfect. This is the best use of location in any adaptation. The lighting is particularly strong and never relies on gimmicks. At times the cuts are abrupt and the use of sound stagey: are we still amazed when we hear sudden sound coming from speakers behind us?

The script (Moira Buffin) takes risks, but is mostly excellent. Don’t go if you haven’t read the book, but then it would be, nearly, wicked to see any Jane Eyre film if you have not read the book. Assuming the audience knows the plot, this clever adaptation uses flashbacks to keep the story from lagging in the third act as it often does for contemporary viewers in less creative scripts. It also does the best job in making one of Bronte’s most misunderstood heroes, St. John Rivers, sympathetic.

The film fails, however, to convey Bronte’s Anglican and Tory perspective. Spirituality there is, but the Biblical references, and the book even ends with one, are mostly gone. Jane learns forgiveness, but we are left wondering where this impulse originates. Jesus as Savior and Redeemer is excised. though the less orthodox Bronte elements of her spirituality lurk in the plot.

Young Janes’s BFF, the Christian Helen keeps the spirit guides, but loses her New Testament quoting and Christ motivated love of the Christian God.

This film Jane is revolutionary, something Bronte was not. The noble theme of female emancipation is kept, all to the good, but the balance of the moral law with passion is nearly excised. One is left thinking Jane leaves Rochester because she is not yet quite liberated enough “to follow her heart.” Oddly, this tempts the viewer to think of her as enslaved to her own passions. Bronte’s Jane is a free and independent woman equal to any other person, but also bows the knee to the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.

She is powerful enough to deny herself and Rochester so by the end of the book is liberated indeed.

It would be too much to expect secularizing Britain to understand a woman who was neither slave or feminist, but merely Christian. As a result, Focus has made a film that does not challenge, but instead placates the core audience, if the reaction at the screening full of gracefully aging NPR-listening female English majors I observed, is any indication.

This a very good movie, well worth the time and is the best in a weak class, but it is a missed opportunity at being a great movie. As a result, it will become required AP English high school viewing with all the uncomfortable bits to the modern NEA-types hidden in the attic.

http://jamesrocchi.com/2011/03/jane-eyre-45-msn-movies/

Jane Eyre (4/5), MSN Movies
Posted on March 12, 2011 by James Rocchi

The traditional period piece — especially when it’s an adaptation of a classic novel — has developed a vocabulary and grammar all of its own. Windswept moors and stately mansions, tight-cinched corsets and tightly-held feelings, longing looks and longer sideburns. What makes director Cary Fukunaga‘s new adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s “Jane Eyre” — first published in 1847 — worthy of note beyond all those traditions and trappings is the degree of effort and emotion Fukunaga’s direction brings to the film. There’s no voice-over, no narration, and long stretches of the film involve nothing more — and, conversely, nothing less — than the play of emotions across Mia Wasikowska‘s face in the lead role. Fukunaga’s superbly executed direction and careful staging speak very rarely, and yet say so much.

Jane (Wasikowska) begins the film running from a cold stone doorway to the wet, barren landscape of rural 19th-century England, lashed by storms and wracked by sorrow. In time, we understand what Jane was running from — an unhappy childhood among distant (in every sense of the word) relatives, work as a governess for the ward of Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender), whose haughty demeanor hides secrets and passions. Jane is taken in by clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell, Billy Elliot no more) and his sisters; the question is whether her new home is more escape than refuge.

Adapted by Moira Buffini (who did similar adaptation work on “Tamara Drewe,” itself a modernization of Hardy’s “Far from the Madding Crowd,”), “Jane Eyre” does a startlingly good job of paring Brontë’s 500-page novel into a two-hour film. Buffini does not hyper-accelerate the plot and the dialogue, but, rather, pares them down to the bare bones of what matters. The essential heart of the story — which is to say, the essential heart of Jane herself, a woman hungering for self-determination and self-assertion well over a century before the very idea of feminism — is here, beating through every scene.

And Fukunaga is not afraid of the more Gothic and grim aspects of the material as well. Other film makers might be tempted to lighten and brighten Brontë’s novel; instead, Fukunaga focuses on turning the moods and moments other film makers might gloss over with sound-effects creaks and flickering lights into real sources of tension and feeling. Jane lives in a demon-haunted world — full of superstition and madness — and the real nature of it is revealed slowly to both us and her.

This is not to say that Fukunaga doesn’t have a capacity for some droll levity. Dame Judi Dench, as fellow servant Ms. Fairfax, manages to combine sympathy and sarcasm in several moments. And Fukunaga isn’t afraid to lightly jab at the clichés and pretensions of the sub-genre as well; at one point, Rochester’s intended asks Jane for her ” … tale of woe — all governesses have a tale of woe.” And the swoony romanticism in the material doesn’t get short shrift, either. When Rochester and Jane finally speak of their affections, it’s like a dam bursting after months of rain; at the same time, we also get to see the devastation that unleashed flood causes.

Fukunaga is aided and abetted by a wisely-chosen cast. Bell’s mix of concern and control play out admirably as his clergyman seeks to help Jane more than she may want. Dench is in fine form, as ever. Fassbender manages to keep both Jane and us on our toes as Rochester — his eyes are shark-black dead on some occasions as he speaks pleasantries he does not feel, but also warm and alive with charm as he jests and cajoles.

In the lead role, and superb, Wasikowska — liberated from the sterile CGI-void of Tim Burton‘s “Alice in Wonderland” — fills the film with energy and empathy. Jane may be trapped in a world that denies her, but she tests its bars and locks with fierce spirit and true conviction. There are long moments here when Wasikowska has nothing but the play of light and emotion across her face, and it is a tribute to her skill that we feel every moment without Jane having to utter a sound.

It would be remiss to not credit the production team — cinematographer Adriano Goldman, production designer Will Hughes-Jones and costume designer Michael O’Connor first and foremost — but at the same time, writer Buffini and director Fukunaga have freed “Jane Eyre” from the sights, rooms and clothing other filmmakers would lean on as a crutch. Anyone with a few candles, access to a heritage site and a few rental petticoats can make a film of a classic English novel; what Fukunaga and his cast and crew have done is made a film to remind us why, and how, that novel became a classic.

http://lookingcloser.org/2011/03/a-crash-diet-and-convalescent-moviegoing-jane-eyre-and-please-give/

On Tuesday night, when I thought that I was getting over it, I attended a sneak preview of the new Jane Eyre in downtown Seattle. I had worked with some local publicists to set up the screening for an audience of students from Seattle Pacific University, and I participated in a post-screening discussion of the film with Dr. Christine Chaney and the editor of Response magazine, Hannah Notess.

There was much to discuss, and many students stayed to consider Cary Fukunaga’s adaptation. The film is a big surprise. While the first act feels rushed, the whole is impressive. It doesn’t feel like “a Jane Eyre for 2011″ – just a great Jane Eyre.

The performances are strong. Michael Fassbender is rough and roguish, as usual, and Judi Dench is as enjoyable as you might expect. But this is Mia Wasikowska’s film, and now I see why Wasikowska’s a big deal. Jane Eyre could be a very bland, boring character. She’s so straight-and-narrow, so quiet, so burdened. But Wasikowska gives a performance of quiet complexity and power.

It’s beautifully shot, finding elegance in a muted color palette, reminding me of Jane Campion’s The Piano. And, like The Piano, Jane Eyre has a beautiful score.

The screenplay preserves Bronte’s prose without sounding too ponderous. And it’s remarkably unafraid of the book’s faith-related themes. While I expected another period-piece update that would demonize Christianity, it doesn’t do that at all.

So get ready for a springtime surprise. As other studios are dumping mediocrity into cineplexes, Focus Features has given us a film to remember when we make our top ten lists at the end of 2011.

Saturday, March 12th, 2011 at 11:36 am

http://nediunedited.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/the-new-jane-eyre-is-not-the-best-version-out-there/

The new Jane Eyre is not the best version out there…
12 Mar

I must begin by saying that I absolutely love Jane Eyre. It has been my favorite novel since I was 10 years old and I have read it many times. Jane was my first role model. In a childhood full of isolation and turmoil, I related to her and wanted to become like her–smart–strong-willed–independent–and completely realistic.

The story of Jane’s life is intriguing. It is full of gothic suspense and romance–but not the silly, rainbow and butterfly romance but a soul connection with the greatest anti-hero, Mr. Rochester. (Who I blame for my life-long fascination with anti-hero that then resulted in my finding my own Rochester. <3)

They are two halves of a whole. To quote Rochester, “I sometimes have a queer feeling with regard to you (Jane)–especially when you are near me, as now: it is as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame. And if that boisterous channel, and two hundred miles or so of land come broad between us, I am afraid that cord of communion will be snapt; and then I’ve a nervous notion I should take to bleeding inwardly.”

Lovely. And that is the bond that is missing in the latest Hollywood version. (And I have watched every rendition created!) The chemistry between Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender never quite reaches that level of intimacy. There are parts that are well executed, but most of it feels rushed. I am a huge fan of the BBC version released in 2006, which is 4 hours in length and covers the novel more closely, but I have seen shorten takes–of other favorites–that work wonderfully–the last Pride and Prejudice was nicely done, as well as the brilliant Sense and Sensibility. So, I was open-minded, yet walked out unsatisfied–especially with the ending, which did not represent Jane as she should have been at the end of her journey.

Maybe I would have been more forgiving, if I were not so protective of these characters. Maybe watching this without any earlier acquaintance to them would have allowed me to enjoy it for what it is–a simple retelling of a complicated tale. Maybe, but I can not undo my 30 year love affair with Jane Eyre–for I am afraid I may take to bleeding inwardly.

http://www.zamir2u.com/2011-movie/

Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and stars Jane, and her rise to such a perfect balance between strength and cheese you can not only be included in the framework surrounding it. We meet her first fleeing across the countryside. Caught in a rain storm pounding they soon fall on the threshold of youth pastor of St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) who shows her hand care.

From here we get brief glimpses of her childhood in the tumultuous time in school girls in every eight years pass quickly. She begins work as a nanny in the hall where Thornfeld cares a young French girl and is located at the end of the day in love with her employer, Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender).

Fassbender and Wasikowska is perfect in two main roles. Their characters’ feed the souls of the lonely and isolated in the line of a story of despair in the beginning. As Jane and Edward grow closer to do so the public for this story. A slow and steel building on the Charlotte Bronte novel and of words (or at least I am assuming that they lift the words directly from the novel) the flow and circulation of the lips, such as Silk Jane and Edward in our ears.

Performance Wasikowska is a powerful and controlled the situation. Jin is also required to stand tall in the presence of Rochester frightening at first. However, only frightening to the public on what seems to her as a Jane and then some. Wasikowska work here does not come across such as performance, and fully developed character but you do not have the slightest doubt on the question, Fassbender is with her every step on the road. There is something in the eyes of each of the actors. Twice and one asks the other: “What, to say something?” As the progress of each timely response, and their faces at every moment he says the same fate.

Compared to my earlier adjustment to the 2005 Joe Wright of Pride and Prejudice Jane Austen’s deeper than the fact that we are talking about the 19 th century novels. Such as Wright, Fukunaga depends on the composer Dario Marinelli result faced by quietly and even Judy Dench plays a role in each, here as in Thornfeld reliable housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax.

Where Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice far apart in tone and nature of the story. Jane Eyre plays like a ghost story of art, complete with scare move on its own, and things that go bump in the night. Of course, there is something spectral about this story, and go away in frightener claim it would be disingenuous.

Share/Bookmark

http://www.filmygoss.com/news/hollywood/jane-eyre-stars-mia-wasikowska-in-the-title-role/

Jane Eyre stars Mia Wasikowska in the title role
Hollywood Mar 12, 2011

Jane Eyre

First, she wowed as Alice in Alice in Wonderland and now Mia Wasikowska astounds as the titular character in Jane Eyre.

Jane Eyre circa 2011 is directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga and is impeccably cast. Fukunaga has woven a tale using Charlotte Bronte’s classic story framework and given movie audiences something to cheer about as the film truly kicks off Oscar awards buzz for the new year.

Jane Eyre’s story is one that many women endured during the time period of the 1800s. With little options and parents who left her orphaned, Jane is brought up in a charity school and then finds work as a nanny of sorts for the brooding Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Immediately, there is a coy attraction between the two that ever-so-slowly develops to a romance over the course of the film.

Why Jane Eyre also works so well is the manner in which the tale is told. The story moves forward as flashbacks clue the audience into Jane’s past and how she came to be the way she is and also where she is residing. At Mr. Rochester’s estate, she meets the head of the household, Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench). The scenes between Dench and Wasikowska are priceless. It is a gift to witness the excellence of the veteran actress paired with the up-and-coming acting prowess of Wasikowska.

At the core of Jane Eyre is the romance, but this is no bright light romance. Jane lives a difficult life and with her options so limited, through Wasikowska’s performance, we keenly feel her sense of personal uncertainty as to her place in the world. When she is shocked by a discovery in Mr. Rochester’s home, she flees and is once again alone without hope. Taken in by a minister and his sisters, Jane takes up teaching at the church school and begins to carve out a life that is solely her own.

As Jane Eyre is mostly a romance, the chemistry between the leads needs to be electric and it is. Michael Fassbender adds to his building film resume after a stellar turn in Inglourious Basterds and in the highly-anticipated, upcoming X-Men: First Class. In Jane Eyre, he joins Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice as setting the standard for a classic British literature role. After Fassbender’s performance as Mr. Rochester, we can’t imagine anyone else in the role…ever!

And then there’s Wasikowska. A joy to watch, her power as Jane Eyre pops off the screen. The actress has a subtle strength to her that shines in roles such as the title character in Charlotte Bronte’s classic. There’s a power and grace to Wasikowska that is impeccable as Jane Eyre, no wonder there was so much buzz when news broke that she was cast.

Jane Eyre, from beginning to end, is a blissful movie experience. Rarely does a period piece deliver its power on so many levels. The costumes are exquisite and the cinematography is beautiful while capturing the brooding, gothic feel of the novel. Fukunaga has crafted a Jane Eyre for the 21st century that will stand the test of time as much as the Bronte book. It is the definitive Jane Eyre film.

http://movieaddicted.info/all-movies/11054/movies-another-jane-eyre-movie-bring-on-the-brooding-men-and-wind-whipped-moors.html

March 12, 2011 by Movie Addicted

Another Jane Eyre Movie? Bring On The Brooding Men And Wind whipped Moors

In the preface to the second edition of Jane Eyre , Charlotte Bronte took it upon herself to rebuke the “timorous or carping few” who dared to criticize her art.

“Conventionality is not morality,” she wrote. “Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last.”

In essence she was saying: If you think my book is offensive, you can stick it up your bloomers.

As it turns out, in the long run, she needn’t have been so defensive. For school children and adult readers the world over, Jane Eyre remains a classic that can be found on class syllabuses, nightstands and well-stocked e-readers to this day.

An excellent new film, starring a stern-yet-beguiling 19-year-old Mia Wasikowska ( Alice in Wonderland , The Kids are All Right ) and the chiselled Michael Fassbender as Rochester, opened Friday in the United States (next week in Canada). But the arrival of a new film version will be no surprise for diehard fans, since Jane Eyre might well be the most adapted novel ever. Since its first publication in 1847, the novel has inspired no less than 18 films, nine made-for-TV movies and eight major stage shows, including a dance version by the Kalamazoo Ballet Company. There is an old joke in the entertainment industry that, by official Hollywood decree, Jane Eyre must be remade every five years.

Literature is also awash in Jane ’s babies: At last count, the novel and its characters had spawned 20-odd books by contemporary writers, most of them published in the last quarter century. Notable among the five sequels, five reworkings, six retellings, three spinoffs and a prequel, are Rebecca (loosely based) by Daphne du Maurier, a synopsis for a novel about Jane’s stepdaughter, Adèle Varens, the British writer Angela Carter was working on when she died, and finally, Wide Sargasso Sea by the Anglo-Dominican novelist Jean Rhys – a book that, since its publication in 1966, has been hailed as a modern classic and adapted into film not once but twice.

Like many melodramatic young girls, I spent the better part of my childhood imagining myself as the lost Bronte sister – actually there were two, Elizabeth and Maria, and they died of tuberculosis, but this was before Wikipedia so I didn’t know that yet. I read and re-read Jane Eyre as well as its more sexually implicit cousin, Wuthering Heights , and cursed my parents for furnishing me with an unforgivably dull suburban childhood, devoid of wind-whipped moors, itchy petticoats and brooding men on horseback.

So what was it about Jane’s character in particular that captured my fancy, as well as the hearts and minds of so many young women like me?

I can tell you what it wasn’t – and that is the single most important characteristic any movie producer will tell you is necessary to make a character attractive to a wide audience: likeability. Having just re-read the novel this week (downloaded for free on my shiny new Kindle), I can assure you that the plucky Jane you might remember from countless films and Masterpiece Theatre adaptations is nothing like the creature in the original book who compares herself to “an infantine Guy Fawkes,” and is “always suffering, always browbeaten, always accused, forever condemned” and cultivates “a habitual mood of humiliation, self-doubt and forlorn depression.”

Jane is bit of a pill, and a self-pitying pill at that, but it’s not entirely her fault. She is surrounded by injustice, ignorance and cruelty – nasty people dog her at every turn! Whether it’s a pious headmaster serving up burnt porridge or an abusive aunt cutting her off from her rightful inheritance, Jane spends the first half of the book trying – and largely failing – to catch a break.

And yet in spite of all this misery there is undeniably something timeless and compelling about Jane – a quality that reportedly inspired the young Wasikowska to cast about for any remakes after reading the book as a teen a few years ago – a quality that keeps on attracting talent from Zeffirelli to Orson Welles to Aldous Huxley (who co-wrote a 1944 version of the film).

It boils down to this: In times of austerity, Jane is our most enduring literary heroine. Her sense of justice, her moral fortitude (don’t forget she turns Rochester down when he asks her to run away to the south of France and live in sin to escape his mad wife), her stubborn insistence on substance over style and principles over playfulness, are exactly the qualities audiences crave in times of uncertainty, when we are suffering from the hangover of decadence past.

The Jane Eyre cottage industry is often compared to that other corseted cash cow: Jane Austen. But in fact the two have little in common apart from ringlets. ( Pride and Prejudice was published three decades earlier than Jane Eyre. ) Where Austen is arch and witty, Bronte is earnest and anguished – which explains why the former lends itself well to contemporary irreverence (the movies Clueless and Bridget Jones’s Diary are modelled on Austen’s Emma and Pride and Prejudice , respectively), while the most famous

Another cold and miserable March day, another Jane Eyre , it appears. And in my melodramatic opinion, we’re all the better for it.

http://duncanvillepantherprints.org/?p=3225

Adaptation of Jane Eyre book set to release in studios tomorrow
March 11, 2011 By Juan Mercado

The tale of a feisty governess who finds true love in a spooky mansion, while pouring her heart out on the page in lush and romantical prose, Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre melds all the requisite elements of mystery, horror, and the classic medieval castle setting with heart-stopping romance.

The story is also very appealing: the rise of a poor orphan girl against seemingly insurmountable odds, whose love and determination ultimately redeem a tormented hero.

Mia Wasikowska (“Alice in Wonderland”) and Michael Fassbender (“Inglourious Basterds”) star in the film from acclaimed director Cary Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre”).

In the story, Jane Eyre flees Thornfield House, the vast and isolated estate where she works as a governess for Adele, a child under the custody of Thornfield’s brooding master, Edward Rochester. As Jane looks back upon the tumultuous events that led to her escape, from her childhood as an orphan to her education at the cruel charity school to which she was consigned, she realizes that she must return to Thornfield – to secure her own future, and to come to terms with the terrible secret Rochester had hoped to hide from her forever.

This film is set to release on March 11, 2011.