Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 2

http://eccentricbooksense.blogspot.com/2011/03/jane-eyre.html

Friday, March 18, 2011
Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre (Movie Tie-in Edition) (Vintage Classics) I am still wondering why it took me this long to read this book...Again. Of course, there was the requisite high school reading and I found the I loved Heathcliff (Wuthering Heights) a lot more than Rochester. I mean, Heathcliff was handsome and tragic and Rochester was an cynical and unattractive man. Oh, how my mind has been changed.....I have decided that Jane Eyre is probably one of the best romances I have ever read, modern or classic.
When I purchased my Kindle I thought that it was the best opportunity for me to read all of the Classics that I had neglected to read thoroughly (or at all) while I was in school. As an English major, I made a career of quickly reading through most books and gleaning enough to write a paper or pass a test. I have done myself a grave injustice. So, I downloaded Jane Eyre and read like six pages and never returned to it until news of the movie release. I began to read it again when Goodreads.com announced a contest. The only time I read the book was one the train to and from work; just couldn't get the groove of things while at home. But as the movie release got closer, I was determined to finish. I found that I LOVE THIS BOOK!
I was saddened by Jane's life with the Reeds', glad for her when she secured her position at Thornfield, I laughed at her sparring with Rochester and I cried when he broke her heart. Funny thing is....I had the very same emotions when I saw the movie last night. Dame Judi Dench was lovely. Mia Wasikowska was sassy, strong and wonderfully vulnerable. And Michael Fassbender....well Rochester has never been this hot (not even Timothy Dalton). Fassbender's Rochester was a complete ass but a redeemable one. Just a beautiful film and worth watching. I will now have to purchase a paper copy of Jane Eyre for bookshelf.
Posted by Blackeros at 11:50 PM

http://spinningplatters.com/2011/03/18/film-review-jane-eyre/

Film Review: “Jane Eyre”

by Jason LeRoy on March 18, 2011

starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins, Imogen Poots, Valentina Cervi

written by: Moira Buffini (screenplay), Charlotte Brontë (novel)

directed by: Cary Fukunaga

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

When it was announced that Charlotte Brontë’s classic romance Jane Eyre was being adapted for the screen yet again, there seemed to be a collective response of, “Ugh, WHY?!?” And, admittedly, a brief iMDb search reveals no fewer than 22 adaptations of the novel over the last century. But most of those adaptations were for TV, so let’s be honest — they don’t count. This leaves two primary big-screen adaptations: the 1943 film starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine, and the 1996 version starring William Hurt, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Anna Paquin.

But neither of those films seem to hold the “definitive” title when it comes to this story. So, I’m going out on a limb here and declaring the new adaptation by Oakland-born director Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) to be the definitive big-screen Jane Eyre…so far, at least. It is exquisitely acted by a top-notch cast, gorgeously photographed by Adriano Goldman, sumptuously costumed by Michael O’Connor, lushly scored by Dario Marianelli (who wrote the stunning score to Atonement), and faithfully adapted by Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe). It instills this (somewhat silly) old story with a vibrancy and vitality that blows the dust from the previous versions and starts fresh.

Buffini’s adaptation is told largely in flashback, beginning with Jane (Mia Wasikowska) fleeing Thornfield Hall and running hysterically through the English countryside until slumping over outside the home of St. John “Sinjun” Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his two sisters, who graciously take her in and nurse her back to health. As she gradually gets back on her feet, we begin learning her “tale of woe” in flashbacks: after the death of her parents, Jane (played as a young girl by the remarkable Amelia Clarkson) was taken in by her wealthy aunt, Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins). But when Mrs. Reed decided she was too much of a burden, Jane was dumped into the confines of a bleak all-girls orphanage.

She remained at the orphanage until she was an adult, at which point she was released to become the governess at Thornfield Hall, instructing the half-French bastard daughter of Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) while being tutted after by the housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench). Jane was violent and rebellious when she first entered the orphanage, but she seems to have been thoroughly broken under their tutelage, and is now content to toil quietly in the background.

But when Mr. Rochester — the first man she has ever spoken to — begins taking an interest in her, Jane is taken quite by surprise. She cannot believe that such a handsome and wealthy man, especially one with a known lover, the glamorous Blanche Ingram (Imogen Poots), could be attracted to her. But he continues pursuing her, which draws her further and further out of herself. Still, something seems amiss at Thornfield Hall. Weird noises in the night, random fires, etc. Oh well. I’m sure it has nothing to do with any skeletons Mr. Rochester might be hiding in his closet (or other room).

Okay, I have to say this: while it feels somewhat heretical to criticize the plot of such a canonized classic, the final act of Jane Eyre is just outrageously ridiculous. So many deus ex machina converge all at once. I won’t get into detail, on the off-chance that you haven’t read it or seen the prior versions, but seriously: come on. With that said, this film certainly makes the most of the story. It startles the audience with flashes of unexpected violence, as well as several genuinely scary moments.

As for the eroticism of the story, it is certainly palpable, if refreshingly old-school in its execution. When Jane enters Rochester’s bedroom to extinguish a fire (wink! no, seriously) and it becomes clear he is nude under his dressing gown, I was practically lactating. When Jane rushes back to her room and slowly unties her nightshirt, I was worried we’d suddenly be confronted with a masturbation scene (a perennial go-to for “reinventions” of old classics), but thankfully, it doesn’t go there.

As Jane, Wasikowska (The Kids Are All Right, Alice in Wonderland) gives her finest performance yet. She is like a grim, taciturn young Sissy Spacek, or a glowering Gwyneth Paltrow. Want more comparisons? I got ‘em! She is unabashedly from the Martha Plimpton/Lili Taylor school of unconventional beauties, and she invests the character of Jane with a quiet dignity that grows louder and more pronounced as the film progresses. And Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds, Fish Tank), that sexy square-jawed bastard, is certainly the hottest Rochester ever committed to screen. Not that he has much competition (William Hurt?!?). He is thin-hipped and smoldering, with a devilish glimmer in his eyes. Keep your eyes on this one. Dench, Hawkins, and Bell are predictably superb in supporting roles.

At the end of the day, this is still very much Jane Eyre. But if you’re a fan of the novel or in the mood for a dark, exquisitely wrought period romance, this is a must-see.

http://ctilney.tumblr.com/

Jane Eyre

I see why critics like it. It presents the themes of the novel more than any other adaptation; in this way, it is truer to the novel than most. I liked Michael Fassbender as Rochester and Mia Wasikowska as Jane. (I especially liked Jane.) They seemed more believable a couple than many others, too. However, so little time was allotted to the development of their relationship (or to the development of any other characters and their relationships) that several scenes were rather awkward. Many characters seemed harsher than they were supposed to be, more unimportant than they really were. The movie was rather abrupt to me; it seemed as if they didn’t exactly know what to focus on. Important scenes were left out and more artistic ones put in. I think it’s a film that one can only really appreciate if one has already read the novel.

Still, of course, I enjoyed it. I highly recommend the mini-series version with Ruth Wilson and and Toby Stephens. Tis my favorite adaptation yet.

http://januarymagazine.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-jane-eyre-film-no-mash-up.html

Sunday, March 20, 2011
New Jane Eyre Film No Mash-Up
Charlotte Brontë’s best known work, the moody, broody Jane Eyre, is no stranger to the screen. In fact, that may actually be an understatement. A quick glance at IMDB shows over 20 film projects of that name, and never mind entries that might be “based on” or “inspired by.”

With that in mind, the news that yet another film based on Brontë ’s perennial favorite has opened is hardly earth-shattering.

All of that said, this latest by indie sensation, 33-year-old Cary Fukunaga (Victoria para Chino, Sin hombre), looks to be a worthwhile entry into the ever-growing catalog of Eyres.

At a glance, one of the interesting aspects of this Jane Eyre is the rising sensation aspect of many of the major players. Fukunaga, of course, is a relative newcomer and while insiders are watching this first major feature with interest, few beyond a select clique have even heard his name.

Moira Buffini, who wrote the screenplay, has likewise done some interesting work, but not a lot of it, with a UK romantic comedy called Tamara Drewe from last year the only recent highlight.



Even the principal stars, Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska, are relative newcomers. Fassbender will be most familiar to viewers from 2009’s Inglourious Basterds (though get used to his mug: you’re going to be seeing a lot more of him over the next year). And while Wasikowska is very young and relatively new, film-goers saw her in two Oscar-nominated films from last year: the Australian actress was the title character in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and the likable girl-child in The Kids Are All Right.

Interestingly this new Jane Eyre, which opened in the US on Friday, is moving many reviewers to purple prose. Here, for instance, SFGate:

In a similar way, this latest adaptation of the Charlotte Brontë novel is careful, respectful and even enjoyable, and yet dry, singularly humorless and played without the lavishness of spirit that makes sense of Gothic melodrama. The essence of the Gothic, after all, is in its suggestion of the nightmare, the primitive and the Id, and of pent-up, bottled-up sexuality. These are hinted at in architecture but usually expressed more fully and dramatically by the sky and the elements.

And this, from News in Film:

This is a restrained and mostly quiet film adaptation, but director Cary Fukunaga doesn’t shy away from the book’s grimmer aspects. He explicitly depicts the deplorable treatment of Eyre through her childhood and boarding school days. Later in the film, suspense is maximized during several eerie candlelit sequences featuring Eyre investigating the strange rumblings. There are even a couple of effective and unexpected jump scares.

Bottom line, I think, after reading the reviews: Brontë-enthusiasts will not want to take any of these as read: go see the film for yourself. If nothing else, Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre seems like a worthwhile addition to a huge catalog.

Labels: books to film

posted by January Magazine at 12:40 PM

http://poetsonfilm.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/jane-eyre-2011-review-by-hannah-brooks-motl/

Jane Eyre (2011) | Review by Hannah Brooks-Motl

My dearest lady friends,

You know that we have spoken of the Brontës, those poor, strange, and secret creatures we read too early, too often, believing in their portraits of love, and passion, and suffering, as we believed in little else at whichever of the tender feminine ages we happened to be when first we chanced upon their fat, flooding novels. We have spoken of Catherine, and of Jane; of Heathcliff and Mr. Rochester, choosing to align ourselves with the version we felt most encapsulated what we were certain was to be both the nature of our incipient womanly selves—wild, long-haired, glorious—and the character of our eventual true loves—brooding, raven-eyed, devoted to none save us. And having cast ourselves in the vast movie that each novel performed inside our extravagant minds, we have looked askance at actual cinematic portrayals, for how could anyone other than we—those bursting stars we flamed as—inhabit fully the jealous vicissitudes of Catherine Earnshaw, the fierce modesty of Jane Eyre. Impossible! We thought at twelve, at fifteen, at twenty. The Brontës wrote for us, and us alone, and neither the BBC nor Orson Welles nor Juliette Binoche nor, diminishingly, Anna Paquin nor Joan Fontaine nor Ralph Fiennes could understand this. And thus they doomed themselves to failure.

And yet now, my good gentle women, we find an adaptation perhaps worthy of our intelligence, and our distressing youths. Jane Eyre! Jane Eyre! Mia of the long last name is Jane Eyre! As Michael Fassbender’s Mr. Rochester—his eyes glowing with the unearthly passion we have sought ourselves—sputters to her pale, braided Jane, “You transfix me quite.” It was as though, and finally, he spoke from out the screen to me. Delicious in its dialogue, its snatches of late Early Modern agony, its loving sweep of moor and estate, Cary Fukunaga’s version of our beloved Charlotte’s tale stayed my heart, my brain, my nerves, corseting me in the pleasantest, most despairing dream I ever dreamt. Watching this elegant candelabra of a film flicker and illuminate the dark corridors of my girlhood reading, I recalled my own nascent and dim understanding of the powers of eloquence, responding with a thrill to Rochester’s ability to articulate Jane to herself as I turned the pages on a long-ago family trip out West. To be seen, and seen truly, is the one wish of love—to be told mellifluously, the second. We have all of us waited most patiently through these last two decades of Jane Austen—the squabbles, the silliness, the oh-so-clever modernizations. But these are less glad times, we understand, as too the Brontës understood. The world darkens; the plots assemble, and thicken. We sit in our rooms and wring our hands and feel ourselves at once uncontainable and too easily dismissed. We pick a book from off the shelf. We purchase tickets and take a seat. We run out to meet ourselves.

This entry was posted on March 20, 2011

http://moviebuzzers.com/2011/03/20/movie-review-jane-eyre-eh/

Review: ‘Jane Eyre’ is Eh
by Melissa Hanson
20, March 2011

I really gave it a shot. I thought by the previews that this might have had some sort of thriller aspect to it. Oops, this gives away that I’ve never read the book. Oh well. I never read Wuthering Heights either. I couldn’t even get through the Cliff’s Notes. It should have come as no shock to me that I didn’t enjoy Jane Eyre the movie. It’s the story of a 1800s girl who is overlooked, abused and under-appreciated, then finds true love, loses it and then gets it back. Hope I didn’t spoil it for you.

Synopsis (via Focus Features): Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) flees Thornfield House, where she works as a governess for wealthy Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). The isolated and imposing residence — and Mr. Rochester’s coldness — have sorely tested the young woman’s resilience, forged years earlier when she was orphaned. As Jane reflects upon her past and recovers her natural curiosity, she will return to Mr. Rochester – and the terrible secret that he is hiding…

It’s a beautifully shot film and acted very well, but I just couldn’t get over the story. There’s not enough meat in it to really intrigue me. Most of the time when watching I just realized how boring life must have been and what I would have done to pass the time. What’s strange is that there is a small aspect of suspense in the film, but nothing really comes of it. I was really hoping for more of a thrill aspect and less of the obvious and unnecessary jump scares.

I’m not going to say it’s a terrible movie, because it’s really not. It’s got all the elements, it just didn’t work for me. I went to see this on a whim on a Monday at 4pm. The theater was nearly full with people over 50. I’m not sure if this is the intended demographic, but they seemed to really enjoy it. I wanted more. I’m not satisfied with stories of love between two people who don’t really know each other. “Marry me,” is not what you say to someone you just kissed for the first time. I guess I’m too old (or young) for that.

Jane Eyre was released on MArch 11th and is directed by Cary Fukunaga

Rating: A predictable story in a very simple time. 4/10

http://clatl.com/screengrab/archives/2011/03/18/film-clips-friday-march-18

FILM CLIPS: Friday, March 18
Posted by Curt Holman on Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:10 AM

MOVIE GO BOOM: Greg Arakis Kaboom

OPENING FRIDAY

JANE EYRE 4 stars (PG-13) Charlotte Bronte’s steadfast young governess (Alice in Wonderland’s Mia Wasikowska) contends with the romantic overtures of her magnetic, enigmatic employer, Mr. Rochester (the excellent Michael Fassbender). Cary Fukunaga places the heart of Jane Eyre in the pair’s volleying conversations, while Moiri Buffini sustain the themes of female empowerment without neglecting the haunted-house flourishes. Jane Eyre’s depths offer a lesson in tortured romance and Gothic mood to fans of Edward Cullen and Bella Swan. — Curt Holman

http://www.influence-film.com/2011/03/watch-mia-wasikowska-and-director-cary-fukunaga-discuss-jane-eyre.html

Watch: Mia Wasikowska and director Cary Fukunaga discuss ‘Jane Eyre’
Submitted by on March 20, 2011 – 12:52 amNo Comment

Friday, Mar 18, 2011 6:27 PM

“Jane Eyre,” a novel by Charlotte Brontë, was published in 1847, and a film version was first made 67 years later, in 1915. As an intellectual property, Jane Eyre has been in the public domain for many years and so there have been many screen interpretations of this story of a young orphan girl who comes to fall in love with a country gentleman while working as a tutor in his mansion.

The latest screen incarnation of Jane Eyre stars the striking Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench and Jamie Bell, and is directed by Cary Fukunaga. I was lucky enough to sit down with Miss Wasikowska and director Fukunaga and talk about their gothic interpretation of the classic romance.

Cary Fukunaga has previously directed ‘Sin Nombre,’ a striking drama about a young central American gang member who tries to escape his gang by taking the long and dangerous trip to the US on the roof of a train. Using mostly non actors, Fukunaga was able to create a real, gritty and engrossing world, so I was curious as to how he would transition to period costume drama with very formal and stilted speech. He did wonderfully.

Watch parts of my interviews with both embedded above, and if you get a chance, do go see “Jane Eyre” in the theater, it’s a successful rendition with some excellent performances.

http://tudor3x8films.blogspot.com/2011/03/jane-eyre.html

Saturday, March 19, 2011
Jane Eyre

Fast Facts:
Title: Jane Eyre
Actors: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench
Year: 2011
Language: English, French

In "Alice in Wonderland", I hated Mia Wasikowska. I'm not going to be shy about how much I hated her. I had heard that Amanda Seyfried was considered for Alice and I still continue to believe that Seyfried would have catched an innocent, naive part of Alice that Wasikowska could never do. I felt that Wasikowska was wooden, confused looking, and just plain wrong.

However, "Jane Eyre" convinced me that Wasikowska does have talent and can act after all.



"Jane Eyre" starts with Jane running away from something that we can't tell just yet. She runs and runs until she reaches a small cottage. There, she finds Diana, Mary, and St. John Rivers, all of whom kindly take her in. Desiring a job, St. John gives Jane a job working as a school teacher. She then gives us the story of her life.

When Jane was young, her parents died and she was sent to live with an aunt who hated her and favors her own son. When Jane is found to be beating her cousin- who in fact started the fight by smacking Jane with a book into a doorknob- she is sent to live in a strict school where obedience is the focus. After years of living in the dreary school, the once strong-minded and outspoken Jane becomes more subtle, but no less vivacious in her life.



She soon begins to work as a governess at Thornfield Hall for a french girl named Adelle. While delivering mail, she accidentally runs into Mr. Rochester, the owner of Thornfield Hall. Rochester tells her that she "bewitched" his horse and doesn't trust her at first, but he soon starts to like her when he sees the quickness of her mind and how she was able to teach Adelle.

While Rochester stays at Thornfield, a fire mysteriously starts in his room. When Jane helps him put it out, he realizes that he owes her his life. They have their first moment of love then, but Jane soon leaves to go to her aunt's house. She is told that her aunt Sarah Reed is dying and that her cousin has committed suicide. Upon learning that her aunt told her uncle that she "died of typhus", Jane leaves soon after to go back to Thornfield Hall.



There, Jane begins to believe that Rochester is going to marry Grace Ingram, a woman of high status but poor manners. Devastated, Jane tries to leave Thornfield Hall, but is stopped by Rochester when he tells her that he loves her, not Ingram. After sharing a passionate kiss, they decide to get married. However, things change during the wedding. Jane finds out that Rochester is miserably married to a mad woman whom he keeps in the closet. Horrified, Jane leaves as we see a reprise of the beginning scene.

By now, Jane is put back into the present. Though she tells St. John her name is "Jane Elliott", he finds her true identity. It is then that Jane finds out that she is an heiress; she decides to share the money with St. John and his sisters. However, when St. John asks for her hand in marriage, she leaves to go back to Rochester.


Jane arrives to Thornfield Hall to find it burnt. Mrs. Fairfax tells Jane that no one knows who started the fire and that only the mad wife died in the fire as she jumped off the roof. Jane soon finds the now blind Rochester sitting down with his dog in the garden. By just touching her hand and her face, Rochester knows that he and Jane will live happy together now that she has come back to him at her own free will due to love.

Like I said, I hated Mia Wasikowska as Alice, but her version of Jane Eyre is excellent. She does have a sort of stillness about her, but I feel that it works for the character. And when the character has to show love, fear, or sadness, her expression changes dramatically. Michael Fassbender also plays the character of Rochester wonderfully and he and Wasikowska have excellent chemistry as Jane and Rochester.

What I also really loved about this film is the music, costumes, and the cinematography. Yes, it's a very dreary film and it is rather slow in pace compared to other films now, but I think it's for the better. And while I do think that parts of the novel should have been kept in- although, to be fair, the film already is long enough- I find that some parts are confusing. For instance, who started the first fire? And who started the second? We never find out, but we sure can guess.

7.5/10
Posted by tudor3x8 at 11:12 PM

http://www.onestopnewsstand.com/dallas/fukunaga%E2%80%99s-jane-eyre-distinguishes-itself-with-its-gothic-texture-brooding-and-beautiful

Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre Distinguishes Itself With ...

There has been no shortage of adaptations of Charlotte Bronte’s novel, Jane Eyre — from TV-series to feature films, beginning back in 1934. So the question that arises when a new movie based on the classic story of the orphan governess and the wealthy, forlorn eccentric who falls for her is what does this story have that continues to captivate filmmakers and audiences alike?

Jane Eyre is a seductive tale, powered by great melodramatic tension. As it indulges our emotional hunger for honest sentiment, it satisfies an inclination towards moral heroes with un-floundering vision for what is right.

What is ultimately so attractive about the character of Jane Eyre is her fidelity to her innate sense of personal righteousness, and it is in her judicial sense that we discover a powerful argument for a moral order that is not a social or religious imposition, but is rather found written on the human heart. Jane is the modern hero in a pure and convincing manifestation: a common girl with an individualistic spark that glows brightly in spite of intolerant, oppressive forces.

Director Cary Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre distinguishes itself with its great gothic texturing, a brooding, beautiful cinematic canvas that affects the story’s tone with the feel of a Tim Burton film. The film warms up its contemporary audience — more accustomed, in general, to movie “experiences” than stuffy adaptations of British novels — with a couple of sudden, shocking bumps within the opening 10 minutes. When Jane’s nasty cousin tugs aside a curtain behind which the young girl is hiding from his assaults, the man next to me jumped and yelled out. A few seconds later, a billow of black chimney smoke explodes from the fireplace with a great puff, and my audience neighbor yelped again. Fukunaga does not turn Jane Eyre into a bump and thump thriller, but he knows how to set the mood, and he sustains this tension throughout, using it to charge the impending romantic chaos.

These little scares come when orphan Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) is living with her aunt, a cruel woman who eventually sends the young girl off to boarding school to have manners literally beaten into her. Jane, whose life seems a suffering succession of misunderstandings and injustices which she must endure, has too bright a spirit and too resistant a will to survive such a place unscathed. She stands up for her classmates and her sense of right, and she is beaten for it.

After her only friend, Helen, dies of consumption, Jane leaves the school when she finds a job as a governess at the estate of Thornfield. There she is taken under her wing by the kindhearted housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dentch). With Fairfax, though nervous and shifty in her own right, Jane has encountered the first adult who shows her honest affection. It is also at Thornfield where Jane eventually meets the master, Rochester, a wild-hearted, depressive romantic, who is often away, drowning himself in philandering experiences on the continent, but is quickly entranced by his new, young governess.

Fukunaga rearranges the chronology of the novel in part to adequately fit its longish plot into a brisk 115 minutes, but the technique also manages to broaden the film’s emotional scope long before the story gets to the juicy romance between Jane and Rochester. Before the governess even arrives at Thornfield, we see action that comes after that episode. A weary, dying Jane makes her way through a dreary countryside and comes upon the home of the preacher, St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell), and his two sisters, who take her in. It is not long before Rivers has also fallen for young woman.

Wasikowska shows a great sensitivity for her character, bringing to it a balance of tight-hearted reserve and a burning streak of muzzled ferociousness. She is reminiscent of a young Oliva Hussey, who could capture in a quiet gaze that volatile mix of burgeoning intellectual energy and clumsy sexuality — cloaked in a subdued beauty — that makes a type of young woman mind-numbingly irresistible to a certain kind of man.

Michael Fassbender’s Rochester is that man. Fassbender is a born action hero, virile and uncommonly in control even when he pushes himself to display emotional vulnerability. His Rochester succeeds best when he struggles to keep the character’s inner turmoil under wraps, bumbling and blundering his way through romantic profusions. Despite this movie’s gothic coloring and dramatic verbosity, adaptations of Jane Eyre succeed and fail based on the viability of this central relationship. In this latest version, it sizzles.

FrontRow

http://www.macguffinpodcast.com/macguffin-content/dialogue-review-jane-eyre/

Dialogue Review – Jane Eyre
Date: Sat, 19 Mar, 2011 at 05:54 PM | Author: Brandi Sperry

Brandi Sperry: The scene: Brandi and Allen are about to watch Jane Eyre. Brandi’s quite excited, being a fan of the novel and having put the film on her most-anticipated list of 2011. Allen…doesn’t seem to know what Jane Eyre is, exactly.

Allen Almachar: That’s because Allen has admitted to not being a reader. But even though he hasn’t read the novel, that doesn’t mean he can’t appreciate a good movie. A “good movie” being the key term here.

Brandi: I’m just saying, we went into this with very different perspectives….and I think we have very different opinions, as well.

Director Cary Fukunaga, who previously made the excellent film Sin Nombre, serves the dark weirdness of Charlotte Brontë’s novel well in his adaptation. Mia Wasikowska absolutely nails the title role of the woman who survived the quintessential horrific childhood of a 19th century heroine (dead parents, cruel aunt, crueler boarding school, etc.) to somehow become a hard-working, level-headed young governess. She travels to the impressive and mysterious Thornfield Hall to teach the ward of the also impressive and mysterious Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender, swoon). Do not bother yourself with questions about why or how Rochester is so rich or how the hell he came into possession of this “ward,” a daft little French girl—none of that sort of thing really matters in this kind of story.

Allen: The film revolves around the on-again, off-again, on-again relationship that Jane has with Rochester while living in Thornfield Hall. While everything about this place and about Rochester seems to be oddly idyllic, there are darker and more mysterious secrets beneath its surface. When these secrets are revealed, they rock Jane’s world in a way that we won’t get too deep into here.

First, when going into this movie, I thought to myself that this kind of story really isn’t made for me. But thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that I actually liked a lot of British period stories, from Wuthering Heights with Laurence Olivier to David Lean’s adaptation of Great Expectations to Robert Altman’s Gosford Park. And there are lot of these Gothic stories that I dig, which helped a bit with my anxiousness when walking into Jane Eyre.

To start out, I will agree with you that the performances here are good all around. I think Mia Wasikowska does a good job playing a girl who has suffered her entire life and is hesitant to accept any kind of graciousness as a form of sincerity. As for Michael Fassbender, can someone tell me just where the heck this guy came from? It seems this dude shot straight out of the gate, I mean the second credit the man has on his resume is a large role in Band of Brothers! In everything I’ve seen him in (Band of Brothers, 300, Hunger, Inglourious Basterds, Fish Tank, and now this) he is becoming an actor of some serious talent. Mark it here: two years from now this guy is going to be a household name.

Brandi: I would guess he’ll be a household name even sooner than that, with his upcoming slate of films. Of course, he is much, much more handsome than Rochester is meant to be in the novel, but I couldn’t be less surprised about that and I also don’t much care, since he captures so well the part of Rochester that matters most: the off-kilter allure he holds for Jane. He may be rude and exasperatingly unpredictable, but he speaks to her as if he wishes to hear what she has to say, and that’s something Jane hasn’t experienced in a long time.

The attraction between Jane and Rochester builds so slowly that even she seems in denial of it half the time. Wasikowska perfectly captures the “no, I must be imagining it” way that one can feel when a simmering attraction that should be forbidden (Jane is far below Rochester’s social class) goes without being acted upon. This is something that is a major component of this story, and many such stories from that era: what you should do and what you are permitted to do versus what you want to do. These are actors that can express all of that using just their faces and their tone of voice, and it’s something to behold. They also have amazing chemistry, and their banter crackles. All of that makes the later pay-off moments, both happy and tragic, very satisfying.

Structurally, the film plays with the straight timeline presented in the novel, beginning near the end with Jane sobbing as she wanders the moors, and flashing backwards to piece together how she got there. It’s unexpected (if you know what to expect), but it works very well, adding to the sense of foreboding that permeates everything. The visuals help quite a bit with that, as well.

Allen: While I will agree with you that the performances all around were solid, I’m going to have to disagree with just about everything else you mentioned about the film. Visually, this film was drab, flat, and uninspired. The muted color palette removed any kind of spark or energy that it could have provided. Instead, we get a movie that looks cold, detached, and off-putting. Structurally, there was no reason for the film to start in the middle of the story and then flash back to find how it got there. I don’t really have a problem with this style—many of my favorite films are made this way—but the editing here was poorly handled, creating an opening act that was jarring and confusing. At first, we don’t know what’s happening during the present, or what’s a flashback, or what’s a flashback during a flashback…it was simply not put together well. The apparent “chemistry” that you saw was absent from my perspective. Wasikowska is in her early 20s, Fassbender is in his mid-30s, and you can clearly see the age difference when they interact together. Whatever chemistry they were supposed to have felt borderline inappropriate.

And these are just the minor issues I had with the movie, the biggest problem I had was with the story itself.

Brandi: Are you sure you like Gothic stories, Allen? The greatest thing about them is combining that cold, off-putting atmosphere you describe with intense human emotion and dramatic plotlines. A different color palette would have seriously clashed with the vibe coming from the characters.I also think beginning at the end was savvy, though I guess I can see where it would be confusing. (I think the jarring aspect you describe is intentional, but if it doesn’t work for you, it doesn’t work for you.) The film focuses on the love story, and making Jane’s childhood into a set of flashbacks makes sense. In the novel, we don’t even meet Rochester until we’re pretty far into the action. I liked that this way his influence was felt before he even arrived.

Allen: I have no issue with films that are Gothic, Brandi. I enjoy stories that take a darker turn and explore the more twisted elements of human nature. I’m fine with that. There are plenty of films out there that tackle this while at the same time being visually interesting and stimulating, which this film was not.

You say that in the book, we don’t meet Rochester until well into the story’s plot. What’s so wrong with having that transcribed in the film? Why does this have to be structured the way that it is? You call it savvy, I call it unoriginal. Again, I’m not saying that I’m against the way the film is put together, I’m just saying that it’s not put together very well. You say you like the fact that Rochester’s influence is felt even before he arrives, but to me that says that this is a film that’s only intended for people who read the book. What about the people who haven’t read it? Are they supposed to know that Rochester’s influence is apparently felt without him being introduced in to the story? If we’re already supposed to know that based on the book instead of the film telling us, then that’s a failure on the film’s behalf.

Perhaps this story just isn’t for me, and the more I think about it, the less I care for it. My biggest complaint about it is how just about every character Jane interacts with is depicted. I’m going to tread cautiously here and say:
***WARNING: SOME SPOILERS AHEAD***

How exactly is it that every character that Jane meets—in particular the men—are cruel, controlling, and dishonest? Throughout her entire life, she didn’t meet ONE person that treated her with sincerity? It seems every person she encountered had a secret or some kind of surprise agenda that stood in contrast with how they first appeared. There was a moment near the end when a character showed his true colors to Jane that had me shaking my head with how far out of left field it came from.

And in regard to this supposed “romance” between Jane and Rochester: I want to be able to fully describe how their story turns out, because how it resolves is really my biggest issue. I guess what I can say is that this was a relationship that Jane was wary of from the very beginning, and there is a reveal that threatens to destroy their bond forever. However, an event that is detailed (not even shown, but described after the fact), changes everything that Jane thought about Rochester and the world that he offered to her. To me, this resolution is both unsatisfying and unbelievable. Does Jane not realize that this is the same man who still kept this same secret from her while she was living there? What was different between then and now? The film is basically telling us that, regardless of whatever dishonesty one has, all they need to do to attain the love of their life is to go through an unthinkable, traumatic experience so that they’ll fall in love with them out of sheer pity.

Brandi: It’s a fair enough point that some of the things I liked about the adaptation would be undetectable to those who are unfamiliar with the story. I can’t retroactively see the film without having read the novel; I’m only describing how I personally felt while watching it. Perhaps what I should have said is that I like that the viewer can feel the influence of something very bad happening to her, before it actually does. You don’t need to know that it is, specifically, the sudden, ugly, crushing collapse of her relationship with Rochester for the mood to work. And I maintain that while you might like dark stories, it sounds like you don’t like the specific conventions of 19th century Gothic literature (which is fine!). Yes, Jane as a character has seen an almost absurd amount of cruelty in her life, but she’s had equal opportunity cruelty—it all starts with being cast out by her aunt, not with a man. (And there definitely are characters who treat her with sincerity—her childhood best friend and St. John’s sisters, in particular.) In fact, it’s a man’s action (talking about her uncle, not St. John) that gives her the sense of freedom to reconsider the choice she made of leaving Rochester.

I actually don’t blame you for not having much sympathy for Rochester in the end, because my one real complaint about the film was that I felt the reveal of his secret didn’t have the force it needed in order to convey how tortured he’d been by it, and what an insane situation it was. However, it’s not the next event, which you mention happens off screen, that causes Jane to return to him—she was already doing that before she knew what had happened. She chooses him, knowing what he kept from her, before she knows about his traumatic experience. Still, I know how you feel about anything that even hints at a deus ex machina, and in a way we get a one-two punch of that at the end of this story. Again, that’s not uncommon in this kind of literature, and if you don’t like it, you don’t like it. That’s understandable. But it works for me.

Allen: Ok, I’ll give it to you that she has had a fair share of equal opportunity cruelty (that’s kind of a weird combination of words!) in her life, and you do make a lot of good points that I didn’t even recall. I think the reason I felt the way I did was because the acts of cruelty and deception that stuck the most in mind (the young boy that tried to steal her book, the priest urging on the sister to physically punish the young girls, Rochester and St. John) all came from males. Even her aunt treated her badly and punished her because of something that was first initiated by the young boy! I just wish there was more balance between the evil we see in her world and the good.

I think it’s kind of obvious that you liked the film and I didn’t; I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think this is biggest difference of opinion we’ve had so far with our dialogue reviews! High five!

Oh, and I’m going to stand fast with the fact that I can like a Gothic story set in the 19th century, just not this Gothic story set in the 19th century!

Brandi: Well, it’s been fun disagreeing with you. Maybe we can at least agree that Judi Dench is an upstanding lady?

Allen: The real question is: when is she NOT an upstanding lady?

Final Grades:
Brandi: A-
Allen: C

http://www.moviereviewsandsales.com/movie_reviews/2011/03/jane-eyre-12-pg-13/

Jane Eyre / ***1/2 (PG-13)

"Jane Eyre" (PG-13, 118 minutes). A voluptuous adaptation of the 1847 novel that remains enormously popular, expressing a forbidden attraction between a powerless young woman and her fierce and distant employer. Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender embody Jane and Rochester with a firm sense of who they are; neither is unattractive, although the novel says they are, but then this is the movies. Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, a rising star whose "Sin Nombre" was one of the best films of 2009. Three and a half stars

http://www.backofthehead.com/2011/03/jane-eyre.html

Saturday, March 19, 2011
Jane Eyre
JANE EYRE

"I imagine things I cannot execute."

Louis CK once joked that if he had a time machine, he could travel back to any point in history and, as a white man, things would be pretty good for him regardless of when he landed. Women can't say the same; Jane Eyre is another example of how much it sucked to be a woman until roughly the 1970s. As Jane Eyre, Mia Wasikowska bristles against the stifling repression of her station in life - more intelligent and ambitious than those around her but lacking a means to fully express and explore her desires, kowtowed from a young age into demure self-denial. Jane was much more interesting - and perhaps even better acted - in the flashback scenes where she was portrayed by young Amelia Clarkson. (Clarkson looks little like Wasikowska, one of my pet peeves in movies.) Wasikowska's ghostly pale, thin-lipped, harsh staring and playing hard to get drives the two men who encounter her mad with desire to do some bodice-ripping, mainly Michael Fassbender as our requisite Byronic hero Edward Fairfax Rochester, who harbors a dark secret (easily guessed, even for one such as I, who was rather blissfully un-indoctrinated into Charlotte Bronte). The other man who wants Jane, especially when she becomes suddenly wealthy at the end, is Jamie Bell, who plays the Jacob to Fassbender's Edward, as it were. It's also enjoyable to see Dame Judi Dench neither playing a fearsome queen nor an ineffectual den mother to James Bond. The performances are terrific, as is the direction by Cary Fukunaga; there are some camera moves and placements that seem so simple but are brilliantly evocative. Fukunaga gloriously revels in the darkness and forbidden shadows of Fassbender's gloomy English manor. What Jane Eyre was missing was Harry Osborn's butler from Spider-Man 3 saying, "I've seen a lot of strange things in this house, sir..." If you crave to witness Michael Fassbender repeatedly grab Mia Wasikowska by the arm and drag her across his hundreds of acres of land to have her repeatedly reject his breathless advances, Jane Eyre is your good time Gothic romance.
Posted by John Orquiola at 9:08 AM

http://www.behindthehype.com/movie-reviews/drama-review/eyreian-nation/

Eyreian Nation

Posted on 18 March 2011 by Smoking Barrel

For awhile I thought Jane Austen was the only British author with any repute in the world of book to film adaptations. The Brontë sisters have certainly received their due in the past with prior filmic renderings of both Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, but never with the same degree of exactitude as Austen-inspired gems like 2005′s Pride and Prejudice. In Cary Fukunaga’s (of Sin Nombre fame) sinister depiction of Charlotte Brontë’s seminal novel, Mia Wasikowska plays the role of Jane Eyre to the perfect pitch of martyrdom and self-righteousness.

Promotional poster for Jane Eyre.

Considering the liberality with which both genders act in the twenty-first century, the struggle in watching Jane Eyre is derived from the frustration of observing how much restraint the title character puts on her emotions, as well as having a moral compass that is determinately non-existent in the current epoch. Michael Fassbender (the dishy German officer who incorrectly holds up three fingers in Inglourious Basterds) embodies the inhibited, yet brazen nature of Edward Rochester, the wealthy owner of a country estate where Jane goes to act as governess to a young French orphan named Adele.

The fieriness of Rochester is well portrayed by Michael Fassbender.

As it becomes clearer that Rochester is smitten with the intelligence and unlikely perspicuity of Jane, he especially cannot deny his attraction to her when she saves him from a fire (set by a mysterious presence in the house), after which she tries to maintain her air of detachment–a move that Rochester will not stand for as he implores of her, “You saved my life. Do not treat me as a stranger.”

Jane Eyre: Always appearing somehow guilty.

For anyone who has read the novel (and perhaps it is presumptuous to assume that it is common reading material at this juncture), you already know that the “mysterious presence” responsible for setting the fire is Rochester’s wife, a woman driven to madness and whom Rochester keeps locked away in his own home rather than condemning her to the fate of a nineteenth century mental institution. This, of course, is a fact that reveals itself to Jane before she is married to Rochester, tinging her emotions for him with resentment. Although Rochester begs her to stay, to ignore the existence of his husk of a wife, Jane’s intense sense of morality sends her on a journey to an outlying town where she strikes up a relationship with a minister called Saint John Rivers (the oh so promising Jamie Bell).

An imperfect union

For those who are unfamiliar with the novel, it would seem that Jane’s departure will result in Rochester’s mental undoing. But, surprisingly, Brontë spares her reader from a tragic ending, which I guess is only surprising considering the cruel fate of Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights (Emily was obviously the more pessimistic of the literarily inclined sisters). This makes things much easier for screenwriter Moira Buffini to appease viewers once they learn that Rochester has been blinded in a fire (because Jane wasn’t there to prevent the aftermath of his wife’s pyromaniacal ways) since, invariably, Jane cannot resist the pull she feels toward Rochester, ultimately returning to him. And now, being that his wife jumped off the roof during the fire, there is no issue with upholding virtuosity any longer.

The celestial tableau that characterizes Jane's first encounter with Rochester.

Another perk of Jane Eyre‘s most recent film representation is the presence of Dame Judi Dench (just as Gerard Depardieu must be in all French movies, so, too, must Dench be in all British movies). Her performance as Mrs. Fairfax is one of the more humorous aspects of an otherwise darkly tinctured love story. Filmgoers will be content in knowing, however, that despite Rochester’s blindness, he recognizes Jane’s face almost instantly, taking her in his arms and uttering, “I feel as though I’m in a dream.” Jane, ever the queen of quips, replies, “Then awaken.”

http://torontoist.com/2011/03/in_revue_close_encounters_with_the_gothic_and_bradley_cooper.php

In Revue: Close Encounters With the Victorian Gothic

Because Toronto's more movie obsessed than a Quentin Tarantino screenplay (yuk yuk), Torontoist brings you In Revue, a weekly roundup of new releases.

Plain Jane changes the game, and things will only be the same! Illustration by Chloe Cushman/Torontoist.

Movies, movies, movies. It always seems like you’ve got too many movies! “Help me!” you’re probably saying. Well, that’s why we’re here. To help you. It’s a pretty okay week, except for the Bradley Cooper movie. Unspooling this week, we’ve got a pretty great Brontë sister, a disappointing (though still kind of funny) alien, and the Bradley Cooper movie. Also, we reviewed I Saw the Devil at TIFF, and said it was excellent. And we stand by that. It’s certainly better than the Bradley Cooper movie. In fact, it’s better than any Bradley Cooper movie. Or the best parts of every Bradley Cooper movie cut together into a narrative feature, Trail of the Pink Panther style.

Jane Eyre
Directed by Cary Fukunaga

4 STARS

Like J.J. Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek reimagining, Cary Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre takes a well-worn story and strips it down to its most essential elements. As Abrams narrowed in on the relationship between Kirk and Spock, ditching most of the hard sci-fi techie argot, Fukunaga sheds the dusty period piece upholstery that you’d expect to hang heavy over a film like this, instead developing the stifled romance between the strong-willed governess Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) and master of the house Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender).

After dozens of on-screen adaptations, the story of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre is so well-known that rehashing it seems redundant. (After all, everyone knows what The Godfather and Jaws are about without actually needing to see them.) But briefly, it goes like this: an orphan, Jane Eyre grows up emotionally abused by her wicked aunt (Sally Hawkins); she’s shipped off to a boarding school; she matures and finds work at Rochester’s stately manor, where she falls in love with him, then leaves him (spoiler judiciously excised) and finds work as a rural schoolteacher under the guidance of the watchful and earnest St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell). It’s the stuff those geometric plot diagrams are made of.

Immediately, Moira Buffini’s first-rate screenplay energizes the centuries-old story. Buffini and Fukunaga shape the film through flashbacks, beginning with Jane’s appearance at the Rivers’ darkened doorstep. Upturning the relentless forward march of Brontë’s bildungsroman reshapes the entire development of the narrative, beginning with Jane as a fully formed, if shaken, woman and flashing back to trace the experiences that got her there. Fukunaga brings Eyre to life in dark, gloomy tones, shrouding the inherent majesty of the mansions, manors, and lavish costumes in shadow, illuminating them in the trembling light cast off a fireplace. In muting the Victorian excesses, Fukunaga amplifies the story’s more lingering Gothic elements. If his direction suffers, it’s only in his sporadic stabs at moving too far outside of Masterpiece Theatre territory, his canted, extra-wide overhead shots of drab English plains exhibit an overly auteured flourish.

As Jane, Wasikowska is fantastic. With doe-eyed glances betraying her tight-lipped propriety, she wonderfully captures the contradictions tugging at the character. As Rochester, Fassbender is almost too perfect (it’s easy to imagine him absent-mindedly wearing his costume home). His roguish spirit roils underneath the elaborate vests, collars, girdles, coats, and topcoats; the stubborn scruff of his sideburns rendering him every bit a nineteenth-century James Dean.

Fukunaga’s Eyre may be dull, but it’s pleasantly dull—slow-moving but consistently captivating. With its pitch-perfect casting and lively script, this Jane Eyre may well appeal to an audience beyond the twelfth-grade English student trying to pass a quiz on Brontë’s novel by hurriedly watching the film version the night before.

Jane Eyre opens Friday, March 18, for a limited engagement at the Varsity Cinema (55 Bloor Street West). Click here for showtimes.

http://dvdpinson.com/jane-eyre-review/

Mar18
Jane Eyre Review
by dvdpinson on March 18th, 2011 at 4:00 am
Posted In: Movie Reviews

Jane Eyre

The latest incarnation of “Jane Eyre” is a blend of contemporary and classical storytelling making for a sort of hybrid entertainment. The film sounds ages old, pulling the words directly from the influential 1847 novel of the same name. Simultaneously the film looks and feels modern with breathtaking cinematography and vital performances. The mixture makes for an intriguing affair that should appeal to audiences unfamiliar with the material as well as those well versed.



Jane Eyre’s (Mia Wasikowska) story is a “tale of woe” though she adamantly denies it. Orphaned at a very young age, she is sent to live with her aunt, Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins), who detests her strong spirit. Finding the young Jane (played with verve by Amelia Clarkson) impossible to handle, Aunt Reed trucks the girl off to Lowood School for girls where she is beat and mistreated but never broken. Years pass and Miss Eyre leaves the horrid school to take employment as a governess at Thornfield Hall. There she meets Mister Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), master of the Hall, who is almost instantly intrigued by the young governess. Unlike what was expected of women of the time, she is assured and empathetic without being disobedient and Rochester finds her engaging. Their love blossoms but something lurks in the corridors of Thornfield Hall that may get in the way of their happy ending.

Director Cary Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre”) does a masterful job in staging the familiar story in a way that feels current. He fractures the story, telling parts out of order through the first two acts, adding more mystery to a film that is already dripping with secrets. The Gothic aspects are fully exploited to the point that segments play like outright horror. This film contains a few shocks and squirms that rival anything passing for a scary movie in the last few years. There are also small, personal moments that we spend with Jane during her struggles. We follow behind her, camera hand held, in shots pulled right out of Sophia Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette”. This goes along way in allowing us to relate to Jane and succeeds in creating a real living person behind the ancient clothes and customs.

Wasikowska also plays a huge role in giving her Eyre life. Her performance is subtle and skilled. Looking much like a young Gwyneth Paltrow, she says little with words and much with her eyes as she processes the world around her. When she is allowed to let loose, it is wrenching. With solid work in last year’s “The Kids are Alright” followed by the title role in Disney’s/Burton’s billion-dollar grossing “Alice in Wonderland”, Wasikowska is a new force in Hollywood. “Jane Eyre” merely continues to illustrate her versatility. Fassbender plays Rochester pretty straight and brings the role a dignity and vitality that is evocative of an Old Hollywood performance that suits the material well. There are “made for PBS/BBC” moments that pop up every now and again but the film is mostly brisk and exciting.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/03/17/2590721_jane-eyre.html

'Jane Eyre'
By MICHAEL PHILLIPS
- Chicago Tribune
March 19, 2011 3:11am EDT

The pretty, moody, well-acted new adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre" rests on a key early scene between Mia Wasikowska, as Bronte's protagonist and narrator, and Michael Fassbender, as the storm warning known as Edward Rochester. This is one of the most famous getting-to-know-you passages in 19th century literature, chronicling the second encounter and first civil conversation between the new governess of Thornfield Hall and her employer. With a disarming mixture of candor and restraint, Jane acquits herself so nimbly in the face of so much bluff, it's as if the charismatic bad boy with a secret were discovering a new species - a rare object of fascination and adoration.

Thanks to the enduring draw of Bronte's 1847 two-volume novel, generation upon generation of readers have made the same discovery. Without making any provocative new discoveries, the latest film version of the novel, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, honors the source material. It's certainly a start and, if you have the right actors, sometimes it's enough for a satisfying finish.

We'll get to what's missing from this "Jane Eyre" in a minute. Here's what works, and what makes it worth seeing.

For starters, Wasikowska. If the actress playing Jane Eyre, the only potential pity party in popular fiction to rival Oliver Twist, begs for our sympathy in any direct fashion, the story dies faster than you can say "Helen Burns." Bronte's Jane is bullied, beaten, cowed, humiliated and - worst of all - marginalized by her guardians, her Lowood schoolmasters and the wider world around her. Then she arrives at Thornfield Hall and her destiny.

Wasikowska, who starred in the recent "Alice in Wonderland" and co-starred in "The Kids Are All Right," has many virtues as an actress, but above all, she is as honest as the day is long. She seems to act very little, which sounds lazy or easy, but in fact requires great skill. Fassbender's Rochester has the dash and spirit of a Byronic antihero; crucially, he also has a sense of humor about his harrumphing character's unexpected attraction to this pale, watchful governess. In their lengthy scene by the fireside Wasikowska and Fassbender appear to be sussing each other out, pushing each other's buttons, in all the right ways. It is a crisply paced highlight.

The screenwriter Moira Buffini has restructured Bronte's narrative so that the story begins near the end, and then flashes back. This works well. What is lacking? I hesitate to use the most hackneyed two words in English, but: character development. The 1944 Robert Stevenson version of "Jane Eyre," a wild-eyed, visually striking black-and-white affair starring Joan Fontaine (post-"Rebecca") and Orson Welles (more effective in his uncredited design contributions than in his performance), has many flaws, but its screenplay manages a gradual and convincing coming-together of the main characters. This latest version radically condenses the process. Here, it's one scene and bam: love, hard and fast. Bronte wrote of the "cord of communion" between Jane and Rochester, pulling them toward one another almost against their will. The movie gives that cord a strong yank early on - too strong, I think.

Director Fukunaga's previous film was "Sin Nombre," about Honduran nationals trekking north, perilously, to Mexico and eventually America. That film's mixture of realism and melodrama was very much like the unsteady world Fukunaga creates in "Jane Eyre," veering from windswept, hand-held-camera walks against the gray skyline of Derbyshire to classically minded camera swoops and glides. The results are all over the place visually.

And to no one's surprise, the story still works like Gothic gangbusters, thanks in part to reliable backcourt support from Judi Dench (as Mrs. Fairfax) and Sally Hawkins (as Jane's venal guardian). I couldn't help but feel this adaptation needed more of the thing for which Jane herself yearns: a sense of freedom. At their best, though, Wasikowska and Fassbender hint at their well-worn characters' inner lives, which are complex, unruly and impervious to time.

JANE EYRE

3 stars

Cast: Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre); Michael Fassbender (Edward Rochester); Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax); Jamie Bell (St. John Rivers); Imogen Poots (Blanche Ingram); Amelia Clarkson (Jane, age 10); Sally Hawkins (Mrs. Reed).

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga; written by Moira Buffini, based on the novel by Charlotte Bronte; produced by Alison Owen and Paul Trijbits. A Focus Features release.

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

Running time: 2:00.

http://thephoenix.com/boston/movies/117083-jane-eyre/

Plain Jane
And all the better for it
By JEFFREY GANTZ | March 16, 2011
4.0 4.0 Stars

Jane Eyre
BACK TO BASICS Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender skip the histrionics as they build a relationship.

Is there a novel that's been adapted by the movies and television more often than Charlotte Brontë's chick-lit classic, Jane Eyre? We've had theatrical releases starring Virginia Bruce and Colin Clive (1934), Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles (1943), and Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt (1996). And a pair of TV-movies, with Susannah York and George C. Scott (1970) and then Samantha Morton and Ciarán Hinds (1997). Not to mention three TV mini-series from the BBC (1973, 1983, and 2007). No Jane Austen novel, not even Pride and Prejudice, has enjoyed such loving attention. Now BBC Films is adding a fourth theatrical version to the list, and though director Cary Fukunaga (previous feature: Sin Nombre) and stars Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are All Right) and Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds, Centurion) are hardly household names, it might well be the best of the lot.

You could argue, of course, that every generation re-creates Brontë's novel in its own image. Since Bruce showed up as a platinum blonde in diamonds and deshabille, Jane Eyre adaptations have gotten progressively plainer and closer to the spirit of the original. And no Jane has been as plain as Wasikowska, who, without benefit of make-up, stares into the camera wide-eyed and humble, as if the 20th century hadn't existed yet, never mind the 21st. Fukunaga starts his version in medias res, Jane fleeing Thornfield, a speck on the misty moors, stranded at a muddy crossroads, sitting on a rock in a downpour, humanity at the mercy of the elements, the universe, St. John Rivers. Once she's settled into Marsh End, we begin to see her story in flashback: orphan cast out by her Aunt Reed, brutal education at charity school Lowood, happy employment as governess at Thornfield by Edward Rochester, marriage to Rochester aborted by the discovery that he already has a wife.

Otherwise, this film, like its star, keeps things simple. Screenwriter Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) pays tribute to her source by doing less rather than more. Thornfield looks almost mediæval, its great stone interior seemingly shot in nothing but daylight, firelight, and candlelight. Dress and hairstyles are austere; the meal over which housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax gives thanks "for this Thy special bounty" is soup and brown bread. And the camera bears rapt, patient witness to the long conversations in which Jane proves her master's spiritual and intellectual equal.

Fassbender does his part by not trying to be the master of the movie; young, tough, and with no initial interest in his governess, his Rochester emerges by slow degrees. Jamie Bell is an unctuous Rivers; Judi Dench brings some heat to Mrs. Fairfax. (She also has a knockout non-Brontë line: "You must have a better one," she sighs in exasperation after Jane says all her dresses are the same.) Romy Settbon Moore's Adèle is effervescently vivacious; Sally Hawkins's Aunt Reed is hypocritically bitter. As the young Jane, Amelia Clarkson is outspoken but not entitled. Imogen Poots as Jane's apparent rival, Blanche Ingram, and Valentina Cervi as Bertha Mason Rochester have less scope than in other versions.

Then again, this is a two-hour adaptation of a 450-page novel, and if Jane's experiences with Aunt Reed and at Lowood get short shrift (as they do in every non-mini-series version), Fukunaga does more than most to flesh out her days with Rivers and his sisters. He keeps Brontë's theme of religious repression ever present, and he still finds time to watch Jane quietly as she cuts flowers and thinks. It's a big-screen first: a 19th-century Jane Eyre.

JANE EYRE
DIRECTED BY CARY FUKUNAGA | WRITTEN BY MOIRA BUFFINI, BASED ON THE NOVEL BY CHARLOTTE BRONTË | WITH MIA WASIKOWSKA, MICHAEL FASSBENDER, JAMIE BELL, JUDI DENCH, ROMY SETTBON MOORE, IMOGEN POOTS, AND SALLY HAWKINS | BBC FILMS/FOCUS FEATURES | 120 MINUTES
BOSTON COMMON + KENDALL SQUARE + SUBURBS

http://criticalconfabulations.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/film-jane-eyre/

Film Review: Jane Eyre

Posted by Julie on March 20, 2011

A Different Jane

Jane and I first became acquainted in 1997. Similarly willful and independent spirits, we became fast, dear friends. In the years to follow, we were inseparable: Ivisited her often and with loving anticipation, and she never failed to comfort me with her empathy and strength.

There were times that she baffled me with her idiosyncrasies, and it felt as though we may have lost our mutual understanding of one another. Once, I remember, she bored me dreadfully with uncharacteristic melodrama. But whenever, with much sadness, I felt the distance widening between us, she would swiftly return and delight me with the beautiful comfort of her steadfast friendship. Jane and I, we were one. She was my second self.

Director Cary Fukunaga’s cinematic adaptation of the beloved Charlotte Brontë masterpeice Jane Eyre possessed an abundant promise. The trailer showcases far-reaching foggy moors; wind-swept, rain-soaked, corseted dresses; and dark, creeping shadows, promising a (literally) haunting, mysterious, and suspenseful melt-your-heart romance. Indeed, cinematographer Adriano Goldman creates a misty, water-colored palette, softening the typically austere Victorian setting to gorgeous effect. These moody, stunning views of English countryside are starkly contrasted by Fukunaga’s infatuation with the hand-held camera: we shakily follow Jane step by step as she walks Thornfield’s lush grounds in contemplation; we interrupt her private thoughts with intrusive close-up after close-up (if I didn’t know any better, I’d think Danny Cohen was out to ruin another film with his manipulative camera work). This Jane Eyre is visually stunning, with a dreamy, romantic quality that tenderly suits the “unearthly” Jane that bewitches the cynical Rochester with her impish charms.

If Fukunaga’s film is your first encounter with Jane, and you were swept away with the lushness of the tender visuals and the swoon-worthy simplicity of the plain-governess-who-impossibly-falls-in-love-with-her-master tale, I hope it has also moved you enough to read Brontë’s beautiful words firsthand. But if Brontë’s gorgeous, feminist prose forever shaped your literary consciousness; if your care-worn copy of the novel is lovingly dog-eared and underlined throughout; if you have, in fact, viewed Jane Eyre as a sympathetic soul since you were a young girl; this review, Dear Reader, is for you.

Having poured over Jane Eyre innumerable times, seen most all of the cinematic adaptations, collected the musical and opera recordings — I admittedly cannot separate the novel from the adaptation, the adaptation from the novel. This either makes me the most ideal of critics, or the most impossible to please, though I like to believer the former. That being said, Fukunaga’s adaptation is not revisionist, nor is it entirely true to its source. From the initial screenshot, he and screenwriter Moira Buffini openly demonstrate this is not going to be the Franco Zeffirelli Jane Eyre (more about that later); instead, we are introduced to Jane’s love-meet with Edward Rochester via flashback from the point of her desertion of him: heartbroken and weary, she wanders the moors in search of shelter and salvation. While not entirely sustained throughout the film, this conceit brings an original angle to the tale, drawing immediate focus to what readers and filmgoers assuredly find the most essential and gripping part of Jane’s life: her tortured love for one Mr. Edward Fairfax Rochester.

To this effect, Mia Wasikowska is perfection as the plain Jane who longs for a man she believes to be out of reach. But as the resolved, moralistic, impossibly strong Jane, Wasikowska falls a bit short; her eyes too easily spill over with tears when informed Rochester has left Thornfield for an indeterminate time, or when observing his easy flirtation with gold-digging socialite Blanche Ingram. Jane, on the outside, is largely stoic and unyielding; Wasikowska brings Jane’s vulnerability and youthful naiveté to the surface, where it rarely should be.

If Wasikowska’s Jane is properly plain, Michael Fassbender’s Rochester is inordinately attractive. When he arrogantly implores of Jane if she “thinks him handsome,” her answer to the negative rings falsely, though it shouldn’t. Rochester, if not entirely unattractive, should at the very least not be a physically appealing figure to Jane, who is attracted to his intellect, not his looks. More significantly, where Rochester should be more than twice Jane’s age, Fassbender barely registers as her elder, exuding a charming boyishness where Rochester should be brooding and gruff, even when employing his dark wit.

It’s the vital danger of Jane and Rochester’s relationship that is most missing here: this is, after all, Victorian England where class and station matter above all else, and their love is a strictly verboten one. Buffini’s slim script cuts the fat from the novel (my apologies, dear Charlotte, but all that God-talk is unnecessary), but in the process it also slims and quickens the development of the characters and their blossoming relationship. Here, it feels as though Jane bewitches Rochester’s horse one moment, and in the next, they are exchanging fervent, forbidden kisses. When Rochester reveals his spiritual connection to Jane (“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…”), it is one of the most gut-wrenchingly romantic passages of the novel; but here, it feels shallow. Fukunaga’s adaptation has not earned those words in all their weight and significance, and so they come off as too-flowery poetry.

This could be too demanding of Mr. Fukunaga and his talented cast, grumbling over missing passages (why does no adaptation ever include the fascinating gypsy scene?), fussing over the tone and delivery of dialogue. Considering the film’s extremely warm critical reception, it should be heartening to know that so many more will now be introduced to this remarkable soul and that her romantic tale continues to move audiences.

Instead, however, I’ll close with these, my favorite adaptations of Jane Eyre:

If you are a Jane Eyre enthusiast, Franco Zeffirelli’s 1996 adaptation is the film for you. Doing what he does best, Zeffirelli takes pains to stay true to the text from moment to moment, to the point that Jane’s well-known appeals to her “Dear Reader” are utilized as expository voice overs as well to maintain some of Brontë’s most beautiful and thematically significant passages. Such authenticity could be dreadfully laborious, but not here: the always brilliant Charlotte Gainsbourg remarkably encapsulates Jane’s moral and intellectual fortitude while shaping her resolve with hints of longing and despair. William Hurt’s Rochester is the moody, bear of a man whose shortness of temper cuts like a knife one moment and softens to a calculating jocularity the next. The disparity in the couple’s age and in looks is spot-on, and their chemistry is alarmingly palpable. This is the dark, sweeping, gothic romance as you imagine it to be.

For those hopeless romantics out there, Paul Gordon and John Caird’s 2000 Broadway musical sets Brontë’s lyrical prose (much of it word-for-word) to swelling chords and dark undertones, heightening both the light and despair of its character’s longings and revelations. This is, after all, what a musical does best: allows its characters to sing what they could never say, and Jane has a tremendous amount of inner monologues that are amazingly suited to the form. It also doesn’t hurt that Rochester is gloriously voiced by brooding baritone, James Barbour.

http://www.peneflix.com/?p=264

EYRE

Recently relishing Stacy Schiff’s Pulitzer Prize winning “Cleopatra” realizing that although attractive, Cleopatra’s compelling magnetism, allure rose from the radiance, brilliance of her mind, not the perfection of her countenance; the greatest men of her time could not rid themselves of her ebullient wit, comprehensive knowledge, sagacity, linguistic skills; she was a woman who knew that long after man’s incapacity to control the “life’ below the toga had withered, the intellect could still be ignited and the potency of its power enflame, entrance them well into their dotage.

There have been many actresses (Joan Fontaine, Charlotte Gainsburg) who have excelled as the hapless “Jane” but when Charlotte Bronte wrote the novel in 1847 she might have envisioned Mia Wasikowska (“Alice in Wonderland” , “The Kids Are All Right”) as the quintessential heroine; a composite of a young woman who championed life’s vicissitudes, protected her steely resolve, knowing that integrity is a gift, a fortress never to be vanquished by the petty, supercilious mores, conventional codes of the times. Wasikowska captures the unencumbered, indomitable spirit of Jane and gives a magnificent, incredulous performance.

Michael Fassbender (“Inglorious Basterds”) as Edward Rochester is equally powerful as the enigmatic, romantically brooding, tortured Mr. Rochester. Fassbender’s portrayal is softer, less intimidating, frightening than Rochesters’ of the past (Orson Welles, William Hurt); he graces the role with levity and gentleness; Edward has been educated and exposed to the darkness and destructiveness concealed behind a mask of daunting beauty; wisdom invades the heart, culminating in a bond that is pungent and glorious; he succumbs to her keen, insightful intelligence and loves unequivocally; love that transcends all stringent dictates of the 19th century.

Conscientious supporting cast : Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax); Jamie Bell (St. John Rivers); Amelia Clarkson (Jane, age 10); Sally Hawkins (Mrs. Reed) shed a gritty didactic message resulting in the ultimate success of “Jane Eyre”.

Lusciously filmed: dilapidated, baronial estates where dread and dampness prevail; smoky mists, masking surprises; sweeping uncompromising terrains, casting a spell over a viewer willing, longing for the hypnotic, transformative effects of a genuinely fine film.

FOUR STARS!!!!

For Now……….Peneflix

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7873152/jfc_movies_review_jane_eyre.html

JFC Movies Review: Jane Eyre
To Eyre is Human; The Film is Divine
Jane F. Carlson
Jane F. Carlson, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Mar 19, 2011 "Contribute content like this. Start Here."

Jane Eyre (**** / ****)
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench
Director: Cary Fukunaga

First it was Alice in Wonderland. Then The Kids Are All Right, and now Jane Eyre. Let's just say that the past twelve months for young Australian actress Mia Wasikowska resembles Aaron Rodgers' stat line from the Super Bowl: three touchdowns and no interceptions.

However, such is the overall impact of Jane Eyre that she's just one part of the reason why it's currently the best film of the year by a considerable margin. The wonderful acting, the costumes, Dario Marianelli's score, the cinematography - I could go on. But it all boils down to the most important thing: respect. Directed by the Bay Area's own Cary Fukunaga, the man behind 2009's remarkable illegal-immigrant drama Sin Nombre, the first cinematic version of the 21st century - and certainly not the last - leaves an indelible yet faithful mark on the 164-year-old source material. Future adaptations will have a near-impossible act to follow.

The script by Moira Buffini successfully adapts Charlotte Bronte's epic 1847 novel into a two-hour production without dumbing it down or alienating those unfamiliar with the book. The astute decision is also made to eschew a linear retelling of the story. Instead, the film begins with a visibly distraught Jane storming out of a large manor and tramping laboriously across the spacious English moors, all while battling the elements. Exhausted and soaked to the bone, she collapses on the doorstep of stick-in-the-mud clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his kindly sisters Diana and Mary (Holliday Grainger and Tamzin Merchant), who give her shelter. This was my favorite part of the novel, and it's a spectacular opening sequence that sets the tone for the rest of the picture, as we're left wondering: Who - or what - is she fleeing from?

Indeed, the story of her turbulent childhood is told in flashbacks while she recuperates, beginning with ten-year-old Jane (a perfectly-cast Amelia Clarkson) living with her loathsome Aunt Reed (Sally Hawkins) at Gateshead Manor. There is a great scene in which one of her horrid cousins bullies her to the point that she snaps and unloads a round of haymakers on him. She is then unceremoniously shipped off to Lowood, a charity school overseen by the equally odious Mr. Brocklehurst (Simon McBurney) and where the rod is definitely not spared. (Before her departure, she gets in a last shot at her aunt: "People think you're good, but you're hardhearted.") At Lowood, Jane befriends the terminally-ill Helen Burns (Freya Parks), who, in a heartwrenching moment, ultimately passes away from consumption in her bed, with Jane at her side. There is frequent intercutting between these scenes and the present Jane at the Rivers', yet it's never a distraction to the narrative.

Fast forward eight years later, and Jane is seen leaving Lowood to take a position as a governess at the massive Thornfield Hall, owned by the wealthy yet unpredictable Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). He is immediately captivated by her sharp wit after she holds her own in fireside chats that evolve into subtle verbal sparring matches. But, as Jane soon learns, Rochester is a man of as many skeletons in his closet as his riches. There are strange cries and things that go bump in the night, a mysterious bedroom conflagration, and a man who suffers a bite wound to his neck.

The exquisite cinematography by Adriano Goldman (Fukunaga's DP on Sin Nombre) makes nearly every shot resemble a painting come to life, which is appropriate as Jane carries herself with the grace of a Degas, while Rochester's internal life is as jumbled as Picasso's Guernica. Equally impressive is the fact that dark interior scenes are lit only by candlelight. When young Jane is made to stand on a chair in front of her peers as unjust punishment while at Lowood, sunlight beams through a window as if it were a beacon of hope. The exterior of Thornfield is as lush and colorful as the inside is labyrinthine and virtually monochromatic.

Keeping in tune with its even-tempered heroine, Fukunaga's Jane Eyre is not an in-your-face film by any means. The Gothic hand is actually downplayed despite the abundance of such content in the trailer. He smartly eschews the melodrama that has plagued past adaptations in favor of keeping the proceedings subtle throughout. Tears fall with the bombast of a pindrop. When someone does raise their voice, you pay attention. While many Bronte fanatics may not agree with this, it accentuates the slowly growing passion between Jane and Rochester.

All of the performances are spot-on, especially the two young leads. Wasikowska (finally playing an age-appropriate Jane) is a mistress of onscreen subtlety, which is often frustratingly dismissed as wooden or lifeless acting. As she effortlessly displayed in Alice, she has an uncanny knack for letting facial expressions speak louder than words, which is why she stole the show amidst Tim Burton's computer-generated histrionics. Here, she strikingly displays Jane's sagacious cogitations, and especially the pangs of sexual yearning never before experienced due to her repressed upbringing, all seemingly without moving a muscle, yet there's no denying the gears are spinning in her head. Her Jane is refreshingly plain, with nary a bit of makeup, and her long hair constricted into a bun.

Fassbender, who gave a striking performance as Bobby Sands in Steve McQueen's Hunger, is perhaps a bit too attractive to play the gruff Rochester, but he more than makes up for it with his piercing eyes and commanding voice, which makes Jane's ability to stand up to her employer more remarkable. (I particularly liked watching Rochester smoke cigars with the quiet intensity of a high-stakes poker game.) The impeccable chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender never feels contrived in any way, especially in the scene where she is hit by Rochester's out-of-the-blue marriage proposal. Meanwhile, Bell is nicely haughty as St. John, who also pursues Jane's affections, while Judi Dench is perfect as Thornfield's loyal yet slightly clueless housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax, who adds quite a few laughs that light up the mood at crucial moments. Hawkins is effectively acidic as Mrs. Reed. Imogen Poots (who, ironically, played Fassbender's love interest in Centurion ) is underused as Rochester's prospective fiancee Blanche Ingram, though she does get a brief musical number.

The only quibble is that the trailer is consequently reduced to a deleted-scenes reel, as a majority of the scenes and dialogue therein were cut from the final print. This may disappoint viewers who wait in vain for such parts to appear in the movie. The decision to also close with an ambiguous ending is frustrating yet necessary. It's as if Fukunaga and crew are saying: If you want to know how it really ends, then read the book.

Even if Jane Eyre had been weaker than what ultimately transpires, it probably would've been the best film anyway by default in a 2011 that has seen me witness some truly awful dreck. But it obviously never needs such a crutch. Just as Rochester ultimately discovers about Jane, it will transfix you quite.

© 2011 Jane F. Carlson

http://thefastertimes.com/film/2011/03/21/jane-eyre-doesnt-need-your-pity/

Film
“Jane Eyre” Doesn’t Need Your Pity
Jonathan Kiefer
March 21, 2011 Jonathan Kiefer

Mia Wasikoska in Jane Eyre Jane Eyre Doesnt Need Your Pity

You would not be wrong to wonder if it’s even possible to get excited for a new movie version of “Jane Eyre” anymore. True, Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel has been adapted into some form of motion picture at least once every decade since 1914. But only now has it been done by a young director whose previous film concerned train-hopping Hondurans sneaking into America and the Mexican gangsters making an already miserable life even harder for them. So there’s that.

For a moment, it was anybody’s guess where filmmaker Cary Fukunaga would go after “Sin Nombre,” his affecting, award-winning 2009 feature debut. Probably nobody would have guessed he’d go headlong into the sooty, bonneted world of Brontë. But maybe it’s not such a stretch. After all, this is a guy who knows from big-screen brooding. Among the many delights of Fukunaga’s new movie is your freedom to disregard how it compares with all previous “Eyre”s. Instead, consider how improbably well “Sin Nombre” has set it up: In that film, a headstrong teenaged displaced illegal immigrant falls for a brooding gangster with a dark past; in this one, a headstrong teenaged displaced-orphan governess falls for a brooding lord with a dark past. How about that? From chugging freight trains to huffing horses, from weatherbeaten railyards to windswept moors, from a goth atmosphere of skeevy gang-initiation rituals to a gothic atmosphere stuffy English manners, maybe it really is all just variations on a single archetype. Who knew?

The most important thing to understand about Jane Eyre is that she’s quite self-possessed given the rotten childhood she’s endured, and the arduous journey that’s led her to live and work at the gloomy estate of one Edward Rochester. This fellow, too, might be called self-possessed, and perhaps also just a tad temperamental. As he and Jane talk to each other, most of the time in beautifully lofty language, they find themselves engaged in a mutually invigorating battle of wills. (The script was intelligently adapted by Moira Buffini, most recently the intelligent adapter of “Tamara Drewe.”) A romance between them should therefore seem inevitable, but also unlikely; in addition to the differences of age and social status, there is also that one rather important something that he’s not telling her. Hint: Is that a voice in her head or in the attic? And which, exactly, would be worse?

That Jane, said to be plain, and Rochester, said (by Jane) to be ugly, are portrayed respectively by the un-plain Mia Wasikowska and the un-ugly Michael Fassbender shouldn’t impugn Fukunaga’s fidelity to the book. You can just take it for granted that these two characters have a long movie history of interesting but technically inaccurate casting: She’s been played by the likes of Joan Fontaine, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Samantha Morton; he by the likes of Orson Welles, William Hurt and Timothy Dalton. What matters most is the rapport between them, and with Wasikowska and Fassbender in the roles, it’s electric.

For any pair of actors, this duo is a strange inheritance. Taking “Jane Eyre” into account along with “Fish Tank” before it, Fassbender might be seen as settling into that peculiar niche, formerly occupied by Jeremy Irons, of the slender suave Englishman who seems always to be having on-screen affairs with teenaged girls. Well, power to him. He sure is good at it. Wasikowska for her part is as steady and alert as ever, delivering exactly the right blend of wisdom and vulnerability in Jane’s most resonant lines, like, “I wish a woman could have action in her life like a man,” and, perhaps more importantly, “I must respect myself.” Having abided Tim Burton’s ultimately shrug-worthy “Alice in Wonderland,” Wasikowska finally has the classic reboot that she deserves.

The supporting cast includes strategic applications of Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins and not least Simon McBurney, a familiar English character actor who in this case has a paradoxically generous way of overacting just enough to set the mood and bring the other performers’ subtleties into sharper relief.

Fukunaga also benefits from his reunion with “Sin Nombre” cinematographer Adriano Goldman, who again shows a keen eye for the inherent expressionism of natural light — another means by which an old story comes newly to life. By being greater than the sum of its parts, this “Jane Eyre” should stay fresh for a while, at least until the next one. And if that doesn’t strike you as exciting, isn’t it at least sort of comforting to think that every generation gets a new cinematic way to cheat on its English homework?

http://my.hsj.org/Schools/Newspaper/tabid/100/view/frontpage/articleid/424598/newspaperid/3039/Jane_Eyre_Reborn.aspx

Jane Eyre Reborn
Sunday, March 20, 2011 By Katey Kalman
Jane Eyre revisits her past at the end of the movie and sparks fly. - Offical Movie Website

The crowd was moved by the scenes being played on the screen. There was laughter, scares, and even crying. Jane Eyre was a hit.

"Jane Eyre is a splendid example of how to tackle the daunting duty of turning a beloved work of classic literature into a movie. Mr. Fukunaga's film tells its venerable tale with lively vigor and an astute sense of emotional detail," states critic A.O. Scott from the New York Times.

Jane Eyre, played by Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland), goes through a rough childhood that defines who she is for the rest of her life. After she has escaped from her hometown, she goes to work as a governess for wealthy Edward Rochester, played by Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds).

In Edward's enormous Thornfield House, Jane is kept in isolation which reminds her of her past. In the house there is a secret that roams the halls at night creating an edgy feeling. Along with the scare though comes romance as Edward has fallen for Jane and tries to win her heart.

As the love plays out between Jane and Edward the secret becomes more intense. Will the secret keep the two apart? Or can they overcome their past?

Jane Eyre kept the audience entertained and moved along quickly.

The audience could feel the emotion being portrayed on the screen and really connected.

"Distinctively original and bewitching," states USA Todays Weekly.

This romantic drama, based on Charlotte Bronte's classic novel, was well done and is worth seeing.

http://brantleypalmer.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/jane-eyre-podcast/

Jane Eyre Podcast

March 21, 2011 by Get Your Film Fix Leave a Comment

Get Your FIlm Fix Ep. 30 Jane Eyre

Jeremy is back! He is back just in time to discuss the adaptation of the literary classic Jane Eyre starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. We then go on to discuss the importance of adapting this novel, as it has been done countless times before. Then it is everyone’s new favorite segment, the fake trailer as we make up a trailer to an upcoming movie. Jeremy then briefly talks about his experience on Contraband. We finish it all off with our top 5 adaptations from novels.

We’re also on iTunes, just search “Get Your Film Fix” in the iTunes store or FOLLOW THIS LINK. Enjoy!

http://itravelbritain.net/?p=415

In the Footsteps of Jane Eyre
March 21, 2011 No Comments by admin

I faintly recall the first time I saw the 1943 adaptation of “Jane Eyre” on late night television in the 1960′s. I was still a young girl but remember being mesmerized by the gothic thriller staring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine, which was based on Charlotte Bronte’s 1847 novel set in Derbyshire, England. The broodingly romantic story about a young governess who falls in love with her wealthy employer captured my young imagination and inspired a lifelong love of British literature.

Over the many decades since the first film version appeared in 1910, there have reportedly been over 30 film and television adaptations of “Jane Eyre,” the latest of which premiered on March 13, 2011 (on only four screens in NY and LA) and expanded to select theatres in the U.S. on March 18. When I read in the newspaper that the film would be featured at the artsy Dallas Angelika, I wasted no time in making “Spring Break” plans with my daughter for a “girls’ day out” at the movies.

The film did not disappoint. I enjoyed director Cary Fukunaga’s elegant adaption and was intrigued by screenwriter Moira Buffini’s idea of telling the story in flashback. Mia Wasilowska as Jane Eyre, Michael Fassbender as Edward Rochester, and Judi Dence as Mrs. Fairfax brought fresh and solid performances to their respective roles (although I overheard some theatergoers remark that Fassbender was “too handsome” for Rochester, a thought that I entertained as well).

Did I enjoy the 2011 version more than the 1943 film? I enjoyed both adaptations on their individual merits since they each provided their own emphasis. However, the most recent version better captured the windswept Derbyshire scenery which itself served as a film character, with its misty moors and gothic impressions.

Much of the 2011 production was filmed on location in Derbyshire with several stately homes and dramatic regional landscapes prominently featured. Derbyshire film locations included: Haddon Hall, Chatsworth House, the Derbyshire Dales, Froggatt village, and Fox House in Longshaw near Sheffield.

If the newest adaptation inspires you to explore Mr. Rochester’s enchanted Thornfield Hall, you will want to head for Haddon Hall in Bakewell, Derbyshire. The fortified medival manor which served as Thornfield dates from the 12th century. It is also set amongst the rolling countryside of the Peak District National Park, one of the UK’s most beautiful areas. Film producers have long been aware of Haddon Hall’s charms with recent productions including “The Other Boleyn Girl” and “Elizabeth” in addition to “Jane Eyre.”

Chatsworth House, which was used to film some of the exterior shots (including the memorable scene where Rochester first encounters Jane), has long been a popular destination for visitors [with its stately home and manicured gardens]. This vast private country house, the largest in England, has been occupied by the Dukes of Devonshire for centuries. Among Chatsworth’s most famous guests was Mary Queen of Scots who stayed as both a guest and as a prisoner during her visits from 1573 to 1582.

If you enjoyed the film’s dramatic landscapes, you’ll want to include a visit to the Derbyshire Dales and explore the limestone valleys, rugged moorland, and greystone villages that characterize the area. The region offers a wealth of opportunities for walking, rock climbing, and cycling whilst allowing visitors to draw inspiration from the incredible scenery.

Travel to Derbyshire: East Midlands Trains from London St. Pancras International take about 2.5 hours for travel to Derby or Sheffield, with regional services to neighboring towns.

I would be interested in hearing your opinions about the numerous adaptations of “Jane Eyre”. Which one is your favourite and why?