Top News
WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT MICHAEL-AN AWARD WINNING ACTOR

Congratulations to the cast and crew of "12 Years a Slave" winning an Oscar for Best Picture

Michael is currently filming "MacBeth"

Watch "12 Years A Slave" and "Frank" in theaters

Watch "The Counselor" and "12 Years A Slave" on DVD available now

Michael is set to star and produce on a film version of the video game "Assassin's Creed"

Completed projects: X-Men, Untitled Malik project

Upcoming projects Assassin's Creed, Prometheus 2, MacBeth,and more!

Header credit here

MFmultiply's Disclaimer


Order region 1 dvds-Amazon store

Order region 2-UK dvds-Amazon Shoppe

Please check the calender for films on TV, Theater, or dvd releases
August 2019
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Calendar Calendar


Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Page 4 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:52 am

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2011-03-24/film/jane-eyre-cary-fukunaga-s-version-stresses-the-pursuit-of-independence/

Jane Eyre: Cary Fukunaga's version stresses the pursuit of independence
By Karina Longworth Thursday, Mar 24 2011

If Jane Eyre is not the greatest of the Great Books with a permanent position on required-reading lists, it might be the most frequently filmed: At least ten cinematic versions of the story have been made dating back to the dawn of the silent era — more if you count made-for-TV adaptations and loose glosses such as Jacques Tourneur's I Walked With a Zombie.

Starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Sally Hawkins, and Jamie Bell. Directed by Cary Fukunaga. Written by Moira Buffini. Based on the novel by Charlotte Brontë. 115 minutes. Rated PG-13.
Related Content

Considering the glut of Jane Eyres available to anyone with a Netflix account, there might be no more compelling reason for this new version of the story — directed by Cary Fukunaga and starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender — than timing. In 1996, when Franco Zeffirelli had the last big-screen go at Charlotte Brontë's novel, the Merchant Ivory era of prestige period-pic catnip for Academy voters and AP English students was just past its peak; 15 years later, if there's anything hotter in Hollywood than dull British respectability, it's gothic romances about teen girls.

The moment might be right to cash in on Jane Eyre's blend of girl-to-woman rites of passage, supernatural/psychological paranoia, tragic love, and English accents, but Fukunaga's film is anything but trendy. Rather than Twilight-izing a classic tale — as Catherine Hardwicke appears to have done with Red Riding Hood, which also opened recently — Fukunaga has made his Jane Eyre an intimate, thoughtful epic, anchored by strong lead performances and the gorgeous, moody 100-shades-of-gray cinematography of Adriano Goldman.

Fukunaga (whose only previous feature is the 2009 Sundance Prize-winning Sin Nombre) fragments the narrative, introducing us to Jane (Wasikowska) as a young woman run ragged, fleeing an unspecified threat. She is taken in by young clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and nursed back to health by his sisters; from there, Jane flashes back to her beginnings. Setting up Jane's tale as a mystery — what was she running from, and why? — Fukunaga skips back and forth across years at the speed of memory. This lends an urgency to character-driven vignettes that demonstrate how Jane's identity has been shaped through hardships: the petty cruelty and eventual abandonment by her aunt (Sally Hawkins), Jane's guardian after her parents die; the cherished female friend who dies in her arms at charity school; and, finally, the loneliness of life as governess to Adele, a French orphan who lives in a spooky country house alone but for servants and occasional visits from her ostensible caretaker, the mysterious Mr. Rochester (Fassbender).

It's in the latter phase that Jane longingly states what Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini have isolated as one of the story's key themes: "I wish a woman could have action in her life, like a man." In her station, the best she can hope for is action through a man — so when Rochester begins calling her to join him for fireside chats, it upends Jane's world. Fukunaga never overplays Jane's sexual awakening, allowing it instead to become evident through her restless distraction. Even after a real romance with Rochester begins, Jane is ever conscious of the social strata and years that separate her and her beloved; their union feels "unreal," every moment of bliss tinged with paranoia. (The brilliantly evocative sound design deepens the sense of the unknown lurking in every scene, from wind through a chimney to thunder rumbling under a first kiss.)

Jane Eyre hits its glorious gothic peak with Jane in flight from that romance — alone in a storm in a deserted field, the pain of having opened her heart only to have it broken twinned with literal sickness resulting from "exposure." Though she has hit rock bottom, it's this "action" that will ultimately lead Jane to what she's been looking for. Even as it romanticizes agony, Fukunaga's Jane Eyre plays as a correction to the Twilight series — in which a teenage girl idolizes mystically powerful boys — arguing that love, in its perfect state, is a meeting between equals. Using Brontë's text as the basis for an inquiry into free will versus servitude, Fukunaga mounts a subtly shaded yet emotionally devastating examination of what it really means to choose one's own way.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:52 am

http://leahmiller.typepad.com/ramblings/2011/03/jane-eyre.html

jane eyre.

I recently saw the new version of Jane Eyre, starring Mia Wasikowska, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, and Michael Fassbender. I loved it! I had never read the book by Charlotte Bronte, or seen other adaptations, so this was my first delve into the life of Miss Eyre. I really like the idea of doing more formal reviews on this blog, and I am going to set up a format starting now that will hopefully help to provide the review with some sugar and spice. Ooh, and maybe some of everything nice!

Visuals:

I thought the cinematography and editing were amazing. The movie is really a work of art. I would love to see some of those moments as still photographs. The cinematographer was Adriano Goldman and he is exceptional. I would love to see more of his artistic ventures.

Jane_Eyre_710895a

Beautiful shot of Jane on the run. Love the tree.

Story:

I never knew what Jane Eyre was about, and I was pleasantly surprised. I loved the plot-line! It was very layered and interesting and it was fascinating to learn about life in that time period. It was slightly slow in the beginning, but not terribly so, but the last 40 minutes or so really picked up. I think I would like to read the original now. We read Wuthering Heights, by her sister Emily Bronte, in English class, and I struggled through that. I quite enjoyed the story, but the pace and the language were a little too thick for me. I will definitely try to tackle Jane Eyre, though. I am not going down without a fight!

Acting:

This cast was amazing! I have always loved Mia Wasikowska, however hard it may be to say/remember her last name. She was awesome in Alice in Wonderland, and I looooooved her in The Kids Are Alright. She was perfect as Jane, and I cannot wait to see what's next for her.

I love that Jamie Bell was in it, because he is Billy Elliot from the movie! He's so grown up now! He was superb in this movie, because I loved him and felt for him in the beginning, but by the end, I hated him and thought he was scummy. Great acting.

The girl who played young Jane was really talented. Her name is Amelia Clarkson, and I definitely can see a bright future for her. *SPOILER ALERT* The scene where she falls asleep next to her dying friend was so moving and her response to being carried away was gut-wrenching.

Judi Dench was flawless, as per usual. I just wanted her to be my grandmother. She's awesome. Michael Fassbender was good. Nothing too extraordinary, in my opinion but good for the part. There were moments when he was the spitting image of Ewan McGregor, and I would silently freak out. Ewan has a very special place in my heart because of the glory that is Moulin Rouge.

Screen shot 2011-03-23 at 11.19.44 AM

Doesn't he look JUST LIKE Ewan McGregor? Ahh!

Writing:

The writing was awesome. I don't know how much, if any, came straight from Charlotte, but her clever ideas are definitely there. Lots of snappy, subtle, intelligent back-and-forth dialogue that I loved. Lots of interesting views on the world also. Jane was very interesting and smart in her responses to questions. Loved it.

Whole Package:

I am very satisfied with this movie. I recommend everyone go see it. It's not really the kind of movie I want to see over and over but it's definitely worth a trip to the theater. I give it 4.2 stars out of 5.

Jane eyre 2011 poster

Love this poster. Very pleasing to the eye. Love the graphics and the photos and the font and the colors and everything about it!

How was that review? Did you agree, disagree? Get inspired to head out to the nearest movie theater? Was my format good? Should I have included more details or sub-headings? Feedback is yummy!

xoxoleah

Posted at 12:15 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:54 am

http://www.brilliantmagazine.com/?p=10359

No Plain Jane: The New Classic Enthralls
Mar 23rd, 2011 | By lance

Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have our first Oscar contender for the 2012 race. Not only that, but also for many Oscars. At least seven nominations is our prediction for talent, art direction, cinematography and so many more for the new Focus Features release, Jane Eyre. And, for a retelling of a classic love tale.

In a dynamic new cinematic rendition of the classic novel, director Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) and screenwriter Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) weave a contemporary immediacy into Charlotte Brontë’s timeless, classic story. Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds) star in the lead roles of the romantic drama, the heroine of which continues to inspire new generations of devoted readers and viewers. It’s also just as strong as the original 1944 film version starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine.

In the 19th Century-set story, Jane Eyre (played by Wasikowska) suddenly flees Thornfield Hall, the vast and isolated estate where she works as a governess for Adele, a child under the custody of Thornfield’s brooding master, Edward Rochester (Fassbender). The awe-inspiring residence – and Rochester’s own imposing nature – have tested her normally strong resilience. With nowhere else to go, she is extended a helping hand by clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell of Focus’ The Eagle) and his family. As she recuperates in the Rivers’ Moor Housem she looks back upon the tumultuous events that led to her escape and Eyre wonders if the past ever truly stays in the past. Spoiler alert: wherever you go, there you are… especially with one’s past.

Michael Fassbender

At aged 10, the orphaned Jane (played by Amelia Clarkson) is mistreated and then cast out of her childhood home Gateshead by her cruel aunt, Mrs. Reed (Golden Globe Award winner Sally Hawkins). Consigned to the charity school Lowood, Jane encounters further harsh treatment but receives an education and meets Helen Burns (Freya Parks), a poor child who impresses Jane as a soulful and contented person. The two become firm friends. When Helen falls fatally ill, the loss devastates Jane, yet strengthens her resolve to stand up for herself and make the just choices in life.

As a teenager, Jane arrives at the grand Thornfield where she is treated with kindness and respect by housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Academy Award winner Judi Dench). Eyre’s interest is piqued by Rochester, who engages her in games of wit and storytelling, and divulges to her some of his innermost thoughts. But his dark moods are troubling to Jane, as are strange goings-on in the house – especially the off-limits attic. She dares to intuit a deep connection with Rochester, and she is not wrong; but once she uncovers the terrible secret that he had hoped to hide from her forever, she flees, finding a home with the Rivers family. But once St. John Rivers makes Jane a surprising proposal, she realizes that she must return to Thornfield – to secure her own future and finally, to conquer what haunts both her and Rochester.

Surprising contemporary for such a prim tale for love, morality and the pursuit of happiness, you;ll be astonished at how fresh the pre-Edwardian prose is to the modern ear. Run, don’t walk to see this fine film which opens this Friday, March 25th.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:58 am

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/screen/Not-Another-Remake-of-emJane-Eyreem.html

Not Another Remake of Jane Eyre...
By Sean Burns
Posted Mar. 23, 2011

C-

Memo to Hollywood: There are other books.

By my count there have been at least 16 big-screen adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, as well as another dozen or so made for TV. The tale has been prequel-ized and sequel-ized several times over, most memorably in Jean Rhys’ wowza Wide Sargasso Sea (which scored its own naughty NC-17 adaptation back in 1993, plus a slightly classier BBC translation in 2006). Jane Eyre has spawned ballets, operas, a symphony and even a comic book. I’d also be derelict in my critical duties if I didn’t mention Val Lewton’s and Jacques Tourneur’s 1943 take on the material: I Walked With A Zombie.

With these iconic roles already assayed by Orson Welles, Joan Fontaine, Colin Clive, Elizabeth Taylor, George C. Scott, Susannah York, William Hurt, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Anna Paquin, Samantha Morton, Ciaran Hinds, Timothy Dalton and even Andrea Martin and Joe Flaherty on SCTV, is there anything more that could possibly be gleaned from spending yet another couple hours with Jane and Mr. Rochester?

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga’s 2011 take is dutiful, for the most part adequate and, as far as I can see, has absolutely no compelling reason to exist. Scripted by Moira Buffini, who last year penned Stephen Frears’ dreadful countryside farce Tamara Drewe , the movie hits every expected CliffsNotes highlight, streamlining the story but offering no fresh insight or contemporary resonance—which I foolishly assumed was the reason artists revisited classic works in the first place.

Fukunaga helmed 2008’s gritty immigration drama Sin Nombre , which struck this viewer as another one of those MTV music videos for poverty that were all the rage back in the City Of God/Slumdog Millionaire era. He initially attempts to shake up the text with some rough-hewn naturalism, fixating on the Derbyshire landscapes and overplaying the miserable weather. The shots are handheld and often underexposed, announcing from the outset that this isn’t your mom’s Jane Eyre .

Except really, it is. Once you look past the shaky cameras and ugly costumes, there’s nothing new. We begin with young orphaned Jane (deftly played by Amelia Clarkson) facing a litany of abuse and being locked in the red room by nasty Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins, temperamentally a very long way from her turn in Happy-Go-Lucky ). Things go from bad to worse when Jane’s shipped off to the Lowood School, where she watches her best friend die of typhus.

Upon her eventual graduation from this miserable pit, Jane lands a job as governess at Thornfield Hall. She also appears to have misplaced her personality somewhere amid all these expository flashbacks. Clarkson plays the young Jane as a raging spitfire, with the precocious guile of a Manny & Lo -era Scarlett Johansson (if you can remember that brief period before she started acting with her curves). But, replaced by It Girl Mia Wasikowska for the adult segments, Jane becomes inert. Staring vacantly into space and offering a single facial expression that indicates bewilderment, it’s a drastically different performance than the one we were watching before. It’s also a dull one.

Luckily, Michael Fassbender is there to liven things up as the moody Mr. Rochester. Wearing some extremely unfortunate, pubic-looking sideburns, this wry Irish actor offers a less operatically tormented Rochester than Welles’ legendary turn, instead playing up the character’s lazy contempt for everyone in his company. He’s perpetually in a snit, with a devastating quip for every occasion, and it’s a treat to watch Fassbender thawing into his unexpected feelings for this mouthy governess.

If only Jane were as mouthy as he claims. Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre quickly becomes one of those movies where the supporting characters spend the majority of their screen time telling the lead how great she is, without any of those admirable traits being visible to the viewer. Judi Dench is on hand to shovel heaps of exposition and to compliment Jane at every turn. Billy Elliot’s Jamie Bell appears, smitten with what he calls “her spirit” and gets stranded in the kind of role Colin Firth used to play 15 years ago, back when he was every woman’s second choice.

Wasikowska, who also appeared in The Kids Are All Right and that dire Alice In Wonderland thing, has a sizable critical fanbase, but I’m baffled by her appeal. There’s none of the backbone and fortitude we keep hearing that Jane has in spades. For the most part she just blandly stands around, suffering from Fukunaga’s ugly natural lighting and deliberately drab color scheme.

Perhaps Amelia Clarkson will be old enough to finish the job as the adult Jane when the inevitable remake comes around in another five or six years.

Director: Cary Fukunaga
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender and Jamie Bell
Running time: 104 minutes
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:02 am

http://misssylviadrake.livejournal.com/43124.html

The latest Jane Eyre

* Mar. 22nd, 2011 at 8:08 AM

Jane Austen
Dear friends and readers,

Do not miss the new Jane Eyre. Even if you've seen as many versions as I have (that's many, maybe all available on DVD -- see On Never Tiring of Jane Eyre). And even if you've not seen that many -- Jane Eyre, 2011. The director (Cary Fukunaga) knows how many times this film has been made. And he manages surprises: : it begins with Jane's flight from Rochester & works its way back there 3/4s of the way through.

Mia Wasikowsa as Jane fleeing Rochester: near opening of film

He really gets the violence of the book into the film. He doesn't mince injustice and when a slap happens or beating you are allowed to feel at least the first blow. After a while you begin to feel suspense and can be startled. He relies to some extent on your having gone before: so he offers epitomizing scenes. I wept at the last. It really was a minimal short version of all those long final poignant reunions -- complete with one version of the typical wry witticism of Jane. It was not so much a scene as an allusion to a scene he would have done had he had the time. But what is offered is often done top-notch with total seriousness.

The biggest surprise was the build up of Rivers (Jamie Bell): the actor got second billing or third.

Jamie Bell as Rivers part of the presiding spirit over the flashback mode in which the story is unravelled

Picture it: the film begins with Jane running away; after each flashback (some long, some short), we come back to Jane and Rivers. It's with Rivers and his sisters at dinner and during Rivers' proposal Jane utters her (not very) feminist talk. The audience appeared usually not to have read the book. They responded to some of the lines as new (different ones were chosen than used to be -- this is like the recent Austen adaptations). There were gasps as if someone was surprised at a literal turn of events. So this will be Jane Eyre for this generation (or 5 years). I did think the audience was led to take the Bronte view of Rivers: wrong for Jane but religion as a topic was marginalized and instead we were in a three way triangle.

As in the Jane Eyre most recently (screenplay, Sandy Welch, director Susannah White, BBC mini-series, with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson) an attempt was made to make Bertha less a monster, but the language used was the condemning misogynistic type of the book.

The family group was emphasized in White's production

Flashbacks within flashbacks (but curious, no voice-over that I can remember); gothic archetypal scenes that top what you have usually seen. Money spent. Use of exciting zoom in and out shots, framings. Shameless use of vatic language -- the actors had a problem here.

So we come to flaws: There just isn't the time to build that central relationship of depth interaction between Rochester and Jane that is the core of the best movies found in the 1973 [written by Robin Chapter, with Michael Jayston, Sorah Cusack as Rochester and Jane); perhaps the best at this development is the long mini-series, the 1983 Jane Eyre (screenplay Alexander Baron, Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke as Rochester and Jane)

Timothy Dalton giving Zelah Clarke only minimal wages so that she will return to Thornfield after visiting Reed Hall

-- and somehow reached by Hinds and Morton in their brilliant acting of Jane and Rochester (1997, a movie intended for cinema, Robert Young directed) in their short film.

Ciarhan Hinds confiding vulnerable feelings to Samantha Morton

But the male actor was up to it as William Hurt (1996, Zeffirelli directing, Charlotte Gainsbourg Jane) was not; Hurt was so embarrassed by the role he didn't know what to do ... ) It helped he is not famous (Michael Fassbender). I didn't know his name. He is not handsome. Ma Wasikowsa looked the role. I've seen her before but my 20ish year old daughter (she has read the book), Izzy assured me Wasikowsa is not well known, not "famous" as famous.

Fassbender in a typically withdrawn vehement moment

As in a couple of these commercial films Mrs Fairfax is made far more central, and given knowledge and made part of a penultimate scene she has not in the book? I've wondered if this is sop to something conventional: a pro-family note. Judi Dench tried her best, but the role is thankless and seemed wasting time (and time was so precious) -- the director over built it because it was her I thought.

Judi Dench as Mrs Fairfax: she did look too old for the role, but did it well.

They omitted Miss Temple -- well she was there, but given no lines and hardly a presence. Now it is true that the probability is such a good woman who not be or stay like that at Lowood, but it is a loss. She too is often omitted in the film theatre commercial films. (Telling I think -- Amanda Root was given the part in the Susannah White recent mini-series JE.) Lowood was foreshortened too. There was Helen and she died but it took less than 5 minutes and the stress was the cruel humiliating punishment and Jane's being carried away: not the deaths from typhus. They cut back on the Ingram (Imogen Poots -- this was a part BBC clique product): Izzy said to a modern woman or girl it is ugly that he teases Jane and it would make him look awful, that's why. But I saw a cutting back on women full stop. The could not omit Mrs Reed and Sally Hawkins who is a marvelous actress was there as Mrs Reed. She is skinny enough to be heroines still and there she was the dragon lady. She was not given enough screen time though. So my comment on the build up of Mrs Fairfax is it was a choice from priorities. Dench is a box-office star.

Basically, the feel is an elimination of women. Rivers' Diana not there; his sisters ciphers -- even though the screenplay is by a woman: Moira Buffini. It's not just a stripped down Jane; it's a hollowed out one for a triangle of Jane and Rochester, Jane and Rivers

Well, my daughter and I mean to go again if it comes to us in our area. So you see we liked it Smile She did look mesmerized A young graduate student friend in English and his (his) friends went -- were at the same showing! I do not live in a small town (this was a DC theater, an art-y one). The theater was nearly full. Nearly all seats taken.

Ellen
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:06 am

http://vitamindaily.com/content/eyre-du-temps

March 23rd, 2011
Eyre du Temps

We’ve never found babysitting to be much of a good time, but somehow Charlotte Brontë’s famous novel, Jane Eyre, made the life of a governess sound awfully romantic.

In the latest film version of the quintessential childhood reading-list tome, Alice in Wonderland’s Mia Wasikowska plays the famously plain Jane while Michael Fassbender offers a crush-worthy performance as the damaged Mr. Rochester (Dylan McKay’s got nothing on him).

However, the real star of the film may be the breathtaking cinematography directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, whose vision of the stunningly somber British moors is as haunting as Rochester’s first bride.

Reader, imagine how messed up we were after watching The Sound of Music.

In theatres March 25, http://focusfeatures.com/jane_eyre
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:12 am

http://getyourfilmfix.podbean.com/2011/03/21/ep-30-jane-eyre/

Ep. 30 (Jane Eyre)

Mar 21st, 2011 by getyourfilmfix

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.

Listen Now:
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:45 pm

http://moviestvandbooksohmy.blogspot.com/

Saturday, March 26, 2011
Starting with Jane Eyre - the best adaptation yet

My mind has melted...I just watched the latest movie adaptation of Jane Eyre and all I could think was, I'd better write down my thoughts before I forget them all as I inevitably read through and gobble up all the reviews I have been avoiding online (so don't proceed until you've seen it - you've been warned!). I decided to start a blog again only because I'm tired of finding the same kind of reviews online. And it would be nice to see if there are like-minded people out there who obsess over the same details I obsess over when watching literary adaptations like this one. Before I begin, yes, I loved Cary Fukunaga's adaptation for so many reasons...but I should begin at the beginning of my adventures with this novel.

I remember reading Jane Eyre for the first time in elementary school. I don't exactly remember what grade I was in, but I thought I was in for something akin to Oliver Twist, another orphan tale of woe. And how wrong I was! I instantly identified with Jane - not that I was ever bullied by cousins or put in a reform school - but I admired how she stood up for herself in spite of her appearance and her position, no matter what. I do remember hating Rochester at first - and I actually wished that Jane had gone to India with St. John! But as soon as I re-read it (and I did so immediately), I ended up falling in love with Rochester because of his love for Jane. He saw what no one else could see, even as a blind man at the end.

As I re-read Jane Eyre for high school and for college (I even read a French translation just for the fun of reading a familiar text in another language), I became a little disenchanted with the novel. It just didn't hold my interest as much as Wuthering Heights or Jane Austen's novels. Charlotte Brontë famously accused Austen's novels of lacking proper passion, and after reading this, it sort of prejudiced me against her a little because I loved Jane Austen so much.

But this movie brought back all my affection for Charlotte Brontë and why I loved this book so much before. It was not only a fresh perspective but a new structure. I have pretty much seen all the various adaptations...Rochester played by Orson Welles (the worst!), Timothy Dalton (was my favorite until now), William Hurt (almost as bad as Welles), Toby Stephens and many others. In every single movie adaptation of this novel without exception, the movie begins with a young Jane Eyre. I was pleasantly surprised to see that this latest adaptation decided to start in a different place and automatically I got what the screenwriter and director was trying to do. Instead of the novel being a memoir that Jane is writing in the future...the movie is putting the audience into Jane's perspective and we see her life play out from childhood as she reflects on how she got to the Rivers' home.

When I saw Helen Burns at the Lowood School, I couldn't help but remember that recently departed Elizabeth Taylor had played her in the Joan Fontaine/Orson Welles adaptation. The scene between young Jane and Helen was wonderful and there was just enough time spent at Lowood in the movie to get a sense of how deprived of affection Jane's childhood was, but how that all-too-brief friendship and kindness from Jane prevented her from becoming the same as the other hardened teachers at the Lowood school. There's that last eye contact that she makes with one of the teachers who seemed to take a sadistic delight in beating Helen earlier - and for the briefest of moments, you could see a glimmer of jealousy that Jane was leaving that depressing school behind forever.

Having seen Michael Fassbender in the BBC series Hex and the movie Inglourious Basterds, I was really curious to see how he would do as Rochester. I've always thought he was dazzlingly handsome but in an ethereal way - maybe it's those beautiful eyes - and he definitely did not disappoint in this movie. I think he's a total chameleon...I remember getting both creeped out and drawn in by his character Azazeal in Hex. Here, he is just so intense and haunting - he puts as much of a spell on Jane as Jane puts on him. I didn't think anyone could best Timothy Dalton's performance but Michael Fassbender's performance was so captivating and mesmerizing. There's that scene when he is thanking her for saving his life and their faces get so close, you feel sure they are going to kiss...and then Jane pulls away.
I loved seeing how Jane fantasized about his coming to her - and eventually her hearing his voice in the winds sweeping across the moors. I visited the Brontë parsonage nine years ago and walked along the moors and heard the howling wind - I remember it sounding human at times - and I liked how the movie made Rochester's voice calling her name sound almost natural. No cheesy effects like how A&E superimposed Colin Firth's face onto the landscape when Elizabeth Bennet thought of Darcy in Pride & Prejudice. I did silently hope that they would not maim Fassbender too much at the end of the movie...and thankfully they only gave him a beard and no missing ears (will have to re-read book and see if I'm misremembering Rochester's disfigurement).

And I can't believe I haven't yet commented on Mia Wasikowska's performance! When I first heard that she was cast, I thought it was a brilliant choice. I first saw her in the HBO series In Treatment and I remember being blown away - I was thinking, "Who is she? She is going to go on and do amazing things!" And she was great in Alice in Wonderland and The Kids Are All Right, but she was so impressive here. The subtlety of her performance was totally in line with the naturalism of the whole production. There is a scene where she blushes and it just feels so real. I could really feel how Rochester falls for her almost from their first meeting. I was always surprised by Rochester's proposal, kind of like I was first surprised by Darcy's proposal in P&P. But even as there were rumors of his engagement to the vapid Blanche, it was clear in his manner and looks at Jane that he was smitten and that there was no other possibility than his marrying Jane. And it was so much fun watching Jane realize this truth!

More than anything, it was so nice to see them happy even as I knew that it wasn't going to last and that the madwoman in the attic would come to remind them of the reality they had yet to face. I liked that they didn't draw out this part of the story too much, and that they did try to emphasize how he was treating Bertha more kindly than most would in his position. Despite his insulting words about Adele, it is clear that he does love her though perhaps not as much as he loves Jane. This Rochester has a much more believable heart than any other adaptation - and you could see why he was trying so hard to fool himself into marrying with unfinished business weighing on him - he saw Jane as a sort of salvation from the miserable life he was leading...stuck in a hopeless marriage, stuck with an ex-lover's child, being sought after by all the eligible single women (or at least one) in the area. Here was a woman not only demanding to be treated as an equal, but also deserving to be one and to put him in his place.

The direction and especially Dario Marianelli's score were beautifully done...after I post this, I'm going to iTunes to buy it. It really helps bring in that haunting, sombre feeling that is set up in the movie. I loved how natural the lighting seemed...all of the candlelight and how dark it really was when a candle would go out. Also, I couldn't help but feel that when Rochester lit that fire for Jane, that it was a sort of foreshadowing of what was to come.

I can't wait to see it again!
Posted by Romantique at 1:28 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:49 pm

http://cinema-holic.livejournal.com/183541.html

04:58 pm March 26th, 2011

cinema_holic
[info]cinema_holic

Jane Eyre

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B-

Only in the movies is an actress like the luminescent Mia Wasikowska rendered "plain" simply by giving taking away any makeup, giving her a matronly hairdo, and dressing her in comparatively drab clothing. The plainness of the title character in Jane Eyre is supposed to be a key point of the story -- as is the supposed lack of handsomeness by her would-be suitor (and employer), Rochester -- who happens to be played by the very handsome Michael Fassbender.

Therein lies the greatest problem with the 2011 version of Jane Eyre -- the latest among many. Although in the interest of full disclosure I will admit that I've never seen any previous version (nor have I read the novel on which they are all based), it does make one wonder what the point of it is. The best thing that comes to mind is the endeavor to bring the story to our current youngest generation who might otherwise dismiss other versions as too old to be worthy; one could argue, actually, that it's a fairly good reason.

And this Jane Eyre, though by no means without its flaws, is a fairly good movie if judged on its own merits -- which is the only way a movie should be judged anyway. The first step toward accepting it as it is, though, is simply to pretend its leads are not as attractive as they really are.

They're good at what they do, at least. Wasikowska may not be convincingly plain, but she's convincing in virtually every other way; it's due to her that we care about her character and what happens to her. The same goes for Fassbender the alternately guarded and playful Rochester, who becomes Jane's employer when Jane is hired as a fresh graduate of an abusive school as governess to his little girl.

Much of the first half of Jane Eyre, however, is devoted to somewhat clumsily stitched-together flashbacks, both to Jane's orphaned childhood under the guardianship of an aunt, who falsely accuses her of lying. It's because the aunt is eager to be rid of Jane that she sends her away to school, where we are to believe they plan to wrench the evil out of her. Her time at the school is clearly riddled with plight, but it's a plight that's brought up and then only barely touched on again through the rest of the film.

The bulk of the story concerns the relationship between Jane and Rochester, which is ultimately presented as the now-cliche question of are-we-friends-or-are-we-lovers. The two develop an emotional bond, particularly when Jane saves Rochester from the fire in his burning bedroom. But it is on this same evening that she -- and we -- begin to learn that this house she's in harbors some dark secrets.

There are moments when Jane Eyre can't seem to decide between being a period drama or a thriller, though most of the time it leans heavily toward the former. The housekeeper is played by Judi Dench, a character who only thinks she knows Rochester extremely well. Dench's presence always elevates anything she's in, but not even she can make her particular character seem vital, which is too bad.

That said, this Jane Eyre remains generally enjoyable, and certainly a pleasure to look at. Not only are the actors prettier than they profess themselves to be, but the scenery surrounding the places in which they live is often beautifully shot. That kind of makes this a movie featuring pretty people pretending to be plain while they live in lovely surroundings pretending to be drab, but at least they command attention, albeit occasionally for the wrong reasons. As period films go, this one is far from the best ever made but, thanks to the actors in particular, is still a worthy contribution to the genre.

Overall: B
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:50 pm

http://havingsaidthat.net/2011/03/26/review-jane-eyre/

Review: Jane Eyre

Cary Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre is a beautifully crafted and well executed film whose subject matter will resonate wonderfully with fans of the genre and even entertain many that don’t sit so well with classic English romances.

The film follows the title character from her privileged but torturous beginnings in a wealthy relatives care before moving on to a violent boarding school and finally ending up in the home of Mr. Rochester. Jane is set up in Rochester’s home, which he rarely visits, to be the governess for Rochester’s young French ward Adele. When Rochester finally arrives to the story he and Jane begin to form an unlikely friendship and Jane’s feelings are sent spinning as she tries to figure out how to handle her growing attraction for a rich man who is actively courting another woman. Added to all of this, strange instances have always surrounded Jane Eyre and while in the Rochester home a number of odd events arise.

First and foremost, Fukunaga’s film is technically superb and stunning to look at. The score is marvelous, the cinematography beautiful using almost entirely natural light, and the actors are across the board fantastic. Fukunaga is one to watch out for as this is only his second feature film and his technical hand has improved her from Sin Nombre. Sadly, this film didn’t engross me nearly as much as Sin Nombre did but I don’t think that is at any fault of Fukunaga and his team. The film is about as engaging as the source material could probably ever be to me but I was never sucked in by the deliberate pacing and story unfolding.

It is again no fault of Fukunaga and the actors, I think it more stems from my hope that the film would have had more of a suspense and horror twist to it than it did. Fukunaga nails the scenes that he goes for suspense with ease, affectively creating some very tense moments using the dark reality of the times to full effect, but there are only a couple of moments sprinkled along the way. I think the viewer had a right to expect more as well as there is a scene very early on that has a very deliberate supernatural effect that is never alluded to again. Jane hears voices at times as well and that isn’t full explored either. I did like how the events at the Rochester house were resolved but again I wish they had mixed in one or two more beats surrounding the situation. My disappointment with the lack of suspense doesn’t mean it didn’t help elevate the film’s material though, as I think these moments made the film far more enjoyable for a non-fan of the genre.

The actors in the film are quite great though and the film really jumps to another level when Michael Fassbender shows up as Rochester. He is cunning, handsome, kind of a jerk, but you can’t help but be mesmerized in him. You can see why Jane would fall for such a commanding individual as Fassbender continues to show that he is one of the best working actors around right now. This is not to take anything away from Mia Wasikowska who delivers another great turn as the title character and she has no problem shouldering the wait of the film on her shoulders. She creates a confident and powerful female lead that we rarely see from this era of history on film. Jamie Bell pops up in the latter parts of the film and works wonderfully as a symbol of inherent male oppression of the times that allows for Jane to solidify her individuality. Sally Hawkins is memorable in her brief few scenes but that is to be expected from her nowadays. Judi Dench is likable and fine as always as Mrs. Fairfax, Rochester’s head caretaker, and she and Wasikowska work wonderfully together. Also turning in some memorable work is Romy Settbon Moore as Adele, Jane’s student, as she makes the most of every time she graces the screen.

In the end, Jane Eyre is a fine picture that will likely mesmerize fans of the genre. The film is a technical marvel and Fukunaga continues to solidify himself as one of the strongest young directors working today. His cast is wonderful and while the film didn’t resonate with me like it will with its target demographic I still quite enjoyed the show. I look forward to seeing it again down the road (my girlfriend was a big fan) as the visual treats and acting are more than worth the price of admission regardless of your engagement in the story.

Jane Eyre is a B-

Written by: Zac on March 26, 2011.

This entry was posted by Zac on Saturday, March 26th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:50 pm

http://book.bonology.com/2011/03/tame-jane.html

Saturday, March 26, 2011
Tame Jane
Robert Gottlieb

Laurie Sparham/Focus Features

Mia Wasikowska in Jane Eyre, a film directed by Cary Fukunaga

The new film version of Jane Eyre isnt all bad, but its all wrong. The story, despite a confusing flashback structure, is coherent. The dialogue is satisfying. The look is convincing. Whats lacking is Jane Eyre itselfCharlotte Bronts feverish inner world of anguish and fury. Instead, everything is pallid and sedate. Only the landscape projects some feeling: the director (Cary Joji Fukunaga) and the cinematographer (Adriano Goldman) are far more at home looking at moors than at people.

Some viewers find the classic 1944 version over-melodramatic: Joan Fontaine too beautiful for plain Jane, Orson Welless Rochester over the top with his flaring cape and piercing eyes and ultra-resonant voice. Well, he is over the topbut thats true to the nature of Bronts imaginings. And if Fontaine is too classically beautiful, her perfectly chiseled features more Hollywood than Yorkshire, her screen presence has the right eager masochism for Janeas it did for her two most triumphant earlier films, Hitchcocks Rebecca and Suspicion. The black and white photography, all deep shadows and swirling mists, ups the windblown stakes, and were in a recognizable projection of what the novel feels like. Jane Eyre the novel is operatic; the new movie is what opera never should be: tame.

There have been many previous adaptations, including an early sound version from the Poverty Row Monogram studio, with the stolid and moribund Colin Clive as a bloodless Rochester and a too-handsome Virginia Bruce as a Jane with a Southern accent. Various television attempts have been live! lier, th ough it would be hard to identify a more miscast Rochester than George C. Scott or a more irritating Jane than Susannah York in Delbert Manns 1970 version. But they all suffer from the same syndrome: Jane Eyre is too highly charged, too febrile, for the small screen, and for TV-type acting.

Laurie Sparham/Focus Features

Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska in Jane Eyre

And now it turns out that its also too highly charged, too febrile, for this latest large-screen attempt by Mr. Fukunaga and Moira Buffini, a not very experienced director and screenwriter who have no problem with pictorialization but shy away from high emotion. Can they be embarrassed by all that passion, all that lack of good taste? The acting is careful and small-scale. Michael (Inglourious Bastards) Fassbenders Rochester is standardly handsome rather than rough-hewn, and he speaks well, but his performance is tender rather than threatening or even edgy; hes a post-feminist lover. Jane is Mia Wasikowska, who was exceptionally moving in HBOs In Treatment as a suicidal teenage gymnast, but whose portrayal of the young daughter in The Kids are All Right was no more than capable, and whose Alice in Tim Burtons Wonderland was conventional and dull. (If youre looking for real acting in that movie, dont take your eyes off Johnny Depps wild and daring Hatter.)

Wasikowska is talented, certainly, but shes yet to show that she can create a character; what she does instead is be herself: serious, sensitive, occasionally breaking out her lovely smile. Shes nowhere near intense enough for this iconic 19th-century emotional extravaganza thats thrilled generations of young women (and men). As Jane she game! ly goes through the paces, but no sparks flycertainly not the crucial ones with Rochester. When their eyes first meet, theyre cautious and reflective. When Orson Welless glare meets Joan Fontaines instant surrender, stand back!

What we have here is the usual result when the movies take on a famous book with a singular voice. They hold on to the plot, the furnishings, even the language, but they lose the essence. Its the problem with all the Vanity Fair adaptationsthey give us Becky, they give us the Waterloo ball, but they cant give us Thackerays sardonic vision of Vanity Fair. No filmed Moby Dick reflects Melville; no filmed Madame Bovary suggests Flaubert. The current True Grit is a sad case in point: it reproduces Charles Portiss storybut ploddingly. The special charm of the book lies in the earnest, humorless voice of its girl heroine, and how do you convey that on film? The utterly affectless Hailee Steinfeld, playing Mattie Ross, hasnt a clue. But the Coen brothers dont have one either: their movie is about Jeff Bridges wearing an eye patch. (I feel particularly strongly about this one, maybe because I was the books editor.)

The great exception to the rule is Dickens. David Copperfield, Great Expectations, Oliver Twist have made terrific movies, and there are acceptable television adaptations, too. But as everyone has noted, Dickens was a cinematic writer; they only had to follow along, they didnt have to reinvent. No, its likely to be second-rate novels that make good movies, ones with exciting stories and clearly etched characters but no particular vision of life, no unique authorial voice. These latter qualities are what books are for.! Back to Charlotte Bront.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:51 pm

http://lt-green.blogspot.com/2011/03/today.html

III. I'm back from the self-flagellation. OK. Speaking of beatings, go see Jane Eyre.

In case you haven't read Jane Eyre, our titular heroine receives a lot of beatings in her childhood.... now that I've made the cheap connection to my previous point, I want to urge you to go see Cary Fukunaga's stunning version of Jane. Jane Eyre is the uber-text for isolated smart girls, and Fukunaga (along with Mia Wasikowska as Jane, and Michael Fassbender as Rochester) realizes - visually and narratively -- the novel's modernity while honoring our need for bonnet porn. Go see it.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:52 pm

http://www.soundonsight.org/jane-eyre-proves-wasikowskas-worth/

‘Jane Eyre’ proves Wasikowska’s worth

Posted on Mar 26, 2011 by Simon Howell in Spotlight

Jane Eyre

Directed by Cary Fukunaga

Written by Moira Buffini

UK, 2011

A curious meld of influences both classical and contemporary, this umpteenth film adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s iconic novel amps the story’s gloom and doom for maximum visual splendor, while offering a strictly face-value approach to its evocations of grief, sexual repression, and class, where a bolder vision might have kept up with the film’s distance-rending performances and appropriately bewitching visions of candlelit chambers and neverending moorland.

Sterling and alive in a role already essayed so often, Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are All Right) is Jane Eyre, an unfortunate soul (who nevertheless insists that hers is not a “tale of woe”) falsely lambasted from early childhood as a devious wretch. After being shunned by her surviving family and surviving a long term at a ghoulish, abusive boarding school, she finds work as a governess at a disused manor owned by the curt, mysterious Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender), who quickly takes a shine to Jane thanks to her obvious wit and hard-fought independence. They find themselves as equals in a time where such a relationship is met, as best, with bemusement. As Jane’s stay at the manor extends, however, strange occurrences begin to accumulate and suggest that Rochester’s candor might not extend to his personal history.

Jane Eyre has previously inspired four-hour treatments, so it’s no surprise that at a hair under two hours, Fukunaga’s version feels weirdly truncated. (Fukunaga has said that the director’s cut is roughly two and a half hours long.) We receive only the bare essentials necessary to communicate Jane’s childhood hardship, from a perfunctory appearance by Sally Hawkins as her unloving Aunt to a bittersweet sequence involving Jane’s doomed boarding-school acquaintance, with which she shares a tender scene that helps to underline the close quarters shared by love and death in an environment where life is remarkably fragile. This portion of the film holds together on its own and feels of a piece on an emotional level, but lacks clear narrative reasoning for its inclusion, particularly when Jane’s sense of inner strength is already so elegantly expressed through Wasikowska’s “direct” gaze and barely-contained spite in the face of hardship.

If Fukunaga and Buffini possessed the clarity of vision possessed by this version of the character, they might have jettisoned some of the plot points the limited timeframe doesn’t allow for proper fleshing anyway in favor of more time spent in the company of Wasikowska and Fassbender’s carefully calibrated repartee, or in exploiting the plot’s central revelation for more than rug-pulling pathos – perhaps taking a revisionist page or two from Jean Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea. (As is, the character at the center of this plot twist feels very much like a two-dimensional holdover from a less sophisticated narrative.)

Despite the shortcuts and missed opportunities, Fukunaga’s rendition is more than worth seeing thanks to Wasikowska and Fassbender, as well as the consistently lovely cinematography courtesy of DP Adriano Goldman, her collaborator on Sin Nombre. The unforced emphasis on natural light and the bleak landscapes combine with Fukunaga’s expressive camerawork and the relatively naturalistic performance style to avoid – not unlike in Jane Campion’s Bright Star – the musty atmosphere of many period films. Fukunaga hasn’t attempted to reinvent the tale beyond accenting its Gothic undertones, but it’s a solid effort nonetheless.

Simon Howell

Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:53 pm

http://jeannewillette.com/2011/03/26/jane-eyre-2011/

Jane Eyre (2011)

Who was Jane Eyre?

On the surface what we have here is the classic Cinderella story: poor, plain girl meets ugly rich man with a secret wife hidden in the attic of his old dark house and their grand romance is thwarted by the revelation of “the madwoman in the attic.” Charlotte Brontë’s classic Gothic novel, Jane Eyre, is usually thought of as a romantic story of a man and a woman, who are soul mates, mysteriously connected by the heartstrings. But to understand Jane Eyre as a love story is to entirely miss the point. The latest rendition, starring Mia Wasikowska as “Jane” and Michael Fassbender as the brooding “Mr. Rochester,” is a good movie, better than some of the earlier versions, but it will never surpass the original 1943 film with Orson Wells as the best “Rochester” ever. If you have never seen the classic black and white original then by all means, go see this film by Cary Fukunage. This new Jane Eyre is certainly the best version since 1943…and it’s in color. But why is Jane Eyre still being made and remade seventy years later?

The screenwriter, Moira Buffini wrote this film as pure romance, passing over its obvious political themes quite lightly, and playing to the audience’s expectations. From the time of its publication in 1847, Jane Eyre was understood as a “Gothic” novel, a tale of mystery typical of the Romantic era. Easily reduced to tropes, the novel and its characters have been copied, remixed, and mashed up, but the essential ingredients remained the same: the gloomy mansion, the master of the manor who has a dark secret and the plucky young woman who pokes around the house, intent upon solving the mystery. The warnings are the same: “Pay no attention to the noises in the attic.” “Don’t go in the locked room.” The “meet cute” when the master’s horse falls, tossing Rochester at the feet of Jane Eyre has been done and redone—remember how Jane Fonda met Jon Voigt in Coming Home? The first version of Jane Eyre could be Bluebeard and his many wives, a cautionary tale for unwary women, suggesting, not that she should be careful of the man she marries but that she should mind her own business.

Indeed, Charlotte Brontë’s novel was directed to a female audience. Denied entrance to any intellectually satisfying and fulfilling fields, middle class women were avid readers of novels, especially those written by women about women. Men disapproved of women reading women and especially of women writing and being published. This communication among women was dangerous, but writing was one of the few areas of professional behavior that could not be totally closed to women. Long before women managed to become successful visual and musical and theatrical artists, women such as Jane Austen, managed to write and were widely read. Even so, due to the disapproval of male publishers, Jane Austen published all but one book, Pride and Prejudice, on her own. We are the ones who appreciate the Nineteenth Century novels of these women, Austen and the Brontë sisters, and we are the ones who have told and retold their stories.

Men were correct to be wary of women writing, for many of these novels are critical of male privileges and unchecked male power. Women began to become novelists literally on the heels of two political revolutions, one in America and one in France, both of which had utterly excluded women. The first and the greatest Gothic novel ever written came from a very young woman, Mary Shelly, the daughter of a famous feminist. Frankenstein is a warning to those (men) who would think that, through technology, they had become God. The “Frankenstein” theme comes up again and again, from Metropolis to Blade Runner: don’t attempt to manipulate nature. All of Jane Austen’s novels are social commentaries on the social plight of women who are not allowed to have access to money. Although Austen could be criticized for ignoring lower class women, but without money such women were not impacted by a loss of money the way upper income women could be. All of Austen’s books are on the same theme: how can women reconcile economic dependency and the necessity of marriage with their desire for “romantic” love? The social messages in novels by women are inescapable, especially today when we are alert for such things.

“Romantic Love” was an invention of the Nineteenth Century, in order, I believe, to compensate women for their loss of political freedom and to reconcile them to their economic dependence. “Romantic Love” in all its improbably glory is the engine of Jane Eyre. One of the best analyses of Jane Eyre was made thirty years ago by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth Century Imagination. The title comes from the character of “Bertha,” Mr. Rochester’s Caribbean wife, imprisoned in the attic. The literary professors, Gilbert and Gubar, suggested that “Bertha” is a metaphor for all the rage and discontent felt by women in the Nineteenth Century. Women at that time were not allowed to express their feelings or complain about their social condition and when they did they were often declared “mad” and punished in some way. “Bertha” is more than a character in a novel; she is the key that explains the lives of women who are shut up in lives that allow them no freedom. “Bertha” is the counterpoint of “Jane” who has learned to restrain herself and to be careful about what she said. “Bertha” is all the unexpressed pain of women locked up in the “attic’” of the subconscious, rattling and banging about, starting fires and screaming in the night. “Jane” has retained her sanity, even after an abusive childhood, because she wanted to survive and has learned to move and to act with humility, eyes downcast.

Jane Eyre is a feminist novel and film if only because it was told from the point of view of a woman. Like all the protagonists in Austen’s novels, Jane is adrift in patriarchal world, run by men for the benefit of men. From the beginning of their meeting, “Rochester” makes it clear that she must exist for his benefit, act in accordance to his need and wants. Today, most women would steer clear of such an egoist, but for centuries this kind of character was presented to female readers in countless Romance Novels, the kind with lavender covers, as the Broken Man who needed only the Love of a Good Woman to be fixed. One can only assume that, in Brontë’s time, “Rochester” was probably typical of wealthy and powerful men in a time when such men had nearly unchecked privileges. Indeed, he almost gets away with a bigamist marriage to Jane. Jane is warned by “Mrs. Fairfax,” played by Judy Dench, that men like Mr. Rochester didn’t marry governesses but she is too naïve to understand what the older woman is telling her: something is very wrong.

The novel never fully explains why Rochester attempts to marry Jane and offers only love as an explanation for his courtship. One suspects that the romantic reason, a Prince Charming falling in love with a Cinderella, is a fantasy solution devised by Brontë to nurture the flicker of hope in her female readers. Austen also devised romantic solutions in her novels: no matter how isolated the marriageable young women were, suitable young men (usually rich) somehow came into “the neighborhood” and the pairing off ensues. But Austen’s ladies are always the social equals of her gentlemen. The strange dialogue about gender equality that passes between Rochester and Jane underscores the improbability of the romance between them. In the novel, Jane is eighteen years old and Rochester is about double her age, she is poor and he is rich and it’s the Nineteenth Century—they can never be equals. In “real life,” he would not have known of her existence, but the novel uses the myth of “love” to force this unlikely pair together. But there is another approach to Jane Eyre.

Jane Eyre is, in it’s own way, a spiritual coming of age story. The novel is also a religious pilgrimage, for both Jane and Rochester. Both must do penance, Rochester for being “deceitful” and Jane for believing in miracles. For the couple to be together, Jane must complete what Gilbert and Gubar called a “pilgrim’s progress,” which began at “Gateshead” and ends at “Ferndean,” the couple’s forest retreat. Only when the novel is read as a religious allegory does the story begin to make sense. The story is about “Jane Eyre” whose very name indicates spirituality and her ability to float away from her adversaries. “Rochester” is not so much a real character as he is an obstacle in her journey towards fulfillment—he is something that Jane cannot have, not until she completes her tasks. Jane travels from the prison of the Red Room to imprisonment in the school for girls who have been thrown away, Lowood, to the trap of Thornfield whose name alone would enough to make any self-respecting girl to run for her life.

The last station of Jane’s journey is a resting place with the aptly named Moor House, a lonely house in the middle of the English version of a desert, the moors. Like Mary Magdalene, she goes into exile to grieve. On the run from Rochester, Jane is rescued by “St. John Rivers” (Jamie Bell). It is in this bleak and sanctimonious place of crossing that she recovers her sense of self; but, perhaps to satisfy the reader’s need for a happy ending, the author sends Jane back to Rochester. She rejects the offer of marriage from “Rivers,” because she has been rewarded with a large inheritance, and because she mysteriously hears the voice of Rochester calling her back. In modern terms we would call this device of one lover hearing the pain of the other as a voice on the wind an example of a “plot creaking” under the weight of contrivance, but in the 1840s, it’s that new-fangled “Romantic Love” asserting itself.

It is incomprehensible that in any reality Jane could love such a man, someone who had lied to her, betrayed his wife, deceived his friends and then claimed victimhood to explain his behavior. Jane Austen, an austerely Classical novelist who distrusted Romantic fantasies, would have profoundly disapproved of Jane’s actions. Over and over Austen punished such men and wrote them into miserable lives. Even Brontë had to smite Rochester to make him acceptable to her readers. Rochester is an unsympathetic character but in her own way Jane is as weak and as flawed as he and gives in to temptation—running back to a married man. When she returns, Thornfield is rightly burned down by the vengeful Bertha who had had enough of her prison. Rochester lost his sight and the use of one of his hands, but, far from being impotent, he gains Jane Eyre, who has inherited a fortune from an uncle she never met. One assumes, incorrectly, that this was her money, but as soon as she married Rochester, every penny went to him and his control. They disappear into “happily ever after” in a quick ending that concludes Jane’s journey to her destiny: a caretaker of a broken and disgraced man.

Gilbert and Gubar assume that the couple, a blind and physically challenged man and a woman with enough money to make her acceptable to society, are now equal. If Jane Eyre is a feminist novel, it is because it is a more or less accurate account of the lives of women, particularly of surplus and dependent women and their very real sufferings, but few of them had a benevolent uncle. But there is allegorical truth in the novel. “Bertha Mason” is the expression of the oppressed woman and “Jane Eyre” is the portrait of a suppressed woman. They are mirror images of one another: both imprisoned and both unable to escape. “Bertha” is the far more interesting character, so much so that she inspired Jean Rhys to write Wide Sargasso Sea in 1966. Rhys imagined the Jamaican prequel to Jane Eyre. The novel is full of foreshadowings for the Brontë novel and suggests that Rochester was at first sexually enchanted with Bertha then, overwhelmed with sexual guilt, was repulsed by her and by the alien culture of the Caribbean. As if in revenge, Bertha went slowly mad over her husband’s rejection. Rather than abandon her on the island, Rochester took Bertha to a lifetime of confinement in the attic of his English home.

Rhys stripped the Rochester character of his romantic trappings and explained why he was the sort of man who would be repulsed by “Blanche Ingram’s” self-assurance—too much like his wife—and comforted by Jane’s submissiveness and her virginity and inexperience. She is everything his wife was not, controllable and ignorant of all things sexual. Wide Sargasso Sea makes Jane Eyre more understandable because it focuses on Rochester and makes his character comprehensible. So who is Jane Eyre? Ultimately this character and her motivations remain obscure, despite the fact that the novel is told in her voice. One wonders if she is not typical of women of her time. Self-knowledge would have been hard to come by in a time when men wrote about women and told them what they were and who they had to be. Jane becomes understandable only if one assumes that she internalized the myth of “Romantic Love” and the myth of women’s inferiority overlaid with a veneer of self-possession.

Jane Eyre is an abused woman who identified with her abuser, Mr. Rochester, and did not have the vocabulary to understand co-dependence. Only a woman of the nineteenth century would force a female character through such trials and subjected her to such sufferings with so little payoff. Charlotte Brontë was a woman of little experience and much imagination and a great deal of insight for someone who lived such a limited and isolated life. Her life resembled Jane’s to a certain extent in that she, too, had been sent away to a pitiless school for girls after her mother died. She too had taught at a girls’ school, Roe Wood, and she was tethered to a difficult alcoholic brother, Bramwell, who was undoubtedly the model for “Rochester.” The siblings and their father lived in the moors of Yorkshire where Charlotte wrote Jane Eyre, published under a male pseudonym, “Currier Bell.” For a brief time, she enjoyed some acclaim in London literary circles, she even married, but whatever happiness Brontë had was brief. She died in 1855 of “exhaustion.” Jane Eyre was the only notable book she wrote. A long journey for not very much…for her, but for us, two centuries of Jane Eyre. She speaks to us still.

Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette

The Arts Blogger
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:53 pm

http://reelreflections11.blogspot.com/2011/03/youve-transfixed-me-quite-jane-eyre.html

Saturday, March 26, 2011
"You've transfixed me quite..." ~ JANE EYRE
British stories and literature are one of the few things I find that I can like several film adaptations of. I have two versions of Jane Austen’s Emma and Pride and Prejudice and I love both the versions of these for different reasons. This is the third version of Jane Eyre I’ve seen. The first was a BBC mini-series that was horrendous, and the second was the 1996 film with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg. I absolutely loved that version, but I think the latest adaption released this year at the hand of director Cary Fukunaga tells the story in the most original and hauntingly beautiful way yet.

The first thing I want to mention is the title role of Jane Eyre. I was absolutely blown away by Mia Wasikowska. Though I’ve liked her since her birth into the film world, she didn’t really show what she was fully capable of until this role. She was meant to be Jane Eyre. She also nailed the Northern English accent, which only added to the endearment of her portrayal.

Now perhaps it’s just the fact that I am a woman, or my own experiences in matters of the heart, or just the emotional state I was in when I watched this, but Mia’s performance hit every note and key of my heart. She was electrifying, utterly believable, and completely convincing. Until this performance I had never fully grasped what the conditions and circumstances penned by Charlotte Bronte actually did the character, and that’s what Mia brought to it. Every time Rochester ignored her, or flirted with stupid, silly other women, or any time he would do something dangerously romantic she showed it in her voice and throughout her entire body from her eyes to her hands. It almost took my breath away to watch her in certain scenes because I was like, “Dear God, I know exactly what she’s feeling.” And it was almost awful to relive, but that, my friends, is the power of good acting. I know next Oscar season is miles away, but if people have any sense they won’t forget her then.

There was a subtle, yet excruciatingly potent sensuality in the film. You have a man in his “prime” and a young lady just into full womanhood. The difference brings a set of hormonal and emotional strain that is absolutely bewitching. It wasn’t immodest or improper in actuality, but it definitely flirted with the line drawn between those things. Films like this have a much “hotter” sense of passion than films filled with erotic sex scenes. Less is more, and usually far more poignant. The scene after Jane saves Rochester from the fire in his bedroom was a part that stands out in particular. He leaves to go deal with the “fire-starter,” telling Jane to stay in his room. He has given her his coat, and when he returns she is curled up in it and drawing it to her nose taking in the scent. Then he thanks her and takes her hand and they get so close it’s practically exploding with tension. She tells him she’s going back to her room because she’s cold, but when she gets there she sighs and begins to untie her nightgown as if she’s hot, well the audience was too! *laughs*

Michael Fassbender is a suave, and sharp version of Rochester. Although Rochester is pretty much kind of a jerk since he was written, he isn’t quite so unsympathetic as this version portrayed. My one complaint was that this film needed to develop him and all his mysteries more. Jane is so unbelievably well-developed and you really feel her plight, but for those who watch this film not already knowing the story, he comes off a bit different due to a lack in background and expansion of character.

My favorite scene in any version of this story is Jane and Rochester’s “fireside talk” where they banter back and forth in wit and Spartan-like honesty. The dialogue is superb. These are two people who are simple and plain in looks but completely leveled in mind and spirit. Their differences and headstrong attitudes begin to fence in an elegant duel that has no winner, for both are equal. That is why Rochester loves Jane and in declaring his love for her calls her his equal. Even though Rochester has his issues, this part of their love story is enthralling to me. True love and romance is nothing if not two people, equal and alike in mind and spirit, finding their mate. So in this way, I find Charlotte Bronte a genius. She scripted a cranky and selfish rich man with a plain, young governess. The concept would seem boring on the surface, but she made their romance sensational with the power of mind and heart. Brilliance.

Roger Ebert said in his review of the film: "...voluptuous visuals and ambitious art direction,” and he’s right. I have watched more period pieces than I can count, and this one had a special presence I’ve never experienced before. Part of what made this version so spectacular is the production design. Mr. Rochester’s main “sitting room” with the long dining table, decorative piano, and chairs was stunning. The whole time I coveted everything and kept whispering “I want that! I want that!” The costumes kept to their simple, gothic roots but added an extra flair that made them stand out and be noticed. Even Jane’s wedding dress, which you would think is a bright and happy thing, felt cold and foreboding thanks to the design setting the perfect mood. To marry the production design perfectly, they had outstanding cinematography which bound the story and each intense scene in tight threads of art. Throw a dark and brooding score of woeful strings on top of all of this and you have one delicious film.

There wasn’t one facet that wasn’t wholly drenched in talent. Editing is such an art, but a lot of times it’s rare to see distinct styles of editing in this genre. I was so happy to find that both the script writer and the editor helped make this version unique and unforgettable by starting the story backward and telling 80% of it in flashback. The film is more than just another remake, it has strong legs to stand on its own. I am hoping to add both the Jane Eyre films I love to my collection of British double-takes in the not-too-distant future.
Posted by The Phoenician at 9:03 AM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:54 pm

http://www.literaryladies.com/2011/03/the-jane-eyre-project/

The Jane Eyre Project

Last Thursday I went with my mom and some friends to see the 2011 version of Jane Eyre starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. It was beautiful.

As a very brief overview, the music and cinematography were breathtaking and the casting and the actors were phenomenal. The dialogue was well-executed and stayed true to the novel and the style of Charlotte Bronte.

Wasikowska looked exactly like I had always pictured Jane, but, her Jane was very soft-spoken. Where was Jane’s passion?

Fassbender was a perfect Mr. Rochester. I’ve always thought that Toby Stephens from the 2006 version was the best and now he is tied with Fassbender (I can’t choose between the two). In his role, Fassbender was energetic, sardonic, vehement, annoying, pompous, haunted, etc… He was fantastic.

My main complaint about the film is this: It was too short. The scenes felt rushed and it seemed like I was only seeing brief choppy bits of a story on fast-forward. I didn’t connect with it. Also, the ending was severely abridged. If they had made the ending longer by about ten minutes, it would have saved the movie in my opinion, but, they didn’t.

Jane ran over the moors for a vast majority of the movie, but it was beautiful and the scenery was beyond gorgeous, so that made it more interesting.

I like this version of the movie, I love the 2006 version, I adore the novel. There, you have my thoughts.

Here is the movie’s link on IMDb: Jane Eyre 2011 on IMDb

Did any of you see the movie? If so, how would you compare it to the book?

Yesterday I talked with my friend (who I went to see it with) about the film and I’m curious to know if any of you picked up on any of the things that we noticed. I’d love to talk with anyone about the subtleties of the film.

Did you like it?

Did you think that the actors portrayed their characters well?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

——————————————————————

For those interested, I would recommend this article on the movie: Another Hike on the Moors for ‘Jane Eyre’
March 26th, 2011
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:14 pm

http://burnsnick.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/jane-eyre-review/

Jane Eyre- Review

March 26, 2011 by N.Burns

Jane Eyre- Review

P= 6.5 S=7 D=7 A=8 T=8 Overall: 14.3/20

Self Confinement at it’s Zenith

Solitary confinement is the worst fear of a prisoner. For the majority of people, loneliness is not on their to-do list. Cary Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre approaches this theme with good intentions and definitely pulls everything through. He does well at maturing the classic Charlotte Bronte novel into a much more modern piece of cinema. It’s a reminder that movies can be done again and work.

Jane Eyre is a tale about a girl who has gone out to find a place to be herself. Brought up by her aunt in a nightmarish Victorian upper-class, Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) is sent to a rigid, Christian- Girls-Only school in which she escapes. She runs off to escape the world of heartless conformity that poisoned the Victorian age; a cycle of hatred to Jane. She finds herself a to be a governess, educating a young French girl at a middle-class hostel. A mysterious relationship forms between Jane and her employer, Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) but the secrecies that exist are to come into play.

Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) directs with a keen interest in the themes and doesn’t go fishing for flashy ways to grab audiences. He tells the story with his own style and substance and everyone in the technical department gives a great effort. The only issues I had with the film was that it lacked the ability to completely reel in sympathy and it was half-assed in some scenes.

Mia Wasikowska gives a performance as good as her recent, The Kids Are All Right. Her character is sophisticated in the mind and she has depth and intelligence but no real experiences with people on a normal level. Love is not in her pool of thought. She desires solitary life but something in her always feels trapped and yet she is very passive about it. Mia does well at sinking her teeth into a complex and mature role but we can still see her inability to swallow this character whole. I know at heart that Wasikowska will find the role to shoot her above these performances, she will be (and looks like) the next Cate Blanchette. The rest of the cast delivers strong performances that rarely lose their believability, especially Judi Dench.

The technical department brings the film’s true maturation from past versions. The costumes, sets, and make-up all live up to the high expectations that a Period piece asks for. The sets are especially strong, bringing amazing combinations of tertiary colors that coincide with the costumes artfully. The hair and make-up are subtle but when focused on, a great level of detail and importance is shown. Cinematography wise, the coloring in shots give a primary balance to the tertiary sets. The camera work is what it needs to be but used gain in scenes with low light which completely wrecked some scenes. When natural light is in the picture the DP (Adriano Goldman) seems to be at home, even more so when he is in the vast landscape of England. The music is very good and supply classic taste and strong melodies.

The issue with the writer and director was that they seemed to half-ass some scenes. They would be very predictable and cookie-cutter scenes and they lacked passion. Some of the scenes were done like a shopping list and the moments are tossed into the cart. The film really loses its total grasp at times but then Fukunaga will pull you back in to watch the other good scenes. The other problem was that when the scenes were supposed to be sad or tear-jerking or times where the character hits rough spots, we aren’t pulled in enough to give Jane our sympathy when we know she needs it. Maybe it also has to do with the acting but the director does shake our bones when he should be.

The film is overall, thought-provoking and intimate but has a good amount of flaws. It is a well intended movie with an above average cast but simply doesn’t bit hard enough into the profound novel.

Oscar possibilites:

Best Costume Design, Best Make Up, Best Art Direction, Best Score
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:17 pm

http://fastfilmreviews.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/jane-eyre/

Jane Eyre

The 28th(!) version of the beloved English novel by Charlotte Brontë is a stunning adaptation of classic literature. Emotionally engaging account details the maturation of a poor and plain little girl into a compassionate and intellectually accomplished woman. Jane Eyre is certainly a part that would be a godsend for any young actress to play and Mia Wasikowska is more than up for the task. She perfectly conveys a character strikingly individualistic, yearning a full life, but morally strong. Mia captures Jane’s independence while still making her appear sympathetic and vulnerable. It’s a delicate balance and key to drawing the audience into her world. Michael Fassbender matches Mia as Edward Rochester, her employer at Thornfield Hall, the grand estate of his family. When the two are face to face, they give vitality to Brontë’s written word. Their verbal exchanges are riveting. He’s a complex individual. He’s less than honest about his past and therefore, morally flawed, but also admirable in his love for someone of a lesser social and economic class than he. Despite their differences, his heartfelt feelings toward her are utterly believable. The script touches on many themes, but at heart it’s a love story and beautiful one at that.

The setting is packed with style to spare, which should not be overlooked in contributing to the strength of the production. The music, costumes, and cinematography are all first rate and beautifully add to the ambiance of the time period. The dark atmosphere inside isolated Thornfield Hall is especially bewitching. Even the scenes outside the mansion are colored by gloomy grays and blues which lend the outdoors a menacing tone. Director Cary Fukunaga keeps the action moving and wisely trusts in the novel’s power. It doesn’t feel modernized, but it never feels stuffy either. A marked departure from his last movie, the gritty Sin Nombre. Definitely a filmmaker to watch.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:18 pm

http://stlouiseats.typepad.com/st_louis_eats_and_drinks_/2011/03/jane-eyre.html

March 25, 2011
Jane Eyre

Hardly any heroine--any time, any place--has the permanence of Charlotte Bronte's most famous creation, and still another remake of "Jane Eyre" only makes her more so. The latest version of the 1847 novel, an excellent rendition and a splendid movie, opens here today.

Mia Wasikowska, a 22-year-old, Australian-born actress who quickly is becoming a household name with world-wide fame, offers a brilliant portrayal, on the heels of winning praise in "Alice in Wonderland" and "The Kids Are All Right." Wasikowska has performed in 16 films (nine features), is working on her 17th, has two more in pre-production and still another in post-production. She also has appeared in two TV series, including a season in HBO's "In Treatment." Not bad for a career that began only seven years ago.

As Jane, a poor girl who seems destined to a life in the serving class, she fits perfectly with Bronte's description of "small and plain." Jane also has courage and an intrinsic honesty, traits to stand her in good stead as she is bounced from pillar to post through a series of gloomy English mansions, and a varied group of those who live "below stairs." She gets advice, though it isn't all good, from Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench, always charming), and a certain amount of love from St. John Rivers (excellent Jamie Bell) and his sisters, Diana (Holliday Grainger) and Mary (Tanzin Merchant).

And then there's the mysterious Mr. Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). No one can match the performance of Orson Welles in the 1943 version (Joan Fontaine as Jane, screenplay by John Houseman), and Fassbender, undoubtedly influenced by director Cary Joji Fukunaga, wisely does not try. Instead of booming and blustering all over the film, Fassbender is almost cool. It's a portrayal with a great deal of texture, and considerably more humanity, and it works.

It's easy to see how young Jane falls for him; her spirit is an influence on him, as well. And the tragic love story builds to its ultimate climax. Moira Buffini wrote the excellent screenplay, and Dario Martinelli's music fits perfectly. It's rare that the English countryside does not look good on film, and Adriano Goldman's cinematography keeps to that standard. An outstanding movie and a fine story, even in its umteenth remake.

Jane Eyre opens today at the Plaza Frontenac and Tivoli

--Joe

Posted at 08:39 AM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:24 pm

http://www.freeweekly.com/2011/03/25/british-compulsion/

British Compulsion
25 March 2011
Another remake of ‘Jane Eyre,’ but a good one

The British suffer from several compulsions, among them royal weddings, the cooking and consuming of terrible food and the constant remaking of film-versions of their literary classics.

I have to believe that they really can’t help themselves, especially when it comes to the likes of Jane Austen or Charles Dickens, as if every 15 years the world was storming the gates of the British Broadcasting Company demanding a new version of “Pride and Prejudice.”

Currently leaping out of the recycling bin is Charlotte Bronte and her dour, romantic masterpiece “Jane Eyre,” which has been given its umpteenth translation to film.

(Photo Courtesy: Laurie Sparham) Michael Fassbender (left) and Mia Wasikowska (right) star in Jane Eyre, a Focus Features release directed by Cary Fukunaga.

I can’t really fault the Brits for each of their generations wanting to make their cinematic mark on these classic works, but your not exactly going to be breaking new ground the 17th, 18th, 19th time around.

Therefore you almost have to look at these BBC productions like the restaging of classic plays. You never judge a Shakespeare Festival by saying, “Oh man, I can’t believe they’re doing ‘Hamlet’ again.”

You know the story and you love the story, which is mostly likely why you are there in the first place. Your critical eye then must turn to the production quality, the chemistry of the actors, the deference paid to the original text and the sheer number of corsets.

You’re not looking to be blown away by originality, but instead are there to be comforted by the familiar beats of a beloved tale. Following these criteria, the 2011 version of “Jane Eyre” is a loving and faithful adaptation that features some solid acting and dynamic enough presentation to keep modern audiences from falling asleep.

For those that have forgotten or spent most of your Senior English classes drinking beer in the high school parking lot, “Jane Eyre” is the tale of a young orphan girl in 19th Century England named, interestingly enough, Jane Eyre. Jane, coming from a family of some means, isn’t cast out on the streets, but is instead sent to a strict boarding school where she is trained to be a governess.

Jane is played by the up-and-coming Australian actress Mia Wasikowska whose roles in “Alice in Wonderland” and “The Kids Are Alright” have her on the fast-track to Hollywood’s A-list.

Naturally Jane possesses a strength and vitality that far surpasses her station in life. After she graduates she moves to the estate of the handsome but moody Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) to tutor his young ward.

Romance blooms slowly, as it always does in high society of 1800s Britain, amidst some mysterious and unsettling goings on in Rochester’s massive home. Once you get past the “been-there-done-that” aspect of the story you’ll find plenty new to sink your teeth into, especially the dynamics Wasikowska and Fassbenber bring to Jane and Rochester’s relationship.

Director Cary Fukunaga infuses his movie with darkness, both literally and figuratively. “Jane Eyre” oozes with an atmosphere not typical for a costume drama. He also manages to get the most from his fine cast; and it never hurts when you can bring Judi Dench in off the bench for the supporting role of Rochester’s housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax.

This is a version of “Jane Eyre” that should be pleasing to purists, but lively and compelling enough to attract some new devotees to austere tale of tragic romance and personal triumph. And if you miss it, don’t feel too bad, another version will be along in another decade or two, just like clockwork.

“Jane Eyre” is rated PG-13 for some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:29 pm

http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/2011/03/jane-eyre.html

Jane Eyre
March 24, 2011
Categories: Based on a book, Date movie, Drama, Movies, Remake, Romance
B+
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content
Profanity: None
Nudity/Sex: Nude picture
Alcohol/Drugs: Drinking
Violence/Scariness: Child abuse, sad death of child, violence involving a mentally ill character, fire
Diversity Issues: Portrayal of historic lack of opportunities for women
Movie Release Date: March 25, 2011

Why do film-makers keep coming back to Jane Eyre? Charlotte Bronte’s story has elements of horror, mystery, revenge, romance, and morality, but it is an internal narrative, Jane’s own clear-eyed but personal view of her story (“Reader, I married him.”) And yet, it is such a perennial favorite that this is at least the ninth (at least and so far) English-language cinematic visit to the wild moors and the wilder hearts of Jane Eyre. And that is not counting the many, many variations and spin-offs, including a book and movie that tell the same story from the perspective of another character.

Jane Eyre is an orphan, raised under the cruelest circumstances by her aunt (Sally Hawkins). Her spirit and integrity are such an affront to the aunt that she is sent away to a charity school called Lowood, where the girls are treated with contempt. She makes one true, loving friend, a girl named Helen, who ties of consumption in Jane’s arms. When she finishes at Lowood, Jane (Mia Wasikowska of “The Kids are All Right” and “In Treatment” in a performance that beautifully conveys both Jane’s emotional vulnerability and her strength of character) takes a job as a governess at a home called Thornfield. She is warmly welcomed by the housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax (Dame Judi Dench) and her charge, a little French girl, but it is some time before she meets her new employer, Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender, in a less broody, more desperately unhappy performance). When she first sees him, she is walking in the woods and his horse rears up and throws him. She must help him to the house and they walk slowly, him leaning on her heavily. The emotional upheaval and unexpected intimacy of this encounter are followed by mysterious disturbances in the house, by an anguished longing, an almost unimaginable romantic ecstasy, and then by betrayal, loss, a new start, unexpected independence, and then acknowledgment of a connection too strong to resist.

And it is that relationship, all smolder and repressed passion, that answers the question. The Eyre/Rochester romance has inspired happy sighs for 160 years and in these days, when so little is repressed that no one makes time for smolder, it still delivers.

Director Cary Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre”) wisely used natural light and no make-up to give this version a rough, natural, intimate feel. Jane’s hair is a smooth loop over each ear with an intricate knot in the back, showing capability and determination. And perhaps some imagination as well. The way that the setting and events seem to embody the emotion the main characters cannot express, which is what makes an internally narrated story so compellingly cinematic.

Parents should know that this film includes child abuse and a sad death of a child, disturbing and scary incidents including a fire, and a nude picture.

Family discussion: Why wasn’t Jane afraid of Mr. Rochester? How were they alike? How does the setting help tell the story?

If you like this, try: the book by Charlotte Bronte and the other movie versions of this story, especially the 1943 version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine and the 1996 version with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg, and try the book or movie “The Wide Sargasso Sea,” the same story told from the point of view of the woman in the attic.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:32 pm

http://ramblinmanfilms.com/2011/03/27/jane-eyre/

Jane Eyre

Why do film-makers keep coming back to Jane Eyre? Charlotte Bronte’s story has elements of horror, mystery, revenge, romance, and morality, but it is an internal narrative, Jane’s own clear-eyed but personal view of her story (“Reader, I married him.”) And yet, it is such a perennial favorite that this is at least the ninth (at least and so far) English-language cinematic visit to the wild moors and the wilder hearts of Jane Eyre. And that is not counting the many, many variations and spin-offs, including a book and movie that tell the same story from the perspective of another character.

Jane Eyre is an orphan, raised under the cruelest circumstances by her aunt (Sally Hawkins). Her spirit and integrity are such an affront to the aunt that she is sent away to a charity school called Lowood, where the girls are treated with contempt. She makes one true, loving friend, a girl named Helen, who ties of consumption in Jane’s arms. When she finishes at Lowood, Jane (Mia Wasikowska of “The Kids are All Right” and “In Treatment” in a performance that beautifully conveys both Jane’s emotional vulnerability and her strength of character) takes a job as a governess at a home called Thornfield. She is warmly welcomed by the housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax (Dame Judi Dench) and her charge, a little French girl, but it is some time before she meets her new employer, Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender, in a less broody, more desperately unhappy performance). When she first sees him, she is walking in the woods and his horse rears up and throws him. She must help him to the house and they walk slowly, him leaning on her heavily. The emotional upheaval and unexpected intimacy of this encounter are followed by mysterious disturbances in the house, by an anguished longing, an almost unimaginable romantic ecstasy, and then by betrayal, loss, a new start, unexpected independence, and then acknowledgment of a connection too strong to resist.

And it is that relationship, all smolder and repressed passion, that answers the question. The Eyre/Rochester romance has inspired happy sighs for 160 years and in these days, when so little is repressed that no one makes time for smolder, it still delivers.

Director Cary Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre”) wisely used natural light and no make-up to give this version a rough, natural, intimate feel. Jane’s hair is a smooth loop over each ear with an intricate knot in the back, showing capability and determination. And perhaps some imagination as well. The way that the setting and events seem to embody the emotion the main characters cannot express, which is what makes an internally narrated story so compellingly cinematic.

Parents should know that this film includes child abuse and a sad death of a child, disturbing and scary incidents including a fire, and a nude picture.

Family discussion: Why wasn’t Jane afraid of Mr. Rochester? How were they alike? How does the setting help tell the story?

If you like this, try: the book by Charlotte Bronte and the other movie versions of this story, especially the 1943 version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine and the 1996 version with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg, and try the book or movie “The Wide Sargasso Sea,” the same story told from the point of view of the woman in the attic.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:34 pm

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

Saturday, March 26, 2011
Jane Eyre
Are you dying to see the latest Jane Eyre film as I do? Jane who? You ask. I cannot talk to you anymore.

There are several reasons I cannot wait to see Cary Fukunaga’s second feature (his first mainstream film; I absolutely loved his Spanish language crime saga Sin Nombre (2009)), starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. Fukunaga is one reason, another is the idea of Fassbender (remember that guy from Centurion (2010), and Bobby Sands in Hunger (2008)) playing Edward Rochester. There was a time I idolised (I mean, deeply in love with) Rochester, alongside Maxim De Winter of Rebecca. (I remember reading the Charlotte Brontë novel, first published in 1847, for the first time in high school and feeling immeasurably sad when Jane leaves Rochester and he goes blind, and feeling elated after a few pages when they are reunited and he gets his eyesight back. Perfect wish fulfilment!)

There are at least 25 films based on the novel, including the classic one featuring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine (Is it a co-incidence that Fontaine was also in Rebecca opposite Olivier’s de Winter; my favourite Laurence Olivier role, my favourite scene the scene when de Winter finally confesses to the unnamed heroine that he had never loved Rebecca, oh that feeling of giddiness, that feeling of fulfilment! On the subject, for some curious reasons my second favourite Olivier role is the Prince Regent in The Prince and the Showgirl (1967). I know the movie was useless, and his accent overdone. But his awkward chemistry with Marilyn Monroe was something else.).

Then there are the countless spin offs of the Jane Eyre myth. I think each man meet girl-woman (rich man-poor girl) story (including Rebecca) is a variation of the Jane Eyre theme. (It’s interesting that the protagonist in Bronte novel should be called Jane, the symbol of every woman.)

Then there’s the moor, the ultra-gothic mysteriously desperate landscape, where everything is possible, where nothing is possible, where Heathcliff cries in brooding passion.

Then there’s the house, the Thornfield Hall, and the attic.

And then there’s the other woman, the real Mrs Rochester, the Mad Woman in the Attic, as the feminist would call her, the one who was wronged. Jean Rhys took up the cause of Bertha Mason and reinvented her as Antoinette Cosway in Wide Sargasson Sea (1966). You blame the time, you blame the white colonialists, you blame money, but you can never blame Jane.

Jane’s journey through the turmoil and strife, and her final happiness, is the process of growing up, the process of finding your place in the world, the tale of never giving up, never losing hope. That’s the reason the retellings of the Jane Eyre story are not enough.

And we don’t mind even when the story is reinvented even in a horror film, I Walked With A Zombie (1943).

The allure of the gothic will never fade, as long as there’s Heathcliff and as long as there’s Jane Eyre. Thank God for the Bronte sisters.
By i write at Saturday, March 26, 2011
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:11 am

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

Monday, March 28, 2011
Jane Eyre: The Movie

Last week I saw the new movie "Jane Eyre" and I was totally enraptured by this new version of one of the most beautiful and famous books in the English language. Is there any other book that most of us know practically by heart and as we are watching the movie can predict exactly what will happen next? I never get tired of anticipating the moment that Jane meets Mr. Rochester for the first time, or the moment that she saves his life after his bed has been set on fire, or the dramatic wedding scene in the church. And the heartbreaking scenes from Jane's childhood, when she is sent to Lowood school and is forced to stand on the chair all day, or goes to sleep clutching the hand of her only friend Helen Burns. These are iconic images that stay in our minds.

Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre

Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester

Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers

Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax




The film is beautifully directed and the acting is fabulous, with Mia Wasikowska as Jane, Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester, Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers and Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax. The setting of the book and the film, the wild Yorkshire moors in England, is almost as important as any other aspect of this film. The filmmakers got it right, and rendered it beautifully, enhancing the passion and the loneliness of the story and that of the hero and heroine.
There is a fierceness and a passion in "Jane Eyre" that certainly comes from the book's setting. The wildness of the Yorkshire moors lives on every page of this book. This new film version of Charlotte Bronte's masterpiece beautifully captures that fierceness and passion, of both the land and the characters.


Posted by Sunday Taylor at 4:38 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Admin on Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:55 am

http://dreamydress48.blogspot.com/2011/03/reader-i-married-him.html

Monday, March 28, 2011
"Reader, I married him."
Ooops, I hope I didn't spoil the ending for you! Jane Eyre is my all time favorite book. It took 10 years to get past the first chapter, but when I was finally ready to embark on that dark journey, I found that it was well worth the wait. As for film adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's masterpiece, the applicable phrase would be: it's been done. Off the top of my head, I can think of five film and television adaptations. Some are great while others are okaaaaay; I've yet to see one that I absolutely hated.

You can imagine my delight when I found out that a new film adaptation was in the making from new director Cary Fukunaga. His interview on NPR piqued my interest because when asked what made his interpretation of the classic so different from the others, he stated that he wanted to draw more attention to the Gothic/horror aspect of the novel. This made me very apprehensive, but I wouldn't turn down an opportunity to see this on the big screen.

He didn't disappoint. I really, really liked this movie! All aspects of the film balanced each other out. It was beautifully shot (in the style of Ang Lee and Joe Wright) and the picturesque Yorkshire hills could be both foreboding and breathtaking. Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, and Judi Dench were perfect for their respective roles as Jane, Mr. Rochester, and Mrs. Fairfax. I especially liked Wasikowska's quiet and strong character in Alice in Wonderland and she brought that same quality to Jane's character. The acting was superb, so much so that the famous proposal speech tugged at my heart strings. Sigh! What could make it any better? A great film score, that's what. Dario Marianelli featured violinist Jack Liebeck on the soundtrack, and each music piece was perfect for each scene.

After such a pleasant watching experience, I had a few reading take-aways. First off, I really want to re read Jane Eyre, that's for sure. I'll probably have a different take on the story and characters. Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys is to Jane Eyre as Phantom Menace is to Starwars. I should probably start at the beginning. Syrie James also has a semi-new novel out entitled The Secret Diaries of Charlotte Bronte which I own, so I intend to give that a read as well. It's a fictional take on actual events in the author's life. Finally, Dame Judi Dench just released a new memoir that focuses on her work on the stage entitled And Furthermore... (isn't that a great title for a book?!?!). It should be peachy...she names names!

If this film is showing in your area, go see it! I'm almost certain you won't feel like you wasted two hours. Capiche? Good...
Posted by Dreamydress at 1:46 PM
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 27093
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 3

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum