Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

http://nomdebiro.blogspot.com/2011/04/heavyweight-brooding-ahoy.html

Sunday, April 03, 2011
Heavyweight brooding ahoy
So, last night I saw Jane Eyre.

I am at a bit of a loss as to how to review it properly. It was certainly good, very well-made and as true to its source as can be expected (there were a few departures from Bronte's plot, but I did not find them jarring).

I'm mostly just still distracted by how g*&^%$# fine Michael Fassbender is. He's got a f&#!-me hat, for crying out loud. And MUTTONCHOPS. At 33 he's a bit young to be playing Rochester, I suppose, but he carried it well and mother of Christ who cares? Have you seen those eyes?

At any rate, go see it if you have the opportunity to and like period pieces. Mia Wasikowska is gorgeous as well, and I was actually a bit surprised to see how mousy she became as Jane. Excellent acting from her, the Fass, Dench, Bell (o St John, you asshat), and the rest of the cast. Just be prepared to be nodding emphatically when Jane and Rochester get together, when if you were reading the book you'd be shaking your head and yelling BUT HE KEEPS HIS WIFE LOCKED IN THE ATTIC JANE COME ON. Fassbender has that effect.

http://sharocksthe.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre.html

Sunday, April 3, 2011
jane eyre

best smolder-deflect viewing: jane eyre. charlotte bronte's classic has always been one of my favorite books. above all the austen works, plain jane always had a special place in my heart. so much i created a lesson plan for the novel for extra credit. yeah, i'm a nerd.

so when i saw the trailer for the new adaption with one, mia wasikowska, it planted a fire. much like the one that burns down thornfield. jane's a willful fighter which is much suited to the smoldering allure of mr. rochester, played by the dashing michael fassbender (soon to be magneto in the x-men reboot). enter the theme of the latest adaption that director cary fukunaga masterfully executed - the smolder and deflect.


chills? i sure felt them. cary was able to bring out the nuances of jane's pained and restrained desire for that grumpy rochester. p.s. i loved the post-fire indie hipster beard on blind rochester. bravo cary, bravo!

http://denver.yourhub.com/Denver/Stories/Arts-Culture/Story~966050.aspx

"Jane Eyre" makes an old story new again
by: Jonathan Lack

Article Contributed on: 4/2/2011 2:17:39 AM

Film Rating: B+

Films like Jane Eyre are tricky. As with any adaptation of a classic text, standing out from the crowd of dozens of other film and TV versions takes real creativity and energy, requiring a firm vision from the filmmakers and a desire to leave a unique, memorable stamp on the material. The film has to exist as its own complete entity separate from the source material, justifying its reason for existence while simultaneously staying true to the spirit of the original work. If done right, even those unfamiliar with the book should be able to enjoy the film and comprehend the main points and messages of the story. Needless to say, it's an extremely tough balancing act. I remember seeing Joe Wright's 2005 Pride and Prejudice film when it came out and loathing it, but after reading the novel in High School, I revisited the film and found it fantastic; it's an example of a film that came very close to achieving that balance, but ultimately didn't quite cut it for those uninitiated with the book. Jane Eyre, on the other hand, is a textbook example of realizing this complex balance. It's not perfect, but when it comes to cinematic retellings of classic (and lengthily) British stories, Jane Eyre does it about as well as one could hope.

I've never read Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, which should tell you right off the bat that the film plays well to the uninitiated. The story - that of a young, emotionally shut-off girl maturing into a confident and whole woman despite severe hardship - is told with extreme clarity and precision, and despite missteps here and there, I was amazed at how much deep, resonant thematic material the film mines in under two hours. I assume some of Bronte's message was lost in the adaptation process, but the story is still incredible food for thought - in particular, themes of class/gender roles and, most powerfully, emotional trauma, come through in extremely effective ways.

Moira Buffini's screenplay is a truly admirable work of art, whittling down Bronte's mammoth tome into a clear and concise story that plays comfortably at under two hours. Yet while the script undoubtedly fuels the film's success, it also creates the most significant problems. The first act plays with the chronology in clever ways and certainly starts the film off strongly, but it doesn't flow into the second, more traditional act entirely smoothly. There's a disconnect between the Jane of the first act and the Jane of the second, once she arrives at Thornfield, that is hard to put one's finger on; the first act spends time establishing the emotional trauma that makes Jane who she is, but if anything, the film could spend more time here and give this establishing material room to breathe so we better understand Jane for the rest of the story. The third act is the most troublesome, as it begins rushing through material too fast to make an impact; one the key twists in the story is that, through inheritance, Jane becomes rich, but as the film presents things - and I'm sure this is different in the book - her wealth is a non-issue. It happens, but is of little import to the direction the film takes, and the movie would be stronger if it ditched this plot point entirely in favor of the movie's narrower thematic goals.

The script also takes one of my least favorite adaptive routes in presenting various bits of action. In a book - especially nineteenth century literature - it's perfectly effective to have characters describe actions to the reader. Since it's a book, action by its very nature is all description, no matter who presents it. Film, however, is a visual medium, and it's rare filmmakers can get away with simply letting the characters describe action to the viewer. Jane Eyre tries this a few times with frustrating results; it works well enough, but there are certain bits of action that I'd love to actually see, rather than simply hear about - that is, after all, the point of film. It's particularly disappointing in the third act, when a climactic and devastating series of events is explained, rather than shown, and though I do love the film's impeccably crafted ending, it would be even stronger if we actually saw this horrifying moment.

Then again, in this film, that's the exception, not the rule. For the most part, director Cary Fukunaga utilizes the cinematic medium to its fullest. Not only are the locations gorgeous and the cinematography evocative, but Fukunaga spends plenty of time building a visual and aural atmosphere that is haunting and unsettling. Anyone who has read a book by the Bronte sisters can tell you how disturbing they can be, even by today's standards, yet adaptations of works like Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights are often very tame. The same can't be said of this film - Fukunaga pushes the story's naturally dark nature as far as he can, and the results are spectacular. If anything, the film is slightly too dark at times, but that's hardly a complaint; much of the film's emotional resonance comes from how far Fukunaga pushes the atmosphere. The characters have to go through an awful lot throughout, and Fukunaga makes sure that when victories do come, they feel earned; especially at the end, this approach gives the film a poignant sense of melancholy, rather than the sorts of hollow emotions found in stark black-and-white 'happy' endings.

Dario Marianelli's score plays as big a part as any in building the film's strong atmosphere, but it performs its vital purpose so faithfully that by the end, it also winds up being one of the film's weaknesses. The music is beautiful and chilling, original and effective, but it mostly sticks to one particular mood. It evokes that mood incredibly well, but that mood is dark and grim and makes the film a bit too heavy at times. I was even thinking, about halfway through, that the film was starting to feel 'one-note,' until I realized that this was actually a problem with the score. Its one-note is beautiful, but the story calls for music with a more dynamic range. The score more or less fixes this problem at the very end, and I absolutely love the piece that closes the movie.

Still, the most important key to Jane Eyre's success is the acting, because this film features some truly outstanding performances that make the story resonate. Mia Wasikowska is an actress I've admired since her leading role in last year's Alice in Wonderland; her talents were wasted in that film, which prioritized Johnny Depp and sub-par CGI above everything else, but she proved herself immensely capable, and I found her use of dramatic subtlety very refreshing. The Kids Are All Right put her talents to much better use, and now in Jane Eyre, she proves herself one of the best young actresses of this generation. Again, subtlety is the key to this performance - the character simply isn't cut-out for a showy 'Oscar' role, and what Wasikowski does with a relatively limited emotional palette is astounding.

Much as I love Wasikowska, it's Michael Fassbender who steals the show as Mr. Rochester, Jane's love interest. He's a fascinating character to begin with, but Fassbender's performance is incredibly raw, open, and at times devastating (all of which make me very excited to see what he does with Magneto in the upcoming X-Men: First Class prequel). Wasikowski and Fassbender are as good an on-screen pair as I've ever seen, their chemistry palpable and their relationship endearing. Best of all, it's simply a joy to hear these two perform the fantastic dialogue that is, I assume, culled straight from the novel, throwing terrific lines at each other back-and-forth as though daring the other to do better. The same can be said of the rest of the cast, especially Judi Dench, making her requisite appearance in a role uncharacteristically tame of the usually fierce actress.

If anything, see Jane Eyre for the performances - if it had nothing else to offer, the acting alone would be worth the price of admission. But while certain aspects of the pacing and adaptation do hold the film back from greatness, there's a remarkable amount worth loving on display, whether you've read the book or not. Jane Eyre should absolutely serve as a template for how best to adapt classic works that have been through the wringer dozens of times before. As presented here, the story feels as fresh and meaningful as it must have been 154 years ago.

http://www.achonaonline.com/entertainment/2011/04/01/jane-eyre/

‘Jane Eyre’: Not a “plain and drab” film

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

April 1, 2011 • Colin Covert, Star Tribune

“Poor, obscure, plain and little” is how the heroine of “Jane Eyre” describes herself. The latest film of Charlotte Bronte’s moody Gothic romance is anything but. There is not a drab image or a middling performance in the piece. The freewheeling adaptation drops needless scenes and spurs the story ahead with galloping momentum.

From the very first shot, this new version frames Jane (Mia Wasikowska, Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland”) as a character of mystery and drama . We meet her as a young woman on the run in a rural downpour. What peril she is fleeing is unspecified. Jane is taken in by a dour young clergyman (Jamie Bell), and nursed back to health by his sisters whose Christian charity and curiosity about their new friend run neck-and-neck. Jane is many scenes into her recovery and subsequent adventures before the story circles back to her breathless flight, explaining all.

It’s a bold approach, but one that honors Bronte’s favorite literary gimmick. She was a master of generating suspense by dropping clues and hints while withholding the secrets we’re dying to discover. This flashback-filled adaptation, written by Moira Buffini and directed by Cary Fukunaga, does her proud.

As Jane moves from her loveless childhood into the manor house governess position that was every Victorian orphan girl’s glass ceiling, Wasikowska masters the screen actor’s magic trick of transfixing our attention while seemingly doing nothing. Her excruciating beauty is tamped down here, but when it blossoms she is a pre-Raphaelite dream in the flesh.

As the cold, taunting master of the house, Mr. Rochester, Michael Fassbender has ice in his smile but fire in his eyes. When he invites Jane to his fireside for fencing match evening conversations, his tone is brusque and challenging yet almost intimate. He is decadent, subtly evil, unreachable yet irresistible. Jane, wise beyond her years yet naive about certain dark aspects of human nature, opens her heart. And then terrible truths come crashing down, impelling that tear-stained dash across a rainswept Yorkshire moor. Fukunaga wrings every ounce of passion, fury and pain out of the tale.

Adriano Goldman’s cinematography makes seemingly haunted Thornfield Manor plausibly spooky, and gives the fires that warm (and imperil) the characters a rich, metaphorical intensity. The impeccable supporting cast includes Simon McBurney as that pious, decadent mole Mr. Brocklehurst and Judi Dench as Thornfield’s salt-of-the-earth housekeeper Mrs. Edwards. The standout, though, is Sally Hawkins, casting aside a raft to recent cheeky proletarian roles to play Jane’s haughty, malevolent aunt. She is deliciously despicable.

This “Jane Eyre” is unapologetic melodrama shot through with inspiration. Diehard “Twilight” fans looking for a deeper, darker romantic mystery would do well to check it out.

———

JANE EYRE

3 1/2 stars

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender

Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga

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

http://talesofamadcapheiress.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre.html

04 April 2011
Jane Eyre

“There was no possibility of taking a walk that day.” So begins one of my favourite novels—Jane Eyre. In the latest screen version, Jane Eyre opens with a flight through the moors, a scene that occurs more than half-way through the novel. We learn of Jane’s past through flashbacks, from her horrible childhood to her time at Thornfield Hall as the governess to the ward of the brooding Edward Rochester.

This new film is gorgeous. The use of natural lighting (and some computer work) washes the scenes in various shades of gray that help to enhance the mood of the story. There are also some intimate moments, as when Jane is seen alone in the garden of Thornfield, that have the feel of a impressionist painting.

For the most part the cast is spot on, from the always brilliant Judi Dench as the loyal housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax to Sally Hawkins as Jane's evil Aunt Reed. Freya Parks who appears briefly as Jane’s childhood friend, Helen Burns, is a dead ringer for Shirley Temple’s downtrodden friend Becky in The Little Princess (ok, I'm digressing). Yet the most important role, of course, is that of Jane, plain and small. Mia Wasikowska does not disappoint. She has the look and the intelligence of Jane Eyre. She also exhibits Jane's inability to completely suppress her emotions. Michael Fassbender has the daunting task of stepping into the shoes of Rochester. While he makes a dashing Byronic figure he doesn’t seem to have Rochester’s anguish. And quite frankly, he doesn’t seem all that intimidating either.


Which brings us to the reason why at the end I wasn’t in love with this adaptation. The film curiously seems to be lacking passion. There are tense scenes between Jane and Rochester but the overriding passion that runs throughout the book seems almost distant here. Perhaps this has something to do with the script, which has edited a very large novel down to just under two hours. In fact, there were scenes from the book that I missed like the gypsy fortuneteller at the party (actually, the whole visiting party seemed too short). Other omissions including the lack of seeing the important Grace Poole or having Adele’s relationship with Rochester reduced to a comment seem to take away from the story not help it along.

In the end, I felt myself unmoved by this Jane Eyre. If you want to see a great adaptation, get a copy of the 2006 production with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. Now that’s a passionate Jane Eyre.
Posted by Mrs. Parker at 23:59

http://jerrishi.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre.html

4.04.2011

"It is in vain to say human beings ought to be satisfied with tranquillity: they must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it."

saw jane eyre this past weekend.
i was amazed by mia wasikowska's fierce portrayal of jane.
not to mention the beautiful scenery.
oh and michael fassbender... swooooon.

Posted by jess. at 3:25:00 PM

http://theschleicherspin.com/2011/04/04/tales-of-woe/

Tales of Woe

4 Apr

In a telling bit of dialogue about a fourth of the way through Cary Fukunaga’s impeccably directed adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre, a brooding Rochester (Michael Fassbender) asks the alarmingly beautiful Jane (Mia Wasikowska) to tell him her tale of woe. You see, all governesses have tales of woe. They make great stories.

While Jane Eyre targets the refined literary crowd with its tale of woe and romance, the surprisingly adept but still a bit creaky contemporary haunted house tale of woe, Insidious, targets the not-so-fickle horror crowd.

Mia Wisakowska bewitches in Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre.

Nineteenth century feminist literature is not typically my cup of tea. I’ve not read Bronte’s tale. Nor have I ever seen any previous film adaptation, and they are legion. But like the works of Shakespeare, I know the story. Rave reviews, including a most excellent piece from Wonders in the Dark‘s own Sam Juliano, peaked my interest. Superb production values, understated but quietly sweeping cinematography, and a note perfect score from Oscar-winner Dario Marianelli help make this a world-class endeavor.

But the greatest appeal of this latest adaptation (apart from the uniformly excellent performances) is Cary Fukunaga’s direction. Mark my words, he will one day win an Oscar for Best Director and direct a Best Picture winner. If one views his previous film, Sin Nombre, as a contemporary take on Romeo & Juliet by way of a woeful tale of Central American gang wars and illegal immigration, then his tackling of Jane Eyre doesn’t seem as drastic a change of pace as it does on the surface.

Fukunaga turns the gothic undertones into overtones and paints them boldly on his celluloid canvas. The wind whispers Jane’s name, horses on gloomy paths through the dark woods are bewitched by fair governesses, hysteric women haunt castle walls both literally and figuratively, and men dash to open windows forlorn and deserted. Yet it’s balanced by images of sun-soaked gardens and hills in the Springtime, flowers in bloom, and the hint of a smile on Mia Wisakowska’s face revealing she is not all furrowed brow and tortured spirit. There are hints of mystery, decidedly nineteenth century social mores, and more than enough dramatic huggermuggery that plays out a bit too long…but I doubt fans of the genre will be complaining when Fukunaga displays such brilliance and balance in his composition.

Perhaps it's an hysteric governess haunting the family in Insidious?

A sense of balance would’ve done James Wan’s retread of the old “Is it a haunted house or a haunted kid?” theme a world of good. In Insidious, the new house inhabited by Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne and their three kids is instantly gloomy and melancholy, though they try to fill it with love and their family is a likable and easy one to root for. Despite being designed as an ode to Poltergeist, Wan never shows us the idyllic nature of the house and its surroundings. In Poltergeist, everything was cookie-cutter beautiful and sunlit perfect before the gloom and dread took over. Here, things are instantly dark and off. In fact, as is a common problem with current horror films, the lighting seems off for the entire film.

Mind you, these are minor quibbles. You see, Insidious, is a classic tale of woe that is my cup of tea. Unlike most contemporary horror films, Insidious has a slow build, attempts character development, maintains a modicum of suspense (despite the horrible trailers that spoil one of the two major plot points), and isn’t ashamed of its genre trappings. Wan and his screenwriter Leigh Whannell (who also appears as a Ghost Hunters style tech-geek in the film) borrow liberally from not only Poltergeist but also The Shining, and in some slapdash ways it comes across as a gender-reversed version of the Exorcist without any of the baggage of exorcism films. The music score and opening credits sequence bring to mind that sense of old-fashioned carnival-like mischief we experienced recently with Drag Me to Hell, and though that wicked dark sense of humor doesn’t find its way through the entire film, sly supporting turns from Lin Shaye (as a caring psychic) and Barbara Hershey (tailor-made for these troubled older mother roles) add to that sense of fun.

It’s interesting to note that this comes from the guys who bequeathed us Saw and the producers of Paranormal Activity. None of these folks will ever be winning an Oscar. Though Wan & Whannell still have plenty of faults (including some woeful directorial choices by Wan – i.e. the lighting – and choppy pacing in the screenplay by Whannell), Insidious still shows they have learned a few things and grown as filmmakers. You don’t always need gimmicks, and you don’t always need gore. Sometimes you just need some better than average acting, cute kids, creepy sound effects, great ghost and demon make-up and a genuine love for the innate silliness of the genre.

Strangely like Jane Eyre is some ways, Insidious has hints of mystery, decidedly 1980′s social mores, and more than enough supernatural huggermuggery that plays out a bit too long. When it finally gets to where it’s going, Preposterous might’ve been a better title. But hell, that’s part of the fun isn’t it?

While these two tales of woe couldn’t be more different, they both provide the best kind of entertainment to the stalwart viewers of their respective genres. Take them for what they are and enjoy.

Written by David H. Schleicher

http://belleofliberty.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-film-wakes-you-up.html

Monday, April 04, 2011
Jane Eyre Film Wakes You Up

Unless you’re a jaded critic who’s seen plenty of hair-raising horror movies or a teen bored by everything, there’s one sure thing about the new Jane Eyre movie starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender: you won’t sleep through it.

Director Cary Fukunaga, apparently realizing there are at least 20 versions of Charlotte Bronte’s classic novel of an orphaned governess who falls in love with her wealthy and mysterious employer, does us the favor of jumbling things up a bit.

The movie begins with Jane’s flight from Thornfield Hall. Weeping and wandering amidst the English moors, she falls on the doorstep of a lonely cottage, whose owner St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) admits her. As she recovers and her benefactors question her about her past, we’re shown flashbacks in lightning stroke breaks that had audience members jumping out of their seats.

Her story begins with her childhood, reared by a despised and despising aunt-in-law. When her cousin attacks her, she retaliates with spirited fury. The outburst earns her incarceration in the dreaded Red Room and ultimately expulsion from Gateshead Hall. Sally Hawkins, as Mrs. Reed, does not dither at Jane’s rebellion against her cruelty, as in the book, but simply tells the girl to “Get out.”

With the crack of switch or a cane, we learn about her life at Lowood School for Orphans, run by the pious Mr. Brocklehurst. Fukunaga treats us to details we don’t ordinarily see in most Jane Eyre productions, such as being disrobed of the expensive dress she wears entering the school. One person basically missing is the kindly Miss Temple, who befriends Jane and clears her reputation as a “liar.” That’s one of the downsides of a film production of Jane Eyre – someone must be cut out.

Jane’s best friend, Helen Burns, is played with extraordinary beauty by Freya Parks. She’s a strawberry blonde with soulful blue eyes that just rivet the audience’s attention, the way Elizabeth Taylor’s did decades ago. The scenes of Lowood are brief and it would have been enriching to hear a little more of Helen’s philosophy before she dies of consumption.

The final jolt brings us to Thornfield Hall and we remain there as Jane enters her post as governess to the ward of “a certain Mr. Rochester.” Judith Dench is certainly not the dithering, simple housekeeper of the novel. She plays Mrs. Fairfax with sense and a good deal of wit. An excellent actress, she plays well against Fassbender’s impossible irascible Mr. Rochester.

If Fassbender is a bit slender for the role physically, he makes it up for it in his range of acting as the brooding master of Thornfield Hall. He makes his presence known, even off screen, shouting at servants and cursing when he shoots at birds from his balcony and misses. Fassbender, in treating with his ward, Adele, goes for an approach I’ve never seen before, which brought howls of laughter from the audience.

We mustn’t forget about our Jane, for although Rochester is the love of every Jane Eyre fan’s life, it is still Jane’s story. Wasikowska is the quintessential Jane. As Mrs. Fairfax observes upon meeting, she is quite young. She’s also small and the right age to be the 18 year-old Jane (Wasikowska is 21 – close enough). Her Jane is reserved, but determined and courageous. Rochester flirts with her, tries to charm her, and puzzles her. However, she’s cautious and doesn’t take the bait readily.

In places, the script deviates from the novel. But in the most key scenes, it’s nearly all Bronte, though without quite so many words. Some critics have complained there’s not enough chemistry between them. In the scene after Mr. Rochester’s bed is set ablaze, the pair smolder in the smoky musk, without quite crossing the values of the times in which they’re set.

It’s a pity there was no gypsy scene in this production; with his humor and timing, Fassbender would have made a marvelous old crone, and it would have been interesting to see Wasikowska’s reaction. Ah well.

Just as it seems all is going well, a mysterious stranger from Rochester’s past appears. He receives the news just as he’s interrogating Jane yet again, to get past her reserve. Fassbender is more angered by the news of this visitor than dismayed. This Mr. Mason seemed awfully young to be the person he’s supposed to be.

In the mansion also are some other guests, including a certain Miss Ingram, towards whom rumor has it Mr. Rochester has conjugal intentions. He gives every indication that marrying her is his intention, flirting with her and admiring her, to the despair of the smitten but quiet Jane.

There is also another resident of the Hall, as Jane is informed by her ward, Adele, one who walks the halls by night like a ghost. When Mr. Rochester’s guest, Mason, is attacked in the middle of the night, she comes close to discovering their identity.

Jane is called away from Thornfield to the bedside of her aunt, who reveals a secret to Jane that will ultimately alter her future financial circumstances. But Jane’s mind is on her uncertain short-term future. Returning to Thornfield Hall, she informs Rochester that she will seek another situation. At that point, amidst a gorgeous scene of blossoming cherry trees, he proposes to her (in the book, the proposal took place in the evening, but what the heck).

Thinking he’s playing games with her again, Wasikowska really tells him off. This is no rote performance. It’s one of those reasons she earns the honor as “the” Jane Eyre. Once convinced, though, despair turns to bliss amidst Thornfield’s beautiful grounds.

The wedding day finally arrives, and it is here the Fassbender proves he’s definitely a front-runner as “the” Mr. Rochester, as he literally drags Jane from Thornfield to the nearby church. His impatience as the ceremony proceeds past the objection stage is finely detailed. But there is an “insuperable impediment” and the wedding is off.

It’s an angrier Jane than normal who finds Mr. Rochester camped out in front of her bedroom door. Wasikowska cuts Fassbender no slack as he offers his apologies. He explains how he came to be married to Bertha Mason. A harrowing scene ensues as Jane tells him firmly that she must leave him and then does so. Some of the footage was edited out (we Eyre Heads have followed the progress of this production closely) and there’s too much of a jump between the parlor scene and when he bursts into her room to find she’s gone (which as a Jane Eyre fan, I was very appreciative to see).

At this point, the movie returns us to the weeping girl on the moors, for the understanding of those not familiar with the book. Jamie Bell is forceful as St. John Rivers. He’s clearly interested in a relationship with Jane and doesn’t so much ask her to marry him as he commands her to do so. Jane is cool, even upon hearing news that someone has been searching for her. One marvelous scene in her new life, more jarring even than the whip crack in the beginning, will leave even die-hard Eyre Heads picking their jaws up off the floor, and add yet more mystery to those who don’t know the novel. It left the audience members whispering and murmuring.

Not to give away endings, but as a certified Eyre Head, this reviewer approves of Fukunaga’s ending. He doesn’t depart from the essentials; it’s not a different ending, just a – different – Mr. Rochester, the much more likely one given the circumstances and Rochester’s impassioned nature than the one Bronte wrote about.

Are there an awful lot of Jane Eyre productions out there? There are, but each one has certain merits but flaws, too, that cause dissatisfaction. The gothic moodiness of the 1944 version with Orson Welles, the charm of the 1983 Timothy Dalton version (and the closest Jane any production had gotten to up until now), the brusqueness of William Hurt’s Mr. Rochester, the utter sexiness of Michael Jayston’s Mr. Rochester, the realistic gruffness of the 1996 Mr. Rochester, as that of George C. Scott.

The 1973 version’s party scene with the duet between Miss Ingram and Rochester is classic. The 1944 version’s portrayal of Jane’s childhood at Lowood School, with the utterly beautiful Elizabeth Taylor as Helen Burns, is a classic. The bedroom scene in the 1996 miniseries was a bit over the top and beyond the morals of the time it was depicting, if gratifying to a modern audience.

That climactic scene is the key to the movie. The actor and actress who can both pull that one off will win the favor of Jane Eyre fans everyone. Congratulations to this production of Jane Eyre.

posted by Belle | 11:50 AM

http://mirchichic.livejournal.com/9651.html

April 3rd, 2011
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
10:26 pm - Eyre Lessons

I saw Jane Eyre, today. Oh, what a movie.

Jane, a plain, normal girl with a zest for life accepts a simple position for an imposing man. Her spunk and wit wins his hard heart and they would have married if he hadn’t already been married to a crazy arsonist living within the walls of his house. Jane runs away, broken hearted and is found by a poor vicar and his sisters. After nursing her back to health and giving her a job, the poor vicar tells her she’s inherited a bunch of money and that he wants her to marry him. He tells her he can give her a good life and be loyal and true. Love of sorts will follow marriage. But Jane, oh plain Jane. Her heart belongs only to one man. She runs back to him only to find the mad arsonist has had her way, the manor is in ruins, and said arsonist has fallen to her death. This naturally leaves Jane’s Mr. Rochester nicely and newly single, even if he is now blind.

I realized during this movie, how much I’ve changed. I cried. Ok, I even teared up at a trailer about a man talking to his dog. La and I laughed together and cried together. It felt so good.

I never used to cry at anything. Tears were actually hard to find. Five years, even two years ago, I would have scoffed at such silliness and rooted for the crazy wife. I’m that sort of warped. But watching this movie today, I cried at the beauty and romance. I may have even said something about wanting my Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender is so wickedly handsome, after all). I got caught up in the movie and the company of a good friend. More importantly, I realized that I’ve recently learned to accept and welcome the part of me I had denied for so long.

I’m a hopeless romantic. Who knew?

http://citypaper.com/film/em-jane-eyre-em-1.1128208

Jane Eyre

By Anna Ditkoff

Published: April 6, 2011

Directed by Cary Fukunaga

Despite the recent zombie-, sea monster-, and androidification of many classic books, Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre has proven immune, perhaps because it already has something in it that goes bump in the night. Director Cary Fukunaga teases at Jane Eyre’s horror-movie potential early on in his screen adaptation of the Gothic novel. It opens with Jane (Mia Wasikowska) running from something unseen, and there are several moments before the story really gets going in which things pop out and cause the audience to shriek. These early chills, however, give way to a surprisingly soft and subtle romance.

Michael Fassbender’s Rochester, the mysterious and foreboding owner of an estate where Jane works as governess, is a far less terrible figure than the novel’s version. He is milder and, not surprisingly, more handsome than Brontë’s flawed hero. Many of the cruel games he plays with Jane in the book and much of the terror associated with his dark secret are either eased or omitted in this adaptation. And while we are hesitant to consider anything a spoiler in a film based on such a classic novel, seeing as half the movie audience gasped at the ending reveal, consider this an official spoiler alert.

Given the early spine-tingling moments, you could easily expect the discovery of Rochester’s insane attic-dwelling wife to be full-on horror. Instead, Fukunaga handles it gently. Rather than a demon, Bertha is a victim of a mental illness full of pathos, making the scene tender if anticlimactic. It would have been better for Fukunaga to leave out some of the earlier horror-movie tropes rather than open with them and fail to live up to their promise, because these early chills add little to this movie’s enchantment.

Instead, gorgeous scenery, masterful performances, and Brontë’s language make this Jane positively enthralling. Cinematographer Adriano Goldman masterfully plays with light and dark, creating a visually sumptuous backdrop for Jane’s travails. But it is Wasikowska’s performance that makes the movie. In the book, Jane is often described as otherworldly and Wasikowska impeccably combines this strange fairy grace with the flesh-and-blood determination of a character who, though endlessly trounced upon, never hangs her head low. (Wasikowska’s seemingly haunted strength was similarly used by Tim Burton in Alice in Wonderland.) Wasikowska and Fassbender’s visceral chemistry and a strong supporting cast, including Judi Dench as Rochester’s housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, help atone for Fukunaga’s oddly uneven tone.

http://dailycollegian.com/2011/04/04/%E2%80%9Cjane-eyre%E2%80%9D-is-a-winning-adaptation-of-a-classic/

“Jane Eyre” is a winning adaptation of a classic

By: Ian Opolski | April 04, 2011

In his adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s classic Gothic romance, director Cary Fukunaga opens “Jane Eyre” with force, showing the titular character as an adult wandering miserably across the harsh English countryside. Fans of Brontë’s novel will notice immediately that this “in medias res” opening is a sharp divergence from its source material, which follows a linear path of Eyre’s life from her childhood onward. Devotees need not fear, however. Besides the alteration in the story’s timeline, this latest adaptation of “Jane Eyre” is a superb rendition of the literary classic and stays appropriately faithful to its origins.

In both the novel and the film, Eyre is a proud, plain-faced orphan who, after a difficult childhood, rises to become a governess at Thornfield Hall, the household of Lord Rochester (Michael Fassbender). After a turbulent romance, Jane overcomes the boundaries of social class and wins the heart of her unyielding employer. Before they can wed, however, a horrible secret concerning Rochester is unearthed, changing everything. Jane flees to the home of the stern clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell), but her tormented heart must decide whether to return to her stormy lover or begin a new life abroad.

Mia Wasikowska runs away with this film as the tale’s protagonist. In a performance that would likely make Brontë proud, Wasikowska expertly handles her material with quiet dignity and firm conviction. She is entirely believable as Jane is forced to navigate the unfamiliar waters of romance and interaction with the upper class. Fukunaga thankfully resisted the typical Hollywood urge of glamorizing an unattractive character; while Wasikowska can hardly be called homely, her pale figure, drowned in drab clothes and messy hair, is just as plain as Brontë describes the character.

Fassbender’s Rochester is slightly more charming and handsome than his literary counterpart, but he does manage to capture most of the character’s brooding unpredictability.

The rapport between Eyre and Rochester – particularly in the early stages of their relationship – makes for some of the film’s best scenes. This romance is an atypical one. But from their first witty conversations, one can clearly see Rochester’s recognition of a worthy verbal sparring partner in Jane, a sentiment which blossoms into a strange, but compelling, love affair.

Dame Judi Dench complements the two leads as the scandalized housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax. With her disapproving commentary and significant glances, Dench brings unexpected moments of comedy to the otherwise dark film.

The shift in the story’s timeline lends a greater degree of early sympathy on the St. John Rivers character than is present in the novel. As a result his later sternness seems more comical in the film than it should. Regardless, Bell performs well enough in a role that is likely intended to be unappealing.

The cinematography of the film is another fantastic component. The interior and exterior shots of the film’s setting are visually striking and function well in establishing the film’s gloomy mood; sunny days are as rare as happy ones in “Jane Eyre.” Long takes of the stony English countryside create a sense of the governess’ isolation, while Thornfield Hall, dimly lit by candles, is an appropriately moody and sometimes fearful place.

The costumes in the film are excellent and work well in the development of both the characters and social commentary. Jane’s drab outfits complement Wasikowska’s physical appearance and contrast dramatically with the gaudy gowns of the wealthy women with whom she interacts. This attention to atmospheric and historic detail couples with the performances to create a truly great film.

There are, of course, necessary omissions from Brontë’s novel in the screenplay adapted by Moira Buffini. One of the most notable missing scenes is the bizarre incident in which Rochester masquerades as a gypsy fortune teller in order to determine Jane’s true feelings for him. The absence of this scene and others like it is actually a positive quality for the film. While these portions of the novel contribute to the uniquely weird quality that “Jane Eyre” possesses, they likely would have translated awkwardly to the screen. Buffini captures the mood of the original story without compromising the novel’s stranger sequences in the process.

Audience members – familiar with the story or not – will likely find something to praise in Fukunaga’s “Jane Eyre.” With generally fantastic performances and evocative settings, this latest adaptation vividly brings to life one of the strangest and most timeless love stories of English literature.

http://schminternet.blogspot.com/2011/04/estees-movie-reviews-jane-eyre.html

Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Estee's Movie Reviews: JANE EYRE

Disclaimer: I've recently returned from a trip to the UK and have an acute case of Anglophilia; it may have coloured my impression of the film.

Cary Fukunaga expertly brings to the screen the Gothic tale originally penned by Emily Bronte. While many directors are giving classic literature the Twilight treatment, aiming to cast spells of infatuation on throngs of adolescent girls who long to be idolized by a powerful male, Fukunaga endeavors to strum, no, strike, the chords of despair and longing inside of us.

Australian actress, Mia Wasikowska, delivers a fine performance as a life-hardened, stoic, Jane Eyre as she transitions from girlhood to womanhood. Jane is imprisoned by class, memories of abuse, and a phobia of apparitions.

As Jane's connection to her mercurial and older employer, Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) intensifies, her outward durability disintegrates before our eyes, and in spite of herself. Up until Jane's relationship with Mr. Rochester, her life has been plagued by abandonment, and cruelty. We breathe a sigh of relief and perhaps even shed a tear at Jane's joy when he pledges his love to her and asks for her hand in marriage, but the reprieve is short-lived, as devastation seems to haunt Jane wherever she goes.

Cinematographer Adriano Goldman's work honors the term "moving pictures". A friend of mine less fond of the film described it as a long perfume commercial, but I think Goldman should take that as a complement. It is a visually exquisite 2 hours, characterized by lush textures and an eeriness one can touch; it was hauntingly beautiful.

Fukunaga wonderfully illustrates what Bronte envisioned: a young woman's struggle to exercise individual volition and preserve her integrity.

Go see the film. Take your girlfriends. A whopping NO for dates 1-5....come to think of it, don't see this with anyone you are romantically involved with.
Posted by The Laundress at 3:55 PM

http://www.dorolerium.com/?p=2468

Jane Eyre

April 05, 2011 By: dorolerium Category: Movies

Starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, & Judi Dench

Like any book lover, I went into this with high expectations and more than a little apprehensive. While I haven’t actually seen another Jane Eyre adaptation all the way through, I know what it is to be disappointed by a film version of one of your favorite books, so I didn’t really know what was going to come of it.

Obviously it’s difficult to capture every detail from a book when you’re turning it into a movie, and while there were some things missing, on the whole I felt this was a pretty good adaptation. The passage of time throughout the movie wasn’t really thrown out there, giving you the impression that everything in Jane’s adult life happened in a year or two, but in terms of everything that needed to be covered, it wasn’t so bad.

A good rendition of both Jane and Mr. Rochester are very important to any fans of the novel, and I really liked the actors as well as the interactions between the two. Jane is such a stoic character in the book, and Mia Wasikowska did a fantastic job portraying Jane as I think of her. It also helped me that these actors, with the exception of Judi Dench, aren’t well known (at least to an American audience), so there wasn’t a lot of preconceived notions of them to affect what I was seeing.

This movie also did a great job of really showing the growing relationship between Jane and Mr. Rochester. I was worried that it would be difficult to show how Jane fell in love with him, because it’s a bit cloudy as it is, but I definitely found myself falling in love with him as time went on…even with parts of their interactions missing! There’s simply something magnetic about that man, and Michael Fassbender was excellent in the role.

I very intentionally did not read the book again before seeing the movie, I didn’t want to affect my review of the movie by having the book super fresh in my mind. I’m sure I would have been annoyed by more if I remembered what else had been omitted, so I feel like I made the right choice by waiting to read it. I intend to reread later this year, and hope it won’t change my opinion later on.

See this movie if: You like a good period piece, or are a fan of the book. I think I was the youngest person in the theater, but I would love it if more people under 40 were interested in it!

My Rating: 4/5 – Borderline amazing!

Six Degrees of Buffy the Vampire Slayer:
Mia Wasikowska was in Defiance with Liev Schreiber
Liev Schreiber was in Scream 2 with Sarah Michelle Gellar

http://therandomanimal.blogspot.com/2011/04/spooked-horses-hester-prynne-and.html

Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Spooked Horses, Hester Prynne, and Richard Burton
A girl's fantasy

Today the "random" trumps the "animal." I saw two movies this April fools weekend--one the new version of Jane Eyre. The actress who plays Jane, Mia Wasikowska, was Alice in Tim Burton's homage to Lewis Carroll-Johnny Depp, and perhaps inspired the Eyre remake with the ethereal potential of her features. The role of Rochester goes to Michael Fassbender. This is perhaps the first costume drama that Colin Firth has escaped, because you see Colin Firth and you see, you know the scene in the BBC Pride and Prejudice when. . .

Anyway, the not-so-plain Jane first encounters Rochester when she "bewitches" his horse in mysterious woods. To cut to the chase, intense, inscrutable, seemingly fickle Rochester soon confesses that he wants Jane's "soul." O.K. a woman probably wrote that line. We know which one. True, when Rochester possessed women's bodies by acts of innuendo, he ended up with a child that may or may not have been his and a madwoman in the attic. Maybe time to try for the soul.

I did realize in watching this movie (spoiler alert only if you never had an English course and never used Cliff's Notes) that Jane is the Anti-Bertha. Rochester had already tried dark, voluptuous, nonverbal, violent, hirsute. So why not go for repressed, overwrought, anemic?

Richard Burton once played Rochester, and he seemed crazed enough to think he believes a line like "I want your soul" when you know he can't stop there or anywhere. Poor lost Liz Taylor--as a child she had a bit part in a different Jane movie. If only the Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf Taylor could play mad Bertha and a just-past National Velvet Liz play Jane (standing behind a lot of tall chairs to hide her figure). It would be interesting to see Burton/Rochester negotiate upstairs/downstairs Liz-Martha/Liz-Jane. Upstairs Liz would win that one.
Jaundiced Jane AKA C. B.

This new Jane version acquitted itself quite well, after some unnecessary messing with the chronology, though it took a leap of faith to get from about 10 words of dialogue to passion. Then, if you look around those moors, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE GOING ON. IT'S DARK IT'S DREARY. THE WELL WATER RUNS THROUGH THE GRAVEYARD. Maybe because it's been a long winter in Minnesota, the bleak scenery made me want to shout, "TURN ON A LIGHT! VITAMIN D! MEET PEOPLE! GO TO SAN DIEGO!"
California Girls were on my mind because I also saw via DVD this weekend Easy A. Those California girls are reading, or watching the Demi Moore non-version of, The Scarlet Letter. An orange blossom replaces the rose bush by the prison door, and students want a fallen reputation. It's has a skewed wit and treats oversexed teenagers with irony, while still keeping them oversexed. But any movie in which Stanley Tucci gets to say totally nonfiltered lines is worth some time. Stanley Tucci as Rochester would spook the horse. He might make an interesting Jane.

Happy Belated April Fool's Day

Posted by The Random Animal at 3:55 PM

http://catdirtsez.blogspot.com/2011/04/movie-review-book-review-jane-eyre-and.html

Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Movie Review & Book Review: JANE EYRE AND VILLETTE

Jane Eyre
2011 FOCUS FEATURES
d. Cary Fukunaga
Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre
Michael Fassbender as Rochchester
based on the novel by Charlotte Bronte

Villette
by Charlotte Bronte
p. 1852
Bantam Classics Edition
w/ introduction by Susan Fromberg Schaeffer

What's the first rule of adopting a novel by the Bronte sisters or Jane Austen into a movie? NAIL..THE...LEADS. I would go so far as to say that a Bronte/Austen joint is only as good as the lead actors. By that token, Cary Fukunaga (d. of Sin Nombre 2009) really has a good jump out of the gate. For Jane Eyre he got Mia Wasikowsaka, who was an unfortunate victim in Tim Burton's uninspired Alice in Wonderland. Victimhood aside, you can see why Burton cast her as Alice and why Fukunaga would leap at the chance to make a 29th version of Jane Eyre: Wasikowsaka is that good. Likewise, Fassbender is an apt choice as Rochester, and their chemistry, is tangible.

I've seen critics refer to this version of Eyre as "gothic" but one shouldn't make that reference without mentioning that Bronte's work is steeped in the literary Gothicism of the late 18th and early 19th century. A most cursory review of the Bronte's biographical details coupled with the time period in which they were forming their writing style, should be sufficient to apprise even the most ignorant modern of the gothicism which is laced throughout the work of ALL the Bronte's.

Aside from that, Fukunaga handles the gothic aspect of Jane Eyre as well as can be expected in that he makes a cheesy, clunky back drop come to life through his camera lense. Jane Eyre is an enduring classic yes, but as a work of literature, it is far eclipsed by Bronte's last work, Villette. Jane Eyre was published in 1847, Villette in 1852 and to consider the stories back to back is to see the difference between a young writer trying to establish her place in the literary world by aping convention and a mature, successful writer trying to cement her literary legacy.

In Fukunaga's Jane Eyre, he does a great job with everything but the very plot devices which make this such an enduring tale. I.E. the ole crazy wife in the attic plot twist, which is not adequately foreshadowed or anticipated by his straight forward directorial style. For me, the heart of Jane Eyre is the way that Bronte takes this very Gothic/supernatural scene of the haunted castle and then ties it into the love story between Eyre and Rochester. In that way, the ole crazy lady in the attic is both the most "popular" event in the tale AND the most sophisticated literary device in the novel, and Fukunaga's failure to give a unique spin to that contrast is what prevents this Jane Eyre from being great. But it is good- and a great date movie.

After seeing the film I picked up a copy of Villette that my wife has owned since her college days. The Bantam Classics edition is no Oxford Worlds Classics series edition, but no matter. You don't need a PHD in 19th century British literature to grasp the appeal of a Bronte Sisters novel- psychological depth of character coupled with precise, realistic observation of scene and social interaction. In many ways, it's hard to believe that Villette was written in 1847, so attuned to psychology in a time before psychology was a discipline. (Freud was born nine years after Vilette was published, to give you an idea.)


I can truly say that the depth of field that Bronte brings to Villette far, far, far surpasses ANY of the 18th century novels I've read in the past two years. You can clearly see the evolution of the novel as an art form by the progress of psychological sophistication in the protagonist, and by that token, Charlotte Bronte and her sisters represented a real step forward. It's no wonder their work has proved so enduring over time.

Here is one thing I wanted to mention: Villette contains a thirty page sequence at the end where Lucy Snowe (main character) is dosed with morphine and instead of sedating her it has an energizing effect, and she basically wanders around time on a heroin high for forty pages. Not that kind of stuff prim stuff one would expect from a Bronte, and it made me all the more intrigued by the Bronte sisters. One wonders what experience inspired such a scene.

Posted by catdirt at 10:20 AM

http://closelyywatched.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre.html

Tuesday, April 5, 2011
(NOT SO) PLAIN JANE

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre is barely contained within the conventions of the Victorian Era. The story moves effortlessly between Christian doctrine, stark feminism, dark Gothicism, and near explicit sexuality. Jane, exquisitely portrayed by Mia Wasikowska, is the archetypal image of an ordinary girl, whose suffering is overcome only by her own perseverance, and is somehow universally identifiable.

Cary Joji Fukunaga handles the formidable challenge of adapting such a beloved piece of western literature with bravery and respect for the original text. The emotional tides of the novel have many hundred pages to change, but the film tackles the condensed story without losing much impact. This is in big part due to the strong performances of the actors – who command the quick emotional changes with full commitment and are, therefore, entirely believable.

The film begins in the bleak, foggy moors that recall the third Lord of the Rings movie. A desperate, breathless Jane is discovered on the doorstep of St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters (Holliday Grainger and Tamzin Merchant), who nurse her back to life. We learn of Jane’s tumultuous childhood through flashbacks aroused by involuntary memory: the abuse of her callous aunt, cousins, and house staff – the brutal realities of life in Lowood School, the death of her best friend, etc. Bronte’s lengthy descriptions of brutality and misfortune are shortened, but poignant, and still serve in showing how Jane’s strength of character was developed. Another, longer flashback, tells the only tale of passion and hope in Jane’s short life: her love of Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). However unlikely Jane Eyre is as a heroine – being plain and poor – Rochester matches her in his unlikelihood as a hero. Rochester is hard, dark, cynical, mean, but shows glimpses of deep wounds that somehow render him loveable. He finds a kindred spirit in Jane – a girl whose “tale of woe” is forcibly suppressed in favor of selfless forward-looking. The mutual identification turns quickly into love, as the passion between the two grows to a palpable eroticism. In the end, we return to the original frame and watch the rest of the story unfold in present time. By this point, we - as the audience - become so connected to the characters, we feel their pain and are genuinely relieved to see their desires fulfilled.

Posted by AK at 10:12 AM

http://poetsonfilm.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/jane-eyre-2011-review-by-mark-leidner/

Jane Eyre (2011) | Review by Mark Leidner

The male imagination is a windy, terrifying place.

Its appetites insatiable, unstable, black, pornographic, and endless.

Rare is the movie that makes you want to not just f&#!, but love, the female lead—rare as I suppose it is in life.

Rare is the girl so pure and beautiful that to love her would be enough.

In every scene, Mia Wasikowska coruscates this rarity.

Never more eloquently than in sparring Michael Fassbender’s magically smoldering Rochester.

The teary, electric passion between the two is nothing short of a gift.

They make the Lifetime movie-brutalized genre of melodrama not only forgivable, but venerable.

Rare is the movie that can make you believe an unbearable love is possible.

The billowing torch Eyre and Rochester bear along the gusted midnight plain of their narrative makes my own sporadic bursts of pussy-chasing look like a miniature flashlight not even bought—shoplifted—from the CVS of my imagination, whose only light is its own fluorescent torture.

Like all good movies, Eyre helped me realize I am a fool and an asshole, even as it gave me hope I might not be.

The function I suppose Jane Eyre herself performs for Rochester.

That she does not exist in life, in the dark, rainy parking lot of Amherst Cinema, as I walked out to my car, seemed mankind’s keenest tragedy.

If in Eyre’s braids alone I could not glimpse all the universe I beheld’s coiled splendor, I would be blinder than an underwater mountain.

When Rochester smokes his cigarettes in virile anguish, just as Fassbender’s British spy in Basterds, for a few nighmarishly tantalizing seconds I literally become homosexual…

If women looked at me the way they must at him in my imagination, I would fear nothing.

I would walk through walls, breathe fire, stick my head into the mouth of death like a large black lion and laugh into the throat-hole like a metaphysical bullhorn.

The first act is slow.

The dialogue is rich, baroque, and conceptual—yet effortless.

Fukunaga’s engaging direction; Goldman’s cinematography is quite lush; Buffini’s screenplay shivers between competence and excellence.

The acting is so close to being, we see into the consciousnesses of our two leads that thing we have no easy name for, and so, throwing up our hands in gratitude and disgust, call poetry.

Ten women with a tenth of Eyre’s courage and mettle, working together, could rearrange the madhouse we call the world into a paradise.

Go see Jane Eyre if you want to relearn how pathetic, petty, impotent, simple, tepid, empty, shallow, and alone your own experience of love has been.

http://urchinmovement.com/2011/04/05/urchins-add-new-books-to-the-shelf/

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

I have a reading list. A two-year long reading list, in fact, and Jane Eyre has been waiting patiently near the bottom for, oh, two years now. A classic in feminist literature, Charlotte Bronte’s novel appears to be on the surface a standard Victorian work; our protagonist however, is anything but. When Jane falls in love with the arrogant (and sexy) Rochester, she seeks an equal standing in marriage and life, demanding quite a bit from him for the time. So, why did this book suddenly appear at the top of my list? Hollywood. A new film starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender and Judi Dench (released March 11) looks phenomenal and I clearly can’t justify seeing the film without reading the book!

http://cpa-booksandmoviesreviews.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre.html

Jane Eyre (♦♦♦♦)

Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska, Alice in Wonderland) grows up in a boarding house until she is old enough to procure a job. With her fine education, Jane becomes the governess at Thornfield, whose owner, Mr. Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender, Inglorious Basterds) falls in love with her, only he has a terrible secret. On Jane and Rochester’s wedding day, some truths are revealed, which drive Jane away from Thornfield.

I had previously watched Franco Zeffirelli’s 1996 Jane Eyre; I rated that movie 5 stars. I also liked this Cary Fukunaga’s version. This film is dark, which normally characterizes period pieces, but it suits the mood of this movie rather well. Here there is a powerful secret, hidden in plain sight, protected by the house’s employees, so the darkness works like a metaphor. The music is ethereal. I enjoyed the spring romance (also a metaphor), and the chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender, which is undeniable.

I should remark that Mia Wasikowska’s performance really impressed me. Her Jane Eyre is a quiet, driven performance, a strong willed woman who has been through much and it’s not afraid of showing it. Bravo, Mia!

Posted by CPA at 4/05/2011 12:33:00 PM

http://bibliobeau.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-2011.html

Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Jane Eyre 2011

It is always with some trepidation that I go to see films based on Victorian novels; I have a deep sentimental attachment to the subject, and I recognize that it is largely impossible for a filmmaker to portray everything that such a novel includes. However, I often find myself heeding the siren call of seeing some of my favorite characters brought to life, and this weekend I attended a showing of "Jane Eyre."

The film itself is artfully arranged, employing a variety of flashback techniques in an attempt to manage a very lengthy time line. Those unfamiliar with the novel may find themselves a bit lost at times, but anyone who knows Charlotte Bronte's classic story can easily follow the series of events as they are presented.

Visually, the film is stunning, while preserving historical accuracy; unlike so many directors who seek to "spice up" historical films by introducing visual and audio elements that are not period authentic (think the new "Dorian Gray" or "Vanity Fair"), Cary Fukunaga uses the natural elements of the film to create drama while presenting for the audience the world in which Jane Eyre (and Charlotte Bronte) would have moved.

Ultimately, though, a film of this kind often comes down to casting, and "Jane Eyre" delivers far more than I had hoped. Too often it seems that bombshells are favored for plain roles, but Mia Wasikowska proves to be a perfect Jane, alongside a fantastic Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) and a delightful Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench). Visually, each of these actors fits the roles assigned, and they work to truly bring these characters to life. The viewer can well and truly see Bronte's characters come to life, and move through the superbly gothic tale with dignity and grace.

Is the film perfect? Certainly not - but I maintain that the task would be impossible for the genre and primary source, and would heartily encourage fans of Jane Eyre to see the films for themselves.
Posted by Luxx Mishley at 6:49 AM

http://www.wordforteens.com/2011/04/movie-adaptations-jane-eyre.html

Apr 5, 2011
Movie Adaptations: Jane Eyre

I saw Jane Eyre on April 2.

And, as with every adaption of this movie, I have mixed feelings about it.

For the most part, I thought the casting was amazing. Michael Fassbender plays an amazing Rochester - he seemed to pretty in the promo pictures, but he looks a lot more accurate in the movie itself. Dame Judy Dench is fantastic as Mrs. Fairfax; she stole every scene she was in. I loved Adele. Mia Wasi-Wasiko-Wasika-whatshername was alright as Jane, though. She has a very specific acting style that I didn't exactly adore.

The directing was fantastic, and I loved their use of natural lighting.

They DID leave out some of my favorite scenes - the gypsy scene, the portrait scene at the end, the bickering between the cousins - but overall I thought it was really well done. My biggest problem was that, if you didn't know the story going in, it would be hard to keep up. It seemed designed for Jane Eyre fans.

Not necessarily a bad thing!

I think I liked the 2006 version (with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson) a bit more than this one, mainly because I love Toby's Rochester and Ruth's Jane is PERFECT. But if I could merge these two, and maybe add some bits of the musical, it'd be perfect.

Has anybody seen this yet? What are your thoughts?

Posted by Nicole at 9:00 AM

http://tierneyalison.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/review-jane-eyre-2011/

Review: Jane Eyre (2011)
03Apr11

If you know me at all (and, well, even if you kind of don’t) chances are you know that my favourite novel is Charlotte Bronte’s 1847 classic Jane Eyre. I read it first when I was nineteen, the same age as the heroine, and despite the fact that I’m something of a voracious reader and have read tons of books since, nothing has managed to surpass Jane Eyre as unquestionably my favourite novel.

As such, I’m pretty highly critical of film adaptations of the novel, of which there are over twenty (I’m not kidding.) Though I’ve not seen all of them, I’ve seen a fair number, including the 1943 version with Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles, the 1983 version with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton (!), the 1996 version with Charlotte Gainsbourg and a terribly miscast William Hurt, the 1997 version with Samantha Morton and the inappropriately voluble Ciaran Hinds (whom I normally adore but hated as Rochester) and the 2006 version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, which despite its flaws, was, until tonight, my favourite adaptation of the novel.

Although the plot of the novel was obviously quite truncated for time (the film ran just under two hours) I felt like this version of Jane Eyre did a really, really good job of pulling the necessary stuff and discarding the not-so-necessary. Obviously the parts that were the most glossed over were Jane’s childhood – her youth at her Aunt Reed’s and her schooling at Lowood – however, those parts in the novel are overlong, and the scriptwriter and director of this version (Moira Buffini and Cary Fukunaga, respectively) had what shouldn’t have been a novel idea but was and chose to show those scenes as flashbacks within the body of the narrative rather than starting the film with them and proceeding linearly. For example, the first scene of the film is of Jane fleeing Thornfield Hall after she learns that Mr. Rochester has a wife and turns down his pleas to live with him unmarried.

This version of the film has been touted as a “reinvention” of the story, and although it wasn’t quite as revisionist as it was claimed to be, it did several things differently than previous adaptations which combined to make it my favourite version of the story, despite some flaws.

I particularly liked the darker tone of this adaptation, from the cinematography (utterly, breathtakingly beautiful) to the subject matter. Michael Fassbender’s Rochester was the perfect mixture of terrifying and sardonic (more on him in a minute) and Fukunaga’s choice to take certain key moments from the novel and amp up the horror aspect was a welcome change from most adaptations. The scenes that come most readily to mind are those when a young Jane is locked in the “Red Room” (a scene I’ve never seen filmed perfectly and though this wasn’t perfect either it was a lot more organic and believably scary than other adaptations) and the scene where Bertha Mason’s brother is bitten by his sister and Jane has to tend to him in the dark while Rochester goes for the doctor. This scene in particular was effective both because the wound given was much grosser than I’ve seen it portrayed before (a couple people in the theatre actually gasped) and because the tapestry in front of the hidden door to Bertha’s chambers kept fluttering in such a tense, frightening way, something no other adaptation has called attention to before and I thus really appreciated.

Speaking of individual scenes, the scene that I think is the most important in the novel is that where Rochester meets Jane in the laneway to Thornfield and his horse rears and throws him. I’ve never seen an adaptation get the scene quite right, and though I don’t think this adaptation did it perfectly it was the closest to the way I see it in my head.

Really the only scene I wasn’t terribly taken with was the scene were Rochester finally proposes to Jane, but the further away I get from it the more I like Mia Wasikowska’s choice to not go too emotional with it. I’ll have to come back to this more after a second viewing.

Perhaps my favourite part of this adaptation, though, was Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of Mr. Rochester. He was fantastic and is, without a doubt, the best version of Rochester I’ve seen so far. The thing that people tend to forget about Mr. Rochester is that he’s scary, and intimidating, but also funny as hell and sarcastic and sardonic and Michael Fassbender nailed all of that. He gave Rochester so much depth and pathos. He was fantastic. People in the audience were actually laughing at some of his lines, but he somehow managed to tread the line that Toby Stephens sometimes went over and avoided being over-the-top or corny.

Something else I really liked about Fassbender’s portrayal (or the director’s direction of his portrayal?) was that Fassbender wasn’t afraid to make Rochester, well, kind of a paedophile. It’s important to remember that Rochester is in his late thirties and Jane is nineteen. Most adaptations gloss over the oddness of that, but not this one. There were scenes that were romantic, but underneath ran a current of discomfort. Fassbender’s done a great job of playing something of a paedophile before, so I hope he doesn’t get typecast, if one can be typecast as a pedo.

Mia Wasikowska’s Jane was great too, she has a great face wherein she may not say something but you can see it said in her looks and expressions. She and Fassbender were really well matched which is saying something for Wasikowka’s talent, since at the time of filming she actually was nineteen.

I can’t finish this without saying something of Judi Dench, who played Mrs. Fairfax. She was fantastic. I’ve never much liked the character before, either in the novel or its adaptations, but trust Dame Judi to make her three-dimensional and awesome. I particularly liked at the end when Jane comes back to discover Thornfield in ruins and meets Mrs. Fairfax and Mrs. Fairfax asks Jane why she (Jane) didn’t just ask Mrs. Fairfax to help her after she found out about Rochester’s wife, because she would have. It’s not in the book, but the scene was so awesome it made me wish it was.

I’m going to come back to this in a couple days and make amendments if need be, but this movie was pretty fantastic, and revisionist enough that I think, at least until another filmmaker has a go at it, it’s a pretty definitive version of the novel.

Also, I really liked the ending. None of that weird turning into a family portrait s$#!.

ETA: I forgot to mention something I really enjoyed about this adaptation – the screenplay lifted huge amounts of dialogue right from the novel itself. It was AMAZING. I love the 2005 Pride & Prejudice and everything, but Austen’s language was missing. Not so here. The fact that I got to hear entire exchanges from the novel spoken by Wasikowska and Fassbender as Jane and Rochester was thrilling for me.

http://tolland.patch.com/articles/spend-a-gray-day-with-jane-and-rochester

| April 3, 2011
Arts
Spend a Gray Day with Jane and Rochester

Go to the movies and get in touch with your inner governess.

Michael Fassbender plays Rochester to Mia Wasikowska's Jane. Credit Focus Features

"Jane Eyre," one of the most enduring chick flicks ever, is released in yet a new form. Credit Focus Features

Jane may be plain, but the scenery is lush, even in its starkness. Credit Laurie Sparham

"Jane Eyre," the latest film version, just opened at the Bow-Tie Cinema City at the Palace in Hartford. Credit courtesy of Bow-Tie

Official Movie Trailer: 'Jane Eyre' http://o2.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/resize/273x203/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/c2f2170ec07738994ee50411a08f0a11

It’s a dreary, gray Friday afternoon. You’ve turned in a ton of work by deadline. You have nothing on the agenda and you deserve a reward. And the new film version of “Jane Eyre” – the perennial chick flick – is at Bow-Tie Cinema City at the Palace in Hartford.

If it’s not too late, call your best movie buddy. But if no one is available, nothing beats immersing yourself in the Charlotte Brontë classic alone in the dark.

Perfect for experiencing our favorite governess’ blush when Rochester toys with her intellect by the fire that first night. Perfect for weeping freely when he appears to be planning a betrothal to another and breaks Jane’s heart. And perfect for believing that the dark, Byronic master of Thornfield could fall for her so thoroughly because she is so good and so frank and so loyal. Ah, there’s hope for plain girls everywhere. And it’s sprung eternal in each of the 29 film or television versions of “Jane Eyre” through history.

This one, directed by Cary Fukunaga, stars Mia Wasikowska ("Alice in Wonderland") in the title role, Michael Fassbender ("Inglourious Basterds") as Rochester, and Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax.

When the old Cinema City was closed in the South End of Hartford because of an MDC project coveting the land, the Bow-Tie theaters moved the popular art and independent film house to the Palace. Fans were distraught, but Bow-Tie attempted to recreate at the Palace a special wing for the less commercial and more thoughtful films that used to play almost exclusively in the South End.

The theater even replicated the butter for the popcorn, the offerings of coffee and tea, the “You Be the Critic” bulletin board in the lobby, and the little art deco café tables where enthusiasts could chat about the films before or after.

It’s a good place for getting your Goth on with Jane Eyre, or at another movie more to your taste. Just you the romantic on a dreary day with a cup of hazelnut coffee.

Bow-Tie Cinema City at the Palace is at 330 New Park Ave., Hartford. Regular commercial film fare is available in the Palace 17 theaters in the front part of the building. For information, show times and tickets, call 860-549-0030 or visit Bow-Tie Cinemas.

http://buquad.com/2011/04/06/%E2%80%98jane-eyre%E2%80%99-review-jane%E2%80%99s-got-the-right-gothic-stuff/

‘Jane Eyre’ Review: Jane’s Got the Right (Gothic) Stuff
By Chree Izzo | Apr 6th, 2011

There’s one glaring problem with Cary Fukunaga’s film adaptation of the brooding Charlotte Brontë classic Jane Eyre: Mr. Rochester is hot. This may seem a superficial thing to pick on, but it’s actually necessary story-wise for Mr. Rochester to not be all that and a sexy bag of potato chips. In the film, Rochester’s detrimental good looks, the unknowing fault of Irish actor Michael Fassbender’s face, make it seem all too easy that Jane fall for him, an ease at odds with the many hardships of Brontë’s heroine.

And our heroine, the ultimate plain Jane, is uncharacteristically a looker as well. The film does what it can to dull out its Jane, played by rising newcomer Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland), draping her in dark, dreary dresses and pulling her mousy brown hair into intricate Princess Leia-like buns, but the attempted dowdiness can’t hide Wasikowska’s flawless pale complexion and romantic bone structure.

Thankfully, the movie downplays the pair’s prettiness by serving up a large helping of moody Gothic drama. Brontë has always been a Jane Austen for emo chicks, replacing dances and courtship with things that go bump in the night, and the film revels in the source material’s inherent gloominess, a murky world of muted colors, misty moors, mysterious sounds, and mutton chop sideburns. The film starts at Jane’s rock bottom: she is sobbing, rain-soaked and hooded in black, trekking alone through rough terrain in the middle of a storm. Yes, it’s über melodramatic, but Jane Eyre isn’t your happy-go-lucky Victorian romance, Jane herself isn’t your happy-go-lucky Victorian lead, and the film rightly doesn’t treat either as such.

“All governesses have a tale of woe,” Rochester tells Jane on their first meeting. “What’s yours?” Interweaving scenes from the present and the past, the film quickly details Jane’s childhood struggles: her life as a young orphan, tormented at the hands of her cousins, treated like a servant by her hateful aunt (an icy Sally Hawkins), cast off to a Dickensian girls’ school where she undergoes even more abuse and ridicule, and then weighed down even further by the loss of her best friend. In short, Jane Eyre’s upbringing makes Lizzie Bennet’s look like a cakewalk. Young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) is willful and passionate, desperate for freedom, and Wasikowska plays adult Jane with a nice well-worn wisdom behind her honest, steady gaze, a result of all she’s endured, all the hard lessons learned.

Photo courtesy of Focus Features

The film zips along to Jane’s post as governess of Thornfield Hall, where she’s hired to teach a young French ward of its wealthy proprietor. Enter the surly, sarcastic (and yes, damn it, sexy) Mr. Edward Rochester. Almost immediately, the sparks start flying. In Brontë’s novel, the couple has a slow-burning attraction, but Fukunaga’s film trades that slow burn for a scene or two of flirty, teasing banter, and then bam! They’re passionately in love with each other. The coupling is a bit quick for comfort, lacking the novel’s romantic tension and pent-up desire, but there’s a nice chemistry and the repartee between the leads that makes it believable.

As with any fiction-to-film adaptation, the swift script, penned by Moira Buffini, condenses much of Brontë’s work to fit the film’s two-hour screen time, but Brontë buffs can rest assured that the film hits all of the narrative and thematic notes of the novel. There’s the spooky, supernatural undertones (see Jane walking through the creepy, creaky Thornfield mansion in the dark of night, candlestick trembling in hand), the Victorian romance, the hierarchal class distinctions (at one of Rochester’s dinner parties, no one dares speak to the lowly governess), the novel’s religious and moral qualities. However, all of these aspects are merely touched upon, and the swiftness and sometimes choppiness of Buffini’s script leaves the story and its characters at the risk of feeling undeveloped.

Ultimately, shrewd performances from its actors save the film. Fassbender’s Rochester is not nearly as primal as the Rochesters of yore, but he brings a vitality to the role that feels decidedly modern, injecting his take on the Byronic hero with a good dose of snappy snark. The supporting cast is an impressive one, powered by Hawkins, the always welcome Judi Dench as Thornfield’s head housemaid Mrs. Fairfax, and a grown-up Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) as Jane’s clergyman cousin, Mr. Rivers.

But the standout is Wasikowska, who carries the film with an almost effortless grace. Her Jane is self-contained, politely stoic, betrayed only by a slight widening of the eyes or hard swallow of her elegant throat, but despite the necessary guardedness she draws you in and makes Jane’s every plight ring true. The actress never plays Jane as meek, a damsel in distress in need of rescue. Instead, she brings a contemporary freshness to the classic role, some Gothic girl-power, fleshing Brontë’s heroine out with a sprightly wit and a strong sense of self.

The latest Jane Eyre doesn’t add anything relatively new or unexpected to the Brontëan canon, but it’s a handsomely melancholy adaptation of the Gothic classic, strengthened by solid performances from its cast, particularly its lead: B+

http://www.explorebaltimorecounty.com/arts/112577/movie-guide/

NOW PLAYING

"Jane Eyre" (PG-13). Mostly satisfying adaptation of the Charlotte Bronte novel with Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre and Michael Fassbender as Edward Rochester. Emotional nuances are not that powerfully rendered, but it's immersing thanks to beautifully photographed moors. Grade: B Senator Theatre