Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 5

http://movieslutreviews.blogspot.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-see-it-again-for-first-time.html

Sunday, April 17, 2011
Jane Eyre: See it again for the first time

One hundred and sixty-four years after Charlotte Bronte wrote her powerful Goth novel about a young woman whose personal strength and unshakable moral code allows her to prevail against the harshest existence, the story is playing out again. And though you may have read the book and seen one of the six previous movie adaptations, don't miss this one staring Mia Wasikowska.

How drab and forbidding her surroundings are. Even the grand home from which she's banished as a child is hardly bright and cheerful. When she walks outdoors, her path is a maze squeezed between stone walls and high shrubbery. Is there any hope for her to break out of this harsh, confining life?

Jane Eyre is what we call today a coming-of-age story and it's a love story, too. A bleak one. But Michael Fassbender's Mr. Rochester is a sympathetic soul.

Every one of the characters we meet in this haunting drama is a victim of a social system that failed all but the very few at the top. Sound familiar?

Posted by The Movie Slut at 6:57 AM

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

17 April 2011
Jane Eyre
Saw the latest film adaptation of Jane Eyre last night after the severe weather that afflicted Raleigh. Very well done (the movie, that is), although one not having read the book would probably have found the extensive use of flashbacks a bit challenging. Mia Wasikowska was a superb Jane but even the younger folks with us found her swallowed enunciation at times a bit hard for American ears. Michael Fassbender was perhaps a bit too pretty for Rochester and, to my embarrassment, I didn't recognize Judi Dench as Thornfield's housekeeper. Jamie Bell delivered an excellent performance as St. John Rivers but the screenplay didn't allow for the full development of his deeply-held but conflicting evangelical motivations.

In short, a film well worth seeing.

http://georgekelley.org/?p=8121

JANE EYRE

Jane Eyre in Director Cary Fukunaga’s interpretation is a story of a woman who discovers the secret of her employer. Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds) make this romantic drama based on Charlotte Brontë’s classic novel come to life. Jane Eyre, an orphan, finds work at Thornfield House, where she works as a governess for wealthy Edward Rochester. But, Jane senses that dark secrets are being kept. For my money, this is the most engaging version of Jane Eyre I’ve seen. Of the roughly 17 movies made of Jane Eyre, this production captures the essence of Jane’s complicated character the best. GRADE: A

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 17th, 2011 at 1:03 am

http://elizagolightly.blogspot.com/2011/04/movie-review-jane-eyre.html

Saturday, April 16, 2011
Movie Review: Jane Eyre
Posted by elizagolightly at 8:04 PM

I saw this four weeks before it opened in wide release, but I wanted to see it a second time before I wrote my [SPOILER FREE!] review. I came into this movie slightly skeptical. One, because I hadn't like Mia Wasikowska in any of her earlier roles, and two, I was defensive because I felt this movie might replace Pride and Prejudice to an audience with a short attention span. I was having none of that. However, as soon as the movie began, my preconceptions melted away.

As I settled into the film, I realized how silly it was of me to be worried that it could take the place of Pride and Prejudice to viewers. They are two very different types of stories, and just as the books were vastly different (although written around the same time period), so are the movies. Jane Eyre's tone is melancholy and somber, which is reflected in the bleak English countryside and low lighting throughout the film. But this movie doesn't need a lot of bright lights because the performances are what really shine (Yeah, I totally just segued into the next paragraph with a corny movie-critic pun. DEAL WITH IT).

Mia Wasikowska finally won me over, and I was so thankful she did it early on. If she hadn't I may not have been able to really sink into the movie, but I did! She was genuine and believable. She did a great job and I finally agree she was cast correctly! Winning me over was a big accomplishment for her (as I was trying hard not to give in), but on top of that, the fact that she fits so well in a role as iconic as Jane Eyre shows her potential. She'll be doing some damage in the future. Michael Fassbender was wonderful as well. Rochester is not an easy role to fill because he is another romantic hero that so many women read about and idealize. To live up to that character's title can be intimidating. He did it with grace, charisma, and charm. He was easy to love while still being difficult, abrupt, and antagonistic. He certainly had me swooning by the time Rochester proclaimed his feelings for Jane. (I'm just a sucker for the Byronic hero, every time!)

The first trailer I saw for Jane Eyre was really interesting to me. It made it seem like the film was a horror/thriller. Anyone who has read the book, although there is a lot of Gothic imagery, knows that it's not a horror story. If this was how you felt about the movie preview, rest easy. There are a few moments where you jump, but nothing that changes the tone of the story or insinuates that something supernatural is present. However, this story does deal with some shocking twists and turns, so the suspenseful pauses and music only add to it. It doesn't distract.

Overall I loved this movie. I think that it has a pretty good shot at making a dent on awards season next year, if the Academy has a good memory (we shall see). It's a beautiful adaptation of a classic piece of literature and I believe that many of the book's fans will be happy to see these characters come to life on the big screen.

http://dailytimespakistan.com/article-retreating-jane-eyre/

ARTICLE: Retreating Jane Eyre
Posted on April 17, 2011 by admin

THERE are few tasks as fraught with peril as adapting a bona fide classic for the big screen. Broadly speaking, there are two ways a director can go about doing it; either use the text as a starting point to weave your own yarn and create a mood all your own as did Baz Luhrmann with his 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet, or hew as faithfully to the original as possible like Franco Zefirelli did in 1968 for his take on the same Shakespearean play. Both approaches will be sure to leave at least a segment of the potential audience alienated. Pursue the former vision and purists will knock the director for soiling and defiling a sacred work; the latter will lead to accusations of unoriginality.

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga tries to have it both ways and largely succeeds in the umpteenth adaptation of Jane Eyre, released earlier this year. The basics of the plot will be familiar to anyone (or should that be everyone?) who has read Charlotte Brontë’s novel published in 1847. The eponymous heroine, played in the movie by Mia Wasikowska, is devoid of both wealth and conventional good looks but has personality in spades.

As with the novel, the film concentrates on Jane’s relationship with Edward Rochester, her employer and the only person she can truly confide in. The Jane of the film is similar to the one in the novel who captured the hearts and minds of readers for over two centuries: she is brave and honest without being overbearingly self-righteous about either of these qualities.

Those who hoped for a retread of Brontë would have reason to be nervous given the decision to cast Wasikowska in the lead role. Last year she played Alice in Tim Burton’s woeful reexamination of the Lewis Carroll novel. This time around, Wasikowska handles the role with all the delicacy of a dedicated fan. Significantly, she is also the first Jane Eyre not to have conventional movie-star looks. Rather, she adopts the blank face and hard stare that is characteristic of the heroine and refuses to indulge in any of the mourning and self-pity of previous cinematic Jane Eyres.

For the most part, the rest of the cast handles their roles with equal aplomb, and will be eerily familiar to Jane Eyre devotees, be it Jamie Bell as the saintly clergyman, Sally Hawkins as Jane’s loathsome aunt or Dame Judi Dench as the housekeeper Mrs Fairfax. Such faithfulness, however, does not always pay off. Brontë’s depiction of Edward Rochester was embodied by Orson Welles in the 1944 movie version and as a result, Michael Fassbender as Edward in this year’s adaptation does not work. The ghost of Welles’ towering performance hovers over every frame that Fassbender is in.

Where Fukunaga diverges from the original is in the unfolding of the narrative. The movie traces Jane’s life through flashbacks, beginning with her being nursed back to health by St John Rivers and his sisters. This opening scene of the movie actually occurred towards the end of the second act in the novel. But that is a minor departure. Quickly and efficiently, the audience is then shown how Jane survived a torturous existence with her aunt and cousins and an even more vile experience at boarding school.

Although the plot and language of the novel are not adhered to with much fidelity, the themes remain constant. Jane’s desire for liberation, her need to be truly free, is still the centrepiece of this reworked version.

Fassbender may be too good-looking for the role of Rochester but the first time he encounters Jane helps vividly recall the book in a way that movie adaptations of Victorian-era novels rarely do. Instead of a prettified English country scene, we get a damp, ferocious wood where Jane meets a brooding, terrifying Rochester. Their very first meeting is charged with erotic energy but, as with the book, it is Jane who is more steadfast than the eccentric Rochester.

Without spoiling it much for those few who may not have read the book, the secret person Rochester keeps in his attic is made real in as vivid, terrifying and, dare I say, insane a manner as was done by Brontë. That unknown person is as much a ghostly apparition in the film as in the book with her incomprehensible babbling and stolen glances at Jane when she is asleep.

For some fans, the 2011 Jane Eyre will be an unsolvable conundrum. More than every other adaptation, it strives to stay true to its source material. But that doesn’t make it the best Jane Eyre movie yet. That distinction still belongs to the transcendent 1944 iteration.

Given that there are already nearly 30 movie and television versions of the novel in circulation, perhaps it would have been better to give a fresh sheen to this evergreen gem of a novel.

http://holes-in-my-brain.blogspot.com/2011/04/guest-post-book-to-movie-adaptations.html

4. Jane Eyre - 9th September - starring Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland), Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds), Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot)

This is another adaptation of the Charlotte Bronte novel, however, it is being made for the big screen i.e. the cinema and by most reports, is staying more true to the novel unlike the last version made of it in 1996 which alters the second half of the film.

Jane Eyre follows the life of a young girl, Jane and the events that happened in her life as she grew up and then, her employment where she meets Mr Rochester who is in a loveless marriage until he meets the new governess which is of course, Jane. To me, this story reminds me of 'Pride and Prejudice' and other Jane Austen novels, although written at a different time period.

Lovely period costumes, impressive to-die-for houses and of course, the wonderful (hopefully handsome) Mr Rochester are all musts for this film - all things a historical fiction reader should love. This is probably going to be the Historical Movie of the Year.

http://irulan18.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/rapid-review-jane-eyre/

Rapid Review: Jane Eyre
April 16, 2011
by irulan18

“Oh, comply!” it said. “. . . soothe him; save him; love him; tell him you love him and will be his. Who in the world cares for you? or who will be injured by what you do?” Still indomitable was the reply: “I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself.” - Charlotte Bronte – Jane Eyre

Such a woman and a character who would utter the words above is an unusual one for Victorian times. Jane Eyre is not a wilting violet waiting for her Prince Charming. When this fabled love interest does show up, he is decidedly neither a prince nor very charming. Jane is a smart gal who knows that losing herself may not be worth the hassle of a torrid romance.

Dear Reader: I have finally seen the most recent adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s beloved book and I have come to issue thusly this unsurprising spoiler alert: I have a huge, harmless crush on Michael Fassbender. This should come as no big shock, but is nonetheless a tribute to both that actor and the film, for it is partially on the basis of his interpretation of Rochester that this film is one of the best adaptations of the classic book I’ve seen in a long time.

Jane walks the Yorkshire Dales

Here we have not just the hundredth or so adaptation of this tale of a lonely but proud and determined governess from the Yorkshire Moors, but also one coming on the heels of a pretty decent BBC teleplay released only four years ago and a flawed 1996 adaptation by Shakespearian director Franco Zefferelli starring the miscast John Hurt as the self-tormented Mr. Rochester. The director of 2011′s incarnation of the romanticized, mock-gothic tale is Cary Fukunaga, a young director who has directed nothing you will have heard of in the past, but is obviously a fan of moody, dense cinematography and pointed, longing looks between his actors. I have a feeling Mr. Fukunaga and I would get along fabulously.

I’m going to assume most of you reading this review know the basics of this time-honored classic tale, but for those who need a quick cheat sheet, here’s the lowdown. Jane (played as an adult by Alice in Wonderland’s Mia Wasikowska) is the poor relation who, after being emotionally abused by her vain aunt (played with curling upper lip by the fabulous Sally Hawkins) and horrid cousins for no reason other than the fact that she won’t put up with the ridiculous, is promptly shipped off to Mr. Brocklehurst’s school for wayward (read: intelligent and self-aware) children who cannot behave in polite society. Jane grows up to become a plain-faced but intense young governess who isn’t afraid to state her mind and values honesty and forthrightness above all else in life. This does not make her popular among the locals. It also leads to a strong case of a disease much shunned by class-conscious Victorians: Independence of Thought and Action in Females. Oh- the horror.

Jane and Rochester about to eat each other whole with their eyes

She finds a job at a mysterious manor house in the Yorkshire Dales, where fog, craggy haunted landscapes, and dark stormy nights aren’t just scenery for the tourists, they are a time-honored way of life (I’ve now been there and Bronte speaketh the truth on this). This creepy Haunted Mansion is owned by the reclusive Mr. Rochester (played effectively by 300 and Inglourious Basterds star Michael Fassbender), who occupies this massive monument to loneliness with his kind-hearted but fierce housekeeper (who else but Dame Judi Dench – DUH), his precocious (which is Victorian slang for annoying) ward Adele and the various hundreds of servants it would take to run this massive joint. Of course, no one ever sees these slaves to industry because they would clash with the decor. This isn’t Upstairs, Downstairs.

Jane and Rochester meet cute when she almost kills him by running in front of his horse in the billowing Yorkshire fog. This does not go over well with the moody and brooding Rochester, who is not only used to getting his own way, but cannot understand why a silly governess would be out walking in the fog in the first place. In this, he has a valid point. Thus a star-crossed romance which must combat societal norms and ghosts of the past (Rochester’s closet is occupied by far more skeletons than jaunty and stylish cravats) begins.

The key to both the novel and Fukunaga’s on-target interpretation of the relationship between the two leads is that both characters come to an understanding of each other because no one else in Victorian-era England could fathom the value of honesty and practicality in romance and life the way Jane and Rochester do. Neither one has the patience for polite small talk, the styling and care of floral arrangements, or three-hour long card parties. They are soul mates from their very first conversation. He refuses to be a gentlemen for the sake of propriety, and she refuses to tell him lies to flatter his vanity. This is what Rochester finds intriguing about Jane, and so the dance begins. Fukunaga, Fassbender and Wasikowska capture this dynamic with alacrity, originality and spark. This Jane and Rochester have palpable chemistry, but in the film as well as the novel, they must combat both their own flaws and deep-seated beliefs to find happiness.

Jane in her independence

There are the inevitable scenes of tortured looks and grasping at each other in the rain as secrets and skeletons from the closet come forth, but it is the journey that counts, Dear Reader, and in this Fukunaga’s film succeeds at a level where others have failed. What’s important about this incarnation of Jane’s story is that it IS Jane’s story first and foremost, and the mood and romance of it all don’t rupture that core idea. Fukunaga has an eye for details in both mannerism and costuming that make Jane more of an individual than a stereotype. This Jane isn’t as plain as in past interpretations, but that fits. Bronte didn’t mean for her to stoop about with eyes lowered wearing gray for three hours. Jane is a force of nature barely contained, and Wasikowska’s performance is all in the eyes. Jane could break loose at any time, and what a glorious show that would be.

The key performance that brings it all together, however, is by Fassbender. Bronte’s Rochester was neither handsome nor charming and Fassbender gets half of that equation correct and can’t help the other half. Still, he is a skillful actor who interprets Rochester as Jane’s equal, showing that he is as frightened and stubborn regarding their relationship as she is, but with more baggage to deal with along the way. Fassbender also knows how to act with the eyes rather than the dialogue and it works well in the more sedated scenes.

Jane and St. John Rivers

There are many fine performances by some of Britain’s greatest character actors, including Jamie Bell as Jane’s other love possibility, St. John Rivers, Simon McBurney as a blustering and creepy Mr. Brocklehurst, and Romy Settbon Moore as the most realistic and least grating Adele I’ve seen on film to date.

This version of Jane Eyre is the most faithful and thoughtful adaptation of Bronte’s book in many years, and the first one I’ve seen in decades where not one actor is miscast, not one hem is out-of-place, and not one camera angle is inappropriate. In short, dear reader, get thyself to a theater (the movie is currently playing at the Rio and at Town Center in Overland Park) for two hours of gothic romance you will not regret.

Overall Grade: A

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

Saturday, April 16, 2011
Jane Eyre (2011)
Cinema Sweetheart's Rating: 10 out of 10
Director: Cary Fukunaga
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell
Rated: PG-13
Genre: Drama, Romance
Runtime: 120 minutes

Jane (Wasikowska), a young woman near death, finds herself at the home of St. John Rivers (Bell) and his sisters. They take her in and save her life, only asking who she is and where she comes from. She calls herself Jane Elliot. Flash back to about fifteen years previously, and the story of Jane Eyre begins. Raised by an aunt who hates her, and sent to a boarding school where she is abused, Jane eventually is able to free herself from the torments of her childhood, and becomes the governess to Adele Varens (Romy Settbon Moore), the illegitimate child of Edward Rochester (Fassbender), her dark, brooding employer. Jane catches his eye and softens his heart, but soon learns that Rochester harbors a very dark secret; one that threatens all he holds dear.

As an English major and a lover of Gothic literature (Jane Eyre falling into this category), I was thrilled beyond belief to see that there was a Jane Eyre movie coming out. In fact, I've been waiting for months for it to come to theatres! And Fukunaga's interpretation did not disappoint! Besides a stellar cast, the plot was well adapted, and the cinematography was perfect. I especially love what they did with Jane and Edward's relationship. Reading the book, I always had a certain image of Rochester, but after seeing the film, I feel as though I've softened a bit more toward him. That's to say, I've always loved the character, but Fassbender breathed new life into him, and only made me love him more.

I think that my biggest disappointments had to involve the few places in the film where the original story was deviated from. For example, I had been looking forward to seeing the infamous "Gypsy" scene, but it was sadly omitted. Also, I was a bit annoyed that the ending did not completely hold up to that in the book (although, I still thought that they did a wonderful job!)

Finally, my last complaint has to do with my favorite character: Rochester. Fassbender's Rochester is too attractive! One of the main characteristics of Jane and Rochester is that they are not very attractive. Jane is supposed to be plain (and while Wasikowska is beautiful, they managed to make her "plain" enough). But Rochester is supposed to be almost ugly; and as a female college student who went with a group of gal-pals, I can honestly say that this Rochester was handsome! (of course, that's not a bad thing, per se...more of literary purist complaint than anything else).

This is a must-see film for all English majors and anyone who has ever loved the works of Charlotte Brontë! Also, if you happen to be a Mr. Darcy fan-girl, you might want to check out Rochester; he's my personal favorite Even if you are not acquainted with the book, but happen to love a good drama, then you'll have to check this out! If you don't know much about the book, however, please, please, please don't look up a summary! You'll enjoy this so much more if you're completely surprised! Of our group of four girls going to see the film, one of us was completely uninformed about the plot and storyline. Her reactions were among the best, since everything was a complete surprise!

Posted by Cinema Sweetheart at 4:01 PM

http://toriminardwrites.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/jane-eyre-2011-movie/

Jane Eyre 2011 Movie
Posted on April 16, 2011 by toriminardwrites

I finally got to see Jane Eyre. I’ve been waiting for it to reach my little town, and it opened here today. Although I write mostly paranormal, I’ve had a long fascination for the Victorian era and I love nineteenth-century period pieces. I’ve read Jane Eyre many times, though it’s been years since the last, and I’m pretty familiar with the story. This movie truly captures the spirit of the book.

It’s a long book, and you’d have to shoot a mini-series to get all the incidents on film, so of course things were left out. The movie skims over Jane’s life with her aunt, Mrs. Reed, and her years at Lowood, but it gets the essence of these parts of her life. The bulk of the film is, not surprisingly, about her time with Mr. Rochester (although they left out the bit where he dresses up as a gypsy fortuneteller). What I liked about this version is that it isn’t simply a love story, and that is absolutely true to the novel.

Jane Eyre is more a coming-of-age story than a romance, although it does have an important romance subplot. The novel is about the way that Jane, a down-trodden unwanted orphan child, resists being dehumanized by her bullying aunt and cousins and the cruel Brockelhurst, refuses to be cowed by Rochester and his friends, and won’t be made a mistress in a world that condemns such women. Not even for the man she loves will she bend the knee. She would rather die of cold and starvation than be humiliated.

The movie, like the book, is dark and lovely, frightening and sad, and bittersweet at the end. It moves slowly compared to many other modern movies, because it isn’t especially modern. There’s nothing on film to draw your attention away from the nineteenth century, except for the fact that you’re sitting in a movie theater watching it. The costumes, sets, soundtrack and dialogue are all very true to the period.

I remember as a teen being struck by the grayness, the loneliness and chill of the book. Jane is, until nearly the end, the eternal outsider, always looking in at other people’s warm and cozy hearths. This film gets that tone perfectly. Most of the scenes are shot in winter. The interiors are dark and moody, lit only by candle and firelight.

I enjoyed the cast as well. Of course, Judi Dench is always wonderful. I thought Mia Wasikowska made an excellent Jane. She has delicate features and is actually beautiful (while in the book Jane describes herself as plain) but in a quiet way which suits the character and her acting was very good. She didn’t seem to be acting at all. Jamie Bell makes a good St. John Rivers, capturing the man’s combination of caring and rigidity. And Michael Fassbender is not just moody as Rochester, but obviously fascinated with Jane.

Some modern viewers might find the love story too tame, but I think the way Cary Fukanaga filmed it kept it within believable Victorian bounds. These people lived in a society so much stricter and more rigid than ours that it’s sometimes really hard for modern people to understand it or even imagine what it must have been like. And Jane is a virgin who has spent little time with men. She isn’t prepared to carry on a tempestuous affair.

The only complaint I have about the film is that it ended too abruptly. I would have loved to see the camera linger on Jane and Rochester a little longer, but that’s the sentimental romance novelist in me. All in all, I think Fukanaga did a marvelous job and I look forward to the next movie he makes.

http://codensa.org/whats-playing-in-marin-for-the-week-of-april-15-2011

What’s playing in Marin for the week of April 15, 2011
04.16.2011 · Posted in Home and Family

“JANE EYRE” HHH1/2 (PG-13) Century Regency, CineArts Marin. A voluptuous adaptation of the 1847 novel that remains enormously popular, expressing a forbidden attraction between a powerless young woman and her fierce and distant employer. Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender embody Jane and Rochester with a firm sense of who they are; neither is unattractive, although the novel says they are, but then this is the movies. from Roger Ebert. 118 minutes.

http://www.solifestyle.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-movie-review.html

Friday, April 15, 2011
Movie Review: Jane Eyre

This past weekend I was able to indulge my BBC-esque obsession with a girls trip to the movies to see Jane Eyre. Jane Eyre, mind you, is not a film for everyone. If you're not too keen on period pieces and romantic dramas that may be a little 'slow moving' at times, this is definately not a movie for you. But if you are, you may enjoy it. I appreciated the quiet thoughtful moments of this film. More after the jump.

The chemistry between Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) and Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) was remarkable, in my opinion. Though Fassbender is too handsome to play Mr. Rochester, who according to the book was much more intimidating in appearance. I have to say that Wasikowska played an excellent Jane Eyre. Generally plain in appearance (just like Jane), Mia has a deep quality about her and an intuitiveness and wit that Jane embodies in the book. Also, we have the Dame Judi Dench, as Mrs. Fairfax the housekeeper. As a HUGE fan of Judi Dench, I was quite pleased with her role.

One of the main concerns I have about this movie was how short it was. They cut very important scenes out of the movie, such as Mr. Rochester's real wife Bertha, setting the house on fire, or the important relationship between young Jane and Helen, her childhood friend that died when they were in school together. It was one of those instances where I wouldn't of minded if the movie was 3 hours long, I mean, you expect that with period pieces anyway.

Overall, I did enjoy this movie, but I would've liked more from it. If you would like to see this movie, I would recommend waiting until it's on DVD to enjoy it.

Written by Tricia

http://www.austinpost.org/content/the-new-jane-eyre-makes-grown-men-cry

The New 'Jane Eyre' Makes Grown Men Cry
By Karie - Thursday April 14, 2011 - 3:52 pm

When I first sat down to watch “Jane Eyre” at the Alamo on South Lamar, I was sure the two burly guys next to me were in the wrong theater. I’ve never known a guy who relished in a little Charlotte Brontë, especially enough to have a guy’s night out to see the latest film version of the classic novel. But when Mr. Rochester professed his love for Jane, the young man next to me slapped his hand to his heart and let out a gasp of epic romantic proportions. The Focus Features production of “Jane Eyre,” starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, is that good.

I’ve probably read the novel at least three times, but not in six or seven years. For any unfortunate souls who dosed through that part of high school or college English, the Gothic novel “Jane Eyre” opens with a young Jane being treated like a rodent by her wealthy, cold-hearted aunt and conniving cousins. With her parents both dead, Jane’s only comfort is reading and drawing, two activities always interrupted by the rotten cousins of gloom and doom. Jane’s aunt eventually sends her to an equally merciless boarding school for girls, where she develops an unbending conscience. She eventually goes to work at Thornfield Hall as a governess for the ward of a wealthy bachelor, the Byronic Mr. Edward Rochester, who falls in love with the plain but subtly bewitching Jane. But Thornfield Hall is not a place for a Cinderella story. Mr. Rochester hides a dark secret, as all Byronic bachelors worth their weight in smolder should.

Back to the film, directed by Cary Fukunaga. It opens in an entirely different place than the novel, and every other “Jane Eyre” film I’ve seen. Jane, played with exquisite sensitivity and nuance by Wasikowska, is desperately wandering the rocky English countryside after fleeing Thornfield Hall. Her face is almost colorless with despair; her eyes are pools of heartbreak. The never-ending landscape of Derbyshire flawlessly matches Jane’s terrible plight, as does the breathtaking score, composed by Dario Marianelli. From there, Jane’s story is mostly told through flashbacks - the gray lovelessness of her childhood, the loss of her first friend and the months spent in subtle flirtation with Mr. Rochester as he entertains more beautiful and bejeweled female company until confessing his true love for the heroine. Fukunaga perfectly evoked the Gothic tone of the story, from the cinematography to the music. Each scene unfolded with shadowy, yet ethereal brilliance that I’m sure would be given Brontë’s stamp of approval.

One of the film’s many strengths is the chemistry between Wasikowska and Fassbender. He positively smolders as much as she restrains. After their encounters become more personal, Rochester goes on a long trip to the continent. So perfectly does the disappointment flash across her face when she learns of his trip and so quickly does she attempt to hide it from the proper Mrs. Fairfax (played by the timeless Judi Dench) that anyone who has ever longed for the seemingly unattainable lover has to feel her anxious longing in their gut. There are countless scenes of restrained 19th century lust, countered by the eventual release of truth and passion between Edward and Jane. Numerous times, my girl friend and I gasped and gripped our seats, and it wasn’t just Fassbender’s gleaming eyes and exquisitely carved cheekbones.

The only part of the film that felt rushed - and this is the case in all of the film versions of the novel - was after Jane learns of Rochester’s skeletons and runs from her own wedding. She finds time as a teacher with a gentle minister, St. John Rivers, and his sweet sisters. It’s the first family Jane has ever known, but also an essential time for her character development. St. John falls in love with the prudent, hard-working Jane, and though she’s learned the dark consequences of true love, she won’t abandon it for a dull, passionless life of piety with the minister.

The film ends with Jane and Edward’s tearful reunion - I still won't give away his Gothic secret, but it leaves him handicapped. The two are still in love, Jane with a slightly harder shell and Edward a bit less handsome. (Jane's forgiveness always angered a few women in my English classes, who thought Jane should never return to Rochester, who they saw as manipulative and chauvinistic. To each their own - I inherited a weakness for the brooding Darcys and Rochesters from my mother.) I looked to my right as the credits rolled to see the two burly dudes slightly teary themselves. I had to say something to them.

“I’ve never see guys so drawn to ‘Jane Eyre,’” I said.

“It brought me right back to high school English class,” one guy said with a deep and forlorn breath. “How can you not love that?”

Exactly.

The film is still showing at a few theaters around town. Click here for the info.

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

Jane Eyre

Yikes, I'm late. It's spring. I saw a bee today, the first one I've noticed, and I've been dealing with all sorts of vegetation problems outside, the result of several years' neglect while I wrote, or, more likely, lurked around inside thinking about starting to write. But never mind all that.

I finally got to see Jane Eyre, weeks after everyone else, and I think it's a good enough interpretation that it could stand a little more discussion. So I loved it, unreservedly, and reader, I would marry this movie given half the chance.

I believe--is this true?--that it's the only film version that does not resort to a voiceover to link plot elements. Yet the director took some liberties with the timeline, beginning it as Jane flees Thornfield, and actually repeating about a minute of footage when the story catches up with itself. The whole Lowood part of the book (ooh, all that discipline!) is shortened, skimming over Helen Burns and ignoring the saintly Miss Temple. The Rochester-in-drag as a fortune-teller scene was wisely abandoned and if I had any complaint it was that Michael Fassbender was too hot (even in a silly nightie. Oooh). However, even that worked; at the end, he was frail and diminished and sporting a beard a woman could get lost in.

And Jane herself--well, I've never liked any of the others, such as the permanently cross and overbitten Ruth Wilson in the 2006 BBC version, the too-pretty Charlotte Gainsbourg (1996), and I thought at moments in the 1970 version with Susannah York that she almost got it. But Mia Wasikowska was amazing; she portrayed such a sense of inner passion behind the mask.

One scene that was omitted, which surprised me at first, was that in which Jane's wedding veil is ripped in half by Bertha (uh, you do know she's the mad wife in the attic, right? oops, spoiler). But it made sense in the understated interpretation, abandoning the more obviously gothic elements.

There were some lovely moments--the sexy, and again, understated scene after the fire when Jane and Rochester almost kiss (they rub noses. Aaaw); when Jane's wedding gown drops around her feet, mirroring the earlier scene where her "fine clothes" are taken from her at Lowood.

The locations and lighting and soundtrack were incredible. Most of it was filmed in Derbyshire, and here are some of the locations. Haddon Hall, left, is Thornfield:


Have you seen the movie? What did you think? What was your favorite scene?
Posted by Janet Mullany on Thursday, April 14, 2011
Labels: Jane Eyre 2011

http://onebookperweek.ca/2011/04/11/jane-eyre-book-film-review/

Jane Eyre: book & film review

April 11, 2011 by nataliejoan

Author: Charlotte Brontë

Genre: Gothic Horror

Publisher: Smith, Elder & Co., Cornhill

Publication Date: October 1847

What can be said about Jane Eyre that has not already been said by someone far more clever and better read than myself? I feel foolish even trying to review this classic, but that’s what this space is for, and that is why you are here reading, so here I go.

Jayne Eyre was written by Charlotte Brontë, originally published in 1847 as a five-part serial under the name Currier Bell, because of course, ladies just were not published in those days. (Notably, her sisters also published famous books that year: Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë/Ellis Bell, and Agnes Grey by Anne Brontë/Acton Bell – see the pattern here?)

The Brontë’s do dark and brooding better than any author I have read. Honestly, Heathcliff and Mr. Rochester make Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy look like a ray of sunshine. But back to the story:

Jane Eyre is an orphan. The story opens with her being “cared for” by her aunt, who considers her a burden and whose family never accept her. After a chilling scene where Jane is locked in an upper bedroom and nearly frightened to death, her aunt ships her off to Lowood, a boarding school run by a minister who believes the best way to raise proper Christian girls is a combination of a starvation diet and public humiliation. Jane makes her first ever friend, who later dies in her arms (typhus? consumption? I don’t remember).

Things improve somewhat at Lowood over the years as staff changes, and after she finishes schooling, Jane stays on as a teacher before accepting a position as governess at Thornfield. Enter Mr. Rochester: brooding, mysterious, and burdened with secrets. Rochester is accustomed to people being intimidated by his dark moods and outbursts, and is intrigued by Jane who has no fear of him. This being a Victorian novel, they of course fall in love, and plan to marry – but fate and the secrets of Rochester’s past intervene. Rather than stay at Thornfield to be Rochester’s mistress, Jane leaves, penniless and alone, nearly starves to death but is eventually saved by the Rivers family, who take her in, feed her, and set her up with a job. In a “twist” typical of novels of the period, the Rivers’ turn out to be her cousins, and they all share in an inheritance when a long-lost uncle dies. The stage seems set for a not-unhappy ending, but the tale of Mr. Rochester is not yet over…

Jane Eyre is one of my all-time favourite heroine’s. Often, my favourite books involve people I can’t like (Wuthering Heights, anyone?) but Jane is a character you cannot help but root for. She suffers, yet remains strong. Falls in love, but will not debase herself. She is honest and true to herself always.

This past Saturday, after a long day of packing and cleaning the house, I headed to the Oxford theatre to watch the latest film adaptation of Jane Eyre (starring Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds) and directed by Cary Fukunaga). I was skeptical, as always with a book adapted to film, but must say I enjoyed the film and will probably purchase it to watch again (and again). The novel is split into three parts. Almost like acts in a play: her early life, her time at Thornfield , and her time with the Rivers family. The storyline at Thornfield is by far the most interesting and best written section of the book, and it is naturally what the film focuses on, treating the other aspects of the narrative as mere introductions and conclusions to what is otherwise a love story. (There were many years between my first reading of the story and rereading it last year. I honestly had forgotten all about her aunt and the Rivers family – remembering only a sad childhood, a school, Thornfield and Rochester… and something that happened after she ran away from Thornfield .)

Jane did not lie. She would not have told this man he was not handsome.

The film captures the dark, gothic aspects of the novel very well. I went to the theatre alone – on a whim, needing a break from work – and sitting in the dark balcony of the Oxford as unknown creatures prowled the halls of Thornfield , I found myself wishing I had brought a friend. Rochester and Jane were well cast – though Rochester was a bit too handsome to be believable. He was not supposed to be a handsome character, but that would just not be acceptable on film. And of course, Dame Judi Dench is splendid as Mrs. Fairfax, the widowed housekeeper at Thornfield – though almost wasted in such a small role.

If I can say one more thing about Jane Eyre it is this: unlike many novels of its time, it is far more than a romance. It’s classified by Wikipedia as “Gothic Horror” which I love, but I think describing it as horror is a stretch. Thriller, maybe. While the title character may be female, it is not a book written for women as is so often presumed. My husband got a few odd looks while reading it on a military base in the middle of the Balkans a few years back, but he thoroughly enjoyed it, and he’s a harsher book critic than I will ever be (if only because in his mind, nothing will ever be as good as The Lord of the Rings).

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

Monday, April 11, 2011
Review: Jane Eyre (2011)
* * * *

Director: Cary Fukunaga
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench

The familiarity that audiences generally have with the story of Jane Eyre should make it a difficult novel to successfully adapt. There have been so many versions of it in both film and television – between the two mediums a new version comes out every five to ten years – that it ought to be difficult to bring any new perspective to it, to make it in any way fresh. And yet, here is director Cary Fukunaga’s take (working from a screenplay adapted by Moira Buffini), a glorious looking adaptation that feels like a breath of fresh air. Here is an adaptation that gets it absolutely right.

Jane Eyre is the story of an orphan, unloved and mistreated by her guardian and aunt, Mrs. Reid (Sally Hawkins in an uncharacteristically villainous role), and sent away to a school where she’s treated with harshness and brutality. As a grown woman Jane (Mia Wasikowska) becomes governess to Adèle Varens (Romy Settbon Moore), the ward of Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender), a brooding man whose presence dominates Thornfield Manor and, eventually, Jane’s heart. Sensing in Jane his intellectual and spiritual equal, Rochester falls in love with her and asks her to marry him. There’s just one totally minor and inconsequential detail that he’s forgotten to mention.

I’m of course referring to the mad woman in the attic, Rochester’s wife, Bertha, whose secret presence gives the story its gothic, ghost story element. The revelation of Bertha’s existence sends Jane running and, having assumed the name “Jane Elliot,” she becomes the teacher at a country school with the help of St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell). With Rivers and his two sisters Jane attempts to create the familial connections that have always been just out of her reach, but Rivers is not content to accept Jane “as a sister” and instead wants to marry her and bring her with him to India where he’s to do missionary work. Faced with the prospect of a loveless marriage, Jane runs again, this time drawn back to Thornfield Manor and all its demons.

One of the things that makes this version of Jane Eyre work so well is that it doesn’t approach the story as a simple period romance. Jane Eyre is essentially a story about agency and Fukunaga and Buffini make that element the film’s driving force. Though the film does not feature the novel’s most famous line (“Reader, I married him,” a line which underscores that Jane is an active character rather than a passive one), it does emphasize the importance of language in establishing Jane’s sense of agency. Consider, for example, the two proposals. St. John’s is less a question than it is an order and when Jane objects he dismisses the idea of emotional compatibility as unimportant. Rochester’s proposal, on the other hand, is one that does not offer Jane the opportunity to become a possession or an appendage, but rather one which puts her in a position of power. Rochester literally offers her his hand and tells her that she’s his “equal and likeness.” He offers her partnership rather than expecting subservience, which is why she can return to him without it seeming like a compromise of her morals or values (though the convenient fact of Bertha’s death helps, too).

Thematically this is a very strong adaptation that captures the spirit of its source, but it’s a success on a technical level as well. The film is photographed to make use of a lot of natural light, allowing it to look alternately lush and gloomy. It’s a beautiful looking film and the cinematography does a great deal to build atmosphere, particularly in scenes which take place at Thornfield. The story of Jane Eyre is so well-known that for most audiences any adaptation will hold few surprises, but Fukunaga is able to craft a surprising degree of tension out of a lot of familiar territory, which helps drive the story forward so successfully.

I’ve seen a few of the different versions of Jane Eyre and I usually find that casting of the roles of Jane and Rochester is problematic, in that most adaptations are able to get it right with one character but totally wrong with the other. On paper neither Wasikowska nor Fassbender should work (the film does what it can to make Wasikowska look “plain” while staying within the confines of Hollywood’s definition of beauty, but there is no masking Fassbender’s inherent hunkiness), but there is such harmony in their performances and they bring such life to their characterizations that any doubt about their casting quickly falls away. There’s really no fault to be found with this version of Jane Eyre; it’s just about perfect.
Posted by Norma Desmond at 8:00 AM

http://www.heritage.com/articles/2011/04/22/opinion/doc4db180862db44806181945.txt

Movie Review: 'Jane Eyre' shakes, dazzles audience

Published: Friday, April 22, 2011

By Ryan Michaels, Special Writer

Hey, I'm Ryan Michaels, a 14-year-old writing movie reviews for Heritage Newspapers. I've been doing it for three years, and enjoy it a lot. Here's my review of "Jane Eyre."

Being the film fanatic and all-around arts obsessive that I am, I've never considered myself quite as educated on classical literature as I should be. I read voraciously, don't get me wrong, but you're far more likely to catch me reading an Eggers or a Wallace than an Austen or a Joyce.

I only consider this little aside worth sharing because I'm reviewing "Jane Eyre." Considered a member of the essential British literary canon -- the existence of which is a little sad but a little easier to know what to read -- it's one of the monolithic terrors that I've been long aware of yet always eluded it.

Put bluntly, the prose in which it's written scares me off, terribly. So hearing of this cinematic adaptation, I was excited to see this legendary story told in a language I consider myself fluent in: Cinema.

"Jane Eyre" is the story of a woman who falls in love with an elusive landlord by the name of Mr. Rochester in a secluded 18th-century British manor. This is intercut with flashbacks to Eyre's childhood, in which a resilient spirit was forged in her, when she was continuously abused by authority figures. Thus, "Jane Eyre" is both a story of a girl finding fulfillment in another person, and discovering a strength in herself she never knew she had.

Directed by second-time-filmmaker Cary Fukanaga, "Jane Eyre" filmed with an eye that adapts depending on what mood it's trying to convey. It's quite a change of pace considering Fukanaga's first work, the superb Spanish-language crime drama, "Sin Nombre." But they're directed very similarly, with mostly naturalistic lighting and slow paces. Basically, Fukanaga adapts the source material with his own distinctive style, which goes a long way toward making it involving and relevant.

Mia Wasikowska, in her second role as an iconic literary character in as many years -- the first being the creative black-hole "Alice in Wonderland" -- brings depth, character and soul to Jane Eyre. That said, it's one of my favorite actors who completely floored me here: Michael Fassbender, of "Hunger" and "Inglourious Basterds," who, as Mr. Rochester, delivers what may be one of his best performances. He brings an eerieness to the character at the outset, but just as Eyre finds a very real, human center to him, Fassbender finds it for his character.

The film is surrounded by gorgeous sets and Oscar-worthy costumes, but I'm pretty sure you expected that already. If there's an issue with the film, it's that the inter-cutting between Eyre's past and present feels more than a little clunky and off-beat at times. Luckily, that's only for about the first third of the film, and it settles into a nice, natural pace after a while.

I'm not sure whether being able to assess "Jane Eyre" independent of pre-conceived notions was for better or for worse - I was compelled and surprised by the material, but how can I know if it was done justice?

Either way, "Jane Eyre" is a film one can lose themselves in, emerging more than a little shaken but more than a little dazzled.

I give it 3.5 out of 4 stars.

Film critic Ryan Michaels, a freshman at Skyline High School in Ann Arbor and two-time winner of the Michigan Press Association Better Newspaper Contest for his reviews, can be reached through mrogers@heritage.com.

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20110422/ENTERTAINMENT02/104220306/Gothic-romance-Jane-Eyre-weaves-compelling-tale?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Frontpage|s

Gothic romance 'Jane Eyre' weaves a compelling tale
8:07 PM, Apr. 21, 2011 |
Comments
"Jane Eyre" is opening Friday in Fresno.

gannett.com
Written by
James Ward
jward@visalia.gannett.com

ª now playing: Edwards Fresno Stadium 22
ª MPAA rating: PG-13 for some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content.
ª film facts: Stars Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell and Judi Dench. Directed by Cary Fukunaga. 115 minutes.
ª BOTTOM LINE: A fresh and vibrant adaptation of Bronte's beloved romantic gothic novel. The film features superb acting and meticulous direction. Highly recommended.

Full disclosure here: During my academic years and movie-going life, I've managed to miss ever reading "Jane Eyre" or seeing a movie based on Charlotte Bronte's novel.

It certainly wasn't on purpose. I've always wanted to see Franco Zeffirelli's adaptation of the gothic romance novel or "The Wide Sargasso Sea," which tells the story from the point of view of the crazy lady locked in the attic.

My "Jane Eyre" drought came to an end though with Cary Fukunaga's moody, gorgeously shot and beautifully acted film. Fukunaga has turned what could have been a dry costume drama into a fresh and vibrant film. It's manages to be romantic, spooky, funny and grand at the same time.

There's just something compelling about watching poor Jane (a wonderful Mia Wasikowska, who proves her performance in "The Kids Are All Right" wasn't a fluke) trudge across the unforgiving British moors in a torrential downpour or exploring the creepy corridors of Thornfield Hall, with that crazy lady locked in the attic.

And then there's her romance with the mysterious Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender, who's best known for his terrific performance as a dashing English spy in "Inglourious Basterds").

It's unabashedly, well, romantic as we watch their growing attraction to each other despite their class differences, she's a governess and he's the lord of the manor. Simply put, the story is irresistible. It's no wonder there've been countless movies based on the novel.

The story follows the sad tale of Jane. As a young child, her parents die, putting her in the care of an unpleasant aunt (a scary Sally Hawkins) who ships her off to a cruel boarding school for girls. The school prepares Jane to become a governess for wealthy families. Her first job is at Thornfield Hall, where Mr. Rochester needs someone to educate the child of a dead French woman, probably a prostitute.

Jane and Rochester fall in love, of course. Their romance, though, is made complicated by odd goings-on in Thornfield Hall. We're talking screams in the night and mysterious fires.

All this mysterious action is handled in exacting fashion by Fukunaga, whose first work — "Sin Nombre," an exploration of gang violence in modern Mexico — couldn't be more different than "Jane Eyre." Fukunaga gives this adaptation an air of immediacy and even modernity. This is no stuffy period piece.

Fukunaga's supporting performers are as strong as his two leads. Judi Dench brings a welcome warmth to her role as Mrs. Fairfax, Rochester's kind-hearted housekeeper and Jamie Bell (the young actor best known for his starring role in "Billy Elliot" when he was a child) brings an intensity and sadness to a minister who rescues Jane from the unforgiving moors.

So go see "Jane Eyre," a movie that will enchant both people familiar with Bronte's beloved book or those who have never been introduced to the story's charm before.

http://www.denverpost.com/movies/ci_17894407

"Jane Eyre"Literary romance PG-13. Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre" with Mia Wasikowska as Jane and Michael Fassbender as the storm warning known as Edward Rochester. (Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune) 121 minutes

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/317004/group/Life/

Published April 22, 2011, 12:00 AM
‘Jane Eyre’ tells of strong woman
A solitary figure runs clad in gray, stumbles and weeps across a rainswept moor. Yes, it’s “Jane Eyre” time again. One of the most frequently adapted period pieces from the golden age of the corset is back, with Mia “Alice in Wonderland” Wasikowska in the title role.

By: Roger Moore, McClatchy Newspapers, INFORUM

MOVIE REVIEW

“Jane Eyre”

* Fargo Theatre

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

* 120 minutes

* 3 out of 4 stars

A solitary figure runs clad in gray, stumbles and weeps across a rainswept moor.

Yes, it’s “Jane Eyre” time again. One of the most frequently adapted period pieces from the golden age of the corset is back, with Mia “Alice in Wonderland” Wasikowska in the title role.

The Jane served up by Wasikowska and director Cary Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre”) is a fiery, spirited woman in what amounts to open revolt against a woman’s lot in life in early 19th-century Britain. She longs to travel, keep good company and not be enslaved to a man or a class. And she’s willing to go running off in the rain to get it.

Jane is rescued from her run by a kindly parson (Jamie Bell) and his sisters. She won’t tell them anything about her past, or even her real name.

But in a long series of flashbacks, we learn her “tale of woe,” the hard childhood, shunned by a cruel aunt (Sally Hawkins), the monstrous boarding school where she saw death and felt the discipline of the cane and the tortured year of service as governess to a child in the care of the wealthy, mysterious and brusque Mr. Rochester.

Michael Fassbender makes for a handsome Rochester who lets us see that his aloof, icy manners (lack of manners) are the product of something long before he confesses, “I drag through life a capital error.”

Wasikowska’s Jane is perfectly demure and submissive to his power, but also a poker-faced woman-child of 19 who lets slip her disapproval of the way he treats people. Her spine attracts him, so he is more than happy to use her to “distract me from the mire of my thoughts.” A near-fatal fire makes Rochester melt and Jane warm to him – just a bit.

This “Jane Eyre” has a problem most “Jane Eyres” have. Why is she so drawn to this ill-tempered, rude and cruel boor? Every version I can recall seeing has difficulty crossing this threshold. In Charlotte Bronte’s time, the fact that he was handsome and rich was perhaps enough to answer that question, but today, with a Jane as spirited and willing to speak her mind as this one, we want something more – compassion, heat, pity and desperation. At least Rochester’s motivations are clearer than ever in this version, if perhaps a trifle removed from the Bronte novel.

The story’s “big reveal” is common currency now, so Fukunaga wisely plays that down, giving us more of the household (Judi Dench is head housekeeper), Rochester’s efforts to include his favorite employee in his social circle and Jane’s solitary life after running away from all this.

It’s a lovely looking film, period perfect in manner, look and speech. And Wasikowska makes a marvelously plain “Jane.” In the space of one year, we’ve seen her right at home as an unflappable tourist in “Wonderland,” a wise-beyond-her-years teen in “The Kids are All Right,” and now this. She seems closer to the Bronte ideal of Jane than most interpretations, though that does contribute to the frostiness of Jane’s May-September romance with the much older Rochester.

And however Fukunaga managed the leap from Latino migration thriller to this job, he does well by “Jane Eyre” – making the most of the limited action and capitalizing on the inherent spookiness of the tale. Pretty as a postcard, it’s also a calling card picture and one that reminds us that women other than Jane Austen wrote timeless, rich tales of romance in an age when women were little more than property.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110419/GPG0503/110419111/Review-Exciting-new-Jane-Eyre-adaptation-far-from-plain-little-

Review: Exciting new 'Jane Eyre' adaptation is far from 'plain and little'
12:46 PM, Apr. 19, 2011 |

http://www.gannettonline.com/external/scripts/momslikeme/?siteid=7020
Written by
COLIN COVERT
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

"Thou dost complete me." "Thou had me at 'good morrow.'" Michael Fassbender, left, and Mia Wasikowska star in "Jane Eyre."
Zoom
"Thou dost complete me." "Thou had me at 'good morrow.'" Michael Fassbender, left, and Mia Wasikowska star in "Jane Eyre." / AP

“Poor, obscure, plain and little” is how the heroine of “Jane Eyre” describes herself.

"Jane Eyre"
• Stars: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judie Dench and Jamie Bell
• Rated: PG-13, with a nude image and brief violent content
• Opens: Friday at Bay Park Cinema
• Our rating: Three and a half (out of four)

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 of “Alice in Wonderland”) as a character of mystery and drama. We meet her as a young woman on the run in a rural downpour. Jane is taken in by a dour young clergyman (Jamie Bell) and nursed back to health by his sisters. 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, 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.

As the cold, taunting master of the house, 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 Judi Dench as Thornfield’s salt-of-the-earth housekeeper Mrs. Edwards. The standout, though, is Sally Hawkins, casting aside a raft of recent cheeky proletarian roles to play Jane’s haughty, malevolent aunt. She is deliciously despicable.

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2935166

Stars shine bright in revamped ‘Jane Eyre’
Bring tissues. You’ve been warned.

새롭게 재해석된 영화 ‘제인 에어’
April 22, 2011

Mia Wasikowska (“Alice in Wonderland,” 2010) plays Jane Eyre in a new film based on the novel. Provided by Pan Cinema
There has been no shortage of film versions of “Jane Eyre,” Charlotte Bronte’s classic tale of romance and woe.

Most notably, Orson Welles co-starred opposite Joan Fontaine back in 1944; Franco Zeffirelli adapted the novel in the mid-1990s with Charlotte Gainsbourg in the title role and William Hurt as the tortured Edward Rochester (with Australian supermodel Elle Macpherson, of all people, as the rival for his affections).

Now, yet another take on the 1847 novel has come to the screen, with Cary Joji Fukunaga directing Moira Buffini’s script, which shakes things up by messing with the narrative structure. It begins with Jane fleeing the imposing Thornfield Hall in hysterics and is told mainly in flashback, which creates tension from the start - even if you know the story.

Fukunaga may seem like an odd choice to direct such revered literary material; his last film, “Sin Nombre,” was a contemporary and violent tale of Central Americans making their way through Mexico on their way to the United States. But both are about people searching for a place to belong, and they share a visceral immediacy.

Visually and tonally, his “Jane Eyre” is muted, stripped-down; it’s gooey and marshy, vast and grassy, anything but lush - and that’s what makes it beautiful. The pacing might even be a bit too low-key, but because it is, and because the attraction between Jane and Rochester simmers for so long, it makes the passionate bursts stand out even more. This version also emphasizes the tale’s darker Gothic elements, adding a sense of horror that’s both disturbing and welcome.

Regardless of aesthetics, the relationship between Jane and Rochester is at the heart of the story - it’s the source of emotion - and Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender challenge and beguile each other beautifully.

Wasikowska, who co-starred last year in Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” and in the Academy Award best-picture nominee “The Kids Are All Right,” continues to show her versatility here. She’s all intelligence and determination, and very much Fassbender’s equal in terms of presence. Fassbender, who was devastating as Irish hunger striker Bobby Sands in “Hunger,” plays the iconically tragic character of Rochester with all the necessary wit, ferocity and torment.

Jane has come to work at Thornfield Hall, the remote manor Rochester owns but rarely visits, as a governess following a difficult childhood as an orphan (Amelia Clarkson is sharp as the tough young Jane). Head housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) runs the place with a mix of pride and vague disapproval of Rochester’s volatile ways. But once he finally comes and meets Jane, he instantly recognizes in her a kindred spirit, and she feels the same - although she’s loath to admit it.

Jamie Bell co-stars as the other potential suitor in Jane’s life, St. John Rivers, the young man of God who views her as an ideal missionary’s wife; the fact that they don’t love each other yet is irrelevant to him. Still, it’s Jane’s idealism - despite the difficult and lonely life she’d led - that keeps her striving for something better, more fulfilling.

Society would seem to dictate that Jane and Rochester can’t be together. But it’s their pasts that are really keeping them apart - their secrets, and the walls they’ve built up for themselves. So when they finally admit their feelings, their words come out in an emotional torrent. Bring tissues. You’ve been warned.

“Jane Eyre” was released on Wednesday in Korea at theaters nationwide.


AP

한글 관련 기사 [중앙일보]

새롭게 재해석된 영화 ‘제인 에어’

주무르지 않은 원작…군더더기 없는 영상

소 설 『제인 에어』는 지금까지 20번이 넘게 영화화된 ‘스크린셀러(Screenseller·영화화된 소설이라는 뜻의 조어)’의 대명사다. 올해는 원작자 샬롯 브론테 탄생 195주년. 200년 가까운 세월이 흘렀음에도 리메이크가 거듭되는 걸 보면 원작의 세기를 가늠할 만하다. ‘이상한 나라의 앨리스’에서 앨리스로 등장한 할리우드의 신성 미아 와시코브스카(22)가 조안 폰테인·샬롯 갱스부르 등 쟁쟁한 선배들의 뒤를 이었다. 가냘픈 몸에 뜨거운 화로 같은 속내를 품은 여주인공 제인 에어를 연기한다.

아 직까지 원작을 읽지 못한 이들에게 ‘제인 에어’는 원작을 읽지 못해도 무방하다는 느낌마저 준다. 탈진한 채 황야를 헤매다 낯선 사람들에게 발견되는 첫 장면부터, 눈 먼 로체스터(마이클 파스밴더)와 돌아온 제인이 감격의 해후를 하는 마지막 장면까지 뺄 건 빼고 넣을 건 넣는 군더더기 없는 연출이 수준급이다.

30대 소장파 여성 감독 캐리 후쿠나가는 캐릭터 재해석보다 원작을 맵시 있게 요약하고 독특한 향취를 제대로 살려보겠다는 야심에 집중한 듯하다. 빅토리아 시대 여성으로선 드문 당찬 모습을 보여주는 제인, 여느 여성과 다른 제인만의 강인함을 높이 평가한 뜨거운 남자 로체스터의 운명적인 사랑이 넘치지도 모자라지도 않게 영국의 전원 안에 풍경화처럼 담겼다.

배우들도 감독의 의도를 꽤 충실하게 따랐다. 어린 시절 발레로 다져진 우아한 몸매의 미아 와시코브스카는 ‘예쁘진 않지만 매력 있는’ 원작의 제인 에어 이미지와 많이 닮았다. 12살 연상인 독일 출신 파스밴더와의 조화도 나쁘지 않다. 시대극의 관점에서 보자면 이들은 우아하고 절제된 연기를 펼쳤다는 평가를 받을 만하다.

이 런 만듦새는 뒤집으면 ‘제인 에어’에 불만을 갖게 하는 요소일 수도 있다. 원작소설은 보수적이고 봉건적인 빅토리아 시대에 쓰여졌지만, 이른바 ‘격정멜로’다. 로체스터와 제인의 결혼 에피소드로 대표되는 격정적 요소가 원작소설을 ‘정중동(靜中動)의 걸작’으로 만들었다. 영화에서 로체스터와 제인이 이별하게 되는 사연이 그만큼의 강도로 담겼는지는 의문이다. 21세기 관객의 입장에서 보는 19세기 제인 에어의 사연은 그래서 다소 심심하기도 하다.

‘제인 에어’는 리메이크가 원작의 재현이냐 재구성이냐 하는 오랜 논란을 다시금 수면 위로 떠오르게 한다. 손필드 저택의 가정부 페어팩스 부인 역의 주디 덴치는 그런 점에서 2011년 버전 ‘제인 에어’의 두드러진 특징이다. 표정 변화 하나로도 번번이 웃음을 자아내는 그를 보는 재미가 여간 쏠쏠하지 않다. 21일 개봉. 12세 이상 관람가.


[한글 원문 보기]

http://insidepulse.com/2011/04/22/jane-eyre-review/

Jane Eyre – Review
by Travis Leamons - April 22, 2011 | Email the author

A Gothic romance with souls, not strings, attached

Shakespeare, Austen and Bronte are part of an unwritten rule in Hollywood. Each author must have his or her works adapted every few years or bare eternal witness of having them wither away and be replaced by those penned by Stephenie Meyer. That would explain why Romeo & Juliet has been done more than two dozen times, including one this year with garden gnomes.

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre has been interpreted close to eighteen different times, both as silent and sound features, in English, Spanish, and Indian, and featuring such luminaries as Orson Welles, Elizabeth Taylor, George C. Scott, Susannah York, William Hurt, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Anna Paquin.

The 2011 release by Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) continues the tradition of keeping Bronte’s novel alive in movie houses. While it may rehash a storied romance, it does so with great acting and atmosphere. If there’s anything to take away from this latest cinematic adaptation it’s that Mia Wasikowska is a star in waiting. Last year may have been the Aussie’s breakout year with both Alice in Wonderland and The Kids Are All Right, but it is her turn as the titular heroine in Bronte’s tale that is most impressive. The key evidence is the scene where she and her employer, Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), sit down and have a conversation. The art of talking may be lost on the youth and the age of texting, but there’s something majestic just seeing two people getting to know each other in a closed setting without distractions. It’s like watching a tennis match and each response lobbed in the air holds still for a second before it is returned. Wasikowska shows so much in this one scene, able to mix it up with her employer by being both truthful and showing restraint.

As is the case with literary adaptations of weighty novels, subplots have to be condensed or cut so that the movie can be a more manageable length. This Jane Eyre is no exception. Fukunaga places emphasis on Eyre’s service as the new governess of Thornfield Hall, caring for a young French girl named Adele, and she forms a fast friendship with Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench), Rochester’s housekeeper. But it is the gloomy romance that develops between Jane and Mr. Rochester that is most tantalizing. Rochester is the bad boy prince and she is far from a princess. While they may not come from feuding families there’s no mistake when these two love stars cross.

However, their romance isn’t all sparks. Actually, the tension they have in each other’s presence is pretty loose and lacking of heat. So for those wanting sexy encounters as found in cheap paperback romances – you know, the ones with a lot of thrusting and weird sexual positions like “The Trojan Horse” – you might come away disappointed. The love they share may be distant and emotionless, making them look more like strangers occupying space under the same roof, but it allows Fukunaga to play up the gothic atmosphere. Forget long, drawn out soliloquies or happy, uplifting musical moments, if you want to know how Jane Eyre feels just look at how she is framed in several sequences. Fukunaga shoots her from behind allowing plenty of leading room giving Jane the space she needs to pace and air out her thoughts, silently to herself.

The decision to have Bronte’s story restructured and incorporate flashbacks is a novel approach and well done in its execution. The flashbacks give us a glimpse into Jane’s life so we get a generalized account of how she became well mannered and self-aware in spite of being vilified and bullied in her youth. A young Jane Eyre must contend with a cruel aunt (Sally Hawkins) before being shipped off to the Lowood Charity School where, if you fall out of line, are subjected to whippings and other forms of punishment. The flashbacks are shown in accordance to Eyre leaving Thornfield Hall in a tizzy, after hearing some troubling news.

What people should take away from this umpteenth adaptation of Jane Eyre is that it is possible to cut the fat of a classic novel and have it retain its heart and soul. Also, it helps when you have two comparable leads, as is the case with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. Wasikowska is so good at expressing much when expressing very little. The moments where hand-held cameras are walking with her are visual proof. Jane Eyre, while not a complete cure all for box office malaise at the moment, is still worth your time and should appease those who at the very least enjoyed Joe Wright’s stellar interpretation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

Director: Cary Joji Fukunaga

http://milwaukeesfs.livejournal.com/182946.html

Gregory G. H. Rihn ([info]milwaukeesfs) wrote,
@ 2011-04-22 12:01:00

Jane Eyre
On Saturday the 17th, we caught a matinee of the new "Jane Eyre" film and were very pleased with it. We both thought Mia Wasikowska was perfectly cast as Jane, and Michael Fassbender also excellent in the role of Rochester. Since the two of them essentially carry the movie, this was of vital importance and worked out very well. We thought the screenplay adaptation by Moira Buffini to be the definitive version of Charlotte Bronte's ground-breaking novel so far, even though the movie starts with the weeping Jane's flight from Northfield, and the story is then told largely in flashback until events catch up.

The production looks just right in settings, clothing, and lighting, with the dim wintry rooms of Northfield being very effective. There was also an excellent supporting cast, lead by Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, and Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers.

Highly recommended for fans of Bronte, gothics, romances, or period pieces generally.

http://stringsandpopcorn.blogspot.com/2011/04/th-big-pictures-two-big-slaps-in-face.html

Always been a fan of this kind ok books/ movies - I read and watched Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice about a hundred times - so I HAD TO go see this one. Mia Wasikowska had gained my sympathy in "The Kids Are Alright", but I really disliked Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland. However, I have to give her some credit: she is simply extra-ordinary in this adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.

Photobucket

Everyone knows the story of Jane Eyre : an orphan abandoned by her aunt as a kid, who grew up in a boarding school full a sadomasochistic people and ended up as a tutor in the - haunted - house of a gorgeous, crazy, romantic and eccentric single dad. What happens next? Either you've read the book or seen one of the many films made before this one, or you'll have to go see it, because it is really worth it.

Photobucket

Energetic, gothic, aesthetically perfect, this film is a true delight. The director, Cari Jogi Fukunaga, is the one of "Sin Nombre" and the screenwriter worked on "Tamara Drew" script before this one - a pretty heavy team, you can tell. It's emotional, full of suspense at time, wild and romantic: all the qualities you're looking for in this kind of" period piece" film.

Photobucket

You can feel Jane Eyre's passion and rage, her desire of freedom and attention, her love for the (very hot) Mr. Rochester - played by the absolutely gorgeous Michael Fassbender who does an amazing job here, restoring the cynical, tortured but charismatic male character of this novel. One of the "must see's" of the season. For sure.

http://mintyfilms.blogspot.com/2011/04/films-i-am-looking-forward-to-2011-part.html

22/04/2011
Films I Am Looking Forward To 2011 - Part 3
September

9 September - Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre, written by Charlotte Bronte, is a classic tale that has been told so often on both television and in the cinema, so when a new adaptation comes out I always wonder do we need another one and will it be a breath of fresh air? This adaptation certainly looks the part, exploring the Gothic theme of the book to the full extent. It says it will be a new way of telling the story and with a change in time line it certainly will be interesting to see what new things they do with it. With Mia Wasikowska taking the lead role and a great supporting cast including Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell and Craig Roberts, this looks set to be a great retelling of the classic story.