Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 6

http://kirstgraphics.com/WordPress/?p=1738

Jane Eyre
April 24th, 2011

Let’s start by admitting I have never read the book by Charlotte Bronte. I tried reading Emily’s Wuthering Heights but did not appreciate it in my late teens – early 20s and that bias travelled over to Charlotte. I do have it on my kobo [see last post] but it has not been a big book reading year thus far.

Mia Wasikowska plays the titular heroine and the story begins in media res. Jane has fled somewhere and is discovered sick and barely conscious by St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) who, with his two sisters, restore her to health. She gives the Rivers the false surname of Elliot to protect her from whatever she was fleeing.

In flashback we discover how Jane came to be in such a predicament. We have glimpses of her childhood, where she developed a strong belief in the supernatural and then begin as she becomes governess to the young, French ward of Rochester (Michael Fassbender,) a short tempered, passionate Englishman who wears his emotions on his sleeve. He is a perfect counterpoint to reserved Jane who seems more content to dream of travel and adventure than experience it.

The supernatural elements cultivated in Jane’s youth are now brought to the forefront. She is told stories of a mysterious, ghostly woman wandering the halls at night and Jane has her own experiences hearing people wandering outside her room, screaming and other noises in the walls. All the while she remains oblivious to the advances of Rochester while cultivating her own passions for her employer. Eventually the two reconcile and promise to be wed. But at the wedding it is revealed Rochester already has a wife! The ghostly woman who has been wandering Rochester Hall exists, is his wife and is quite insane. Devastated at this revelation, Jane flees bringing us back to our in media res beginning. Jane is now the teacher at a small girls school and St. John has fallen in love with her but she only dreams of Rochester.

The actual ending still has many twists and turns, some so soap opera-ey I can see how this was well received by the general public when it was released as a novel. But I can also see how critics enjoyed it as well. All without reading the book. Still, I enjoyed it very much as I do most “dry, British period pieces.” Mia is well cast, she can appear the plain-Jane well enough though her true beauty is unmistakable. There were several tense, creepy moments including an unexpected horror movie-ish “boo” moment with a duck. This was all to reinforce Jane’s belief in the supernatural but was unexpected for even Jane Eyre, The Movie! but quite welcome.

http://myconfessionsetc.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/jane-eyre/

April 24, 2011 · 1:36 AM
↓ Jump to Comments
Jane Eyre

I’m not a huge fan of the English romantics and to be honest I haven’t read the Bronte novel. Despite my slight aversion to the literature of the period, it’s an observation made mostly from reading Jane Austen novels, and I have a feeling that this differs in perhaps slightly, but rather significant ways.

It begins as a movie made from an English Romantic should–with serious light imagery, sweeping shots of the English countryside and emotional drama. But it is not a typical stoic sort of romance. It begins with Jane (played by Mia Wasikowska) stumbling into the home of strangers, and flashes back to her childhood–filled with horrid instances lacking in love and overflowing with beatings and mistreatments. The story progresses to where she meets Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender), a man who at first appears surly and cold but soon warms to his mousy but pretty governess. Their love develops with twists and turns, and the plot is very much active and surprising, as you will not find in an Austen story. There are the general themes of propriety and withdrawal but they are kept at bay, and don’t overbear.

The cinematography is brilliant and each shot is simply gorgeous–which is all to be expected. The light and dark imagery, the Victorian clothing, furniture and home, the English countryside at dawn and dusk, combined with the stunning looks of both leads lends to the overall beauty of the film. Both are stupendous actors–reserved, yet emotional. Both play their roles perfectly. Rochester’s development from arrogant, skeptic wealthy man to joyful man in love is graduated and reserved, as it should be. Eyre’s personality never really changes, but her struggle between loving the man she knows she should be with and knowing his secrets brilliantly flashes just beneath the surface of her face. Wasikowka’s pale, flawless skin and wide-eyes give her an innocence all too apropos for the role.

The dialogue is stunning–some of the greatest and most romantic lines I’ve heard in all of film. Their courtship, which maintaining distance is not an aggravated affair of cat and mouse, push and pull. It is as it should be, slow, and in the beginning misunderstood, but moves with a momentum well attained and appreciated.

The entire film, which in actuality is about two hours, moves at such a pace that it feels as if minutes have passed when it ends. An absolutely stupendous rendition of Bronte’s work, a beautiful film is all aspects.

http://myconfessionsetc.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/602/

April 24, 2011 · 1:44 AM

Just as a side note, Michael Fassbender is pretty easy on the eyes.

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/not-so-plain-jane/content?oid=1967425

Not-so-plain Jane
Jane Eyre

By Juan-Carlos Selznick

This article was published on 04.28.11.

See Jane brood.
Jane Eyre
Starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender and Judi Dench. Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. Pageant Theatre and Paradise Cinema 7. Rated PG-13.

The new film version of Jane Eyre is one of the few movie adaptations of a classical English novel that preserves the rough vitality and emotional starkness of the original.

Charlotte Brontë’s indelible mixture of smoldering social drama and gothic romance has proven irresistible to the movies—nearly two dozen versions have appeared over the years. In this one, director Cary Joji Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini give us Brontë’s gothic melodrama in exquisitely somber and understated form—romance combined with bracing psychological grit.

Mia Wasikowska (in the title role) and Michael Fassbender (as the famously bedeviled Edward Rochester) are both superb within the film’s incisively scaled-down characterizations of the two provocatively mismatched figures who are at the heart of the story’s romantic appeal. And their remarkable performances are fully immersed in vividly evoked landscapes—social as well as natural.

Fukunaga and cinematographer Adriano Goldman give richly observed attention to the moors and manor houses of the story. And Buffini’s script, which reframes Brontë’s narrative via a flashback structure, starts Jane’s story in the midst of her penultimate dramatic crisis—which puts her adrift in the moors and needing yet another domicile right from the start. That approach eases up the tempting melodramatic sensationalism of Brontë’s novel, and it also creates a sharper focus on the emerging facets of Jane’s character—from abused orphan to gifted governess to darkly subdued romantic heroine.

Buffini’s script also foregrounds the proto-feminist elements of Jane’s character, and brings a sobering note of social realism to a small multitude of pungent secondary characters. Fukunaga and his cast remain true to Buffini’s rigorously unsentimental take on Brontë throughout. And it all pays off in a quietly magical way—we get a lot more psychological realism than is usually the case with gothic romance, classical or not, and the passions involved seem more genuine as a result.

Judi Dench plays the film’s crucial intermediary character, the ambiguously devoted housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, and her deft, understated performance stands out in the impressive array of supporting players. Sally Hawkins, as a complacently evil aunt, and Jamie Bell, as the mostly sympathetic minister St. John Rivera, also deserve special mention.

Wasikowska, who had the title role in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and a key part in last year’s The Kids Are All Right, gives us a remarkably complete Jane Eyre—the mixture of plainness and self-possessed intensity, the wary intelligence and quiet indomitability. Fassbender’s blend of stoic reserve and smoldering fury ensures that his Rochester is psychologically credible as both romantic and tragic hero, and sufficiently possessed of lucid humanity to make him, at least in retrospect, a good match for Jane.

All in all, Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre belongs in the rarefied company of such exceptionally smart and earthy literary adaptations as Roger Michell’s Persuasion (1995) and Jane Campion’s Bright Star (2009).

http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3098754

Northumberland Film Sundays concludes season with Jane Eyre
Posted 1 day ago

Charlotte Brontë once wrote: "I've dreamt in my life, dreams that have changed my ideas. They've gone through me ... like wine through water, and altered the color of my mind."

What literary treasures the Brontë sisters left for generations of fans who continue to this day to fall in love over and over again with the characters, language and landscapes they so brilliantly imagined and penned by candlelight.

In this bold new feature version of Jane Eyre -- to be screened by Northumberland Film Sundays at Northumberland Mall Cinemas on Sunday, May 1 -- director Cary Fukunaga ( Sin Nombre) and screenwriter Moira Buffini ( Tamara Drewe) infuse contemporary immediacy into Charlotte Brontë's timeless, classic.

Mia Wasikowska ( Alice in Wonderland) and Michael Fassbender ( Inglourious Basterds) star in the iconic roles of this romantic drama that continues to inspire new generations of devoted readers and viewers.

At age 10, the orphaned Jane is mistreated and then cast out of her childhood home by her cruel aunt. Consigned to school for orphans, Jane encounters further harsh treatment but receives an education and meets Helen Burns, a poor child who impresses Jane as soulful and contented. The two become close friends. When Helen falls fatally ill, the loss devastates Jane, yet strengthens her resolve to stand up for herself and make practical choices in life.

Shortly after Helen's death, Jane secures a position at Thornfield as a governess for a young child under the custody of Thornfield's brooding master, Edward Rochester.

She is treated with kindness and respect by the housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax and she becomes interested in Rochester, who engages her in games of wit and storytelling. But his dark moods are troubling to her, as are strange occurrences in the house - especially the off-limits attic. Jane feels a deep connection to Rochester, but when she uncovers a terrible secret, she flees, finding refuge with a local clergyman, St. John Rivers and his family. During her stay with the Rivers family she realizes that she must return to Thornfield -to secure her future and conquer what haunts both her and Rochester.

Single tickets can be purchased at Harden & Huyse Chocolates, 201 Division St., Monday to Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. or at the Cinemas from 3 p.m. on Sunday, May 1.

The film series resumes Oct. 2 after a summer hiatus.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/vernonmorningstar/entertainment/120727589.html

Classic gets a new re-telling

Michael Fassbender is the brooding Rochester to Mia Wasikowska’s Jane Eyre.

Published: April 27, 2011 1:00 AM

Moviegoers who are wondering what to do after voting and before election results come out have a great opportunity to attend Vernon Film Society’s next show Monday, May 2.

Jane Eyre has been made into a movie or TV show approximately 20 times, and though all based on Charlotte Bronte’s novel, each one gives us the story in a slightly different way.

This newest version is a feast for the eyes and stars some superb actors. Mia Wasikowska (The Kids are Alright, Alice in Wonderland) shows her early training as a dancer when conveying every emotion.

Michael Fassbender (Inglorious Basterds) is a suitably brooding Rochester, whose piercing tormented eyes immediately intrigue and also repel the young Jane.

The story is told in flashback fashion, starting with Jane wandering the moors in sorrow and being picked up by a kindly pastor (Jamie Bell, now all grown up after his early success as Billy Elliott). The movie goes back to Jane’s early brutal childhood and terrible days in a girls’ school before coming to Thornfield Hall and meeting Rochester.

Great supporting performances are turned in by the ever versatile Judi Dench and Sally Hawkins who filmgoers will recall recently in the much enjoyed movie Made in Dagenham.

Jane Eyre was directed by Cary Fukunaga and, as one critic says, “He engrosses himself and his actors in the cloaked gloom of the era, stirring up the passion and life that’s been there all along in Charlotte Bronte’s story.... Just a great story impeccably shot and acted, and a film impossible to shake.”

Jane Eyre will screen at the Vernon Towne Cinema Monday at 5:15 and 7:45 p.m. All tickets are $7 and are available at Bean Scene one week prior to the showing and at the door.

http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/183674

Jane Eyre Review
Posted by Chad Webb on 04.27.2011

The 16th big screen version of Charlotte Bronte's famous novel combines period romance with horror sensibilities...

Mia Waskikowska: Jane Eyre
Michael Fassbender: Edward Rochester
Judi Dench: Alice Fairfax
Jamie Bell: St. John Rivers
Sally Hawkins: Mrs. Reed
Amelia Clarkson: Young Jane
Imogen Poots: Blanche Ingram
Directed By: Cary Fukunaga
Written By: Moira Buffini (from Charlotte Bronte's novel)
Release Date: March 11, 2011
Running Time: 120 minutes

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

Like Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice, Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, and many others, there will always be a demand and an audience for new versions of certain classic novels. When counting just adaptations of Bronte's novel, there have been over twenty interpretations. Factor in sequels, prequels, spin-offs, and re-tellings and the number increases. For big screen translations, the crucial question is whether or not it captures the spirit of the original work, and if the film flows smoothly. Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre accomplishes at least one of those requirements. I would argue that one does not even need to have a profound knowledge of the novel to discern the merits of the film spawn. The danger of knowing the book inside and out is adhering to the narrow-minded purist perspective.

Purists will never be satisfied, yet they never hesitate to check out all attempts and bringing those pages to life, hoping the impossible will happen. It's an odd attitude. Fukunaga, whose excellent Sin Nombre opened the world's eyes to his filmmaking prowess, has thrown his hat into the ring of directing celebrated literature and emerged decidedly successful. The 1943 film starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine is still the benchmark, but Fukunaga strives for freshness as his dominant goal and it was a wise move. Instead of drowning in details and settings, Fukunaga conveys to the audience that his agenda is a little different. I confess I have not read Jane Eyre aside from lessons I probably dozed off to during school, but this Jane is evidently faithful and unique. It's occasional choppiness is the major defect.

We meet Jane (Mia Wasikowska) as a young woman, walking away from a large home across the moors, and as the distance between her and this place widens, it is clear that she is upset. Eventually she has traveled far away from this house, and a storm arrives. She passes out and is found by St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters. This is followed by a series of flashbacks showing Jane's childhood at Gateshead Hall with her cruel aunt, Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins). Jane is then sent to Lowood Charity School where she is a girl that stands out. Punishments here include being hit with a cane, being forced to stand on a chair without food or drink, and being shunned by her classmates. Jane does form one friendship, thought it's short-lived. After several years at this school, Jane leaves and is hired as a governess by Alice Fairfax (Judi Dench). She teaches and cares for a young French girl named Adele. One day she startles a horseman speeding through the woods. He sprains his ankle. This mans turns out to be Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), the master of Thornfield Hall. And so begins the bizarre relationship between Mr. Rochester and Jane, who is unlike any young woman he has known. Meanwhile, Rochester has a romance with Blanche Ingram (Imogen Poots) as well, and odd noises can be heard throughout the house.

In order for an actor to prove his or her versatility, completing an adaptation of a masterpiece novel or a stuffy period piece is almost essential. It is like a right of passage, even if the response from viewers and critics is average and the result is a film that merely gained mild notoriety at the time, but was lumped in with the rest of its ilk afterwards. Still, it's expected, and it was Mia Wasikowska who expressed interest in becoming Jane Eyre, or as the ticket taker at the theater I visited pronounced, Jane "Airey." Wasikowska's abilities were engulfed greatly in the poor special effects extravaganza that was Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, but she was a shining piece of a brilliant puzzle in The Kids Are All Right. As the gloomy Jane, she gives one of her most satisfying performances to date. Wasikowska is understated and restrained in this weighty lead, and her emotions are communicated best by just observing her elegiac face. She controls every event in this tale like a revolving orb generating endless action and drama. Her most powerful, expressive exchange occurs as she discovers Mr. Rochester's secret. She promptly announces that she must leave her occupation, not because she wants to, but because she must have respect for herself.

Michael Fassbender further cements that he is among the top actors around today as the naive and stern Edward Rochester. Make sure to see examples of his talents in Hunger, Fish Tank, and Inglorious Basterds and avoid the stumbles that were Jonah Hex and Centurion. Because Mia Wasikowska's Jane is relatively quiet, her chemistry with Fassbender is a bit bumpy at first, but Fassbender is too competent to allow a collapse of that crucial rapport. The strength of their passion grows as the story gathers momentum since Fassbender is allocated many of the impactful lines of dialogue, despite Wasikowska essentially steering the material. His enigmatic and blustery Rochester is just as fascinating a character, if not more so, than Jane. Jamie Bell fits effortlessly into the cast as the caring St. John Rivers. Dame Judi Dench is mercifully reserved as the intelligent and all-seeing Alice Fairfax. Dench can overshadow the stars with only a few minutes of screen time, but in this case she harnesses the appropriate mixture of humor and conviction. Amelia Clarkson deserves credit for a searing portrayal as young Jane, although a case can be made that she bears little resemble to an adult Mia Wasikowska. Sally Hawkins is also wonderfully stiff and pompous as Mrs. Reed.

Cary Fukunaga's approach is delightfully dark and dreary, but then again, Jane Eyre is not exactly an upbeat story, so the content matches the elected tone with a frightening, austere beauty. The view of wheat fields and a home in the far background recalls Terence Malick's Days of Heaven, while others reminded me of Roman Polanski's Tess. Fukunaga drains a noticeable amount of color without eliminating its splendor entirely. The gothic settings are grim and acutely photographed with Fukunaga and his cinematographer Adriano Goldman. Fukunaga implements a specific strategy to his calignosity, using candles and fireplaces for scenes at night, accentuating grey skies and fog, and integrating a borderline horror atmosphere at times. Michael O'Connor's costume design is glorious as his selections are striking, yet plain. This is one adaptation in which the wardrobe and the surroundings do not battle the cast for attention. Composer Dario Marianelli, frequent collaborator of Director Joe Wright (Atonement, Pride & Prejudice), is no stranger to this territory. His music truly swells in only a handful of sequences. Otherwise it rests exquisitely behind the substance. Fukunaga concentrates on the actors and his bleak style, as oppose to the expected trademarks and clichés of the genre.

In Fukunaga's Sin Nombre, it followed a young girl who develops an attraction to a dangerous male. So to is the situation with Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester. She desires him, but buries that feeling deep inside her soul. Her childhood has built her into a resolute and peculiarly free female, yet she is colorless and repressive enough that Rochester's intimidating pursuit and age overcomes her youth. Mexican gangs and a British romance do not possess an abundance of similarities, but Fukunaga coalesces the same suspense and tension within the central bond to Jane Eyre. He also presents a fervent visual skill that compliments the cast instead of conflicting with them. Moira Buffini's screenplay, along with Fukunaga at the helm, understands the novel's intricacies and era, not to mention how to enliven this ageless piece for a new generation, but the slicing and dicing of the script falls into that common trap where the transitions into significant portions are jarring and fleeting, especially near the end. Fukunaga's nightmarishly picturesque Jane Eyre lingers with its gaunt vitality, and is a commendable effort, but is not quite iconic enough to separate itself from the pack and stand the test of time.

The 411: Will this version of Jane Eyre inspire others to check out the novel? I think it will. While it does contain some flaws, Cary Fukunaga has established himself as a fine filmmaker, one who has an equal amount of intelligence with visuals as he does working with actors. I look forward to seeing what he has to offer in the future. Here, he focuses on Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, who hand in terrific performances with a superb supporting cast that includes Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, and Sally Hawkins. The distinct style and structure will develop a following, but the problem with all these revisits of classic novels is that unless they can find a way to overtake the best adaptation, it will be tough for them to stand out. I'd still recommend this, if not for fans of the book then for fans of the two outstanding stars. This is probably still being shown in some of the smaller arthouse theaters, but it should be on its way to DVD before long.

Final Score: 7.5 [ Good ] legend

http://www.redandblack.com/2011/04/26/movie-review-jane-eyre/

Movie review: Jane Eyre

April 26, 2011 by SARAH SMITH

Edward: he’s mysterious, troubled and suddenly disappears for weeks at a time.

The lead female: she’s plain, from out of town and inexplicably intriguing to the handsome Edward.

No, this isn’t a recap of that vampire saga that has seemingly consumed the brains and hearts of preteens and their mothers for so many years, but rather the basic premise of Cary Fukunaga’s film interpretation of that staple of Gothic romance, “Jane Eyre.”

Mia Wasikowska plays Fukunaga’s Jane, who is just as plain, poor and little as the classic novel insists she be.

Michael Fassbender is Edward Fairfax Rochester, too handsome for the book’s descriptions — but what female viewer is going to complain about that? Their romance plays out against the backdrop of dusky Thornfield, an appropriately looming structure that seems to promise secrets buried within.

In case you missed the obligatory high school read-through of the novel or forgot the Cliff Notes outline, Jane Eyre is a young woman raised sheltered but unloved, first by her aunt and then by a religious school.

She escapes this life by taking a job at Thornfield Hall, where she serves as a governess.

The owner of Thornfield, Mr. Rochester, is a brooding man in the Byronic tradition.

Something is bothering him, but that something doesn’t become plain until it’s almost too late.

What makes “Jane Eyre” a classic is the strength of the title character’s character.

Although she lacks friends, beauty or wealth, she has a vibrant inner life and a great sense of human dignity. Portraying these characteristics on screen requires a great deal of finesse.

Wasikowska has moments when she captures Jane’s spirit and her soul shines out, but most of these moments are quiet and fleeting.

For the most part, she seems flat, failing to impart the passion that Rochester supposedly sees in Jane.

On the other hand, Fassbender plays Rochester with just the right mix of brooding and manipulation.

His performance is much more subtle than the Rochesters who have come before him, which makes his character harder, at first, to grasp.

He doesn’t yell and stomp around as much, and this makes him seem not as sick or frustrated as he needs to be.

Whereas Wasikowska’s understated performance leaves too many feelings and thoughts unstated, Fassbender manages to portray depth through his.

A surprising delight in this version is Judi Dench’s take on Mrs. Fairfax, Thornfield’s housekeeper.

She turns a role of a silly old woman into one of a concerned, if not always, correct mother-figure.

Her slightly expanded role lends a coherence to the film that would otherwise be lacking.

Fukunaga’s movie does not reinvent the wheel, but it does give the 21st-century its own version of the gothic romance.

In a market glutted with dark tales of love and loss, it is a welcome addition — a film with a heart as well as a brain.

— Sarah Smith

http://my.hsj.org/Schools/Newspaper/tabid/100/view/frontpage/articleid/435837/newspaperid/532/Jane_Eyre_for_the_21st_Century.aspx

Jane Eyre for the 21st Century
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 By Mackenzie Broderick and Jessica Faunt

[The following is transcribed from a recorded interview between Jess Faunt and Mackenzie Broderick]

Mackenzie: So, Mackenzie Broderick, Jess Faunt here, reporters at large. We saw the new 2011 movie of Jane Eyre [directed by Cary Fukunaga and released by BBC Films and Focus Features] at a special screening, and we are here today to talk about it with you guys. Okay, so, my first question is to Jess Faunt. Have you ever read the book Jane Eyre?

Jess: No, I have not—I have watched other versions of this movie. I will admit that this version—way better, way better.

M: Do we want to talk about that version? Well, it was just really bad—the characters just didn’t fit. Anything else to add?

J: It sucked. That’s all.

M: Anyway, moving on…

J: Mackenzie Broderick, have you ever read the book, and if so, did it follow the book well?

M: Why yes I have read it, actually. I think I first read it in seventh grade, and it’s now one of my favorite books. And, it definitely stayed true to the book except for the timeline wasn’t as linear, but I think that translated well onto screen. In fact Jess, let’s talk about that timeline: So, the movie begins with Jane leaving Thornfield, except we don’t know who she is and we don’t know where she’s leaving or where she’s going until she shows up at the parish of St. John Rivers and his sisters out on the moors…This is actually close to the end in the book, because the book is linear, with a linear timeline. But through flashbacks we find out more about Jane’s past and childhood and how she came to be where she is. [Moira Buffini wrote the screenplay] I think this worked very well for a movie because it enables the filmmakers to reveal a lot to the audience in not a lot of time. What about you, Jess?

J: In the beginning I was very confused, but I found it very intriguing—a new, fresh approach to it. I agree that we are able to get a better glimpse in a shorter period of time of what was going on, because it was almost like two things were going on at once. But after you got like, five, ten minutes into the movie, I understood: ‘Oh, that’s what’s happening! This is a flashback!’ For anyone who wasn’t read the book before, they’ll be completely fine.

M: Jess brings up an excellent point with her astute observations. I thought this would be a very engrossing movie even if you hadn’t read the book, or known the story of Jane Eyre. And, I think Jess will definitely agree that this is just a good movie over all…it was very interesting to look at visually. The house that they used for Thornfield Manor has actually been used for Thornfield in many other adaptations, including the one with William Hurt that we watched, and a PBS-Masterpiece miniseries. But also, it’s very beautiful in the countryside with the moors, and it’s also somewhat sinister how you always have the rain and the weather and the lightning storms…the cinematography was done quite well. [The cinematography was done by Adriano Goldman, with production design by Will Hughes-Jones]

J: I do have a question for you, Mackenzie. How do you think the relationships were portrayed by the actors in this movie? And I would like to comment after you.

M: This is I think what we all want to talk about, us being girls especially. Well, I just think…in the book, both Jane and Rochester are very, very complex characters. Especially Rochester. We get to know him as Jane gets to know him, so he sometimes is perhaps portrayed better than he actually is. Because, when you think about it, he’s kind of sketch; he’s almost forty years old, he has a crazy wife living in his attic, but he’s also falling in love with this woman who’s half his age, and then tricks her into almost marrying him. That’s kind of creepy, but Rochester isn’t actually a creepy guy.

Because I think that in the book there’s a lot of explanation for why he does what he does, and I think in the movie, Michael Fassbender portrayed an interesting side of Rochester—like his playfulness, and his joy of living, because even though Rochester is the classic Byronic hero, in that he has weathered a lot of life, he also has this kind of wry, dry sense of humor…He is a sensual person. He has a lot of passions in his life. So, I think that Michael Fassbender did an interesting portrayal of Rochester but it worked really well. Now I think Jess has some thoughtful insights to add.

J: I want to touch on that point you said about his ‘joy of living’: I think that was very clear in the movie, and, that’s what made it so intriguing. It almost—his joy for living…made it so that his actions were…justified. They justified his actions, because he fell in love, and even though he’s a questionable man…he just had that joy for living that was contagious and it was clear to see that Jane totally fell in love with that. Though, at the beginning, I thought of her as a girl who had no knowledge of how to deal with men.

M: Yes, I think that’s a really good point Jess, and I was just about to talk about that. So, we talked about Rochester, and now Jane…Mia Wasikowska was a very reserved and taciturn Jane—but I think that fit well. You can see her kind of—almost—in the book it is definitely a romantic—almost sexual—awakening. As she says in the movie, she’s never really talked to men; she went to Lowood School, which was an all-girls school, and in the book and movie, she is eighteen when she first comes to Thornfield. But here’s Rochester, a man who’s known a lot of women, and he is a worldly man. But even though Jane is naïve in those matters, she is also very smart and she…sees through Rochester. But I think he does awaken in her romantic feelings that she never thought she would have for someone, and Mia Wasikowska illustrated that throughout the movie. Scenes such as her looking at that painting, or, I remember this one scene where she’s watching him [Rochester] and he’s working in the garden, lifting something, and she can see his back muscles through his shirt. Anything to add to that, Jess?

J: I did see that, through her eyes, you start seeing more of that. The filming was really nice—it was clear when we were looking through her eyes, and it was awesome to see how much of what she was seeing develop and change...Focusing on the more romantic side, I mean this is a love story, and at the beginning you don’t realize it. You think it’s more of a misery story, life story of Jane, but in all honesty this is a love story and it’s a beautiful one.

M: Yes I agree, Jess. I mean, Jane Eyre is one of the greatest love stories in the English language. I believe it was written—I want to say 1847, I’m not particularly sure [this date is correct]—by Charlotte Brontë whose sister, Emily wrote Wuthering Heights, which is also a gothic romance, but with a very sad ending: Everybody dies. So, I think another aspect is also feminism and female empowerment, because even though this is a love story, Jane is an independent woman and a lot of the things that happen to her throughout her romance with Rochester—they’re separated. And there’s also other female characters; there’s Blanche Ingram, who you don’t see a lot in the movie but who is present a lot in the book, and there is also even the mad wife Bertha Mason, and St. John’s sisters Mary and Diane…oh and of course Mrs. Fairfax, the housekeeper, played by wonderful Judi Dench…there are a lot of different females in a lot of different roles. So what do you think Jane Eyre has to say about feminism and the role of the female? When this was written, it was during the Industrial Revolution in 19th-century England—so what do you think the message was? What do you think Charlotte Brontë was trying to tell us?

J: I’d like to fall back on one of my favorite scenes in the movie, where she tells St. John that she doesn’t love him and that she doesn’t want to marry him. I think that, in this time period, women were expected to marry whoever came to them, because if they didn’t have a man at their side, they weren’t anything. Although she does get married…she learns to live her life on her own and that she can be independent. I think Jane Eyre represents women being able to survive on their own, and women being able to be somebody on their own. They aren’t identified by the man they are with; they are identified by their own actions and their own thoughts.

M: I agree with Jess. I’m glad they put this one scene in the movie, because I’ve never really seen it before on film. It’s where Jane is on the roof and she’s looking towards the horizon, and she lamenting the fact that right now she believes she’ll never see a city, and that she’ll stay on this country estate all her life. She wishes a woman could have action in her life like a man, but I think Jane ends up having a lot of ‘action’, as she says; she does go out into the world and she does create her own destiny. In the book she does inherit, in the end, £20,000 from her uncle; the interest alone from that money would be enough to enable her to live independently. I’m not sure how much that would be nowadays, but I think it would be close to inheriting a million dollars. Even besides that, even when Jane is leaving Rochester, she is exerting her free will as a person, and not as, perhaps, a woman subjugated as a mistress.

Let’s go back to what Jess was talking about with St. John and his proposal; I think that was an interesting scene, and it illustrates for us the character of St. John Rivers. St. John is an austere priest, who in the book is revealed to be Jane’s half-cousin but in the movie they omitted that fact…for modern audiences who would not be used to cousins wanting to marry each other. However, in the book, St. John is being described as very beautiful and also devout to God, but in the end he is a cold person. So, how do you think he was handled in the movie, Jess?

J: Well, see, at first you fall in love with the character, because he’s kind to her [Jane], he takes her in, he’s beautiful, he does everything that she asked of him to pull her back on her feet. But then, all the sudden, you realize how mean he is to women, and how highly he thinks of himself and how lowly he thinks of other people…he thinks that Jane marrying him would be the best thing he could do for her.

I think that the actor portrayed this so well, because at the beginning you never would have guessed that he would ask her…or that he would be so rude and abrupt in his proposal. But, in the end, he really pulls out the man’s cold, dark heart, and it’s fun to watch but hard to watch at the same time. You don’t want him to be so mean, and that’s when Jane really sticks up for herself and says ‘No, I won’t do this!’ and runs away to find her love.

Jess, cont’d: I’d also like to touch on another point…Jane was able to shape her life. She was kicked out of her home—that wasn’t her choice. She was put in a school—that wasn’t her choice. But, she made something of herself; I think that was both her stubbornness and her will to just become something. In the beginning she had nothing, and all that she had, she lost: She lost her best friend, and she had nobody. But she built a life for herself and she built friends for herself.

M: Jess, that is a perfect answer to Jane Eyre and female empowerment. Back to St. John; he, in the movie, is played by Jamie Bell, who is perhaps best known for playing Billy Elliot in the Billy Elliot movie. He does an excellent job with St. Jonh Rivers and covering all the aspects of his character, even though his character is made slightly more likable—at least in the beginning of the film. In the book, St. John is very devout to God…everything he does, he does for God. When he proposes to Jane, he basically says that is her God-serving duty to marry him and become a missionary. He says that’s why she was put on this earth—

J: Oh, that makes me so angry!

M: I know! That brings the interesting question of…reading Jane Eyre, as opposed to maybe books…a little before that such as those by Charlotte Brontë’s predecessor Jane Austen, God is actually mentioned quite a bit: Jane asks for God’s help often, and you have the character of St. John who is, of course, a priest and who is very devout in his duty to God, and you also have her going to Lowood Institution, which was funded by the Church. There you have the Reverend Brocklehurst , who is a hypocrite…and also, Jane’s only friend Helen Burns believes that Heaven is true paradise and that she must be subservient to people by turning the other cheek as Christians are taught to do. But Jane tells Helen herself that she cannot live like that. So, do you think Jane’s ideals of independence conflict with Christianity? Do you have any thoughts on this?

J: That’s an interesting question, just because of so much conflict that actually happens with religion; I think that what Jane was exposed to with religion and Christianity was…a very harsh view of God and a lot of the people in her life—the ones who hurt her—were the ones affiliated with the church…In her eyes, Christianity might not have been something she wanted to follow…her independence was also an independence from religion and from God—er, not from God, but from that religion. I don’t think that her values as a Christian left her with independence. I think that she questioned some of the ideas of a harsh and ruling God, and, so rather than being completely independent from Him she was looking for different answers from Him.

M: Excellent answer—I agree. I think Jane does know what she believes and I think she does believe in God. I just think she’s seen so many hypocrites in the world of Christianity that she develops her own relationship with God throughout the book. This kind of goes with, while this was being written, Unitarianism was growing throughout Europe—or, at least England—which is somewhat to acceptance of how you worship…there was growing movement of religious acceptance. This is illustrated through the novels of Elizabeth Gaskell, and to a lesser extent, Dickens, who were writing around the same time.

Moving on, I think we should just take a moment before we end this to discuss the chemistry; I thought the chemistry between was there between our two romantic leads, as opposed to the William Hurt version, which was just awkward watching the two together…But the chemistry was definitely here. It was smoldering, but you could also tell that they [Jane and Rochester] cared about each other and liked each other. There was a sweet side to it; especially, I remember, the scene where Rochester is begging Jane not to leave and he starts crying, and he’s kneeled in front of her…it was an evocative scene, and captured the complete feeling of the book and of Rochester’s desperation to not let Jane get away. Jess, you seem really eager to talk about this; what do you have to say?

J: The chemistry is the one part of the movie I was really looking for, and prepared to scrutinize…I loved the chemistry! It stood up to my standards of what I wanted—it actually surpassed it. I thought that they genuinely looked like they were in love with each other, and in the last movie I saw all they were doing was rubbing cheeks together! Lovers don’t rub cheeks together! That’s not right! But here, Jane and Rochester looked happy together; you could tell they when they were together they were happier, and when they were apart they looked lonely. The best, happiest moments of the film were when they were together, and I think that helped illustrate their chemistry. It was awesome. It was the best part of the movie—if that hadn’t been there, the movie would have sucked, but it was there and so it didn’t suck.

M: I remember one scene where Jane is alone, sitting in her little schoolroom and it’s snowing outside, and then there’s a knock on her door and it’s Rochester; snow is blowing in, and they start kissing passionately. But then the scene changes…she’s still in the schoolroom but she was just imagining. Rochester isn’t there, and she is alone, but I think that was a powerful scene of how much they care for each other and just this passion between them…One of the best parts of the movie. Well Jess, do you think we have anything else to cover?

J: No, the movie was great. Thank you Mr. Sorenson for letting us go see this!

M: I know, I think we should give a big thank you to Mr. Sorenson for giving us those free passes to this movie. We would recommend this to anyone; it’s a good gothic romance.

J: More geared towards females, I would assume, as a feminism piece and romance. But men, if you want to impress your ladies, take them to this movie.

M: Yes—you could learn from this movie! Thank you for listening; this has been Mackenzie and Jess, Jess and Mackenzie, on Jane Eyre.

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

Friday, April 29, 2011
Jane Eyre

"What's your tale of woe? All governesses have their tale of woe." If you're at all familiar with Jane Eyre, you know that she's got a doozy. But when the stern Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) asks this of his relatively new governess, she downplays her woeful backstory. One of the great strengths of this latest Jane Eyre, written by Moira Buffini and directed by Cary Fukunaga, is that it too downplays some of the Gothic excess inherent in Charlotte Bronte's novel. This allows for a better focus on one of the great heroines of 19th-century literature, who sometimes is lost amidst between the privation and suffering of her youth and the dramatic goings-on at Thornfield Hall - you know, the brooding guy with the crazy wife in the attic.

All the better that Jane be played by Mia Wasikowska. The lovely young actress (The Kids Are Alright, Alice in Wonderland) has had her hair dyed red and been rendered more plain to play the role of Jane. Charlotte Bronte's heroine is fascinating for her complexity, particularly given her age. There is the obvious intelligence, candor, fortitude and individualism. But there is also a sense of propriety that is fairly unique to someone who clearly desires a fuller, not more provincial life experience. Any conspicuous sense of morality is so often a prim and pretty covering thrown over a rather dreary table. This is a young woman who can make morality exciting. Altogether, it's a complexity, a richness of character that you wouldn't expect to easily cohere in someone forty years old, much less someone on the tender side of twenty. Ms. Wasikowska manages to evince it all. All of that, and as Rochester says, "You have rather the look of another world about you.” One of the many feats to which Mia Wasikowska is more than equal.

This Jane Eyre also manages to rescue Mr. Rochester from the refuse heap of literary bad boys, a collection to which the Bronte sisters have at added at least a couple of illustrious corpses. The bilious fellow can easily drift into charicature, but there's no such danger with Moira Buffini's sympathetic rendering of the master of Thornfield, together with Michael Fassbender's intense but focused portrayal. We need to believe not only Rochester's severity, but the kernel of humanity and healthy passion that Jane reaches. As with his performance as Bobby Sands in Hunger, Mr. Fassbender's gleaming blue eyes would seem to indicate a fire within.

Fassbender might be well disposed to these extreme types, but watch also his work in Fishtank. There's something ultimately louche in the seductive charm of his Connor in Andrea Arnold's 2009 film, bedding the confused girl to whom he was providing some deserpately needed fatherly warmth. But for all that, his bad behavior was all the more ugly for how average he seemed. Bookended with the Irish hunger striker and haunted fellow from the north of England, it shows some range.

It's interesting that director Fukunaga has said that he actually wanted to play up some of the more Gothic elements of the story, some of the spookiness. Fortunately, where this occurs, it's more a matter of mood than circumstance. There is a sooty blast from a fireplace when the young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) is locked in a room at Gateshead by her abusive aunt (Sally Hawkins). Later, after the difficult years at Lowood School, during her early days as governess at Thornfield, a restless, melancholy Jane goes out for a walk. All is forbidding outside the great house: fog drifts into the scene as if on cue, there is the requisite abrupt disturbance of some ominous bird, complete with screech and flapping of wings (that one certainly got me) and finally an encounter with a mysterious man and his rearing horse, which throws its rider. The dark man on the dark steed is, of course, Mr. Rochester.

Beyond the occasional nod to the supernatural, there is little more than the occasional bump in the night on the part of the wretched Bertha, Rochester's first wife. Even her somewhat vampiric attack on her visiting brother, Roger, is treated with restraint. We (and Jane) see only the frightening and bloody aftermath, followed by a few forboding knocks from a behind a nearby wall. The episode is rife with possibilites of excess which are judiciously avoided. A good part of the credit belongs also to the script of Moira Buffini. This version begins with Jane's flight from Thornfield and is told mainly in flashback. The flashbacks are long enough to create a sense of continuity, but the breaking up of Bronte's narrative keeps the darker, potentially hysterical elements of the story from gaining too much momentum.


The belching fireplace, the screeching bird, poor young Jane made to stand on the "pedestal of infamy" at Lowood School...all well and Gothic good. Less so the purgatory which finds Jane aided and ultimately pursued by the dour St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell), during which she frequently hears her name whispered by wind about her. It would have been only slightly sillier had the wind cried Mary.

Much more significant than any of the Gothic trappings Mr. Fukunaga tries to emphasize is the moorland landscape of north central England that he and cinematographer Adriano Goldman capture so beautifully.
Much of this occurs as the film begins with Jane's flight from Thornfield. There is the rain darkened knot of branches outside her window, the lonely crossroads at which carriage tracks converge and finally the inland sea of grass, bracken and the crumbly, iridescent soil of the moors at which Jane has her moment of greatest despair. Rarely has this wild, otherworldly part of England been so powerfully evoked. Just as rare is a demonstration of hard it must have been to simply walk from one point to another through such an area without aid of a path. So it is with Jane as she slogs through the long, coarse grass while the rain pelts her mercilessly.

Restrained though the touch may be, this is still a tempest of a story. But all involved managed to fasten the shutters long enough so we can focus on the extraordinary young woman who lends her name to the enterprise. Not to mention the classic romance which is in no way diminshed by its greater than usual credibility. If you groan at the thought of another Jane Eyre, this might be a good place to return to the story. If you have always been a fan, be grateful that the baton has been picked up by such sure hands.

Posted by Danny Burdett at 1:02 PM

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

Thursday, April 28, 2011
Jane Eyre
I've always been intrigued by the Brontë sisters. Five sisters, two of whom died in childhood and the others, all super talented writers before the age of 40. Here I am over 40 with no novel and no excuse. This blog certainly won't become a classic. Back to the Brontës.

Emily's Wuthering Heights made me shiver under the covers and Charlotte's Jane Eyre is my favorite Brontë novel with its dark brooding mood, gothic setting and early feminist ideas.

Needless to say, I was eager to see the latest Jane Eyre movie, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. I thought at first Michael Fassbender was a bit too young and handsome for playing Edward Rochester, but his excellent acting made me soon forget that. Same goes for Mia Wasikowska. In reality too pretty to be plain Jane Eyre, she exceeded all my expectations for her exquisite interpretation. Fassbender said she reminded him of a young Meryl Streep.

The phenomenal cast also includes Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax and Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers, but see for yourselves:

Have you seen the movie and what did you think?

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

"Jane Eyre"
Runtime: 2 hrs, 1 min.

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

Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Holliday Grainger

Director: Cary Joji Fukunaga

For some, the human heart is forever summoned down its own via dolorosa toward the pain that lies in the soul of another. Such is the case for young Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska).

After being sent to a reformatory school by a loathsome aunt (Sally Hawkins) too sclerotic in her assumption that her niece will rise to little more than a nuisance, Jane learns diligence and tractability. Her belly, however, houses a fire that continues to rage despite being bedewed by the reality that her curiosities for anything beyond her line of sight will never be satisfied.

Jane's skills as a governess have brought her to Thornfield Manor in the employment of Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender). She immediately befriends the manor's loyal, salt-of-the-earth housekeeper (Judi Dench). Rochester is away for months at a time, and meets Jane in the gloomy and fog-filled forest upon one of his returns.

Rochester senses a painful past in Jane, and she intuits a hoard of dark secrets locked inside his being. The man is decadent, tormented, and most assuredly hiding something. Jane does her best to keep up a barrier of class order cognizance yet her eyes betray her attraction. Rochester picks up on this, and consistently attempts to elicit emotional reactions one wouldn't expect from a servant. Their fireside chats are like fencing duels; words taking on the roles of lunges and maneuvers. The mutual attraction becomes too powerful to resist, which leads to the discovery of some truly harrowing secrets.

There have been a multitude of film adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's gothic romance novel, and this one holds its own. Director Cary Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini employ similar techniques that Bronte herself found useful. Most notably in revealing bits at a time, enough for us to realize the precarious destination in the heroine's journey, but spilling the dreaded secrets only after emotional tolls have been traversed.

The narrative distinction here is the jumping back and forth in time, as the story opens with Jane stumbling away from Thornfield, is then discovered and cared for by a kind though somewhat dour clergyman (Jamie Bell). From there, the story shifts back to various points in Jane's past, where we see the genesis of her naivete toward the dark side of human nature.

Accented by Adriano Goldman's hauntingly shadowed cinematography and Will Hughes-Jones' magnificently rich production design, the film is a triumph of gothic mood. If the pace seems to revel in its languor, that's to be expected. The evocation of atmosphere isn't something that can be rushed. This is a love story bedeviled by emotional wretchedness, yet it accepts and even somewhat respects its gloom, rather than molding it into a clunky plot device that needs to be overcome. Jane's love for Rochester is bred from pity, not fear. That's an important distinction for successful gothic love stories.

Mia Wasikowska's physical attractiveness is drastically reeled in here, making her facial expressions revealing to the point to emotional nakedness. Her performance is an endless joust between the past she longs to hide and a possible future she longs to realize. She's an ideal choice for the role of Jane.

As Rochester, Michael Fassbender skillfully adds a potent dose of cynical reasoning to his surreptitious actions. ("Since happiness has eluded me, I may as well seek simple pleasures," he confesses.)

Judi Dench creates a servant supremely loyal to Rochester despite his cruelly dismissive reactions to her presence. She senses the flaws in his character that Jane cannot. And in a small but crucial role, Sally Hawkins is unrecognizable as the despicable aunt. She's playing a character the polar opposite from her star turn in Mike Leigh's "Happy-Go-Lucky."

This is the kind of tortured love story that vampire-obsessed teen romance dramas today seem to want to be, but fall short. The distinction lies in the celebration of the dark side of human nature. Teen romances today, even the so-called "darkest" ones, are too fascinated by the mysterious to embrace its nature. Here's a film that espouses the torment that fuels the romance. This adaptation taps into the unbridled power gothic romances--when done well--can hold over us.

* * * out of * * * * stars
Posted by Michael Brendan at 1:14 AM

http://www.reformer.com/entertainment/ci_17945246?source=rss

Newest cinematic ‘Jane Eyre’ lives up to Bronte’s masterful novel
By NATHAN HURLBUT
Updated: 04/28/2011 12:43:47 AM EDT

Thursday April 28, 2011

HARRISVILLE, N.H.

Jane Eyre -- When you consider the influence of a groundbreaking work like "Jane Eyre," it isn’t surprising that it remains as popular today as it was in 1847, when Charlotte Bronte’s original novel was first published. Featuring a capable and headstrong female character, the story displays feminist themes that were certainly ahead of their time -- so much so that the novel’s stature has continued to grow over the years.

For that reason, it isn’t surprising that so many movie adaptations have been made from Bronte’s lengthy tome. I can remember watching the 1944 version with Joan Fontaine and the great Orson Welles and discovering how fascinated I was by the intriguing story. Never mind the fact that I was seeing it on a tiny black-and-white television sitting on a bare hardwood floor -- I found myself slowly sucked into the compelling tale and was completely engrossed from the beginning until the final frame.

Such an acclaimed novel certainly leaves a lot to live up to, and adapting a great book into an enjoyable movie like those filmmakers did almost 70 years ago can be a daunting task. Film is obviously a very different medium than the written word, and it is an easy proposition to turn a highly esteemed work of literature into something imminently respectable and, consequently, quite dull.

Fortunately director Cary Fukunaga’s new cinematic adaptation is anything but dull, refusing to become another unnecessary addition to the long list of "Jane Eyre" adaptations. Rather than treating Bronte’s novel as a sacred text, Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini manage to locate the emotional intimacy beneath all the literary accolades and create quite a compelling movie in the process.

The cinematography in this specific adaptation alone is spectacular, retaining the novel’s gothic atmosphere with frequently beautiful images onscreen. It proves to be an essential aspect here since it not only sets the time period and dark tone of the movie, but also creates a world that is completely enveloping as well.

The filmmakers also wisely chose not to cast well-established movie stars in either of the main roles, preserving Bronte’s vision of lead characters that were more plain looking than glamorous. For example, here, Jane’s (Mia Wasikowska) severe hairstyle effectively masks the passion burning within her, symbolically portraying the repressive social structures that Jane must outwardly adhere to while not allowing such restrictions to diminish her independent spirit. Wasikowska successfully works within this framework too, allowing her character’s inner passion and strong personal will to seep through the restrictive nature of the time period in which she lives, creating a feminine desire for freedom that doesn’t incongruously update it for the modern era.

Michael Fassbender is an appropriately brooding Rochester as well, making his character’s frequently questionable behavior both charismatic and repellent, and creating an intriguingly personality as complicated as Jane herself. As opposed to Welles’ formidably dashing romantic figure in the 1944 version, Fassbender wisely brings the role more down to earth here, creating a more realistic, but equally dramatic Rochester that would seem more in keeping with Bronte’s original creation. The understated way in which these two actors display their character’s emotions makes their inner passion, and consequently the romantic elements of the story, that much more convincing.

They are certainly aided by equally impressive performances in supporting roles. Sally Hawkins is suitably abominable as Jane’s Aunt Sarah here, her cold cruelty towards Jane both persuasive and horrifying. Her impressive display of personal malice provides a powerfully succinct summary of Jane’s tortured childhood, a crucial aspect considering this specific version’s condensation of Jane’s early life. Meanwhile Judi Dench is equally memorable as the housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, dishing out gossip and questionable advice to Jane in a manner that betrays her character’s adherence to the conventions of the times, and effectively providing a contrast to Jane’s own independent spirit.

While the question of whether the world needs yet another cinematic adaptation of "Jane Eyre" is certainly a valid one, it quickly becomes irrelevant when watching this new version, allowing you to easily forget that you may already know this story from the start. This specific adaptation manages a delicate balance of both thoughtful and passionate, respectful of Bronte’s original text while finding a fresh new way to make her story compelling as well. In fact, it may very well be that this version is the truest to the spirit of Bronte’s original masterpiece itself.

Rated PG-13.

http://www.livingwithgas.com/?p=166

Jane Eyre (2011): I really liked this adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s gothic novel. I’ve seen Jane Eyre before, but the 1996 movie left me wanting to sprint form the couch. The secret in this movie is the actors. Mia Wasikowska is very good as the pig-headed Jane Eyre, strong enough to survive her boarding school and make it into the house of Lord Rochester played with inestimable power by Michael Fassbender. Their love brews over long periods of time, and the conflict between master and servant, man and woman plays out over years.

The movie has a surprisingly happy and fulfilling ending, which I loved, because the notion of choice plays such a large part in the story. Watching it I was reminded of another British gothic novel called…ummm…Wuthering Heights. Funny because those two books, two of the best in the English language, were written by sisters. Go figure.

http://www.independent.com/news/2011/apr/26/emjane-eyreem/

Jane Eyre

Mia Wasikowska, Jamie Bell, and Michael Fassbender star in a film written by Moira Buffini, based on the novel by Charlotte Brontë, and directed by Cary Fukunaga.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
By D.J. Palladino

Compared to the lavish, big studio productions of Jane Eyre (there have been almost a dozen), this version is nearly minimalist. Instead of Orson Welles brooding in front of a chiaroscuro fireplace, we get a girl (Mia Wasikowska) running desperately across a heath, stumbling in mud and finding her way to an outlying farm house where three siblings nurse her back to the world, give her a job and the only taste of independence she’s ever known. Her numb gratitude soon gives way to memories, which all tend towards Rochester (Michael Fassbender), and her recalled life appears shot either with available light or in shadows and candles. Thus we become swept into the Mother of All Romance Novels — working girl and landed gentry, the madwoman upstairs and the immediate and unlikely joy we’re meant to share when worlds are bridged and the marriage of true minds overcomes impediments — with a small ironic twist.

In this version, with its earthy flavorings, the sublime thrills are almost electric. Director Cary Fukunanga (Sin Nombre) makes sure that we feel the unbelievable weight of Jane’s fate after Rochester’s kiss. In the next minute, we feel anything is possible. And of course, things do get very weird.

Maybe it isn’t the most memorable film of the year, but Jane Eyre muscles past the countless anemic literary adaptations we sit through hoping for a true flavor of the original. This is Jane seen both faithfully and originally — and it’s a lot of fun too.

http://marissameyer.livejournal.com/239427.html

Previous Entry | Next Entry
Movie Review: Jane Eyre

* Apr. 27th, 2011 at 8:03 AM

I knew that I would be seeing JANE EYRE in theaters the first time I saw the preview (how many months ago…) and I got to go see it with [info]waterfallfaerie (Angie) last week. It did not disappoint!

I am not a stickler for film adaptations. I realize that things that work in literature don’t always work on the screen and I’m fine with directors reinterpreting books as necessary (as long as they don’t completely screw it up). Nevertheless, my biggest concern with Jane Eyre was how they could possibly fit such a complex plot into two short hours without missing some pivotal scenes.

But, somehow, they managed to pull it off! Sure, some sequences had to be greatly summarized and shortened, but that was inevitable. For the most part, all of the book’s highlights were picture perfect, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

HERE THERE BE SPOILERS.

In order to capture the essence of the entire book, the director (or writer, or both) made great use of flashbacks and jumping around in the story’s timeline—from Jane’s childhood and time at the orphanage, to her stay at Thornfield Hall, to her acquaintance with the Rivers family. Almost the entire movie could be interpreted as one long flashback as Jane thinks back to all that happened and brought her to be with the Rivers, which I think is an interesting technique because it allows us to see all the highlights—the most important events in her life as she would remember them—while not feeling as though we’re missing anything when huge chunks of the original storyline go missing (the orphanage sequence is, understandably, much shortened in comparison with the time given it in the book).

The acting was phenomenal. Every character was exactly as I would have envisioned them, with Mia Wasikowska (Jane) and Michael Fassbender (Rochester) taking the stand-out roles. I adored them both. Jane, plain but defiant. Rochester, arrogant yet injured. They were both spot-on. (I also felt that the actress who played young Jane did a great job—not only in looks, but in personality and stance, you would think they were the same person.)

One of the highlights of this film for me was how the director made the setting and scenery almost as much a character as the people, just like great gothic romances should have. From the opening scene, we’re given sweeping glimpses of the countryside, rocky cliffs, brambly forests, the single small cottage standing alone in the middle of nowhere, compared to the dark, dreary fortress that is Thornfield Hall. Angie and I were talking afterwards that too many adaptations try to make the scenery too bright and jovial and it just doesn’t fit the storyline—but here it was perfect.

If I were to make a criticism, it would be that the falling-in-love felt overly rushed, and yes this goes against my applause earlier that they managed to include so much of the book in such little space. While the stand-out scenes from the book were all here, I would have preferred the movie be fifteen or twenty minutes longer and allowed us a more gradual romance. The romance between Jane and Rochester is so deep and passionate, but in the book you can almost feel them tiptoeing around each other, each one too afraid to let themselves fall completely (though for differing reasons) until they can’t resist it any longer. Some of the emotional agony was missing in the film due to the time constraint. (However, both Angie and I did like the short montage of happiness that was included following the proposal. It was an almost satisfactory substitution.)

All in all, I really enjoyed this movie, and suspect most Jane Eyre fans will feel the same.

http://www.mountainx.com/movies/review/jane_eyre

Jane Eyre (PG-13)
Ken Hanke | 04/26/2011
Genre: Gothic Romance
Directed by: Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre)
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins

This latest in a long, long line of movies based on Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre is one of the better ones—and in some ways it may be the best of the lot. A case can certainly be made for that, especially in the casting of Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland). She’s probably the closest the movies have ever come to capturing the character, particularly as concerns the age of the character. Whatever may be said of the 1944 version—generally considered the best previous take on the novel—Joan Fontaine’s Jane seems too old and too sophisticated for the role. However, the problem with the film for many may simply lie in the (over)familiarity of the story. This is somewhat borne out by the fact that I found the film very good, but traversing ground I knew well, while my viewing companion, who was unfamiliar with the story in any form, found it more compelling.

Perhaps the most notable thing about Cary Fukunaga’s (Sin Nombre) film—apart from its undeniably finely wrought atmosphere—lies in its structure. The film opens in full-blown gothic mode with Jane fleeing Thornfield Hall in the middle of the night across the moors (how intrinsically gothic can you get?). From here, it follows her being taken in by St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters. Only after she has been established as the teacher at a charity school does the narrative turn to Jane’s early life, her background (which can only be called Dickensian) and the events that brought her to that mad flight over the moors. The change in structure is a good one (although it may be little more than inspired by the prologue of Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights) in that it immediately plunges the viewer into the drama of Jane’s life, and creates a mystery about it (assuming you don’t know the story).

The center of the story, of course, is Jane going to Thornfield Hall and her experiences in the creepy old place—and, of course, her peculiar romance with the generally distant and considerably older master of the manor, Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), whom she first meets by accident on the road—an event that frightens his horse and causes him to thrown from the animal. (Is this the 1847 version of “meeting cute?”) Assuming you’re familiar with the story, nothing very surprising is going to happen here, though it’s impossible not to admire the craftsmanship, the acting (the leads and Judi Dench are very effective), and the general romantic appeal of the story. All this is good and—if you aren’t familiar with the story—the mystery of Thornfield’s dark secret is well developed, But this brings up another point—one that you may want to skip in the next paragraph if you don’t know know the story.

The build-up to the dark secret is splendidly done, but the secret itself is another matter. Oh, there’s nothing wrong with Bronte’s concept of the insane wife (Valentina Cervi, Miracle at St. Anna) locked away out of sight in the recesses of the old dark house. And it’s been played up nicely, especially when we see the wounds she’s inflicted on her visiting brother (Brit TV actor Harry Lloyd). Then when we actually see her for ourselves—well, she’s simply not particularly menacing or memorable. This is the one area where the film truly misses the boat, especially in terms of gothic horror, and that’s particularly strange in a movie so imbued with that atmosphere.

Don’t misunderstand: This is a good, solid, worthy version of the story, but in one key respect it falls short of its potential. Even if you don’t know the story, I can’t imagine this one thing not being a bit anti-climactic. Regardless, it’s certainly a movie that’s worth a look. Rated PG-13 for some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content.

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

Sunday, April 24, 2011
Jane Eyre (2011) REVIEW

Jane EyreThis movie receives 4 out of 5 stars

It is rated: PG-13 for adult content

Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) overcomes obstacles of her youth and becomes a tutor. Things become more difficult when she finds herself falling in love with one of her student's father (Michael Fassbender). Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, and Jayne Wisener co-star.

This was actually a good movie, only because I normally don't care for period pieces. I loved it. I don't know much about Mia Wasikowska, but I thought she gave a wonderful performance. I think it is a movie worth watching.
Posted by Dan Fullmer at 12:37 AM

http://teresawithnoh.com/2011/04/23/the-jane-eyre-experience/

The Jane Eyre Experience
April 23, 2011 By Teresa Bodwell

That might sound like the latest DisneyWorld ride, but I’m actually talking about going to the movie.

I’ve been waiting forever (okay a few weeks) for Jane Eyre to come to Spokane. The movie opened in New York city March 11 and has been slowly working it’s way to the boonies.

Last week I was in Missoula and Jane Eyre was already playing there–at the Wilma, which is an art theatre. I was only in town for the day, but I seriously thought about spending the night just to get to that movie.

And, by the way, why does Missoula have an art theater when Spokane–a city twice as big–doesn’t? Or maybe there is one here, but I haven’t found it and it hasn’t shown Jane Eyre.

This weekend, though, Jane Eyre arrived at my favorite theater in town–the AMC River Park Square 20. I couldn’t make opening day, yesterday, but I was there for the first showing today.

The kid manning the ticket booth talked me into buying the rewards card, which came with a “free” copy of Jane Eyre–the novel. Like I need another copy of Jane Eyre! But it’s cool and has the movie poster for a cover.

I grabbed some popcorn and Coke for a nutritious lunch and found a nice seat in time for the previews. The crowd was decent for noon Saturday, mostly women with a few men who acted like they were dragged along.

I’m rating the popcorn zero stars. It was tasteless and greasy and didn’t even have that great popcorn smell. The Coke was excellent–just the right amount of syrup. The theater was clean with comfortable seating and nice cup holders. So–4 Starts for the Coke and the theater.

No previews jumped out at me as a must see. Or maybe I was too distracted thinking about the movie to come. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books. It’s definitely my favorite book written prior to my lifetime. You can’t go to a movie based on a beloved book without some apprehension along with the anticipation.

An appropriate hush came over the gathered crowd as the movie opened with Jane running away. This is about 3/4 of the way through the novel–but a good place to start the movie. If you’ve read the book (or perhaps just seen it on the library shelf) you know this is a long novel. We think of Jane Eyre as a great romance, but there’s a lot of story before any hint of romance.

Turning this into a movie that does justice to the whole–the romance as well as childhood experiences that shaped Jane–was no easy task. I think they did a great job. Kudos to screenwriter Moira Buffini and director Cary Joji Fukunaga for pulling this off.

The look and feel of the film were perfect. Just the right amount of green and blossoms along with the cold, harsh countryside. Mia Wasikowska’s performance is amazing. I’ve heard a few raves already and I expect to see lots of awards buzz.

The chemistry between Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender really captured the spirit of the book. I mean–you still want to kick Rochester at all the appropriate places, but you can also see why Jane loves him.

The only disappointment in the movie is that they didn’t find a way to work in the famous line–Reader, I married him.

That’s okay. As the credits roll, we know what’s going to happen.

http://calamityblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/jane-eyre-n-me/

Jane Eyre n’ Me

Posted by Calamity Jane on April 29, 2011

Mr. Rochester performed music so underground his band didn't even exist yet

The new Jane Eyre was good, though slightly anti-climactic for the swoony 11th grader in me. By way of explanation: Jane Eyre was one of those books that I devoured in high school. A plain and chubby but plucky girl myself, I immediately imagined myself as Jane to a thrillingly Byronic imagined Mr. Rochester (at this time——circa 2000—most often manifested by a bearded Johnny Depp). The connection with the novel, re-read about five times since then, was so strong that no film adaptation could ever quite match up with my personal expectation. Previous movies were enjoyable, but left no significant impression, save for the version in which Sookie Stackhouse plays cheeky Young Jane.

Which brings me to the new film by Cary Fukunaga: Well-acted (check-nice supporting work by Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, and Sally Hawkins, to boot!), well-scripted (check plus-the script retells the story out of sequential order, breaking up the tedium of the earlier Jane adaptations) beautifully shot (check—Thornfield Hall is lovingly realized). I can’t fault the acting of the major players, though Michael Fassbender is decidedly waaaay too conventionally gorgeous to be Mr. Rochester. I’ve always considered Rochester to have a bit of a caveman about him which contributes to his allure in a bizarre way that was very appealing to seventeen-year old Me. Here, he is more like a gentle, scruffily bearded flannel-bedecked frontman for an Allston band that would be called Dear Mother Owls or something similar. Mia Wasikowska is lovely as Jane, though I’d love to see her retain a bit more of the ballsy confidence that animates Jane as a child. Upon reflection, my real disappointment with Jane Eyre is personal, nostalgic, and impossible to rectify: that after imagining myself so long as the character, it has become impossible to be pleased with a heroine other than myself.

http://chelseycomms.blogspot.com/2011/04/say-goodbye-social-life.html

Jane Eyre (PG)
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender

I've read the book but hadn't yet seen any of the other various movie versions, so I really did enjoy this adaptation. It had all the main scenes that I remember from the novel and made the most boring parts of the book (the beginning) really short and sweet. Wasikowska does an excellent portrayal of Miss Eyre, as both shy and delicate yet strong-willed and intense. Mr. Rochester wasn't too awful-looking either. I went with a friend who had seen other adaptations, and she says she really enjoyed this version as it was slightly different than the others. I feel like they could have developed the romance a little more, though. This version was more about the mystery.
B

http://roseandwren.blogspot.com/2011/04/overheard.html

Also took myself to see the new Jane Eyre as a special treat to break up the errands. Definitely the best version I've seen. It's something that's been done so often you'd think there'd be nothing new there, but I feel it did the best job of capturing the spirit of the book. Always there is the difficulty of making the Jane/Rochester relationship not too creepy. In the book you're in her head. You understand it. But it's hard, I think, to transfer that to the screen. It always seems to end in a compromise, either making Mr. Rochester younger, or getting an older actress to play the eighteen-year-old Jane. Mia Wasikowska is the first Jane I've seen who is actually the right age, and Michael Fassbender is the perfect Rochester. Of course, it's always good to see Judi Dench, and I've liked Jamie Bell ever since I saw him first as Smike in Nicholas Nickleby. They also keep the eerie feel of the book, which seems to be missing from any of the film versions I've seen. Altogether, they've managed to escape the trend of turning it into just another "period British drama". I'll stop now, but it's definitely worth seeing, even for people who are not usually fans of period British film.
Posted by Melanie Rose at 10:33 AM

http://www.freneticreader.com/2011/04/jane-eyre-2011.html

Saturday, April 30, 2011
Jane Eyre (2011)

I saw the latest Jane Eyre adaptation the other day and cannot resist posting about it, because it was quite enjoyable. Because I still can't figure out how to write a movie review, even though I've written hundreds of book reviews, it is time for bullet points:

* I was too fond of the structure. It started with St. John (if you've read the book) and Jane's childhood is told through flashbacks, with a few other St. John scenes interspersed. However, once Jane becomes a governess, St. John totally disappears. Which isn't too bad because who likes St. John, but once he came back I forgot that he was already in the movie.
* THE HECK WERE THOSE BIRDS AND SUCH THAT KEPT POPPING UP? It would be all moody and then BOOM! BIRD! LOUD NOISE! JUMPING ME!
* I've also seen the 1944 adaptation of the book starring Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles, and that one seems even worse compared to this version. In this one, I could actually see why Jane and Mr. Rochester liked each other. Their relationship develop was rather gradual but totally believable. Hooray.
* The guy who played Richard Mason was so unintentionally hilarious. And creepy. I've googled him and found out he was that one weird guy in Doctor Who:

I think this picture gives you a good idea of one of his scenes in this film.

* Michael Fassbender (Mr. Rochester). Yes. That is all.
* Am I allowed to spoil this movie? It follows the book so closely and once a book has been out for over 150 years I think spoiling it should be fair game. But oh well, I will just say: not enough crazy.
* This movie is so pretty! The clothes are nice even though they are often very hipster (fingerless gloves? why?) but the background/setting/whatever you want to call it is positively lovely. The colors are so bright, even in the spooky scenes, which makes them all the more ~atmospheric.
* The ending was rather abrupt. It does pretty much follow the book ending, but it ends before the jump to the future. (Being cryptic is hard.) It just...ends.

However, even though the ending was abrupt, I really liked it! I do recommend it, though I'm not sure it's in many theaters any more. But oh well, the DVD will be out eventually, and it's definitely worth a watch.

Have you seen this version? Did you like? Any other versions that do not involve Orson Welles that I should watch?

Posted by Khy at 10:30 AM

http://thecelebritycafe.com/reviews/jane-eyre-movie-review-04-30-2011

‘Jane Eyre’ Movie Review
4/30/2011
Ellen Stodola

The most recent film version of Jane Eyre, though leaving out some aspects of the novel, accurately portrays many of the characters and events of the classic novel. This film is enjoyable while still faithful to the story, and the journey of the heroine is as remarkable as ever.

If you don’t know any background on the story of Jane Eyre, let me just start by saying that she’s a young lady who has had a hard life. Jane was raised by her aunt and uncle after her parents died. But her uncle died early in her life as well, and her aunt was very hostile toward her. Jane was sent to Lowood School, a horrible place where she was treated badly. Despite bad circumstances Jane eventually left Lowood after teaching there and obtained a position as a governess for the ward of Mr. Edward Rochester.

Jane goes to live in Mr. Rochester’s large house. For the first time in her life, it seems that things could be looking up. Jane comes to love many of the people and things who are in this new life that she is leading, and she and Rochester even start to form a mutual romantic attraction. However, there’s something quite strange about Rochester and his old house. At night, it seems that the place is haunted and there are many strange happenings that Jane can’t quite figure out. Despite this, Jane is set to marry Rochester, but on her wedding day, some horrible news is revealed about why the wedding can’t go on. Distraught, Jane runs away.

Jane is found nearly dead and is cared for by a family of a brother and two sisters. She takes up a teaching post near them, but eventually, her past catches up to her. Jane has a chance to stay in this new life, but the life that she had known with Rochester is calling to her.

Perhaps the best part about this version of the film is the casting. I’ll be honest when I say that I was skeptical at first with the choice of Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre. Wasikowska is known for her roles in Alice in Wonderland and The Kids Are All Right, but she can also pull off this heroine rather brilliantly. Wasikowska captures Jane’s spirit of continuing to move on with her life no matter how miserable it is. Jane is quite serious and has trouble opening up because of the lack of love in her past life. Jane is quite a determined character, and audiences can see this through her actions in the film as she carries out the duties that are expected of her. Ultimately, the best quality about Jane is that she follows her heart in the end, making for as happy an ending as we can hope for.

Michael Fassbender is also rather amazing as Mr. Rochester. Like his character, I wouldn’t call Fassbender blatantly attractive, but there’s definitely something handsome about him. And when he’s on the screen, you just want to pay attention to him. Fassbender portrays the mysterious nature of his character and also his naturally harsh nature. But through his relationship with Jane, we can see that Rochester has a soft side.

Jamie Bell’s performance is also worth noting as St. John Rivers. Though I did not find his character particularly likable, Bell played him quite well. St. John comes off as rather full of himself, as if he always knows what’s best, but there’s also a side of him that seems unexplored and unattainable.

Judi Dench and Sally Hawkins also had notable supporting roles as Mrs. Fairfax and Jane’s aunt. Dench played the role of the knowledge housekeeper perfectly while Hawkins really made us hate her character as the aunt who turned away her own niece.

The way that the story is told in the film is done quite well because it can be quite tricky to tell with the way that the novel is set up versus a good lead in for a film. However, the film starts somewhere in the middle of Jane’s story and then backtracks to let audiences know what has happened to our heroine to get her to that point. With the shape the Jane is in at the beginning of the film, it’s almost like she’s taking us back in her mind as she also remembers all of the events leading up to the present moment.

The settings of the film are splendid and the interpretations of some of the scenery and locations fits quite nicely with what would be expected from descriptions from the book.

Altogether, the most recent film adaptation of Jane Eyre is enjoyable and helps to get across the majority of the story, though if you’d like a more in depth understanding, I would suggest reading the entire novel.

http://dita40.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/jane-eyre-was-here/

Jane Eyre Was Here

30 Apr 2011

by dita40

The 2011 movie adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre finally made it to my town this week – directed by Cary Fukunaga, with Mia Wasikowska as Jane, and Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yada, yada, yah.

Let’s get to the main crux of the thing – how was the movie? I don’t know if I was secretly comparing it to Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke from the very first version of Jane Eyre I’d ever seen or if I really did miss the key scenes that were glaringly missing, but this new version felt a little flat. And I really was pulling for it tooth and nail. It just did not quite have the chemistry between the hero and heroine where Jane reveals her wicked wit with a smirk and Mr. Rochester reacts with feigned surprise and delight. Everything was very, very subtle – too subtle. While Mr. Fassbender was passionate enough, Ms. Wasikowska’s performance was sometimes awkward and too stiff.

Neither did the tension build to the peak at that infamous, foreboding tree. I truly missed some of the interchange that was taken out – Jane’s teasing Mr. Rochester about her other suitor and life after she went back to him for one. This omission made the film hang in mid-air at the end. Maybe Fukunaga tried to compensate by attempting to add cohesion to the story by taking dramatic license in other places. As with the character of Mrs. Fairfax, played by the wonderful Judi Dench – by first, depicting her as the one who met Jane at the Thornfield ruins, and second, when she confesses to Jane that she didn’t know Bertha was Mr. Rochester’s wife.

In the end, it is a fair movie – it just lacks the thrill that I know Jane Eyre should have had.

http://inkwellinspirations.blogspot.com/2011/04/deb-finally-gets-to-see-jane-eyre-2011.html

Saturday, April 30, 2011
Deb Finally Gets to See Jane Eyre 2011
(Before we get to the fun stuff, please take a moment to pray for those whose lives were devastated this week by storms in the south. Thank you!)

by Debra E. Marvin

Well the big event of the week is over.
Yes, I cried.
And now it's back to 'normal'. And normal for me happens to include another famous British couple. No story book romance by far, but one of the most popular stories by an English author, and the one most often brought to the screen...Jane Eyre.

I recently had the chance to see the new movie with one of my best friends, who admitted she read Jane Eyre over and over in her youth. I'd just finished watching the last production (Masterpiece Theater) for the nth time and was listening to the book on audio. I was ready!

I feel like the mother of twins--and if you know the story, we'll say a pair of Mr. Eshton's twins. It is inevitable to compare these two last versions, but, like a good mom, I can't say I love one more than the other. Let me tell you why.

I loved, LOVED the score from this theatrical release and the cinematography was stunning! I'm so glad I got to see it in the theater! I know a lot of people have not been able to.

BUT MOSTLY...
The acting was superb. Oh my!Jane Eyre: Mia Wasikowska & Michael

Mia Wasikowska may be my favorite Jane and Michael Fassbender my favorite Edward Rochester. May be...because the story is also about the relationship between Jane and Mr. Rochester and I truly loved the RELATIONSHIP aspect in the television version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens.

"Because," he said, "I sometimes have a queer feeling with regard to
you--especially when you are near me, as now: it is as if I had a
string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably
knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of
your little frame. And if that boisterous Channel, and two hundred
miles or so of land come broad between us, I am afraid that cord of
communion will be snapt; and then I've a nervous notion I should
take to bleeding inwardly. As for you,--you'd forget me."

For someone who loves Charlotte Bronte's dark romantic tale as much as I do, I found the new movie gut-wrenching. I will buy it and watch it over and over. Here's the trailer if you've missed it.

But I can't say it's my favorite version because the differences between the two versions are striking enough that I left the theater feeling they were two different stories.

Like twins--both my Janes have essentially the same characters and plot, but up close, the nuances and personalities were completely different. Masterpiece theater's version was much longer (four hours compared to two) affording more time to develop the relationship and that is the major difference in these two productions.

What I absolutely love about the 2006 version is how the relationship develops. We can see them fall in love; they seem to be so right for each other. That is a bit lacking in the new movie.

But I still strongly recommend you see it. Sumptious details. Wait until you see the costumes!

It swept me away and I don't think you'll be disappointed!

FYI- have you seen any of the other 'recent' versions?
1983 TV - Timothy Dalton as Mr. R
1997 TV - Ciaran Hinds as Mr. R
1996 Theater -William Hurt as Mr. R

Are you a fan of Jane Eyre? What's your opinion of any of these versions?
Guess what? It's showing closer to home now, so I just might pop in and see it again next week. Come on over and join me.