Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 6

http://awesomebarnhart.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/jane-eyre-2011/

05/05/2011 · 9:50 AM

Jane Eyre (2011)

Director: Cary Fukunaga
Writer: Moira Buffini
Based On: “Jane Eyre” By Charlotte Bronte
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench
Year: 2011
Country: United Kingdom
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Time: 120 minutes
Genre: Romantic Drama
USA Release: 3/15/2011 (Limited)

Where do the wicked go after death? To Hell, which is a pit full of fire in case you forgot. Even at a young age Jane Eyre was treated like she should be punished and go to that world, but although she was treated that way she never used it as a crutch, instead hiding her past from everyone. This version of the popular novel by Charlotte Bronte, dives a bit darker into the world of Jane Eyre, which also makes it something of the 22nd version, showing how popular it is to use the material. Be that as it may, does this version live up to its predecessors or fall down into that pit full of fire? Let the lights go down and start the tragic story that is “Jane Eyre”…

“Jane Eyre” is a story about a girl whose whole life is filled with treachery and woe. After she sprints from the house she once lived and loved, she is now hiding out and recalling everything in her past that has lead to this moment. After her parents die, she is left in the care of her aunt, who finds her to be an awful child (although she is quite the opposite), sends her away to a school that treats her with the same coldness she has grown accustomed to. Years later she leaves the school having gotten a job as a governess at Thornfield Hall, caring for a young French girl named Adele Varens. After an incident involving a man on horseback, she returns to Thornfield only to realize that the man she helped was in fact Edward Rochester, the master of the house. Soon strange things begin to happen at the house including a fire, which make Jane and Edward’s bond grow stronger. As Jane meets some of Edward’s friends she is told by Alice Fairfax (the keeper of the house) that Edward is going to marry Blanche Ingram. But to Jane and everyone’s surprise he instead asks Jane for her hand in marriage, and with that the real mystery of the story begins.

To follow this gothic tale you need someone that will keep to the period while still making it feel the way it should, although I haven’t read the book at this point it seems to me that this version is faithful not only to other versions but to the source material as well, thanks in part to the great directing by Cary Fukunaga. He did a great job along with his cinematographer Adriano Goldman, whose use of natural light was great: it brought the scenes to another level because it showed the beauty in the light and the scariness in the darkness, showing us everything in its true form. What I really fell in love with was the use of candle light, which not only brought a really feel for the time period but also brought out more drama for the scenes, forcing you to look at the expressions on the faces, not just the words being said. Also nice was the use (not overuse) of steadycam or handheld, it gave me the impression that I was right there along with Jane. With Fukunaga directing and Goldman’s cinematography you really get to experience Jane’s nightmare. Although I didn’t focus on it the entire time the score for this film by Oscar winner Dario Marianelli was very good, fans of his work will not be disappointed – I enjoyed the string sections in early scenes. Like I said before, I have not read the book at this point so I am pretty oblivious to how the story goes, but even with that I can see that this is a very dark story and I can imagine that the story will plunge deeper than a movie can in 2 hours. But none the less I found the story to be extremely interesting, haunting and sad all at the same time. Although it may sound like a depressing tale, and at times it almost reaches that point but it never gets to the point of wondering why you paid to watch a depressing movie. Its just a very tragic story, but by the end and the lights come up you are far from feeling that.

But as far as performances go this was a fantastic cast to watch. Although the story mostly surrounds two characters I can’t forget some of the others. Jamie Bell, Judi Dench and Sally Hawkins all did a great job in their respected roles, although Bell and Hawkins roles were very minuscule they were still very powerful and important to the film. Hawkins shows a side I haven’t seen, with her devious and wicked performance. Jamie Bell was warm and generous but fierce when need be. While Judi Dench was kindhearted, motherly and protective of Jane’s well-being. One of the most surprising performances was that of young Jane played by Amelia Clarkson, who did a fantastic job especially for a relative newcomer. This was her first feature film and she matched the same intensity that Mia Wasikowska gave in her performance, I look forward to her future work. As for our two leads, Michael Fassbender gave a wonderful performance – he was haunting, and although at times he seemed easy to figure out but at the same time complex and mysterious. Like Jane says in the film “Everything seems unreal, you sir are the most phantom like of all.” To her this is like a dream within the nightmare she has lived in her whole life. As for Mia Wasikowska’s performance of Jane Eyre, she was superb, which is making some people say that “she delivers possibly the best portrayal of the title character ever” but seeing as I haven’t seen the other versions I can’t comment but I wouldn’t be surprised because she is a great actress and did an amazing job. Her character has gone through so much yet she never uses it as an excuse, she is strong but also very fragile at the same time. But after being with Edward nothing is the same, and not having him by her side is driving her to the brink of losing her mind, even though it seems to be a pattern for Edward. But in the case of Jane it probably is just the thought of never being with him again, because she loves him so much.

To sum up this has been an interesting ride of the gothic proportion, with outstanding performances by the entire cast. Mia Wasikowska is a great Jane and possible the best version yet. This has gotten me interested in looking back at past versions of Jane Eyre to compare it to this film and see if what all the critics are saying is true. It has also made me more excited to read the novel and fully get an idea of the story.

(90%)

Saw In Theaters 4/30/11

http://theobliviousfilmcommentator.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/10/

Dear Jane Eyre, Not Again.
Posted on May 5, 2011 by theobliviousfilmcommentator

With numerous versions of Jane Eyre floating through the media, it’s hard to set another adaptation apart from the previous. With beautiful scenery and music to carry the story through its blank stares and subtle movements, the newest version of Jane Eyre, staring fresh out of the looking glass Mia Wasikowska, comes short of the passion filled story that has captured the hearts of many readers both young and old alike. Wasikowska’s performance as Jane Eyre was decent, but nothing compared to Charlotte Gainsbourg stunning rendition in the 1996 version. While Gainsbourg interpreted Jane as a lost soul in a world that was anything but kind to her, Wasikowska gave Jane a light fancy free feeling. Much of this whimsical spirit was derived from Wasikowska’s light brown hair and golden eyes that didn’t pierce the soul of Rochester like they were meant to.

It was almost sad to watch the movie desperately try to hold on to the brooding, gothic feeling that has been done so many times before. While Jane is the protagonist, Rochester is the powerhouse that drives Bronte’s haunting novel and was the weakest element in the movie and in the end what led it to its pitfall. Michael Fassbender rather exuded father like qualities and shied away from those of a distraught lover trying to sort out his feelings. His paternal like instincts represented in the film came from the fact that while the age gap between Jane and Rochester is supposed to be a large one, it was almost disturbing. Wasikowska looked as if she was merely fifteen while Fassbander looked around forty. The only time the audience was given a glimpse into Rochester’s heart without making him feel like Papa Bear, was when Jane decided to leave him. Only then we were able to see that he felt something for this melancholy little girl.

But sadly the relationship between Wasikowska and Fassbender was transparent and forced, leaving the audience with a sort of disconnected feeling. We saw substantial evidence that Wasikowska’s Jane was feeling lost and hopeless in her small world when Rochester was absent, but Fassbender most of the time appeared flat and apathetic. Being aware that Rochester’s character is supposed to be a more internal one, when he becomes attached to Jane it is necessary that the audience can see this change. We also didn’t get a clear look into Rochester’s life that carries the burden of his psychotic wife. We’re shown a brief clip of her having an episode but then the door is closed without giving us enough to time to really let what happen seep in.

The idea to make this Jane Eyre different then the rest was adequate but the execution left it feeling bland and lifeless. But I suppose for the audience member that has never read the book or heard anything about Jane Eyre they may enjoy it. But needless to say, the world of film could have gone without yet another version of Jane Eyre.

-The Oblivious Film Commentator

http://www.theweekendhangover.com/moviereviews/jane-eyre-2011

Jane Eyre (2011)
Posted by The Weekend Hangover on May 4, 2011

Matt Scieszka’s Movie Review: Jane Eyre (2011)

Director – Cary Fukunaga
PG-13; 120 Min

Cast:
Mia-Wasikowska – Jane Eyre
Michael Fassbender – Rochester
Judie Dench – Mrs. Fairfax

There have been multiple film adaptations of Charlotte Bronte’s novel depicting a young woman exposed to a harsh childhood who becomes a governess to a wealthy man with a dark secret. I have seen none of them. I did read the novel many years ago – forced by some teacher or professor -and I remember liking parts of it but not enough to recall the entire thing all these years later. So, if you haven’t read the novel, no worries, this movie works very well if you go in with no knowledge at all. Mia Wasikowska is the glue of the film and she is wonderful, depicting plain Jane who is probably as close to a feminist as you can find hundreds of years ago. Her acting is superb in this film and it needs to be for us to stay interested. Michael Fassbender as the wealthy Rochester is also excellent. You may not know his name but he has an incredible role in one of my favorite films of recent years, Fish Tank, and was also in Inglourious Basterds. As Mrs. Fairfax, the caretaker of the mansion which Jane comes to live and work at, Judy Dench is very capable and reliable. This is a period piece shot with great cinematography and costume design and, though it may not appeal to a large population of younger males, was a very rewarding viewing experience.

**** out of 5

This review was posted with the permission of Matt Scieszka. All reviews are his own work and can be viewed at http://randomthoughtsbymatt.blogspot.com/

http://stephaniecowart.com/?p=1711

#32 Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
03 May

SPOILER ALERT! Sorry but this is a classic and impossible to discuss without revealing plot points.

I am pretty sure I read this in high school but had forgotten what a great book it is!
This time around I read the Kindle version and was so thoroughly entertained!
Charlotte Bronte is an exceptional writer and I can see why Jane Eyre is a classic. It definitely ranks up there with “Pride and Prejudice” for me.

Jane is an orphan and is abused by most everyone around her. She is sent from her aunt’s to a miserable school for orphans where she lives for 8 years. At 18 she finally leaves to take a governess position at Thornfield Hall. It is here that her life begins to change for the better (and then worse!). She meets Mr. Rochester and they fall desperately in love. But alas there is a mysterious secret that when revealed forces Jane from Thornfield and her true love. Thankfully although through much tragedy, Jane is able to return to Thornfield and she and Mr. Rochester are able to living happily ever after.

A very simplified summary, to be sure, but this book really was awesome. I loved how Mr. Rochester realizes his love for Jane and decides to force her to admit her feelings by entertaining Miss Ingram, a local beauty and fortune hunter, to the point that Jane actually believes he wants to marry Miss Ingram. It was really funny and not at all meant to be cruel and thankfully Jane doesn’t take it that way.

It is amazing how Charlotte Bronte brings Jane to life and I truly suffered with her in trials and was ecstatic for her in her happiness.

Highly recommended classic!

Side Note – I saw the most recent remake of Jane Eyre with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. Very good – also recommended! Really brings the book to life!


Mia and Michael sans costumes…

http://www.pocketfives.com/f13/2-brief-lazy-movie-reviews-source-code-jane-eyre-636857/

Jane Eyre (2011)
Director - Cary Fukunaga
PG-13; 120 Min
Cast
Mia-Wasikowska - Jane Eyre
Michael Fassbender - Rochester
Judie Dench - Mrs. Fairfax

There have been multiple film adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's novel depicting a young woman exposed to a harsh childhood who becomes a governess to a wealthy man with a dark secret. I have seen none of them. I did read the novel many years ago - forced by some teacher or professor -and I remember liking parts of it but not enough to recall the entire thing all these years later. So, if you haven't read the novel, no worries, this movie works very well if you go in with no knowledge at all. Mia Wasikowska is the glue of the film and she is wonderful, depicting plain Jane who is probably as close to a feminist as you can find hundreds of years ago. Her acting is superb in this film and it needs to be for us to stay interested. Michael Fassbender as the wealthy Rochester is also excellent. You may not know his name but he has an incredible role in one of my favorite films of recent years, Fish Tank, and was also in Inglourius Basterds. As Mrs. Fairfax, the caretaker of the mansion which Jane comes to live and work at, Judy Dench is very capable and reliable. This is a period piece shot with great cinematography and costume design and, though it may not appeal to a large population of younger males, was a very rewarding viewing experience.

**** out of 5

Edited By: skeeze666 2 Days Ago at 05:48 PM

http://commentarytrack.com/2011/05/13/thinking-outside-the-multiplex-indiana-edition-may-13-2011/

Jane Eyre- Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) directed this- beautifully filmed and acted- latest version of Charlotte Bronte’s novel; Mia Wasikowska plays the title role, while Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins, Judi Dench, Imogen Poots, and Simon McBurney are in the supporting cast. Jane Eyre continues this week at the Keystone Art Cinema in Indianapolis, AMC Showplace Bloomington 11, AMC Showplace South Bend 16, Yes Cinema in Columbus, and Fort Wayne’s Cinema Center.

http://tropiccinema.blogspot.com/2011/05/week-of-may-13-to-may-19-mann.html

Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Week of May 13 to May 19 (Mann)
What’s on at the Tropic
by Phil Mann

Amazing! Two buzz-worthy literary adaptations in one week, both from books written by strong, survivor women.

JANE EYRE is said to be the 28th cinema version of this Gothic novel from Charlotte Brontë, originally published in 1847. We’ve had Orson Welles as Rochester, the overbearing Lord of the Manor; with Joan Fontaine as Jane, the struggling orphan of indomitable fortitude. We’ve had William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg. The Rochester figure has been captured by Charlton Heston, George C. Scott, and even Timothy Dalton in his pre-James Bond days.

This time Michael Fassbender (300, Inglourius Basterds, Fish Tank) is an excellent Rochester, but the soul of the movie is Mia Wasikowska, fresh from Alice in Wonderland and now Jane in the Yorkshire moors. “Do you think that because I am poor, obscure, plain and little, that I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong…” says Jane, straight from the page to the screen. The novel was originally published as a faux “autobiography,” but much of the story is derived from Charlotte’s own life, including the physical description of Jane and her travails at a Dickensian boarding school. And Mia looks strikingly like pictures of the author, so we finally have a Charlotte look-a-like portraying the Charlotte life-a-like character of Jane.

The most surprising element of the movie is the director, Cary Fukunaga, a 33-year-old American of half-Japanese decent. This is only his second movie, after the Central American immigrant saga Sin Nombre, but he has mastered the Victorian Gothic look and feel essential to any Brontë movie. It “very likely surpassed all previous cinematic versions of "Jane Eyre." … it's also a cold, wild story about destruction, madness and loss, and this movie captures its divided spirit like none before." (Salon.com)

http://torontoist.com/2011/05/movie_mondays_fiction_filmmaking_ftw.php

Movie Mondays: Fiction Filmmaking FTW

As a means of rounding up Toronto's various cinematic goings-on each week, Movie Mondays compiles the best rep cinema and art house screenings, special presentations, lectures, and limited engagements.

Did you miss us? Now that all those pesky documentaries are out of town and Toronto's rep houses are back to their regularly scheduled programming (more or less), we can get back to giving you our favourite picks for the week. And what a week! We've got the return of Jane Eyre, some free dinosaurs, another excellent New Auteurs retrospective, and something we're not even sure how to describe.
The Fox (2236 Queen Street East)

You know, they say that never was there a story of more woe than that of Juliet and her Romeo. But what about ol’ Jane Eyre, eh? Not exactly the least woeful tale in the books. Life was no cake walk for her, what with the evil aunt and the strained romances and everything else. Sure, she never poisoned herself or anything. But it wasn’t all rainbows and cupcakes and corsets.

And if you’ve never read Jane Eyre, we’ve got some good news. You don’t have to! Because Cary Fukunaga made an excellent film adaptation, which is entering its second run at the Fox this week. Starring Mia Wasikowska as the fiery-spirited governess and Michael Fassbender as the dapper Edward Rochester, Fukunaga’s film captures the brooding Victorian gothic atmosphere of the novel, and ditches the Masterpiece Theatre vibe that’s defined many other film adaptations. Catch it at the Fox at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 10 and see for yourself. Because who reads anymore anyhow?

http://lapinedesign.blogspot.com/2011/05/jane-eyre.html

Sunday, May 8, 2011
Jane Eyre

She finally made it to Duluth. I actually thought I'd have to wait until the rental was available because the theatres around here like to make money and let's face it..."Prom" is going to make a heck of a lot more money in this town than some film with an actual plot that has stood the test of time . But thanks to the swanky, cultural Zinema in downtown Duluth, my friends and I were able to catch the film in all its cinematic splendor.

It was a 'beautiful, beautiful, beautiful' film. Let's just say, "Hello, Michael Fassbender."

Loved everything about it. Stand out performances on all accounts. Mia Wasikowska's portrayal of Jane Eyre was lovable and revealing. Her chemistry with Michael Fassbender as Edward Fairfax Rochester was clearly evident. I had nearly forgotten that was capable of being captured in a movie. It's been so long since I've found that believable.

Jamie Bell was dispicable which impressed me, because he's so darling in "Billy Elliot" and "Defiance". And I loved that I didn't even recognize Sally Hawkins of Persuasion fame and had completely forgotten that Dame Judi Dench is as prestigious as she is when she played the modest housemaid, Mrs. Fairfax.

Although I've never read the book (GASP) ...I know, I know (At least I've read Wuthering Heights...) I did see the last adaptation of the story that was a BBC mini-series in 2006 starring Ruth Wilson. I would have to say there were portions of that that I still prefered, but this film was quite stunning and I would definitely recommend it.

Oh, and I was just tickled by the graphic design of the poster. Such a contempory look for a classic story. Delightful juxtaposition.

What do you think about it? I would love to hear other thoughts!

Posted by Jana at 6:03 PM

http://capetowncreatives.co.za/blog/2011/05/jane-eyre-movie-review-brontes-gothic-romance-comes-alive/

This film adaptation of Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte’s literary classic is haunting, beautiful and moving. Director, Cary Fukunaga, envisioned a darker retelling of this Gothic romantic drama, which until now has generally been depicted as another period piece romance. As such, the Gothic elements from the novel have been emphasised in this film adaptation.

Fukunaga chose to shoot Jane Eyre in Northern England, where the moors, foliage and landscapes provide an iconic backdrop, one that would usually be associated with a Tim Burton film. The twisted trees, misty burroughs and unpredictable weather are moody and fit in perfectly with the film’s dark atmosphere. The score and setting conjure up the perfect climate for a Victorian era horror, keeping a sense of mystery and tension.

Jane Eyre echoes horror, while ironically it’s preoccupied with love and independence in it’s social commentary on women. Jane Eyre, the novel, is recognised as an early cornerstone of feminist literature. Bronte has portrayed Jane as a strong, independent woman. Her representation of determination and individuality are seen as before their time. This is possibly why the film is so relevant for today’s audiences. Instead of floundering and harping on her suitor’s every whim, Jane is content with being the person she wants to be.

Mia Wasikowska delivers an enigmatic performance, which best encapsulates her character without betraying her feminity. Fukunaga has purposefully downplayed Wasikowska’s beauty in favour of a ghostly, blank and plain look. This enhances Wasikowska’s performance, her face is fascinating with audiences unable to distinguish whether she’s beautiful or not. Her ghostly complexion adds to the tone of the film and allows her to perform without being self-conscious. Comparing her title character in Burton’s Alice in Wonderland with Jane Eyre are like night and day, introducing a very different Wasikowska. Naturally a melancholic blend of Gwyneth Paltrow and Claire Danes with a Samantha Morton quality, she’s destined for greatness.

Spling MoviesShe’s supported by Michael Fassbender as Rochester, who delivers an equally complex performance to counterbalance and complement Wasikowska. Rochester exhibits qualities of The Beast from Beauty & The Beast. He’s a shady love interest, whose dark side creates a weighty contrast to the lighter aura of Eyre. Both strong, intelligent and independent characters, it’s a fiery, powerful romance when the two make their intentions known. Fassbender stamps his name on the list of fine Rochester portrayals alongside William Hurt and Orson Welles.

Other supporting actors include Judi Dench and Jamie Bell, who provide stoic performances in secondary roles. Perhaps more screen time would have given them a chance to contend with Wasikowska’s sterling turn as Eyre. A solid ensemble effort, it’s the strong Gothic elements of the production and Fukunaga’s clear vision that turn Jane Eyre into a hauntingly beautiful adaptation of Bronte’s time-honoured romance drama. Laden with artistic merit, great depth of emotion, a taut atmosphere, an eerie setting, a haunting score, beautiful costumes, clarity of direction and fine performances – it’s a memorable period piece classic.

The bottom line: Haunting.

Stephen ‘Spling’ Aspeling

http://myentertainmentworld-mycinema.blogspot.com/2011/05/jane-eyres-dreary-gray-kingdom.html

Friday, May 13, 2011
Jane Eyre's Dreary, Gray Kingdom
The newest film version of Jane Eyre is a cold affair. It's gray-tinted, rain-soaked, slowly paced and underplayed. None of this is to an unforgivably negative effect. In fact, this gray sense of dismal circumstance works sort of perfectly for Jane Eyre, a dreary text in itself. It does, however, make for a rather unpleasant film experience and adds nothing new to the oft-adapted text.

Leading lady Mia Wasikowska competently takes on the iconic literary figure, her mature understatement sometimes crossing into monotone territory but generally filling the screen well. Michael Fassbender is too conventionally and inarguably good looking for Mr. Rochester and his tortured side isn't particularly well developed. The result is a less interesting but more likable leading man than is standard. Sally Hawkins, though underused, is a nice surprise, playing against type as the bitter Mrs. Reed, and generally the whole supporting cast is pretty good (especially Jamie Bell as the fascinating John Rivers).

Many of the smaller characters (Hawkins and Bell's parts most of all) are cut down quite a bit. This means a lot of what makes them interesting goes away, making them little more than fifth business for the A plot. The Bertha issue, for example, is shorthanded to the point where it sort of stops making sense. Perhaps the most prominent of these cutting victims, however, is Dame Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax) who simply has to be pickier with her film choices.

As much as Dame Judi slumming it has become a standard of dreary British period pieces, so has almost everything in this film. It's not bad, it's just been done. Even the estate supposedly belonging to Mr. Rochester is unmistakably 2005's Pemberley (aka the home of Pride and Prejudice's Mr. Darcy). Jane Eyre is a decent film, in a technical sense, but it neither says anything new nor entertains enough to make up for that.
Posted by Kelly at 10:39 PM

http://cinecismonline.com/wordpress/?p=281

Jane Eyre ****
By
BrianW
– May 12, 2011

There is a subtle beauty to the latest adaptation of “Jane Eyre.” The cinematography is full of color and light, but often it is somewhat washed out to the point of Gothic bleakness. Cary Joji Fukunaga’s film, like Charlotte Bronte’s novel or the eponymous character herself, can be plain, tragic, haunting and lovely all at once.

“Jane Eyre” is a familiar story, a classic of Victorian Era literature and adapted numerous times dating as far back as 1943 with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine, but this new version is strikingly original. It hits all the right notes of cinematic style, acting poise and elegiac melodrama, and it stands out as one of the first great movies of 2011.

The screenplay by Moira Buffini jumbles Jane’s narrative a bit. We open with Jane (Mia Wasikowska) crying as she storms out of a castle into the rain. Lost, she finds refuge with a minister (Jamie Bell) who offers her a job and a home. It’s an interesting way to begin the story, starting right off with what becomes a theme of the film, that this “small and plain” cottage is the first place where she is not dependent or subordinate to anyone.

But the attractive thing about Jane’s character is that despite these limitations, she is strong, forthright and confident. Wasikowska, a young and up-and-coming actress, has shown some of these same traits in “Alice and Wonderland” and as the independent daughter of two lesbians in “The Kids Are All Right.” Jane is the focus of the film and Wasikowska makes for a terrific lead. Her expression of Jane’s traits is evident of what has made Jane such an enduring literary figure.

Her childhood is fraught with rejection, both from her adoptive mother (Sally Hawkins) and her vicious religious boarding school, but she grows into the slightly tormented but capable governess of Thornfield Hall owned by Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender).

Rochester is a remarkably complex character, and Fassbender commands every moment he’s onscreen, but never does he go overboard in fury, cynicism or obsession. He’s perfectly convincing and allows for the powerful romance that will form between him and Jane.

Fukunaga directs all of this with flair and quiet tact. Unlike Jane, “Jane Eyre” is not merely “poor and obscure,” skillfully melding a Dickensian period charm, a melodramatic romance and a strangely eerie Victorian ghost story. The cinematography is lush and the score is rightfully evocative.

And yet Fukunaga seems like an odd choice for this material. His debut film, “Sin Nombre,” about Mexican immigrants riding the rails to get into America illegally, is nothing like this one. While he is certainly not completely detached from the film, he does step back and allow his performers to shine.

Still, his contribution is what makes this film so successful in comparison to other adaptations. It’s a strong example of how to do a classic right.

4 stars

http://justchickflicks.com/2011/05/jane-eyre-and-a-sexy-mr-rochester/

Jane Eyre and A Sexy Mr. Rochester

by Clarabela

There have been numerous movie adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s, Jane Eyre. Charlotte and her sister Emily, who wrote Wuthering Heights were the queens of gothic romantic novels. The most recent adaptation of Jane Eyre, directed by Cary Fukunaga stars Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are Alright) , Michael Fassbender (Inglorious Basterds, X-Men: First Class) and a grown-up Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot).
Plain Jane

Mia Wasikowska’s pale skin and square jaw looked as thought she belonged in the period. Something in here eyes and her voice give you a hint of Jane’s inner strength.

After a sad and lonely childhood, the mousy Jane Eyre takes a job as a governess to the young French ward of the elusive and moody Edward Rochester. Having grown up in a household where she was unloved and unwanted, Jane is a young woman who is as plain speaking as she is plain. In a time where it was a woman’s primary vocation to find a husband, being pretty is very important. Jane has no illusions about her looks, so a comfortable and stable governess job is more than she could hope for.

Life in the north of England teaching Adele and living under the friendly and watchful eye of the housekeeper, Miss Fairfax (played by Dame Judi Dench). Things going bump in the night, strange noises and muffles screams don’t even bother her. The master of Thornfield Hall, Edward Rochester is gone for extended periods of time. The boss being gone for months at a time sounds like the perfect job to me. Everything is going along peacefully until the master comes home suddenly. Then thing change…
The Sexy, Moody, Handsome Mr. Rochester

A tortured man, with a terrible secret, Mr. Rochester is the perfect gothic hero. Unlike some of the actors who portrayed Mr. Rochester, Michael Fastbender is a young, sexy man who looks as though he is longing for love. He will make me look at Magneto in the upcoming X-Men: First Class in a whole new way. Perhaps that is what attracted him to Jane Eyre in the first place. He could tell that Jane could be depended upon when the crazy wife you have locked in the attic stabs you in the middle of the night.

The fact that Rochester kept his crazy wife in his home instead of sending her to some hell hole asylums or ‘get rid‘ of her in some more permanent way tells you something about the kind of man he is.

When Rochester’s terrible secret is revealed (right in the middle of their wedding), Jane runs away. After a miserable, cold, wet, rocky trek across the English countryside in the rain, Jane finds herself in the home of St. John Rivers a pius young minister and his sisters. During her time with the Rivers family, Jane manages to get another marriage proposal. (That’s 2, so far) Young Reverend Rivers wants a helpmate for his ministry in India. Not a loving wife.

The memory of the sexy Mr. Rochester call her back to Thornfield Hall which has been burnt to the ground by the crazy wife. Jane finds Edward, scared and blinded. Even so it is a happy ending.
Have you read Jane Eyre or any of the Brontë’s sisters novels. Which one is your favorite? Do you have a favorite film version of Jane Eyre?

Jane Eyre: Masterpiece Theatre, Starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens

Jane Eyre (1944) Starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine

Jane Eyre (1997) Starring Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Showbiz/Story/A1Story20110519-279505.html

Movie Review: Jane Eyre
Yong Shu Hoong | my paper
Thu, May 19, 2011

JANE EYRE (PG)
Drama/120 minutes

DIRECTOR Cary Fukunaga adapts Charlotte Bronte's literary classic with great attention, style and visual aesthetics.

But it's the pairing of Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland) and Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds) as the title characters of a young governess and her brooding master, Edward Rochester, that brings the tale to vivid life.

The supporting cast of Sally Hawkins, Jamie Bell and, particularly, Judi Dench (as housekeeper Mrs Fairfax) impresses, too.

http://sarahrlotfi.blogspot.com/2011/05/jane-eyre-metaphysical-cinema.html

Monday, May 16, 2011
Jane Eyre - Metaphysical Cinema

I was able to get in Saturday on a Focus Features' new release of Charlotte Bronte's classic gothic romance Jane Eyre directed by Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre). As a fan of the novel I've seen almost every adaption from the black and white classic with Joan Fontaine to the cult TV mini-series with Timothy Dalton from the 80s, to Masterpiece theater's recent adaptations in the early 2000s. Bronte's coming of age romance has been adapted so many times I was skeptical that Moira Buffini's screenplay would make much difference.

As the film opened I realized I was in for a treat. Buffini chose to rupture the original structure of the novel by introducing a book-end and opening when Jane has fled Thornfield Hall. Her amnesic state coupled with her attempts to hide her history provide the transitions to her past. As the novel is written from Jane's point of view after the events, Buffinni's adaption makes perfect sense to fans of the book. The metaphysical elements from the gothic novel are masterfully heightened in Fukunaga's adaption. The existentialist spiritual connection between Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester transcends time and space. In the film's opening Rochester's whisper of "Jane" can be heard over the moor wasteland she is lost in. Buffini's emphasis on the name "Jane Eyre" throughout the screenplay compounds the title of the film into context but also establishes a strong theme of identity.

While elements have been cut from the original narrative to make the 2-hr run-time, Fukunaga does not compromise pacing. His long takes and poignant beats allow Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender's performances to dominate the screen. Wasikowska's Jane Eyre is subdued, clear-headed and very strong beneath her demure veneer. Fassbender on the other hand plays a much more sympathetic Rochester. His machinations and actions are made plainly ovations to Jane. In the classic scene in the bedroom after Jane has saved him from a "fiery death" he quite clearly stoops in to kiss her although she backs away.

The strong cinematography of Brazilian Adriano Goldman (Sin Nombre, Conviction) does not fall into the trap of a showy period drama. He captures the beauty of the 19th century with a the liberated camera of a contemporary indie-drama. Drawing on the dark themes from the novel, Goldman accentuates shadow and light. The bright light that streams through the large windows of Thornfield Hall in contrast to the candle-lit scenes after sunset create two distinct palates reflecting the dualism of Rochester's own presentation and his troubled past. One of Goldman's original flourishes is the motif of the pull-focus at the establishing shot of flashback scenes. The effect is just subtly disruptive enough to catch the spectator's attention, but not distracting enough to take you out of the narrative.

Fukunaga's Jane Eyre is a refreshing adaption of a much beloved novel for young and old generations to appreciate.

Posted by Sarah R. Lotfi at 10:53 PM

http://www.roseysreview.com/2011/05/movie-review-jane-eyre.html

Monday, May 16, 2011
MOVIE REVIEW: JANE EYRE
Labels: Movie Reviews 2011
Staring:
Mia Wasikowska ... Jane Eyre
Michael Fassbender...Rochester
Jamie Bell...St. John Rivers
Judi Dench...Mrs. Fairfax

Director: Cary Fukunaga
Writer: Charlotte Brontë (novel), Moira Buffini (screenplay)
Release Date: 11 March 2011 (USA)
Film Location: UK
Rated: PG-13
Genre: Drama, Romance

Plot:
A mousy governess who softens the heart of her employer soon discovers that he's hiding a terrible secret.

Verdict:
People who not read the book will enjoy this movie. People who have read the book will either love it or dislike it some. There is a lot cut out...a lot (you have been warned). The pace of the movie is slower but the majority of movies Focus Features make are. That doesn't/didn't bug me. I loved the cast. Michael Fassbender was great and of course Dame Judi Dench. I was ready to give this an 8/10 but the ending was so abrupt and I didn't like that.

Liked: The cast
Disliked: The ending
Favorite Character: Mrs. Fairfax
Least Favorite Character: John Reed
Favorite Part: The scene after the fire
Script: 8/10 Roses
Acting: 8/10 Roses
Plot: 8/10 Roses
Ending: 5/10 Roses
Over All Rating:
Photobucket

Guest Rating:
Linsey over at Bookseller Chick gave this a 7/10 Roses

http://bronteparsonage.blogspot.com/2011/05/review-of-fukunagas-jane-eyre.html

Monday, 16 May 2011
Review of Fukunaga's Jane Eyre
Chrissy Breen Keffer writes:
Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre is marked by departures. The movie starts with Jane wresting open a door and fleeing Thornfield Hall. But the movie is marked by other departures as well.

Mr. Fukunaga's main characters are far from the caricatures of past depictions. As Jane is about to be sent to the Lowood Institution, she confronts her Aunt Reed, and condemns the lie her aunt told Mr. Brocklehurst: "Deceit is not my fault." To which her aunt replies, "But you are passionate." Mia Wasikowska's Jane (played with an artless maturity that eludes actors twice her age) is no meek church mouse; she is a fiery red-head who doesn't cower before anyone. Similarly, Michael Fassenberg brings subtlety and depth to the role of Rochester. In this movie, we see Rochester as Brontë intends him to be: purposeful, yet with a sense of humor and a soft vulnerability.
Constrained by cinematic time limitations, Mr. Fukunaga necessarily weeds out scenes from the novel. Much of Jane's story - her years at Lowood, interactions with Rochester (farewell mysterious gypsy!), her stay with the Riverses - is whittled down to a bare minimum. Some of the complexity of the original story is lost - this is especially true of Saint John Rivers; he is no foil to Rochester - yet Mr. Fukunaga is still able to capture the essence of Jane Eyre.

Mr. Fukunaga takes directorial liberties, but to good effect. He restructures the book, weaving the story of her childhood into the story of her adulthood. The serene yet beautiful English countryside becomes a window to Jane's state of mind (expansive and blooming with Rochester, wind-whipped and snow-covered with Saint John). He also employs some tricks of the trade - thumps, creaks, startling noises, and whispers carried on the wind - to give the movie its gothic feel.
This movie is marked by departures: from previous projects for the director (Sin Nombre) and cast (Wasikowska's Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are Alright and Fassenberg's Inglorious Basterds), from previous portrayals, and even from the arc of the novel. But these departures, ironically and counter-intuitively, bring it closer to the original than any previous version.

- reviewed by Chrissy Breen Keffer on May 15, 2011 (author of An American Heir: A Modern Retelling of Jane Eyre)


Below- Cary Fukunaga:

Posted by Richard Wilcocks at 5/16/2011 08:45:00 AM

http://thesqueee.blogspot.com/2011/05/jane-eyre-2011-guest-post-by-nan.html#.TdhqwlujiKI

Monday, 16 May 2011
Jane Eyre (2011) - Guest post by Nan

Film review: Jane Eyre (2011), directed by Cary Fukanaga

Jane Eyre (2011) begins with Jane (Mia Wasikowska) running away from Thornfield Hall. She collapses, bedraggled and barely conscious, on the doorstep of St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell), a parson preparing to leave on a mission to India. A series of flashbacks tells her tale of woe: as a child she was tormented by her cousin and aunt, she was sent to a school where pupils were beaten and humiliated, she makes a friend who believes deeply in God, and she is employed as a governess at Thornfield. The estate is presented as a gloomy, forbidding place, and its owner, the world-weary Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender), is equally dark. Adele Varens (Rochester’s ward and Jane’s pupil, played to perfection by Romy Settbon Moore) claims that there is a woman who walks around at night, is able to move through walls, and wants to suck blood (to which Jane replies “nonsense”).


Fassbender as Rochester is glowering, passionate and immoral. Wasikowska as Jane is brooding, passionate and moral. They both do a marvelous job expressing what the screenplay gives them to work with. Jane rescues Rochester from his mysteriously burning bed, establishing them as a potentially intimate couple. When Jane returns to her room afterwards, she leans against the door and smiles to herself. Similarly, after Rochester puts a flower in her hair, she escapes back to the house, but then pauses to ponder him in her heart. Very subtle. Perhaps a little too subtle. Bell is not a “Greek god” by any stretch of the imagination, but he gives a convincing and scaring portrayal of Rivers as the cold, controlling opposite of Rochester.

The lighting, scenery, grounds and costumes are all exquisite. Many of the recurring themes are used effectively: the horizon, the concept of soul mates, being struck speechless. For example, Jane asks Mrs. Fairfax (the ever amazing Judi Dench) why women can’t have action in their lives, and complains that her life stops at the horizon. After Rochester arrives at Thornfield, the windows are open, and the curtains move in the wind, flowing around Jane with animation and life. In contrast, after St. John proposes to her, she stands in front of a window, it is shut, and the curtains are opaque and immobile.

However, there are too many discrepancies between dialogue and action throughout the film. Stating in one scene “you and I are equals,” asserting in another “you transfix me quite” and then later saying “we are connected by a string under the ribs” is not very effective if there are no flirting glances, no pet names, no significant connection in between. When they first get to know each other, Rochester asks Jane if she ever laughs (she could ask the same of him); it would have been SO satisfying and romantic to see their relationship develop in this direction. Unfortunately, there is not one “provoking puppet” or even “little elf” to support Rochester’s claim that his attraction to Jane is due to her “other-worldly” qualities.

The other undeveloped relationship is that between Rochester and Blanche Ingram. Their mutual attraction is reported by Mrs. Fairfax, but it is barely shown on screen. Likewise, Rochester is never given the opportunity to be contemptuous of Miss Ingram. He tells Jane during his proposal that “Miss Ingram is the machine,” but seeing would have been believing. She played the piano and sang beautifully and sneered at Jane a few times, hardly the actions of a Gothic gold-digger on auto-pilot. A line of Mrs. Fairfax’s captures these discrepancies the morning after the engagement, “I have noticed that you are his pet, but men like him are not accustomed to marry their governesses.” Oh, if this had been mirrored in the action: the verbal jousting, his toying with her affection, the unworthy one digging her claws in!

I was disappointed that the atmosphere of horror is missing in so many scenes, when it is captured so precisely in others. Before Jane meets Rochester in a dark country lane, a grouse flies up in front of her, and the whole audience gasped in surprise. Then a horse suddenly appears, screams, and falls on top of its rider, who recovers and warns Jane to hurry on her errand, because “you never know what might be lurking.” Back at Thornfield, the lurking vampire is hinted at many times: eerie noises, the unexplained fire, muffled screams in the night, a bloodied visitor, but, most strangely, the rending of Jane’s bridal veil is omitted. I found the reappearance of a terrified Mason more surprising than the revelation of the wife in the attic.

This film has such potential. There were many threads that director Cary Fukanaga attempted to weave into a tableau. I do not believe that he succeeded. The threads were not woven together tightly enough in the middle, with a loose and disjointed result. Much of the fault lies with the screenplay: the story does not prove that Rochester and Jane are unconventional yet perfectly suited partners. In one of their best scenes together, Rochester weeps and clutches Jane to him, saying “You are like a reed … I could crush you between finger and thumb … but I could never have your soul, and that is what I want!” In response, Jane cries out that she has to be true to herself. This film is very moving, frequently shocking, but ultimately not entirely convincing, because we are not given more than a glimpse into Jane’s soul or sense of self.

Four out of five “what the deuces?!”

http://delayedreaction.posterous.com/jane-eyre-2011

May 12, 2011
Jane Eyre (2011)
Surprisingly frightening and genuinely moving, this rendition of the oft-filmed Brontë novel is virtuosic in its refined expression of the costume drama genre. Mia Wasikowska, in the title role, is riveting as a young woman who has borne much abuse but who refuses to allow it to dim her progress, and Michael Fassbender is magnetic as her employer-cum-suitor. Together they form a completely plausible equation of mutual and not particularly healthy attraction.

http://moviesformortals.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/jane-eyre-brilliantly-brooding-bronte/

JANE EYRE: Brilliantly brooding Brontë

You really don’t need me to help you figure out whether you should see Jane Eyre or not. Do you like moody period pieces? Gothic tales from the British countryside? Novels by women with the last name Brontë? How about women with their hair parted down the middle?

Well, you get all four with Jane Eyre. Based on Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, this is, according to reliable Internet sources, the tenth big-screen adaptation of her most famous work – at least by the name Jane Eyre. There are a good half-dozen other adaptations by other names, not to mention countless mini-series and made-for-TV movies! So if you answered yes to any of the questions above, you are clearly not alone.

Not having seen all nine previous incarnations, I’m not qualified to provide a definitive comparison. But I can say that the cast of this version was spectacular, starting with Mia Wasikowska as Jane, Michael Fassbender as the gloomy Mr. Rochester, Judi Dench as the no-nonsense Mrs. Fairfax, and Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers.

I have to pause a moment and give a special shout-out to Jamie Bell. We saw him in 2000 in that British gem Billy Elliot, and then we never saw him again. But he’s been quietly plying his trade, and over the years, his roles – and his movies – have gotten bigger and bigger. He starred with Daniel Craig in Defiance in 2008, and he starred opposite Channing Tatum in this year’s The Eagle. He’s all grown up now, and hopefully he’s here to stay.

As for Wasikowska, she’s on completely different turf here than she was a year ago during her blockbuster turn as “Alice” in last year’s Alice in Wonderland. Not that there was anything wrong with that wonderful bit of fluff, but as the title character of Jane Eyre, she truly has a chance to show her stuff. Of course, the hair parted down the middle doesn’t hurt either.

See the Jane Eyre trailer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IFsdfk3mlk

http://inmediasrant.blogspot.com/2011/05/jane-eyre.html

Thursday, May 19, 2011
Jane Eyre****
Went on a bit of a movie bender this month - 4 movies in two weekends! I've already reviewed Fast Five (***) and Thor (***1/2). The second two, just last weekend, were "Bridesmaids" and "Jane Eyre." The former I went to see because a friend suggested it; the latter I went to see because of the X-Men: FIrst Class trailer, and because my friend K. is a bad influence. No, for real -- I mentioned that I was excited about X-Men, and she was all "MICHAEL FASSBENDER!" So I had to look him up and see what the fuss was about. And I found this:

At the beginning of the video, I was like, "Meh, he's OK." But then he started singing the Magnum PI theme song, and he got upgraded to "kind of cute" And then he corrected the pitch of the sound effect he was making at the end of the video, and it was all over. I might have fallen into a rabbit hole of YouTube related videos. Like this one:

Better hair - bad facial hair + The Greatest American Hero = ADORKABLE!

*sigh* I blame K.

Anyway, once he'd been upgraded to adorkable, which I obviously have a weakness for, I went on Netflix to see what I could see, and that's how I found out about this Jane Eyre. I mentioned it to my roommate, and she told me that it was brand new, just recently in theaters. It was still playing at one of the neighborhood theaters in town, and the matinee was cheap (for a movie ticket in San Francisco), so I decided to check it out. It's not bad, but not great in my opinion. Entertaining. And I think my problems with it may have more to do with the story itself than with the movie. I haven't read the book, so maybe this is more compellingly present there, but I don't really understand why Jane loves Rochester. He's a pretty serious asshole -- I mean, even if you leave out the coldness towards poor Adele, the cruel comments about Fairfax, and the general crustiness, there's the part where HE ALMOST TRICKS HER INTO A SHAM MARRIAGE. And this is the love of her life?

In terms of the film, I wasn't overly impressed with Mia Wasikowska in the proposal scene, but the rest was well done, I thought. And I did like Jane, especially the part where she's like, "Wait, I'm sorry -- you're married?! Peace out."

To be honest, my biggest quibble is that I'm pretty sure Rochester is supposed to be blind, burnt and missing a hand at the end, as opposed to just blind and sporting really bad facial hair. I mean, I'd love it if Jane didn't get stuck with a one-handed, blind, burnt asshole, but that *is* the way it's written...

I'm giving it a gentleman's 4 stars - It's better than decent, but I'll really only remember it because Fassbender's hot when he broods.

5 *s = "WOW!"
4 *s = "Good"
3 *s = "Stupid fun, decent, or at least not bad enough to get 2 *s"
2 *s = "Bad, but not awful, or enjoyable despite its awfulness"
1 * = "The best part was the end, because then it was over."
no *s = "*Deep, pain-filled sigh*...I will never get that [insert running time here] of my life back."
Posted by elisamaza76 at 12:32 AM

http://highoncelluloid.blogspot.com/2011/05/film-review-jane-eyre-2011.html

Sunday, May 22, 2011
Film Review: Jane Eyre (2011)
I have a very serious problem with costume dramas, in that most of them cause me to hate the very soul of England's history. Some of them have occasionally worked for me, like Joe Wright's 2007 film Atonement, but more often they are coldly executed with barely an inch of flair or liveliness. I had hoped that Jane Eyre would not be something like that. The trailers put forth the idea that it would be a passionate piece starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, two actors whom I respect very deeply. As I settled into the start of the film, I came to terms with the fact that this wasn't the case.

The film follows the painful and depressing life of Jane Eyre, whose life is put in disarray through the cruelty of cousin and aunt. She's sent off to a cruel school where she is punished and scorned for no real reason. Case in point, she drops her tray one day, and is then shunned by the rest of the school, all except one kind girl, obviously. The depressing atmosphere of her situation is overly infectious, and it's impossible to be entertained or impressed with the film. As she gets older, she leaves the school in favor of life as a governess at Thornfield, a mansion owned by the mysterious and powerful Edward Fairfax Rochester.

As soon as Michael Fassbender comes onto the scene, the film gains a new vibrancy that kept me from leaving the theater before the film ran out. Fassbender's portrayal has such a charisma and semi-develish draw to it. Some of that, thankfully, rubs off on Wasikowska who, up until this point, had been uncharacteristically dull and boring. When Fassbender arrives, he brings out a certain spark in Wasikowska that she was lacking otherwise. The chemistry wasn't quite there, but they did work off of each other.

As you might have guessed from the trailers, Mr. Rochester has a dark secret, but we don't really care about that before or after it happens. The film is rather intriguing and entrancing in the middle when Jane Eyre is getting to know Rochester, with the light of fire reflecting better with the film's tone than the light blues and dull grays. However, as things head towards the third act of the film, it stops being dull or entrancing, and is instead just plain silly. The developments that occur in the finale half hour strain credulity, and they don't even offer us the satisfaction of laughing at the film's expense.

As great as Michael Fassbender is, he is weighed down by the sheer ridiculousness of the plot. The cast as a whole is weighed down by the highly deliberate script and straight-forward execution. Director Cary Fukunaga seems too set on making this a spooky and eerie film than one that makes sense. There are hints at the secret revealed towards the end that perhaps ring better with followup viewings, but I wouldn't want to sit through this film a second time. The cinematography is only occasionally beautiful and staggering, while at all other times it is only attempting to be. Jane Eyre ends up as an indecisive and inconsistent piece of filmmaking that never lets the audience feel comfortable.

C
Posted by Duncan Houst at 2:15 PM

http://www.orlandofamilymagazine.com/index.php/family-resources/jane-eyre/

JANE EYRE

Written by: Jane Louise Boursaw, Jane Louise Boursaw

MovieReviews-5ReelsReel Rating: 5 out of 5 Reels

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

Released in Theaters: March 11, 2011

Genre: Drama, Romance, Based on a Book

Runtime: 120 minutes

Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga

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

Official Site: http://janeeyrethemovie.com/

SYNOPSIS: Based on the classic novel by Charlotte Bronte, ‘Jane Eyre’ tells the story of a young girl who suffers a bleak childhood, then takes a position as a governess at Thornfield Hall. There she meets the dark, cold, abrupt master Mr. Rochester, and soon finds herself in a budding friendship and romance – until his terrible secret threatens to destroy it forever.

Sex/Nudity: Passionate hugs and kisses between a young woman and her older employer. Brief images of a naked woman in a painting.

Violence/Gore. A teenage boy hits a young girl with a book, and she lunges at him. A young girl is emotionally abused by her relatives and at boarding school. A stern headmaster makes her stand on a chair all day and encourages her classmates to shun her. Talk of a character committing suicide, jumping to her death from a building. A character suffers a bloody wound to his mid-section.

Profanity: None.

Drugs/Alcohol: Era-appropriate social drinking at dinners and gatherings.

Which Kids Will Like It? Fans of Charlotte Bronte, the original novel, or romantic dramas set in 19th century England.

Will Parents Like It? It’s an endearing story with gorgeously bleak landscapes and architecture. The PG-13 rating is on target, although if your 13-year-old is easily spooked or feels injustices deeply, best to wait a year or two.

REVIEW: ‘Jane Eyre’ had a limited release in March, and I’ve been impatiently awaiting its debut in Northern Michigan. It finally arrived last week, and it was worth the wait. I confess, I haven’t read the book by Charlotte Bronte, so had to email a friend later and ask if that’s how the book ended. Yes, but the book was richer and more intense, she said. That’s usually the case. Still, the movie doesn’t disappoint.

It’s bleak, though, so you have to look beyond Jane’s tragic childhood and savor the gloomy story of complicated love. As the film begins, we learn that young Jane (played by Amelia Clarkson) lost both her parents and is living with a stern relative (Sally Hawkins) and her family. They treat Jane horribly, and she’s finally sent to a boarding school that’s more like a prison. More bleakness ensues, as the headmaster humiliates Jane for supposedly misbehaving.

But things start to turn around as Jane gets older (played by soulful Mia Wasikowska) and is hired as the governess at dreary Thornfield Hall, where Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) manages the household. The master of the house, Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) is cold, abrupt and mysterious, but has an instant connection with Jane.

Rochester is also hiding a dark secret, and once Jane realizes what it is, she flees the residence, despite their budding romance. She stumbles across an overcast, rainy landscape, finally landing exhausted on the doorstep of St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters.

Jane Eyre’ is rated PG-13, and rightly so. Wayward children were not treated kindly in those days, and we see Jane abused physically and emotionally, although her spirit never waivers. Wasikowska portrays a young lady determined not to allow the cruelties in her life oppress her spirit, and much of that is shown through her facial expressions and the way she carries herself. It’s a good example – almost feminist in nature — of making the best of a bad situation. Still, the whole story made me grateful for having grown up in a kind family during the 20th century.

Wasikowska also has some nice chemistry with Fassbender, whose Rochester is vital and manly, as shown in his first meeting with Jane, where she accidentally spooks his horse and he hurtles to the ground.

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga favors a gothic approach to the story, and it’s dark, mysterious and sometimes spooky. If this was a TV series on The CW, we’d no doubt see a vampire or werewolf somewhere in the mix. And the locations are stunningly gloomy; filming took place in Derbyshire, England at places with romantic names like Chatsworth House, Darley Dale, Stanage Edge, and The Fox House.

The bottom line is even if you haven’t read Charlotte Bronte’s novel or know much that era, ‘Jane Eyre’ is a glorious feast for the eyes, soul and heart. And it’s darn good storytelling.

http://winter-pot-kalanchoe.blogspot.com/2011/05/jane-eyre-brilliantly-brooding-bronte.html

2011年5月21日 星期六
JANE EYRE: Brilliantly brooding Brontë « Movie Reviews for Mere Mortals
You really don't need me to help you figure out whether you should see Jane Eyre or not. Do you like moody period pieces? Gothic tales from the British countryside? Novels by women with the last name Brontë? How about women with their hair parted down the middle?

Well, you get all four with Jane Eyre. Based on Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel, this is, according to reliable Internet sources, the tenth big-screen adaptation of her most famous work – at least by the name Jane Eyre. There are a good half-dozen other adaptations by other names, not to mention countless mini-series and made-for-TV movies! So if you answered yes to any of the questions above, you are clearly not alone.

Not having seen all nine previous incarnations, I'm not qualified to provide a definitive comparison. But I can say that the cast of this version was spectacular, starting with Mia Wasikowska as Jane, Michael Fassbender as the gloomy Mr. Rochester, Judi Dench as the no-nonsense Mrs. Fairfax, and Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers.

I have to pause a moment and give a special shout-out to Jamie Bell. We saw him in 2000 in that British gem Billy Elliot, and then we never saw him again. But he's been quietly plying his trade, and over the years, his roles – and his movies – have gotten bigger and bigger. He starred with Daniel Craig in Defiance in 2008, and he starred opposite Channing Tatum in this year's The Eagle. He's all grown up now, and hopefully he's here to stay.

As for Wasikowska, she's on completely different turf here than she was a year ago during her blockbuster turn as "Alice" in last year's Alice in Wonderland. Not that there was anything wrong with that wonderful bit of fluff, but as the title character of Jane Eyre, she truly has a chance to show her stuff. Of course, the hair parted down the middle doesn't hurt either.
See the Jane Eyre trailer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IFsdfk3mlk Email Twitter Facebook
发贴者 news 时间： 下午9:00

http://arestlessmoment.blogspot.com/2011/05/novel-purist-review-of-jane-eyre-2011.html

Monday, May 23, 2011
The Novel Purist Review of Jane Eyre (2011)
I tried. Honest. I told myself that the film is two hours long and that some scenes and lines will be cut and I should accept it as a highlight reel of Jane Eyre. But I couldn’t stop myself from mentally complaining about the omitted lines and scenes. I was extremely critical during my favorite chapters:

Chapter 14 – Jane and Mr. Rochester’s first intellectual discussion

The dialogue began well with Rochester (Michael Fassbender) being intimidating and enigmatic at the part when he asks Jane (Mia Wasikowska) if she finds him handsome and she sharply replies “No sir.” Although they kept the discussion of Rochester’s claim to superiority based on Jane being his paid subordinate, the discussion on how Rochester made use of his time and experience was dwindled down to a few lines thus cutting out intellectual bond that Rochester and Jane form during this conversation. Instead, Fassbender decides that Rochester wants Jane to know that he is interested in her by saying “Possibly: yet why should I, if I can get sweet, fresh pleasure? And I may get it as sweet and fresh as the wild honey the bee gathers on the moor” and “I see at intervals the glance of a curious sort of bird through the close-set bars of a cage: a vivid, restless, resolute captive is there; were it but free, it would soar cloud-high.” in a overtly seductive manner instead of in a enigmatically teasing manner. Rochester does not show Jane that he likes her just as a person at this point.

Chapter 23 – the proposal scene

My first thought when I saw that this scene was coming: ”Why is it daytime?! Am I not remembering this correctly because I could’ve sworn this scene happens at night?” So, when I reread the chapter, I did remember that the scene correctly. Why can’t this scene ever be done right? I feel that this scene takes place at night because there’s an underlying darkness to the proposal: Rochester is already married in the eyes of the law. Perhaps the filmmakers felt that shooting the scene in the day will lend a sense of irony. Then there’s the omission of Rochester finding her a situation in Ireland. That piece of information is the key to Jane’s emotional breakdown because the possibility of her leaving Rochester became real. Without it, the scene lacked the emotional highs and lows that it should have.

Chapter 27 – after the reveal of Rochester’s wife

Wasikowska and Fassbender did a good job at portraying Jane’s sense of pity along with her strength of conviction to leave Rochester and Rochester’s desperation to make Jane stay with him especially when he said, “A mere reed she feels in my hand! I could bend her with my finger and thumb. Whatever I do with its cage, I cannot get at it--the savage, beautiful creature! And it is you, spirit--with will and energy, and virtue and purity--that I want: not alone your brittle frame.” However, the scene would have more passion if the screenwriter had included these lines:

"Jane, you understand what I want of you? Just this promise--'I will be yours, Mr. Rochester.'"
"Mr. Rochester, I will NOT be yours."
Another long silence.
"Jane!" recommenced he, with a gentleness that broke me down with grief, and turned me stone-cold with ominous terror--for this still voice was the pant of a lion rising--"Jane, do you mean to go one way in the world, and to let me go another?"
"I do."
"Jane" (bending towards and embracing me), "do you mean it now?"
"I do."
"And now?" softly kissing my forehead and cheek.
"I do," extricating myself from restraint rapidly and completely.
"Oh, Jane, this is bitter! This--this is wicked. It would not be wicked to love me."
"It would to obey you."

While I had a laser-like focus on my favorite chapters, there were other lines that I wished the film had included:

When Jane leaves the party after Rochester asks her if she’s depressed and she denies it. Rochester says:

“But I affirm that you are: so much depressed that a few more words would bring tears to your eyes--indeed, they are there now, shining and swimming; and a bead has slipped from the lash and fallen on to the flag. If I had time, and was not in mortal dread of some prating prig of a servant passing, I would know what all this means. Well, to-night I excuse you; but understand that so long as my visitors stay, I expect you to appear in the drawing-room every evening; it is my wish; don't neglect it. Now go, and send Sophie for Adele. Good-night, my--" He stopped, bit his lip, and abruptly left me.

In the film, a servant announces Richard Mason’s arrival. In the book, Mason arrives a few days after this scene.

When Jane leaves for Gateshead:

“Then you and I must bid good-bye for a little while?" [Rochester says.]
"I suppose so, sir."
"And how do people perform that ceremony of parting, Jane? Teach me; I'm not quite up to it."
"They say, Farewell, or any other form they prefer."
"Then say it."
"Farewell, Mr. Rochester, for the present."
"What must I say?"
"The same, if you like, sir."
"Farewell, Miss Eyre, for the present; is that all?"
"Yes?"
"It seems stingy, to my notions, and dry, and unfriendly. I should like something else: a little addition to the rite. If one shook hands, for instance; but no--that would not content me either. So you'll do no more than say Farewell, Jane?"
"It is enough, sir: as much good-will may be conveyed in one hearty word as in many."
"Very likely; but it is blank and cool--'Farewell.'"

This is one of their major bonding moments and it should have not been left out.

The plot point that I cannot believe that they changed was the fact that Jane discovers that the Rivers are her blood relatives thus giving Jane the family she always wanted. In the film, Jane suggests to St. John that he treats her like a sister. While I can guess that the filmmakers decided on this change to make the St. John’s proposal more acceptable to a modern audience, I find it insulting to the audience. Most viewers try to understand that different time periods had different standards for who people can marry. I think that they could have understood that cousins married each other during that time.

My next post will be a more objective film review of Jane Eyre (2011). But I felt it was my duty as a Jane Eyre fan to warn other Jane Eyre fans about the missing lines and scenes. And to say to any aspiring screenwriter/director/producer: STOP MAKING JANE EYRE FEATURE FILM ADAPTATIONS! THE NOVEL ONLY WORKS AS A MINISERIES!
Posted by Sherry at 4:52 PM