Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 6

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

http://fantasmagoriese.blogspot.com/2011/05/jane-eyre-upcomming-movie.html

Monday, May 23, 2011
Jane Eyre - Upcomming movie
Posted by Niecole at 3:39:00 PM
In "celebration" of the upcomming Jane Eyre movie I thought I'd do a post about it.

Many of you might have read the book or seen a previous movie about it, but for those of you (like me) have not done either, maybe this will make you a little excited and you'll either go see the movie or read the book.

I recently picked up a copy of the book and I'm going to start reading soon. I'm also very much looking forward to watching the movie when it shows in my country...

Cast:

Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre

Michael Fassbender as Edward Fairfax Rochester
Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers
Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax
Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Reed
Imogen Poots as Blanche Ingram
Sophie Ward as Lady Ingram
Holliday Grainger as Diana Rivers
Tamzin Merchant as Mary Rivers
Romy Settbon Moore as Adele
Amelia Clarkson as Young Jane Eyre
Freya Parks as Helen Burns
Harry Lloyd as Richard Mason
Valentina Cervi as Bertha Antoinetta Mason

Story:

Charlotte Bronte's impassioned novel is the love story of Jane Eyre, a plain yet spirited governess, and her arrogant, brooding Mr. Rochester. Published in 1847, under the pseudonym of Currer Bell, the book heralded a new kind of heroine--one whose virtuous integrity, keen intellect and tireless perseverance broke through class barriers to win equal stature with the man she loved. Hailed by William Makepeace Thackeray as "the masterwork of great genius," Jane Eyre is still regarded, over a century later, as one of the finest novels in English literature.
Synopsis of the movie:

In a bold new feature version of Jane Eyre, director Cary Joji Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) and screenwriter Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) infuse a contemporary immediacy into Charlotte Brontë’s timeless, classic story. Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds) star in the iconic lead roles of the romantic drama, the heroine of which continues to inspire new generations of devoted readers and viewers.

In the 19th Century-set story, Jane Eyre (played by Ms. Wasikowska) suddenly flees Thornfield Hall, the vast and isolated estate where she works as a governess for Adèle Varens, a child under the custody of Thornfield’s brooding master, Edward Rochester (Mr. Fassbender). The imposing residence – and Rochester’s own imposing nature – have sorely tested her resilience. With nowhere else to go, she is extended a helping hand by clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell of Focus Features’ The Eagle) and his family. As she recuperates in the Rivers’ Moor House and looks back upon the tumultuous events that led to her escape, Jane wonders if the past is ever truly past…

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


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

So now I'd like to know, who of you have read the book? Or seen the Movie? Or both?

Do you think its worth reading?
Is it one of those classics that everyone should read or not?

Give your opinion, no matter what it is...

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

May 23, 2011
Jane Eyre (2011)
While watching director Cary Fukunaga's film version of Charlotte Bronte's Gothic romance Jane Eyre I thought to myself, this must be what it felt like to watch movies before the internet started spoiling all of the juicy parts. This must be what it feels like to be surprised by a film!

My own jaded familiarity with the story and its overabundance of directorial stabs at filmic renditions have caused me to be genuinely shocked by...well, by the audience's genuine shock when this classic story's secrets are laid bare.

How refreshing to hear gasps and to see gaping mouths in the presence of the novel's 12th adaptation. It puts to rest any question as to whether or not Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini did Bronte justice; especially since this particular story seems on the brink of cliche these days. A young governess (played in this film by Mia Wasikowska) falls in love with her older, surly employer named Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbinder plays him with a balance of sarcasm, gruff, and tenderness upon which all future Rochester's will be judged---yes, there undoubtedly will be future versions), but their love for one another is haunted by a secret that in the 1800's was considered socially, morally, and religiously fatal.

Let's face it, the babysitter falling for the man of the house isn't exactly unheard of. This film's backwards-working plot and exceptionally stylized cinematography saves the story from going stale. Wide-angled, sweeping shots of a destitute Jane wondering the bucolic English moors commence the film, and we are told her life story and love affair through cunning flashbacks. Working backwards accounts for the extra-shocked audience as it adds mystery to the tale.

Fukunaga and editor Melanie Oliver deftly juxtapose the images of Jane's re-account of her childhood to simultaneously create some dark comedy and commentary on the time period --when Jane is asked if the school she attended provided a thorough education there is a flashback of a staff striking a little girl's back and she glibly responds "most thorough."

Passion isn't lacking in this production's efforts. The scenes depicting Jane and Mr. Rochester's romance are gorgeously set-up: they meet with gnarled black trees and swirling mist framing their bodies, and the romance continues amongst symmetrically positioned Victorian furniture and outdoor frolics framed by flowered vines and cherry blossom branches bordering the scenes. Even Buffini's script captures some of Bronte's original fiery writing concerning her frustration nay anger at her inferior position as a woman (something rare to find in any adaptation of the novel).

The only thing lacking in passion is the couple itself. Chemistry is a fickle thing; either it's there or it's not. Fassbender and Wasikowska, although they give admirable performances, there isn't any heat between them -- even in a scene with a bedroom on fire they're about as urgent and passionate as Sunday morning churchgoers. Ultimately, since it is their dark, doomed romance which carries the film, it's imperative that Fassbender and Wasikowska's scenes work. But, in most cases, their pacing and timing are unsynchronized giving us the feeling that they are talking at each other instead of to one another; the scene when they first meet is a perfect example --beautiful for the eyes but not so much for the ears.

So while only a singular aspect of Jane Eyre is lackluster most moviegoers will find that it makes all the difference. If you want a thrill watch it with someone who doesn't know the story, and then sit back and let the roller coaster of reactions begin.

Posted by M. Ebert at 8:29 AM

http://www.c-ville.com/Article/Feature_movie_review/Jane_Eyre_PG_13_115_minutes_Vinegar_Hill_Theatre/?z_Issue_ID=11802305113408144

Issue #23.21 :: 05/24/2011 - 05/30/2011
Jane Eyre; PG-13, 115 minutes; Vinegar Hill Theatre

No plain Jane

BY JONATHAN KIEFER

You would not be wrong to wonder if it’s even possible to get fired up for a new movie version of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, which has been adapted into some form of motion picture at least once every decade since 1914. But this one, intelligently scripted by Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) and directed by Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) has its own fire to spare.

Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) directed the latest version of Jane Eyre, starring Mia Wasikowska as Jane and Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester.

You know the drill: A headstrong teenaged governess (Mia Wasikowska), having overcome a really rotten childhood, falls for a brooding lord (Michael Fassbender) with his own dark past. The most important thing to understand about Jane Eyre is that she’s self-possessed, given all that has preceded her arrival at the gloomy estate of one Edward Rochester. This fellow, too, might be called self-possessed, and also a tad temperamental. As he and Jane talk to each other, most of the time in beautifully lofty language, they find themselves engaged in a mutually invigorating battle of wills. A romance between them should therefore seem inevitable, but also unlikely; in addition to the differences of age and social status, there is also that one rather important thing he’s not telling her. Hint: Is that a voice in her head or in the attic?

That Jane, said to be plain, and Rochester, said (by Jane) to be ugly, are portrayed respectively by the un-plain Wasikowska and the un-ugly Fassbender doesn’t impugn Fukunaga’s fidelity to the book. You can just take it for granted that these two characters have a long movie history of interesting but technically inaccurate casting: She’s been played by the likes of Joan Fontaine, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Samantha Morton; he by the likes of Orson Welles, William Hurt and Timothy Dalton. What matters most is the rapport between them, and with Wasikowska and Fassbender in the roles, it’s electric.

For any pair of actors, this duo is a strange inheritance. Taking Jane Eyre into account along with Fish Tank before it, Fassbender might be seen as settling into that peculiar niche, formerly occupied by Jeremy Irons, of the slender suave Englishman who seems always to be having on-screen affairs with teenaged girls. Well, power to him: He sure is good at it. Wasikowska for her part is as steady and alert as ever, delivering exactly the right blend of wisdom and vulnerability. Having abided Tim Burton’s ultimately shrug-worthy Alice in Wonderland, she finally has the classic reboot that she deserves.

The supporting cast includes strategic applications of Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins and Simon McBurney. The film also benefits from Fukunaga’s reunion with Sin Nombre cinematographer Adriano Goldman, who again shows a keen eye for the inherent expressionism of natural light—another means by which an old story comes newly to life. By being greater than the sum of its parts, this Jane Eyre should stay fresh for a while, at least until the next one.

http://silverscreenangels.blogspot.com/2011/05/gorgeous-new-period-film-jane-eyre-2011.html

Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Gorgeous New Period Film: Jane Eyre (2011)

In October of 2009, period film fans everywhere went crazy as it was announced that Cary Fukunaga would be directing the 2011 movie "Jane Eyre", starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, and Jamie Bell. Being the slow witted period film fan I am...I didn't really know about it until 2010 when I ran across a post featuring the upcoming film on one of my favorite blogs Enchanted Serenity of Period Films. I was ecstatic -- but somewhat worried! What if they slaughtered it like they have in the years past? It seems they always take "plain little Jane" and make her "totally ugly and stupid Jane", when it just says that she was plain. That totally ruins the movies for me. Or -- they take Mr. Rochester and turn him into some kind of flaming-at-the-nostrils beastie...with one goal in life -- to seduce and make out with plain little Jane. That gets me riled every time!

I must say that 1943 was the last time Jane was pretty -- actually gorgeous! She was played by Joan Fontaine (the sister of Olivia DeHaviland) and Mr. Rochester was played by Orson Wells. Sadly as lovely as Jane was, and as cute of a movie, it barely covered even a fraction of the book as it was completely Hollywood-ed over by it's all-star cast.

My favorite version up to 2010, was most definitely the 1983 mini series done by the BBC starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. My sisters and I all love this version because of the fact that they stick so incredibly close to the book. It is the only version I have ever seen that includes the "Gypsey Scene" as we call it -- one of the most hilarious and endearing parts in the whole book. Of course Timothy Dalton is absolutely charming and dashing as Mr. Rochester, and even though I believe be must be a good foot or two taller than Zelah, they play their parts to perfection. Also, this version is wonderful because it actually includes the end of the novel (unlike the new one) and gives the full story of what happens after the fire (and it's so cute!). I would highly recommend finding this version (it is available on DVD).

Of course I cannot totally disclaim the other versions, as they all have good elements as well. Though I am not really a fan of the mini-series that was made in 2006, if you are a Eyre-Fanatic, it's worth watching...even though there was a lot of making out that definitely was not in the book! And of course...you have to get past Jane's face...which sounds shallow...but they didn't really make her very nice looking, even for a plain person.

The movie Jane Eyre that was filmed in 1996 is a pretty good version! I can't quite remember why it wasn't my favorite, but I'm sure it's worth watching -- especially since Anna Paquin (X-Men) plays Young Jane.

There are probably five to ten versions that I have seen, and all of them have a little something in them that I have liked!

Now, I know you've been waiting, so here is my report on Jane Eyre (2011).

Jane Eyre 2011
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, and Jamie Bel
Genre: Period Drama / Romance / Suspense

My very first remark on this movie, must be that it was very very skillfully filmed! The costumes were typical, the buildings were typical, the places were typical, but the order of the movie was something completely new! Instead of starting out with Young Jane and her cousins, it starts off (surprisingly so) with Jane in tears, running away from Thornfield Hall. The story really starts in the middle, and then covers the beginning in pieces and flashbacks before covering the ending. I can just say wow. That's so new and neat, it pretty much moved the movie up to number 3 on my "Jane Eyre Favorites" list.

So, the order the movie played out was really neat and fresh.

Secondly, I really loved the fresh new scenery and that most of the places were filmed on location, and not just on sets! Lowood school, the Moor House where St. John Rivers lived, Thornfield Hall (and Thornfield after the fire), and the scenes on Thornfield land and the Moors, were filmed at different locations in the UK. While watching the movie, it was so very easy to get lost in the scenery with the long rolling green slopes and blowing grasses...the on location filming definitely gave the story breath, bringing it alive as we watched it.

Since I am covering my favorite elements, one at a time, I thought it would be so very unfair to leave out the music. Wow. The music was just...wow. So beautiful, so peaceful and flowing...it did not ever quite reach the happy level, but it is so emotional, so mournful and yet joyful! It's simply beautiful! (click on the play button below to hear one of my favorite pieces from the film!)

Now, onto the characters.

Young Jane: Practically always forgotten after the first 30 minutes of the movie, Young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) may generally be forgotten...yet this time, she is not. I'm not sure if she gets more screen time, or if she is a better actor...or if it's just the scene where she knocks herself out on the door (FUUUUUNNY!) this little girl does a very good job portraying the future Jane.

St. John Rivers: When I saw the list of the cast, I was afraid I would have ahard time seeing Jamie Bell as the hard-hearted and cold St. John after watching him play Smike in Nicholas Nickleby (2002). It sounds odd to say, but I was pleasantly surprised to see he played St. John to a T. Congrats Jamie Bell! You make a great jerk!

Blanche Ingram: Blanche...usually the character we all hate for her snide remarks, her scowls, and her jealous nature. I must be honest, in this version, her personality was sorely lacking! She pouts more than she is spiteful, and you never really catch a glimpse of her trying to get at Mr. Rochester. She's quite passive. That was a little sad, because Imogen Poots looked like she would make a great Blanche.

Jane Eyre: Jane was played by Mia Wasikowska (Alice and Wonderland 2010). Mia played the part of Jane so beautifully...I think it is the first time I have really really liked the character of Jane (beyond when just reading the book). She was young, as she should be, and not stunningly gorgeous (but not plain by all means! -- sorry Charlotte Bronte), she portrayed Jane with emotion, and yet with youthfulness. One of my favorite scenes was when they showed Jane teaching Adele, she was sitting on the floor, cross-legged with Adele in her lap. For me, that scene developed her character more than most of the others, as it shows her actually doing the job she was hired to do, and it shows her really interacting and caring for the little girl, not just walking in the garden with her as they usually show. Jane was altogether believable and lovable, and yet you admire her too, for the spunk Mia gave her.
Mr. Edward Fairfax Rochester: Michael Fassbender doesn't just play Mr. Rochester...I think he must be Mr. Rochester. How do I describe this character, except that he is so perfectly who he is supposed to be? Sooooo good looking, not your typically hair-ape of a Rochester, so tall, and handsome.... Well, what can I say? Summed up
...I could look at him all day.

Altogether, the film was...
Wonderful. Romantic. Fresh. Old, but so new (you know, that tale as old as time thing?). Sweet, yet sad. And totally, totally worth watching! I would suggest you rush to your car, grab your friends, and go to the nearest theatre showing it, and enjoy a great girls movie night! Shed a few tears at the "Jane! Jane!" part, and talk about the cute kissing scenes for an hour after the movie is over...or if you are my sisters, fight about the characters for an hour. Whatever you wish. Just watch it! (And if you need a pal to see it with, call me! lol)

I hope you enjoy this movie!

Oh, and just one more thing...

*SPOILERS*
(to quote River Song)

The movie was fantastic, but I couldn't let it go without saying that they made two major mistakes in the film. First, they never clarified that when Jane was found and received the money, that it was discovered that the Rivers were her cousins. That was a whole chunk that was sadly missing from the movie. Boo. Secondly, they left out the whole ending!!!!!!!! What is WRONG with these people? I didn't really care, because I've read the book like a trillion times, but others are going to go around forever thinking that Mr. Rochester syed blind and so-on! Yet the man's sight returns in time to see his firstborn, his face gets better, and they live happily ever after. My sisters were furious and couldn't get over that. So, just a warning to you! (Oh, and of course like they ALWAYS do, they left out the Gypsy Scene...WHY? AGH!). Sad life. Enjoy the movie!

Posted by Little Lady at 1:29 PM

http://knitmi.livejournal.com/156880.html

Jane Eyre
Charlotte Brontë's most celebrated novel has been adapted for film countless times, but this may be the first film adaptation that portrays the character of Jane Eyre as Charlotte Brontë intended. Mia Wasikowska is perfect as the humble, unwaveringly moral, and fiercely independent Jane Eyre, a feminist before there were feminists. Michael Fassbender is equally good as the brooding yet sympathetic Mr. Rochester. This film successfully conveys the cold bleakness of life in Yorkshire during Victorian times; however, it lacks chemistry and warmth. The spark that the love story should have produced is absent.

http://opinionatedjudge.blogspot.com/2011/05/two-stolid-feminist-heroines-jane-eyre.html

Tuesday, May 10, 2011
TWO STOLID FEMINIST HEROINES: "JANE EYRE" AND "MEEK'S CUTOFF"
I went to see "Jane Eyre" (10) with low expectations; I had yet to see a film adaption that captured what I found so compelling in the novel I loved best from childhood. The current version, with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, does not disappoint, faithfully capturing the novel's smoldering passion, grief, and valor. If you've not read it, this film may inspire you to do so.

Like only the best period films, this one transcends the sense of modern people dressed up in self-conscious period costumes. Jane's world looks actually lived in, conveying what it must have felt like to run in a corset and petticoats and ridiculously uncomfortable shoes, or to travel by buggy across large expanses of the English moors, or to spend many of one's waking hours in dark spaces lit only by fire and candlelight. Social conventions that seem strange now are believably portrayed in all their intractability--the rigidity of Jane's orphaned circumstances, her dependence on the benevolence of her cruel aunt, the confines of her status as Rochester's hired subordinate. The best period films (about Victorian times especially) manage to convey social mores that now seem strange and needless in such a way that one reflects on which of our social conventions also qualify as self-imposed prisons.

The most significant and inescapable prisons here involve Rochester, who hires Jane to serve as governess to his ward. Fassbender (always compelling, and here especially so) makes sense of Rochester's gruffness, his imposing and mercurial moods. This man is trapped, has pulled out of meaningful engagement with life, convinced that real happiness and human connection is to be denied him. He toys with his money and social position only to acquire experiences that divert and distract him from his profound isolation.

In the world of this film, then, it is apparent why Rochester finds Jane so compelling. From earliest childhood, she displays a fierceness and a penchant for identifying the truths that are covered over by privilege and social convention. She is brave, declaring, at the moment of greatest childhood loss at her aunt's hands, that people view the woman as good when really she is hard-hearted. Jane speaks this truth with such clear-eyed precision that her aunt reacts to it years later as though the statement had been a curse. And though Jane spends the rest of her childhood denied all comfort and affection and devotes herself to acquiring the discipline necessary to withstand suffering, she retains her longing for beauty and genuine love, as well as her capacity to name what is true.

Thus, from the moment of their first encounter, Jane, though intimidated and often confused by Rochester, asserts herself, conveying a respect (for him as well as for herself) that goes beyond convention. He responds to her innocence, her genuineness, her unswerving courage, her piercing intelligence. He comments on the distance between the self each of them projects and their true natures, and with increasing directness identifies their essential equality, as Jane does herself. "It is my spirit that addresses your spirit," she says in a moment of anguish, scarcely recognizing or daring to hope that his spirit seeks to make a similar address but from a place of even deeper anguish.

This retelling is greatly helped by Moira Buffini's intelligent screenplay, director Cary Fukunaga's fresh eyes for the soul of the story and his attention to period detail, and the three performances at its center. The dialogue brilliantly renders a sense of daring in the conversations between Jane and Rochester, even as the language of each remains within the confines of Victorian restraint, and Buffini has cleverly begun the story at the end, with Jane's exile with the austere St. John Rivers, framing the story from Jane's lowest point in a way that makes sense of what went before. Mia Wasikowska perfectly captures Jane's gravity and fierceness, and Fassbender Rochester's tormented longing. And Dame Judi Dench is a perfect Mrs. Fairfax, simple and kind-hearted.

One comes away profoundly affected by the archetypes of the novel, its sense that real love requires vision, creativity, and courage. Love also requires self-respect, something Jane begins with and then acquires more of through the hardship of loss. She tells Rochester at a critical moment, "I would do anything for you, sir--anything that was right." Later when a desperate Rochester suggests a solution to their dilemma that is too far outside what social convention allows, she breaks away with the desperate comment, "I must respect myself." Her time with St. John Rivers helps Jane to move to a more essential sense of right within her circumstances, and to recognize that not all forms of self-denial qualify as right. That transformation continues to inspire me.

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

5.29.2011
jane eyre
i have a bit of an obsession with classic novels by jane austen, charlotte bronte and the like. i read pride and prejudice about four times last summer. when i found out that jane eyre was going to come out this year, i decided to re-read the novel.

the last time i read jane eyre was in junior high. i also remember watching the timothy dalton version in the same class and hating it (i'm a wuss and it was too spooky).

anyway, i finished reading the book at 3am on thursday and requested adam to take me to see jane eyre for my birthday. we drove an hour to saginaw to watch it. of course it was not as good as the book but i thought mia wasikowska and michael fassbender were brilliantly cast as jane and rochester.

michael fassbender is a total hottie as rochester. if adam and i get divorced, i'm totally going for a manly old guy. haha. maybe not since i'll be old too! can you believe michael fassbender is our age (born 1977) and dates zoe kravitz?

http://my.hsj.org/Schools/Newspaper/tabid/100/view/frontpage/articleid/446627/newspaperid/193/Jane_Eyre_Reinvented.aspx

Jane Eyre, Reinvented
Friday, June 03, 2011 By Madeleine Webber ’13

I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will- Brontë

Everyone always says, “the book is better than the movie,” however in the case of Jane Eyre I surprisingly found that the movie surpassed my expectations. I would not go all the way to say that it was superior to the book but it was definitely better than I anticipated. The casting was perfect with Mia Wasikowska (from Alice in Wonderland) playing Jane Eyre and Michael Fassbender as the brooding Mr. Rochester. The movie captured each character’s persona perfectly and proved their timelessness through their contemporary relevance. While several characters were omitted and some roles were exaggerated, these were insignificant differences and did not make the movie any less pleasurable or authentic.

The movie as a whole was pleasurable, but when comparing and contrasting it with the book there were a few noticeable deviations. For starters, the layout of the movie was completely different from that of the book. The movie begins with an adult Jane, destitute and wandering through a field while the book starts with Jane as a child living with her aunt, Mrs. Reed. This inventive structure of the movie is a minor difference, but nonetheless a tangible one that changes how the audience perceives Jane. Quite honestly, I actually preferred the layout of the movie since it made the plot feel more mysterious and uncertain, whereas the actions in the book felt much more predictable.

Other, more significant differences included the exaggerated role of Mrs. Fairfax, Thornfield Hall’s housekeeper. In Brontë’s romantic novel, Mrs. Fairfax is of little significance and at most has three or four lines. However, in the movie she becomes a notable character who constantly provides Jane with advice and misinformed gossip. Another difference is the portrayal of the River family. In Brontë’s novel, St. John Rivers and his sisters are much more reclusive and pious than the film expresses. Furthermore, in the novel, the Rivers are also Jane’s only blood relatives besides Mrs. Reed—a vital piece of information in the book. However, in the movie this relation was never mentioned.

With the exception of these differences, the movie ultimately followed the book accurately. The characters were the same despite the elaboration of Mrs. Fairfax and the exclusion of a few insignificant characters. The most enjoyable similarity was the movie’s script, which followed the book’s dialogue with precision.

Regardless of the differences, I found this movie very enjoyable. The director Cary Joji Fukunaga captures the desire, destitution, and secrecy of Charlotte Brontë’s Gothic romance. As well as preserving the themes of the beloved novel, Fukunaga’s cast perfectly portrays Brontë’s characters. Mia Wasikowska, 21, embodies Jane’s passion, honesty and devotion with perfection. Wasikowska’s small figure, tightly parted hair and reticence fulfill the essential plainness and frailty of Jane Eyre. As for Michael Fassbender, he impeccably fulfilled the dark, mysterious Mr. Rochester who has timelessly captured the hearts of readers.

The film is wonderful for both Jane Eyre diehards and first timers who are just dipping their toes into the world of English aristocracy. It was an astute portrayal of the ageless romance by Charlotte Brontë complimented by an avante garde approach by Fukunaga and Mia Wasikowska’s haunting portrayal of Jane Eyre.

http://out-of-the-bag.blogspot.com/2011/06/jane-redux.html

Wednesday, June 01, 2011
jane, redux

Photographer: Laurie Sparham for Focus Features

I went through a re-read of all the 19th century romances that so enamoured me as a teenager with their Byronic heros last year and early this year (leading me to see Céline's fall 2011 collection through a rather romantic lens), so my interest was piqued when I saw that "Jane Eyre", starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, was playing in the theatres.

I enjoyed "Wuthering Heights" and "Pride and Prejudice", and of course, "Rebecca", but I admit when I read "Jane Eyre" at age 12 or 13 I was a little put off by how incredibly melodramatic the plot was (I read the rest when I was about 16). I think back then I wasn't quite used to 19th century literature; I remember I struggled to like Dickens.

But the film - directed by Cary Fukunaga - cast it all in a new light for me, especially on the character of Jane - she's more sober and forthright than I remembered. It helps that she was so superbly played by Mia Wasikowska, who has this luminous, subtle way of letting emotion flit across her face without overdoing it that reminds me of Cate Blanchett.

Mr Rochester, on the other hand, was exactly how I remembered him - charismatic, but kind of an ass. Michael Fassbender, whom I crushed on in "Inglourious Basterds" and was awed by in "Hunger", did a good job of not overplaying him - I think the subtlety of the movie as a whole saved it for me.

So I've dusted off my copy of the book and started reading it again, and I wonder if 15 years will change how I feel about the book.

Picture from nytimes
Posted by lin at 1:12 AM

http://jpknittingandstuff.blogspot.com/2011/06/sydney-film-festival-day-9-jane-eyre.html

Saturday, June 18, 2011
Sydney Film Festival Day 10: Jane Eyre

Do we need another remake of Jane Eyre - if it's this good yes.

Mia Waiskowski is perfectly pitched as Jane, matched with brave and deliberate editorial decisions by Fukunaga.

Opening with Jane wandering the moors the film is quickly engaging and uses her childhood as back story. Both Michael Fassbender as Rochester and Judi Dench as the housekeeper Mrs Fairfax are spectacular.

The film casts a strong spell and holds you till the end embodying the book and giving us a different vision.

I am a sucker for a good adaptation and this film delivers.

Posted by jp at 8:19 PM