Discuss Jane Eyre

Talk about anything you want to about the film.

I'm not surprised. I'd probably feel the same way about someone remaking 300 down the line. I'm sure, according to the book, that version is probably the closest to the book, and the lead actor has some attraction as playing Rochester.

If Michael wasn't in it, I'd probably feel the same...too many versions already. But it's a great book, opened to a lot of interpretation. And anything to get the younger generation to read.

I'm still reading this book slowly, but I just got to the chapter where Jane meets Edward. I must have Michael on the brain, because I can completely hear Michael's voice as Edward, while I'm reading, and well, that's a bit distracting.

We will get to hear Michael sing, possibly speak French, which I'm highly excited about.

This book is long, with short chapters, but the descriptions are so long, I can easily understand why purists of the book can't be satisfied with any kind of film or tv program, but if you just do a film with only what's available for speech and action, it's not a very long film. I think this version is running around 2 hours, but nothing official yet.

I got a decent amount of reading done today, as I had to chauffeur two people to hospital appointments all day. I'm about half way done, and if my roommate starts driving herself, I may have to start reading at home.

Wow, what can you say about Edward? I've come to the part about two chapters in, where Edward and Jane start really conversing.

Edward is a big flirt, despite how off he appears and unattractive he's not supposed to be. I think he takes advantage of Jane, because of her lack of experience. In the book, Edward is about 20 years older than Jane, who is 18.

The big thing so far is that Jane is straightforward and honest, as plain as she is. Edward is used to frivolous women who tell him that they like him better than the typical pretty males around, but it's all for the money. He's in denial, believing that women saw past his roughness and what I call "conversation merry go round".

I have to stop every time a conversation with Edward starts up, because he says the silliest things. I laugh because I imagine Michael's performance as Edward. I think there will be some good giggles around.

There's this one scene, which I hope they do put in, where Edward first talks to Jane at home. He tells Jane more or less, that she needs to move her chair closer to his chair, because he's already comfortable, and he's not going to move out of his comfortable position in order to see and talk to her, even though it was him who asked to talk to her. I just laughed at how silly Edward was.

It's hard to put the book down after all the repartee. It really makes me look forward to the film.

http://fashionephemera.blogspot.com/2010/11/jane-eyres.html

Sunday, November 28, 2010
Jane Eyres
With the upcoming March 2011 release of a NEW Jane Eyre I thought I'd review the past versions. To some outside the costume drama circles it might seem strange or ridiculous that there are so many versions of the same story, but those in the know know that British literature lends itself to wonderfully different interpretations. Sadly, not all interpretations are created equal. If you'll permit me I'll now give you my opinions about five versions and what I think of what I've seen of the new Jane Eyre.


Ok, so truth be told the first two reviews are going to be rather short and broad b/c I just watched the pivotal scenes on Netflix. First up, Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine in the 1943 movie. By pivotal scenes I mean the proposal and the reunion. I watched a few more from this version because I didn't mind it too much, but here are my impressions, characterization wise, costume wise, production wise and overall wise.
Characterization: Run of the mill. You'll find with most Jane Eyres that Jane, b/c she's supposedly so plain and small, is played very subdued and deadpan. Rochester was pretty similar, VERY deadpan. There was very little fire and passion, but Welles made up for it with his RIDICULOUSLY sexy voice. He was rather captivating but she was nothing to scream about, too beautiful.
Costumes: Run of the mill. Made in 1943 the costumes had a very 40s feel to them, mostly in the menswear (what's with normal pointed collars? I should NOT see Rochester's neck, weird). Jane's hair was beautiful in a perfect, subdued, coming out of the 30s, into the 40s, looking historical sort of way. The costumes were more 1840s than 1830s which is when the novel is set (written in the 40s, tells the story of ten years prior).
Production: What you'd expect of a 1940s romance, very Casablanca. Lots of maudlin shots of the heroine with glistening tears and the man looking brooding.
Overall: It seemed like a pretty straight interpretation of the novel, with exact lines from the book. It really had the subdued feel of a 40s movie.


Oh William Hurt. I thought I'd watched bits of this on Netflix but it's not on Instant Play, so maybe it used to be, or maybe I actually had it sent to the house, I don't know. I barely remember it though...For being a Zeffirelli you'd think it would have made more of an impression, but it didn't. So, Rochester played by William Hurt, Jane by Charlotte Gainsbourgh, from 1996. Rochester was more passionate than Welles, but I remember thinking he wasn't as passionate as real Rochester. Gainsbourgh as Jane I do remember, totally underwhelming. Yes, Jane is poor, obscure, plain and little, but she's NOT soulless and heartless. Jane's written witty and clever and refreshing for Rochester. Gainsbrough was completely lifeless. The proposal scene was painful. I can't remember enough else to give you a good review about anything else.


Jane Eyre '97. Rochester=Ciarin Hinds, Jane= Samantha Morton. This version tried to be sufficiently moody.
Characterization: Rochester was temperamental, probably the closest to the book as any of the Rochesters so far. Hinds, whom I adore in Persuasion and other films, groused about and had a mustache and was probably ugly enough for Rochester, but lacked the lovableness that one gains for him as the novel progresses. Samantha Morton. Not. a. fan. I always feel like she needs to sniff her nose to keep it from dripping. She plays Jane soft spoken and timid. I watched this one awhile ago so I can't remember much else. Yes I am prejudiced against the woman, but I don't remember much to dissuade my prejudice.
Costumes: Fine, again, set further back in the 1840s. I remember Rochester being a little too big, like his silhouettes didn't do it for me. Jane was plainly dressed of course, and I don't remember enough petticoats. One could argue this was a choice to show her reduced circumstances. Nothing to write home about.
Production: Dark, bleak, very Bronte.
Overall: Not a fan. At about 100 minutes (which all the versions have roughly been thus far) it rushes a great story. I hate to be away from Rochester too, but rushing their separation is a disservice to Jane's development.


Alright! Here we go. I read Jane Eyre in 10th grade and loved it. After I read it I went straight out and rented this version, and got it for my subsequent Christmas. Timothy Dalton is Rochester, Zelah Clarke is Jane, 1983. I love this version, it was my favorite for a couple of years.
Characterization: Rochester is very passionate but lovable. Of course Timothy Dalton is no where near ugly enough, or ugly at all, to play Rochester, which truth be told we are all grateful for. He's tall and dark and has his growly Welsh baritone. His characterization is very changeable and I feel like the closest to the book. Zelah Clarke as Jane switches between looking and seeming 19 and looking and seeming much older, which I think is a hallmark of Jane. She's sharp like she is in the book and when called for she's just as passionate as Rochester. I think she's also the most appropriate portrayal of the novel's Jane.
Costumes: Set in the 1830s! Yes! I have nothing against setting the film in the 40s because the costumes are all together more palatable for the modern palette, but I can't help but love the 30s and this version has done them up right. Rochester's costumes are a little dated but I love that his neck is pasty white (b/c it really never would have seen the light of day. Jane's costumes, while plain and grey are the perfect examples of 1830s gigot sleeves. Her collars are adorable and everything is piped! The hair is also fantastically 30s with many a style a la Chinoise in the house party.
Production: Overall the production value was rather poor. The lighting was awkward or dark, the faces needed powdering desperately and the overall film quality was rather awful but the locations were good and the set dressings very appropriate.
Overall this is my second favorite Jane Eyre. It is probably the truest to the book in my mind with its characterizations, lines and storytelling. It is also something like 4 hours so it really tells the story like it should. The supporting characters are lovely. If you need to cheat and watch a movie instead of reading the book I'd say this is your best bet.


Oh baby, oh baby. 2006. Rochester=Toby Stephens, Jane=Ruth Wilson. I waited and waited for this version to come to the US on Masterpiece Theatre and I have journal entry after journal entry from the Sundays it was on extolling this version's virtues.
Characterization: Definitely modernized. Rochester is grouchy and changeable, but much more dragged down and worn. With extra pounds of muscle and long curly hair Stephens is of course, again, too beautiful to play Rochester, but again, we don't mind. His Rochester is lovable and vulnerable in a way the others aren't. Scenes and lines have been added pointing to Rochester's dependence on Jane even before he declares his love. The reunion is heart warming and tear jerking. Stephen's Rochester is a man's man while still being absolutely desperately in love. Wilson's Jane is the feistiest and most full of character of any Jane I've seen. She acts a lot from just looks, something I think that is lost in other versions. There's no ignoring that she has a duck face and no chin, making her plain enough for Jane, but she has a beauty, especially with her hair down, that makes sure we like her. The relationship between the two really develops and you understand why they are drawn together.
Costumes: 1840s, great. I LOVE Rochester in this one, mostly because Stephens put on so much muscle weight that is excellently shown off by his tight breeches and high boots. Jane's costumes are appropriately plain, but well fitting. The house party's costumes are what there is to scream about. I just love them all.
Production: Excellent, of course. The modern BBC productions are unparalleled. The locations were breathtaking, the set dressing meticulous and the attention to detail was greatly appreciated. The supporting characters, with their own personalities and new characterizations and scenes were enjoyable and made our time away from Jane and Rochester bearable.
Overall: My favorite, duh. It is a very modern version. Time has been played with, esp with the after the wedding flashbacks. I don't mind it. This version is a lot more smoochy than any others. I don't mind. At four glorious hours this version also takes its time, but doesn't dwell too much with little Jane, a vital portion of the story I know, but once you've read it you don't need the entire back story on film. I just love this version for all its little extra touches which I feel don't take away from the story or the original novel.


http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/janeeyre/
Alright, new Jane Eyre. Due out March 2011 starring Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska. Fassbender's been in 300 and other things I haven't seen. Of German/Irish decent he sure looks like a hunk. Mia Wasikowska (say that 3 times fast) was Alice in Alice in Wonderland. I was underwhelmed by her in that one, let's hope she brings more to the table with this one.
Characterization: Fassbender's 33 in real life, compared to Wasikowska's 21 I don't think the difference is enough, but there you go. I'm not going to complain TOO too much, b/c I mean, look at Fassbender, yum. Meanwhile, how weird is it that Wasikowska's younger than me? Weird. Anyway, moving on. Rochester looks rather brooding, but not dark enough. We'll see if Jane falls into the timidity, no personality trap. Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax is exciting!
Costumes: By Michael O'Connor!! of Oscar winning "The Duchess" fame! So excited. Again, set in the more palatable 1840s these costumes look GORGEOUS! Jane's look quite fancier than any I've seen, but I'm not one to say O'Connor nay for dressing her mildly above her station. The striped dresses alone of Jane and Blanche are enough for me. Also, watch the trailer above and checkout the shot at 1.36, yum yum Rochester's pants w/ his skinny skinny waist. Also, he rides that horse.
Production: Looks pretty great, big budget stuff.
Overall: I'm excited. The trailer claims that it's a bold new look at the novel. From the trailer I see nothing that's especially different from any other version. If they're playing up the Gothic, Romantic and horrific elements of the story I'd say that's slightly new, but not unheard of. Jane Eyre is a creepy, scary, unsavory story with fires, insanity, disfigurement and creepy laughs. It looks to me like this one might just capitalize on this more than others. I'm excited to see Sally Hawkins and Jamie Bell again, and I'm sure I'll have to buy this one.
Posted by Shelby at 3:05 PM

This is kind of cool if you want to get more out of the film:

http://novelnovice.com/2011/03/02/jane-eyre-classroom-tools-for-students-teachers/

Jane Eyre: Classroom Tools for Students & Teachers
Posted on March 2, 2011 by sgundell

Though we tend to focus on new YA literature here at Novel Novice, we also can’t help but bring things back to the classics from time to time. With the upcoming new movie adaptation of Jane Eyre, this is the perfect time to talk about Charlotte Bronte’s novel.

We recently told you about an AMAZING contest for high school students in the Portland, Oregon area (details HERE — hurry! It ends 3/9) — but for any teachers or students, here are a few other ways to make Jane Eyre exciting in the classroom using both the book and the new movie:

* Read the novel, then go see the new movie version starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. Then have a classroom discussion or write an essay comparing & contrasting the book to the new movie. You can even watch some previous movie/TV adaptations for more comparison options!

* What kind of adjustments did the filmmakers make from the original novel? Why do you think they made these choices?

* Discuss the way the actors portray the characters in the new Jane Eyre movie. Are they how you imagined them while reading the book?

* How did the visual setting in the movie compare to how you imagined it while reading the book?

* Write your own theatrical adaptation of a scene from Jane Eyre and act it out in class, or film your own movie scene!

* How would Jane Eyre translate in the modern world? Compare the original novel and the new movie, with the recent novel Jane by April Lindner, which is a modernized retelling of Jane Eyre. Discuss the modernization: what works? What doesn’t? What kind of alterations did Lindner have to make in order to translate the story to a modern setting?

You can also learn more about the movie online.

We’ve also compiled an assortment of essay topics based on Jane Eyre. Feel free to use these in the classroom, or when starting your own paper for inspiration:

* In what ways do Jane Eyre fit the model of a classic Gothic novel? Explore some of the novel’s Gothic elements.

* Discuss the way women’s roles in Victorian society are explored in Jane Eyre. What sort of comments do you think the novel is making about this subject?

* How do societal roles and class play a role in the events of Jane Eyre? How would the story be different if told today? (For comparison, you can read April Lindner’s Jane, a modernized retelling of Jane Eyre.)

* Compare and contrast Rochester and St. John. How are they alike/different? What are the different options they each offer Jane?

* Discuss the role of dreams and visions in Jane Eyre. How do these supernatural elements play out in the novel’s realistic setting?

* How does Jane compare to Bertha Mason? Though at first they seem completely different, do they share similarities? What do these similarities reveal to us about the characters?

* Based on his behavior, do you think Rochester is a sympathetic character or unsympathetic? Why/why not?

* There are many autobiographical elements to Jane Eyre. Discuss how the novel relates to Charlotte Bronte’s real life.

For the comments: Have you read Jane Eyre? Tell us your thoughts in the comments!

http://www.novel-club.com/jane-eyre/

Jane Eyre

Great Opening Sentences In Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre

In this admirable first-person narrative, Jane Eyre -a small, plain-faced, intelligent and honest English orphan- recounts her childhood and latter years leading to her marriage to the mysterious Edward Rochester.

What make the novel fast-paced, fascinating, and ultimately admirable are not the mundane events and incidents that happen to her, but the manner in which she tells them. Within a few pages it becomes obvious that the narrator is a character who is a master of the English language. Her sentence openers are well thought out, well measured, and well balanced-a veritable fountain of wisdom.

In addition, Jane owns a terrific imagination, which coupled with her lust for life, will get her to where she wants to go-but only after she experiences hurt, physical abuse, and much suffering.

The novel goes through five distinct stages:

1. Gateshead. This is the residence of Jane spends of her childhood, and where she experiences the cruelties volleyed at her by her aunt (Mrs. Reed) and cousins.
2. Lowood School. In this school she meets the mystic Helen Burns and Maria Temple, whom Jane admires and sees as a role model. In this school she also endures the headmaster’s humiliations and gratuitous abuses.
3. Thornfield Manor. The manor is owned by Edward Rochester, who is her employer and with whom she falls in love.
4. Moor House or Marsh’s End. Owned by the Rivers family who happen to be her relatives. Here Jane received a marriage proposal from her passionless clergyman-cousin St John Rivers.
5. Ferndean. A second house owned by her beloved Rochester.

While we enjoy child characters such Dickens’ David Copperfield, Little Dorritt, and Pip, we admire Jane Eyre much more because she is proud and shows a fighting spirit. She fights back. She doesn’t just let things happen to her; and the fact that very same spirit gets her in trouble, she also fights extricate herself from her predicaments. Resourceful is the word that fits Jane. I always admire the passage in the novel in which she wants change in her life and how an epiphany comes to her: Advertise! And that single action gets her not only her first employment, but also her first and only love: Mr. Rochester.

The author, Charlotte Bronte, a master of the English language will take you back to England as it was in the 1840s, making you experience the highs and lows of life in England during that period.

Jane Eyre is true work of literature that will introduce readers of any age to memorable characters and a story that is inexhaustible in its wisdom. Not long ago I was moved by all the attention given to J. K. Rowling and her lovable character Harry Potter. Moved I was but not fascinated as I am every time I re-read Jane Eyre. While J. K. Rowling is an entertainer, Charlotte Bronte is a literary artist.

If you like low-brow romances you won’t find it here. It is a story of a woman who struggles with a world in which she doesn’t quite fit. While the novel may be read as a critique of both gender and social class, it contains a strong feminist stance. The protagonist and narrator has no amazing qualities, she’s a plain girl and it says so, many times in the novel, but she shows some endearing qualities -which I won’t mention- that readers inevitably discover.

Ahead of her times, Charlotte Bronte, hints and unveils as much as it was permitted then, erotic tensions, boundless passions, and hateful marriage ironies. These were not qualities encouraged in Victorian women writers, and Jane Eyre was offensive to many a contemporary.

Jane Eyre is a transformative book from which we can all learn. I always say that the depths of human emotions one doesn’t find in either in psychology book or philosophical tracts-but only in fiction. Read it!

About the Author

Retired. Former investment banker, Columbia University-educated, Vietnam Vet (67-68).
For the writing techniques I use, see Mary Duffy’s e-book: Sentence Openers.
To read my book reviews of the Classics visit my blog: Writing To Live

Jane Eyre Movie Trailer Official (HD)