Jane Eyre reviews and spoilers 4

http://thetyee.ca/ArtsAndCulture/2011/04/01/JaneEyre/

'Jane Eyre'

The film is swoon-worthy. But what carries the power of a young girl's first reading of Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece?

By Dorothy Woodend, Today, TheTyee.ca

Still from the film 'Jane Eyre'

Fresh Eyre: Michael Fassbender as Rochester, Mia Wasikowska as Jane.

I remember it quite clearly. It was a lazy afternoon in the middle of summer and I was bored witless. I was 11 years old, wasting time, wandering around in the upstairs bedroom of our house, looking for something to do. I picked up a book, an old orange Penguin, and started reading. Two pages later, I was a different person. "This is the greatest book in the history of the world!" I thought to myself.

The book was Jane Eyre, and it hit me like a hurricane. Not only did it start with eye-watering injustice meted out to a child -- that alone would have been more than sufficient -- but no, it just kept going, building, adding more layers. A tragic death, a mysterious stately mansion, intrigue, wild English moors, and finally and finally, a man. Not just any man, but the sui generis of every Harlequin romantic hero, Edward Fairfax Rochester. Unpredictable, volcanic, dark and ferocious as a wolf. His sparring ripostes with Jane flew right into the centre of me and stung like a wasp. Was there ever such a man?

Not really... They live only in the fevered brains of maidens everywhere, which is where they ought to stay. Perhaps.

When the newest version of Jane Eyre opened in theatres last Friday, my sister and I practically ran to the ticket counter and flung our cash madly at the woman manning the register. The question uppermost on our fevered brains: what of Rochester? Would they get him right? Or would this iteration be a merely shadow of the hulking creature that has haunted my heart and mind since childhood.

Gentle reader, I am pleased to announce that he's not half bad, a little on the skinny side, but nonetheless possessed of that broody saturnine intensity that makes young girls and old ladies swoon. I feel a sweat breaking out at the mere thought of the man. Excuse me while I whilst I fan my heaving bosom.

The rest of the film is not half bad either.

Oh Rochester...

Director Cary Fukunaga keeps a tight rein on things, the better to marshal the strengths of the source material. Shot in deep greens and gray, the cinematography is effortlessly handsome, in the fashion of the English countryside. The cast is also exceptionally fine. Mia Wasikowska brings Jane to tensile steel life. As slender and erect as a blade of grass, perhaps even a little green, she has the self-possession and self-respect that gives our Ms. Eyre the intestinal fortitude not only to match wits with Rochester, but ultimately to best him, in courage, strength of will and, finally, compassion.

So too, Michael Fassbender as Rochester finds that essential core within his character that has endeared him to women (and probably more than a few men) around the globe. I can tell when a film has hit its mark by how long it stays in the mind after the lights come up. This one, especially the final scene, hammers home in Wagnerian scale, and lingers there with an orchestral precision. It hangs in the air, like a long last slow chord.

A film adaptation of a novel, especially one as iconic as Charlotte Brontë's 1847 opus is little like musical medley, or perhaps, an overture for the grander symphonic heft yet to come. It hits all the beats, and that's all there is time for. So too, with this adaptation, the lines that I most remember are all there, but what is missing is the slow build up, the circling, spiraling movement, ever higher and higher.

When I think of Jane Eyre, the musical accompaniment that immediately springs to mind is that of Tristan and Isolde, specifically the final musical death match that ends the opera Liebestod.

But despite its operatic qualities, Jane Eyre doesn't end with our heroine dead and mortified. Quite the opposite: beneath the corsets and stays, this film is bursting with life, with a wild desire not just for communion and understanding, but for adventure, for passion, for life. It is suffused with a coursing, pulsing energy, filled with what Dylan Thomas called "The force that through the green fuse drives the flower." And if you need more descriptive terms than that, then we will fall perilously into near pornography. Suffice to say, the film is good.

Oh those Brontë passions...

Afterwards, over a cup of tea, my sister and I discussed the film, and our memories of reading the novel as kids. My sister asked, "Would I be the same person if I hadn't read that book?" She answered her own question after a beat: "No."

The thing that I remember clearly about these early literary experiences was not only the sense of being subsumed within something far larger than my meager self, but the idea that there were always more worlds than this one. There was a larger, more epic place than the farm where I grew up. A place where language soared like music, and music soared like religion. It is an expansiveness of the mind that every kid who ever stumbled into a book knows full well.

The lingering traces of such early immersion colour your brain and your perceptions forever more. They shape you. Make you more prone to hubris maybe, attracted to melodrama, and other more histrionic things. One wanders out of a novel or film of epic scope with a sense of dull disappointment. Reality is a mite dreary after all. Where are the volcanically bad decisions? "Don't marry a crazy person!" "Don't leap off the parapets!" "Don't burn down the stately mansion!" These are perhaps best left to novels, but it makes for a more tepid world.

A book as a rite of passage is important. It is a means to access a different time and place, a different language, a veritably different species of men and women. (They don't make Rochesters like they used to.) In this school-marm precious world of ours, there are few places for volcanic passions, no Rochesters on the horizon at all, only St. John Rivers types, whose thin gruel of love Jane rejects in the novel, quite rightly.

The question isn't merely about whether the things that you read and experience alter you in some incremental fashion, but whether you would be poorer without them. Maybe it isn't really a question at all, since there is no way to answer it.

I am glad that I picked up the book when I did. At age 11, it hit on all cylinders. Reading it, I thought: "I am Jane Eyre." The curious thing is that everyone who reads the book seems to feel the same way. Her voice, prickly, proud, desperate, is your voice. This is the thing a book can do that a film can't. It can get inside you, and give you that sense of interior life.

There is an opacity to the film version of Jane Eyre that is very different from the book. They are two different creatures. Watching Jane and Rochester on screen is not the same as having them live inside your head. Which is why a book ultimately probably has more emotional weight than a film. You make your own film version inside your head, where is it unique and particular to you. Your own version of Rochester will always be the ultimate one, all others mere actors.

Certainly Jane Eyre is an opera, but what distinguishes it from the millions of pallid imitations? What ennobles it?

It's the words. The language carries the story in the same way the music transforms an opera from melodrama into masterpiece. That is the reason it endures.

These lovely things we call words, tumbling forth, brimming and ripe. Aren't they beautiful? [Tyee]

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110401/SCENE03/304010049/1045/SCENE/Movie-Review-Jane-Eyre-?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Entertainment|s

Movie Review | 'Jane Eyre'
27th retelling is no plain Jane
12:35 AM, Apr. 1, 2011 |
Comments
Trailer: 'Jane Eyre'
Trailer: 'Jane Eyre': The Charlotte Bronte classic about mousy governess and her employer with a secret gets an update. Stars Mia Wasikowska ('The Kids Are All Right'), Michael Fassbender ('Inglourious Basterds') nad Jamie Bell ('Billy Elliot').

Written by
Claudia Puig
USA Today

Michael Fassbender is Mr. Rochester and Mia Wasikowska has the title role in “Jane Eyre.”

Stars: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins
Rated: PG-13
(2:01)

The 10-word review: Maybe the finest of the 27 “Jane Eyre” film/TV retellings.

In its superbly spare execution, the newest adaptation of “Jane Eyre” is both faithful to Charlotte Brontë's classic and distinctively original.

It's a grittier and more subtle take, with handsome cinematic flourishes and an intriguing storytelling approach. The talented cast, spectacular cinematography and spot-on production design are guided by the sure hand of director Cary Joji Fukunaga.

Mia Wasikowska beautifully captures Jane's watchful nature, intelligence and wounded spirit. Michael Fassbender powerfully portrays the surliness of the tormented Mr. Rochester. The sense of mystery surrounding him is palpable, as are his flashes of charm.

What is lacking is a sense of their burgeoning passion.

Recommended if: He's watching basketball Saturday and you get to choose the movie.

Not recommended if: There are 27 versions and you've avoided all of them.

http://askinyourface.com/2011/04/01/head-to-your-local-art-movie-theater-this-weekend/

Head To Your Local Art Movie Theater This Weekend!
by: Lauren Stewart

Last week we brought you some new movies we’re dying to see! This week we’re bringing you some more – this time we want to bring out the art/indie movie lover in you. So head on over to Main Art Theater in Royal Oak or the Maple Art Theater in Bloomfield and see something new with your friends!

“Jane Eyre”

Mia Wasikowska (‘Alice in Wonderland’) and Michael Fassbender (‘Inglourious Basterds’) star in the romantic drama based on Charlotte Bronte’s classic novel, from acclaimed director Cary Fukunaga (‘Sin Nombre’). In the story, Jane Eyre flees Thornfield House, where she works as a governess for wealthy Edward Rochester. As she reflects upon the people and emotions that have defined her, it is clear that the isolated and imposing residence — and Mr. Rochester’s coldness — have sorely tested the young woman’s resilience, forged years earlier when she was orphaned. She must now act decisively to secure her own future and come to terms with the past that haunts her — and the terrible secret that Mr. Rochester is hiding and that she has uncovered…

Genre(s): Drama

Runtime: 115 min.

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

Theatrical Release Date: 03/11/2011

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

http://voice.paly.net/node/26905

Review: Jane Eyre a stunning adaptation
by Grace Barry of The Paly Voice
Published April 1, 2011

Most already know the story of Jane Eyre: a young girl tormented all her life eventually finds solace in a mansion haunted by secrecy and anguish. The story is well-known and the characters well-liked, which has proven to complicate the task of bringing a new vision to the screen. There are over 20 film versions to date, but director Cary Fukunaga’s visually stunning adaptation manages to bring Jane to a fresh light without losing any of the heart of the original text.

Fukunaga’s version does not begin with Jane’s childhood, as does the novel, but instead picks up as Jane, our heroine, seeks refuge from St. John Rivers and his sisters. Desolate and drenched, Jane suffers painful flashbacks as she explains her story to the Riverses. It is in this way that we learn of her abusive family and her difficult upbringing. Screenwriter Moira Buffini does an outstanding job of bringing out the important parts of the novel and compressing them in a new way. Though initially unsettling, the change in the story’s pacing actually worked much better for the screen – it takes the storyline in a direction that is more dynamic and easier to follow. This does mean, however, that we miss out on some of the understanding behind what makes up Jane’s character.

The title role is played beautifully by Mia Wasikowska of Alice in Wonderland fame. Her Jane is soft-spoken but not quiet, principled but not righteous. Wasikowska makes Jane, a plain, almost colorless character in terms of outward expression, personable and feeling. Her voice is timorous enough to make even her boldest comments sound polite and unassuming. Her eyes are warm and wondering, and they speak even when Jane is silenced by fear or by love. She is plain but not boring, something central to the character of Jane Eyre. Wasikowska’s Jane is a feat of characterization, a commendable performance considering the role’s weighty connotations.

Another clear standout is our brooding romantic lead, Edward Rochester, portrayed by Michael Fassbender. Though he plays Rochester as a more likable character than he is normally depicted, it makes for a captivating contrast to Wasikowska’s Jane, and the two play off each other beautifully. Their conversations are laced with spirited interchanges that leave the viewer certain of their chemistry, even when it appears as though Rochester intends to marry the beautiful but vacant Blanche Ingram (Imogen Poots). Fassbender is clearly in control of every scene, but manages to avoid being overbearing or distracting from Wasikowska’s more subtle loveliness.

Even if it were nothing else, the film is just beautiful to watch. The cinematography is brilliant, with wide-framed shots of the lonely-looking English moors. The majority of movie is toned with dark blue and gray, providing the dark, gloomy feel that accompanies the story. The viewer feels wet and cold as Jane falls into the dark mud; they feel warm and reawakened when Jane and Rochester sit in the shade of a cherry tree on a sunny day. The movie brings to life the vivid descriptions and imagery that make Brontë’s novel so spectacular.

That’s not to say, though, that all of Brontë’s original vision is brought to the film. The film omits large parts of the text - this itself is not a problem, considering the length of the novel, but it does take away from the overall thrill of the story. No, we do not need the many melodramatic scenes that color the novel. No, we do not need the lengthy descriptions or the thorough character development. Were I seeing the film having not read the novel, I probably would have seen no issue with the story. This was not the case, however, and I found myself feeling cheated on more than one occasion. The film chooses to omit many of the small scenes that help to build up the chilling mystery behind Rochester’s secret. Most notably, we are left without the scene in which a mysterious figure comes into Jane’s room and tears her wedding veil. The film felt almost diluted without all the chills and thrills, though not necessarily in a bad way. The story certainly works without them, and those who don’t know the book well will likely find themselves pleased by the plotline introduced.

The film also concludes with a very cinematic-feeling ending. Rather than the book’s thorough epilogue, the movie ends immediately after Jane returns to Thornfield. There is no “Reader, I married him,”; no description of their firstborn son. This omission does not necessarily make the ending more or less effective, though it does end the film on a note that seems more suited for a romantic comedy than a tragic love story.

Overall, though, the film is easy to follow and it’s a good compression of such a hefty story. Though the mood is overwhelmingly dark and distressed, it’s sprinkled with a few gems that keep it from becoming too tortured. Judi Dench is brilliant as the homely Mrs. Fairfax, housekeeper of Thornfield Hall. Newcomer Romy Settbon Moore is equally charming and irritating as Mr. Rochester’s ward, Adèle. A few chuckle-inducing quips here and there balance the more serious dialogue, and occasional breaks of sunlight complement the overcast shots of the moors.

Jane is innovative and it’s interesting, a real feat for an adaptation of such a well-known story. Fassbender and Wasikowska play the most famous couple in literature to perfection, and director Fukunaga brings one of the most famous stories to life in a truly sophisticated way.

If you think you know Jane Eyre, you don’t know it like this. It’s warm-hearted and it’s sweeping, while still managing to make my skin crawl. It’s beautiful to the eyes and stimulating to the mind. It’s easily one of the best versions of Jane out there, one that may become the definitive adaptation.

Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre is classic without being too stuffy, and fresh without being too modernistic. It’s a must-see for any lovers of the novel, and a should-see for any lovers of great filmmaking. I promise you’ll find that this Jane is anything but plain.

Most already know the story of Jane Eyre: a young girl who has been tormented all her life eventually finds solace in a mansion haunted by secrecy and anguish. The well-known plot and beloved characters only complicate the task of bringing a new vision of the book to the screen. There are over 20 film versions to date, but director Cary Fukunaga’s visually stunning adaptation manages to bring Jane to a fresh light without losing any of the heart of the original text.

Fukunaga’s version does not begin with Jane’s childhood, as does the novel, but instead picks up as she seeks refuge from a generous stranger, St. John Rivers, and his sisters. Desolate and drenched, Jane suffers painful flashbacks as she explains her story to the Riverses. It is in this way that we learn of her abusive family and her difficult upbringing.

Screenwriter Moira Buffini does an outstanding job of bringing out the important parts of the novel and compressing them in a new way. Though initially unsettling, the change in the story’s pacing actually worked much better for the screen -- it takes the storyline in a direction that is more dynamic and easier to follow. This does mean, however, that we miss out on some of the understanding behind what makes up Jane’s character.

The title role is played beautifully by Mia Wasikowska of Alice in Wonderland. Her Jane is soft-spoken but not quiet, principled but not righteous. Wasikowska makes Jane, a plain, almost colorless character in terms of outward expression, personable and feeling. Her voice is timorous enough to make even her boldest comments sound polite and unassuming. Her eyes are warm and wondering, and they speak even when Jane is silenced by fear or by love. She is plain but not boring, a balance of traits that defines the character of Jane Eyre. Wasikowska’s Jane is a feat of characterization, a commendable performance considering the role’s weighty connotations.

Another clear standout is our brooding romantic lead, Edward Rochester, portrayed by Michael Fassbender. Because he plays Rochester as a more likable character than normally depicted, he creates a captivating contrast to Wasikowska’s Jane, and the two play off each other beautifully. Their conversations are laced with spirited interchanges that leave the viewer certain of their chemistry, even when it appears as though Rochester intends to marry the beautiful but vacant Blanche Ingram (Imogen Poots). Fassbender is clearly in control of every scene, but manages to avoid being overbearing or distracting from Wasikowska’s more subtle loveliness.

Even if it were nothing else, the film is just beautiful to watch. The cinematography is brilliant, with wide-framed shots of the lonely-looking English moors. The majority of movie is toned with dark blue and gray, providing the dark, gloomy feel that accompanies the story. The lighting is used brilliantly to convey different moods. The viewer feels wet and cold as Jane falls into the dark mud; they feel warm and reawakened when Jane and Rochester sit in the shade of a cherry tree on a sunny day. The movie brings to life the vivid descriptions and imagery that make Brontë’s novel so spectacular.

That’s not to say, though, that all of Brontë’s original vision is brought to the film. The film omits large parts of the text -- this in itself is not a problem, considering the length of the novel, but it does take away from the overall thrill of the story. No, we do not need the many melodramatic scenes that color the novel. No, we do not need the lengthy descriptions or the thorough character development. Were I seeing the film having not read the novel, I probably would not have taken any issue with the storyline. This was not the case, however, and I found myself feeling cheated out of the full story on more than one occasion. The film chooses to omit many of the small scenes that help to build up the chilling mystery behind Rochester’s secret; most notably, we are left without the scene in which a mysterious figure comes into Jane’s room and tears her wedding veil. The film felt almost diluted without all the chills and thrills, though not necessarily in a bad way. The story certainly works without them, and those who don’t know the book well will likely find themselves pleased by the plotline introduced.

The film also concludes with a very cinematic-feeling ending. Rather than the book’s thorough epilogue, the movie ends immediately after Jane returns to Thornfield. There is no “Reader, I married him,”; no description of their firstborn son. This omission does not necessarily make the ending more or less effective, though it does end the film on a note that seems more suited for a romantic comedy than a tragic love story.

Overall, though, the film is easy to follow and it’s a good compression of such a hefty story. Though the mood is overwhelmingly dark and distressed, it’s sprinkled with a few gems that keep it from becoming too tortured. Judi Dench is brilliant as the homely Mrs. Fairfax, housekeeper of Thornfield Hall. Newcomer Romy Settbon Moore is equal parts charming and irritating as Mr. Rochester’s ward, Adèle. A few chuckle-inducing quips here and there balance the more serious dialogue, and occasional breaks of sunlight complement the overcast shots of the moors. Jane is innovative and it’s interesting, a real feat for an adaptation of such a well-known story. Fassbender and Wasikowska play the most famous couple in literature to perfection, and director Fukunaga brings one of the most famous stories to life in a truly sophisticated way.

If you think you know Jane Eyre, you don’t know it like this. It’s warm-hearted and it’s sweeping, while still managing to make my skin crawl. It’s beautiful to the eyes and stimulating to the mind. It’s easily one of the best versions of Jane out there, one that may become the definitive adaptation.

Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre is classic without being too stuffy, and fresh without being too modernistic. It’s a must-see for any lovers of the novel, and a should-see for any lovers of great filmmaking. I promise you’ll find that this Jane is anything but plain.

http://www.balitangamerica.tv/manny-the-movie-guy-reviews-source-code-and-jane-eyre/

Manny the Movie Guy Reviews “Source Code” and “Jane Eyre”
Written by admin Manny the Movie Guy Apr 1, 2011

Jane Eyre

A movie that’s near and dear to my heart is Jane Eyre.

Fresh from the success of ‘Sin Nombre’, Director Cary Fukunaga creates a perfect balance of passion and intrigue in this nineteenth film version of the Charlotte Bronte classic.

Alice in wonderland’s Mia Wasikowska is Jane Eyre and Michael Fassbender is her mister Rochester.

I love how the script played with the book’s narrative structure. It started near the ending and moved back. I like the chemistry among the lead actors and the film’s passion, cinematography and musical score

And with the supporting cast featuring Dame Judi Dench this Jane Eyre film adaptation very well captures the spirit of the book.

http://hollowaymonitor.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/march2011/

March movie reviews
Posted on April 1, 2011 by Bird

JANE EYRE. In this Charlotte Bronte classic, Mia Wasikowska is Jane Eyre, a poor girl who escapes an abusive girls’ boarding school only to become governess at the gloomy mansion of Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Jane is very smart and strong-willed, but life has certainly given her a bad hand. Still, Mr. Rochester, who seems bored with life, sees something special in Jane. But he seems to have secrets, and she of course, must be very prim and proper, despite all the passionate undercurrents. Very moody gothic romantic melodrama. Well done, but this kind of overly romantic story won’t be everyone’s taste.

http://ruelleelectrique.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/film-review-of-the-latest-adaptation-of-jane-eyre/

Film Review of the Latest Adaptation of “Jane Eyre”
In Celluloid Lit, Other Bohemian Activities on April 1, 2011 at 3:55 pm

By Your Salonniere

Jane Eyre always gets short shrift. Whether from Blanche Ingram and her posse, from her employer who deceives her from the start, or from filmmakers and screenwriters who undermine her authority for the sake of brevity, unfortunately, for our dear Jane, this latest adaptation is no exception. Directed by Cary Fukunaga and starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, a dear companion remarked that this 2011 adaptation should have been titled The Mr. Rochester Show since Edward gets to enjoy all the great sport and fun that Brontë concocts for her titular heroine.
Jane Eyre

The film is decently cast. Wasikowska certainly embodies the youth and solemnity that makes Jane Eyre such a formidable force, and Fassbender broods and makes mischief just as Rochester does in the novel, although he is far too attractive to stay true to Brontë’s literary creation.

Fassbender and Wasikowska do the best they can to stay true to the story, but they must have been misled by the director. In Brontë’s greatest novel, she draws a fine balance between gravitas and levity that both characters share in their interactions. Their love is slowly and painfully earned through mutual wariness and initial mistrust, until they both let their guards down to discover wonderment and genuine affection that isn’t overwrought with sentimental and over-simplified fancy.

In this film, however, Jane is simply depicted as an injured bird. Though Wasikowska is solid in capturing Jane’s sobriety, Ms. Eyre is a creature larger than life. A universe in herself, the crux of this story is how she bends everyone she meets to answer solely to her principles and her laws. She can be both deadly serious and heartwrenchingly funny, yet Fukanaga fails to reveal this complexity, and there is no levity measured with gravitas. Part of the problem is that the start of the film is rushed in the beginning, and we lose some of the foundational moments that underpin both the humor and incredible intellect that make Jane so riveting as a person since she is so keenly erudite, quick-witted, and clever even before she meets Edward. However Fukunaga would have us believe that Jane’s one-dimensional until she crosses paths with Rochester where she gains a second dimension.

While, we’re picking apart the film, let’s note what else this adaptation is missing, which includes Rochester’s faithful companion, Pilot the dog, who Jane befriends at their first meeting. Pilot is the linchpin, the essential link to the supernatural world that pervades this love story. In the novel, Jane’s not afraid as she walks the forest path to post Miss Fairfax’s letter, but she relishes the dark woods and the mysteries that surround her. However, Fukunaga choose to show her filled with trepidation, and, again, poor Jane is underestimated by those who should be championing her.Along with the loss of Pilot, we also miss Grace Poole, who barely appears in the movie and is mentioned probably twice. Even the terrifying scene when Jane is visited in the dead of night by a specter and wakes in the morning to find her personal affects vandalized has been cut completely from the film. Fukunaga seems determined to wring out all the otherworldly spirits that haunt this story.

So what redeems this adaptation, you might ask? Instead of speculating on the occult, Fukunaga prefers to give several nods to Reason and Intellect. Rochester and Eyre repeatedly defend their free will. They are determined to exercise their will to power, which, in a most unexpected way, gives insight into Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights. Fukunaga chose to include instead what may arguably be the most important part of the book when Jane voices her existential power:

Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex.

Jane Eyre
This internal monologue makes the heart of the novel, and Fukunaga is undoubtedly brave to try and dramatize what is so deeply internalized and highly philosophical. Later, St. John Rivers accuses Jane of succumbing to lawless passion, but Jane is no Catherine Earnshaw. She appropriates all the religious conventions, restrictions, and mores of her society, and makes them truly her own whereas Catherine and Heathcliff distort and corrupt the laws of man, revealing them as base and depraved because these moral codes essentially oppress all who submit. Charlotte Brontë’s work is about intellect and reason, and, in Nietzschean terms, Jane Eyre is Apollonian while Catherine & Heathcliff are Dionysian.

This adaptation of Jane Eyre doesn’t bode well for the upcoming release of a new Wuthering Heights, directed by Andrea Arnold, which, in all likelihood, has a great chance of being mucked up because Catherine and Heathcliff, as characters, are not mortal, flesh and blood people. They’re not to be read that way, and to do so is to grossly over-simplify what is essentially a sublime, metaphysical work of art. How can film capture such transcendental phenomenons?

Fukanaga proves once again, how difficult it is to film this bodice-ridden, bonnet-laden era on screen. It’s so very easy to fall into the tropes and trappings of Victorian cliches. Lending a fresh eye to an overly romanticized and oft sentimentalized period is next to impossible, yet Jane Campion manages this marvelously with her stunning work Bright Star, which is a far better cinematic work of art than this Jane Eyre.

Audiences who aren’t familiar with the story may enjoy this adaptation. I was surprised, though I shouldn’t have been, when everyone around me at the theater gasped after Jane returns to Thornfield Hall. I just assumed everyone knew what happens to Jane and Edward at the close of the novel. The Masterpiece Theater adaptation, with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson does a better job capturing the lively spirit of Jane and Edward. In this series, we can revel in their sparring and take delight with their teasing and flirtation just as the characters do in Brontë’s novel.

Fukunaga’s adaptation is worth seeing though Brontë aficianados best brace themselves for disappointment. A character so awe-inspiring, who blocks out the sun and manifests her own universe can hardly be depicted through a tw0-dimensional medium. Jane Eyre is someone we know too intimately, so when we want to find her to remind ourselves how bold and daring we can and should be despite our background and misgivings, all we need do is open up Brontë’s book and be awestruck once again.

Check out a BBC interview with China Mieville, who includes Jane Eyre in the Books That Made Me.

Seen the new adaptation? Have a favorite version of your own? We’d love to hear your responses. Please join the conversation at the salon.

http://alexannmayberry.blogspot.com/2011/04/films-to-see-to-anticipate.html

Friday, April 1, 2011
films to see & to anticipate
films worth seeing

jane eyre
directed by cary fukunaga
starring mia wasikowska & michael fassbender
a very elegant version based off the novel by charlotte bronte. if you are a fan of the book, then you will not be disappointed. after seeing the other versions, i think that mia wasikowska's performance is the best potrayal of the character. i'm guessing a future best actress nominee for 2012.

http://www.pfspublishing.com/bookclub/2011/04/movie-review-the-beauty-of-the-new-jane-eyre.html

04/01/2011
Movie Review: The Beauty of the new Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre movie

Title: Jane Eyre

Form: Feature Film

Adapted From: Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte, first published in 1847

Staring: Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre), Michael Fassbender (Mr. Rochester), Jamie Bell (St. John Rivers), Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax)

Screenplay by: Moira Buffini

Directed by: Cary Fukunaga

Released in Theatres: March 2011

Movie Review: I went into this movie with horrible memories of being forced to watch another Jane Eyre adaption in high school. In that version, Jane ages ten years in the act of rising from her friend's grave. No joke. One moment, she's a kid. At a grave. Next moment, she's all woman. At a grave. It was very strange.

Luckily, this version of Jane Eyre fixes those problems by telling the story quite a bit of out of order. The structure of this version bounces back and forth between what is the film's present (Jane with the Rivers) and the past (her childhood to being with Rochester). And it works better than any adaption I've ever seen.

The other thing that be must mentioned here is the acting - Wasikowska is deservedly being called the best Jane Eyre ever. She manages to be Jane atboth her humblest and at her headstrongest, all in the same moment. It's fascinating to watch her work. And her chemsitry with Fassbender, who makes a pretty perfect Rochester, because he's charming and beautiful in a very strange way, is electric. Bell and Dench also put in same nice work here. Kudos to the casting director.

Finally, I think what truly makes this film is that it just looks right. It feels straight out of the past, and the gothic moments, with their creepiness and haunting music, work because of the film's muted colors and dismal landscape. The film is covered in darkness, with the director making great use of firelight and candlelight. It's a gorgeous film visually, and a great film overall.

Adaption Analysis: Now, you might be wondering why I've chosen to review a movie. After all, this is a book club, not a movie review website. But, in today's modern world, books are considered media and all media gets transferred to other forms. Jane Eyre is the perfect example of this - it's been translated into other forms and adapted into nearly every conceivable media form at least a dozen times. As such, I've decided to review book adaptions, since they have become nearly inseparable from the literary sources they pull from.

In this adapation, its main strength are the places where it didn't follow the book exactly. In translating a book to screen, you're going to have to cut pieces out. Fans of books often complain that their favorite scene is missing, or that the director changes this or that, or the actor doesn't fit with their vision of the character, but simply put, that's just going to happen. Here, I think, the director made some of the smartest choices I've seen of any adaption. It almost feels like he watched all the other bad Jane Eyres and figured out what not to do.

The top of the list for me of what made this adpation work is that with a time constriction (even though the movie is still 2 hours long), he cuts out most of Jane's childhood, giving us only broad glimpses. But he also manages to fix the fact that Jane's meeting with her aunt on her aunt's deathbed (which, in the book, is the end to a major storyline) is simply a powerful scene instead - not a climax and storyline resolution. Jane Eyre the book has multiple storylines featuring Jane as the central character - Jane Eyre the movie really only has one - Jane and Mr. Rochester's love affair. And this fits the movie's construction and structure.

In the end, this is quite simply the best adaption of Jane Eyre I've ever seen. It's beautiful, the actors are wonderful, and the book's story remains intact while the director makes all the right choices.

Posted on 04/01/2011 at 09:26 AM

http://movie-land.org/movie-review-plain-spoken-smart-jane-eyre-finally-comes-into-her-own.html

Movie review: Plain-spoken, intelligent Jane Eyre finally comes into her own

As Jane Eyre tromps opposite a moors during a start of a latest film to bear her name, a spectator might be forgiven for meditative this is going in a informed direction.

After all, there have been some-more than 20 film and TV adaptations of Charlote Brontë’s 1847 novel (according to a Internet Movie Database), so what can presumably be new about this one?

But where executive Cary Joji Fukunaga, screenwriter Moira Buffini and star Mia Wasikowska take this classical story — about a unloved waif who becomes a governess and eventually a thwarted bride — still yields some surprises by putting a spotlight on Jane’s comprehension and spirit.

The contours of a story haven’t changed. As a child, Jane (Amelia Clarkson) is deserted by her unrelenting aunt (Sally Hawkins) and placed in a year-round boarding propagandize where a rod is never spared. Attempts to mangle Jane’s bullheaded suggestion are eventually futile, and she graduates during age 18 (played by Wasikowska) with a position as governess during Thornfield Hall.

At Thornfield, she is befriended by a aged housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) and takes a gleam to her French-speaking immature charge, Adele (Romy Settbon Moore). She shortly meets Thornfield’s master, a inconstant and brooding Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender, whose star is on a arise between this and his arriving purpose as Magneto in “X-Men: First Class”).

Buffini (who blending a Thomas Hardy-inspired “Tamara Drewe”) frames this informed story with a partial of Brontë’s account that customarily gets brief shrift: Jane’s life after withdrawal Thornfield Hall, when she is taken in by a pleasantly minister St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell). This serves to contrariety Jane’s dual lives — joyless slavery vs. delighted training — and a emotions of her would-be suitors, a burning and fickle Rochester and a bashful though cold Rivers.

Buffini’s book also gives room for Jane to pronounce for herself, permitting Wasikowska (familiar from her roles in “Alice in Wonderland” and “The Kids Are All Right”) room to uncover a impression as some-more than a doormat for her family or her suitors. This Jane is plain-spoken, though also smart, simply a egghead compare for any man.

Fukunaga — operative in a universe utterly opposite from his initial feature, a dirty 2009 immigration play “Sin Nombre” — captures a pointed category groups of Jane’s life in still strokes, with dim shadows pierced by glints of candlelight. And Fukunaga smartly underplays a intrigue between Jane and Rochester, permitting a restricted sentiments to smolder where other versions got overheated and burnt out too quickly.

It might be overstating things to call this a feminist interpretation of Brontë’s story. It is, however, one of a few film adaptations of Jane Eyre that truly feel as if it’s Jane’s story to tell.

movies@sltrib.com

http://www.britscene.com/2011/04/brits-at-box-office-8/

Brits At The Box Office 4/1
Written on April 1, 2011 by Paul

You have a couple of good opportunities this weekend to see a British movie and there is also Brit involvement in nearly every film released. Over in the UK I think that two of the three new releases will eventually make it into US theaters.

It’s all about the period drama in the US as Jane Eyre continues to expand into more cities. Not surprising really as it is one of the best reviewed films of the year and audiences are flocking to see it. Why not see if it has arrived in your neck of the woods by clicking here.

http://mitchonmovies.blogspot.com/2011/04/in-theatres-now.html

Friday, April 1, 2011
In Theatres Now...
It's April Fool's Day, but you won't find any practical jokes on my blog today. Nothing but movies, movies and more movies. With plenty of choices out there at your local cineplex, let's walk through 'just about' every movie in theatres right now: THE GOOD, THE-NOT-TOO-BAD and THE JUST-PLAIN-UGLY (and we'll peek at the new releases too).

THE GOOD:

"Jane Eyre" 3 / 4 stars - The classic story is told again, and this time Mia Wasikowska ("The Kids Are All Right") skillfully plays the lead, and Michael Fassbender ("X-Men: First Class") co-stars. Top-notch performances, spot-on costumes and beautiful cinematography are all present, but the film is hindered by a very slow pace in its first half.

http://famosetesypaparazzis.blogspot.com/2011/04/entertainment-movie-reviews.html

http://www.screenit.com/movies/2011/jane_eyre.html

"JANE EYRE"
(2011) (Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender) (PG-13)

At-A-Glace Content Summary

Alcohol/Drugs Moderate
Blood/Gross Stuff Moderate
Disrespectful/Bad Attitude Heavy
Frightening/Tense Scenes Moderate
Gun/Weapons Moderate
Imitative Behavior Moderate
Jump Scenes Moderate
Music (Scary/Tense) Moderate
Music (Inappropriate) None
Profanity None
Sex/Nudity Moderate
Smoking Moderate
Tense Family Scenes Heavy
Topics to Talk About Heavy
Violence Moderate

QUICK TAKE:
Drama: In 19th century England, a young woman works as a governess for a small child and ends up falling in love with her brooding employer who harbors a dark secret.

PLOT:
In the 19th century, a young woman named Jane Eyre (MIA WASIKOWSKA) works as a governess to a young girl under the custody of Edward Rochester (MICHAEL FASSBENDER), the brooding master of Thornfield Hall. Despite their differences in age and social standing, Jane and Rochester are drawn to each other and eventually fall in love to the surprise of the manor's housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax (JUDI DENCH).

Rochester, though, harbors a deep, dark secret that causes Jane to flee the property and find refuge with clergyman St. John Rivers (JAMIE BELL) and his two sisters. St. John gives Jane a home and finds her employment as a teacher at an all-girl's school his church is starting. He eventually falls in love with her and wants to make her his wife so they can travel on a religious mission to India, even her heart still belongs to Rochester.

All the while, Jane is haunted by sad memories of her past, of losing both her parents at a young age; being forced to live with her cruel aunt, Mrs. Reed (SALLY HAWKINS); and subsequently being sent to a strict boarding school where she had to submit to harsh forms of discipline. She takes inspiration from a classmate named Helen (FREYA PARKS), who contracts a fatal illness but dies happy in the knowledge that she is free.

WILL KIDS WANT TO SEE IT?
Older female teens and those with an interest in classic literature will have some interest.

WHY THE MPAA RATED IT: PG-13
For some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content.

http://www.nola.com/movies/index.ssf/2011/04/moody_new_jane_eyre_is_compell.html

Moody new 'Jane Eyre' is compelling, thanks largely to performance of Mia Wasikowska
Published: Friday, April 01, 2011, 5:00 AM
Mike Scott, The Times-Picayune By Mike Scott, The Times-

Over the years, "Jane Eyre" has been made and remade for film audiences countless times and in every conceivable way. There have been silent films, talkies, miniseries and TV movies. There has been a symphony, an opera and at least two ballets.

0329 jane eyre mia wasikowska.JPGMia Wasikowska plays the title character in director Cary Joji Fukunaga's 'Jane Eyre.'

All of which begs the question: Why remake it now? What more can we get from Charlotte Bronte's multilayered 1847 tale?

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga ("Sin Nombre") has an answer, and it's a convincing one.

Starting with a tremendous turn from lead actress Mia Wasikowska, Fukunaga has assembled an arresting and engrossing "Jane Eyre." Complemented by striking, well-conceived visuals, in Fukunaga's hands Bronte's tale of love and woe becomes one well worth repeating.

And Jane's is a story of woe, even if Wasikowska's main character insists it's not. After all, she's reminded by Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender), the man for whom she works, that "all governesses have a tale of woe."

Hers starts as a young orphan, when her hard-hearted aunt (Sally Hawkins) ships her off to a colorless, mirthless boarding school. The dour matrons who run this place are firm believers in the saying "spare the rod, spoil the child."

Fukunaga bolts through this earlier part of Bronte's story, which is a shame given that in the process he's forced to orphan so many details and so much nuance. But on another level it's smart filmmaking, because the sooner Fukunaga can get Wasikowska onscreen, the better.

0401 jane eyre michael fassbender and mia wasikowska.JPGMichael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska in 'Jane Eyre.'

When he does, Jane emerges from the school as a strong, smart survivor -- one who has learned to rely upon no one but herself, thank you very much -- and heads to Thornfield Hall to care for a young girl in Rochester's care. There, Jane and Rochester take to engaging in verbal jousting matches that provide the story's meat, exploring themes of class and equality.

And, eventually, love. And a mystery. And then more woe.

Even at Thornfield Hall, though, as Jane experiences snatches of happiness, Fukunaga hangs onto the Gothic flourishes in Bronte's story. The wind blows harshly here. Candles shine dimly. The sun rarely shines, and when it does, it's only briefly.

The resulting mood -- melancholy, spooky, off-putting -- is very important to the success of this "Jane Eyre."

But Wasikowska's performance is the keystone on which everything else rests.

"Experts" have been predicting the Australian actress' breakout for a while now, starting with her first major dramatic role in 2008's "Defiance." She did nothing to prove her supporters wrong with her two other major roles -- in "The Kids Are All Right" and "Alice in Wonderland" last year -- but neither of those films gave her the kind of meaty role that would get people to remember how to pronounce her name. (For the record: Vash-i-kov-ska.)

Her Jane Eyre, however, could be that role. Here, she is heartbreakingly authentic, displaying a depth of emotion beyond her 21 years and a watchability that is beyond the capabilities of most actresses.

If that's not reason enough to remake "Jane Eyre, " I don't know what is.

_____________

JANE EYRE
3 stars, out of 4

Snapshot: A faithful adaptation, both in mood and in content, of the classic Charlotte Bronte novel about an orphaned girl who grows up to work in the house of a wealthy, handsome bachelor, only to discover he has a dark secret.

What works: Mia Wasikowska is wonderful in the title role, and director Cary Joji Fukunaga's visuals -- moody and melancholy and very "Jane Eyre" -- are fantastic.

What doesn't: Fukunaga bolts through certain parts of the story, robbing it of much of its nuance.

Starring: Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins, Simon McBurney. Director: Fukunaga. Rating: PG-13 for some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content. Running time: 1 hour 55 minutes. Where: Prytania, Canal Place.

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

01 April 2011
Jane Eyre (2011)
Latest Jane Eyre Lovely and Damn Tempting!
By Leigh Wood

I had to wait a little bit to see this latest umpteenth adaptation of Jane Eyre from director Cary Fukunaga thanks to its limited release schedule; but hot damn, now I am glad it isn’t at my nearest theater, for then I’d be there every day watching this unabashedly sappy, spooky, and brooding Bronte!

Unless you’re not of this planet, you probably know the story: Young Jane Eyre (Amelia Clarkson, The Sarah Jane Adventures) is treated cruelly by her Aunt Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins) and is subsequently sent to the even more horrible Lowood School, where she befriends the sickly Helen (Freya Parks, Creation). Years later, Jane (Mia Wasikowska) takes an appointment as governess to Adele (Romy Settbon Moore), the young French ward of the mysterious master of Thornfield Hall, Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) warns Jane of the drafty and scary ways of the house- and to be careful of her budding relationship with Rochester. Thanks to familial secrets and social boundaries, Rochester instead courts socialite Blanche Ingram (Imogen Poots). When marital disaster strikes, Jane eventually flees to the home of St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell). Of course, I’m sure you know how it ends, so I I’ll stop there.

I deliberately stayed away from the numerous onscreen adaptations again or a re-reading of Charlotte Bronte’s 1847 novel in my anticipation of seeing Fukunaga’s (Sin Nombre) supposedly fresh, 21st century, dark interpretation. At first, I was also a little leery of the way the marketing and all was spinning things- it’s been done over 20 times, I suppose there’s only so many ways you can twist and lure in your campaign. Thankfully, the flashback presentation from screenwriter Moira Buffini (The Enlightenment, Byzantium) does work as they said it would, and actually akins this version closer to the framing of my slightly more preferred Wuthering Heights. (The whole implication with Heathcliff and Catherine’s dead body; you know there was something twisted and kinky going on there!) Online venues and magazine reviews of course have already mentioned some of the prior Jane Eyre takes- I suppose I like the 1983 Timothy Dalton version or William Hurt’s 1996 take the best. One always knows their favored JE by the Rochester, does she not? However, the first words out of my Dad’s mouth when I told him I saw this one, “Who’s playing Jane Eyre?” Of course, everyone inevitably mentions the 1944 Orson Welles version, but for my money, the recently late Elizabeth Taylor was the best thing about that one. Oh her little Helen! Maybe it has the time to get deeper into the book, but I’m not a Toby Stephens fan, so the 2006 miniseries was a tough for me. Younger audiences new to the literature can definitely enjoy this version at hand indeed. Despite its flashback angles, it’s straightforward- unlike some of the Masterpiece Theatre fluff we so often expect- but no less intense in its players or tale. Though it may only scratch the surface of the novel, it damn near has me getting my copy from the bookshelf. Teachers and scholars can have a relatable classroom showing when this Jane Eyre comes to DVD, oh yes.

Jane EyreYes, I’ve always been more partial to Wuthering Heights thanks to the gothic elements and, well, the tormented morbidity out weighing the traditional Austentonion romance. Yuck! Maybe I was younger and didn’t appreciate the relationship or just really like me some kinky implied horror, but when first reading Jane Eyre, I was scared out of my wits. The abuse at Lowood, the budding sinister, mystery, and isolation of Thornfield Hall- I was a little disappointed to find out the supernatural was just a red herring. Fortunately, Fukunaga does keep to his promises of a spookier telling here. The real romance actually comes a little late, and we further feel the love is too good to be true or cannot be thanks to meeting all the creepy night time shenanigans and dangerous moors first. Allowing a few jump in your seats moments both makes room for non period romance fans whilst also strengthening the relationships to come.

Forgive me the pun, but Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are All Right, In Treatment) is no plain Jane. She totally transforms into the bland and restricted but no less passionate and spirited Jane and looks completely different from her off-screen style thanks to the rigid corsets and lots of heavy and ugly fabrics. We like Jane from the start, and come to like her even more as she refuses to give Rochester the sob story we’ve seen as any excuse for whatever faults this society may find in her person. We want to see something good finally happen to her- nay we must see a happy ending as a reward for such good convictions. Despite the scares and pessimism and our modern cynicism, we need that damn happy ever after for this Jane! And I’m sorry but I have to let the fan girl deep down inside out and say hell yeah we want her to marry mother f#%@#&! Michael Fassbender, because you know damn well you’re upset that you can’t marry him either. You crazy stalkers, you! Fassy’s Rochester may be pretty or at the very least, more pretty than we are accustomed or expect in a brooding older scary Hall master, and thus he perhaps initially seems a little lightweight compared to some of the other renditions. However, this handsome style- goodness the charisma- and presumed levity makes this Rochester all the more intriguing. Why is this seemingly upscale and well-traveled man so interested in little school teacher Jane? Is it all amusing to him? Why does he seek such solace in her? He’s rich and educated and traveled-compared to Jane what does he have to be so dang glum about? Despite their odd pairing, the class divide, and all this Victorian rigidness, there’s actually a lot of intensity between the leads and characters onscreen. I even felt a little giggly in seeing Jane get as blushed as she was going to get- yeah, flustered in the 1840s, oh my! And come on, forget the Fireside Poets, you know you’d want to sit by the hearth all aglow with the Fass. Rochester’s sneaky way of spending time with Jane, egging her intellect forth and including her in the mysteries of the household while at the same time trying to make her jealous and actually keep his secrets, it’s all just great. I want to let out a big happy sigh. Even with society pushing these two iconic players up against the wall, you want to see the happy ever after. It’s all a little pre-Dickensian how wealth, tragedy, and circumstance come into play, but I’d rather have this justice, irony, people, and plot than special effects. Graphics are so meager in comparison!

My only major fear here is that the twitty text obsessed current generation will be scratching their heads at the old speaketh, not understand the subtly of what is being said, and thus think Jane Eyre a stuffy and crappy movie. Which, if that comes to be the case, then it is a mother f#%@#&! pity! Frankly, if we ever needed a reason to return to not ending sentences with prepositions (besides, you know, that it’s the grammatically correct way to speak) it may be this movie. Who knew proper English could sound as sweet and enchanting as this? While I’d love to be proven wrong, I’m also sad to say that I don’t see Oscar wins for Mia and Michael for this film. There’ll be nominations and other award wins for sure- I’d be pissed if there were no acknowledgments or hardware recognition! However, I fear competition will be tight and the dopey Academy may be tired of Jane Eyre adaptations in general, or consider the performances here only similar to or on par with the standard in this latest wave of beloved Austen-esque material. It’s an Oscar ‘Almost there, kids!’ rookie dismissal instead hoping that these leads will go on to bigger and better films they need not share with so many literary others. Mia has already had plenty of this youthful acclaim- if it were up to me, she should win Best Actress just for being the best Jane yet. And as far as I’m concerned Fassbender has already given three potentially Academy worthy performances in Hunger (Too IRA political for the Oscars? Hogwash! You can award Bale for his starvation and not Fass?), Fish Tank (We can’t acknowledge fine performance if there’s a hint of pedophilia but we can award Polanski?), and Inglourious Basterds (If Waltz wasn’t so good as Landa, Fassy would have at least deserved the Supporting nom, Hicox was da bomb!). He needs to be acknowledged by the American film establishment and soon! If Fassbender were to receive a Supporting nod here but go home with Best Actor for the upcoming A Dangerous Method or Shame, I would be as content as the Happy Little Clouds in a Bob Ross painting. If it were vice versa or both, I’d be orgasmic. Of course, no man has ever one the Supporting Actor and Best Actor in one year, but The Fass has The Power of Grayskull to do so, no lie. He’s also going to be Magneto in X-Men: First Class for goodness sake!

Ahem, there is all this lead steamy somehow taut amid the rigid and stuffy Victorian ways, but let’s admit there is something near enchanting about such style, formality, and class. Not their ridiculous obsession with social status, but you know, a sense of grace and carriage about themselves where one would not use a phrase like ‘you know’. Of course, Dame Judi Dench (how can you be a filmgoer today and need a Dame Judi reference?) always has such a classic element about her person and her good-natured Mrs. Fairfax adds just the right amount of humor and levity or honest concern when needed. This is not in the stereotypically fluttering English housekeeper oi oi oh me oh my fan and faint played up for the laughs either, thank goodness. Likewise, Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot, Nicholas Nickleby, The Eagle- do you think him and Fass compared with Centurion?) is very impressive as the passive and buttoned up minister St. John Rivers who nonetheless carries a reserved silent strength and latent admiration for Jane. While his feeling is probably no less in emotion or care, Bell perfectly captures the restraint of the time via St. John. Had he lived today, I’ve no doubt he’d run off to India with an unattached Jane for charity and adventure, conventions be damned- there’s that much good and wonder in his soul, really there must be- he just can’t show it! Ah, those lovely 19th century formalities come with a very restrictive downside, don’t they? Dench and Bell, I do believe stand a better chance to walk away next year with some Supporting hardware from Jane Eyre. Unfortunately, we don’t see as much of Sally Hawkins (Persuasion), Imogen Poots (Centurion- in a movie with Fassbender twice! That, at least partially, makes up for her unique but someone unfortunate name), Tazmin Merchant (The Tudors) or other characters as finite fans of the novel may have expected. However, everyone is on form nonetheless and fits the look in period fine fashions, unlike most of the new Hollywood crowd who would be preposterously unbelievable in Princess Leia buns or mutton chops. Fass may very well bring them back- after all, they worked for Isaac Asimov!

Unfortunately, though it adds a wonderfully realistic ambiance and timeless, spooky look, not all may enjoy the dark candlelit cinematography in Jane Eyre. Even in the almost all-dark theater, a few scenes are just a little too dim for our modern eyes. We are just too accustomed to glowing monitors, screens, day glow phones, and lit buttons to appreciate how critical candles were to these people- or how much darkness and suggestion could so easily scare them. But of course, the costumes and set design are definitely awards top notch. Likewise, these are great locations; you can imagine in our idealized Bronte mind that this is how England really used to look, or may even still look in the furthest misty and isolated Midlands. We all need those great shawls and hefty velvet bed curtains while we snuggle up beside a hearth that’s big enough to fit you and all those petticoats! The fashions are both enticing in their lace, form, and classic beauty- no one can really look ugly in such style- while being old fashioned, over the top and cumbersome at the same time. It’s amazing how the wardrobe advances the attraction as well. These people are so prim and proper and even their nightgowns are so lacy and ruffled- and yet there is something so friggin’ juicy when they do glimpse each other in those flirty white and barely there gowns and caps! And Fassbender! My God, those silk and satin frock coats, waist jackets, tight pants and high boots. I swear, I wish men still dressed like this! Everyone is talking about the mutton chops, but by time you are well into Jane Eyre, the looks and styles come naturally. Later in the evening after seeing the film, I found myself turning to the television expecting to return to the Midlands; only to remember, oh yeah, that was this afternoon at the movies. I just have this urge to dig up the old Civil War re-enactors gear, tighten up my corset, and perch on the edge of my wing backed chair with Little Women! Ah, this is the power of cinema!

I’ve meandered in my favorable comments and let my fan girl get the better of me, but this Jane Eyre isn’t totally perfect. Again, I hope to see numerous awards and acclaim coming, including serious Oscar attention. (If I say it enough, they may hear me.) However, there are a few strikes against the film. While it’s all an intriguing spin, there may be too much missing from the screenplay for purists to consider an Adapted Screenplay nomination. Likewise, though the direction is lovely, American audiences may find it too slow or feel something is too broad or understated in the silent scenes. Some things are understandably missing do to Jane Eyre’s 2 hours runtime, so hopefully any and all extra material will be included on the eventual video release. At a quick glance, it seems like at least ten shots in the much loved trailer are absent, and I’m really not sure why these are lost. If they powers that be have only planned a limited theatrical run, there is no need to excise necessary scenes to squeeze as many showings into the day as possible. It’s a shame really, because some of those lost scenes fester this somewhat incomplete feeling for Jane Eyre enthusiasts and probably hurt this film’s Best Picture chances. We’re not talking about Return of the King and its dozen endings adding character moments and explanations for the Extended Edition here. Perhaps with these spread out releases and international designs forthcoming, maybe more will be put back into this Jane Eyre in an awards season push. Then again, maybe they just think us Americans won’t get it so they gave us the quick and easy Cliff Notes version.

Thankfully, even in limited box office, stateside audiences are getting this dose of Jane Eyre. It was mostly women in the theater when we went, and it was not quite half full for this the second noon showing. Though I don’t wish to be a stereotypical girl and condone the occasionally negative implications on JE as super romance and for the feminine only- heck my Dad loves this book!- there were only two or three men in the theater. They were coupled with old ladies who probably dragged them to the cinema and could hardly even hear-sometimes the ladies had to whisper some of the softer dialogue to them! Longtime fans of the novel and previous adaptations can, will, and should definitely take in this Jane Eyre and delight. New audiences, fans of the cast, and younger viewers can also enjoy casually for the first time or fall in love with Charlotte Bronte, Jane, Mia, Rochester, Fassy, or Jamie Bell. You should damn well already love Judi Dench. If you haven’t read the book, clear your literary schedule or plan to spend a lot of time at the movies with Jane Eyre’s Victorian visuals this spring.

Posted by Leigh Wood at 5:24 AM

http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=13182

Jane Eyre
By Joseph McAleer

Mia Wasikowska stars as the title character in the romantic drama "Jane Eyre." The Catholic News Service classification is A-III â€" adults. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is PG-13 â€" parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. (CNS photo/Focus Features)
Posted: 4/1/2011

NEW YORK (CNS) -- Charlotte Bronte's classic novel gets the horror film treatment in "Jane Eyre" (Focus), an adaptation that remains true to the original story but ramps up the gothic and scary elements. Creepiness aside, this is a well-acted film that recreates a bygone era when individuality took a back seat to convention, and the weather was very wet indeed.

Mia Wasikowska, recently seen in the role of Alice wandering aimlessly through Wonderland, plays another lost soul in a strange place as the title character here. Told in flashback, the film opens to find young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) a 10-year-old orphan consigned to the "care" of her uncle's family where she's abused and unloved.

But Jane is no pushover, and her independent streak, strong character, and personal piety sustain her through the multiple miseries that are to come.

Jane is sent to a religious boarding school, where the mistreatment continues; it's a fire-and-brimstone place where frequent mortifications are seen as the way to purge the body of sin. Needless to say, the prevailing Protestant Christianity is depicted as more repressive than uplifting. But Jane's faith never wavers, focusing on God himself, not on his whip-wielding minister.

Jane endures until she is old enough to take a position as governess at Thornfield Hall, home of the enigmatic Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). He falls for Jane quite literally, tumbling off his bewitched horse when he first encounters her on a country lane. But it's hardly love at first sight, since Rochester harbors demons that are gradually revealed in due course.

Jane focuses on her work, teaching Adele Varens (Romy Settbon Moore), a young French girl in Rochester's care, while trying to understand the eccentricities of her spiritually tormented employer. Her guide and confidante is the busybody housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench, who nearly steals the film).

Thornfield Hall makes the Haunted Mansion look like child's play. Watch out for things that go bump in the night -- and who's making all that racket in the attic?

Soon Rochester's bedroom is on fire, and Jane saves his life -- and melts his heart. They make plans to marry. But fate, of course, has other things in store for these star-crossed lovers.

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga ("Sin Nombre") makes the most of the English settings and, especially, the gloomy weather. The moors are misty, the rain is drenching, and the wind howls, while the manor houses are forbiddingly grand and the ladies' corsets tight. The mood is appropriately claustrophobic as Jane struggles against the stiff customs and propriety of the age, all the while keeping her faith in God and upholding her moral code.

Possibly acceptable for mature teens, despite the elements listed below.

The film contains adult themes, some intense scenes of nonsexual child abuse, and an artistic nude image. The Catholic News Service classification is A-III -- adults. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is PG-13 -- parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

McAleer is a guest reviewer for Catholic News Service. More reviews are available online at www.usccb.org/movies.

- - -

CAPSULE REVIEW

"Jane Eyre" (Focus)

Director Cary Joji Fukunaga's adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's classic novel, though faithful, nonetheless ramps up the gothic and scary elements of the plot. The orphan Jane (Mia Wasikowska) survives a childhood of abuse and religious fundamentalism to become governess at Thornfield Hall, home of the enigmatic Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Jane focuses on her work, teaching a young French girl (Romy Settbon Moore) in Rochester's care, while trying to understand the eccentricities of her spiritually tormented employer. Her guide and confidante is the manse's busybody housekeeper (a scene-stealing Judi Dench). Soon Rochester's bedroom is on fire, and Jane saves his life -- and melts his heart. They make plans to marry, but fate, of course, has other things in store for these star-crossed lovers. Possibly acceptable for mature teens. Adult themes, some intense scenes of nonsexual child abuse, an artistic nude image. The Catholic News Service classification is A-III -- adults. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is PG-13 -- parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

- - -

CLASSIFICATION

"Jane Eyre" (Focus) -- Catholic News Service classification, A-III -- adults. Motion Picture Association of America rating, PG-13 -- parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

http://yeticket.com/wp/2011/03/jayne-eyre-review-by-john-delia/

JANE EYRE review by John Delia
March 31st, 2011 John Delia

Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins and Amelia Clarkson

Directed by: Cary Fukunaga

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

Genre: Drama, Romance and Adaptation

Running Time: 2hrs

Distributed by: Focus Features

By John Delia

Captivating and as the British would say utterly romantic, the movie version of the Charlotte Bronte novel Jane Eyre moves into theaters this weekend. I enjoyed the acting, the amazing landscapes and period costumes. If you like the book, enjoy period piece films, dream about those who live in huge estates, then wake up and go see Jane Eyre.

Wasikowska as Jane and Fassbender as Edward

At the center of the plot is a young Jane Eyre (Amelia Clarkson) who finds herself living with her aunt after her parents die. At odds with her male cousin, her aunt feels that Jane should be put in a private school. Fast-forward to the 17 years of age Jane (Mia Wasikowska) who escapes the confines of her dull life and finds her way to the home of the wealthy Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender) where she takes on the job of governess. When a romance starts between Jane and Edward, her life starts to change in a direction she did not anticipate.

Even though the age differences between Jane and Edward are distances apart, the actors are able to show the fire that burns between them. You can see the change on Wasikowska’s innocent face when she realizes that Edward can be hers. The chemistry between the two burns a hole in the screen.

The costuming and sets are a major part of the story and here no expense has been spared to provide the look and flavor of the early English period. The camera captures every bit of the countryside, the worn English manor and the clothes that are as important to the entertainment as the actors. The camera lens even instills a cold damp feeling during Jane’s trek through an unforgiving forest during a horrendous rainstorm. Jane Eyre is a feeling and director Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) provides the complete experience from script to actor to the big screen.

Jane Eyre has been produced some seventeen times on television and film starting as far back as 1914 according to the International Movie Data Base. But with today’s technology, special cameras and creative sets, I found this Jane Eyre to be the amazingly good.

The film is rated PG-13 for some thematic elements including a nude image in a painting and brief violent content.
FINAL ANALYSIS: A classy look at an old plot. (A-)

http://blog.womenexplode.com/2011/03/31/jane-eyre-2010.aspx?ref=rss

Jane Eyre 2010...
On a cold, dreary, moor-like day in Texas, I went to see Jane Eyre 2010 and it was fabulous. I have of course, read Charlotte Bronte's book and have seen many movie versions of this wonderful story and have always loved it.

This one stars Mia Wasikowska ('Alice in Wonderland') and Michael Fassbender ('Inglourious Basterds') 2011 trailer screencap1 - jane-eyre photo in the romantic drama based on Charlotte Bronte's classic novel, from acclaimed director Cary Fukunaga ('Sin Nombre'). In the story, Jane Eyre flees Thornfield House, where she works as a governess for wealthy Edward Rochester. As she reflects upon the people and emotions that have defined her, it is clear that the isolated and imposing residence -- and Mr. Rochester's coldness -- have sorely tested the young woman's resilience, forged years earlier when she was orphaned. She must now act decisively to secure her own future and come to terms with the past that haunts her -- and the terrible secret that Mr. Rochester is hiding and that she has uncovered...Taken from Jane Eyre

All the movie versions have been good, but this one is magnificent. The acting, the settings and the way the story is told are all superb. I highly recommend.

Posted by Ann at 3/31/2011 10:12 AM

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/screen/film-reviews/rewarding-if-unnecessary-7240/

Rewarding, if unnecessary
Jane Eyre makes for a successful film adaptation. Again
Published March 31, 2011 by Kenzie Love in Film Reviews

Cary Fukunaga's version of Jane Eyre might not have been needed, but trumps plenty other remakes.
Jane Eyre

In the years since its 1847 publication, Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre has come to be regarded as an important proto-feminist novel ahead of its time. In contrast, Cary Fukunaga’s film would seem well past its time. Does a story that’s already been adapted for film and television almost a dozen times (excluding silent and foreign language versions) really demand yet another kick at the can, whatever the latest version’s merits?

Yes and no. This Jane, however well-acted and strikingly designed, isn’t really original enough to feel essential. On the other hand, Brontë’s novel wouldn’t have been filmed so often were it not a compelling story, and this film tells it fairly well. It’s not easily dismissed, either.

The film — which begins in media res with a distressed and haggard Jane (Mia Wasikowska) seeking shelter in the home of rural clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) after leaving her lover, Edward Rochester — seems a little flat at first. Amelia Clarkson is captivating as the young Jane, an orphan who spiritedly defies her guardians. But the more reserved older Jane of the early scenes seems dull in comparison, as she explains to St. John what brought her to his door. Bell is adequate, but his comical muttonchops are more of an attention-getter than his acting.

The action picks up, however, when Jane comes to the part where her teenage self (now also played by Wasikowska) leaves her charity school to serve as a governess at Thornfield Hall, home of the wealthy Rochester (Michael Fassbender). She gets off to a rocky start with this stern, brooding man but soon starts to fall for him. It might seem like a strange attraction, but Fassbender makes it convincing. The rare moments where his character’s snarls and scowls give way to his radiant smile and charm illustrate that Jane is attracted to him because while his softer side is hard to draw out, that makes doing so all the more rewarding.

Wasikowska in turn adeptly conveys Jane’s feelings for Rochester, as when her face poignantly reveals the shock and sorrow she feels — and her futile attempt to conceal it — upon learning he’s left the estate without telling her. And in their scenes together, she shows why Jane appeals to him, a man who could have a woman of higher status but prefers one who isn’t going to let societal conventions hold her back.

But Jane Eyre isn’t just a love story, of course, it’s also a Gothic horror story. Since most viewers know what’s behind those strange noises Jane hears in Thornfield at night, the film wisely chooses not to contrive suspense on this front, though it tries unsuccessfully to make the appearance of Rochester’s wife (Valentina Chervi) seem frightening. In this day and age, the idea of the madwoman hidden away in the attic seems more ridiculous than scary, but since this film seems content with being a period piece, it doesn’t matter that much. And from the grand old mansion to the stylish costumes, and the eerie surrounding moors, it elegantly renders both the period and the setting

Did we really need this Jane Eyre? Probably not. But given the scores of mediocre remakes Hollywood’s churned out lately, it seems churlish to fault this film — which is certainly better than most of them — too much. Originality would be nice, but in its absence, tried and true is a decent alternative.

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2011/mar/30/yet-another-pointless-remake-jane-eyre/

Yet another pointless remake of ‘Jane Eyre’

Mike D'Angelo

Wed, Mar 30, 2011 (7:14 p.m.)

Mia Wasikowska stars as the title character in the latest remake of Jane Eyre.

The Details

Jane Eyre

Three stars

Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell
Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga
Rated PG-13
Beyond the Weekly
Official Movie Site
IMDb: Jane Eyre
Rotten Tomatoes: Jane Eyre

Classics of English literature almost never make great movies, and Charlotte Brontë’s gothic romance Jane Eyre, which has been filmed more than a dozen times since 1914, is no exception. You can see why filmmakers are drawn to the story, which seems to have loads of cinematic elements: strong but vulnerable heroine, tortured Byronic hero, locales ranging from a posh estate to the wild moors, mysterious noises from a locked room, acts of crazed violence, etc. But like most novels worth reading, Jane Eyre derives most of its power from its author’s prose style and its characters’ rich interior monologues, neither of which translates well to the silver screen. What you wind up with in their place is a lot of tempestuous brooding that rings vaguely hollow.

This latest version, directed by relative newcomer Cary Joji Fukunaga (Sin Nombre), can be best described as serviceable—a solid two-hour study guide for high school students who can’t be bothered to read the book. Mostly, it provides a showcase for two exciting new actors. Mia Wasikowska, who also played the title role in last year’s Alice in Wonderland, makes for an unusually tremulous Jane, while Michael Fassbender (Hunger, Inglourious Basterds), though far too handsome for the role as written, nonetheless conveys Rochester’s off-putting quality through offbeat line readings that somehow suggest the physical ugliness he so conspicuously lacks. The two play beautifully off each other, but they still can’t quite fill the holes left by Brontë.

http://www.montereyherald.com/entertainment/ci_17740896?source=rss

Michael Fassbender's charisma, director Cary Fukunaga's flair ignites latest version of Bronte's classic 'Jane Eyre'
By KENNETH TURAN
Los Angeles Times
Posted: 03/31/2011 01:56:04 AM PDT
Updated: 03/31/2011 08:20:21 AM PDT

The book is called "Jane Eyre," but when it comes to its numerous movie versions, whether it's Orson Welles in 1944 or Michael Fassbender right now, the actor playing Edward Rochester often ends up with the lion's share of the attention.

That's because the brooding master of Thornfield in Charlotte Bronte's 1847 novel is one of literature's archetypal romantic heroes, a complex and troubled individual who is sensitive, poetic and, as Lady Caroline Lamb famously said of Lord Byron, "mad, bad and dangerous to know."

A part like that is catnip for performers who can play the rogue male, and Fassbender swallows it whole.

He's a German-born Irish actor who is about to break big with roles in the next "X-Men" movie, a Steven Soderbergh thriller and "Prometheus," Ridley Scott's "Alien" prequel.

Fassbender energizes not just his scenes with Mia Wasikowska's accomplished but inevitably more pulled-back Jane, but this entire film.

Bronte's romantic novel of a young governess engaged in a classic struggle for equality and independence has, as noted, been filmed a lot: One count lists 18 theatrical feature versions plus nine telefilms.

But it's not always had a director with as much of a flair for the five-alarm-fire dramatics of its plot as Cary Joji Fukunaga.

As his first film, the Sundance success "Sin Nombre," demonstrated, Fukunaga is an intense, visceral filmmaker with a love for melodramatic situations.

His no-holds-barred style
Advertisement
is more successful here than in his debut because the necessity of working within the boundaries of Bronte's narrative provides just the right amount of structure to showcase his talents.

One of the shrewd choices Fukunaga has made is to emphasize the natural gothic aspects of the story.

Thornfield, where much of the action takes place, is an old dark house after all, and expert cinematographer Adriano Goldman beautifully captures both the building's candle-lit spookiness and the desolate beauty of the surrounding Derbyshire countryside.

Fukunaga has also invested heavily in the film's physical details, working with his production team, including production designer Will Hughes-Jones, art director Karl Probert, set decorator Tina Jones and costume designer Michael O'Connor to create a period world where even the badminton equipment looks fearsomely authentic.

Similar care has also gone into casting, with equally good results, including the impeccable Judi Dench as redoubtable Thornfield housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, Jamie Bell as the obtuse cleric St. John Rivers, and Sally Hawkins of "Happy-Go-Lucky," smartly cast against type as Jane's awful aunt, Mrs. Reed.

Wasikowska, Tim Burton's Alice and the daughter in "The Kids Are All Right," looks exactly right as a heroine the author famously described as "plain and small as myself."

Wasikowska acquits herself well here, but without a lot of access to the book's florid recounting of her rich interior life, her performance is of necessity restricted to the narrow view the world has of her.

And that, especially for people not well-acquainted with the book, does hamstring the proceedings somewhat.

Because screenwriter Moira Buffini ("Tamara Drewe") has shrewdly chosen to tell the story not chronologically, as the novel does, but through flashback, it is Wasikowska's adult Jane whose acquaintance we make first.

Clearly a determined young woman, if a distraught one, Jane is shown fleeing a house in what we soon see is complete despair.

A woman with no resources in the middle of nowhere, she lands, drenched and exhausted, at the doorstep of a home occupied by two sisters and their minister brother St. John Rivers.

They take her in and gradually the film reveals what brought her to this state.

It starts with a dreadful childhood, raised by that aunt who has no use for her followed by an even bleaker period in a charity school run by people who delight in mistreating children.

A passionate truth-teller whose goal is to experience life as anyone's equal, Jane hopes for the best when she takes a job as a governess for a wealthy man's young French ward.

That man would be Edward Rochester, and from the moment he enters the film on his famously stumbling horse, things take a turn for the better.

If the depiction of Jane's younger years veers dangerously close to hysteria, the film gains its footing as Rochester's horse loses his.

As convincingly played by Fassbender, best known so far for roles in British indies "Hunger" and "Fishtank," Rochester is mercurial, bad-tempered and very sure of himself.

And yet, almost as much against his will as against her own, he finds himself appreciating the qualities in Jane that others have ignored or reviled.

Someone who wants distraction from "the mire of my thoughts," Rochester is visibly energized by the spirited give-and-take conversations he has with Jane.

With Fassbender's charisma igniting his co-star as well as himself, these sparring interchanges, both captivating and entertaining, are where this "Jane Eyre" finally catches fire.GO!

'JANE EYRE'
·Featuring: Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga
·Where: Osio in Monterey
·Rating: PG-13, for thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content
·Running time: 1 hour, 50 minutes

http://kaysteiger.blogspot.com/2011/03/re-imagining-jane-eyre.html

Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Re-imagining Jane Eyre
A couple of weeks ago, Amanda Hess tweeted, "Is there a more unappealing romantic lead than Mr. Rochester?" It's a really good question. And the answer is, there probably aren't many male romantic leads more unappealing than the jerky Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre.

Jane Eyre, the iconic novel by Charlotte Brontë has been recently re-adapted for the screen starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. We are once again presented with the story of a girl who fell in love with a rather unlikable man. The film has even inspired a challenge from The Hairpin that Jane Eyre, while a genuinely excellent book, pales in comparison to Brontë's work in Villette.

I recently re-read the book and watched the new film. I should note, this is the only film adaptation I've seen of the book. Spoilers ahead (though c'mon, the book was published more than 150 years ago).

The new remake takes care to pluck some of the more feminist-themed language from the novel and depict some of the key scenes that transcend the relationship from fairy tale to realistically complicated relationship. Freedom is a key theme in Jane Eyre, and much of it has to do with the freedom of women in this time.

For Jane, the titular character in the novel, she finds freedom through love. But it is love with a twist; Brontë makes the simple point that love—and ultimately marriage—should be between equals.

The power of this notion might be lost on modern women, who enjoy many freedoms women didn't in the era during which Jane Eyre is set, but the power to choose one's partner—as an equal—was a rather radical notion back in the day. Fans of Jane Austin's work note that much of her satire revolves around women jockeying for partners who will improve their status in live, and that status-changing partner isn't always chosen because of love. Generally women who loved the men they married in this time felt they lucked out. The radical notion of marriage between equals is what makes Jane Eyre a feminist (or, some might say, pre-feminist) story.

But much as this book is about gender, it is also about the freedom that comes with class. At the beginning of the book, Jane is poor. But though Jane is poor, it's clear she ranks above servants in the book. She works, but she is better educated than servants and had the freedom to leave her job if she wanted to. And much as Jane seems to genuinely in love with Rochester, he also represents the freedom that comes with money. Just because Jane Eyre is more earnest than Jane Austin's work doesn't mean the motivation to obtain a status-changing marriage disappears. In the end, Jane and Rochester only marry once their status has evened out a bit—after Jane has inherited a substantial sum of money.

It is possibly his financial status that, in part, makes Rochester more appealing to Jane. The character is imperfect: We witness him as dishonest, exhibit vaguely stalker-ish qualities, and speak in a manner that is quite rude. But Jane herself is a flawed character: She's awkward, defiant, and loves someone as imperfect as herself. In my mind, the idea that Rochester is unappealing is kind of the point of Jane Eyre. After all, it might be even more annoying if he were perfect.

Today, the idea of marriages between equals isn't so radical. Stephanie Coontz, in her most recent book, A Strange Stirring, in which she examines the effects of The Feminine Mystique, notes that bringing attention to gender inequality may have initially resulted in more divorces and declines in marriage happiness. But now that the idea that American marriages should be partnership between equals is considered a good thing. As a result, men and women are reporting happier marriages than they were before feminism arrived on the scene. Life partnerships need to be built on mutual respect, and that notion isn't so radical today.

For the most part, Jane Eyre is a window into the past. It depicts a time when women had few freedoms and women with little means had even fewer, but that window into the past reminds us of how far we have come today.

http://agoodstoppingpoint.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/quick-thoughts-on-the-recent-jane-eyre-film/

March 28, 2011 · 4:34 pm
↓ Jump to Comments
Quick thoughts on the recent Jane Eyre film

Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and so I was eagerly anticipating the most recent film adaptation, especially as the trailer looked promising. I have seen a lot of film adaptations of Jane Eyre, as I once made it a sort of personal project to see a bunch of them.

The versions I’ve seen:

1943 feature film with Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles

1983 miniseries with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton

1996 feature-length with Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt

1997 feature-length with Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds

2006 miniseries with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens

Sad to say, I disliked all of the above except the 2006 mini-series. Ruth Wilson was the only Jane I liked from the above actresses, the only one who seemed to capture Jane’s particular brand of quiet, direct fortitude. The 2006 version certainly made departures from the text, but to me, the departures seemed like reasonable extrapolations and teasing out of themes and implications present in the book. I kind of like filmmakers making the source material their own, as long as the story is still recognizable in its new form. Faithful adaptations (and the 1983 miniseries was very faithful) can sometimes be dull and plodding.

But back to the 2011 film: I am happy to say that in this new version, Mia Wasikowska makes a wonderful Jane and Michael Fassbender is well-cast as Mr. Rochester as well. Collapsing of scenes from the book were gracefully done. The cinematography is beautiful, and the camera stays close to the composed yet expressive heroine at its center.

The dialogue that is spoken is definitely familiar if you’ve read the book; actually, I actually welcomed some of the deviations, considering how many film versions I’ve seen of the story. At times, I thought the actors had some difficulty delivering the lines naturally – sometimes they really seemed like ‘lines of dialogue’ as opposed to a real conversation. But a rewatch might not yield the same judgment. The ending was not where I expected it to be, but fit well with the atmosphere of the film overall.

Of course with a feature-length film, I was left wanting more, especially more Jane and Mr. Rochester scenes. The 2006 miniseries I think remains my favorite because the central relationship has time to be developed – you can clearly see how the two are such kindred spirits. But, the 2011 version is definitely the best feature-length version of Jane Eyre that I’ve seen. I will probably add it to my DVD collection once it is released.

http://commentarytrack.com/2011/04/02/movie-review-jane-eyre-2011/

Movie Review – Jane Eyre (2011)
Posted on April 2, 2011 by commentarytrack

by HELEN GEIB

There’s an eternal debate in film reviewing circles over how much attention to pay to an adaptation’s merits as an adaptation; that is, as opposed to its merits as a standalone work. To a large extent, I find the debate moot because an adaptation by its nature exists in relation to its source. Like it or not, like the original or not, know anything of the original or not, an adaptation is an adaptation is an adaptation- not an original work.

The newest version of Charlotte Bronte’s famed Gothic romance Jane Eyre brings the point home. The novel is too big a title, its love story too much a fixture of popular culture to ignore. Even people who haven’t read the book will start off by acknowledging that very fact and those of us who have read it, can’t un-read it for purposes of writing a review. Although the collective gasp of surprise when Jane returned to Thornfield Hall made it clear that many in the audience know the story only in its broad outlines, there can surely be few for whom Jane Eyre exists in a vacuum.

And anyway, and perhaps most to the point as it concerns this review, looking at a film adaptation as an adaptation interests me. All the more so where the underlying work is the major source both of what works and of what doesn’t work alike. I hope this review will be worth reading whether you’ve read the book or not. You can let me know in the comments.

(For the record, I read Jane Eyre several years ago. I remember it clearly but not in detail. While I enjoyed and admired it in parts, my taste in nineteenth century English novels lies in other quarters.)

To start with what doesn’t work in the book, screenwriter Moira Buffini evidently shares my assessment of Jane’s sojourn with St. John after her flight from Mr. Rochester’s Thornfield Hall. The deadly passage is broken into two parts to blunt its impact, with the first segment moved up to the start of the film. The picture of Jane’s present unhappiness is further punctuated by evocative flashbacks to her miserable childhood. Although the time constraints of a two hour film require drastic abridgement of this portion of the novel, we are treated to vivid sketches of her hardhearted aunt, wastrel-in-the-making cousin, and Helen, the idolized friend from the terrible school.

From there the film moves seamlessly into a long, unbroken flashback of Jane’s time at Thornfield before returning to present day. Between the conclusion of the essentially satisfying flashback and the truly lovely final scenes, the film- like the novel- founders on the shoals of St. John and the plot point of Jane’s rich benefactor uncle in the colonies. The latter is not only ridiculous, but superfluous; it won’t play to today’s audiences and should have been cut, fidelity be hanged. The former should have been either modernized completely or transferred faithfully from the page. The film’s muddled characterization is the inevitable result of trying to do both.

Where the film excels is in the central point: its Jane. Because Jane has no confidante and the script resists the easy out of voiceover narration, the characterization is mostly performance-based. Mia Wasikowska’s outstanding performance conveys Bronte’s heroine’s passionate nature, loneliness, affections, and resilience. The rest of the film, especially Cary Fukunaga’s direction and the cinematography, supports the performance by creating atmospheric surroundings for Jane. Thornfield Hall, the gardens and grounds, and the moors beyond change character with Jane’s emotions.

The film’s narrative can be broken out into three storylines. First is one of the standout strengths of the novel: Jane’s determined struggle to maintain an independent spirit despite her dependent situation. It is based in the characterization and Wasikowska’s performance and is realized quite well.

As to the love story, the filmmakers give Jane an attractive Mr. Rochester. He is given a tortured charisma by Michael Fassbender. The film’s Rochester is a more appealing personality than the book’s, but I approve the change because we need to see what Jane sees in him if we’re to want the couple to be together; particularly given Rochester’s necessarily limited screen time. On the negative side, the man is still saddled with some terribly unnatural dialogue.

Unexpectedly, the film does not seem much interested in the Gothic mystery for which the novel is famous. The household isn’t tense and on edge, Jane is oddly incurious, and the big reveal is notably anticlimactic. Dread is subordinated to romance.

In all, I enjoyed Jane Eyre quite a lot without ever quite being convinced that it’s more than skin deep. It is an effective mood piece with lovely cinematography and fine performances, and offers the reliable visual delights of the nineteenth century country-house England movie. And if that’s not a recognized sub-genre all its own, well, it should be.

3 stars

**********

Possibly Related Posts: (Commentary Track generated)

Director Cary Fukanaga’s prior film was the contemporary immigration drama Sin Nombre.

http://hokahey-littleworlds.blogspot.com/2011/04/beautiful-jane-eyre-2011.html

Saturday, April 2, 2011
Beautiful Jane Eyre (2011)

Cary Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre is a beautiful film. Fukunaga’s camera frames expansive shots of the somber moor in contrast with the bright blossoms of Rochester’s gardens. Interior shots of windows and curtains full of light are memorable as well. The film’s colors seem to shift with its mood: from the grays and muted colors of the austere moorland and the foggy woods to the bright greens of Thornfield’s grounds to a brown filter over shots of Jane awakening to her love for Rochester.

Along with the film’s pretty look we get an excellent cast. Michael Fassbender plays a moody, manly, passionate Edward Rochester. Jamie Bell is nicely cast as the fervent missionary, St. John Rivers, and Judi Dench reins in her tendency to overact as she invests Mrs. Fairfax with warmth and humor. But the driving force of Jane Eyre is the remarkable portrayal of Jane by Mia Wasikowska, whose absorbing performance and beautiful presence magnify the film’s visual beauty.

Costumed in plain dresses, her hair pulled back severely, Wasikowska brilliantly establishes the strength of character and soul that constitutes the most famous plain Jane in British literature. Wasikowska instills in Jane a firm sense of self and an inner strength tempered by loss and suffering that support her when Rochester’s devious attempt to defy moral custom is followed by the proposition that she live with him out of wedlock. The aborted wedding, Jane’s desperate struggle to unfasten the wedding garments that have ensnared her, her confrontation with Rochester and the truth, and her flight from Thornfield to the stormy moor are dramatic moments in a well-written script.

Though Sally Hawkins contributes histrionics to a deathbed apology that doesn’t quite fit, and the end comes too quickly after Jane leaves Rivers, with the dramatic fire covered after the fact in stage play fashion as a monologue delivered by Dench, the film achieves a lasting impact by setting Wasichowska’s impressive portrayal of an oft-portrayed character in a visual world of artistically framed shots and dramatically juxtaposed images and colors.
Posted by Hokahey at 6:30 PM