I need a "general movies icon." This goes on my list of "12 zillion icon ideas to make ASAP" list.

[tzikeh]

So, I saw Jane Eyre yesterday.


Recipe:

1) Cast the perfect Jane (Mia Wasikowska ILU).

2) Fuck up the rest of the movie by removing any and all instances of joy, leaving only the dreary parts;

don't explain (or totally eliminate) important parts of the story;

give other parts of the story explanations that are entirely NOT the explanations in the book;

spend half of the film's two hours showing characters wandering alone, looking around wistfully/apprehensively at nothing in particular, and saying nothing at all.

Bleh. I have no idea why so many reviews are giving it above-average marks. Wasikowska deserved a better adaptation.

A poll!

[Poll #1731116]
In conclusion: Jane Eyre FTW! \o/

Comments

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

I actually thought Michael Fassbender was good too, but (a) you're right, nobody, no matter how talented, could crawl out of that joyless adaptation and (b) he and Mia Wasikowska seemed to be in different versions -- they each had a fine interpretation of the character and a solid performance, except that these interpretations didn't mesh in a way that created chemistry or made their romance plausible.

My favorite is the Ruth Wilson/Toby Stephens version. They add a lot of extra stuff, and it's no doubt overheated, but another word for overheated is HOT. But my main reason for preferring it is that it's the one version I've seen so far that makes you feel that Jane and Rochester genuinely like each other, as well as love -- it's the one version I've seen thus far (and I haven't seen a couple of the above) in which their verbal fencing is shown as mutual, and mutually enjoyable. Too often it reads as Rochester just browbeating Jane; Ruth Wilson's Jane gives as good as she gets (and Toby Stephens' Rochester acknowledges every point she scores.) Without that give and take, I don't think JANE EYRE WORKS.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you on all three points. I see no reason that what the Wilson/Stephens version added *couldn't* be true, just because it isn't in the book, whereas the Wasikowska/Fassbender version removes so much of the book that it's almost saying "If you haven't read Jane Eyre, good luck!

[yahtzee63.livejournal.com]

I remember the moment when they showed the "we're in love!" montage set to music after the proposal, and going, "Oh, lord, it's come to this."

A pity, really, given how good Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender were (and Judi Dench, in the 90 seconds of screen time she got), and the innovative take on the narrative structure, which I think would have worked beautifully in a more sensitive, thought-out adaptation.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

and Judi Dench, in the 90 seconds of screen time she got

Yes; talk about wasted talent.

Also, the party? Um, people don't travel all that way for, what, a weekend?

Frankly, the movie has already mostly disappeared from my mind, since I came home from it with the burning urge to watch the Wilson/Stephens one again and immediately downloaded it and watched all four hours.

[kirbyfest.livejournal.com]

Without that give and take, I don't think JANE EYRE WORKS.

Amen, sister. Jane is friggin' awesome, and I don't think most adaptations get that; the Wilson/Stephens version does, and really brings out how remarkable Jane is as well as the relationship between her and Rochester.

[klia.livejournal.com]

Though I liked both Orson Welles and Ciaran Hines very much as Rochester, it was Toby Stephens who finally made me understand how Jane ever fell in love with him. I know they added a lot to his Rochester that wasn't in the book, but that's probably why I liked him so much.

I'm glad I read comments here, because I really wanted to see Michael Fassbender's Rochester, and was wondering if it was worth seeing in the theater. Now I think I'll wait for the DVD.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

The thing about the Fassbender interpretation that failed for me is that the Rochester's underlying personality is that he's very mercurial. I think there are several lines in the novel about how changeable his mood is. Toby Stephens really nailed that--his moods go from "RAAAR" to "WHEEE!", often in the same scene, but Fassbender's moods go from "heh" to "bleh."

It's a shame, really. And the color palette of the film *never changes*, not from Lowood to Thornfield to where St. John and his sisters live. It's... grey, and then kind of greyish, and then grey with some sunshine, and then grey again.

[klia.livejournal.com]

That's really disappointing. I'm kind of glad we didn't go yesterday after all.

[loz]

I have to agree with Ruth Wilson/Toby Stephens, but I still hate that book, sorry!

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

LOL! Nothing to be sorry about! Glad you can enjoy the Wilson/Stephens adaptation, anyway.

[lamardeuse.livejournal.com]

God, I'm so torn between the Joan Fontaine/Orson Welles and the Samantha MOrton/Ciaràn Hinds version. /o\

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

I'm so sorry! I know! But, alas, in this poll, There Can Be Only One.

[miss-pryss.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed the movie a lot more than you, mostly because it appealed to my shallow appreciation of STYLE... but it did have this element of... well, it was like watching a fan-vid. The movie assumes you know the story inside out, so what it's giving you are The Good Bits.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

I can see that--maybe I just didn't like the style at all. Interesting that you compare it to a fan-vid. I can see it through that lens, but to me, those fan-vids that go the route of "here are The Good Bits" are not fan-vids that are at all interesting to me.

[misspamela.livejournal.com]

Sooooo, not a good choice for someone who hasn't read the book, then. I was going to go just for Jamie Bell.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

:D I highly recommend, for anyone who hasn't read the book, the BBC adaptation with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens.

If you happen to have Dropbox (it's free), I am certain that it could be in your hands... very soon. Very, very soon.

If you don't have Dropbox, drop me a line at thechicagoloop.net - with tzikeh@ first. :D

[lapislaz.livejournal.com]

Um, I do happen to have a dropbox and I am intrigued - the last Jane Eyre I saw was the Clark/Dalton one. Am a fan of Dalton's and I liked it, but thought the woman playing Jane just didn't stand up to him.

You can contact me at this LJ name at Gmail.

Jamie Bell

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Also, Bell plays a relatively small role, cut down to almost nothing in this adaptation.

Re: Jamie Bell

[misspamela.livejournal.com]

Bummer!

I do have dropbox, but I think I'm going to give the book a go first. I have along list of Shit I Should Have Read by Now and that is on it!

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

I don't think this is what they intended but I TOTALLY left that movie shipping Jane/St.John. And not just because I think Jamie Bell grew up hot. I mean come on, he's the dude we see her meet first, we see him rescue her and carry her from the doorstep, there's that 'sisterly' kiss, and also this Rochester was a total douche.

In my head, Rochester does something idiotic and gets himself killed like 4 years into their marriage, and then St. John comes back from missionarying all tanned and a little more jaded, and Jane comes back to teach at the little schoolhouse for a while to clear her head, and then the real romance ensues.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

BWAH! Yeah, I don't think that's what the filmmaker hoped you'd come away with.

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

I am *seriously* thinking of putting that on my 'list of stories I should write one day' with the added bonus that if it turns out alright, I could totally sell it on amazon or whatever since they're public domain.

UNF, wouldn't it be hot though? They're both a bit more bitter and worldly wise, and maybe he's still a virgin (but she totally isn't, and the sex with Rochester was the one thing that totally worked) and there's TENSION and angst and guilt and furtive coupling and um... yeah. *happy place*

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Well, I can't go there with you--I don't see it that way; but I *can* say that it might be an awesome yuletide request. :D

[miss-pryss.livejournal.com]

LET US NOT FORGET TASTY MISSIONARY GUILT.

[jacquez.livejournal.com]

HAHAHA and then she marries St John and he's all expecting "lie back and think of England" and meanwhile Jane is all "oral sex for everyone!" HAHAHAHAAH.

*wipes eyes*

that is the best thing I have thought about ALL DAY, so thank you.

[jerel.livejournal.com]

I went with the Zelah Clarke/Timothy Dalton adaptation. I wish the school section had been longer, because I think some interesting stuff happened there and the death scene with Helen was beautifully written. But there was a lot of internal monologue in there also, which wouldn't have made for good TV. I thought Dalton did a great job with sullen, angry Rochester--although I agree with the oft-stated critique that he was really too good looking for the role.

But I have a soft spot for Timothy Dalton. He's my second favourite Welshman. :)

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

I remember when I saw the Clarke/Dalton one liking it very much, Wilson/Stephens surpassed it, for me. Clarke/Dalton would have been my second choice for certain.

[serrico.livejournal.com]

Oh my goodness, I Walked With A Zombie. I found that movie on TCM one morning right at the beginning of the nurse's wander through the wilds with her patient to the beat of distant drums, and had to track it down afterward to watch from the beginning. It has Old Movie Black People Issues all over the place, but that sequence is creepy as hell.

...and it may in fact be the only movie adaptation of Jane Eyre I've ever seen, now that I think about it. Huh.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

and it may in fact be the only movie adaptation of Jane Eyre I've ever seen, now that I think about it. Huh.

Oh my God that is the best thing ever.

[anoel.livejournal.com]

Oh thank god someone agrees with me. I haven't read the book in FOREVER so I forgot all of it but the movie just put me to sleep. The lack of joy was totally a huge part. I don't get the good reviews at all other than the perfect actress.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

She so deserved a better script, a better director, and a better DP. Bleh.

[ellen-fremedon.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed the movie, but I was mostly watching for the costuming.

You missed one. I will tell you about it in the comments.

The best adaptation of Jane Eyre is undoubtedly the Animaniacs episode (http://www.yuletidetreasure.org/archive/30/janenarf.html). (It is a pity they never actually got around to filming it, but that is Why We Have Yuletide.)

[thecomfychair.livejournal.com]

haha, I did not realize I Walked With A Zombie was a Jane Eyre adapation, despite the fact that I've seen/read both multiple times. OOPS.

and that's too bad about the movie. I was thinking about seeing it this weekend but it's gotten such mixed reviews. :/

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen mixed reviews at all; in fact, Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics' score is 90% positive, which baffles me.

[thecomfychair.livejournal.com]

yeah, most professional reviews seem to be postive, but every person I know irl who saw it disliked it, basically for the similar reasons you mention above. I don't know where the disconnect is coming from, haha.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

The worst one was the George C. Scott one. George C. Scott as Rochester - really?

[irisbleufic.livejournal.com]

I've neither read the book, nor seen any of these adaptations.

(Neanderthal. Like I said.)