Finally...here it is my entry to Wendell@Dell on Movies In With the New blogathon. A little late but just in time for Wendell's new deadline. The gist of the blogathon is to pick a remake/reimagining that is better than the original. One caveat is that no sequels are allowed. Since I love watching adaptations of books and tend to watch different adaptations of them I immediately went for an adaptation and it is:
Jane Eyre
The thing that book readers have to get used to is that any adaptation of a book will most likely fall short of what you want it to be. Firstly nothing is going to be able to be that perfect little movie that plays out in your head as you read. Secondly they're never going to fit in hundreds of pages in a two hour movie, something will be left out, but most of all the adaptation is going to be someone else interpretation of the book, not yours. Now Jane Eyre is one of those books that is old enough and popular enough to have been adapted countless times. So if you're a fan of Jane Eyre, like me, you're bound to find something you'd like in one of the many adaptations, which I have. Since this is a movie blogathon, I'm only sticking to the movie adaptations.
The earliest of the three Jane Eyre movies I've seen is the 1943 version. I was actually really looking forward to this because Joan Fontaine who plays Jane was brilliant in Rebecca (as Rebecca) just 3 years earlier and that story is pretty much a modern day version of the Jane Eyre story, but unfortunately the movie is unremarkable so much so that I have forgotten I have ever seen it. The next Jane Eyre adaptation is the 1996 version which I thought had a good Jane in Charlotte Gainsbourg. However, the childhood part of Jane Eyre was a little length and incredibly overacted and the thing that probably hurt this movie the most was that William Hurt was terribly miscast as Rochester. So with this blogathon being about the new being better, it is pretty clear that the 2011 adaptation is the one I think is better and here's a few reasons why (beware of some spoilers).
The non linear narrative. It tells a well known story differently and that is refreshing, beginning at the 2/3 point of the novel where Jane flees Thornfield and the story goes back and forth before finally catching up.
A gothic tale will not do without beautiful sweeping shots of the moors.
Seriously this movie is visually stunning.
And I have to add sometimes we forget that there was no electricity in the 19th century with the amount of light in the night scenes of some period movies, so I thought it was great that this Jane Eyre had a lot of night scenes lit only by the warm glow of a few candles.
The music. There were some beautiful string music used to heighten the tense scenes.
I like Jane for her independent spirit, her quiet strength, restraint and resoluteness, but the book is told in first person and with Jane being such a quiet internal character it can be quite a difficult story and character to put on screen. With a lesser screenplay and actress, Jane Eyre may appear dense and passive, but Mia Wasikowska plays it so well. She is so expressive, saying so much with so little.
| "I'm not fond of children. Nor do I particularly enjoy simple minded old ladies. But you might suit me, if you would." |
| "Ah, there you are! Just like one of your tricks to steal in along with the twilight. If I dared to touch you, see if you were real." |
Rochester we all know is the older man, master of the house, a brooder, surly and abrupt. What I find missing in some of the other adaptations is the mean cutting remarks Rochester make to the people he doesn't care for and also the playful and teasing side of Rochester especially when he is with Jane, so it's great to see that all of these sides of Rochester made it to this adaptation and Michael Fassbender has just the right mix of darkness and charm as Rochester.
Lastly the chemistry between the leads is electric and came through especially well in their parting scene.
So that's my pick of a new adaptation that I think is better than the earlier ones I've seen. Have you seen this Jane Eyre? How do you think it fare against the other adaptations?
So that's my pick of a new adaptation that I think is better than the earlier ones I've seen. Have you seen this Jane Eyre? How do you think it fare against the other adaptations?
I've only seen the 2011 adaptation so I can't compare but Wasikowska and Fassbender were good in their roles. Their pairing was a bit strange at first, but it worked out. The non-linear timeline surprised me, I was thisclose to picking up the book and checking if it did start like that.
ReplyDeleteWhen the movie was casted, I thought Wasikowska could be Jane but Fassbender, at least physically, didn't look like a Rochester but like you said characteristically they portrayed it right.
DeleteI like the non-linear storytelling, a different way to tell the story and for those unfamiliar to the story, adds to the mystery of what could have happen to Jane for her to choose to flee a great house and become destitute. It is, at least to me, seem like a modern way to tell a story. I haven't read a lot of classics so I am curious if any have employed a non linear narrative.
Jane Eyre is one of my all time favorite films!!! Mia Wasikowska was so great. She and Fassbender really did have great chemistry, and the film was beautifully shot. Such a great choice!
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the deleted scenes? There's one that involves Bertha tearing up Jane's veil. It's so creepy. They had to leave it out because it ruined the flow of the film.
Yes I did see it. This movie excluded some of the Bertha stuff. I guess I understand why that veil scene was excluded because in order to include it, keep the flow intact and make that scene make more sense, they probably had to have more scenes with Grace Poole and the weird sounds in the house which the movie likely just didn't have time for.
DeleteI'm afraid of ignorant of all of these versions. Not that I haven't heard of them, just haven't seen them. I'm very aware of both Wasikowska and Fassbender, however. Other performances of theirs lends to the idea that things would work out just the way you say they would. I'm thinking in particular of Wasikowska in "Stoker." In that film, she often has to say much without speaking and pulls it off beautifully. For Fassbender, it's his portrayals of Magneto in the X-Men movies. That's a character with plenty of charm and charisma who is ultimately the villain and Fassbender pulls it off nicely. Thanks so much for playing along!
ReplyDeleteHope you do see this one day. Love to know what you think of it.
DeleteYou mention two very good similar performances there that gives a good gauge of what one can expect in Jane Eyre. Though of course when I saw Jane Eyre, the two films have yet to come out.
I haven't seen the William Hurt version but have seen the Fontaine and Fassbender ones. Visually the more recent one is a stunner and Fassy is fine as Rochester but Mia W. didn't do much for me. Though the '43 version had that amazing supporting cast including the incredibly young Elizabeth Taylor I found Joan Fontaine very wan and rather insipid but Orson Welles to me is the perfect Rochester. His size and lumbering somewhat menacing presence fit the part like a glove. I'd call it a draw for me between the two.
ReplyDeleteHaha...I love that you said lumbering and yes physically Welles does look like a Rochester though I didn't really like his portrayal.
DeleteYASSS!!!! The only version I've seen is the 2011 version, which was just utter perfection...for every reason you mention!
ReplyDelete:) Glad you like it too.
DeleteOut of this three, the 2011 is simply the best! I couldn't even finish the Orson Welles version and I agree William Hurt is miscast as Rochester. My absolute fave now has got to be the 2006 BBC version w/ Toby Stephens as Rochester and Ruth Wilson as Jane, absolutely superb and it's also beautifully-shot.
ReplyDeleteGlad you like the 2011 version too. I have seen the 2006 mini series too. It being a mini series is able to squeeze more of the Jane Eyre story in it and Ruth Wilson is great as Jane. But some scenes in it felt a little modern and Rochester a little too jolly but overall I really like it as well and I really can't choose between the 2006 miniseries and the 2011 movie.
Delete