I may be impossible to please where Jane Eyre is concerned
Because I needed more after X-Men: First Class, and because I remembered 
skygiants/bookelfe talking about it fondly (sorry, btw, I still haven't read Fredrika Bremer), I watched the 2011 version of Jane Eyre.
My immediate impression was that if you stick Michael Fassbender with Ruth Wilson, you might end up with a Jane Eyre that actually feels right. Then again, maybe not.
I admit, Jane Eyre is too close to my heart for me to watch any adaptation as I feel adaptations should be watched, which is as separate works of art rather than as illustrated classics. Whenever I try to detach myself, I have to admit that it's a very nice piece with lots of great details - and Fassbender is as right a Rochester as I've ever seen.
But you guys, they started it off with a damsel in distress scene. And even the traditional starting point, the fight, had Jane so frightened and cowed that I winced. The direction and the performance(s) both created a character that was compelling and likeable, but not Jane.
Jane is, very very essentially, the mouse that roared, a simmering fire in a meek headdress. She is defined by her passion - as an adult, she keeps it bridled and controlled, but it's still there, in every word. I saw very little of that in Mia Wasikowska, and none of the humour.
Still, she was at least remotely on the right page. Jamie Bell for Saint John Rivers? No. Not even. How you can look at that character and not see what he represents, the chill of duty that aims to quench every raw emotion... IDEK.
Altogether, it may be Jane Eyre, or at least the cliff notes version, but it's not Jane Eyre.
But it had a helluva lot better Rochester than William Hurt or Toby Stephens. So I'm torn.
This entry was originally posted at http://katta.dreamwidth.org/547266.html and has
comments there.
skygiants/bookelfe talking about it fondly (sorry, btw, I still haven't read Fredrika Bremer), I watched the 2011 version of Jane Eyre.
My immediate impression was that if you stick Michael Fassbender with Ruth Wilson, you might end up with a Jane Eyre that actually feels right. Then again, maybe not.
I admit, Jane Eyre is too close to my heart for me to watch any adaptation as I feel adaptations should be watched, which is as separate works of art rather than as illustrated classics. Whenever I try to detach myself, I have to admit that it's a very nice piece with lots of great details - and Fassbender is as right a Rochester as I've ever seen.
But you guys, they started it off with a damsel in distress scene. And even the traditional starting point, the fight, had Jane so frightened and cowed that I winced. The direction and the performance(s) both created a character that was compelling and likeable, but not Jane.
Jane is, very very essentially, the mouse that roared, a simmering fire in a meek headdress. She is defined by her passion - as an adult, she keeps it bridled and controlled, but it's still there, in every word. I saw very little of that in Mia Wasikowska, and none of the humour.
Still, she was at least remotely on the right page. Jamie Bell for Saint John Rivers? No. Not even. How you can look at that character and not see what he represents, the chill of duty that aims to quench every raw emotion... IDEK.
Altogether, it may be Jane Eyre, or at least the cliff notes version, but it's not Jane Eyre.
But it had a helluva lot better Rochester than William Hurt or Toby Stephens. So I'm torn.
This entry was originally posted at http://katta.dreamwidth.org/547266.html and has
comments there.