005. JANE EYRE, R. STEVENSON | 1944 | | seen 01.15.12
I had to see it, because I loved Fokunaga's adaptation so much, and a certain SOMEONE got me hooked and now I can't stop comparing them. This character is a very independent, fierce, free-spirited, courageous woman who won't let people walk all over her just because they can. What I liked more in the recent version is that you can actually see that in Mia Wasikowska's acting and attitude: she is shown being bullied by her cousin but she fights back. The weak point of this earlier version is the fact that Jane is basically an angel. She doesn't do anything wrong but everyone treats her like the Devil's spawn and she doesn't get angry (merely irritated at first by Rochester during his own version of the Spanish Inquisition). The characters in Fokunaga's adaptation had much more depth and credibility. But I can't deny the fact that the cinematography in Stevenson's version was absolutely gorgeous: highly contrasted black and white playing with candle lights and fog, gorgeous scenery (both sets looked very much alike). Of course, the always amazing Orson Welles playing gloomy Rochester was just a pleasure to watch; he plays the haunted beast brilliantly. The movie was a pleasure for the eyes. I was a bit disappointed by the love confession scene: it was so beautiful in the recent version that I don't think anything could have top that; the way Mia Wasikowska acted that scene (so torn and wrecked and unable to control feelings, tongue or tears) was one of the best performance I had ever seen. It was truly heartbreaking to see her struggling with those feelings she wasn't supposed to acknowledge, having so little faith in the possibility of being loved by this man and still, believing that she deserved that love from another human being, regardless of ranks, religion or society. Simply as an equal. The 1944 version seemed a bit dull compared to that but I guess the eras play a lot in this case. In my eyes, Joan Fontaine lacked this passion that maybe the movie industry in the XXIst century allowed Mia Wasikowska to have.
:') am I, by any chance, that someone or do you know someone else with an insane Jane Eyre situation?
I have my issues with Fukunaga's version but I get what you're saying and I'm pretty sure I would have had a similar opinion, had I seen it before the BBC version.
| seen 01.15.12
I had to see it, because I loved Fokunaga's adaptation so much, and a certain SOMEONE got me hooked and now I can't stop comparing them.
This character is a very independent, fierce, free-spirited, courageous woman who won't let people walk all over her just because they can. What I liked more in the recent version is that you can actually see that in Mia Wasikowska's acting and attitude: she is shown being bullied by her cousin but she fights back. The weak point of this earlier version is the fact that Jane is basically an angel. She doesn't do anything wrong but everyone treats her like the Devil's spawn and she doesn't get angry (merely irritated at first by Rochester during his own version of the Spanish Inquisition). The characters in Fokunaga's adaptation had much more depth and credibility. But I can't deny the fact that the cinematography in Stevenson's version was absolutely gorgeous: highly contrasted black and white playing with candle lights and fog, gorgeous scenery (both sets looked very much alike). Of course, the always amazing Orson Welles playing gloomy Rochester was just a pleasure to watch; he plays the haunted beast brilliantly. The movie was a pleasure for the eyes.
I was a bit disappointed by the love confession scene: it was so beautiful in the recent version that I don't think anything could have top that; the way Mia Wasikowska acted that scene (so torn and wrecked and unable to control feelings, tongue or tears) was one of the best performance I had ever seen. It was truly heartbreaking to see her struggling with those feelings she wasn't supposed to acknowledge, having so little faith in the possibility of being loved by this man and still, believing that she deserved that love from another human being, regardless of ranks, religion or society. Simply as an equal. The 1944 version seemed a bit dull compared to that but I guess the eras play a lot in this case. In my eyes, Joan Fontaine lacked this passion that maybe the movie industry in the XXIst century allowed Mia Wasikowska to have.
Reply
I have my issues with Fukunaga's version but I get what you're saying and I'm pretty sure I would have had a similar opinion, had I seen it before the BBC version.
That you should watch, by the way.
Sooner rather than later.
Today rather than tomorrow.
Now rather than in 5 hours.
Just saying.
& now I really want to watch the 1944 version >:]
Reply
yesss I really wanna watch it now! and read the book!
Reply
Reply
Reply
ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES AAAAAAAAA
ok shutting up now. no pressure Ga, no pressure. :')
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment