Hee - it was the opposite for me! I loved Mia Wasikowska's Jane, quiet reserve and all - she's not the only Jane I could ever love, but I did love her. Whereas I found Fassbender's Rochester so unmemorable that, um, it took me a while to remember who Fassbender was when everyone started talking about X-Men . . . though I am glad I remember who he is now! He has hilarious facial expressions.
(But then it's not the passion that defines Jane for me as much as her determination to hold her own dignity, so maybe I didn't miss that as much.)
I liked Fassbender because he really was the dick that Rochester is - and a lot less attractive than Stephens, who just plain isn't believable as a Vulcanic character.
I think, after having sleeping on it, that the trouble with this Jane isn't so much the acting - though different acting could have saved it - as the writing. Every bit where Jane asserts her strength is either omitted or changed, while all the weepy waily bits are left in and heightened. And the scenes with the drawings fall completely flat; how is someone who hasn't read the books supposed to realize the significance of her fantasies?
It's certainly possible to leave the theater after this one thinking that Jane isn't a wet blanket, but it's also possible to leave it thinking that she is, and that bugs me.
I adore the book so much I usually read it once a year. I thought the 2011 version was pretty meh - the director was clearly more concerned with the gothic art direction than the lead character.
My favorite adaptation is the 1996 version, with Charlotte Gainsbourgh and William Hurt. Certainly, the physicality of the casting is as close as I've ever seen to the book; Jane is indeed quite plain, with none of the usual "oh-look-she's-beautiful-when-she-takes-her-glasses-off" nonsense, and Mr. Rochester is considerably older than she.
William Hurt doesn't have the passion required for Mr. Rochester, but Gainsbourgh is pretty amazing, I think.
The Gainsbourgh/Hurt version was the first one I saw, but I don't remember it very well. I generally liked it, I think, except that I was disappointed that they cut out the funny stuff and that Hurt was so bland.
The 2006 version kept the bits I liked, but suffered a bit from Toby Stephens - not his acting, really, just that he's so young and dashing that he comes off a bit like Mowgli trying to roar.
Comments 4
(But then it's not the passion that defines Jane for me as much as her determination to hold her own dignity, so maybe I didn't miss that as much.)
Reply
I think, after having sleeping on it, that the trouble with this Jane isn't so much the acting - though different acting could have saved it - as the writing. Every bit where Jane asserts her strength is either omitted or changed, while all the weepy waily bits are left in and heightened. And the scenes with the drawings fall completely flat; how is someone who hasn't read the books supposed to realize the significance of her fantasies?
It's certainly possible to leave the theater after this one thinking that Jane isn't a wet blanket, but it's also possible to leave it thinking that she is, and that bugs me.
Reply
My favorite adaptation is the 1996 version, with Charlotte Gainsbourgh and William Hurt. Certainly, the physicality of the casting is as close as I've ever seen to the book; Jane is indeed quite plain, with none of the usual "oh-look-she's-beautiful-when-she-takes-her-glasses-off" nonsense, and Mr. Rochester is considerably older than she.
William Hurt doesn't have the passion required for Mr. Rochester, but Gainsbourgh is pretty amazing, I think.
Reply
The 2006 version kept the bits I liked, but suffered a bit from Toby Stephens - not his acting, really, just that he's so young and dashing that he comes off a bit like Mowgli trying to roar.
Reply
Leave a comment