I think I'm going to need to watch this version again at some point to reassess, but I disliked it when I saw it yesterday at the movies.
I just watched a clip on youtube with scenes of some of the different Rochesters and Janes (not including 2011) set to music so you couldn't hear the dialogue and I thought they all pretty much did a good job of expressing emotion in their faces. Then I watched one of Mia and Fassbender and actually, he was good, but she was so flat and sullen looking (for the most part). I don't think she captured the essence of the character at all except for looking suitably plain and youthful.
I know other people have said the same but I'd be interested to know if you did like her performance, why?
The more I watch Mia as Jane Eyre, the less I like the other versions. For some reason, for me, her emotions are strongly portrayed via the tension in her voice, facial expressions, head movements, and her body language. Every time I watch it, I'm trying to figure how anyone could miss what seems very obvious to me. Oh well.
I loved this film & I bawled throughout much of it! I could feel her pain, her disappointment. I thought she was brilliant! I guess different people just take different things from different films/performances. I have never read the book & I have never seen any of the previous Jane Eyre films before either. Maybe this helped?
I think she did alright... although maybe a little bland... and often mumbled/whispered her words and I wasn't too keen on the accent. I would have liked to have seen a little more emotion from her. I also found her a bit cold with Adele. However the scenes with her and Rochester were very captivating... but I think Fassbender really stole the scenes... I was very impressed by his performance.
I'm sure some would argue Wasikowska is a little *too* understated-- "bland", but her eyes alone in some scenes could tell you millions of stories, and that's worth something.
My theory - that she gives you the tiniest hint of an emotion then leaves it up to the viewer to interpret it further with his or her own imagination. Most actors give you the emotion they are expressing on a silver platter and it’s a passive experience. Mia’s acting style allows the viewer to fill in the blanks, put our interpretation on her character. Just like reading a book, when you get to interpret what you read...and that is always better than someone else’s interpretation.
My theory - that she gives you the tiniest hint of an emotion then leaves it up to the viewer to interpret it further with his or her own imagination. Most actors give you the emotion they are expressing on a silver platter and it’s a passive experience. Mia’s acting style allows the viewer to fill in the blanks, put our interpretation on her character. Just like reading a book, when you get to interpret what you read...and that is always better than someone else’s interpretation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh brother. This minimalist approach to Jane drives me nuts. "Keep you eye like a laser on her eyebrow...wait for it...did you catch it?" There are definitely adaptations out there where Jane is too affected. But MW took a part of Jane's personality, her reserve and reticence, and made it dominant. This is not the actor's style, it is her limitation.
This is not the actor's style, it is her limitation.
Or maybe a viewer limitation, some can't understand emotions if they are not very dominant, very explicit. Even in everyday life, some people are clueless and don't notice subtle changes in speech, expressions, and so on, in a conversation.
Actor style or "limitation", it's up to us, viewers, to judge. I, Capitolina, think that Mia did a wonderful job in Jane Eyre and is the best Jane so far. Maybe in some years another actress will come and portray Jane even better, who knows? So far, she is the best.
* * * * * Best film of 2011: The Tree of Life #2 best: Melancholia reply share
Even if you take the view that MW emphasised one part of Janes personality to the detriment of others ( which I don't btw) - that is not necessarily evidence of a restricted acting style. It could also be how she chose to interpret / was directed to play the role.
The evidence seems to be, thus far, that she plays very similar characters in her other films. That suggests to me a one trick pony rather than someone who tamps it way down because of direction. I need to see her in a couple of more films that challenge her diversity as an actor to be more confident in that viewpoint.
Here's an article that SwingBatta linked to a little while back: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8881841/actress_mia_wasikowsk as_acting_style.html?cat=40 The writer is very enamoured of Mia's style of acting, and pits her subtle technique against the "emotive histrionics" of other actors (as if there can't be some sort of happy medium).
I've only seen Mia in Alice in Wonderland and Jane Eyre (Alice bored me to tears.) I don't know whether it was (a) the director's interpretation of Jane that Mia was merely following, or (b) Mia's own understanding of the role, or (c) Mia's limitations as an actress. For whatever reason, I found her portrayal unsatisfying. She was just so darned miserable. That was fine when the story called for it, such as in the leaving scene. 2011's rendering of that part of the book was one of the best I've seen. Mia was also excellent at the beginning when she was initially found by the Rivers family. Yes, she does angst very well. But that's all.
All this talk about her "subtle" style of acting leaves me perplexed. Do we have to belong to some sort of exclusive club to appreciate it? Or is it a case of The Emperor's New Clothes?
I will be buying the DVD at some point, so will have more leisure to observe the "barely noticeable facial tics, a certain look in the eyes or a slight lip quiver".
Lawrence, we're going to need considerably bigger buns!
I don't think you have to belong to an exclusive club to appreciate subtle/ understated acting at all. I am a fan and some of my favourite performances - Benicio Del Toro in Traffic comes to mind - feature and have infact also been criticised for that approach. It wouldn't work on the stage obviously but in the medium of cinema, for some roles ,the nuanced performance can work really well. I also like other styles---
For me, Mias subtle take did match the Jane Eyre of my imagination, so it worked.
Thanks, supergran, for articulating a niggle I couldn't put my finger on. The "elitism" of the notion that you have to have a certain mental predisposition to catch the subtelties and fill in all the blanks in your head. A mental superiority, if you will, that is testified to by the fact that if you don't prefer this style, you lack intelligence and need the in your face delivery that poor simpletons can understand. That, indeed, is another part of this rationale that makes me more than slightly annoyed. It isn't that I don't get it when I watch MW in her role. I'm too familiar with the book for that.
Yep, she can angst all right. But as a contrast to what? I just think it is a poor performance, lifeless, bloodless and soulless. By the time the begging scene came around, I was not buying it. Where did all that emotion come from? Did somebody flip a switch? Her tears might as well be windshield washer fluid.
1. If you've only seen Mia in Alice and Jane Eyre, then you haven't seen much of her at all. There's also In Treatment, The Kids Are All Right, That Evening Sun (not sure if it's available on Netflix in the UK, though), and her short films, all of which are linked on her Wikipedia page.
2. You don't have to belong to some club to enjoy her acting style. Some people see it as subtle (like myself), and some don't. (Just like, of course, Ruth Wilson; I couldn't stand her in JE; others think she's fantastic. No big deal.) What I don't like is when people automatically label Mia as "wooden" because she's not bouncing off the walls.
You're right, SB. My exposure to Mia is very limited, which is why I hesitate to condemn her acting style based purely on Jane Eyre. After all, as I say in my post, her portrayal may just be interpretation. I don't happen to agree with that interpretation, but that is beside the point.
I suppose I find the tone of that article rather smug - suggesting that those who fail to see the "subtle projection of something compelling from deep inside" as suffering from "attention deficit disorder". Now, I need to watch the DVD closely when I finally get it to see if there is something that I've hitherto missed. But it's an annoying thing to say, nevertheless.
Finally, I certainly don't think that the actress who plays Jane should be "bouncing off the walls". If that criticism is directed at Ruth Wilson, then I believe it is misplaced. Ruth gave an understated performance in all places except where it mattered - the proposal scene. Her rendering of that scene was straight from the book.
Lawrence, we're going to need considerably bigger buns!
Finally, I certainly don't think that the actress who plays Jane should be "bouncing off the walls".
Oh, no, I meant that people calling her "wooden" in general annoyed me. In fact, this complaint was far more prevalent in Alice rather than JE, especially when it comes to bouncing off walls; viewers thought she was blah for basically not having done that, but what they didn't understand is that unlike Jane, the movie Alice is much more jaded in her young age, and Mia's not one to force a performance. (As for Ruth - who's in the latest issue of Vogue US, if anyone's interested - I was using her as another example in terms of her polarization among the posters in here.)
As for the article, I don't think he was trying to be smug, more just sticking up for the contingent who see something behind her seeming lack of emotion, and he's just as big a Mia fan as I am.
Ruth gave an understated performance in all places except where it mattered - the proposal scene. Her rendering of that scene was straight from the book.
Super, I understand what you feel, but it's a matter of taste and perception. Also, in this case, we have our own image of Jane, so we also compare the acting to our portrait. You see, to read this sentence above, that RW gives an understated performance makes me feel like I don't belong to your group, when she bites her lower lip every five minutes and give puppy eyes like she is about to cry everytime she talks - to me this is everything but understated. I don't get it, maybe just like some people don't understand when I say that I like Mia's Jane.
I think just like everything else, it's a matter of taste, but could also be of perception. I am saying "could", ok? When studying photography I began to understand and notice a lot of things I haven't noticed/paid attention before. That was a long time ago and I think since then I have lost "my eye" as I used to call it, but I was amazed to know how we can be trained to see things that could go unnoticed.
But all of this doesn't matter, what really matters is that we should get entertained and feel what is being "delivered". Sorry about my way of writing, I lack words in English to make myself understood,some people get annoyed by it, it's one of my limitations. But I like to compare this as taste in food also. Some like it hot, spicy, or very sweet; some would think my favorite food is tasteless. Who is the gourmet? No one, we are all gourmands. My cousin would feel sick if she ate a too sweet chocolate, my mother wouldn't like it if it isn't almost pure sugar.
You don't like Mia's Jane? Fine, there is nothing wrong with it. You know, I like the "Harry Potter" books - some of my friends just raise their eyebrows when I mention them, like I am a retard... They don't like them and think I am childish. And I know a lot of intelligent people who can't read fiction, they simply don't like it. And many out there think "Jane Eyre" is a piece of crap. There are books, films, music, acting styles, etcetera, for everyone in the world.
Oh, no, I meant that people calling her "wooden" in general annoyed me.
Get used to it, Swing. It's unfair, I know, but I have noticed people are haters in general, somehow if someone is young and is getting famous, they attack. Yesterday I was taking a look at Carey Mulligan's board and people there are losing their time hating her. Pity.
* * * * * Best film of 2011: The Tree of Life #2 best: Melancholia reply share
Get used to it, Swing. It's unfair, I know, but I have noticed people are haters in general, somehow if someone is young and is getting famous, they attack. Yesterday I was taking a look at Carey Mulligan's board and people there are losing their time hating her. Pity.
I don't think it's so much people hating on her as much as it's the IMDb forums simply being regularly infested with trolls. One of my favorite movies of last year was The Kids Are All Right, but that thread has been practically ruined with mindless garbage posting.
All this talk about her "subtle" style of acting leaves me perplexed. Do we have to belong to some sort of exclusive club to appreciate it? Or is it a case of The Emperor's New Clothes? []
Since I'm the writer of that piece, let me clarify where I was coming from.
The article's first and foremost intention was to point out exactly what's going on in this forum: A public divide over Mia Wasikowska's acting style. In an ironical sense, I thank this forum for solidifying my stance that such a divide truly exists, at least online.
A condescending attitude wasn't what I had in mind. Perhaps I should have emphasized the subjective nature of acting and new ideas in the arts. But one of my other points in the piece was the reflection of how most audiences are conditioned to a different type of acting. I was in the same boat before seeing what Mia W was doing. It's not faulting someone's intellect when pop culture long ago sets a precedent for how the public views an actor on the big screen.
This was the stance I was taking, along with reinforcing what so few people have noticed.
Whether you want to consider it smug or not, it still takes a lot of attention and use of the intellect to appreciate what MW is doing. It is what it is, and that's why it's probably best to see her performances on Blu-Ray or DVD. The hi-def quality will help you see the things she does with projection through the eyes and physical presentation. The sometimes dimmer quality of film might obscure this for some.
All the best regards to supergran and those offended by the article here. Even if many never appreciate the art, there isn't going to be a lightning bolt striking anybody down. New directions in art like this need to be slowly savored anyway and assimilated gradually (or perhaps tossed aside). That's the way all other art movements began, with the same kind of divides we see here.
I do recommend seeing all of Mia W's work, though, before making a complete judgement. When you see her skills as a whole (and, yes, in hi-def if you can), you'll have a bigger picture to analyze.
Postscript: Take a look at any of the performances this year by mainstream actresses vying for Oscars. Most of them will have a histrionic or highly emotive scene that wins them a nomination. Mia will be one of the few (if not only one) who didn't if she gets a nomination for "Eyre" or "Albert Nobbs."
Searching for the meaning of life is the meaning of life.
reply share
Whether you want to consider it smug or not, it still takes a lot of attention and use of the intellect to appreciate what MW is doing. It is what it is, and that's why it's probably best to see her performances on Blu-Ray or DVD.
As it seems, I will be able to see the film at a local cinema in a couple of weeks. Would you recommend me not to watch it at the cinema at all, because one has to study Mia Wasikowska's face from the near in order to be able to enjoy her performance?
(At least now I have an excuse, if I won't like it. I can blame it on the the fact that I don't make proper use of my intellect.)
Another thickie here, definitely missing both the powers of concentration and the intellect to understand what Mia is doing. And to make things worse, I didn't get further than
Even in Europe, there were few to no famous actors or actresses who projected the true soul of a character through the eyes and a calm face.
with your article. As I read that sentence, I thought, he's going to mention Isabelle Huppert anytime now and I'm going to swear out loud.
Because that's nonsense. Utter nonsense. I saw Midnight this week for the first time with Claudette Colbert. If you think there is anything that Mia knows or can do that Colbert doesn't do better in that film then we clearly do have two entirely different world views. There is a scene in which she gatecrashes a party in which she has no dialogue for 3-4 minutes. It's a textbook on subtle communication which has all the chapters that Mia is missing. Furthermore, there are hundreds of actresses in the period you identify as a vacuum, who perfectly understand subtlety and can deliver any amount of it in close ups. Anyone who can make the statement I've quoted hasn't seen much Dietrich, Garbo, Goddard, Stanwyck, Vivien Leigh etc etc etc etc.
People who are as prescriptive as you are in your article often have trouble listening and I wonder if you have understood to what posters like wicked, supergran and the others who have criticised this film principally object. Not to the details of Mia's technique, but the fact that fully half the character Bronte wrote fails to appear on screen.
Jane Eyre is not the tale we see in JE11, of a victim who lucks out in her first job out of school and finds a mate who can free her of her frustrations.
Jane is the first female heroine in literature who grasps what destiny has dealt her and uncompromisingly, from her own resources, makes a life for herself that fits her principles and ambitions. We see this in the young Jane's rebellion at Gateshead, we see it mature, subdued at Lowood, where she adapts to the role that will allow her to escape and in a transcendent meeting in Hay Lane (completely buggered by Fukunaga with the pheasants) when she takes charge of a situation that requires physical and moral courage and catches the interest of the powerful and wealthy man she will eventually own as a mate. Jane shows us what equality in relationships can look like and it is a mighty, mighty achievement.
We see this independence again and again. We see Rochester grow to respect it and love it. And we see Jane make a whole joyous and fulfilled life out of it. Or at least we do in adaptations where the scriptwriter and the lead actress have understood what is going on.
But here we don't have the ferocious independence. Jane doesn't advertise, or think of leaving Thornfield. She doesn't investigate or experiment or test her feelings. We don't need a developing relationship because Rochester and Jane understand each other in their first conversation. We don't even need the fire scene and we certainly don't need Blanche. And there's no Grace or Bertha.
You can't fill in all those gaps in a story like Jane Eyre with eyelid and iris movements. The baby has subtly slid out with the bathwater. Jane is not a subtle heroine and she is never a background presence, as Mia was during the Rivers episode, she never simpers and she certainly never runs about like a headless chicken like Mia flying from Jamie Bell.
Mia does thwarted well. She does frustrated well. She does yearning quite well. But that's only three chapters in the manual. There are nine more and you won't find anything from any of them in the performances I've seen. Defiance, possibly, but again she fails to emerge from a timid, cowering shell when required.
She can't do ferocious integrity for toffee and that cripples her Jane. She imparts a grim patina of discomfort at best, misery at worst, over the whole production and it's horrible.
reply share
It is unworthy to rebel against fate. Those who went short, when God distributed intellect and concentrativeness, ought to be humble and just accept it.
Brilliant post ... that is, within the bounds of possibility.
I have yet to read the book, this movie has hooked me. I don’t know how faithful 2011 Jane Eyre is to the book and especially Mia’s portrayal of the heroine. I can say that watching this movie I had not a bit of doubt in Jane’s power of feeling and was convinced in her deep sense of independence. If this take on Jane is considered by some lacking independence and not giving credit to its ferocious nature I might only imagine what a feminist read I’m venturing upon. But Mia’s Jane I find so far very endearing, and the love line of the film very touching.
Jane is the first female heroine in literature who grasps what destiny has dealt her and uncompromisingly, from her own resources, makes a life for herself that fits her principles and ambitions. We see this in the young Jane's rebellion at Gateshead, we see it mature, subdued at Lowood, where she adapts to the role that will allow her to escape and in a transcendent meeting in Hay Lane (completely buggered by Fukunaga with the pheasants) when she takes charge of a situation that requires physical and moral courage and catches the interest of the powerful and wealthy man she will eventually own as a mate. Jane shows us what equality in relationships can look like and it is a mighty, mighty achievement.
I agree that we don't see every bit of Jane's personality in JE2011, you are right, there is no time, but even without all of it, it's so much better than other adaptations! What I think is intriguing is that I also don't find all this in your favorite version, the 2006 series... Transcendent meeting? LOL. Where did you see it? Because I didn't.
Also, I don't agree with this "equality in relationships" you mention. There is no equality in their relationship, nor in their behaviour or mentality. Jane is much much better than Rochester, right from the beginning. She went through a lot in her younger years, but goes on. He can't stop blaming fate, destiny, his father and brother while he is healthy, wealthy, travels, and flirts. Of course life wasn't fair to him, but it could be so much worse.
You see? When judging acting in a movie based on a novel, we tend not only to judge the acting, but compare it to the characters we love, and the way we see them does affect our judgement. The same applies, of course, to the directing, the script, and so on.
Tell me Alfa, since we are talking about acting, adaptations, and how you perceive the heroine in Jane Eyre, what do you think of the Ciaran Hinds adaptation?
* * * * * Best film of 2011: The Tree of Life #2 best: Melancholia reply share
I think it probably is better than most other adaptations. But not 06.
And the equality we are talking about isn't just who is the better person. Crucial to understand that to understand my reading of the book (and a lot of other people's too). But those are arguments that won't be settled until the cows come home.
Jane doesn't have a timid bone in her body. We have seen that from the start. Noises in the forest don't scare her, especially pheasants taking off which is a regular occurrence. And anyway, she is on a road. At dusk. (JE73 sets the scene in darkness because there are two mentions of the moon but the moon rises at midday and it's still light when it is waxing and anyway, Jane says there is daylight left.) She is, however, listless, preoccupied with the boredom of her new life and thinking about leaving Thornfield.
You can see that Ruth's gait is desultory. She is walking without purpose or pleasure. Her first reaction to the noise is curiosity, not fear, she doesn't look for shelter or dive for the bushes, she stares straight down the path at whatever might be coming. There's an ounce of trepidation on her face as the barking gets louder but she doesn't flinch. She looks amazed when the horse rears almost in her face but she still stands her ground. Then you can read genuine concern for rider, testy impatience with his display of temper, though when he pauses for breath there is a hint of a smile that says 'So you ARE alright then' and then, ignoring the insults a couple of genuine offers of help. Toby reads all of this and realises he is dealing with someone out of the ordinary, calms down and decides he can ask her if she can bring him the horse without risking a fit of the vapours. We can read all of this in his expression. He looks at Jane, realises she's apprehensive but decides she has enough pluck to give it a go.
She sees him change his tune, he expresses genuine gratitude and a modicum of respect, which she notices and appreciates. But as he now knows who she is, he reasserts the master/servant relationship and tells her to get home. She misinterprets this as she doesn't know who he is yet and testily tells him she'll do as she intends and not as he asks. To secure the last word, he bids her farewell, savouring her name, caressing it with an emphasis that she won't understand until they meet later. One of my favourite bits in any adaptation. Of anything. I'm quite happy, writing this, watching it over and over agin.
I'm not exaggerating. This is all there and I remember sitting to attention the first time I saw it, thinking 'hello, this isbit unusual'.
Furthermore, if you look at the text in the book, you'll see that at this crucial point, whatever arpeggios she might indulge in elsewhere, Sandy Welch is sticking like glue to what Bronte wrote. Although all adaptations have their good points, nothing else is as faithful and nothing comes close to the quality of this horse scene.
Furthermore, if you look at the text in the book, you'll see that at this crucial point, whatever arpeggios she might indulge in elsewhere, Sandy Welch is sticking like glue to what Bronte wrote. Although all adaptations have their good points, nothing else is as faithful and nothing comes close to the quality of this horse scene.
Oh, I have to read this part of the book again and compare to the series - if I don't get too tired of Jane Eyre; and almost I'm getting there, need some rest sometimes otherwise everything about it will get boring. Anyway, all I remember from the scene is the "get out of my way, witch" that I think was so far away from the book as it could be (maybe the worst after the Clive/Bruce version). Ok, R. calls her a witch sometimes in the book, but only after they have been properly introduced.
Alfa, thank you for your explanation. I think the meeting is such a good scene in the book, but in the opposite way you explained it, it's funny how each of us perceive some words and feel them differently. And I have read that book in Portuguese too, not only in English, and in two different translations. Also funny how I think a person like Jane would react just like Mia and not like Ruth, but I have already stated that now I think RW is good at her Jane Eyre-not character (whatever her name) and Toby sucks as Rochester (his lines are awful too, I have to say, they don't help him).
Anyway, have you seen the Ciaran Hinds version recently? I'm asking this because I have, together with my husband, and the first time we didn't like it and now we like it quite a lot (for a TV movie it covers the story very well). I remember the meeting there is also so strange, lots of water, totally wrong, but overall the film worked for us... more for him, but you know, his fave version is still 1973, so we disagree sometimes, though he loves JE2011 just like me.
* * * * * Best film of 2011: The Tree of Life #2 best: Melancholia reply share
I've actually fallen off a galloping horse. It takes a while to recover your politeness. Jane glosses over it, she 'thinks' he was swearing. Traditional British understatement but in an adaptation we need to see it.
We have to guess at what Rochester said but we are privy to Jane's intimate thoughts on the subject Sandy and Ruth follow them almost exactly.
Mia is so busy being frightened by pheasants, then timid and coy I wanted to put gravel in her Oil of Ulay. Not a single correct note struck in the whole scene.
Anyway, all I remember from the scene is the "get out of my way, witch" that I think was so far away from the book as it could be (maybe the worst after the Clive/Bruce version). Ok, R. calls her a witch sometimes in the book, but only after they have been properly introduced.
Sandy Welch anticipated, what Rochester says to Jane, when they have their first conversation at Thornfield:
When you came on me in Hay Lane last night, I thought unaccountably of fairy tales, and had half a mind to demand whether you had bewitched my horse: I am not sure yet.
Of course he is not being serious, he is joking, displaying his quirky sense of humour. You are right that one could object that Toby Stephens is not joking, when he calls her a witch, but in the book Rochester is swearing too, he doesn't answer Jane's question, if he is injured, he frowns and behaves in a rude way towards her:
If even this stranger had smiled and been good-humoured to me when I addressed him; if he had put off my offer of assistance gaily and with thanks, I should have gone on my way and not felt any vocation to renew inquiries: but the frown, the roughness of the traveller, set me at my ease [...]
Her northern accent was a bit all-purpose, untraceable, north-of-Wythenshawe. Not realistic but you'll hear much worse. My only problem with it is that it gave her speech a sort of actorly studied caution. But you'll see British actors doing the same.
Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchette were 20 times as bad in Robin.
Postscript: Take a look at any of the performances this year by mainstream actresses vying for Oscars. Most of them will have a histrionic or highly emotive scene that wins them a nomination. Mia will be one of the few (if not only one) who didn't if she gets a nomination for "Eyre" or "Albert Nobbs."
What about the scene on the moors after she runs away from Rochester and is crawling and screaming? That scene completely lacked emotion for me - she could have been upset that she didn't get some shoes that she wanted at a shop or something, but it should have been an emotional scene.
I'm struggling to remember a highly emotive histrionic scene from any of the best actress nominees this year. Certainly there wasn't one in Streep's portrayal of Thatcher, nothing even close.
Protector of Percy. He is grand and not at all bad. Honest
reply share
oh I can definitely recommend watching MW in the episodes of In Treatment, where she plays a young patient, Sophie. I was really drawn in by her portrayal. As for her subtly, I thought she acted more emotive here and maybe in this case it also helps that she is a psychiatric patient visiting a therapist, who, of course, observes her closely and he, together with the audience, is on the look out for the signs.
She was utterly brilliant. To me, she was a powder keg of emotion and she elevated this movie to a fascinating and memorable experience when I would have disliked it otherwise for Rochester related reasons.
It's made entirely obvious by the film why Jane is outwardly so dispassionate, and it makes all kinds of sense that she would be, and to play her any other way would have been a sin. Wasikowska still manages to emote the hell out of everything from within the confines of Jane's steel skin, and she does it so spectacularly well that I for one could not take my eyes off her until the credits rolled, and am as of this movie a fan.
On the other hand, unlike the OP, I thought the one thing Wasikowska failed to be was plain. But that's Hollywood for you.
Wasikowska still manages to emote the hell out of everything from within the confines of Jane's steel skin, and she does it so spectacularly well that I for one could not take my eyes off her until the credits rolled, and am as of this movie a fan.
I loved Mia, now she is my favorite Jane, this movie belongs to her and I think someone who dislikes her or her way of acting might not like this movie. I belong to the group who likes her, and I am so grateful for that - was waiting for an adaptation that fit my tastes for more than a decade, and finally saw it.
Well, except for her performance and some lovely cinematography, the movie wasn't all that good. The story itself isn't all that good, never mind that it's a "classic".
I would dearly love to see Wasikowska opposite someone like Christian Bale in a well written romantic drama. Something understated and Ishiguro-esque, if you'll forgive the pretentious suffix. Perhaps directed by Ang Lee. Oh my, oh my. I'm putting that on my Christmas wish list this year, right under world peace.
I thought she was good enough but not gripping enough to steal her scenes as a leading lady. Jane Eyre is supposed to look plain but in essence to be a great passionate woman. I didn't see that depth in her performance.
She was definitely the weak link in this version. Fassbender was giving all this fire and passion and MiaW spent most of the movie just standing there trying not to emote. She gave nothing of Jane's character to show why on earth Rochester wanted her. It was very "deer in the headlights" and I kept thinking at some point she was going to change expressions. Didn't happen.
"She gave nothing of Jane's character to show why on earth Rochester wanted her."
Never ceases to amaze me that folks can't see what I see when I watch this version. I've watched it maybe 8 - 10 times now and each time I am totally captivated by Mia's Jane. I can see how Mr R is taken with her, some one calm, steady, loyal and reliable but emotion and fire obviously just below the surface. Perhaps it's my personal taste showing through. It's a toss up between Mia and Samantha Morton as the best portrayals of JE.
Oscar winning performance, IMO. She managed to portray/capture strength, innocence, independence, plainness, beauty, vulnerability, morality, and sensuality in a way I've never seen before. I never read the book, nor have I seen any other adaptations, so I had no other Jane Eyre reference points with which to compare. I simply watched this film with no preconceived notions whatsoever, and, frankly, I wasn't expecting a whole lot, given the story line. Needless to say, I got a lot more than I bargained for. I've given Jane Eyre one of the highest ratings of any film I've rated on IMDb: 9/10.
The whole world is a very narrow bridge. The key is to be fearless. R' Nachman of Breslov