Was Mia Wasikowska any good in your opinion?

I thought she was excellent. Samantha Morton is probably my second favorite Jane Eyre.



"There is no half-singing in the shower, you're either a rock star or an opera diva." -Josh Groban

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Sadly in most of the scenes with Rochester her face is an impenetrable mask. With the result that she seemed to have better chemistry with everybody else than with Rochester.

I think I can understand why you got this impression, but I watched some of the scenes like a hundred times (in order to make some videos) and in my opinion in most of the scenes she does a great job. There are some scenes where her face doesn't change much, I know, but I have noticed that most people are like that, they don't usually show what they are thinking. You may argue that in a motion picture an actor should always show what is inside the character's mind, but I would disagree because, imho, this doesn't suit Jane. And it wouldn't make the proposal scene emotional at all if she acted like that all of the time.

Some scenes where she and Rochester are perfect: a) the meeting, where she doesn't show any fear of him even though he is a stranger, but she keeps a distance, like all girls her age and position would do; b) the first conversation when he asks her about her drawings and the green men; c) before Mason arrives and she is depressed; d) when she asks for her money, that part when she says he must not be trusted; e) the proposal scene and the kiss on the stairs; f) the ending, that adorable reunion, so beautiful! g) and the best, the begging scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JrJ47x-Ypg


^
This part of the movie is on YouTube with Spanish subtitles, the best scene of the movie and the best Jane Eyre scene adapted to the screen ever, I think.

Oh, and I forgot the deleted scene, you can find it on YouTube, when she asks him for an explanation after Bertha ripped the veil.


¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Forgive my English, I am trying to improve it.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

I thought Mia gave a great performance - she really captured the Jane of the novel for me and her interaction with Michael was spot on too . And in my opinion she showed the development of Janes character/ personality well - the grave, shy and quiet governess growing in confidence and inner joy.
I wouldn't say it was flawless but then I haven't seen too many perfect performances ( though Cate Blanchett in the fist Elizabeth came pretty close for me).
I certainly didn't find it wooden or dimensional as some have - but then one man's understated, nuanced peformance is another mans wooden one.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I think Mia was good in an understated way, also she is a 'plain jane' without the make up. Only thing any Jane has yet to be in any of the productions is 'small'. I think the smallest was Joan Fontaine at 5ft 3 which now is just under the average British female height of 5ft 4. I would have thought when the book was wrote Jane would have been under 5ft, would be nice to see if its done again a genuine 'petite' person is cast.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Very subtle young actress. It was a very different take on Jane, but I grew to love her. I say this even though I loved Ruth Wilson and Samantha Morton in the earlier adaptations. Mia comes across as incredibly plain at first. Then as she grows on one, she becomes almost beautiful. .

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I agree with the comments made by wickedialogue (Sun Sep 18 2011) and the later comments made by the same editor and supegran.

I was disappointed in the range of emotion that Mia displayed. Her reaction towards the warmth of the housekeeper was minimal. Her surprise at her new bedroom was minimal. Her pleasure (or otherwise) at Adelle's performance was so neutral as to be completely dispiriting. Her reaction at meeting Adelle's maid, about her own age, was non-existent. Her reaction to finding the bedroom curtains alight was so slow it was painful. Her manner of teaching her charming little pupil was so lacking in any enthusiasm that it is small wonder the child advanced at all. She showed not the tiniest spark of positive emotion at any time in the entire performance: not of joy, not of pleasure, not of curiosity, not of enthusiasm, not of love.

So what did she do?

She threw herself into the role in a sullen and embittered manner that denied the true spirit of the girl.

I think that one of the serious problems of the entire movie was that no-one had caught on to the way in which Mia Wasikowska was reading the script, well enough to correct her reading of it.

Her Jane Eyre was a belligerent leftwing feminist working-class girl of the 21th century saying "Don't put ME down! I'm as good as you are!"

Wasikowska never realised Jane Eyre as a pioneering heroine who was creating a new order, not simply repeating slogans that others had already used.

When Jane Eyre tells Rochester that she might be poor and plain, but she is not without feeling, she is not speaking insolently. She is discovering the truth of Equality, and sharing it with him. She knows in her heart, that they are equals, and she wants him to fully know it, as well. Not because he is her boss, and he is putting her down, but because he is the man she loves and she wants him to grow in this understanding, whether she shares her life with him, or not.

This, for a servant, is an unusual discovery. The servant/master order had prevailed for a very long time, and was so entrenched that it took the likes of Charlotte Bronte to challenge it.

Mia Wasikowska doesn't understand this. Her Jane Eyre sounds wounded, sullen, resentful, and insubordinate, but not challenging.

I cannot criticise Mia Wasikowska for not attempting to express depth and meaning in her part. But her reading of the character is very poor indeed, and since she is a young person, the director should have talked her through it, very much better!









"great minds think differently"

reply share

add reply

formatting help