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?
Jane Eyre is opening today in France (what a joke!) and here's what the critic of Le Monde (most serious and most read national daily) has to say about Wasikowska : "since In Treatment, the actress displays at each appearance a talent without par among her contemporaries. Capable of energy and hardness as of the most extreme vulnerability, she can shift from childhood to maturity in the blink of an eye. Jane Eyre is the ideal character for her range." He proceeds with Fassbender, saying he reached the limit of his talent with Rochester, because he didn't dare making him enough of a monster, and concludes that Wasikowska's Jane didn't find a worthy opponent in him.
I thought it was interesting to report this because the common opinion seems to be that Wasikowka is sullen and bland, while Fassbender is great. It's funny that this critic says exactly the opposite.
I actually like her in this film. I thought she was just terrible in Alice In Wonderland. More bland than Kristen Stewart is excused of being. Kristen is twitchy. Whereas Mia was like dead. I felt she fit in this film. And I think she looks so perfectly plain so thank goodness she was the one cast in as the plain Jane and not some stunning girl. I liked that she was tough yet restrained and respectful.
I hope you like feminist rants because that's kind of my thing.
I made sure I had subtitles while watching this film. I should have for some other films, but I digress.. It's a shame I need subtitles for films in my own language, but with everyone eager to whisper their lines I have no choice. Mia barely uttered her words with any effort in the beginning of the film. Almost sounded like she was just breathing. Had I not had the subtitles I would not have realized she was saying anything at all.
I agree. She seemed so cool, calm and collected on the outside, but had so many words inside of her. I felt like I could relate. I've been accused of seeming to lack emotion, and have been called quiet, but there are so many stories to tell inside of me, and so many opinions, and anger, and frustration, as well as romantic feelings, and a desire for admiration within me. And I think that, too, was very much Jane.
The proposal scene was wonderful. I also really enjoyed the scene where he ad to explain himself. The scene leading up to her running away.
I hope you like feminist rants because that's kind of my thing.
Jane certainly has a lot to say, she's very intelligent and even a bit cheeky at times and I feel like that didn't come across in this movie very well.
Partly ofcourse due to the script but a great part due to MW's performance. I thought it was bland. I couldn't imagine Rochester falling in love with this Jane.
no. I liked her in The Kids are Alright, but she just can't carry a movie,she's not meant to be a leading lady. she wasn't terrible, but she didn't make the character compeling to me and I wasn't rooting for her and Fass to get together because they had no chemistry...I haven't read the book so I don't know are we supposed to want them to be together or what, but I couldn't care less about that and when a movie is about a love story I think it's pretty important for you to want the characters to get together
Look, I'm not saying the people who didn't like "Jane Eyre" 2011 are fools, or that, for whatever reason or another, because they can't recognize the amazing talent of Mia Wasikowska that they're superficial - let's say there are different tastes and one person's sublime is another person's bland - there IS such a thing as taste, and often there's no accounting for it. Maybe this isn't playing fair but here are the opinions of A.O. Scott from the New York Times, and Richard Corlis from Time Magazine, in regards to Wasikowska'a performance.
And you could link to 100 similar reviews in equally respected publications. I know little about Mia, so perhaps am ill qualified to comment on her acting style. All I know is that Jane Eyre is my favourite novel, and Mia's Jane failed to move me. I don't know if this is because of ability, interpretation or direction. And, of course, it could say more about me than her! So be it. But I can't help but be reminded of The Emperor's New Clothes.
As far as I am concerned, this review by a young housewife/mother sums up my attitude towards Mia in this film. (Perhaps she should have a column in the New York Times? And please excuse the bad language.):
I respect your opinion - you're the one who has to decide what you like or don't like, not a critic. There are many things I also don't like (I actually don't bother going on line and trashing them, though - not that others don't have that right). I like to promote what i appreciate and I absolutely love the Wasikowska/Fassbender "Jane Eyre" - for me the other versions don't come close as a work of art. Still, I well understand that different people may have attachments to earlier productions, and for them, those are the ones that have captured the "true" Jane Eyre, that have captured their hearts. This book and story inspires extreme passions, whether they be of intense love or intense hate. I read the young housewife's review and that is her rightful perspective - for me, the TIME review captures the impact of the 2011 "Jane Eyre" and I truly feel that's the film version that's going to have legs going into the future (for a number of reasons). When it comes to Mia Wasikowska there are very strong reasons why she is landing all of these choice, in-depth roles from creative directors (not hacks) - they see and appreciate what she has to offer and they want her for their films. Many people have only seen a little bit of her work - if you familiarized yourself with more, starting off with her magnificent portrayel of Sophie on "In Treatment", you might begin to get a glimpse of why directors like Gus Van Sant, Olivier Assayas, David Cronenberg, Jarmusch, Todd Haynes, and many others, want to work with her. And, yeah, I didn't see any bad language either.
for me the other versions don't come close as a work of art.
Well you can create a work of art by adapting something and totally abandoning its context and framework. Prospero's Books or Clueless are both examples of one thing created from the spirit of another.
That's not what's happened here, though. There IS a great deal of importance left out of Mia's performance and Fukunaga's adaptation and a large number of wrong notes introduced. This makes it a poor adaptation of the book, however anyone judges it as a work of art.
Mia got two roles in succession that were begging for young, talented British actresses, of which there is no shortage, and flubbed both of them (Alice and Jane) with two very similar, monotonous performances, nicely satirised in supergran's link, which a lot of critics seemed to interpret as restraint but I still think is an absence of range.
This is a very similar-looking German actress, in a couple similar situations, playing with a full deck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZKg-3VGEGU No subtitles, sadly. With less visible effort (but more skill and craft) than Mia, she creates far more detailed and natural ranges of emotional colours.
reply share
As I said, you're welcome to your opinion, obviously you don't see the same thing that I and "a lot of the critics", as you say, so greatly admire. I'm sure, though, that you can find You Tube satires and various internet trolls to quote in support of your opinion. It still stumps me, though, how so many of these great directors and actors, like Cate Blanchett and Meryl Streep, along with the critics, can see so much in Mia Wasikowska to rave about, in a complimentary way - perhaps they haven't been looking closely enough at You Tube satires. Too bad Meryl Streep doesn't express her opinion on IMDB (she called Mia's performance "Fantastic" at the Golden Globe Awards") then you could set her straight once and for all.
I find it strange the things that some people focus on to hate.
I did watch the You Tube you included, at least about the first 5 minutes - I'm not sure why this is suppose to be comparable, other then the German actress looks vaguely like Mia Wasikowska with extra weight on her. Is it because she's making faces - this is a perfectly valid kind of acting - I'm not going to call it less subtle because I don't speak german and so I'm not going to voice an opinion just on what I see (I suppose I could, but I'm not). This may be the kind of acting that's in your wheelhouse - there's lots of it around, that's for sure. If you have a chance check out this You Tube of the real Mia Wasikowska - it's only about 1:20 min long (and it's in english) but it might give you a taste of how wide a range she actually has. She is restrained when it's called for but she has no problem acting "louder" when it's the best thing for the scene. See what you think. And it's fine that we have different opinions . . . as they say, it's cool.
Sorry but that's the same recognisable, fixed frown I grew to hate in Alice and Jane, with a little damp make-up plastered on and the same cautious diction as she handles the accent.
Leonie may be carrying more weight, though in The White Ribbon I certainly didn't notice, but she has a range of expression, an attentiveness when silent and an ability to engage, rather than play against other actors, an alertness to her environment that is almost always absent in Mia. She's just not as good.
Well, there you have it - we disagree. And since this is art, we don't have any stats. with which to trump the other. You don't think Mia Wasikowska is any good and I think she's the best overall actor of her generation. Who would have thought it, a difference of opinion. Maybe now we can more closely define the idealogical differences between the right wing and the left wing in american politics - definitely not as important an issue but deserving the focus of such acute minds as you and I.
I'm sure, though, that you can find You Tube satires and various internet trolls to quote in support of your opinion. .................................................................................. Supergran and Alpha-16 are highly respected posters on all Jane Eyre boards.
Neither of these two need u tube satire or internet trolls to support their opinions. If SG used this one, it's because she has a sense of humour, where is yours ? Alexander the Great slept with Homer's Iliad under his pillow, so Supergran does with her copy of Jane Eyre. Also SG and Alpha, manage to keep threads going without verbal abuse, I love most versions of JE , but I don't necessarily agree with all they say. And I have to agree, poor Mia Wassername is a tad po -faced. Who's your fat friend?
I don't know about being highly respected, though. I've never been highly respected anywhere! Lol. But I DO love Jane Eyre, and will happily natter away with anyone kind enough to listen!
But don't worry that I was offended. I'm incredibly thick-skinned, and I didn't notice anyone being offensive. I think our whole exchange has been very good-natured, in fact.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
O lord, maybe I got the wrong end of the stick. I honestly thought that one of the recent posters was a trifle sour.Apologies to her. So I thought I would do a bit of flag waving.Anyway too late now --as a matter of curiosity, do you sleep with JE under your pillow? And it was true about Alexander the Great.He could quote Homer the way you quote JE.Now, I have read The Iliad [twice]and The Odyssey [once]but I never slept with them under my pillow. Gran , you should enroll on Face Book, I treat it more as a laugh and a very good way of showing off my photographs to my meagre amount of friends. I have only 26 so I could do with a few more. I have knocked around a lot in my youth and even old age, so I have a HUGE amount of photos to bore people with. Come on Gran give it a go....
It's amazing how hard it is to judge nuances from the written word.
The mood got soured elsewhere. Let me fill in what you may be missing, Mia has been cast as Emma in Madame Bovary. To me, this is like casting Michael Caine as Don Giovanni. A few posters (besides this one) have been complaining that she may not be up to it and that once again, actresses who could have rinsed the part have been ignored in favour of someone whose acting spectrum runs the whole gamut from A to B.
Certain posters from here hinted that people unable to appreciate Mia were artistically or intellectually deficient. One, who I would have expected to know better, then told me I needed to reread Jane Eyre to improve my understanding of Mia's attributes.
I don't post in here any more because it's clear my views are unpopular but, as a result, I thought I'd pop in to see what the state of play was. Not in the best of moods, I admit.
Cheer up kid, if your views are unpopular with one poster-so what ? Keep posting , it keeps me entertained. I have been shot down once or twice ,but I don't give a flying f--k.I just bang on in when I feel like it. Some posters, male and female get the hump if you happen to disagree with their opinions, I thought the idea of these boards is to discuss , to agree or disagree. Banging on about Jane Eyre is hardly like discussing global warming , nor as important. If a poster disagreed with my opinion I would not expect to get verbally abused, there is no mileage in it. Dare I mention Mia Wassername? I knew nothing of her before JE11, so I have no axe to grind. My opinion of her Jane Eyre: not a lot. And did you notice that she was forever swallowing as though she had something stuck in her throat.
Alfa, I've already posted on the Madame Bovary board. You may have noticed. I get rankled over the assumptions that I have some sort of hidden agenda (Pat's "axe to grind") about MW, that I am in cahoots with others in a little corner somewhere discussing our next act of internet sabotage, and that I approached JE11 with my mind already made up, etc. Grrr.
Keep on posting, alfa.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
My encouragement may not be the one you value (at least as of now) but I agree with the view that if you want to keep posting here, there's no reason to stop, no matter if someone disagrees with you or not - and I'm definitely including myself in that statement. So what. I couldn't disagree with you more when it comes to Mia Wasikowska (I've probably made that pretty clear) but I do respect the fact that you have a different opinion, the key word is "respect", at least for me. The appreciation of art can sometimes seem like a blood sport (I agree, though, it's not akin to global climate change) but even in boxing there are rules of engagement - so we take our lumps, but don't take it personally. At least that's how I feel about it. There's no reason to leave any thread as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean we won't tangle again, but I don't consider you "intellectually deficient" for not liking the 2011 Jane Eyre - I just wonder where the level of spleen comes from. But you'll do whatever you choose.
I am aware this is not the Mad.Bov. board, but things seem to have become somewhat entwined. The mood got soured elsewhere. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I always seem to be messaging from a state of ignorance, I have never read MB, but I will be watching a film adaptation this evening. Poking into the MB board I was amazed at the vitriolic nature of some of the postings.
"Bugger me" as our friend Oscar would say, where has all the humour drifted off to? Dear Alfa I can see why you are p....d off and so would I be, I just don't understand why a simple dislike of a particular actor/actress can stoke up so much ill-humour .
At home I have 9 adaptations of JE, including a dreadful one made in 1934.In 1964 when none of you young things were not even thought of, I was watching the, IMO,best ever version , 4 part mini-series in glorious black and white, with Richard Leech as Rochy and Ann Bell as our eponymous heroine.I first read the book 50 years ago at 18 years old. This does not make me as expert on JE but I do think I have earned the right to have an opinion or two.
And they are here: Mia had a hard act to follow, and she failed dismally.She didn't get Jane's charactor at all, she obviously didn't take the trouble to read the book [smacks of Ciaran Hinds]' The photography was superb, shooting in the natural light a brilliant idea. I have been to Haddon Hall 3/4 times ,once quite recently, so I do know what I am talking about. If you want to see some decent photos I took go into Pat Marshall on Face Book. I like Fassbender,even only because rumour has it, he is well stocked in the nether regions, although this was not evident from the film. Even the skin tight white strides didn't reveal anything out of the ordinary, so, yes, it may be only rumour. The final scene, a total cop-out
All above just my opinion. Lets keep all in prospective, there's a lot of good stuff to look forward to in December and then 2014. The Hobbit part 2 in Dec. and Mad Bov in 2014.Wacko!!
I am truly looking forward to watching Bovary, handbags at 30 paces. Alfa, don't let the bores [which they are] get you down.
Before I depart this board, I watched , for the second time David Griffiths' Birth of a Nation", now THAT is controversial!!
Pat. You need to get Shame out of the library. Trust me and just do it.
There are all sorts of boards on imdb, which is what makes it interesting. You can indulge the grouchy side of your personality by jumping on Neanderthal heads on the politics board, you can choose your favourite conspiracy theory and join the battalions of enlightenment and occasionally, as in JE06 and Emma09,you can find a place where grown ups gather to talk about Austen or Bronte and the business of adaptation without people taking offence at the idea that their ideas are not universally accepted or even widely admired or being bothered with American high school students trying to get their homework done.
But life's too short to keep having to explain that you HAVE read the book and have an understanding of it which is not to be pitied.
There hasn't been a really GOOD adaptation of Madame Bovary, though the French one delights Isabelle Huppert fans. It's always a question of the leads, a bit like Jane Eyre, in fact. get one of them wrong and nothing else matters.
~~~~~or being bothered with American high school students trying to get their homework done~~~~~
I thought the (translation) of Bovary I read was bravura for the first 50 pages, then it fizzled quietly into insignificance. Perhaps my expectations were unrealistic after the Zola marathon beforehand? ;O)
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
In 1964 when none of you young things were not even thought of, I was watching the, IMO,best ever version , 4 part mini-series in glorious black and white, with Richard Leech as Rochy and Ann Bell as our eponymous heroine.
Bless ya, Pat. I remember that series! I was about 9, and it was probably shown around teatime on Sundays (as most of the classic period dramas were). Wish I could see it again to give an adult opinion, but it was probably wiped.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput! reply share
I was 18 years old. I can remember Mum and I devouring it that April. Apparently, BBC lost 2 episodes out of the 6. And it was 1963 not 1964 . Can you imagine posting stuff on that adaption 50 years later ? Love it !! It goes to show how one's memory clouds over the years, I thought it was 4 episodes not 6. Also, I wonder how my reaction would be after seeing Toby. Interesting thought. If you Google and go into images of the 1963 version there is a lovely black/white photo of Richard Leech and Ann Bell,cuddling up for the camera.
Can you also remember a particularly smashing adaption [and true to the book] of "The Count of Monte Cristo" by Alexandre Dumas ? Starring Alan Badel. That was another cracker of the 60's together with the "Forsyte Saga" .
I liked some things about MW's performance (direction?), and others not so much... For the most part, I like her restraint and the expressiveness of her eyes, rather than an over-effusion of emotion (Samantha Morton?). I think her "look" was very appropriate for the Jane Eyre of my imagination -- slight, plain, watchful eyes. But there was something that didn't quite sit right, and it's taken me awhile to put my finger on it. After watching other versions and re-reading the novel (it had been some years), I think I've been able to pinpoint what bothers me about this portrayal of Jane. More than the lack of emotion (which was a problem, say, in the proposal scene), I find her almost arrogant and as if she has some sort of chip on her shoulder. That may sound odd, because Jane Eyre has a hard-won self-assuredness about her, that's for sure. It's one, if not the, particularly endearing quality of hers, no doubt. But, somehow, in MW's portrayal of her, it is not appealing, I find. She has more of the "prima ballerina" stance about her, almost looking down upon everyone -- Rochester, Adele, Mrs. Fairfax. The way she delivers her lines seem not so much honest and straight-forward as defensive and accusatory. I still like a lot about this version and I'm not overly critical of MW as an actress in general (WAY better than cookie-cutter, conventionally "pretty" actresses), but, nevertheless, an unsatisfying portrayal of JE, IMHO.
You make some really good points and I always appreciate views well articulated. There are some aspects of the film and Wasikowska's performance that I'd like to put MY finger on. First, I've been a fan of "Jane Eyre", the book, ever since I was a teenager but I've never been totally enthusiastic about the many film versions I've seen - there are a number of reasons for that but it would take too long to detail, I want to stick with talking about the 2011, Wasikowska/Fassbender film. The director, Carey Fukunaga's version of "Jane Eyre" is both extremely cinematic (it puts the medium to great use) and very literate. I really appreciated that they didn't modernize the language, and that they kept so much of the extremely poetic and ornate qualities that are so beautifully used by Bronte in the book. Besides, the exquisite attention to visual detail - the lighting, the homes and countryside, etc. - the use of language was for me very important and emotionally powerful. This brings me to the acting: I felt both Wasikowska and Fassbender were wonderful at combining such ornate, beautiful/antiquated dialogue along with the kind of truthfulness and realism that goes with naturalistic acting at it's best. With this kind of dialogue it would be very easy to fall into theatrical-style acting, but they were both very internally focused and played off each other beautifully. "Jane Eyre", the book, is very much an expression of Bronte's thoughts - throughout the book it's her internal world we're participating in - it's her emotions and insights. There are aspects of her identity that are more like a modern woman caught in an extremely repressive time - there is real spiritual strength and a coming to awareness, that is, in part, expressed as christian piety but is really universal and at the core of Jane Eyre's story. For me, Wasikowska captured this quality along with the formidable intelligence of Jane/Bronte. This is totally necessary in order to play convincingly along with Fassbender's fierce intelligence. For me Wasikowska and Fassbender's performances were a beautiful meeting of spirits and minds. I didn't see Mia Wasikowska's performance as arrogant, at all - that never crossed my mind for an instant - I saw her as expressing a quiet strength and being vulnerable yet wary of protecting her feelings - despite her position, she's a formidable character herself. As far as her being like a prima ballerina, I don't know if you already knew or just picked up on the fact that Mia Wasikowska was trained as a ballerina before she got into acting. She definitely is using her posture in this film to express an inner strength that's living in an extremely hierarchical, repressive age. When it comes to emotions, this film and the performances that drove it, worked for me in spades - I found it extremely emotionally powerful and I felt these emotions were delivered honestly without any showiness and with a lot of trust in the audience. Anyway, how we perceive a film or book is very subjective, but I appreciate having a chance to read your views and then express my own. I've watched this 2011 Jane Eyre multiple times (as I've read the book) still, I expect at some point there will be another "Jane Eyre" film - I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with.
I love this film and watch it every time it's shown on television. It's stunning, beautifully directed and the script is magnificent. Mia, in my opinion, is the best ever, the quintessential Jane and Fassbender brings great intensity as the tortured Rochester.
I watched it again and thought it much better than first viewing. Aside from a dodgy accent I thought she was really good as Jane and loved the way they styled her to look pretty and plain at the same time.
The distance is nothing. The first step is the hardest.
Actually, there was a specific thing she was going for with the accent, a certain blend. Here is a quote from an interview with Mia Wasikowska re this subject.
"I loved the idea of her having a slight northern accent because I liked that she wasn’t entirely polished, she also had a better education than was typical of a rural person of that era. There were certain echoes to her not being completely from that class that she’s a part of. But the language is not a language that we use any more. It’s very rich and lush and poetic and so the challenge is making it feel real and comfortable in your own voice because there’s a tendency to [acts grandiose] ‘my mortal flesh’, you know, get carried away with that. Again, it’s about grounding it in our own way of speaking in a way."
... "I remember I saw some tapes and interviews of people in that area (Yorkshire). Some of the accents were a lot stronger and I knew we just wanted to do a mild one because we didn’t want it to be a distraction, just something that was there. So, I listened to tapes. And then when I was down there, that was very helpful."
I must admit that I wasn't very taken with this version of Jane Eyre, on the whole. I saw it ages ago and had the same impression then, but have only been prompted to write having seen it again on television yesterday.
It's a shame because I loved the appearance of this film, and the atmosphere, and the rhythm of it, but such an adaptation stands or falls on the central performances for me. And I didn't like either, in practice (or Jamie Bell), when I really wanted to.
I liked that Jane Eyre was appropriately younger than more usually seen, and I liked that it was an understated performance. But while I like restrained, that shouldn't have to be associated with a lack of depth to the character, beyond the frame of the words. It was all too flat. Mia W didn't manage to take the character off the page at all. I know she is young (that's likely why Jane's usually played older of course), but the character is supposed to have a resolute strength and indomitable spirit and personality, even as that's kept internalised to effect. It is all supposed to be shown in the eyes and expression and physicality as well as in subtleties of expression of the language. And Mia W didn't portray any of that, so it didn't make sense that Rochester would be attracted to her in spite of himself in the first place. And she didn't portray an attraction to him either. The relationship was just too much taken for granted (although there was very limited time/opportunity to do very much). But Mia W just seemed to be going through the motions with unfamiliar language (that was part of the problem, I think), and it didn't help that she had Judi Dench there to provide an object lesson in how to convey so much more with less to work with.
I suppose the biggest problem was the limitation in time (inherent in films) in which to develop characters, but I would rather have seen it a bit longer with more specific exposition of the burgeoning romance.
"I loved the appearance of this film, and the atmosphere, and the rhythm of it, but such an adaptation stands or falls on the central performances for me. And I didn't like either, in practice (or Jamie Bell), when I really wanted to."
Well put, though, the only thing you and I saw the same was that we both liked the atmosphere and we liked Judi Dench (you didn't mention the music, maybe you liked that, too). I've seen Mia Wasikowska in a lot of different roles and she's remarkable (and very different in each one, loved her "Jane"), and, of course, she's been cast in numerous roles with creative, auteur directors (next one is going to be with Guillermo del Toro, alongside the wonderful Tom Hiddelston). I also find Michael Fassbender to be the most interesting actor of his generation - for my money, I can't think of anyone else that competes with him (I really liked him as Rochester) - but this is all according to our individual taste and what we see in a film or in a performance. Fair enough.
I watched this adaptation (and various others) before reading the book, and I thought it was alright. After reading the book however, I thought Mia's performance was horrible to be frank.
I would agree with those who say that it's a matter of taste or perception etc. if the narrator and the characters of the book didn't discuss Jane's character so extensively. When you are told time after time that Jane's is passionate, perceives her self as a passionate person, and is perceived by others as a passionate person, it's very disappointing to come to the movie and get none of that.
- When Jane leaves the drawing room after the discussion about governesses, she's so hurt, she tears up in front of Mr. Rochester, and he sees that. Mia in this scene looks no different than any other scene in the movie.
- At some other point Mr. Rochester says that she's blushing, only the audience can't see that on Mia's face.
- When the book calls for her to rejoice at the knowledge that St. John and his sisters are her cousins, Mia doesn't give us even the tiniest smile.
- Instead of insisting to help Mr. Rochester after the horse incident, she so scared that he has to beg her to help him. She is nothing like the strong and confident girl that made such an impression on Mr. Rochester that he listened for her return to Thornfield, as he told her later in the book. (Although this one is the screenwriter's fault not Mia's).
- BUT when the book clearly says that Jane is surprisingly calm and collected takes off her wedding dress, Mia is frantic when she takes it off and she's crying when the books again clearly states that she did not cry at that point.
Whether a movie is good or not is a question of taste. Whether a movie is true to the spirit of it's source material can also be a question of tastes and opinions. But in this case the movie, and especially Mia's performance, doesn't go wrong when filling in the gaps, no. It goes against the very words that C. Brönte wrote too many times for it to be a faithful representation of the book and the character Jane Eyre.
I know I'm supposed to be PC and say that everyone interprets it in their way, but I'm afraid I can't see the other side of this argument. I'm sure my opinion couldn't matter less to those who love Mia, but there it is.
"I'm sure my opinion couldn't matter less to those who love Mia, but there it is."
No, your opinion matters, I just have to wonder what movie you were watching. Typically, these remarks are made by fans of the 2006 tv miniseries version of Jane Eyre, who are so loyal to that take (I found it melodramatic). They take incredible offense to this version, some kind of competitive thing, I guess, and often seek to trash Mia Wasikowska because of it - even following her onto the threads of other films. Whatever, she has many who admire her talent: filmmakers, cinema critics and fans (probably a younger demographic, who are more into naturalistic acting - less of that masterpiece theater style, or older british tv fans). Where you see nothing, I see great depth. Oh, I see you are a regular contributor to the 2006 version's IMDB - that figures. Listen, I've read "Jane Eyre" numerous times, since I was a youth, and for me, and many others (Meryl Streep included), this version captures the spirit of the book. All I can say is that I would hesitate to waste one sentence trashing some other version. I still enjoy the 1943 film of "Jane Eyre", although in many ways it's quite dated, but I understand the style of the time. For me, and others, this version is contemporary and timeless - and Mia captures that element, that's what we appreciate about the film and her performance. I certainly don't begrudge you the 2006 version, it's on the wavelength you receive - I hope you continue to get pleasure from it.
Not trying to trash Mia at all. I actually liked her in Alice even though I really didn't like the movie (trying to put sense into a piece of non-sense literature didn't make sense to me ). I didn't mind her performance in this movie either at first, but, like I said, after reading the book I found that she does exactly the opposite of what the author wrote.
Huge Meryl Streep fan btw :)
And yes I do love the 2006 movie, despite how badly it handles Jane's childhood. That part of the story, I think, is handled best by the earlier BBC version.
And obviously the 2006 miniseries speaks to a different sensibility and it's a valid work for those people who love it, and there are many (you being one of them). Earlier you wrote, "I know I'm supposed to be PC and say that everyone interprets it in their way, but I'm afraid I can't see the other side of this argument." I guess that's an honest statement and what I'm saying is that many people (obviously, I'm one of them) see something other than what you do, but I don't think of it so much as a different argument, but rather as a different perception. It probably wouldn't change your mind for me to get super specific re facial expressions, tone of voice, specific scenes, etc, and I don't expect or want to really effect you that way - it's really a difference in style and sensibility. Just for the record (I guess that's IMDB) the strongly pro-view of this film is held by many people who are very familiar with the book, too (as I am) and who are also great appreciators of cinema and have experience in that area (Meryl Streep was my earlier example). So, there is a different perception, that I feel is equally valid and I know, as in my case, it's very real. I'm curious, do people who like this 2011 version ever go on the 2006 IMDB, on a regular basis, to criticize the mini-series? Obviously, they have every right to, as you do on here, but somehow it would surprise me if they do. The people I know and who I've spoken to who love the 2011 Mia version, don't seem to focus on earlier versions that much, there's no sense of competition - some versions they like more than others, but it doesn't seem to be an issue of dispute.
Just for the record (I guess that's IMDB) the strongly pro-view of this film is held by many people who are very familiar with the book, too (as I am) and who are also great appreciators of cinema and have experience in that area (Meryl Streep was my earlier example).
hmm... I'm not aware of any statistics that show this. If there are any, then I would appreciate a link.
I don't claim to be an expert on either the book or cinema in general, and I have no problem with anyone saying that this is the superior cinematic piece. I see interpreting a character as a build-up of several layers. First there's all the basic stuff, what the character says and does. The dialogue can't be put on screen unchanged obviously, but the character's actions should. If the book says to cry, then you cry. If the books says to laugh hysterically, then you laugh hysterically, etc. Once the basic stuff is in place, you add up the layers, the nuances; timing, tone of voice, details of facial expressions and body languages, etc. Those are the things that truly make or break the character, but they need the basics to be there. So when an actress is frantic when the book says the character is calm and collected, then all the little details of the scene don't matter any more. You can read the book a million times and pick up all the nuances of the character, but it only takes a first-time reader to realise that the way Mia took off the dress is not a faithful representation of:
...not to weep, not to mourn, I was yet too calm for that, but-mechanically to take off the dress.
I'm curious, do people who like this 2011 version ever go on the 2006 IMDB, on a regular basis, to criticize the mini-series?
My criticism of this movie doesn't have anything with the BBC series. I have loved the BBC series for a long time now, and it didn't make me want to criticize this movie. After I read the book, I rewatched some the adaptations and as I usually do after watching a movie checked the imdb page. The OP asked a question, and I gave my honest answer. When I do feel that my opinion of a certain adaptation has more to do with my love for another, I steer away from the imdb page (which is why I never post in the 2008 S&S even though I hate it with a passion).
reply share
Ha .. No, I haven't gathered any statistics on the matter. I'm speaking of many highly regarded critics, such as a Shane Danielsen or a Guy Lodge, Justin Chang, well known critics in the world of cinema, people like that - in the case of Meryl Streep, she singled out Mia's performance in Jane Eyre, when she went up to accept her Golden Globe Award, also Richard Corliss, head critic of Time Magazine singled out Mia's performance in a write up of his choices of the best performances of the year (he also was quite effusive in his praise in his original review in Time). I don't go along with you, though, on what a film HAS to do in portraying a book. I don't believe that changing the structure of a story, leaving out something from the novel, in other words, not trying to duplicate everything, every action, is necessarily a negative, sometimes it's a necessary, even a stronger choice for creating a film that stands on it's own - that, of course, will always upset some who have certain expectations. That may be where we have the biggest difference. When I approached this film, I had no desire or expectation for it to conform to some image I had of the novel, I really just found myself drawn into it's atmosphere and tone, and it's real gothic sensibility that, for me, was also an important element in Bronte's book. I felt they captured the poetic aspect, that I didn't feel as strongly in other versions. I also found all the acting very truthful, not showy at all, honest. Mia's and Fassbender's talks around the fire were for me both sublime and fascinating, with many levels going on at once. For me, the 2011 really worked as a film, in and of itself, but I guess for you it didn't. If you're interested here's just one example. This is the review in Time Magazine of "Jane Eyre" by their most prominent critic, Richard Corliss, one of the best known in the country. If you're interested read it - in the last couple of paragraphs he gets quite descriptive in the qualities he sees in Mia as an actor. There are many other critics and cinemaphiles who feel the same way, I read their comments and reviews all the time - some people push it even further than me, and almost try to give her divine status, which makes me laugh (she is quite a chameleon) - I see her as very human but with an other-worldly talent. If you like, see what you think of the review. And I have no expectation at all of changing your mind, just want to show you there's another whole view on the matter.
Hi spookyrat. Is "properness" the proper word? Why not. In Todd McCarthy's review of the film in the Hollywood Reporter (one of THE top cinema industry critics) he uses the phrase "stringent moral values." He also says,"the strong spine of the character and the work itself remains sound and is manifest in every moment of Wasikowska's strong performance." If you're interested here's the review - it's quite good - he hits on other points, too.
I was more having a play "(prim and proper") with supergran who suggested I shouldn't use the adjective prim to describe her. She's probably very right though I was at pains to explain that I wasn't thinking of her as being prudish, when I used it; more in the sense as when Todd McCarthy says that she
...will not submit to what she knows is not right...
a trait I find very admirable with her.
BTW thank you for the reference to his review.
reply share
"...will not submit to what she knows is not right..."
Yes, spookyrat, I understood what you meant. And your above quote from the Todd McCarthy review is an important one re our Jane. She has a strong sense of justice - a sweet soul, but a spine of steel. I like this bit from the review, too.
"Crucially, the scenes of Jane and Rochester getting to know each other, with her becoming captivated by his powerful personality and with him increasingly appreciating her ability to cope with his quicksilver intellect and diabolical mood swings, are among the film's best, well establishing a strong link between them."
They are in kind of a spiritual, emotional and intellectual dance, but it's almost a form of therapy, too, for Rochester. Very interesting. To me the light of the fireplace is a visual theme used throughout the film, including the title and credits, which are also illuminated by the same fire's glow. As with the book, I feel this reflects a theme of coming to love, to enlightenment. Not to get TOO symbolic on ya.
Yes those early scenes in front of the fireplace, where he requests that she sit beside him were very intriguing. He tests her mettle, but she refuses to subordinate herself to him.
A dance is quite a good way to describe it, with Rochester leading, but Jane not willing to suppress her own innate, inimitable style, despite the possible challenges to do so.
That's right, "she refuses to subordinate herself to him". In those fireplace scenes you can really see them probing each other, testing and playing with the power dynamic. In the social and financial structure, Rochester is holding all the cards, but Jane has the power of her individuality and intelligence that trumps all the subservient bit (Mrs. Fairfax is hilariously clueless as to what's going on). Mia and Fassbender play all the levels with great subtlety and depth, there's a lot developing, on and beneath the surface, as the fire casts it's light and shadow on their faces - the mystery of love.
Sorry, spookyrat, don't mean to be pedantic about words.
I suppose primness has negative connotations: evoking thoughts of someone who is prudish and strait-laced! Definitely not Jane Eyre!
At Moor House, when she is wrestling with the agonising decision of whether or not to marry St John, Jane writes about her internal "fire". She speculates how marriage to St John would be:
I should suffer often, no doubt, attached to him only in this capacity: my body would be under rather a stringent yoke, but my heart and mind would be free. I should still have my unblighted self to turn to: my natural unenslaved feelings with which to communicate in moments of loneliness. There would be recesses in my mind which would be only mine, to which he never came, and sentiments growing there fresh and sheltered which his austerity could never blight, nor his measured warrior-march trample down: but as his wife - at his side always, and always restrained, and always checked - forced to keep the fire of my nature continually low, to compel it to burn inwardly and never utter a cry, though the imprisoned flame consumed vital after vital - THIS would be unendurable.
A "prim" Jane would probably have married her cousin. A passionate Jane returned as fast as she could to the man who was flesh of her flesh and with whom she was "precisely suited in character"!
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
I definitely didn't see Jane as being prudish and didn't mean to use it in a negative sense. More along the lines of she had clearly developed her own ideas about ethical behaviour and others would be unlikely to cause her to divert way from the path she thought she should follow.
reply share
When you read the book, you will see the agony that Jane goes through - both during her parting scene with Rochester and, later, on the road. She is fleeing temptation as much as anything else. Her thoughts of self-recrimination as she contemplates what will now happen to Rochester is heart breaking:
A mile off, beyond the fields, lay a road which stretched in the contrary direction to Millcote; a road I had never travelled, but often noticed, and wondered where it led: thither I bent my steps. No reflection was to be allowed now: not one glance was to be cast back; not even one forward. Not one thought was to be given either to the past or the future. The first was a page so heavenly sweet-- so deadly sad--that to read one line of it would dissolve my courage and break down my energy. The last was an awful blank: something like the world when the deluge was gone by.
I skirted fields, and hedges, and lanes till after sunrise. I believe it was a lovely summer morning: I know my shoes, which I had put on when I left the house, were soon wet with dew. But I looked neither to rising sun, nor smiling sky, nor wakening nature. He who is taken out to pass through a fair scene to the scaffold, thinks not of the flowers that smile on his road, but of the block and axe-edge; of the disseverment of bone and vein; of the grave gaping at the end: and I thought of drear flight and homeless wandering--and oh! with agony I thought of what I left. I could not help it. I thought of him now--in his room--watching the sunrise; hoping I should soon come to say I would stay with him and be his. I longed to be his; I panted to return: it was not too late; I could yet spare him the bitter pang of bereavement. As yet my flight, I was sure, was undiscovered. I could go back and be his comforter--his pride; his redeemer from misery, perhaps from ruin. Oh, that fear of his self-abandonment--far worse than my abandonment--how it goaded me! It was a barbed arrow-head in my breast; it tore me when I tried to extract it; it sickened me when remembrance thrust it farther in. Birds began singing in brake and copse: birds were faithful to their mates; birds were emblems of love. What was I? In the midst of my pain of heart and frantic effort of principle, I abhorred myself. I had no solace from self- approbation: none even from self-respect. I had injured--wounded-- left my master. I was hateful in my own eyes. Still I could not turn, nor retrace one step. God must have led me on. As to my own will or conscience, impassioned grief had trampled one and stifled the other. I was weeping wildly as I walked along my solitary way: fast, fast I went like one delirious. A weakness, beginning inwardly, extending to the limbs, seized me, and I fell: I lay on the ground some minutes, pressing my face to the wet turf. I had some fear--or hope--that here I should die: but I was soon up; crawling forwards on my hands and knees, and then again raised to my feet--as eager and as determined as ever to reach the road.
....Gentle reader, may you never feel what I then felt! May your eyes never shed such stormy, scalding, heart-wrung tears as poured from mine. May you never appeal to Heaven in prayers so hopeless and so agonised as in that hour left my lips; for never may you, like me, dread to be the instrument of evil to what you wholly love.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
Hey spookyrat, or anyone else who really wants to get down into the weeds re acting - specifically Mia Wasikowska's acting in this role. This is an analytical article by Shelia O'Malley, an accomplished actress (studied at the Actor's Studio), a stage director and writer who has written voluminous articles. This is called:
"Mia Wasikowska's Jane Eyre: It's all About angles"
She discusses "fully inhabiting a role". She also is a great lover of the book, "Jane Eyre", but this is about the acting and the role, which she knows of what she speaks. The top of the article is an intro but you can scroll down for just the Jane Eyre part if you want (has pics, too). There's a lot to this acting stuff.
I don't know if you've seen The Kids Are Alright, but Sheila is right. You couldn't have arguably two more unlike roles. Mia inhabits both Joni and Jane with accomplishment and aplomb.
WOW! You actually read O'Malley's article, Spooky - I'm impressed, it's not short. Yeah, I've seen "The Kids Are Alright", and Shelia is correct, Joni is a different human being. She wrote this before Mia did "Stoker", which is vastly different, from another whole alternate universe - a dark one (the universe of Park Chan-wook, who I adore). The first time I saw Mia was in HBO's In Treatment, as Sophie - astonishing performance, definitely wouldn't recognize it as the same person. She's a chameleon and inhabits the truth.
I haven't seen her in Stoker, though I agree it does sound like an interesting scenario to me.
I know Park Chan-wook is pretty well regarded at the moment and am interested in seeing him work on a western production. Interesting that Stoker is generally regarded as being neither a critical nor commercial success despite not having a huge budget.
I've seen both Old Boy and Thirst and personally feel they're both overrated and go over the top for my liking.
Could you for instance imagine him directing a Korean version of Jane?
A Korean version of "Jane" from Park Chan-wook - I would definitely pay to see that (one can only imagine).
I loved "Stoker" - in my humble opinion, it's masterful, but it's not to everyone's taste and can be disorienting for some. It's easily my favorite of Park's films. Some cinema critics have called it a perfect film, a masterpiece, others (more mainstream, typically) weren't sure what they were watching, or they hated it. I'm accepting of a response that's all over the map. The visuals are so beautiful and meticulous, so perfectly executed, that I think it's easy to just focus on the gorgeous surface - I think it's easy to jump to the conclusion that there's no more to it, you know, that favorite cliche of it being style over substance. "Stoker" is super cinematic, it uses the language of film, the substance is contained within the style. I think many people approach films with kind of a critique similar to literary criticism - they focus on plot and dialogue above everything else - a film like "Stoker" tells it's story and communicates it's meanings through visual language and intricate sound design. "Stoker" is almost shockingly good filmmaking. I think this film needs to be viewed more with the spine than with the mind - in other words, it's something that you open your senses and nervous system to - if you do that your mind follows and Park Chan-wook then insinuates his creation into your subconscious (that may be a frightening thought for some). Park likes to take social taboos and collective fears and hit all the tender spots while, at the same time, turning it into stunning beauty - it's dark but poetic, and it can be viewed multiple times and be seen in multiple ways. It also doesn't hurt that he has tremendous actors who are able to inhabit their characters in this altered reality - Mia is hypnotic in the film. You should see it, you might hate it and curse me, or you might get down on your knees and thank me for singing it's praises.
Spooky, if you ever get to see "Stoker", try to watch the blu ray (widescreen), the transfer is utter perfection (highest technical rating) - beautiful color and detail. Anyway, back to the 19th century and the land of Bronte.
I'm far too lazy to read through this entire thread (though I gather Mia's performance was polarizing and am vaguely curious about the consensus here) but will belatedly butt in to say that I thought Mia was brilliant, and think her more so with each viewing.
So did Michael Fassbender - this is from the below link, which is a source of tremendous info re the inner workings of JE 11.
...Fassbender was surprised by Wasikowska as well. He notes, "Mia comes from a dance background, which is so disciplined and so regimented. She has taken that discipline and focus into the art form of acting. She has so many facets to her, such creativity, and has got such a maturity about her; she’s much more centered and together than I’ll ever be…
"She is fully present as the character in take after take, but the most impressive thing about Mia is that she is so very comfortable in herself."
This is from the June 2010 edition of Wonderland magazine:
And Cary [Fukunaga], I’ve seen his film, 'Sin Nombre', and I loved that, and I saw that last year. And then Mia Wasikowska, who is just amazing, that girl is the future of acting. She’s 20 years old, she’s such an original, she’s so much fun, super smart and mature. I mean, I really can’t say enough about her, she’s really something special. So I think she’s done an absolute quintessential Jane, and perfect. And hopefully I can keep up with Rochester.
Thanks, Swing, for that wonderful interview with Michael Fassbender - I hadn't seen it. I would say that him calling Mia "the future of acting" is definitely HIGH praise, wouldn't you? Fassbender is my current favorite male film actor so the source of the praise has a lot of weight to it. I would love it if Mia and he did another film together - that would be fantastic.
"This illuminating stillness is a gift shared by few English-speaking actresses. Her mentor might be Isabelle Huppert, a French star for 35 years, and high mistress of revealing a soul without making faces. Hollywood will do itself a favor if it meets this astral performer on her own terms; if it writes new stories on her blank-slate face; if it finds the strength and mystery in Wasikowska that Rochester did in Jane."
Ah, but Richard Corliss in his review DID mean it as high praise - he's talking about Mia's chameleonic quality, her ability to take on the character she's performing, to disappear and submerge herself in the character, totally. For anyone else interested here's the entire review - one can read it and come to their own conclusion - you needn't agree, but it's clear that the Time Magazine review is extremely positive, and what it's saying. It just may not be something every person sees.