This is not the fault of the film as such. But why do most of these screen adaptions cast such beautiful women as Jane Eyre? Also, to a lesser extent, Rochester is cast as someone much to young and handsome. It makes no sense, and really effects the tone of the film and your view of the characters.
shareTo answer your first comment: the film industry like the TV industry "don't do" plain or middle aged women.Recenty, in the British film industry, especially
TV journalism much has been made of the early retirement of ladies reaching a certain age. This seems unfair because men can be as ugly as sin, wrinkly as a walnut, and still hang on to their cushy little numbers in TV until they are nearly popping their clogs.
Regarding Roch, well, the actors playing his part have actually leaned to his book age ,which was, 25 when he came back to Thornfield with the missus, plus 10 years of roaming Europe =35 years old.
Below is a little survey of some Rochester's ages over the years:
1944 Orson Welles 27
1949 Charlton Heston 26
1963 Richard Leech 41
1970 George C Scott 43
1973 Michael Jayston 37
1983 Timothy Dalton 39
1996 William Hurt 46
1997 Ciaran Hinds 44
2006 Toby Stephens 37
2011 Michael Fassbender 33
Looking at the range of ages of the various actors , and my sums being correct, it looks as though 37 years is the average.
Now, regarding their good looks, we will leave that to Jane to decide: Chapter 14" that tastes differ;that beauty is of little consequence" etc etc.
Time flies like the wind:
Fruit flies like a banana.
I watched this a long time ago but I do remember being stuck with a line from Michael Fassbender and as it was a long time ago, I paraphrase "Jane, you are at beautiful as I am handsome". At the time I thought, yeah there's the problem, you're both very attractive. I know that's not what was meant!
share"I know that's not what was meant!"
Nor was it what they said - the actual line was "you are no more beautiful than I am handsome"
Some versions of Jane Eyre have cast fairly plain women as Jane. I thought Ruth Wilson fit the plain Jane appearance although with the right makeup I guess she can be attractive. I think Cusak, Gainsbourg and Clarke were plain looking. Some might think Morton was plain, but I think she is attractive as Jane and Harriet. But to me, anyway, and apparently to Livevsart, Wasikowska is no more plain than Fassbender was ugly (to women).
shareI know people who think Mia Wasikowska is definitely plain in the film. I think she passes for plain if you just go by the lack of makeup and the hairstyle, etc. But she also manages to look like someone painted by Millais, if you look with your aesthetic eye.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/11/article-2201480-14F0B3D80000 05DC-897_634x344.jpg
when her hair's down she looks like someone painted by Waterhouse.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/b885ff89e9a1305699f67e99b49e2a57/tumblr_mu0 bus26Db1qim76zo1_500.gif
in "Stoker" she has a Waterhouse quality (Pre-Rafaelite)
http://theeyeoffaith.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/india-stoker-the-prer aphaelite-muse-nouveau-gothic-style-stunner-inspiration-vintage-fashio n-reinvention.png
in real life she's youthful but elegant, and highly intelligent (if you like that sort of thing).
http://focusfeaturesmedia.com/uploads/image/mediafile/1299791676-93157 efd1df4a81910c0d96dabdf8a5f/480.jpg
I think your comparison to Pre-Rafaelite women is very interesting. They were "real" women, maybe not the most beautiful but made to look stunning and for me some of the most memorable women depicted in art. Stoker was so beautiful to watch. I was in awe of the detail everywhere. I have the same feeling when I look at Terry Gilliam's work. I know that's an odd comparison but it's this sense of "Where does this stuff come from? What is going on and at what speed in their heads?" Like William Morris and his buddies too, it's unfathomable that a mind can create such beauty. And our generation worship Kardashians.
shareOh, I'm glad you appreciate "Stoker" - that's a whole universe away from "Jane Eyre" - not everyone who likes J.E. would like "Stoker". Both of those films, though, are really sophisticated and cinematic: their use of visuals, music and sound design, along with the acting and story (one reflects the other). Much of "Stoker" looks like Waterhouse on opium. Park Chan Wook is so masterful and is able to take something foul and make it unforgettably beautiful - every frame is like a work of art. Somehow, Mia, Nicole Kidman, and Matthew Goode found the perfect tone for such extreme and twisted characters - it's kind of an alternate reality, as much like dreaming as it is being awake.
http://cinenthusiast.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/stoker.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3712/10736820723_0d641e9275_b.jpg
http://cdn01.cdn.pinkisthenewblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/28/Sc reen-Shot-2012-09-28-at-11.56.55-AM-600x450.png
http://editorial.designtaxi.com/news-gifad2802/2.gif
she's youthful but elegant, and highly intelligent (if you like that sort of thing).
"I do prefer intelligent women...thanks for the links."
I'm glad to hear that rizdek. For my money Mia Wasikowska really captures Jane's intelligence, which is Bronte's, and it's throughout the book, in the characters and in the book's symbolic form. And she also captures the feel and look of the period. Like I said, she can look plain (to some, not to me) - like this
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lektdIqqd6E/Tdz70ijaMTI/AAAAAAAAEXo/lQvYYOfo _64/s1600/jane+eyre+veil.jpg
or she can transmogrify into another whole being. Mia was the Face of Prada for 2012 - CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO of her Prada Miu Miu campaign. She's definitely not a Plain Jane in this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfSnGhgspeA (FULL SCREEN MODE}
People need to realize you can have plain beauties, Joan Fontaine is a perfect one.
There has to be something other than being a good governess to capture the 'lord of the manor'
Only those with no valid argument pick holes in people's spelling and grammar. [yes]
It's very tempting to think that when Jane describes herself as a plain, Quakerish governess, she is talking merely about Quakerish simplicity and unadornment.
In her biography of the life of Charlotte Bronte, Elizabeth Gaskell writes:
[Charlotte] once told her sisters that they were wrong - even morally wrong in making their heroines beautiful as a matter of course. They replied that it was impossible to make a heroine interesting on any other terms. Her answer was, "I will prove to you that you are wrong; I will show you a heroine as plain and as small as myself, who shall be as interesting as any of yours."
There are a number of written accounts of CB's appearance. This is my favourite, by George Smith, CB's friend and publisher:
I must confess that my first impression of Charlotte Brontë's personal appearance was that it was interesting rather than attractive. She was very small, and had a quaint old-fashioned look. Her head seemed too large for her body. She had fine eyes, but her face was marred by the shape of the mouth and by the complexion. There was but little feminine charm about her; and of this fact she herself was uneasily and perpetually conscious. It may seem strange that the possession of genius did not lift her above the weakness of an excessive anxiety about her personal appearance. But I believe that she would have given all her genius and her fame to have been beautiful. Perhaps few women ever existed more anxious to be pretty than she, or more angrily conscious of the circumstance that she was not pretty.
I think we have to conclude that poor Charlotte and, by extension, Jane were no lookers! Lol! And we shall have to accept that attractive actresses, stripped of make-up and sporting severe hairstyles, will continue the tradition of playing Jane for many years to come. [smile]
(I'm boycotting the new emoticoms!)
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
I don't think that Samantha Morten is what would traditionally be considered attractive - she is a fine actress, though. Charlotte Gainsbourgh also isn't a Megan Fox type either. I don't think any of them were as small as Bronte - that's hard to find these days. Hopefully, the actresses are stripped down, as you say, but I really think the most important thing would be to communicate an independent intelligence, spirit and will - those are traits I feel very acutely in Bronte's writing and in Jane.
sharethe most important thing would be to communicate an independent intelligence, spirit and will - those are traits I feel very acutely in Bronte's writing and in Jane.
I think by Hollywood standards that Mia Wasikowska is a bit plain in comparison to taller more well endowed actresses but that petite and pixie like figure is still attractive and so is Jane Eyre when compared to flashier high society women. I think it works in this movie and that it is believable in her case. I think Michael Fassbender is wayyy too attractive to play Mr. Rochester though but I can't complain and wouldn't change it for the world because he is a treat to oogle and because he got the portrayal spot on acting wise.
RIP Cory Monteith your fans miss you dearly
Ellen Page was cast but she dropped out because she didn't want to wear dresses.
shareWonder if anyone looked good back then. The bad hair, frumpy dresses, pale faces, bad nutrition. Their teeth must have been yellow, some missing. No deodorant - p.u.
share