MovieChat Forums > Jane Eyre (2011) Discussion > the FUNDAMENTAL 'Jane'

the FUNDAMENTAL 'Jane'


To me this is a wonderful film - a work of art. Different people will have different takes on the film, or the book, but art IS subjective. Some might insist that Jane Eyre can only be portrayed in a particular way (kind of a fundamentalist view) - that there is ONE truth - nonsense, it's more complicated than that. This is art, not religion. Cary Fukunaga is a cinematic artist, not a preacher. Jane Eyre is a great book and this film is a welcomed, fresh perspective.

the Hollywood Reporter review

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/jane-eyre/review/163945

reply

I suppose you mean religion within a given sect/denomination. But from an outsiders perspective religion is quite complicated. Consider the myriad of religions that have risen and fallen and that continue to this day. Even in Christianity, there is an almost endless number of "versions" depending on how folks interpret the scripture and the inner witness/inspiration they feel connects them to their respective divine being(s). So while I see your point that art is subjective, I contend that religion is a form or art and it is purely subjective what one believes to be the truth about the supernatural.

reply

Ah, rizdek, I see that you're trying to tempt me - you know, to pick some delicious looking low hanging fruit from the tree of knowledge, and spend the next 10,000 words discussing the nature of religion. I do want to stay on the topic of "Jane Eyre" the film, but we don't really disagree. I was referring to approaching a film adaptation of a literary work with an attitude that the filmmaker is dealing with almost a religious text, and that it has to be portrayed "one way" or it's incorrect, almost a blasphemy. To me this feels like a religious fundamentalist attitude applied to a work of art. The interpretation is so fixed and rigid in some people's minds that to deviate from what THEY see as the true nature of the book causes a reaction that's over-the-top, almost as though the filmmaker has urinated on the Koran. Obviously, I exaggerate, but only a little.

I'm not interested in provoking some internet fatwa - of course, people can have legitimate differences of opinion, especially when it comes to something as subjective as art - but it IS subjective.

reply

Low hanging fruit...yes that tempted Eve but you'll be stronger.

"I was referring to approaching a film adaptation of a literary work with an attitude that the filmmaker is dealing with almost a religious text, and that it has to be portrayed "one way" or it's incorrect, almost a blasphemy."

Well...if ya put it that way...no really I do agree wholeheartedly. Adapting books should be about capturing the mood, the tone, the feeling of the story and THAT is going to include someone or some ones interjecting and overlaying their feelings into and over the story. But then IMDB allows folks who feel differently voice their criticism. I think those who perhaps don't care as much for how Jane is portrayed in this adaptation feel like the people involved in adapting it "missed out" on how Jane is portrayed...even if they agree it is a subjective issue.

I avoid getting too much into discussing to what degree various adaptations match the book but only because I've not read the book...civer to civer so to speak. Yes, I admit that. I have studied parts..."cherry picked my verses" to make my points{:

Actually I don't usually get into 10,000 word debates...well only rarely. Because I'm right so often no one dares disagree. That's a joke BTW.

But of course, I am being aggressively naïve.

reply

I've read "Jane Eyre" multiple times - a great book - it's called a classic for a reason. If you're interested, here's an article about Moira Buffini, who wrote the screenplay to this adaptation - she is a long time lover of the book, and she talks about the approach she took for the film.

http://www.focusfeatures.com/article/unlocking_charlotte_brontes_jane_ eyre?film=jane_eyre

reply

Interesting read.

edit: What I find fascinating is that she loved the book, the story, had a deep appreciation for it. Enough appreciation that she desperately wanted to do the script for a movie. Scripting a navel (beautiful typo, huh?) mean movel of this length into a <2hr movie would be double tough.

She says, "All of us on the producing and writing side knew and loved this book since childhood." So this interpretation was not just one person's unique approach but benefited from the input of more than her. Yet there are many posters who simply are convinced it just missed the mark. The script writers and those directing the actors simply didn't know enough to "get it right."

I do think one thing that she did might have contributed to the sense that Mia only came across as sullen. By beginning with the leaving scene, that is the first impression we get of her. And that scene and her sullen weary stressed look goes on for several minutes...she's bounding away, she's caught on the moor, she's carried in, soaking wet, she's sitting there being studied by strangers...all of which is supposed to elicit sullen, stressful facial expressions. AND they show that leaving scene twice, once at the beginning and then later on in the movie. SO we get a double dose of the "stern faced" Mia. Plus, by showing the leaving part twice, it probably meant they couldn't put in some other scenes (because of time constraints) that MIGHT have shown her interesting facial expressions. I keep harking back to one of my favorite scenes. It's when she's playing with Adele with Mrs Fairfax looking on, and in the background we see Mr R helping some other men digging out a stump. Jane looks over and smiles. A glimpse of her showing that 1) she's happy to play with Adele and 2) she likes that she's "in the area" with Mr R. That scene represents to me, and allows me to imagine many such scenes where she does look pleased with her surroundings.

And, the other thing this version brought to light, to me anyways, was the incredulity Mia shows when Mr R declares his love and proposes. NONE of the other adaptations show so well that Jane can hardly believe it. And this seems so real to me. It would seem to me that would be prevalent emotion that would come through when she first receives the proposal. I think so many viewers already know he's going to propose, so there's no sense of surprise, no incredulity. They are looking for the emotion they themselves feel...the overwhelming happiness. But I think it more likely that the happiness would not register so soon and what would actually come through at first would be surprise and disbelief. She has NO reason up to that point to imagine Mr R is the least bit interested in her. She thinks he is to marry Blanche. She thinks he's so far above her station as to make such a match unthinkable. He does not seem to treat her nicely...as if he wants to marry her.

reply

"But this is a breakthrough. She owns this part—it's her Jane, and Brontë's as well. For ­starters, she's ­reserved rather than meek, and she speaks her mind as needed."

This is from a write-up in Elle that talks about the talented director Carey Fukunaga and the more Jane-centric approach of this film adaptation.

Fresh Eyre http://www.elle.com/pop-culture/reviews/jane-eyre-review

Here is Michael, Mia and director Carey Fukunaga (one of the new brilliant lights in cinema). http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/cnishared/tools/shared/mediahub/09/20/00/sli deshow_1002099183_AP110309080064.jpg

reply

Director Carey Fugunaga is currently one of the HOTTEST directors out there - he has directed the eight episodes of HBO's "True detective" series starring Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson, a kind if existentialist exploration masked as a crime drama that is currently taking viewers (and the internet) by storm (look for it to win MANY awards). His first film "Sin Nombre" won him the best director prize at Sundance - he is a brilliant young talent, who knows film history and world history. Here's his take on the timeless story of "Jane Eyre" and his approach to the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbC30C7eIb0

reply