The whole point of the story is that Miss Eyre has a rich personality, intelligence and spirit trapped in a Plain Jane body. But every film ever made of this seems to star a fairly attractive actress. (I guess Charlotte Gainsbourgh was the least conventional of them.)
Jane's supposed to look like this, or even worse: https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1288757721l/50165.jpg
It bugs me, g-damn it!
.
I agree. But they will always want to go with an attractive actress i guess.
share
They always think they can paste heavier brows on a girl and POOF, she's a wallflower!
Or in this 2006 version, they imagine that 10 extra lbs. banish Ruth Wilson to spinster status:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/72/82/2b/72822b212b2a6957d36f3a2b7e6a9b0d--white-tv-bronte-sisters.jpg
Why, she's practically MEDUSA!
.
Jane isn't supposed to be a hag. She's not beautiful by the standards of her time, but Mr. Rochester thought she was oddly attractive at first meeting, and through the book he keeps comparing her to a fairy or elf. And apparently he thought she was attractive before he realized what a vivid personality she had, so no, she wasn't a hag.
Wasikowska was good casting. She's sort of pretty, but not model-perfect, and she's very small and thin, as the character is frequently described (in the book someone refers to her as "...that little midge of a governess"). And yes, I suppose she has a bit of an elf-like quality. No, it's Fassbender who was the miscast.
The woman in the photo on that book cover is not a "hag".
share