Jane Eyre enters into its third weekend (I)

This coming weekend Jane Eyre 2011 opens in more theatres and so more news outlets are reviewing the film.

Positive

Vancouver Straight.com:

Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, and Sally Hawkins are all excellent in supporting roles, but the passionate soul of Jane Eyre belongs, natch, to Jane. Mia Wasikowska (of Alice in Wonderland and The Kids Are All Right) embodies Brontë’s resolute, ever-questioning heroine with such intelligence you can’t take your eyes from that furrowed brow beneath the bonnet and severely parted hair. The first witty exchanges between Jane and Rochester crackle with energy and the giddy realization that the moody master is excited by a woman who can think. (Patty Jones)

San Jose Mercury News:

True aficionados will doubtless wish the film etched every aspect of the Brontë experience but that's a quibble in light of the movie's intoxicating charms. It's impossible not to fall in love with this "Jane." (Karen D'Souza)

KYW Newsradio 1060 (Philadelphia) gives it 3 stars out of 4:

The screenplay by Moira Buffini — which, unlike the chronological novel, starts in the middle of Jane’s life and catches us up with streamlined flashbacks — rearranges the material to a certain degree, but in an interpretation that captures the spirit of the novel as intended, addressing the ways in which the past intrudes on the present and alters the future. (Bill Wine)

The Young Folks:

The performances are great. Mia Wasikowska plays Jane with passion and subtle power. Michael Fassbender is intense and interesting as Mr. Rochester. He’s so fascinating to watch; it’s no wonder that Jane falls in love with him. Jamie Bell, Judi Dench and Sally Hawkins also star and act well.
Another thing that intrigued me about this movie is its director, Cary Fukunaga. I was impressed by his first movie, Sin Nombre. I was excited that he brought back the same cinematographer for Jane Eyre. The cinematography in Sin Nombre was stunning, and it is the same for Jane Eyre. It compliments the movie’s tone and story. It just works.

The Daily Aztec:

Though “Jane Eyre” has been compared to Austen’s frequently adapted classics such as “Pride and Prejudice” and “Sense and Sensibility,” this movie bears little resemblance to the typical period film. The movie does not move at a slow pace but instead intercuts time and place. Jane is not the typical passive heroine, she allows her strong will and good heart to guide her. For those who enjoy the novel, the story remains true to the book. Rather than relying on heavy dialogue, it is best told through the use of the locations, costumes and fantastic casting, which comprise every beautiful scene. (Morgan Denno)

St. Louis Today gives it 3 out of 4 stars but it also states that Charlotte Brontë was Jane Austen's contemporary.

Mostly positive

The Portland Mercury:

It's this commitment to Jane Eyre's gothic side that keeps the film from straying into camp, and keeps it fundamentally entertaining even as it tears through that goofy story: orphan Jane's heartless aunt, her hellish boarding school, her post as a governess where she meets the almost comically virile Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender), and learns his deep, dark secret.
Jane is played by Mia Wasikowska, a pretty girl who passes for plain with the help of some extremely unflattering hairstyles. Wasikowska—who previously played Alice in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, and the daughter in The Kids Are All Right—lends the role a dreamy primness that's more Anne of Green Gables than Jane Eyre, and despite the impassioned speeches that handsome Mr. Rochester occasionally provokes her to give, it's not entirely plausible that she has an inner life. (For his part, Fassbender overacts with gusto, but he's so handsome that all is forgiven.) But it's a testament to Fukunaga's intelligent direction that even with a silly plot and lackluster Jane, his Jane Eyre is moodily, spookily enjoyable. (Alison Hallett)

We would never have imagined that the plot of Jane Eyre could be deemed 'goofy'. Then again on that same site the caption under a still from the film says, 'JANE EYRE Don't go in the basement!' - joke or actual mistake?

The Philadelphia City Paper gives it a B:

This latest adaptation, by screenwriter Moira Buffini and director Cary Joji Fukunaga, overcomes that hurdle by simply casting it aside. Austere and downcast, this Jane Eyre keeps us as starkly distant from the heroine's inner workings as it from the haunted characters she encounters. The mystery here is less about strange sounds emanating from the attic than how anyone could find even meager happiness in such a harsh existence. To that end, Fukunaga jettisons the Gothic horror and moonlit gloom that so often overwhelm the tale. Instead, he enshrouds the film in a tubercular chill, gray, drab and barren. (Shaun Brady)

The Minnesota Daily gives it 3 out of 4 stars:

"Jane Eyre” is a classic tale, and Fukunaga has added his modern flair. However, like any cinematic vision of a time that was or will be, it is highly prone to becoming dated. The film could do with one less contemplative walk through the garden, and the brief sunlit-lovers montage makes for a dangerous foray into music video territory.
But like the misty eyes that never break into tears, a candlelit hallway that never completely darkens or the sexual tension that never turns into sex, there is a restraint in the visual presentation of the film. This is best exemplified by a close-up of the fresh-faced Wasikowska against a black background, which, when couched in the severe ornamentation of a Victorian landscape, is refreshing and strikingly minimalistic.
Like any good film, “Jane Eyre” needs to be seen on the big screen to be fully appreciated. This imaginative rendition of the grand love story of literary fame deserves a larger-than-life presentation to faithfully deliver the 115-minute tension that longs for resolution — or release — as it were. (Marty Marosi)

The South Philly Review:

There’s a certain sense of incompletion to the latest incarnation of “Jane Eyre” – a palpable breezing-through of pivotal plot developments and time jumps that keeps the film from achieving a sweeping, satisfying totality. But director Cary Fukunaga (“Sin Nombre”) has greater and more interesting ambitions than to simply deliver one more sweeping costume drama. Building greatly upon the script by Moira Buffini, he offers something darker, something more individualistic, something remarkably un-dusty for being the 28th filmed adaptation of a 164-year-old novel. [...]
And yet, there’s modernity in Fukunaga’s approach – his “Jane Eyre” feels as much an auteur film as one could hope would result from this director-for-hire project (Buffini’s script sat unproduced for years; Fukunaga got the job in 2009). Playing up the story’s Gothic origins, he opts for a marvelous, shadowy aesthetic, comprised of foggy gray exteriors and haunting candle lighting. He downplays elaborate sets and costumes with authentic English gloom. He skirts tidy resolutions for challenging and uncompromising passages. Without explicitly bucking tradition, he makes the old new again. (R. Kurt Osenlund)

Negative

The Montreal Mirror:

Unfortunately, it’s just terribly unoriginal. Yes, a gothic mansion and gloomy moors are lovely to look at, but we’ve seen that creepy house and we’ve roamed those hills. We’ve entered a dark period for creativity and Hollywood is giving up. We may as well forget that it has all been done before and pretend that everything is innovative and really great. (Roxane Hudon)

The New Republic has 'Two of the novel’s most devoted fans discuss the many problems with the newest film version of Jane Eyre'. We would add, though, that they might well be 'two of the novel’s most devoted fans' but they seem to take for granted that it's just a woman's book.

But it soon devolved, and not just in the predictable, no-film-is-ever-as-good-as-the-novel kind of way. Obviously, a film cannot, in general, preserve the depth or breadth of book, and we’re not arguing that it should necessarily try. With the exception of a few truly deft adaptations (The Graduate, The Virgin Suicides) and a few unusual instances in which the film is truly better than the book (The Godfather, Forrest Gump), a filmic version of a novel should be about evocation—setting a tone and delivering a story that, while unable to recreate the book, doesn’t betray it. (The luxury of lengthy mini-series, in contrast, offers a broader canvas and, thus, is often more successful.) But, if a director is going to attempt to reinterpret a beloved classic with far fewer strokes than a literary text affords, he had better ensure that they are well-placed. In this new Jane Eyre, despite what many of the reviews have said, they’re not. [...]
As the film continues, Jane cries frequently and with abandon. She either tightens her lips or snidely quips, demonstrating little attachment to reason and sagacity. The young woman who, in the book, congratulates herself on “wholesome discipline,” who “rallies her principles,” and “calls her sensations to order” is lost. This is understandable; the interior battles to which the reader is privy cannot make for compelling cinema. But, with no substitute for Jane’s powerful inner voice, Fukunaga relies on expression and explosion. To make Jane a pendulum, swinging between silence and storm, actually renders her strangely static. One of the most powerful elements of the bildungsroman—her learning how to understand her emotions—is eliminated. [...]
There is some of this witty repartee within the film, but nowhere near enough. What would be enough? It’s hard to say; a two-hour film could never include all the sparkling conversation of the novel, but, we, at least, could have done without a few of the duller exchanges that Fukunaga’s Jane has with the obnoxious and off-putting St. John, the man who tries to woo Jane once she flees from Rochester. After all, no one ever claims that Jane Eyre is the story of St. John’s failed love for Jane. [...]
In the film, however, these women are all but eliminated. Jane’s only childhood friend and a crucial figure in her early development, the philosophically inclined Helen Burns, offers Jane a roll and, then, a minute later, sweaty skin shining in the candlelight, dies of consumption. Their relationship in between is lost. Miss Temple, a teacher at the cruel Lowood school, the first adult to show any kindness to Jane, and the person who intimates to Jane that she might possess the ability within herself to escape the deprivations of her lot in life, was listed in the credits, but we missed her on the screen. Even Blanche Ingram, who is a fully developed foil in the novel, is reduced to a series of pretty dresses and spiteful comments. And though the handsome St. John lifts Jane off his doorstep and carries her out of the rain in both the film and novel, his kindly sisters play the far greater role in her recovery. Devoid of female kinship, the film becomes a bare-bones romance. (Chloe Schama and Hillary Kelly)

Craig Silver from a Forbes blog thinks Jane Eyre with its many adaptations is overrated:

I think one problem with the latest outing is that the protagonist simply wasn’t given enough lines. Since the book is mostly a long monologue, this is inexplicable. Partly as a result, Wasikowska’s Jane lacks the verve and flash that makes you feel that this individual is an entire planet of sensibility with lots of explosions going on beneath the surface and real gravitational pull. There is too much dependence on the actress’ often impassive face, an endless brown study, to carry the drama. She’s a nice kid, but … a bud. We’ve caught up with a Jane who’s way too unformed to take on the 40ish Byronic semi-dissolute Rochester. You don’t quite believe she would win his heart over the also sweetly pretty but far more vivacious Blanche Ingram. This is a Jane Eyre with air at the center, not—the whole point of the story–molten iron.

Metro (US) includes Jane Eyre film among the ten films 'to see this weekend' and the Chicago Sun-Times reviews the film 'for parents':

Rated PG-13 for some thematic elements, including a nude image, and brief violent content.
Translation: Child abuse and sad death of a child. Disturbing and scary incidents, including a fire. Images of a nude picture.
Recommendation: Middle school ages to adults.
Family discussion: Why wasn’t Jane afraid of Mr. Rochester? How were they alike? How does the setting help tell the story?
If you like this, try: The book by Charlotte Brontë and the other movie incarnations of this story, especially the 1943 version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine and the 1996 version with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg. Also suggested, the book or the TV movie “The Wide Sargasso Sea” (2006), with the same story told from the point of view of the woman in the attic. (Nell Minow)

Mia Wasikowska is featured (on the cover too) in BlackBook's April "Bright Lights, Big City" issue:

Calling all Brontë purists! Aussie sensation and Jane Eyre star Mia Wasikowska, an actor of considerable depth and poise, covers BlackBook's April "Bright Lights, Big City" issue, dressed and styled in homage to fashion icon Twiggy. (Nick Haramis)

And a another cover for Mia in the Australian magazine The Big Issue.

OK! Magazine is giving away a 'Jane Eyre Kindle Prize Pack' (until April 22). And Twirlit and Style Substance Soul are also giving away 'Jane Eyre Prize Packs' (no Kindle, though). Inspired by the movie, though with no content directly related to it, Reading for Sanity is also having a 'Jane Eyre Swag Bag Giveaway'.

Flickr user Naír la jefa has uploaded the Jane Eyre 2011 South Korean poster, which is slightly different from the American one. The film opens there on May 21st.

The Yorkshire Post discusses this Sunday's new dramatisation of Wuthering Heights on Radio 3:

“Wuthering Heights was considered to be a rough and vulgar novel when it was published,” says Francis O’Gorman, professor of Victorian Literature at Leeds University. “It was full of swearing, such as phrases like ‘what the devil...?’ and ‘damnable jade’. This was quite shocking language at the time, and many Victorian writers would only put in a couple of letters and blank out the rest of the word. If you want to capture some of the provocation, coarseness and vulgarity of the book, just adding the f-word isn’t a particularly imaginative way of doing it, especially as so many dramas use those words today.
“On a broader, more conceptual, point of updating such a novel and making it more accessible, Wuthering Heights is an odd text, all about strangeness and alienation – something that’s going to be missed if you try to bring it into the 21st century.
“It was very much aware of its moment in time, with characters who are astonishingly violent to each other, and with a great deal of cruelty to animals. It’s a story that’s set in a real place and stands out for its sheer strangeness, which is what makes it so gripping and compelling.”
Jeffrey Richards, professor of cultural history at Lancaster University, describes the addition of modern expletives as misguided and believes their inclusion will lead to antipathy towards the book by those who may hear the story for the first time via the Radio 3 adaptation.
“It’s anachronistic to use words which were not common at the time. I hate anachronisms, such as the use of the words ‘hack it’ in a period adaptation I saw the other day. What’s shocking about Wuthering Heights is there in the story – the emotional power, the wildness, the violence and obsession. Hearing the f-word put in there inappropriately will outrage fans of the novel, and those who don’t know it simply won’t listen. But then Radio 3 has an audience that’s too small to measure anyway. I really hope we are not going to see a trend of modern swear words being put into other Victorian stories, such as the novels of Charles Dickens.” (Sheena Hastings)

This is all great promotion for the dramatisation, but we do think that they are taking things a bit too seriously. No one is changing the actual novel - it's just one man's take on the story, that is all. The Independent may have a point, only it is taken a bit too far:

Goodness knows I cuss as much as the next person, but am I alone in resenting the way that coarseness is now almost force-fed to us by institutions that should know better? [...]
it now transpires that RADIO 3 is to air a version of Wuthering Heights – on a Sunday evening! – which will contain more effing and blinding than breakfast at Buck Pal when the latest red-top revelations re Airmiles Andy drop from the corgi's jaws.
Really, no one could call me a prude – I'm not so much Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells as Blasé of Brighton. But it is my very worldliness, I feel, that makes me resent how "grittiness" is now forced on us, like the artistic version of being moaned at about eating one's five-a-day. What classic are the po-faced gritters going to darken up next? The Very Bulimic Caterpillar? The Cat In The Hat On Crack? Speedballs with Rosie?
In the way that trains have a quiet carriage, is it too much to expect a few institutions NOT to feel the need to get down with da kidz? (Julie Burchill)

The Chicago Sun-Times also gets somewhat carried away when it states,

Amanda Hocking, who built a huge fanbase and paying audience without the help of a treeware publisher, probably inspired more authors than all of the Brontë Sisters combined when the story spread that she’d sold just a little under 185,000 Kindle editions in less than a year. (Andy Ihnatko)

PopMatters introduces a review of Reading Jackie by William Kuhn as follows:

“Literature cannot be the business of a woman’s life,” British poet laureate Robert Southey declaimed in a letter to schoolteacher and aspiring poet and novelist Charlotte Brontë in 1836.
Eleven years later, in October 1847, Brontë refuted Southey’s proclamation when the British publishing firm of Smith, Elder, and Co. brought her Gothic romance Jane Eyre to the Victorian reading public; the novel, produced under the pseudonym Currer Bell, was an immediate critical and commercial success (1847 was a banner year for the Bronte sisters of Haworth, UK: Anne Brontë’s Agnes Grey found a publisher, as did Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights).
Today, more than 150 years after Charlotte’s death at a mere three weeks shy of her 39th birthday, her dark and masterfully plotted novel about the ardor between the title character, a strong-willed governess, and her employer, the enigmatic and brooding Edward Fairfax Rochester, not only continues to be widely-read in several languages, but has been translated into feature films and television movies more than 25 times, and is universally regarded as one of the most influential literary works ever composed, spawning a popular 1966 prequel by Jean Rhys, Wide Sargasso Sea.
Wide Sargasso Sea, providing back story for Bertha Mason, Rochester’s insane wife confined to the attic of his estate, was a favorite read of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, as noted in a quaint anecdote by historian William Kuhn in Reading Jackie: Her Autobiography in Books, a unique and original account that explores the woman behind the icon. (Rodger Jacobs)

The Keighley News comments on Haworth not being among the candidates for World Heritage Site and The Telegraph and Argus has an article on the contemporary arts programme at the Brontë Parsonage Museum.

Chrisbookarama continues rereading and commenting Jane Eyre. Looks & Books has put together the look that a modern Jane Eyre would wear. The Sleepless Reader continues with the Villette read-along.

Categories: Audio-Radio, Books, Jane Eyre, Movies-DVD-TV, Wide Sargasso Sea, Wuthering Heights