Podcasts

  • S2 E1: With... Jenny Mitchell - Welcome back to Behind the Glass with this early-release first episode of series 2 ! Sam and new co-host Connie talk to prize-winning poet Jenny Mitchell...
    1 month ago

Thursday, June 09, 2011

Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:05 pm by Cristina in , ,    No comments
MetroWNY reviews Jane Eyre 2011:
Wasikowska is a fine choice to play Jane, as her physical appearance provides an ideal representation of understated beauty. Wasikowska’s performance, however, came across a little too sedate. During the time in which these stories take place, politely guarded conversation between the sexes could only hint at the emotional chaos that brewed beneath the surface. In order to translate this onto film, actors must be able to convey this hidden passion to the audience. However, the fire that was supposedly burning under Wasikowska’s cool exterior seemed dim and, at times, completely extinguished. Luckily, Fassbender turned in an electric performance as Rochester, successfully providing the intended spark between Jane and her beloved. Another actor worth mentioning is the always brilliant Judi Dench, who plays Mrs. Fairfax, housekeeper of Thornfield Hall. This character reveals much of the necessary back story on Rochester and acts as a sounding board for and mentor to Jane. Dench skillfully downplays her grand talent for this minor but significant role, creating a simple yet endearing character. [...]
The finest achievement of the film is no doubt its cinematography, with the lovely dreariness of the landscape perfectly reflecting the story’s bleak tone. The exquisite details of the locations, the architecture and the décor serve to immerse you in a gorgeous and authentic experience. The film also freshly highlights the darker aspects of the narrative, providing a fantastically mysterious and haunting version of the tale; (an approach that has been all but absent in earlier film adaptations). Despite all that it has going for it, however, lack of passion and scene development causes this movie to fall short of the masterpiece it could have been. [...]
One of the strongest aspects of Jane and Rochester’s relationship is that they look beyond their physical selves and are attracted to something intrinsically deeper- each other’s souls. This film appears to be just the opposite. Here, ideal beauty is of the utmost importance and it is the soul that is lacking. This great romance should have been powerful enough to illuminate it against the dull, dreary backdrop of their lives. Instead, it simply blends right in.
It seems that in his attempt to break the story down to its bare essentials, Fukunaga opted to omit much of the romanticism that defines this type of drama. One can understand that the director’s intention was to present the essential concepts of the story, devoid of all the frills. However, when something is whittled down to its bare bones, sometimes all we are left with is a skeleton of what the masterpiece once was. This is a solid movie and certainly worth seeing; however, you would do well not to expect the emotional grandeur you’ve come to expect from the gothic novel. (Stephanie Kroneiss)
But that's not the only movie reference today. Indiewire's Spout writes about the film The Trip:
Coogan and Brydon find themselves in the moors of the Brontë sisters, somewhere between Wuthering Heights and the homes of Wordsworth and Coleridge. The two poets in particular seem to haunt Coogan, who feels the need to quote them at length in his droopier moods. Visiting the houses becomes a pilgrimage-like experience for him, though tempered by Brydon’s earnest humor. And of course all of this is set to the murky and almost other-worldly landscapes of the region, moors and ancient rock features that skirt a different realm of perception and understanding. (Daniel Walber)
And more on films, although this one very tangentially. Writing about Hook, MovieLine makes the following comparison:
Hook is way too mopey and 1991-riffic (synonyms) to be considered a sequel to or variation on J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan. Not even close. That’s like if Katy Perry released a squawky, gawky cover of Kate Bush’s “Wuthering Heights” and credited Emily Brontë as an active co-writer. My god, please! No literary cred for you, Katy! (Louis Virtel)
YouTube user themissingn reviews Wuthering Heights. The Captive Reader discusses Agnes Grey. Both Peachy Reviews and The Book Bluff write about Jane Eyre.

Categories: , ,

0 comments:

Post a Comment