Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:40 pm by M. in , , , ,    No comments
What happens with the 'Eyre' word that incites so many presumptively witty plays on words? It triggers an irrepressible urge on the journalists to develop their, usually not very inspired, creativity. The most recent example comes from this review of the Jane Eyre performances at the Guthrie Theatre:

To 'Eyre' is human; to see 'Jane' divine.

The Guthrie opened its Wurtele Thrust Stage season last month with an epic and inspired version of the beloved Charlotte Bronte novel. Adapted for the stage by Alan Stanford, who also made great theater out of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" in 2003, this "Jane" errs on the side of bigness -- a large cast, lots of scenes, three actresses playing Jane at various stages of her life, and a strong, literary script that aims high.

Stacia Rice is fine as the young heroine who refuses to fit neatly into early Victorian society's plans for her, but Sean Haberle, as her lover Rochester, gets all the best lines and action. The only quibble with the script and director John Miller-Stephany's staging is that they take a pass on the theatrical climax of the tale, the catastrophe at Rochester's castle.

But as Jane herself might say, you can't have everything, and "excellent" is certainly very good. (Jay Furst in the Rochester Post-Bulletin)

Lydia's Life talks about Jane Eyre 2006 in Dutch. feminine-genius comments Elizabeth Gaskell's Life of Charlotte Brontë which she is reading (although she calls her Gaskill). Kevin's Movie Corner reviews Jane Eyre 1944. Finally British Literature on Film confronts Wuthering Heights 1939
It seeems far too romantic, while also being way too dramatic for my taste. It simply left me with nothing positive to remember it by.
to Abismos de Pasión
At least the characters in this version acted like the ones Bronte created and the storyline was not reduced to a simple love story.
Categories: , , , ,


Post a Comment