Jane Eyre (2011)

OutlawPete

I'm looking forward this.

It will be the first movie adaption in 15 years (was '78 before that) and this version is supposed to be very close to the original novel in it's darkness.

The 2006 BBC TV series focused more on the romanntic aspect and toned down the beatings of the young Jane and the elements of insanity of certain characters for instance.

Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) will play Jane and Michael Fassbender will play Rochester (a little young to play the role, but I think he looks older than 33).

Don't watch trailers myself (feel they spoil films) but had a few glances at this with the sound down and it looks impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_yGxeufjI0

getz

i will be staying in bronty country from the end of this month for three weeks[in a old cottage in haworth] and i will be doing the usual tourist walks parsonage ect,its not my first time and i can recommend it for any one who is a bronty fan,it has a strong irish connection,its like going back in time,

JP Liz V1

Interesting choice of actors for the lead roles

thegoodgirl

Just watched the film the other night and couldn't get enough of the story so I immediatly watched the BBC mini series afterwords.

Although I enjoyed the movie alot the mini series is by far better. Although Michael Fassbender is the better Rochester.

Such a great story just as a BTW I don't know if you have seen the film yet but there isn't an awful lot about the beatings of young Jane.

Pink11

I heard it was first due out back in March? I was disappointed to hear we'd have to wait till September to see it. Oh well nearly there now!

thegoodgirl

I did cheat and watched it online but I might actually go to see it again once released just because I fell in love with the story so much.

Pink11

As excited as I am I wouldn't want to ruin it for myself. Can't beat watching it at the cinema.

filmbuffboy

Cannot wait to see this! Studied the novel at colllege. The trailer looks great, hope it will live up to expectations!

emeraldstar

I'm really looking forward to this as I love Jane Eyre. However, I don't have awfully high expectations because I think Mia Wasikowska quite a weak actor, and definitely not Jane in my head. And also the recent BBC adaptation with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens was pretty amazing!

getz

if you love the book or the film,its well worth [if you get the chance] to go to howarth and the area that charlotte lived ,then the magic of it all will be a hundred times better,thackeray who was the most famous victorian writer of that time ,once introduced charlotte to his mother as this is jane ayre,[irreverent i know but interesting] i am lucky enough to live not to far from bronte land,so i got often at weekends,in fact i have rented a holiday cottage in the village and will be staying there from 10th to 16th sept,yes the area and moors have not changed from the days when the bronte sisters wrote about them.

Scealta_saol

I started a thread about this (not realising one was already here) [thanks to EmeraldStar for pointing me in the right direction]

The main point in my thread was that as excited as I am about the film, Fassbender doesn't exactly fit the description of Mr Rochester.
It's a problem I have with the adaptations where the male lead is not attractive and yet is portrayed as such [can even be seen in Wuthering Heights with Heathcliff]. Does Fassbender still do it credit to those who've watched it? Is he not too Hollywood pretty to play such an unattractive role? I love Fassbender but I don't want him to do an injustice to one of my favourite novels...

emeraldstar

Well, personally I don't find Fassbender all that attractive, so he works fine for me as the supposedly not particularly good-looking Rochester. When it comes to "doing justice" to the role, I think how he plays and interprets the character will be much more important than what he looks like. But of course that all remains to be seen as I haven't watched it yet

libra02

I would say to anyone who is a fan of Jane Eyre to go see the film as I loved it. I was lucky enough to be in US when it had a limited opening and did not want to wait till Sept to see it here. Though I will go again when it opens here on the 9th.

Fassbedender for me really got the character of Edward Rochester down to a tee. He is mysterious and secretive but not creepy, moody and hurt without coming across as crazy. While Mia Wasiwoska just captures and embodies Jane.

As with most adaptions there is alot cut out and originally the cut was supposed to be 2 hr 30mins but studio cut it down to just under 2 hours, so would have been better if they keep the longer version as bits feel a tad bit too rushed.

Overall though they keep the whole spirit and feeling contained in the book.

So it is def worth a trip to the cinema to see it.

Stella89

Scealta_saol wrote: »

I started a thread about this (not realising one was already here) [thanks to EmeraldStar for pointing me in the right direction]

The main point in my thread was that as excited as I am about the film, Fassbender doesn't exactly fit the description of Mr Rochester.
It's a problem I have with the adaptations where the male lead is not attractive and yet is portrayed as such [can even be seen in Wuthering Heights with Heathcliff]. Does Fassbender still do it credit to those who've watched it? Is he not too Hollywood pretty to play such an unattractive role? I love Fassbender but I don't want him to do an injustice to one of my favourite novels...

Its get a very good thumbs up from rottentomatoes , weighing in at 84% .

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jane_eyre_2011/

Scealta_saol

well all this makes me feel better I love Fassbender and know he can do many roles and I'm glad to hear that there are those that say he did well...

@ Emeraldstar - I suppose you're right, Fassbender isn't the most attractive man in Hollywood so that works for me

I know how the actor looks isn't as important as how they portray the role but when you read a book over and over again and get an idea in your head and then the film falls short.. (too many examples of this to count when you think of it)

I'm really looking forward to this film and if all the Bronte sisters' works could be done into more adaptations I'd be the happiest person around..

Acacia

I'm really looking forward to this. I think Mia Whatshername is a bit too pretty to play Jane and I didn't really like her Alice in Wonderland at all ( I think she could do a max of 3 facial expressions in the whole film, but that was a pile of crap in general, so maybe I'm judging her too harshly.) I though the actress who played Jane in the 2006 series was great and is pretty much how I imagined the character.

I think Micheal Fassbender is ideal for Rochester though, and he's an amazing actor. I fell in love with that character when I first read ''Jane Eyre" as a teenager * uber-nerd:p* so I really hope he doesn't disappoint!

emeraldstar

Acacia wrote: »

I'm really looking forward to this. I think Mia Whatshername is a bit too pretty to play Jane and I didn't really like her Alice in Wonderland at all ( I think she could do a max of 3 facial expressions in the whole film, but that was a pile of crap in general, so maybe I'm judging her too harshly.) I though the actress who played Jane in the 2006 series was great and is pretty much how I imagined the character.

Interesting. I think Mia Wasikowska is quite plain looking. I agree, I thought Ruth Wilson was a great Jane - and Toby Stephens as her Rochester was fantastic. That's why this new adaptation seems a bit unnecessary as that recent version was so good. (But then you could say they are all unnecessary as there are so many versions, but I won't say that as I love the story so I'll gladly watch them all )

Acacia

emeraldstar wrote: »

Interesting. I think Mia Wasikowska is quite plain looking. I agree, I thought Ruth Wilson was a great Jane - and Toby Stephens as her Rochester was fantastic. That's why this new adaptation seems a bit unnecessary as that recent version was so good. (But then you could say they are all unnecessary as there are so many versions, but I won't say that as I love the story so I'll gladly watch them all )

I don't really think she's stunning or anything but still a bit too pretty to play Jane:) I'm the same as yourself, I'll watch as many versions of J.E. so long as they keep making them. I think Ruth Wilson and Micheal Fassbender would be the ideal cast though!:D

Pink11

It's out this Friday right?

libra02

Pink11 wrote: »

It's out this Friday right?

Nope Friday week the 9th September.

Stargazer7

emeraldstar wrote: »

I'm really looking forward to this as I love Jane Eyre. However, I don't have awfully high expectations because I think Mia Wasikowska quite a weak actor, and definitely not Jane in my head. And also the recent BBC adaptation with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens was pretty amazing!

Have you seen her performance in the tv series "In Treatment"? She blew me away in that....I didn't really like the new version of Alice in Wonderland so I would blame that more than her acting ability.

libra02

Stargazer7 wrote: »

Have you seen her performance in the tv series "In Treatment"? She blew me away in that....I didn't really like the new version of Alice in Wonderland so I would blame that more than her acting ability.

She was exceptional in In Treatment and even though I was not a huge fan of Alice In Wonderland she was good in it.

Her perfromance in Jane Eyre is brilliant and in my opinion she gives the best performance of Jane yet. As you know from book alot of Janes communication is through her eyes, which Mr Rochester often comments on and Mia pulls this of to perfection. She makes you feel her heartbreak, joy, hope etc She also has great chemistry with Michael Fassbender who also gives a outstanding performance of Mr Rochester.

I cannot wait to see it again. It is easy to see why it is on the majority of critics best films list of 2011 so far.

Actually here is the UK trailer


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiZo96FF5D8&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL7283B1DA9122D71B

Actually has anyone seen a trailer for it in cinema. As here at my local one I have not seen it at all and I go on a fairly regular basis.

candy-gal1

Saw this last night, have to say I thought it was a great adaption of it, as dark as it should have been, and the poignancy throughout was exactly as it should be as in the novel, thought Mias performance was spot ojn as Jane tbh.

libra02

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Saw this last night, have to say I thought it was a great adaption of it, as dark as it should have been, and the poignancy throughout was exactly as it should be as in the novel, thought Mias performance was spot ojn as Jane tbh.

Yep went to see it last night also and loved it even more. As it has been about 6 months since I saw it, it was like seeing it again for first time.

As you said they got the whole gothic element spot on and that has been lacking in the majority of adaptions. The script was spot on and both Mia and Michael were outstanding. They had such great chemistry and felt the passion and heartbreak between them. You were draw into the story and coupled with the soundtrack, which is well worth a purchase BTW and should get an Oscar nod, you take the same emotional rollercoaster as Jane.

I agree with you candy-gal1 it is Mia's show.

It is getting great reviews this side of the pond and the only negative review was the Daily Fail but I would not even condier anything they say.

I will def be going for a repeat viewing.

SarahBM

going tonight, cant wait


Edit: Went to see Jane Eyre, I loved it, my mam hated it, but in fairness she isnt really into her period dramas.
Casting was perfect, loved the way the story was told in flash back, and well Mr Rochester *swoon*, even if he is a bit horrible in it.

Definitely recommend it, and I might go for a second look next wk.

eager tortoise

I thought it looked really well and had the right tone - Fassbender was perfectly edgy as Rochester and really like Mia W's look for Jane. However, I thought parts of the movie were needlessly sombre, bordering on dull. Far too many shots of characters looking across the landscape etc, and Jane's flight from Thornfield was shown twice! Wouldn't have minded but I thought too much of the story seemed to have been sacrificed for the sake of these arty shots - not enough build up of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and scant attention/explanation given to her relationship with the Rivers family. The recent BBC mini series is still the tops as far as I'm concerned!

libra02

eager tortoise wrote: »

I thought it looked really well and had the right tone - Fassbender was perfectly edgy as Rochester and really like Mia W's look for Jane. However, I thought parts of the movie were needlessly sombre, bordering on dull. Far too many shots of characters looking across the landscape etc, and Jane's flight from Thornfield was shown twice! Wouldn't have minded but I thought too much of the story seemed to have been sacrificed for the sake of these arty shots - not enough build up of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and scant attention/explanation given to her relationship with the Rivers family. The recent BBC mini series is still the tops as far as I'm concerned!

Actually the director's cut was 2 hr 30 mins and deleted bits did show more of their relationship etc. However studio decided to cut it just under 2 hours - which is such a pity. I do agree would have loved a few more moments between Jane and Rochester but still you can see their passion, love, connection etc

However I think the inclusion of Jane's flight etc actually added to the story and kept with the whole theme. For me it showed Janes feeling of betryal, isolation in the world ( which she though no longer would be part of her life). I do not believe the director shot them for being "arty" but as more of a story development and these are mentioned in book - Jane does alot of walking and looking out over the moors. It is an aspect of her character.
The majority of adaptions exclude the gothic element which is is a major theme of the book so was delighted it was kept and expanded on here.

I know alot of people love the 2006 verison but for me I just could not take to it. I thought the 2006 Rochester came across as too much of a horny git and it all came across as style over substance and the dialogue was just off to me. I was disapointed as BBC does this so well and I loved their new version of Emma.

However each to their own. Personally this Jane Eyre is my favourite with the Orsen Wells version coming second.

temply

Saw it yesterday, loved it.

emeraldstar

Saw it, loved it. More than I thought I would and I was expecting good things anyway. I wasn't expecting to like Mia as Jane because I thought she was pretty bad in Alice in Wonderland but actually she was alright. Even though I thought Fassbender's Rochester a little too nice, I still loved his Rochester

This version somehow seemed more real than any of the other adaptations and I really loved the Gothic element to it.

Can't decide between this and the 2006 version now. They're equal tops for me.

puffishoes

I just got the blu-ray would you recommend to watch the BBC version or this first or would it matter that much ?

emeraldstar

Why would it matter? It's the same story.

I bought this version on DVD when it came out and somehow didn't find it as good as I had thought it when I first saw it in the cinema...

puffishoes

emeraldstar wrote: »

Why would it matter? It's the same story.

I bought this version on DVD when it came out and somehow didn't find it as good as I had thought it when I first saw it in the cinema...

Because it's told in two different ways so I thought maybe one was worth watching first.

libra02

puffishoes wrote: »

Because it's told in two different ways so I thought maybe one was worth watching first.

Personally having seen the 2 versions I would say to you watch the recent one first. It captures more of the gothic elements, the 2 leads Michael & Mia have wonderful chemistry and overall the story is condensed very well and is a more faithful adaption.

I am not knocking the BBC version as I love all the period dramas they do and they produce wonderful stuff, however I could not get into their Jane Eyre really. The leads just were not suited, they change some of the language if i rembember rightly to ways they would have not spoken in that century and overall it just lacked the passion I got from the 2011 release. It a much longer adaption too with not alot of editing or cutting.

The BBC version defs causes a split some people love it and they do not like any one to say otherwise others like myself while a good adaption, it would be one of the BBC's weakest productions.

I would give it a watch but in my opinion give the 2011 one a watch first and then the BBC.

puffishoes

libra02 wrote: »

Personally having seen the 2 versions I would say to you watch the recent one first. It captures more of the gothic elements, the 2 leads Michael & Mia have wonderful chemistry and overall the story is condensed very well and is a more faithful adaption.

I am not knocking the BBC version as I love all the period dramas they do and they produce wonderful stuff, however I could not get into their Jane Eyre really. The leads just were not suited, they change some of the language if i rembember rightly to ways they would have not spoken in that century and overall it just lacked the passion I got from the 2011 release. It a much longer adaption too with not alot of editing or cutting.

The BBC version defs causes a split some people love it and they do not like any one to say otherwise others like myself while a good adaption, it would be one of the BBC's weakest productions.

I would give it a watch but in my opinion give the 2011 one a watch first and then the BBC.

Perfect,

Exactly what I was looking for

emeraldstar

Hmm, I don't know. As the BBC one is a mini-series (assuming you're talking about the 2006 version) it's got double the time to tell the story, which can be a good thing in terms of detail and plot and character development, especially if you're not familiar with Jane Eyre. I really liked the leads in that one and would consider Toby Stephens one of the best Rochesters.

The 2011 version is far more atmospheric but I'd consider it the icing on the cake rather than the main event, as it were. I think I'd watch the mini-series first, then top it off by delving into the Fassbender/Wasikowska one!

I think it really just boils down to whether you feel like just watching a movie, puffishoes, or going in for the long haul and watching a four-hour-long series.