Jane Eyre (2011): Thoughts and Audience Madness

You know, I always pick out the conditions of the movie I'm seeing. Popcorn films demand a large audience to see it with. For scary movies and blockbuster pics, I just have to bring a friend because the shared experience just enhances the viewing. We scream together, laugh, joke around and the audience whoops and cheers. My all-time favorite movie watching experience was the premiere of The Dark Knight three years back, when the audience collectively gasped, cheered, and groaned. Oh, it was excellent.

But for smaller intimate movies, I always prefer to go alone. I don't need my friend's pithy comments or shared ennui or whatever. I'm utterly absorbed alone, and it's a blissful state. So when I settled down to an advance screening of "Jane Eyre" this evening with a friend (she was the one who got me the ticket so I owe it to her), I blanched when I saw thirty middle-school girls followed by a gi-fucking-gantic group of rowdy, baseball-cap wearing, hoodie-donning teenagers behind them. "Oh noooooooo," I moaned, sinking lower into my seat. "I can't handle this. I really fucking can't. Why are they here? Why the fuck do they even want to see Jane Eyre? Don't they want to see like, "Drive Angry" or something?"

To make a long story short, it was simultaneously the best and worst movie-watching experience of my life. Half the time I was pulled into the shared collective experience of popcorn movies; during funny moments the entire theater cracked up; at Jane and Rochester's first kiss, someone blubbered "YOU GO, GIRL" and my friend and I both cried with laughter as the rest of the theater burst into much hearty whooping and applause. Those spontaneous moments, the shared bursts of emotions, were the best.

The downside, and boy was it bad; the smartasses who kept trying to drop lame quips during the movie, the girls next to us who kept howling at the people behind us to shut the fuck up, the catcalls and occasional idiotic reactions, and worst of all, A FUCKING CRYING BABY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE MOVIE. I whispered to my friend, "who the FUCK brings a baby to the MOVIE THEATER?" And its caretaker didn't even make an effort to carry it out. So it wailed and wailed incessantly throughout the movie causing someone more than once to mutter, "I'm going to kill that baby". I wanted to correct them: Babies cry. Their caretakers, on the other hand, should know better than to take it to a movie instead of TAKING CARE OF IT.

So I was emotionally distraught the entire movie. During poignant or dramatic scenes, I'd be trying to cry in peace and then someone would make a wiseass catcall, or I'd be engrossed in a good moment and then the baby would start crying again, and I just wanted to rip my hair out. Then I would start laughing again and then crying and then getting pissed again. I was practically babbling by the time we left.

THAT ASIDE. THE MOVIE. Did I mention that these annoying teenagers were for the most part, fixated? I was dreading walkouts and groans, but they never happened. Shrieking baby aside, everyone seemed to really enjoy it. More on that later.

Overall, I thought the director, Cary Fukunaga did a great job of "updating" the movie (there's more suspense, visual flair, modern, tight pacing) and capturing the spirit of the book at the same time, and that's all you can ask of an adaptation, really. The style is quite impeccable, and the content, well, there's only so much of JE's nuances and themes you can cram into two hours. If only it could have been a miniseries. I noticed that some of the scenes from the trailer were cut; waiting for a "extended feature" DVD, perhaps?

Anyways, anyways, the ACTORS. Well, Mia Wasikowska was good, not great. In some scenes Mia would do too much and in others she'd do too little. She has a preternatural calm and maturity that suits her for Jane, but some of the traits other characters claimed to see in her ("ambition" "vivacity") were a bit lacking. She was clearly an intelligent, thoughtful, feeling person, but I'm not so sure she had the same spark and spirit of fire that I imagined in Jane, or even seen in a sketch of Charlotte Bronte. She has the requisite chemistry with Fassbender's Rochester, which is the most important thing, but I'm not sure the movie managed to capture Jane's allure - her full-bodied uniqueness and unearthly spirit; it tells that more than it shows.

Portrait of Charlotte Bronte, circa 1850

Still, the movie sincerely attempted to capture the book's spirit, which is all I can ask for - I understand that a perfect adaptation is impossible. It simply can't be done because how you imagine the characters and scenes is drawn so vividly in your mind, and it's just unfair to expect that your personal version would be translated exactly to screen. All you can ask for is that they tried their hardest to re-create the spirit, the tone, and the themes. The 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightley is a wonderful movie, but it really is an adaptation and not a re-creation, because it deliberately made a different story. It was sad and romantic, not satirical or bitingly self-aware and because of that, I can't love it. It just isn't the book.

But Jane Eyre really does capture that odd spell of the book. The beauty of the cinematography reminded me of 2005's Pride and Prejudice, but this world is so far removed from Austen's - all its otherworldliness. The score was very "Memoirs of a Geisha" - melancholy and eerily beautiful.

Okay, I just *really* enjoyed Fassbender's Rochester. Truth to be told, I've never been able to handle any of the past incarnations of Rochester. They always feel so cartoonish. They're glaring and brooding! They're dark, harsh and statuesque! I just can't buy it. Usually the actors are so involved in scrunching their eyebrows and strutting around in their broody sarcastic Byronic walk doing broody Byronic things that they completely forget to include some of his more human qualities - like tenderness and mischief, which is what Jane notices in spite of himself, just as he notices her inner warmth and vivacity in spite of her own hardy facade.

Fassbender's Rochester isn't as harsh or arrogant as previously portrayed, and I preferred this credible human version a lot more. He's not so tall or statuesque either, but makes up for it with his physical charisma - I thought he nailed the restless, furtive energy of the character. I wish some of the climatic scenes with him and Jane had a more explosive quality to them, but overall, the drama is much easier on the eyes. I didn't cringe, which is a first. I'm a very cringe-y person. Did I mention that he is unbelievably fucking HOT in this? Just really, really, so. Maybe that's why I like him in this so much. Hmm...........

Jamie Bell was great, too. It's just completely different from anything else he's done, and he just carries St. John's kind but mannerly and ill-guided priggishness with ease. There really isn't enough of him in the movie to have a full characterization, to be honest - again, they left quite an awful lot out, but the pacing is so tightly controlled and Bronte's characterization is still vivid enough that the aforementioned teens that sat behind me were hilariously responsive to Jane and Rochester's actions, at times calling out instructions or critiques ("say yes!" "You fool!" etc.).

Companies and the Academy and whoever else panicking over the state of the "hip teen" nowadays, take note. I just sat with a bunch of freaking high schoolers/middle schoolers who, yes, may have catcalled and occasionally snickered at a couple admittedly cheesy scenes and were even a bit bored at times, but for the most part to my great surprise, were seriously invested in the movie and its characters. And that's because it was a damn well-made movie. The characters, though hailing from the 19th century, were strong and engrossing because human drama never changes in its ability to pull us in, and there was enough hooky suspense to lure us in as well. Afterwards, I heard kids say, "that was GREAT" in complete surprise, as if they didn't expect it to be interesting at all, probably because they've become acclimated to bad movies with shallow characterization and shoddy execution that attempt to pull in young audiences by mishmashes of hyper shiny loud things in their faces, because they're not supposed to have enough attention span to engage otherwise.

Well newsflash; a bunch of supposedly ADHD teens sat through JANE FREAKING EYRE and most of them, as far as I can tell, truly, truly enjoyed it. Take that, slimeball corporate movie studios and older generation naysayers.

And props to Cary Fukunaga and everyone else involved. If I ever meet Michael Fassbender one day I'm going to have to thank him for doing such wonderful justice to Mr. Rochester. The perfect Jane, however (by far the more difficult and impossible character to get right of the two, IMO), is still out there though, I think.

That aside, this is the first adaptation of Jane Eyre I've been able to tolerate, and certainly the first one where I've really appreciated. I don't know if I love it yet - I'll have to wait over time and multiple re-watchings - but I'm just pretty gratified all the same.

P.S. Oh, and I finally get it. I finally get the Fassbender thing. Before, I wasn't even remotely attracted to him, not even in the most dashing pictures or drool-worthy clips. I just shrugged. But um, I get it now. He really is sex personified.

JANE EYRE FIRST CLIPS ARE HERE

My ovaries did backflips while watching these clips. The clips are fucking. hot. This is my idea of porn, basically.

The first is after Jane saves Rochester from the fire. One of my favorite scenes from the book and it's a bit altered but OH SO SHMEXY (though my friend disagrees, calling it sinister, but what the hell does she know?) When she leaves him, I was like "FOOL" but of course, hers is the smarter move. Not that she planned it - she's just naturally good and morally upright - but it's still a smart tactic that can be employed in any modern romantic situation. It makes her so that much more tantalizing to Rochester (and respected by him too, of course). Men enjoy chases and stubborn girls.

"I am cold"[/But my insides are melting with steamy, scintillating desire]

Mr. Rochester proposes to Jane. Wow, this is a huge clip to show beforehand, obviously, but I guess they want to stir up as much interest as possible.

Mia's delivery is a bit stiff here. At times she *kinda* feels like she's reading off a page, which is disappointing, but overall it's effective. The Rochester voice is JUST PERFECT! Sigh. I like their chemistry. Gawsh I wanna see them make out.

Cousin Diana shows one of Jane's drawings to St. John.

Jamie BELL! Man it looks like he totally nails the whole repressed proper English thing. His voice is also schmexy (TOO MUCH SEXY IN THIS MOVIE!) and he kind of reminds of Christian Bale when he was thirteen, if that makes sense at all. Either way, he is really attractive in this video and I've never found Jamie Bell attractive. Which is important because he needs to be a strong foil to Rochester and though it never occurred to me while reading the book, the audience should feel some tension around the pair and suspect the potential of their relationship just alighting from the fact that they're both young, good-looking, and in close proximity, which is what Rochester does after he learns of St. John.

A month to go....can't wait.

JANE EYRE TRAILER OUT!

Stunning trailer, and I have a feeling that this will be the long-awaited definitive version of Jane Eyre. It's directed by Cary Fukunaga, his second feature after the critically acclaimed debut "Sin Nombre" (which just entered my Netflix queue). Observations after the jump...

1:52: I love that wide-shot angle of Jane being restrained. In-tense. 1:44 A hint of the supernatural! Love it. The novel continually references ghosts and goblins, elves and corpses, so I'm glad they included it in the film's tone. 1:40 Sally Hawkins is too gentle-looking for Mrs. Reed but I'm sure she will kick ass. She is ubiquitous nowadays, btw. 1:18 Mr. Rochester!!!! 1:11 His manner is very brusque. Excellent. I never liked Toby Stephen's oily delivery in the 2006 miniseries. :56 Sexual tension, um, yes. Pause to fan myself. :49 Blanche Ingram admittedly does not look like a statuesque goddess. She looks like a brunette Taylor Momsen. :38 Jane gets all feisty at Mr. Rochester. I hope it will be a continuous theme throughout the movie instead of that one obligatory explosion as all past adaptations have seen it. Don't forget her sauciness! :31 Michael Fassbender has a nicer ass than I do and I resent him for it. :21 Jamie Bell!!! :20 More kissing, yay. The novel has always been absolutely sexy despite its demureness. :19 Love, love Mia's gaze flickering upwards. It would have been criminal to under-use those expansive eyes. Also at :19 Bertha, ouch. :16 That shot of the fire is very dream-like... :11 What is with his eyes??

The first moments of the trailer featuring Jane's childhood is really quite intense and creepy-psychological isn't it? It could have been made into a separate movie about children at a mental institution.

The trailer is a bit jarring because it jumps awkwardly between the scary-action scenes ("I know what I saw!" "It must have been half-dream, half-reality") to romantic premise ("Miss Ingram is a great favorite of his!"). Nevertheless, I'm so happy that the desires I expressed in my other Jane Eyre blog post for the adaptation came true. The trailer made it clear that this is first and foremost a portrait of Jane, NOT Mr. Rochester, and promises to amp up the gothic tone/intensity of the novel as well. While reading other blogs' take on the trailer, I saw titles like Bright Star and the 2006 Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice being mentioned, and I'm sure both were influential. Each individual shot is a stunner and will definitely service the story in its own way. The shot of the beetle crawling over the book page was particularly creepy. Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender seem perfect together and she is almost exactly how I pictured Jane.

SO excited.

Stare at the screencaps of these lovely shots over at My New Plaid Pants.

A Little Bronte Delight

That's one of the first screencaps from the upcoming Jane Eyre, to be released in 2011. It stars Mia Wasikowska as Jane, and the ubiquitous Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester. Though I'm not as enamored with Michael Fassbender as some people (*cough, everyone on the freaking internet) he supposedly oozes sexual charisma, so that's.......goood. I just hope this adaptation will be as passionate as the book. The most misguided complaint about Jane Eyre is that it's a boringly reserved cautionary tale.

Jane's entire personality is led by passion (and modulated by morality). Jane Eyre is very much the proper sister of Wuthering Heights, with the same underlying veins of passion and contrariness. Austen may have had a tongue-in-cheek attitude towards social norms, but the Bronte sisters outright rejected them. To be fair, the world Charlotte and Emily inhabited was of a more primal, desperate nature than Jane Austen's. They were probably more engaged with battling (and ultimately losing to) consumption, illness, scarcity, and the other many diverse ways of dying before the age of thirty, and overall weren't too bothered about observing societal norms. Jane Eyre has much less action than Wuthering Heights, but I think it's just as fierce and impassioned.

Jane Eyre has become my go-to book this summer, for some reason. Every time I'm bored, I just rife through the book again, rereading passages and discovering new details. And what I found is that the book is surprisingly hilarious, especially Jane's exchanges with Mr. Rochester. Rochester is the scandal-slut of the pair, so readers always end up reading his monologues more intently, but Jane's answers are equally fascinating, IMO, for their eloquence and unconventionality. Like Cathy Earnshaw, she's simply immune to standard notions of romance. The morning after she and Rochester get engaged, she tells him semi-sarcastically:

"I suppose your love will effervesce in six months or less. I have observed in books written by men, that period assigned as the furthest to which a husband's ardour extends."

Basically, I see Jane as how Elizabeth Bennet would have turned out if she'd also been orphaned, abused, and impoverished from an early age. Her attitudes and movements are restricted by her circumstances, but the entire point of her oft-emphasized plainness is that within that plainness is a rare, smart, and feisty gal. She's not, as people often think of her (or actresses always play her) doddering or severe. In one of Mr. Rochester's swooningly observant Jane-analyses, he tells her that "you looked thoughtful; not despondent. You were not sickly; but not buoyant, for you had little hope and actual pleasure.....I saw that you had a social heart; it was the tedium of your life that made you mournful".

Other released screencap - dying to see Fassbender in full Rochester soon!

More instances: the month lapsing between their engagement and marriage is rife with erotic tension. Jane teases and vexes Mr. Rochester to keep him at arm's length, provoking a kind of sexual frustration on Mr. Rochester's part and forcing him to physically vent through "pressure, pinches, and tweaks of the ear." Rawrrrr, right? In what is my opinion one of the more sexy-tense scenes in the novel, Mr Rochester approaches Jane after he gets aroused (I interpreted as) singing a lover's song, and he comes at her "face kindled and eye flashing" and is about to - what? Pounce? Embrace? Indecent physical foreplay? - something of a physical nature, before a fearful Jane saves the day by breathlessly diverting him with one of her witty questions.

Too often, Jane is portrayed in movies as a Mary-Sue type, as a girl who is outshined by Rochester until he loses his arm, eye, and becomes fitting to be her partner-in-loserish-ness. The spark, the genuine chemistry and fire of their courtship are always left out. That's the point of their romance. He meets a girl whose passion, intellect, and stimulation transcends their social boundaries and surpasses the courtly reserve of everyone else (and whose gamine frame he happens to find weirdly attractive).

People don't realize that Jane's more than just Rochester's foil; she's his equal, just as provocative and saucy. If the film adaptation realized the spirit of the novel, it would be an absolute firecracker. I can only hope that they didn't get Fassbender in order to compensate for the screen heroine's dullness, rather than to upgrade both characters.

I want an adaptation that portrays Jane the way Mr. Rochester sees her, not the way society sees her, not a plain square who manages to hook a guy with a schoolmarm fetish - but rather, a manic pixie dream girl in Gothic orphan mode, whose independence and total self-assuredness has a weird implicit charisma of its own. One that shows exactly why Jane is such an exciting prospect to Rochester, not just because romancing her is a cool "fuck you" to society, but because Rochester is sincerely enchanted by her - by the "strange, unearthly" air about her, the "soft excitement in her aspect", her "glowing eye", "curious hesitation", and mannerisms that are "piquant" "aerial" "frail" , the "soul of fire". The curious smile that is endlessly fascinating to Rochester for its "sagacious grace, inexplicable uncanny turn of countenance", on the whole, a "wild, shy, provoking". The complex and tumultuous spirt roiling beneath her plain face needs to be illuminated and worshipped by the camera the way Abbie Cornish was in Bright Star, so that the audience can understand Rochester's enchantment, and agree with his assessment of Jane as an "elf", a "witch", a "minx".

Let's hope this is the one.