babykinnsenshi
Imagine a story where a young lady, fresh out of school, having endured a terrible childhood; experiences true love for the first time. Then, not only will you see her conquer her past by forgiving her enemies, but also be strong enough to walk away from her love; soul mate and equal and still remain true to her character. Despite her poverty, she is benevolent. She is not bitter nor an atheist; she has faith in God and believes He has a plan for her. She is willing to endure her hardships with a thankful heart, and in the end, she is given a family with the man she loves and who love her in return. This is the story of Jane Eyre.Now this is the movie, which I am convinced, just coincidentally had the same name. The story is about a young girl, abused as a child and unable to get past it, is sexually uninformed about herself and is afraid of never seeing the world or being able to talk to a man. Being so naïve and weak, she takes up a job as a governess only to fall victim to her employer's advances. This mister Rochester, whom has taken an unhealthy interest in her body, toys with her emotions and breaks her down to the point where she sees herself in love with him. After she discovers he is already married to a lady he drove to madness, she tries to break free and run away, only to find herself walking back to him a few years later and you yourself are uncertain if this reunion was a happy ending or a tragedy. Not once is God mentioned in the film and the whole thing was like a pointless experience where the message was, 'your childhood was bad, so your whole life will be bad.'Oh my gosh, what is this crap? The whole film had this Goth look the director was going for. Even the characters lost their sense of humanity just so they can fit into this atmosphere. There was no growth of relationship or character, in fact the beautiful love story of two equals; Edward and Jane, was turned into this unrealistic tale where Edward just wants Jane as his 'next edition'. At one point even, get this; he puts his hands aggressively around Jane's neck because she wanted to leave. Mr. Rochester 'chokes' Jane; that should never have been a sentence! And lets not forget the scene where he flashed her; something that's 'also' not in the book.I'm not even going to consider this as an adaptation it was just disgusting. It was so off and sexually hyped; and to my abhorrence even riddled with perverted undertones that were placed there by the director himself; it sounds strange but here's one example. At the beginning Jane finds herself wandering the moor as an amnesiac until she is taken in by a kind family who wishes to help her. While staying with them, she regains her memories and you see her drawing pictures of two key points in her life; the first being her life at school which was hard and cold and the only good thing about it was her only friend, a girl named Helen Burns whom you see Jane drawing. What disturbs me about this is that in that same scene, you also see her drawing a picture of a man who I think was Mister Rochester, her love interest in the story. I'm confused as to why she would draw an old childhood friend alongside a man she thinks she loves as if she was comparing the two and pinning for the other. I found all her scenes with Helen even, to have a weird almost sexual feel, which both shocked and disturbed me, because I never got that with the other adaptations of Jane Eyre. I got this sense that the director was saying Jane was having regrets from her relationship with Edward and was contemplating the 'other' option. Not only that, but I felt that all the scenes that featured little girls; portrayed them in a way which made me want to barf. Not only did the young girls in the film share uncanny similarities in facial appearance as if purposely selected that way out of 'preference' but the shots the director choose to show them in, seemed wrong; like why would I see child Jane getting her dress removed? Or Adele pretending to bite Jane's neck and later sitting like a pet next to Mr. Rochester? It just felt sick.Well whatever this horrible atrocity was at least it's not Jane Eyre and even as its own movie, it was vacant. It was just this cinematic display of hopelessness, there was nothing redeemable about this film. The only thing about it that I liked was that I can watch the 2006 adaptation after it ends. Seeing Ruth and Toby kiss lovingly on screen as Jane and Edward, is the only thing I'm looking forward to right now.My rating. -5 out of 10. I came to watch a good film and honestly feel so attacked right now.
elysemichellew
Jane Eyre is a story that is very near and dear to my heart. The first time I ever experienced JE, I watched the 2006 Toby Stephens version with my mother, when I was around 12/13. I was dazzled by that version. The scenery was beautiful, it had a kind of spooky feeling, the story was intriguing, but what got me hooked on Jane Eyre was the relationship between Jane and Edward.In the 2006 version, Stephens and Wilson are passionate, and they convey so much through their exchange of glances and subtle expressions. The delivery of the lines is fantastic, and so much feeling. Wilson does a perfect job of displaying Jane's passionate and romantic nature, while also showing her inner strength and clear sightedness. Toby Stephens was an excellent Rochester. You could see how tortured he was, and he was amazing at going from charming and pleasant one second, to brooding and rude the next.After the 2006 version, I read JE, and got wrapped up in the book too! After years of loving the book and the 2006 version, I decided to expand my horizons and watch other adaptations. I watched the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke, and I loved that one too. It comes in close second to the 2006 version. Timothy Dalton was excellent, and Zelah Clarke was pretty good. In my humble opinion not as good as Ruth Wilson, but still. when I watched both the 1983 version and the 2006, I felt I was watching the book come to life before my eyes, like I was really seeing Jane and Rochester as they were meant to be seen.With 2011 version, I was so let down. A few points of the movie were okay, mostly I didn't like it. The scenery was fine. I've read some reviews saying how much they loved the "Gothic" feeling of the movie, but I have to disagree. Visually, the film looked Gothic, but it didn't have that same creepy FEELING that I got watching 2006. JE is supposed to be sort of Gothic, but it's also very colourful and vibrant at points. This film seemed like it was trying too hard to be creepy and haunting, and instead ended up feeling very dull. I thought Fassbender's Rochester was interesting. He was good at being brooding, and not bad to look at. Many people complain that he was too good looking for Rochester, which is true, but whenever you get an adaptation of Jane Eyre, especially a more modern one, it's pretty much a given that Rochester is going to be too handsome. I thought there were some moments where Fassbender did well, and I think if he had had a better script, his Rochester could've turned out better.Things I felt were wrong...:Rushed storyline. The whole plot of the movie felt like a project done by an English student who didn't read the book, and just read the cliff-notes. Important scenes were cut, and dialog was choppy, and I found myself muttering lines that should've been included. AND THE ENDING. It felt like Pride and Prejudice 2005 all over again. The epilogue, that's the best part, with some of the most emotional scenes!! They completely butchered it, trying to go for a dramatic ending that fell flat. They really screwed Jane and Edward's relationship. JE is first and foremost, a story about love, passion, and equality. Wasikowska and Fassbender failed to deliver the passion and emotion that was needed in their characters. I feel this wasn't entirely their fault. The script was lacking, and they didn't have much to work with. Also think the director, or whoever was telling them how to act in each scene didn't know what they were doing. There were moments during the movie, where we saw a little bit of passion. The scene after the "wedding" where Rochester is pleading with Jane to stay, they did alright in that scene. You could see what could've been, if the script had been longer and better.I also felt that with the rushed storyline, the love between Jane and Rochester didn't seem real. With the proposal scene, it felt like the movie was saying, "Yep! He loves her now. This makes sense!" It wasn't authentic. In other versions of JE, Rochester is fascinated by Jane. You see them develop friendship, and you see them fall in love. SLOWLY. The reason Rochester has the house party with Blanche at Thornfield is to try and make Jane jealous. At this point he is already in love with her, and is sure he wants to be with her. He is trying to see if Jane wants him back. The 2011 version feels like by the point Blanche arrives, Edward and Jane don't really know each other.They cut out Jane being related to St. John, Diana and Mary, which was an important part of the story. The whole reason Jane gave them all some inheritance was because she didn't want the money as much she wanted family. And also, she felt they were entitled to it as they were related to the uncle as well. THE FORTUNE TELLER SCENE. I was upset about that being cut out.Grace Poole is just completely out of the picture??I was also very mad about the bed fire scene. This is supposed to be a frantic scene. Jane and Rochester were too calm trying to put out the flames. They were just like "Oh no, a fire. We'd better put that out. Wow."I have more things I didn't enjoy, but this is too long. To finish, if you want a good quality adaptation of Jane Eyre, watch the 1983 version, or the 2006 version. I would recommend the 2006 version first, because it's my favourite, but the 1983 version was great too. Or you could watch them both!
