Thursday, May 27, 2010

First glimpses of Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre 20100

I think the picture below (detail above) has been around for a while. . .

 Jane Eyre 2011

But I hadn't seen this one until today!

Jane Eyre 2011

So far so good. I must say, though, I'm looking forward to seeing some pics of the latest Edward Fairfax Rochester. . . 

Click here to view full-size versions of both pictures.

12 comments:

LadyBug-Laurie said...

Thanks for posting these, I hadn't see any pictures of this latest Jane Eyre. I love how her hair and dress are so plain yet pretty. Can't wait to see her act and to see pics of the new Mr. Rochester!

Natasha Atkerson said...

Hi! I have a question for you:
in one of the adaptaions, they were using a weegie board, is this something they added, or part of the story line? Thanks!
www.natashaatkerson.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Natasha: if you're talking about the 2006 version (my personal favourite!), then the use of the ouija board was something they added in, written especially for that adaption. :)
Sorry if that was a question for Elise, but I thought I'd answer since I knew! Hope I helped anyway!

But regarding the pictures, I agree: I think they've found a good balance between plain and pretty. But I have to admit, I'm more interested in seeing Mr. Rochester, since I think in comparison, he's a harder character to get right, visually, whereas Jane is a little easier.

-Abby.

Traxy said...

Definitely can't wait to see a picture of Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester! Don't want to have to wait until the film comes out (11 March 2011) to see what he looks like. ...Of course the trailer will be out before then, but hey. :)

Alexandra said...

I am sooooo looking forward to seeing Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester! I really enjoyed him in "A Bear Named Winnie". Although I do wonder if he can beat Toby Stephens.

Rebekah said...

The pictures look good - I'm just hoping the movie will be worth watching! I recently read parts of Jane Eyre and was pleasantly surprised at how blantantly Christian it actually was - I wish a good version would come out that portrayed the Christian beauty of it's characters!

To the KING be all the glory!
Rebekah

BLOG: http://www.donotgrowweary.com/blog

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

Marian said...

It looks like the costumes will be wonderful! I really hope this will be a good movie.

(SPOILER):
I agree with Rebekah. It's too bad that when people think of Jane Eyre, they often think of "Gothic", and forget about the good role model that the character Jane Eyre is. Not that she's perfect, but she tries hard to do the right thing, and (unlike many characters) she actually does it.

I think it's also a shame when scriptwriters leave out the part where Rochester repents of his wrongdoings; I think it's in one of the last chapters of the book. It's one of the best parts in the book, not to mention an important part of the character development!

The Editrix said...

Natasha - Abby is correct. In fact, pretty much everything that might be morally objectionable in the 2006 adaptation is not in the book, ;-)

Abby - But I have to admit, I'm more interested in seeing Mr. Rochester, since I think in comparison, he's a harder character to get right, visually, whereas Jane is a little easier. - you know, I'd never thought of that, but it's really true. And not just visually, but even his character, too! Timothy Dalton was great, Toby Stephens was alright , but Ciaran Hinds' Rochester was way off the mark, IMO!

Traxy - ooooh, the trailer!! *giggles and bounces up and down like an excited 2-year-old* How long, I wonder, will we have to wait for the first teaser trailer!!

Rebekah and Marian - I know, it's a shame. But sadly, I don't think we're going to see JE's Christian themes explored in any modern adaptation. Even going back to the 1983 version - which was, in all other aspects, a practically word-for-word adaptation - the religious aspects of the novel were skimmed over. It's stupid, really, and it sometimes makes the story confusing. In the 2006 version, for instance, we are not told WHY Jane leaves Rochester after she finds out about Bertha - the viewer is left completely to his or her own conjectures! (Of course, in the book, she leaves him because she believes it would be WRONG to live with him if he was married to someone else. . .duh! And even though it was excruciating, trying to leave him, God gave her the strength to do it! Of course, you won't find that alluded to in any of the adaptations from the last 30+ years. . . )

And Marian, you're right - that bit at the end where Rochester repents - it's an important of the character development, but it's not PC, so it's left out!

Anonymous said...

Definetely Rochester's character is a challenge, as he's incredibly complex as a person.
But I think how he looks can definetely affect our perception of the portrayal: if he doesn't look how you imagine him, I think it can be difficult to look past this as focus on the acting! It can really set your opinion off on the wrong foot, if you know what I mean.

So is this version going to be released in cinemas? Sorry if I'm a bit behind on this :3 But I'm excited nonetheless: Jane Eyre is one of my favourite Bronte novels.

-Abby.

The Editrix said...

^Yeah. . . that might have been part of the problem I had with William Hurt (a blond Rochester?!) and Toby Stephens (a ginger Rochester!)

Yep, it's going to be released in cinemas! March 11 2011!

Rebekah said...

^^^I think the best one in terms of putting any Christianity in the film, that I have seen so far (I've seen three I think) was the one with Timothy Dalton. You could at least get *some* idea that she was a Christian! Whereas, in the new one (I don't remember the actors/actresses names) had to put some icky things in there that weren't even mentioned in the book!!

To the KING be all the glory!
Rebekah

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

Anonymous said...

I agree that the Jane Eyre novel promoted Christianity to a greater degree than most other of its contemporaries (on the contrary, Charlotte Brontes sister Emily was very cynical about religion in her novel Wuthering Heights, as she was in life) but the 1983 version has been the only dramatisation that has exploited it as it deserves. How else could Jane have found the strength to leave Rochester without some degree of faith? I also agree that the part of the novel where Rochester tells Jane of his life with Bertha Mason in the West Indies (shortly after the revelation that he is married) is an integral part of the tale, and is often overlooked by film makers. It makes the audience empathise with him, especially as he reveals that he took a pistol at one point with which to shoot himself. The Rochester in this version looks great.. I loved him as Guy Fawkes in Gunpowder, Treason and Plot, but in the novel he is actually portrayed as ''ugly''...oh well, we can overlook that, as what someone's appearance is, happens to be a matter of opinion anyway.