Or thrift store, or whatever you call them in America, LOL! An armful of classics for $3! Now, to show off the spoils:
From top to bottom: Gone With The Wind, What Katy Did at School, Far From the Madding Crowd, The Eustace Diamonds, and an almost-complete set of the Bronte sisters' novels - only Villette and Wuthering Heights are missing.
The Bronte set are published by the Folio Society. The FOLIO SOCIETY!! And featuring beautiful woodcut illustrations.
Bound in silk *contented bibliophile's sigh*. . .
I am a happy girl. :-D
The long wait is finally over! The long wait for the trailer, that is. We still have to wait another 4 months or so for the film itself.
But in the meantime, the trailer offers plenty for us Bronteites and Period Drama Maniacs to pick over, examine, turn upside down, criticise, mull over, discuss, praise and protest.
Warning: some spoilers may be disclosed in the following post.
0:00 The first thing that presents itself upon viewing the trailer is the fact that the film has been rated PG-13 for "Some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content". Disappointing news for the more conservative among us, or for anyone who had been wanting to take younger sisters to see this.
0:07 Graves being dug, coffins being lowered into the ground; the typhoid epidemic at Lowood. Dark, sombre, suitably Gothic tone immediately established. . .
0:09 Jane running through a hallway at Gateshead, with a book in her arms. What would she be running from? John Reed? The young actress cast as the Young Jane looks remarkably like Mia Wasikowska. (A nice change - in many of the earlier adaptations, Young and "Old" Jane didn't bear much resemblance to each other at all - Georgie Henley and Ruth Wilson, Sian Pattenden and Zelah Clarke, etc.) Voiceover from Mr. Brocklehurst begins.
0:10 Is that our first glimpse of Thornfield Hall? Very dark and Gothic. Funnily enough, Thornfield (as a building) and the surrounding landscape are actually supposed to be very green and pleasant, but of course this is never portrayed in the films adaptations, because "Dark and Gothic" is supposed to be much more interesting and romantic.
0:11 Poor Helen Burns - identifiable by her red hair - being beaten.
0:12 Presumably Bertha holding a match and lighting the fire in Rochester's Room.
0:12 The "fire scene".
0:13 Jane running again.
0:14 Mr. Brocklehurst, looking very slimy and unpleasant. Nice bunch of flowers, though.
0:16 John Reed, looking appropriately sneaky and slimy - but what on earth is he doing with that sword in his hand!! As I recall, a book was his weapon of choice. . .
0:17 Jane in her beloved retreat - behind the curtains, in the window seat.
0:18 Jane, taken into the Red Room. Which of the two women is Bessie, I wonder? I wouldn't be surprised if they all but do away with Bessie's character altogether, partly because they don't have time to develop her character, partly because they want to make Jane's childhood seem as bleak as possible, with no kindness or affection whatsoever. Hm, I wonder if they'll do the same with Miss Temple's character?
0:19 Jane answering Mr. Brocklehurst.
0:21 Mr. Brocklehurst and the flowers again.
0:23 Jane in the Red Room.
0:24 This is random, but the red wallpaper kind of matches my blog's background.
0:25 So it's a sort of explosion of smoke that scares Jane in this version! Rather less creepy than that light moving across the wall in the dark, I should have thought, though perhaps more cinematically plausible and impressive.
0:27 Poor Jane, having passed out. She looks tiny on the massive carpet in the great big room.
0:28 Jane speaking to Mrs. Reed. So far, most of the dialogue seems to have been taken straight from the book. Always a good sign.
0:29 I'm really liking this Young Jane. In many of the adaptations, Jane as a child comes across as being almost a bit bratty, because they only show the scenes where Jane is, for the first time, speaking her mind and rebelling against Mrs. Reed. Hopefully this Jane will do a good job in portraying Jane's normal meek, subdued state, as well as her passionate outbursts.
0:30 What we've all been waiting to see! That seemingly incomprehensible piece of casting - tiny, fragile, beautiful Sally Hawkins as the large, robust, cruel Mrs. Reed!
0:31 First glimpse of Lowood - since the very opening scene, of course.
0:32 Mr. Brocklehurst giving "that" speech to the girls and teachers at Lowood. What a striking picture, of the light shining in on Jane standing on her stool, while all the other girls file past. Lowood doesn't seem as OTT gloomy and gothic as it did in the JE 2006, thank goodness.
0:36 The grown-up Jane running away from Thornfield and Rochester, though weirdly it is implied in the trailer that she is running away from Lowood, to Thornfield.
0:39 Jane as she is always pictured, always imagined - quakerish and bonneted. Interesting to note how the costume department once again included just a scrap of red in Jane's outfit, to imply that beneath the restrained exterior, there is a passionate nature lurking within. Remember that red neck-tie thingy that Jane wore a lot in JE 2006?
0:41 What on earth?? So Mr. Rochester sort of sneaks up on her and frightens the heck out of her, rather than galloping past until the sight of Jane spooks the horse? Probably it won't really be like that in the movie, but that's how they make it seem in the trailer. :P Oh, and where's Pilot? They can't leave Pilot out!! They'd better not!! Gorgeous atmosphere though - mist, dead leaves, bare trees - very wintry and bleakly beautiful.
0:42 The familiar "Necessity compels me to make you useful" scene.
0:43 Thornfield Hall. I think those two figures at the far right of screen are Jane and Rochester, running in together to escape the storm, just after the proposal scene. You can just hear a roll of thunder. Voiceover by Judi Dench/Mrs. Fairfax begins.
0:49 First look at Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax.
0:50 I'm guessing this scene is after J and R have known each other some time, since R doesn't appear to be limping. Our first proper look ar Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester. He doesn't look quite Rochesterian to me. Perhaps because he isn't dark enough. Oh well, maybe he'll grow on me. . .
0:55 Nope, sorry, he doesn't look like Rochester. Something just isn't right!
0:58 I hope they left out a big chunk of dialogue for the trailer, because if this is how the dialogue goes in the movie. . .
1:00 We have passed the 1 minute mark! :-D I think this is Jane arriving at Lowood.
1:03 First glimpse of Bertha.
1:04 Jane speaking to Rochester of seeing Bertha tear her wedding veil.
1:09 What does he say here? I can't make it out. It sounds like “You've transfixed me quite”, which is bad English.
1:10 Is it just me, or would Jane never wear a dress even this low-cut?
1:13 After the fire. It seems they've pushed this scene forward several hours – it appears to be dawn, rather than the middle of the night.
1:17 Rochester exercising after he hurts his ankle, I suppose. Beautiful tree!
1:18 Yes! Yesss!! *fist pumps* Blanche Ingram is a brunette, as she is supposed to be, rather than a blonde, as we had feared! :-D Imogen Poots looks nicely snooty and stuck-up. Gorgeous dress.
1:22 Another striking dress. Now what is going on here, in this scene? Another set-up of Rochester's, to make Jane feel jealous?
1:24 What do ya'll think about having a red-headed Jane? To my knowledge, Mia Wasikowska is the first ginger Jane in the history of Janes. Has there ever been a blonde Jane, does anyone know?
1:26 Jane after she has run away from Thornfield. But then, what is the building? Another possible expanation could be that this is a dream sequence. Remember that dream Jane has just before she sees Bertha tear her veil in two?
1:27 Now this is intriguing. It appears that in this film even the staircase leading to Bertha's room is concealed. Just to add to the sense of mystery. Whose bedroom is this supposed to be? Rochester's?
1:32 Proposal scene, proposal scene! :-D What do you think of Mia's delivery of that famous line?
1:36 Jane running away.
1:37 Rochester discovering that she is gone. Now, this is different to how it is in the book!
1:40 Beautiful photography once again.
1:41 Bertha lighting the fire – again?
1:42 It's that concealed staircase again!
1:44 First glimpse of Jamie Bell as St John Rivers! He's nowhere near good-looking enough, IMO. No offense to Mr. Bell.
1:44 Proposal scene again! That seat running around the tree-trunk looks like a halo with the light shining on it. It looks quite odd, actually – must be made of very thin board.
1:45 Jane destitute after running away. Knocking on the Rivers' door, perhaps?
1:46 There've been a couple of shots of Rochester riding on horseback – just to show how strong and manly and stuff he is, I suppose.
1:47 Jane running away. You can see the anguish on her face. Oh and once again, just that hint of red – this time, her bag.
1:48 A fly – on a Bible – I think.
1:48 St John again.
1:48 Eww! I mean, awww. . . J and R just after running in from the storm at 0:43.
1:49 No idea what this is. Who's the little boy? Unless it's the grave scene from 0:07.
1:49 Jane springing on John. Go Jane!!
1:50 Jane running. . . again. . . not precisely certain where she's running to/from, or if it is indeed even Jane. The clothes seem to be too pretty and frivolous. . . hang on, perhaps it's after the “wedding”, and they're running from the church back to Thornfield? No, that doesn't seem right, either. . . I give up. . .
1:51 Can this be – the library scene? Or is it just after she arrives at the Rivers'?
1:51 Bertha slapping Rochester!
1:53 Who was that leaping off the fence? St John? Well, it has be either St John or Rochester, since they're pretty much the only men in the book.
1:53 Fire scene again!
1:56 Naughty, naughty screenwriter! Making up dialogue that wasn't in the book! This must be after Mr. Rochester has been blinded.
The verdict: I think this will eventually rank at about the mid-point on my list of Jane Eyre adaptations. Better than the 1997 JE, possibly also better than the the 1996 one. Not as good as the 1983 one. Maybe on par with JE 2006, though that version will always have an advantage over this one because of its length – twice as long, twice as much time to develop the story and characters.
From what I've seen, I'm really liking both the young Jane and the grown-up Jane in this version. Mia Wasikowska has a wonderful, child-like quality about her. It'll also be nice to have a Jane who is roughly the right age – Jane Eyre is supposed to be 18, Mia has just turned 21.
On the hand, I'm less than convinced by Michael Fassbender's Rochester. We'll see. . .
The cinematography looks absolutely stunning. This will be the most visually impressive JE to date. I wonder who's composing the score? *Goes off to check IMDb*
Alright, I couldn't find out who the composer is, but I did discover a couple of other interesting tidbits from IMDB – Harry Lloyd fans, Harry plays Richard Mason! And Tamzin Merchant (Georgiana in P&P05) plays Mary Rivers. Also, have a look at the list of filming locations. Looks like it was almost all shot on location in Derbyshire (including Chatsworth, aka Pemberley). I'm guessing Chatsworth was used mostly for the interior shots of Gateshead.
I also found out what that bothersome “nude image” is – according to the IMDB forums, we very briefly see – don't laugh – Mr. Rochester's rear.
~Thanks to Charleybrown for screencaps of the trailer!
~No. 12 - Jane Eyre 2006~
Critics and journalists rant about the number of times Pride and Prejudice has been adapted for the screen, but there have been only two big screen adaptations ever made, and a scant handful of television adaptations - only two of which are available to buy today. Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, however, must surely be one of the most frequently adapted classics in the canon of English literature. It has been one of the most popular English novels since it was first published in 1847, and out of all the Bronte oeuvre, it is probably one of the easiest works to adapt for film - certainly compared with Emily Bronte's notoriously difficult Wuthering Heights. Most Bronte fans will agree that we're yet to see an even moderately successful adaptation of the virtually unfilmable Wuthering Heights. That doesn't stop film-makers from trying, though. . .
But getting back to Jane Eyre: according to IMDb, there have been 21 film and television adaptations - make that 22, with the Mia Wasikowska-Michael Fassbender version due to come out in March next year. But as of now, the BBC's 2006 miniseries is the most recent attempt to bring Charlotte Bronte's classic to the screen.
[I am not even going to bother including a plot summary in this review. Everyone knows the basic plot of Jane Eyre, and if you don't. . . go and read the book!!]
This adaptation of Jane Eyre had a peculiarly polarising effect on the Bronte-ite community. Some lauded it as the new definitive adaptation of the book. Others called it a travesty. I can't plant myself firmly in either camp - I have very mixed feelings about JE06, and can never quite decide whether to love or hate it. At present I feel more inclined to dislike it, but I may waver over the course of this review.
One of the chief disappointments of JE06 (yes, I know it sounds dorky, and sorry if the constant references to "JE06" get on your nerves, but it's quicker to type than, say, "this adaptation of Jane Eyre") was the script by Sandy Welch (beloved of period drama fans for her work on North & South, Our Mutual Friend, and Emma). Ms. Welch's screenplay for Our Mutual Friend 1998 was good. Very good. I think she did a phenomenal job adapting Dickens' sprawling, complex masterpiece. And though she took some liberties with Elizabeth Gaskell's text, her screenplay for North and South was also good. On the other hand, as far as I'm concerned, the less said about the script for Emma 2009, the better. . . ya'll know my thoughts on that adaptation! (LOL, why am I talking like a Texan. . . must be all of you wonderful American friends I've made friends with via the internet ;-)
Charlotte Bronte had an extraordinary imagination, and a keen appreciation of nature. She may be famous for her novels, but Charlotte had the soul of a poet. She was one of those rare authors - like L.M. Montgomery, perhaps - who wrote prose as though it were poetry.
All this to say: mess around with Charlotte Bronte's beautiful words at your peril! Don't try to improve upon what is already close to perfection! I don't know why it is, and I know it's inconsistent of me, but I can forgive minor alterations to, say, Dickens' or Gaskell's dialogue in a screen adaptation, but attempt a complete reworking of Austen's or Bronte's dialogue, substituting numerous modern words and phrases, and - well - I will generally feel inclined to throw an apoplectic fit or something.
In short, I was mightily disappointed with the screenplay for JE06 - most of the lines were contemporised to within an inch of their lives. But further than that, I was just disappointed with the direction of much of the series, and with the way many of the scenes were handled. Some of the time it almost seemed like they were making this adaptation based on what the public perception of "Jane Eyre" is, not on the book itself. Of course they didn't really, but that's how it felt sometimes. . . They almost missed the point of Jane Eyre. They lost the power and the poetry in the midst of the passion and melodrama.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh. This adaptation does have its strong points. I will now attempt to cease bemoaning JE06's shortcomings for a time, and extol its virtues instead.
*Ruth Wilson as Jane Eyre. One vital element of this story that many JE adaptations fail to emphasise (or else make a joke of by casting relatively "old" actresses) is Jane's youth. She was only a teenager, for crying out loud! Jane's character is an extraordinary blend of youth and vulnerability with an indomitable moral strength and steadfastness. Ruth Wilson captures this more successfully than most other actresses in the role have done, giving a picture of a young girl, alone in the world, who shows tremendous courage, and wisdom beyond her years.
*Toby Stephens, though not my favourite Rochester, is also good. He may not truly look the part (a redhead with a cheeky grin as the dark, brooding Mr. Rochester?), but he does an adequate job portraying the complexities of Rochester's character. (Hehe, I can hear the Toby Stephens fans starting to fume at me now. . . "Only adequate?!")
He and Ruth Wilson had great chemistry together, too. (TS fans: "Only 'great chemistry'?! You say it so casually. . . try unbelievable, out-of-this-world, earth-shattering chemistry!!"). I can sympathise. . . I'm bit of a Rochester fangirl, too - a different Rochester, though. I think most of you know who I'm talking about. . . ;-)
One thing that may bother some viewers, however, is the extent to which the dialogue between Jane and Rochester has been contemporised. I'm not just talking about the words, but the way in which the actors deliver the lines. Some would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing - better to make the interaction between the two leads contemporary and relatable, than risk stiffness and insincerity in an attempt for period accuracy. But purists will find it hard to watch Jane and Rochester talking and interacting like a modern couple, rather than characters from the early 19th century.
*From a purely aesthetic perspective, this series is a treat. (Even though most of the scenes were not at all as I had imagined them to be from the book ,*grumbles to herself*.) This is a BBC big-budget costume drama and it's gorgeous to look at, right from the opening scene of young Jane walking across the sand dunes in her imagination, dressed in exotic costume. The score by Robert Lane is by turns haunting and sweepingly romantic.
*Georgie Henley is awesome.
Enough extolling virtues for now, here are some small niggles that bothered me:
*Yet another blond Blanche Ingram? Puhleese. . . and if they didn't make Imogen Poots' hair dark for Jane Eyre 2011, and we have another blond Blanche next year, I'm going to - I'm going to - I don't what I'm going to do, actually. Throw another apoplectic fit, perhaps.
*Ruth Wilson is too tall!! Jane Eyre is supposed to be small!!
*Rochester has ginger tendencies! (As mentioned above.)
*What in the world is up with the Rivers sisters being portrayed as silly, giggly girls instead of the mature, intelligent young women they are in the book?
*St John isn't good-looking enough. Needs to get the Greek god thing happening a bit better.
*Why did they have to get rid of the library scene, and instead have Jane and Edward kissing - on a bed?! If you haven't seen this series, don't worry, it doesn't get any "worse" than kissing, but still - the real Jane would never in a million years have allowed this! In the book, after she finds out he's married, she doesn't let him touch her!
*JE06 does a good job bringing Jane and Rochester's romance to the screen, but it doesn't succeed so well in conveying Jane's development as a character whilst she's away from Rochester. Jane Eyre is first and foremost Jane's story - it's not just about the romance. Miss Temple - Jane's friend and mentor through her childhood and teen years - makes only a brief cameo appearance. And from memory - it has been a little while since I last watched this series - I felt that they could have given a completer, more accurate picture of St John Rivers, even in the limited screen time given to him. He's an important character - amongst other things, he is Mr. Rochester's foil. Edward Rochester is far, very far from being a perfect hero (indeed, there is a significant army of anti-Rochesterian readers out there), yet flawed though he may be, his warmth, generosity, and humanity contrast sharply with St John's coldness and self-righteousness.
Summing up, it is the thought of what could have been that mars JE06 for me. The team behind this production had the budget, they had the creative vision (even if it didn't always totally align with my vision of the book), but in the end they came up with a flawed, somewhat hit-and-miss adaptation. It has its moments, but overall I was left feeling disappointed. On second thoughts, if I was so very disappointed, why on earth am I including it in my list of favourite literary adaptations? *Stifles frustrated groan*. I don't rightly know myself. . . Well, it is a powerful and entertaining Gothic drama in and of itself. And like I said near the beginning of this post, my feelings on this series tend to fluctuate a great deal. Sometimes I decide that I really do love it, other times (as now), I throw my hands up in despair and grumble that it is one of the most over-rated period dramas of recent years!
Bottom line is: watch it. Whether you end up loving it or hating it, (or else exist in a perpetually undecided state, like me), it is worth watching. Provided, of course, that you have read the book! If you haven't, please read the book first! Odds are, you aren't one of my younger siblings, so I can't force you to read the book first (unfortunately), but I still really really think it would be a good idea for you to read the book first.
And before I close this review, I should mention that there are a couple of scenes in this series that I fast-forward through. In any case, whether you fast-forward scenes or not, this series is really only appropriate for older viewers - teens and up. For a complete overview of any objectionable content, please read the Charity's Place review!
Edit: I've been struggling to verbalise this all through my review, but I'll try now. . .
All bookworms will testify to this - there are some books you read (especially when you're young) that leave a really deep impression on you. Sometimes you can't even figure out exactly what it is that makes you love x book so much. But somehow, it connected with something deep within you, and from that moment, that book will always be with you. Those are the books that you love and treasure always - those are the books that somehow become a part of you, and that mold and influence the person you become.
If a movie adaptation manages to capture a glimpse of that spark, that magic something that left such a deep impression on you when you read the book, then you know it's a good adaptation! It will probably be enjoyed by many (though not necessarily all) readers of the book, and it will hopefully induce many uninitiated moviegoers/TV viewers to check out the book.
This is ultimately the measure by which I judge film and TV versions of my favourite books - not by how faithful it is in letter to the book, or how long it is, or whether it was made on a large or a miniscule budget. . .
And this is why I like the 1980 and 2005 versions of Pride and Prejudice better than the highly acclaimed 1995 series. It's also the reason why I don't love the 2006 version of Jane Eyre. But don't let that put you off watching it - it's a very well-made series, and is the second-best adaptation of Jane Eyre ever made, in my humble opinion.
*Sighs*. . . What is it about us Janeites and Bronteites. . . we demand perfection in movie adaptations of our beloved P&Ps and JEs, and when those movie adaptations don't measure up to our impossible expectations, we spend countless hours criticising their faults on blogs, forums, etc. We're a cantankerous old bunch. . . I wonder how the rest of the world puts up with us? Dickens fans, for instance, are nowhere near as unreasonable as we are!
Must finish now.
Please share your thoughts on Jane Eyre 2006! Are you a fan, or a detractor - or are you caught in a state of perpetual indecision, like me? A Toby-Stephens-as-Rochester fangirl, or no? Any elements of this miniseries that you particularly loved - or hated?
~Most of the pictures in this post are from Fragilidad.
I think the picture below (detail above) has been around for a while. . .
But I hadn't seen this one until today!
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.
*Hat-tip to BronteBlog*.
Several new names have been reported in connection with Jane Eyre 2011 in the Hollywood Reporter:
Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax;
Jamie Bell as St John Rivers;
Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Reed;
and Imogen Poots - probably as Blanche Ingram.
My thoughts: Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax - awesome! :-D
I don't know much about Jamie Bell, but he looks about right for the part of St John - his blond, boyish looks should contrast well with Michael Fassbender's darker, rougher features.
Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Reed is an interesting choice, to say the least! Sally is a great actress, and will no doubt pull it off, but I have to say my first thoughts were that she seems way too young, thin, and attractive to play Mrs. Reed!
Imogen Poots - pleeeease, not another blonde Blanche Ingram!! Blanche is described in the book as being dark, exotic, and very tall. In almost all of the movie adaptations I have seen, she is portrayed as the stereotypical mean, dumb, blonde villainess. *Heavy sigh*. Let's hope that Miss Poots has actually been cast as Rosamund Oliver, NOT Blanche Ingram.
And this. . .
But this????
Well, if it's going to get more teens to read Shakespeare, Austen, and Emily Bronte, then I suppose it's a good thing. BUT if Wuthering Heights' greatest merit is the fact that it is "Bella and Edward's favourite book". . . good grief. . .
Have a closer look here, here, and here. Be sure to check out the back cover blurbs and the "extras" at the end of each book, featuring such interesting anecdotes as "What if Romeo and Juliet lived today and were on Facebook?".
And just in case you've been living on a different planet for the last couple of years and have no idea what I'm rabbiting on about:
