Jane Eyre Jane Eyre discussion


286 views
Movie

Comments Showing 1-36 of 36 (36 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Badriya (new)

Badriya  Bintuwaih I saw only the movie, Million, Billion no Gazillion times
and I can't get enough of it. It is just inspiring and amazing. Loved it so much


Brenda Clough Which movie, the recent one?


message 3: by Badriya (new)

Badriya  Bintuwaih Brenda wrote: "Which movie, the recent one?"

no the old one

No the old one, it is much much much interesting


Kevin Johnson I haven't seen the old one, but I did quite like the new one. The first dialogue between Rochester and Jane is quite interesting. It's like verbal tennis, or battle actually. He keeps launching attacks at her, and she keeps fending them off. Quite compelling, I thought.


message 5: by Badriya (new)

Badriya  Bintuwaih Kevin wrote: "I haven't seen the old one, but I did quite like the new one. The first dialogue between Rochester and Jane is quite interesting. It's like verbal tennis, or battle actually. He keeps launching att..."



haha I can't object on that.


Annemarie Donahue Which old one? 1996, 1999, 2006, 1983, 1970? Or the really old one with Orson Welles?


message 7: by Noor (last edited Mar 15, 2014 06:05AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Noor Fedala i rate the book million times and i sow the movie million times and i cried every time ;;; and it's inspiring me every time


J.R. Gershen-Siegel Annemarie wrote: "Which old one? 1996, 1999, 2006, 1983, 1970? Or the really old one with Orson Welles?"

There's an earlier one, according to IMDB (1934), with Colin Clive and Virginia Bruce.


Diane The first one I saw and fell in love with was the movie with Orson Wells. I have never loved any of the others as much but the book blew me away and is my favorite classic novel ever.


Sweta I have seen only the 1996 one, and I don't like it at all. I was disappointed.


Mary Beth In my opinion, the absolute best is the Masterpiece Theater edition from WGBH Boston Video done in 2006/7. It stars Ruth Wilson, Toby Stephens as Rochester and the wonderful Francesca Annis.


Valerie The first version I saw was with George C. Scott and Susannah York, and I loved it. Having seen it recently, though, it seems quite dated. I think the story is so strong that it can be remade countless times with contemporary sensibilities, and it's good almost every time!


Laura Herzlos I watched one many years ago, but I have no clue which one. I liked the fact that the actors weren't the classic "pretty faces", but I hadn't read the book when I saw it, so I couldn't know if the adaptation was good. By the time I read the book, I had forgotten most of the movie.

Which movie would you recommend me to watch, for the ones who saw more than one?


Teresa Edgerton I haven't been able to keep track of how many times the movie has been remade (not to mention at least two TV mini-series). I've seen four or five different versions, and I think they each have their own particular strengths and weaknesses. I have yet to see one that I find completely satisfying, although some have moved me more than others. In my mind, none of them have completely done justice to the book. But I think on the whole my favorite is the one with Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt.


Annemarie Donahue Mary wrote: "Janet wrote: "Annemarie wrote: "Which old one? 1996, 1999, 2006, 1983, 1970? Or the really old one with Orson Welles?"

There's an earlier one, according to IMDB (1934), with Colin Clive and Virgin..."


I really love the Orson Welles one but have to watch it tongue-in-cheek. Both Jane and Rochester are supposed to be plain to ugly, and yet they are played by two smoldering beautiful actors!


Teresa Edgerton Having Jane Eyre on my mind because of this conversation, I just watched the Mia Wasikowska/Fassbender version on Netflix tonight. It's one that I hadn't seen before, and although it has its faults I thought it was quite good, in part because of the cinematography (which was amazing) and in part because of the sexual tension between Jane and Rochester.


message 17: by Teresa (last edited Oct 14, 2014 02:32AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Teresa Edgerton Having Jane Eyre on my mind because of this conversation, I just watched the Mia Wasikowska/Fassbender version on Netflix tonight. It's one that I hadn't seen before, and although it has its faults I thought it was quite good, in part because of the cinematography (which was amazing) and in part because of the sexual tension between Jane and Rochester.

But I agree with Annemarie about the casting in the Orson Welles version (good as it is) -- it's impossible to look at Joan Fontaine and imagine that she's "poor, obscure, plain and small" as Jane describes herself. She was too beautiful and elegant for that.


Vinchi ✌ I love Jane Eyre and the author toooooo))))))
well i read the amazing book but i didn't watch the movie but my mom did and i wont get comfy until i watch it.......
:)


Carolina Morales Teresa wrote: "Having Jane Eyre on my mind because of this conversation, I just watched the Mia Wasikowska/Fassbender version on Netflix tonight. It's one that I hadn't seen before, and although it has its fault..."

Fassbender does an outstanding Rochester. Really impressive.


Sarah The new Jane Eyre movie was totally underrated (I mean the one with Mia Wasikowska). I've seen it a couple of times, and I thought Mia did an amazing job. She's usually very pretty, so I admire an actress willing to let herself be seen as plain and really owning her role. Michael Fassbender was a little younger than I imagined Mr. Rochester, but his performance was impeccable. More people should have seen it!!!


Cintia For me, the best movie version of this wonderful book is the 2006 BBC miniserie. Ruth Wilson *is* Jane and Toby Stephens *is* Rochester, and when I saw the newest version, I couldn't help but compare, I didn't like it. It's not enough. The 2006 has everything, the actors are perfect, the scenes together are brilliant... It left the bar really high, I don't know how new version could be better...


Noelle VanVleet Sarah wrote: "The new Jane Eyre movie was totally underrated (I mean the one with Mia Wasikowska). I've seen it a couple of times, and I thought Mia did an amazing job. She's usually very pretty, so I admire an ..."

I was definitely impressed with Mia Wasikowska in the 2011 version. I thought it was one of the best performances of Jane I've seen. I recently watched every available version on Netflix/Amazon Prime and from the library. I think Ciaran Hinds still gives my favorite performance of Rochester though. He captures the wildness of the character without being creepy. Too me, Fassbender is a little too gentlemanly to be true to the character. But that was also the script, not just his performance. I still really enjoyed him in the movie.

I found the oldest version from 1934 to be unwatchable, though hilarious at times. I had to FF through most of it. It's not even the same story because they had to make it acceptable for the tastes of that time. Haha. So bad.


Juneil Balo I believe the 2011 version was generally well received by the critics. Where others before were sparse and dull it made vibrant enhancements, so that they become pale imitations to the latter, and some scenes are indelible: John Reed (the winsome boy from Submarine) smacks Jane Eyre against a brass knob with a thick volume, ouch!; that long take between Fassbender and Mia before the fireplace. Mia's laissez faire acting was okay for me until she became Jane Eyre, I was very surprised that she could do it so well.

Last week I watched Les Soeurs Bronte (the Bronte Sisters) by Andre Techine, mostly known for Wild Reeds, a French biopic of the Bronte sisters, and I was preeminently struck by the creepy masochism of Charlotte's which made me think, not without horror, of Jane Eyre and Rochester. Her character was made to appear like an intellectual martyr. It's a brooding, slow churning film, cinematically well done the way French films usually are, very bleak. The sisters live a dull life, without event, and you get the sense that, before they start dying young one after another, they've lived a long, tedious life, because a day seems to stretch like forever in the movie. It's sad. The Brontes were portrayed as a coherent whole: when Branwell died, the other two soon followed. Charlotte was played by France Pisier, Emily by a beautiful Isabelle Adjani, and the now famous Isabelle Huppert played Anne. In one scene, Emily Bronte consents to have critics' responses read to her by her sister as she wipes the wall, and the lack of encouragement was devastating. If she only knew! I wish they' make a movie like that.


message 24: by Noe (new) - rated it 4 stars

Noe Badriya wrote: "Brenda wrote: "Which movie, the recent one?"

no the old one

No the old one, it is much much much interesting"


You make it sound as if there has only been two versions, whereas there have been several.


message 25: by Jesse (last edited Jan 11, 2015 08:33PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Jesse Freedom My favorite version overall is, of course, is the book (9.5/10 stars). My favorite movie version is probably the 1997 film(8/10 stars) or the 2006 tv miniseries(8/10 stars). I really liked the 1944 film(7.5 stars) and I liked the 2011 film(7/10 stars). I was not a big fan of the 1934 film(3/10 stars).


message 26: by Ella (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ella I love the 1983 mini-series with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Dalton is perfect as Mr. Rochester, absolutely perfect, and Clarke captures the essence of Jane Eyre's character and portrays it perfectly. An absolutely brilliant adaptation - I'd recommend it without a second thought.


Elizabeth I love the book as well as the black and white movie from 1944.


Vinchi ✌ I WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE!!!!


Natalia I've only seen two versions of Jane Eyre, the Orson Welles, where he played Rochester and Joan Fontaine plays Jane. And the 2011 version by Cary Fukunaga with Mia Wasikowska plays Jane and Michael Fassbender to Rochester. But I like to see the version of the BBC in 2006 where Ruth Wilson plays Jane and Toby Stephens plays Rochester. :)


Carla Sams I have loved most of the ones I have seen, but the older the better. The book still far exceeds the movies.


Kirsty This is my favorite book of all time.

I was really disappointed by the new movie (I haven't seen the old one) I think the best adaptation I have seen is the 2005 BBC mini series. Perfect Rochester, perfect Jane, perfect perfect perfect!


CluckingBell Laura wrote: "...Which movie would you recommend me to watch, for the ones who saw more than one? "

I've seen the five most recent adaptations, and the only one I've enjoyed is the 2006 Masterpiece Theatre production with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens (the others have been almost painful to watch, even with Ciaran Hinds as Rochester!). It captures the playfulness of their relationship, which is vital not only to show their genuine sympathy of spirits but also that Rochester is more wayward man-child than loutish brute.

It also helps, of course, that they weren't trying to wedge the entire book into a 100-minute movie. Scary stuff happens to character and plot when limited to feature-film length.


message 33: by Yun (new) - rated it 5 stars

Yun Yi I like 1970 British movie stars Susannah York and George Scott the best. I even wrote a blog:
http://humanwithoutgod.blogspot.com/2...

Susannah York is the best Jane by far. I rate Ruth Wilson the second.


message 34: by joan (new) - rated it 5 stars

joan I've never seen a good movie version - just not possible to make one, I don't think. I mean, anything's possible, but what are the chances? The producer, looking for funding, could hardly say 'ok, we're going to cut the Rock part right down, going to really focus on the Fire and Water parts..'.
A movie can't represent the whole of it, the black and the white marble pillars, the whole structure. Mr Rochester is only a tiny bit of the book.

And I'll definitely not be looking out for that French biopic - as far as I'm aware the Bronte's had a super-intense inner life, creating the nation of Angria, and all the novels evolving out of their shared childhood creations. Not conventional cinema material, but big imaginitive events must have been going off every day. Maybe a Terry Gilliam could make a go of a biopic, or a Tarkovsky of one of the novels?


message 35: by Sara (new) - rated it 5 stars

Sara I have not seen the newest version of this movie, but George C. Scott did a version in the 1970s that was the definitive Rochester for me.


message 36: by Sara (new) - rated it 5 stars

Sara Yun wrote: "I like 1970 British movie stars Susannah York and George Scott the best. I even wrote a blog:
http://humanwithoutgod.blogspot.com/2...

Susannah York is ..."


Just saw this after posting my own comment. I agree!


back to top