Lit Lovers & Corset Laces

A Little Princess (1995) Review

2012-03-01T17:16:00.003-08:00

Hi there! I'm back from another long absence, but (as usual) there has been a lot going on. My birthday just passed, and lately I've been continuously struck by the epiphany that I am indeed growing up! For the longest time it's seemed like it hasn't been happening fast enough, and now that I'm at the doorsteps of college and a future on my own I've realized that everything has gone by much too quick. The past few weeks have been very nostalgic ones, and as a result I've been revisiting a lot of my favorite childhood books, movies, etc. I find it somehow therapeutic to take time and revisit the comfortable solace of the past before I plunge headfirst into the uncertain future.

A Little Princess is common book for any little girl to read. It's the novel your mother shoves in your face to help convince you that you are special, loved, and important. It's the book that holds the lesson of learning how to value yourself and your own creativity even when others around you try to discourage you. Despite these great lessons, however, the book never had any real staying power with me. The movie was quite a different story, though. Of course there are a few problems with the movie. It's not true to the source material whatsoever as far as the setting, and the ending is quite different from the novel's, but stripped down to the bare basics it is essentially the same story with the same timeless moral. I've watched this movie about three times in the past week and continue to cry, and I'm determined that it's an underrated film that I will attempt to pass down to my children.

Casting:

Of course, the majority of the characters are children so I wouldn't really expect you to find a name you recognize in this mix. In fact, the majority of the actors are very subtle and under-the-radar. They are all phenomenal, however. Liesel Matthews plays the main character, little Sarah Crewe who has been sent to a school for young ladies while her father goes to fight for the British in World War I (a huge diversion from the story, but it still works). Liesel is perfect for the part. Often times when you have movies in which children play the dominant role, there is a large risk of being cheesy and melodramatic because very few child actors have been properly trained in the art of subtlety. Liesel, however, has pure talent and she plays her role better than many hollywood adult actors have played theirs. She truly embodies Sarah Crewe in both looks and spirit. Her character is relatable to children and adults. Sarah Crewe is a hard character to nail because she is very imaginative and dreamy, but she also has an innate wisdom beyond her years that allows her to rival the intellect of the adults in her life. She's also forced to grow up at a very early age when she's informed of her father's death.

Vanessa Lee Chester plays Sarah's best friend, the underaged servant Becky. In the book, Becky is nothing more than a poor cockney girl with little education. Alfonso Cuaron (the director) took a large step by casting a black girl to play Becky, who in the film is portrayed as an orphan. Even though this might throw you off, Chester more than atones for the lack of physical faithfulness through her performance. She is another child actor who really mastered that art of believability and together, she and Liesel Matthews have a chemistry that capture's the audience's heart and forges a great onscreen bond.

There are many characters that play a decent role in the film, but most are unknown and never grew to become known in their careers. They all deserved to, however. Liam Cunningham plays Captain Crewe, Sarah's rich father who encourages her to have confidence in herself and maintain an active imagination. Cunningham's role wasn't very big, but from what the audience does see, he too has a lovely chemistry with Matthews and the two nail the perfect portrayal of a father and daughter. Eleanor Bron plays Mrs. Minchin and does it well. By the end of the movie you really do hate her. However, Cuaron does allow the audience to sympathize with her for a moment and develops much more depth in her character than the book bothered to.

Screenplay/Cinematography/Soundtrack/Costume Design:

Screenplay: There are a great many diversions from the original novel, but I don't believe the screenplay was written with any intent of being like the book. The greatest way to approach this movie is acting like you never read the book. I'm not saying this in a bad way, though. Most of the seemingly insane risks paid off tenfold. A Little Princess captures more than just a girl's relationship to herself. It captures various aspects of different relationships: relationships between races, relationships between social classes, relationships between parents and their children. There is more variety in this film then there ever was in the novel. The film also places much more emphasis on the culture from which Sarah came. She was moved from India to England in the novel (I believe, I don't quite recollect) while her father went to the mines in Victorian times. In the film, the time period is shifted to World War I where Sarah is taken from India to New York while her father fights in the war. However, the film really highlights the rich Indian culture that became essential to Sarah's present self awareness and wisdom. There are many differences, but I promise there is nothing that you won't like.

Cinematography: Absolutely stunning. I have know idea who filmed the movie, but the artistry involved was beautiful. The movie was all about subtlety in acting, and the cinematography really captured that well. Nothing was overdone, but sometimes I was just awed by the beauty of the way the camera hit something in just the right way.

Soundtrack: Perfect. I downloaded a few of the songs to my ipod. The soundtrack is also very culturally rich and influenced by the sound and sensuality of India.

Costume Design: Like everything else, very subtle but very stunning and also VERY cultural. The rich oranges, creamy whites, and colorfulness of Sarah's clothes in India and Ram Das's native garbs provide a noticeable and intentional contrast to the dull greens of the girls' uniforms and the dingy blackness of Sarah's dress later on.

Negatives:

The only thing that halfway bothered me was that Sarah's father is British and she was raised by Indians, and yet she has an American accent. But other than that, the accents were all fine. I guess you can train a child actor to do everything perfectly.

Conclusion:

It was wonderful. Absolutely wonderful. This movie slipped hideously under the radar when it came out in theaters, but it actually ended up being nominated for an Academy Award. Unfortunately, most people will never know about the beauty of the film, which is a shame because I personally believe that it's a movie everyone deserves the honor of watching even if they aren't familiar with the novel. Everything about this movie was breathtaking and its message still resonates with me and anyone else who once watched it as a child. I recommend that if you ever find the chance that you give it a try. There will be plenty of tears shed.

Five stars out of five.

It is my 17th birthday. That chalks up to about 7 years of lit loving. That is all. :)

2012-02-28T19:49:00.001-08:00

"Tess of the D'urbervilles" by Thomas Hardy Review

2012-02-18T20:50:00.002-08:00

Somewhere in the countryside of rural England, John Durbeyfield, a common man, is walking home. The local clergyman passes by and addresses him cordially as "Sir John" and he is thereafter informed of his connection to an extinct aristocracy. Meanwhile, his eldest daughter Tess Durbeyfield is on her way to a local village dance dressed in her best white attire. By chance, three young men (brothers) happen to be passing through. The elder two are practical, pragmatic, and dry, but the youngest is bright with youth and insists on stopping to dance. He takes the first girl he sees as a partner, and just as he is about to take his turn with the gorgeous Tess, he is called away for the sake of time. Tess returns to her impoverished home (complete with a large family of children) and learns of the "joyous" news: her father is a d'Urberville.

Despite this newly discovered connection, Tess insists that the family move on as usual but when their horse and only source of income dies, she reluctantly follows her mother's advice and undertakes the journey to search out the only other living (and conveniently wealthy) d'Urbervilles left. She arrives at a magnificent house, where she comes in contact with her handsome and strangely charming "cousin" Alec d'Urberville. He arranges for her to receive a job at the mansion, all the while keeping an eager eye on her. Inexperienced, vulnerable, and completely unused to the world beyond her little village, Tess resists his strange attraction to her having no idea where his motives really lay. She's unable to recognize the signs around her that point to trouble and is soon lured by Alec into a trap and raped by him.

Tess returns home distraught, confused, and ashamed after refusing any financial help from Alec because of her disgust. She eventually gives birth to his child, who dies during infancy and is unable to be properly baptized or buried because of its illegitimacy. Deeply hurt and depressed, Tess leaves her home again to make a fresh start and earn money as a milkmaid. It is there that she meets the young and handsome Angel Clare, who she immediately remembers as the boy she almost danced with a long time ago. The two form an immediate bond and Tess falls in love with him despite all her attempts to resist him. In a society where virtue, purity, and morality are the pillars of desirability in a woman, Tess is a haunted victim of her past. Now she faces losing the man she truly loves by risking the truth, and she must discover whether the future can hold happiness for someone so plagued by the misery of the past.

I read this book two years ago and after finishing it I was immediately convinced that I would despise it forever. The book is bleak and dark; not in the twisted and cruel way Wuthering Heights was but in a pensively sorrowful way. Somehow I felt like Tess was not a good heroine. I mentally accused her of being weak and essentially brainless. Even then, however, I wasn't able to put it down. I left it alone for a few years, but recently reread it and realized just how beautiful a novel it really was. Yes, it is frustrating to read. Every reader wants to place the blame on someone. The bleakness that permeates Tess's existence makes the audience despise humanity; women for being so easily lead and men for being heartless and manipulative creatures. Yet, this is exactly what was intended.

Thomas Hardy reversed the gender roles during a time period in which women were the lustful and tempting seed of evil and men were the pure, entrapped lambs. Tess's life is filled with contradictions and complexities that create controversy in her views of happiness and morality. She is hard pressed from all sides. On one hand, her mother scolds her for being to open and truthful and on the other she is being tormented for hiding her past. Tess is the perfect protagonist; a complex character who evolves as the novel unravels with each page. By the end, the reader finds that the more corrupt Tess becomes by worldly standards, the more virtuous we hold her in our minds.

It is the complexity of the characters in the novel that creates the intrigue. Tess is not the only person to analyze; every major and minor character is multi-faceted and essential to the telling of her story. Nothing is coincidental. In the midst of this strange "love story", the reader discovers a poignant social commentary by Thomas Hardy that will turn the wheels of your mind. It is absolutely captivating.

Oh, and there is also an AMAZING BBC adaptation to accompany it for anyone interested. Absolutely breathtaking.

Wuthering Heights 2011 (or 2012?) Review

2012-02-16T19:00:00.004-08:00

Preamble:

I've finally seen it! For years now, the newest adaptation of Wuthering Heights has been disappearing, resurfacing, and then disappearing again. However, around the time I found out that Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre would be released in 2011, I also discovered that Wuthering Heights was back in business, being directed by none other than Andrea Arnold. I awaited the films release with curious anticipation, wondering what Arnold would bring to a novel that has been relentlessly adapted on screen for decades.

As an avid Jane Eyre loyalist, I'll be the first to admit that Wuthering Heights never was and probably never will be my cup of tea. I've read the book many times and have yet to discover why so many exalt it so highly, but that hasn't stopped me from seeing a few adaptations and enjoying them. The '39 was the first one I was ever acquainted it, and I liked it well enough. The '09 was my favorite. The "Ralph Fiennes" was acceptable because Ralph Fiennes was Heathcliff (and who wouldn't love that?). The rest either went unwatched or were too miserable to really mention.

From the moment of its announcement, the filmmakers succeeded in shadowing the 2011 adaptation in a veil of mystery. Facts about the plot and the characters remained evasive and no one really knew how the movie would end up; we merely prayed for dear life that it wouldn't be butchered. We were, however, presented with three bold facts. Andrea Arnold would be the director. Kaya Scoledario would become Cathy Earnshaw/Linton. But perhaps the greatest and most controversial decision the filmmakers made was deciding to cast an unknown black actor (James Howson) as Heathcliff, the leading man. With so many questions surrounding the project, my interest was heightened. I was merely disappointed, however, when it was announced that the film wouldn't be released in the US until 2012. In fact, it's been months since its release in Europe and yet the United States has only seen Arnold's Wuthering Heights at a few film festivals here and there.

The official US release date is still relatively unknown. Most likely the film won't be going to mega-movie theaters, but I'm sure it'll sneak its way onto a few art house limited release screens. My impatience will always get the best of me, however, and so I've managed to see the movie ahead of time. This is going to be a long review containing a fair amount of spoilers, so beware.

Casting:

The casting of the movie was perhaps the most debatable aspect in everyone's eyes. I think everyone wondered if Arnold really knew what she was doing. What might throw a dutiful Wuthering Heights purist off initially is the fact that the larger portion of the film is devoted to Cathy and Heathcliff's adolescent years. Newcomers Shannon Beer (Cathy) and Solomon Glave (Heathcliff) are really the stars of the show because, in essence, it is their movie. It's strange really, seeing young Cathy and Heathcliff for most of the movie, and I'll be the first to admit that I never really got quite used to that hitch in the plot, but the fourteen-year-old actors were the highlight of the film. Beer and Glave both delivered superb performances for such young actors. The audience really comes to terms with the fact that there was chemistry between Cathy and Heathcliff from childhood.

Soon enough Kaya and James Howson (the unknown black actor) stepped in to play the adult Cathy and Heathcliff after Cathy marries Edgar Linton and Heathcliff comes back from his mysterious and long travels. From subsequent research, I ought to warn you that Heathcliff's voice was not actually Howson's. According to various reports and interviews with Howson himself, he was voiced over by someone else and he merely lent his looks for the part. Other problems also arise with the casting of the two adult leads, namely the fact that they seem completely unrelated to the actors who played the adolescents. Scodelario looks and acts like a person wholly unconnected to Beer's Cathy, and the same thing may be said for Howson and Glave. Assessed individually, the acting wasn't bad at all, but collectively there was something missing.

I know what most of you are thinking. "What is your opinion on the black Heathcliff deal?" In all honesty, it really didn't bother me. In fact, it was almost natural. I personally don't understand what all the hoopla was about in the first place. Of course, most people don't necessarily envision a black Heathcliff when they're reading the novel, but it's rare in any adaptation that the "envisioned" actor gets casted.

Screenplay/Cinematography/Soundtrack:

Screenplay: This is the area in which I have my biggest qualms. The screenplay was practically nonexistent in this film. Words were extremely few. When imagining an adaptation of Wuthering Heights, anyone who has read the novel will immediately picture, "I am Heathcliff" and "I cannot live without my soul", and yet most of the lines that every fan looks for are nowhere to be found in this adaptation. There's little verbal conversation between the characters, but there is a lot of eye contact and sensuality which kind of serves as its own tangible screenplay. It doesn't take the audience long to realize that this isn't an omniscient approach to the novel, but rather a version of Wuthering Heights seen completely through the eyes of Heathcliff. <-- That was something I wasn't prepared for, and in the end I'm not sure whether it doomed or benefited the film.

Cinematography: The camerawork was without a doubt the film's greatest strength. With Andrea Arnold running the show, I knew that this version of Wuthering Heights would be all about appealing to visual emotion. The dark, mysterious, gloomy, and yet strangely beautiful English moors are the real main character in the movie. In fact, the scenery gets more screen time than anything. We see wind whistling through sultry wildflowers, tall grass being swept by enormous gusts, and lots of nature, bugs, and mud. There is a strange but refreshing kind of tangibility that pulls the audience into the film and expresses the emotions of the characters.

Soundtrack: There isn't one. At the end of the movie you get a minute song from Mumford & Sons (it's a good song) and that's it.

Negatives:

Unfortunately, there are a lot of those. Overall, I found the movie too quiet. There was no dialogue, and as much as I enjoy subtlety, too much of it can quickly shift the audience into a state of boredom (which was the case with me). As sensual as the cinematography was, there was no physical sensuality between the characters, save one moment when Heathcliff and Cathy wrestle in the mud. There is no kissing, there is no reckless passion. There are merely plants and animals and shots of humans in between. If their was one word I could use to sum up the two hour film, it would be "nostalgic."

Could this version really be called Wuthering Heights? Not really. It's merely a film that shares a few circumstantial similarities with a novel of the same name. If you're looking for faithfulness, you won't really find it. But if you're looking for raw cinematography, or just rawness period, then this might be the version you've been searching for. If you're a true purist, I would almost bet that you won't like it.

The one redeeming thing I can say about this adaptation, however, is the fact that it reached me in a way no other adaptation was able to do. For years, all I've only been able to visualize Wuthering Heights as an unrealistically harsh tale about the twisted love between two strangely narcissistic characters. I was always Heathcliff's severest critic because I was never able to understand how someone who supposedly loved so deeply could be so corroded by brutality. Through the raw, realistic, and untamed wildness of Arnold's cinematography and the blatant glances of cruelty seen in this version, I was able to understand what draws readers en masse to Wuthering Heights. In a world so eaten away with gloominess, pain, and bitterness, the fact that such a solemn and lasting passion could grow between Cathy and Heathcliff is the sole thing worth reading for. Sure, their love is dirtied by the outside forces of the world in which they live, but Heathcliff and Cathy have literally only one another.

Therefore, I can say that some obvious good came out of this adaptation in my personal experience. I have no idea what it will do for the rest of you.

Turning Pages

2012-02-09T11:41:00.000-08:00

Hello there lit lovers! I'm reporting to you from the coziest spot on my bed. I've been home sick for three days (a living testament of how stress can wreak havoc on your immune system) and when you sum up the hours I've been sleeping it probably amounts to about one and a half of those days (the flu is no joke). Today is the first day my brain has been remotely capable of putting words together worthy of being posted. Fortunately, I'm at the age where my mother is still my primary caretaker. I dread the college days ahead when I'll have to learn how to cope without her maternal nursing abilities.

The positive (if there is one) about being sick is the ample amount of time you receive to read and watch TV before you're driven insane by cabin fever, so of course I've been pouring through some Jane Eyre adaptations and rereading some of my favorites. My bookshelves are my best friends during sickness, and fond memories also help me weather the storm.

What I didn't realize, strangely enough, is that there are so many books I have yet to share with you and review for you. Jane Eyre takes up about half of my posts and the other half is strangely vacant. So in the middle of February, I've decided to make a new years resolution (better late than never). This year will be focused on getting new books to your attention. There are some great novels sitting on my bed right now that you might have never read or haven't read in a long time, and they're all worth a look.

Whenever I have time, I'll be introducing you guys to some of my personal favorites and those posts will be followed by reviews of any adaptations those books happened inspire. Just to know what you're looking forward to, some of these books include: The Count of Monte Cristo, Far from the Madding Crowd, Frankenstein, and A Room with a View and even old childhood favorites such as The Secret Garden, A Little Princess, and The Wind in the Willows. See any new faces? Recognize any old friends? Well then keep yourselves posted because it's going to be a lovely ride and a marvelous adventure! ;)

--Ari (aka Bonnie)

Grace's Jane Austen Literary Garden Party

2012-02-07T14:01:00.000-08:00

Hello there, fellow bloggers! I'm incredibly sorry for my lengthy and mysterious absence. It's not so mysterious, really. I'm entering the back stretch of junior year, which means juggling my classes, preparing for ominously approaching AP exams, making the beginning arrangements for my first prom, etc. The list could go on. Happy February, by the way. I'll be turning seventeen on the twenty-eighth (which is just another thing to mark on my cluttered calendar).

I also have to express my condolences for my failed attempt at Jane Austen January. I didn't have any time to spare to make it really special. But, to make up for it, I have officially decided to participate in the Jane Austen Literary Garden Party courtesy of Grace's Garden Walk. Grace probably doesn't know it, but I'm an avid fan of her blog and I always stop by to see what surprises she has for her followers. I encourage all of my Lit Lovers to join the party!

The first step in participating is the introduction, which is why I have broken my extended silence. Grace has provided a lovely little questionnaire to break the ice. So here we go. :)

{one} let us start by your telling a little bit about your own self. tell us a bit of your personality. perhaps, tell a bit of your interests and pastime.

My real name is Ari. I'm a resident of the US and an aspiring writer. I'm a high school junior with fervent hopes of pursuing a career in screenwriting after college. Literature, music, and art are the loves of my life. I have a slight (okay, maybe not so slight) obsession with Jane Eyre. I'm a typical dreamer who prefers to have her nose in a piece of fiction. My imagination is my greatest strength, which is why I find the most comfort in writing, reading, drawing, or playing my piano. I adore finding beauty in the simplest of things; crinkled pages of books, thoughtful photographs, splashes of color, quotes of literature, etc.

{two} what literary character {whether it be in a film or book} would you say, most describes your personality and mannerisms?

I wish I could say Jane Eyre, but I'm not very practical, nor do I believe I have her extraordinary willpower. I think I am perhaps more like Lucy from the Chronicles of Narnia series. On the exterior I might seem young and rather unassuming, but boldness, adventure, and the occasional glimpse of wisdom brims beneath the surface. Or perhaps Margaret Hale...

{three} what would you describe as the most lovely place to live in 1700's England? a cottage surrounded by woods or a mansion perhaps, to the same resemblance as Pemberley in Miss Austen's Pride and Prejudice.

Pemberly (particularly the one in the '05 adaptation) has particular appeal to me, but I think I'd prefer Thornfield Hall.

{four} list some of your favorite and least favorite literary works you have read.

Favorites: Jane Eyre, North and South, To Kill a Mockingbird, the English Patient, the Chronicles of Narnia (every single one, though I believe the the first and last are my personal favorites).

Least Favorites: Emma, The Great Gatsby...

{five} what would you describe as a most admirable heroine?

The most admirable heroine is a relatable one. A heroine is nothing without her flaws. She must learn from them, however, and truly progress and find herself.

{six} if you could spend afternoon tea in the company of your favorite literary heroine, to whom would you spend it with?

Despite the fact that Jane Eyre is my favorite, I would probably have to choose either Elizabeth Bennet or Margaret Hale. The conversation would be good.

{seven} which is to your liking more :: tea or coffee?

Coffee.

{eight} which of Jane Austen's couples are your more fond of?

Elizabeth and Darcy

Anne Eliot and Captain Wentworth

Colonel Brandon and Marianne Dashwood

{nine} what is one {a few} of your favorite literary quotes?

I couldn't even begin to choose. But just because it's on my mind:

"And it is you spirit--with will and energy, and virtue and purity--that I want, not alone this brittle frame." --Edward Rochester

{ten} are you fond of dancing or singing or reading a good book?

I'm a horrible dancer, but the singing and reading sounds good.

{eleven} and lastly, as this event is also hosted in celebration of my garden's second anniversary, would you mind explaining perhaps, how you stumbled upon my little plot of earth?

Unfortunately, I don't really remember how I came across the blog. Most likely it was through a mutual follower. But, I can say that I was enamored with it from the moment I first saw it, and have been keeping a steady on it ever since.

Weekly Lit Quote (1/30/12)

2012-02-01T17:34:00.000-08:00

"I take it that 'gentleman' is a term that only describes a person in his relation to others; but when we speak of him as 'a man,' we consider him not merely with regard to his fellow-men, but in relation to himself,--to life--to time--to eternity."

--Elizabeth Gaskell (North and South)

Weekly Lit Quote January 23rd

2012-01-23T13:35:00.001-08:00

“We know that we come from the winds, and that we shall return to them; that all life is perhaps a knot, a tangle, a blemish in the eternal smoothness. But why should this make us unhappy? Let us rather love one another, and work and rejoice." --Mr. Emerson (A Room with a View by E.M. Forster)

"Darcy's Passions" by Regina Jeffers Review

2012-01-19T19:31:00.000-08:00

I have the worst tendency to get ridiculously off task, as you can obviously tell. I know you're probably wondering, "What happened to Jane Austen January?" It's still in full effect, even with the sudden interruption of Rochester: Consummation and that amazing Jane Eyre analysis that made this January seem like it was dedicated to the wrong "Jane." So, let's just disregard the fact that the first two weeks of Jane Austen January have been a distracted mess and continue on like nothing ever happened, shall we?

It's about that time to wrap up with the Darcy spin-offs, unfortunately. I only read four of them, and they all dwell on the same plot, which makes it harder to really infuse any originality in the review besides personal thoughts about random details. However, I must admit that I'm excited about reviewing Darcy's Passions because it was the first (and only) Darcy pastiche to fulfill every detail I was searching for. In fact, this book is basically the reason I only ever read four spin-offs; it was so near perfection that I felt it rather useless to go searching for anything to beat it.

The only way I could really explain it is by equating it to another spin-off I dearly love. For any of you who happen to by acquainted with Jane Eyre's Husband by Tara Bradley, Darcy's Passions essentially utilizes the same preservation and, yet, originality and devotes it to the mind of Darcy in relation to Elizabeth rather than Rochester to Jane. It's rare that a reader comes across such a great balance of faithfulness and creativity when so many other books of the same breed are on various ends of the spectrum. Jeffers covers every base of Darcy's mind, starting from his first visit to Netherfield and spanning all the way to weeks into his married life with Elizabeth. We see the progression of Darcy's secret love for Lizzy through the character's own eyes in all emotional, mental, and physical aspects.

One thing that I must also add is the artfulness with which Jeffers handles the sexuality of Darcy and Elizabeth's relationship, which is almost nonexistent in the original novel (which makes no mention of a kiss nor any real physical contact). Jeffers stays true to the chastity of the source material, but underlays it with sexual tension by intertwining Darcy's physical admiration of Elizabeth with his strange attraction to her witty opinions, intellectual conversation, and all-around intriguing personality. By the time Lizzy and Darcy do share physical intimacy, the reader has no doubt that this is merely a passionate byproduct of a love that is built on the foundations of mental and emotional similitude. At the same time, the pages before that first physical bond are by no means dry. The fact that Jeffers balances the physical, emotional, and mental chemistry between Lizzy and Darcy so well is something that might be undervalued, but in reality it is a hard task to accomplish. I've discovered firsthand that it's often hard for authors to create an equal combination between the three, and the fact that Jeffers was able to do this is an admirable feat.

Jeffers delivered the best rendition of Darcy's story because of her ability to really bring the reader into Darcy's mind without even having to resort to the common first person perspective. She takes small risks by daring to conjecture things that might not have been implied in the original novel, but you will do nothing but love her more for it. There have been too many half-hearted and shallow tales of Pride and Prejudice, with Darcy doing nothing more than saying, "I can't stop thinking about Elizabeth" and leaving it at that. Jeffers gives us the full depth of Darcy's struggle, adds refreshing new scenes that give bulk to his relationship with Elizabeth, and in the end really opens us up to the passionate man Darcy is.

The book is truly interesting and very appealing, and for anyone who enjoys reading spin-offs and has yet to come across this, I think you might definitely want to give this a try. If you have already read it and enjoyed it then I might also recommend you read its sequel, Darcy's Temptation, which picks up where this book left off. I have yet to read it, but it's earned a well-deserved spot on my list of future reads. Jeffers is no stranger to masterful pastiches. In fact, she's written a few others which are also highly recommended (and also on my "future reads" list) including: Christmas at Pemberly, The Phantom of Pemberly, and Captain Wentworth's Persuasion. I'm especially excited to read the latter as soon as I can and review it for you guys. Captain Wentworth is one of my favorite Austen heros.

Comments please. :)

"Rochester: Consummation" by J.L Niemann Review

2012-01-16T18:38:00.000-08:00

Rochester: Consummation begins, of course, where Rochester left off. For those who haven't a lot of memory of first book, it's the eve of Rochester's wedding to Miss Jane Eyre. Rochester paces, ponders, discusses his upcoming nuptials with his good friend Arthur Eshton, and then he and Jane join hands and walk to the church to be wed.

In my mind, the tension was mounting. I was anticipating, with a certain amount of anxiety and curiosity, how Niemann chose to treat the interrupted wedding and Rochester's resulting demise. However, that never came. It doesn't take long for the reader to realize that Niemann has decided to veer away from the beaten path. In fact, anyone who read the first Rochester has that knowledge in the back of their minds to begin with. But even my own precautions didn't prepare me for what steps Niemann might take.

Jane and Rochester do get married, and they do so peacefully without the least bit of protest from Richard Mason and his solicitor (who are nowhere to be found). The ring is placed on Jane's finger. The vows are said in completion. Edward Rochester does indeed kiss his bride. Strange isn't it? Strange, but surprisingly refreshing and oddly exhilarating because of its originality. Somewhere along the journey, every reader of Jane Eyre stumbles onto the internal question of, "what would have happened if Richard and Briggs hadn't gotten there in time? Or what might have happened if they hadn't gotten there at all?" Personally, my mind could never wrap itself around the idea because, of course, that wasn't how things transpired. Niemann, however, dares to conjecture, and does so rather artfully.

The rest of the story is so filled with various quirks, twists, and turns, that to give you even the smallest synopsis of the plot would be to reveal too much. It's safe to say that liberty was taken, as it was in the first book. Niemann forges her own story of Jane and Rochester that to some may be detrimental and irking and to others may be original and interesting. I personally found it rather intriguing as a whole, but I had a few decisive grievances, the greatest of those being Rochester's use of obscenities which I found both too modern and too unlike the original character. The second is a mere carry over from the first book. The sexual content of the novel was just uncomfortable in the strangest way. In technical terms, there was nothing wrong it. It wasn't too vulgar or discomfiting in its description. My personal problem with it was that it was just very unlike the real characters from the source material. Niemann places a heavy amount of emphasis on the sexual aspect of Jane and Rochester's relationship, especially highlighting the kinetic physical attraction they've had to one another since the moment Rochester slipped his arm around her shoulder the day they first met. It seems, however, like their sexuality constitutes too large of a portion of the relationship. Perhaps I'm saying this because I'm young and virgin and still inexperienced with the physical demands that adult relationships are rumored to have. Yet, the mental connection between Jane and Rochester was lacking to me. The physical is there, of course, and the raw and unbridled emotion is especially moving through Niemann's descriptive language, but I didn't see enough of the intellect of both characters. The wit, sarcasm, and intelligence that draw the two to one another dwindles in Rochester: Consummation.

What I like, however, is the freedom of expression. Rochester's emotions are constantly brimming over, shifting from one extreme to the other, and even Niemann's Jane is a much more outwardly emotional than the one in the original novel. This works to the author's advantage, and this is the area in which Niemann's talent for emotional descriptiveness is allowed to shine and fill Rochester with substance. There are tears, there is screaming, there is action and expression. The emotional intensity of the novel keeps the reader invested in the story. When I finished, I was almost wary with fatigue (in a good way). In an inexplicable way, I felt as if I had witness firsthand each of Rochester's experiences, felt his emotions, and dealt with his internal conflicts. It's a truly tantalizing experience that few authors have the ability to infuse into their writing. Niemann accomplishes that feat, just as she did in Rochester.

I'm aware that I've been rambling and that this review is very discombobulated, but that's all I really have to say. I hope you will all take the opportunity to read it. As soon as you do, I'd really love to hear your viewpoints! I know that many of you will have some decisive opinions.

Thoughts Being Shared

2012-01-05T19:53:00.000-08:00

I believe I've developed an addiction to blogging. Not only do I have two separate blogs on blogger, but I was also easily persuaded by my sister to take up Tumblr. She insisted that it was much more functional than blogger, and I have yet to discover what the big fuss is about, but I decided to give it a try just to see. It turns out that Tumblr is actually really fun and also strangely addictive in the same way blogger is. The only advantage I see, however, is the fact that you can type in a key word and everything anyone on Tumblr has ever blogged about that subject pops before your eyes...

Of course, I had to type in "Jane Eyre" and it led me to one of the greatest analyses I've yet to encounter on the novel and the peculiar, complex, incomprehensible, and yet amazingly beautiful relationship that exists between Jane and Rochester. This analysis sums up what I could never put in words. This is why I and countless other readers have found a binding and relatable attachment to the novel. I wish I knew who wrote this miraculous post, but the person who posted it neglected to give anyone the name from which the post came. Whoever you are, if you happen to be reading this, know that I love and agree with everything you have written and that there is absolutely no copyright intended. Shall you read?

It is the strangest meeting and it foreshadows the end-resolution.

Not only does he fall flat on his face, he can’t stand on his own two feet anymore, and is forced to use Jane as support to get to his horse and mount it again. A most unflattering and unheroic picture: an independent man of the world who needs to lean on a tiny, frail looking female figure. It’s not just ironic, it’s jarring.
The theme persists of the hero never really being able to act the hero (instead he is saved by the female lead): she saves his life after Bertha sets his bed on fire, he can’t make her rich nor is he allowed to dazzle her with gifts, he’s not around when Bertha enters her room and tears the veil, he can’t give her his home (it’s burned down), can’t provide her with her first family, he can’t find her after she ran off and make sure she’s physically well. He doesn’t even directly own te title of giving her a position for a governess. Mrs Fairfax gave Jane the job. And as for paying her wages: he owes her 5. His lament of “Jane, Jane, Jane” that causes her to return to Thornfield would, in other romances, have been the thing the female lead would be doing, not the manly hero.
And in the end, he is reduced back to the state of the hero who’s forced to physically lean on Jane, once more, in his blind state, just as when he first meets her.

Jane is the action hero, whereas Rochester, whether he likes it not or not, is rendered to a passive role. And you need only to get a copy of the Venus and Mars advice books, that tries to defend this culturally ingrained idea where men are the action heroes and women take a passive role in courtship, to realize how the romance tale of Jane Eyre is even now still much ahead of gender role perception in courtship.

StJohn, in contrast, is much more of an action hero: he actively takes her in the house and saves her from death and poverty, he supplies her with a job, he is the means through which she learns she has family relations and an heirress. Were it not for StJohn she would have no family, no money, no home, no food, no life. In contrast to Rochester, he pursues her, pops the question thrice without even loving her, and almost manages to secure her through reasoning and emotional manipulation if it weren’t for Rochester’s lament.

Rochester’s affection and love grows depending on Jane’s activity too. He himself declares that he practically fell in love with her (was bewitched by her) from the moment he leans on her to get back to his horse.

“When once I had pressed the frail shoulder, something new - a fresh sap and sense - stole into my frame. It was well I had learnt that this elf must return to me - that it belonged to my house down below - or I could not have felt it pass away from under my hand, and seen it vanish behind the dim hedge, without singular regret.” (Jane Eyre, penguin books, VIII Chapter I, p 351)

The point in time in the courthship where he accepts his own infatuation with her and forms serious marriage plans is after she saves him from the burning bed. Before that holding of her hand, he always calls her Miss Eyre. After that, no during, he starts to address her as Jane ever after. At least it shows he cannot but regard her in an intimate emotional state. That he contemplates marriage by then can be denoted from his leaving the next morning in order to get Blanche Ingram and co to Thornfield, and provoke Jane into jealousy by planting into her head the idea he courts Blanche and intends to marry her.

And he reveals his emotions and intentions only truly after she declares herself his equal and persists in leaving Thornfield, despite the fact that, a long while before this declaration of equality, Jane has already been candid enough she considers her home to be the place where he is.

Jane herself recognizes that she must prevent Rochester from being an active lover to her: no presents, no jewelry, no idling away their time in each other’s arms. Their official courtship benefits from her blocking any of his attempts to shower her with material and emotional evidence of his love (as he feels compelled to), and instead revert back to a game of provocations.

Likewise she recognizes that the one thing that will assure him losing regard for her is to become his mistress in the French villa. Instead she must break his heart in order to have him love and respect her forever.

Rochester finally surrenders to her completely, and not just physically by needing her to be his lead while he’s blind, when he says, “Which you shall make for me, Jane. I will abide by your decision.” Only after that does he regain enough action to ask her to marry him. The passivity of his courtship role is again reverberated in Jane’s active declaration, “Reader, I married him.

Loving him and marrying him has not just been her own choice and will, but also her own doing, except for the fact that he at least gets the honour of uttering the proposal. It seems but a meagre contribution that Rochester deserves Jane Eyre for his wife, just because he manages to pop the question. And yet, I never feel he’s undeserving of her. Jane voices the reason why he deserves her to StJohn: he was the first to love her as she is.

More, despite his scoundrel past, his boarish behaviour, his jealousy scheme, his lies about his marital status, I never feel he disrespects her, although there is always the danger lurking around the corner that he might come to disrespect her were it not for her pert replies, her defiance and her active exertion of her own will. Jane has self-respect and integrity (rather than morality and social confirmity), even as a child already. And Rochester is the instrument in which her self-respect and integrity is tested. Not just by him being the domineering, willfull brute she needs to stand up against, but by him being the man she loves passionately at the same time.

Rochester seems to be aware of both Jane’s integrity and self-respect from the start of the acquaintance. His respect for her imo exists from the start, simply because it’s evoked by the self-respect she seems to have been born with, rather than taught by life eperience. But he acts contrary to his feelings because
a) he does not actively know her well enough
b) he’s used to get his way because of his status and station in life
c) he’s used to get his way because of his domineering character
He even warns her of (b) and (c) early on already. Rochester wants to be sure she is what he thinks she is and acts from the first meeting until she runs away from Thornfield in every manner to provoke her into disrespecting herself: as a master, as an undeclared lover, as her courtier and husband to be.

To me the ultimate question the book asks is whether Jane will forget herself and disrespect herself?
- as a dependent child in a well-enough gentry family for material needs without being loved
- as a dependent child in an austere environment
- as a dependent employee under the caprice of her moody employer
- as a woman
- as a rejected family member even hated at her aunt’s deathbed
- as a woman passionately in love
- as a homeless destitute
- as a cousin to family who love her and she owes her life

She proves throughout she does not lose her sense of self in any of the circumstances she ends up, not even the most alluring temptation of all: drunken, passionate love

Weekly Lit Quote

2012-01-05T12:47:00.000-08:00

I always have a "quote of the week" on my personal blog, On Page Whatever, and so I figured that I might also bring it to my lit blog. Most weeks, a quote will come to me out of the pages of whatever I'm reading (or have already read) and why withhold it from you? Perhaps it's something you needed to hear just like often times the greatest quotes come to me when I need them. So today's quote:

"Know, that in the course of your future life you will often find yourself elected the involuntary confident of your acquaintances’ secrets: people will instinctively find out, as I have done, that it is not your forte to tell of yourself, but to listen while others talk of themselves; they will feel, too, that you listen with no malevolent scorn of their indiscretion, but with a kind innate sympathy; not the less comforting and encouraging because it is very unobtrusive in its manifestations." --Edward Fairfax Rochester (Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte)

"Rochester: Consummation" by J.L Niemann Released!

2011-12-31T18:03:00.000-08:00

I interrupt this Austenathon to inform you of something you might take interest in. A few months ago, I reviewed Rochester by J.L Niemann and added that the book was, in fact, a series. Many of you seem to have already read the first one, and I discussed it with some of you who were highly anticipating the second (as was I).

The second is here. It's not available on Kindle, which is both a blessing in a curse. Of course, I don't like kindles and I much more prefer turning the page and sitting the new book alongside the old one on the shelf. However, this lack of availability also forces me to wait until the book is shipped which means that I cannot start it at once. I do assure you, however, that once it arrives safe and sound and I have read it (twice) I will write a review as quickly and diligently as possible. I'm very excited. :)

The only thing I regret is that I didn't find out about the book's release sooner. Or that someone didn't find out about it sooner (it was published two days before thanksgiving). Normally Bronteblog and The Squeee have me beat when it comes to covering the latest Bronte news first. So either they didn't post it or they haven't found out yet either. If the latter case, I feel a bit proud that I've finally gotten to a bit of news before they have! If the former...oh well, I guess I'm just dreadfully late. The circumstances don't matter, however, because I feel very happy about walking into the new year with something Jane Eyre related to look forward to.

Happy New Year everyone!

P.S: It's not the new year here just yet, so I'm saying it in advance.

"The Confession of Fitzwilliam Darcy" by Mary Street Review

2011-12-28T18:27:00.000-08:00

I am deeply apologetic for my long absence. As we all know, Christmas season is often a busy time. My family has been a great priority, and bonding with various relatives left me little time to get away on my own with the computer. Darcy December is steadily coming to it's close and I regret to admit that I didn't achieve as much with it as I might have liked. I intended to do much more with comparisons as well as book and movie reviews, but time slipped away from me. It's for that reason that I've decided to extend my focus on Jane Austen and Darcy into January as well, so Darcy December will make a smooth transformation into Jane Austen January. I'm sorry for the cheesy alliterations, but they fit well enough.

I've decided to take a break from the P&P adaptations for a moment. I can review the remaining two any time in the future. However, I feel the pressing need to review these various P&P spin-offs during the course of Darcy December and Jane Austen January because there are so many of them and (admittedly) because If I don't do it now, I might not ever have the will to do it in the future. According to the poll you guys most graciously completed a few weeks ago, it seems as though a unanimous vote named The Confession of Fitzwilliam Darcy by Mary Street the novel you would most like to see me review. It's funny that you would say that, by the way, because that spin-off happens to be the second one I read which pretty much keeps my reviews in chronological order.

P.S: Please, I'd love to see more participation in the polls. I know I update them irregularly, but keep a weary eye out for them. :)

Once again, there seems to be no need to explain the plot of The Confession of Fitzwilliam Darcy. It's title is also self-explanatory. Unlike Mr. Darcy's Diary, this spin-off is not told in diary format or even in the first-person perspective for that matter. There is an omniscient narrator like that in Pride and Prejudice, but for this particular novel the narrator chose only to follow the experiences and emotions of Mr. Darcy. I personally liked the idea. Telling such a story in third person drastically reduces the stereotypical cheesiness of a typical spin-off. In all other aspects, there's no real differentiating benefit.

The Confession of Fitzwilliam Darcy is decidedly better than Mr. Darcy's Diary. There are more details, more stretches of the imagination, and more moments of intrigue in Mary Street's take than the latter novel had to offer. I've become mildly aware that authors of spin-offs are very much like directors of adaptations; they tend to latch on to one aspect of a multi-faceted character. Is Mr. Darcy truly proud at first and then humbled by his love for Elizabeth, or was he misunderstood to begin with? Some readers (and authors) choose to believe what Pride and Prejudice tells us: that Darcy was indeed proud and had never really been forced into introspection until he met Lizzy Bennet. However, there are other readers who see beneath the surface of what Jane Austen's narrator (which is obviously biased towards Lizzy Bennet's viewpoint) chooses to describe. These fans normally have the perception that Darcy is not proud, but shy. His problem is not so much that he looks down on the world, but that he (as he says in the original novel) doesn't have the ability to identify or communicate with it. Mary Street takes this route in The Confession of Fitzwilliam Darcy. Yes, Darcy is still indisputably proud in the novel. I don't wish to have you thinking that Street altered the character. However, this spin-off has an undertone of sympathy for the misconceived Mr. Darcy. His vanity is tempered by the fact that beneath the surface he is insecure, uncomfortable, and socially awkward. He really has no idea of how to connect with people, and because of that inability he shies away from all company until he meets the woman that makes him want to come out of his little antisocial hole.

The best example of what I'm trying to explain (*spoiler*) is in the last few pages of the novel, when Darcy attempts his first kiss. The kiss is botched completely, and Darcy turns away from Elizabeth deeply embarrassed. The point I got from Mary Street's take on Darcy is that he isolates himself in order to appear composed, collected, and unshakable when all he really longs for is for someone to teach him how to express himself. He learns through trial and error. His first attempts go obviously wrong, as evidenced by the first proposal and his early conversations with Elizabeth. However, his love for Lizzy forces him to try again and get it right and eventually he succeeds.

Yet, even this spin-off has something missing. It was enjoyable, intriguing, and a good read in its entirety, but it is short. In the end, it too possessed a sad lack of depth that left me a little wanting. It's worth the read, and I will not hesitate to conjecture that many of you will find it satisfying and very enjoyable. But keep on the look out! There are better spin-offs lurking in the future.

To My Lit Lovers:

2011-12-25T08:46:00.000-08:00

I know there are many of you reading this from different time zones. Perhaps Christmas is already over where you are (I really have no idea) or maybe it's Christmas evening and you're already settling down to ham and other traditional holiday delicacies. Perhaps you're not even celebrating it.

I, however, must in the the Christmas spirit thank all of you for your continued support over the months. It has been a great gift, and some of you are such regular visitors that I almost feel as if I have a tiny online family. I wish you all happy holidays and pray that you will continue your success in the various places you inhabit and on the numerous paths you follow. Personally, I have been very blessed with the loving care of a merciful God, an encouraging family, and understanding friends. Many of you are blessed with the same things, and if you aren't I pray that you will find them and understand that you are not as alone as you seem.

Once again, thank you and God bless you. If you experience a mere portion of the happiness and love I feel, you have achieved a lot.

With much love,

Ari (aka Bonnie)

Pride and Prejudice 1995 Review

2011-12-18T18:24:00.000-08:00

I have successfully made it through the first semester of junior year. Yay! It feels exhilarating and yet wildly strange that I should be leaning back against the couch cushions so late on a Sunday night with no essay to write or monotonous history-book chapter to outline. Instead, I am able to relax and relish the large expanse of freedom that is mine for the next two weeks.

First off, I feel the need to thank you all for your responses to my last post. It's been a while since a post has generated that much excitement and hit a hundred views in just a night. You've given me a lot to think about as well. Of course, I noted that many of you (like any other lit lover) love the comparison of adaptations, and so it wouldn't seem natural to review the 2005 P&P and leave it at that. So without further ado, I will lounge on my living room sofa and share my opinions on the second P&P I came in contact with: the '95.

Casting:

From left to right: Lydia, Elizabeth, Jane, Mary, Kitty.

It's strange that adaptations cannot be entirely perfect, and many times they have exact opposite faults of their counterparts. The 2005 P&P had the perfect array of minor characters, in my opinion. Jane, Lydia, Mary, and Kitty were all defined by the actresses who portrayed them in the '05. Brenda Blethyn was a splendid Mrs. Bennet. Donald Sutherland (though some of you have suggested otherwise) was a great Mr. Bennet. Dame Judi was, without a doubt, a definitive Lady Catherine. The '95, on the other hand, missed the mark completely when it came to these characters. All the Bennet sisters were played by actresses much older than their age. Julia Sawalha, who played the fifteen-year-old Lydia Bennet, was twenty-seven at the time! The disparity in age was something I was completely unable to recover from. I understand the idea of rendering a five-year gap for leeway, but such a difference is unforgivable in a case such as this when one can obviously tell that the actress is much too old. It strips believability from the character.

My next qualm is the distress of having to cope with a horribly miscast Jane Bennet and Charles Bingley. I'm sorry to sound harpy, rude, and (yes) bitchy, but Susannah Harker is not beautiful. I will not be persuaded otherwise because I do not see it. Even her portrayal of the character was wrong. Jane Bennet is sweet, diffident, and modest, but she is by no means boring and emotionless. Crispin Bonham-Carter had the same problem when playing Bingley: he's not handsome. Epic FAIL! The other actors I had problems with in this adaptation are also the women who played Mrs. Bennet and Lady Catherine, but I will refrain from expounding lest this review turn to a novel.

The hardest part of reviewing a movie once again comes to the main characters. As you can tell, I'm feeling a bit ruthless and liberal with my opinions this evening. Jennifer Ehle's spirit matched Lizzy Bennet's to perfection. I was glad to see that. Physically, she too was a failure of the greatest kind. She was seven years the "real" Lizzy Bennet's senior, and it once again deducted from the believability. However, her portrayal of the character is one that's hard not to like. Her "fine" eyes do sparkle in a way that I find characteristic of the Elizabeth in the novel. Her mischievous sarcasm, always masterfully covered by a sly smile, is endearing to the viewer. Kiera Knightley's Lizzy was much more outwardly rebellious and much less artful in her arguments. Ehle, on the other hand, delivers her tongue-in-cheek blows naturally; it is only after she has already walked away that the person really begins to understand her meaning. If only she were actually nineteen!

Colin Firth=the definitive Darcy. Is there really anything to argue? He is Darcy. The perfect amounts of pride, passion, insecurity are joined together in a single man. He fits the physical description to perfection with dark eyes that can flash from coldness to burning desire in mere seconds. His dark curls, tall build, and stately air are only bonuses. There's not much else to say about that...*sigh*.

Screenplay/Cinematography/Soundtrack/Costumes:

Screenplay: Perfection itself. What did it leave out? It adhered with strict faithfulness to the novel in pretty much every aspect.

Cinematography: Bad. But it was a nineties TV adaptation, so who really expects much? Better yet, who really cares?

Soundtrack: Horrible.

Costumes: Fine. Nothing amazing or particularly riveting, but true to the time period so I have no complaints.

Negatives:

I've already shared 95% of them. The casting was a major setback. The soundtrack was another. There were also some areas that I found slightly dry in this version. The second proposal was especially unsatisfying, with little romance and even a slight hint of awkwardness. But then again, if you compare it to Darcy walking through the fog, shirt unbuttoned, and nearly taken to tears as he exclaims, "You have bewitched me body and soul, and I love, I love, I love you" then I guess it would seem rather dry, wouldn't it? Joe Wright always said that Americans like a little more "sugar in their tea." I do seem to fit that mold.

In conclusion, the adaptation was perfectly sound and very enjoyable. The sparks between Ehle and Firth (or just emitting from Firth alone) are enough to satisfy anyone.

Grade: A-...4 out of 5 stars.

Pride and Prejudice 2005 Review

2011-12-12T19:37:00.000-08:00

Preamble:

I remember stepping into the wonderful world of pride and prejudice the summer before sixth grade. I was, I will admittedly say, obsessed with it. My mom and dad thought it was just another passing phase, and I don't believe any of us would have thought at that moment that I would forever be an English lit fanatic. Therefore, my parents approached my effusive boasting of the book with a kind of disregarding apathy. Though I had formed this amazing bond with Pride and Prejudice, it never occurred to me that there were these lovely things called adaptations that brought novels to life on screen. I was therefore both surprised and excited as I came upon the movie while lounging lazily on the couch flipping through the channels of Direct TV.

The 2005 version was, in fact, the first adaptation of Pride and Prejudice I had ever seen. The 1995 PBS version coincidentally came a week after that. A few years later I found the 1940 before finally coming in touch with the 1980. I became a keen observer of all, comparing them and weighing them as I do with Jane Eyre adaptations today. Since that time the 2005 has been irrevocably established as my favorite, which might astound any of the die-hard fans of the 1995 (and all things Colin Firth).

This, however, is a review and so I don't seek to compare the 2005 to the 1995. I'm merely presenting my review on the one I intimated above. The review might be very helter-skelter, but bear with me please, because my thoughts aren't the most organized things today. For some reason, I've decided to revert back to my old reviewing style: the one I used when writing my first review for this blog. <--Fond memory, by the way.

Casting:

I will start by saying that the first characters we see--those of the Bennet family--are all perfectly casted. Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet was a stroke of sheer genius, and even the aging Donald Sutherland contributed something new to his part that I did not find unappealing. Mary, Kitty, and Lydia are matched to perfection and the girls who played them (particularly Kitty and Mary) all grew up to become celebrated actors. Cary Mulligan has appeared in her fair share of highly praised movies since her appearance here, and Talulah Riley and Jenna Malone are always a pleasure to watch. Jane Bennet could not have been casted better, with Rosamund Pike possessing all the soft, sensual, and elegant beauty that I had imagined in the gorgeous eldest daughter. I don't believe that many people will argue the casting of the Bennet family even though some will mistakenly venture to say that Pike was miscast.

However, it is where Keira Knightly is concerned that the debate begins to stir up. Physically, I will admit that the anorexic Knightly wasn't my ideal image of Elizabeth Bennet. In my mind I imagined someone (obviously) fuller in figure. However, Knightly's face did have the strong jaw and steely eyes that I had personally imagined in Lizzy. Knightley's portrayal of Lizzy is less seen in her physical appearance and much noticeable in her acting. She pinpointed with perfect acuteness the spirit and wit of Lizzy Bennet in a way that I could scarcely believe possible. The sarcastic tones in her voice and the intriguing flicker in her eyes are indisputably "Lizzy-like" and when she faces up to Darcy during the botched proposal her passion and indignation is both natural and forceful at the same time. She delivers Bronte's language with so much ease that it almost seems like her own colloquial. In the end I wouldn't have chosen another actress to play her, and it helped that she was the exact age of the character when she was playing it.

Opposite her, Matthew McFadyen is the man chosen to play Darcy, and this is where certain complexities begin to come in. Once again, I would not have chosen Matthew as Darcy by merely looking at him. Though Matthew is decidedly attractive (I've ranked him as on of my favorite foreign hotties), he's not attractive in the conventional and clean-cut way I would have imagined for Darcy. When thinking of Darcy, I think of dark eyes, fair skin, and nearly black curls. I see a strong, masculine, and square jaw with a pointed chin and lips set in a smirk. I don't see Matthew McFadyen. McFadyen, however, had the chance do what Keira Knightley did and win me over with his acting. Yet, he left me just as puzzled there as he did with his appearances. This isn't to say that Matthew was bad, because he most certainly wasn't. In fact, he was very good. His shaken passion during both proposals and the sense of boyish shyness is beautiful and works miraculously. The problem was that as lovely and ardent as he is, he is not Darcy. I have a hard time believing that Darcy was ever proud to begin with in this adaptation. I merely receive the impression that he's shy, quiet, and socially awkward. Darcy is, of course, all these things, but the main point of his character is that the shyness, quietness, and social awkwardness is all projected as vanity and pride on the surface. More of that, and McFadyen would have been fine. As it was, he was a bit wanting.

Once again, Dame Judi Dench knocks her role out of the park. She's so versatile and she's also one of the only actors I've known who has ultimately defined two roles. She nailed her later performance in Jane Eyre, earning her the title of the "ultimate Mrs. Fairfax" in my mind. However, she also defined Lady Catherine here. Lady Catherine is not so clingy and annoying in this adaptation, but rather demanding and controlling. She is not some bothered old lady with nothing to do, she is stately, elevated, and used to having her way. Dench was perfect. She cut down the annoyance, upped the dosage of strength, and ultimately gave us the complete Lady Catherine. As for other casting choices such as Charlotte and Mr. Collins: priceless. Collins was especially comic in this adaptation. The only person I could really call horribly miscast was Colonel Fitzwilliam, but he's not around enough for anyone to notice.

Screenplay/Cinematography/Soundtrack/Costumes:

The screenplay took its liberties, and that was or will be a great downside to many P&P Puritans (that alliteration has a nice ring to it). However, I personally found this newer and slightly more modern take on the language refreshing and it even made the film better in some cases. I would not cut Matthew McFadyen saying, "You have bewitched me body and soul, and I love, I love, I love you" for the world, even if it wasn't in the novel! Deborah Moggach (the screenwriter) added a little something extra to give the adaptation a twist, to define it's originality. I don't blame her for doing it. All the important parts of the text are preserved beautifully when you get to their core. The changes were either unimportant or beneficial. For example, the fact that there isn't another Bingley sister is pretty excusable and even a bit relieving; the fact that the proposal was done in the rain instead of in a stuffy drawing room was perfect.

Cinematography: Beautiful. No other word to describe it. Joe Wright and Roman Osin collaborated to make the novel visually sensual. Everything about the filming was complete perfection. That sweeping landscape picturing Lizzy on the edge of the world was flawless enough to bring tears to my eyes for no reason. Sometimes indisputable beauty is just enough to make one cry.

I love this picture of Lizzy and Darcy

Soundtrack: It's Dario Marianelli! And this cemented a bond between he and Joe Wright that has existed in every single one of Wright's films. Dario is the god of soundtrack music, particularly when it comes to period movies. I ended up buying a good portion of the soundtrack and putting on my ipod. If you're one of those people into wordless, instrumental soundtracks, I would suggest that you take a peak at this. My favorites (if I had to choose) would be "Liz on Top of the World", "A Post Card to Henry Purcell", "Your Hands are Cold", and "Mrs. Darcy." Yes, it must be that good if I have to list FIVE favorites.

The one thing I love about Pride and Prejudice is that it gives the costume designer a lot of work and a chance to really bring out creativity. The Netherfield ball is a haven of costume splendor. If I were you, I would take some notice of that when I watch it.

Negatives:

I really can't think of many except for that it was short. I'll say it time and time again: it's the hardest thing in the world to condense a novel into a box-office movie timeframe. The movie was already a good two hours long and it did a great job of condensing in my opinion. The only things of weight that was missing was the little party at Lucas Lodge (when Darcy's offer to dance is rejected) and the conversation that includes Darcy and Elizabeth's "propensity to hate everyone" and their tendency to "willfully misunderstand them." Other than that, everything escaped in tact.

This was an incredibly long review. I'm fully aware that I've typed your eyes out, so in order to finish, I'll hastily conclude that this version was GREAT. There might be some grievances, but they aren't controversial ones and they certainly aren't enough to make anyone dislike the movie.

Grade: A...4.5 out of 5 stars.

"Mr. Darcy's Diary" by Amanda Grange Review

2011-12-09T15:54:00.001-08:00

While pondering on what I might next review for you, I came to a halt at a mental crossroad. The problem was choosing how to approach these various (and might I add numerous) "Darcy point of view" novels. At one point it seemed that a new one was being published at the end of every month. Rather than deliberately drown myself in all of them, however, I chose to read the ones that randomly fell in my path. The names "Darcy" and "Rochester" often stick out to me when I'm wandering through the quiet bookshelves of Barnes & Noble, so I was sure that some sort of strange fate would put the right spin-offs in my hands. I ended up reading only three of the thousand. At first I thought of reviewing them in the order of "greatest to least" or vice versa. In the end I figured that taking that route might spoil the surprise somehow, so I went with the quaint option of just reviewing them in the order in which I read them. Simple enough?

Mr. Darcy's Diary came to me during my tenuous Pride and Prejudice obsession. Surprised? Well yes, even I--the sarcastic and gothic Bronte-lover--had a phase of deep infatuation with Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy. I found the book in the obscure corners of the fiction section that often produce the best novels, and without a thought I coughed up the ten dollars and eagerly started the first pages during the car ride home.

Most of my reviews have a synopsis, but I find that Mr. Darcy's Diary is obviously self-explanatory. It is literally the diary of Fitzwilliam Darcy, complete with dates and even the rather sporadic language common with diaries.

First instinct: how much cheesier could it get? Even I (a mere twelve-year-old at the time) could have thought of this! I was merely surprised that no one had tried it sooner. In truth, the novel was neither a hideous failure nor a profound success. More than anything, it could only be described as mediocre. The language was simple, often even bordering too simple. The emotion was rather shallow. The plot was...mehh.

After letting the novel actually sink in I'd like to say that my opinions changed, but in reality they only strengthened. I forgot the book completely for a while and was even reluctant to give it the second read I always feel every book deserves. There's nothing really wrong with Mr. Darcy's Diary, but it doesn't push any boundaries. It doesn't add anything new that the reader couldn't have already guessed for themselves. The diary idea is a double edged sword. While it suggests a deeper and more revealing look into Darcy's life, the language functions too much like a diary. The details are vague, as if Darcy really waited to write about his experiences days after they had already happened and the exact words were forgotten. Sure, I felt the surface of Darcy's inner turmoil, but I never reached the passionate depths. I couldn't feel the physical, emotional, and intellectual longing that I had so hoped to find in a Darcy spin-off. There was nothing exciting to keep me turning the page.

Amanda Grange gave a valiant effort, and the one thing I did love was the use of dates in order to form a mental timeline. But, unfortunately, it was much too copy-pasted and cut-out to merit any sort of groundbreaking or emotionally appealing reward. It did not leave me with that lovely feeling of satisfaction, but rather made me want to search for something more. "This is like the rough draft of what I was looking for," I remember saying. "I need to find the fully-developed and final copy."

P.S: For those of you who are still interested in giving the novel a try, there's a little tidbit you might want to know. The novel comes in paperback and hardcover. The paperback version is Mr. Darcy's Diary whereas the hardcover is only titled as Darcy's Diary. Do not be fooled, however. They are the exact same book. Good luck reading. :)

"Mr. Darcy's Daughters" by Elizabeth Aston Review

2011-12-04T14:48:00.001-08:00

Let's imagine for a moment that the double X chromosome--seemingly a dominant gene in the Bennet family--now runs through Elizabeth herself. She marries Mr. Darcy and has a girl. That girl is followed by another, then a pair of girls, and then another. Fortunately, unlike her mother before her, she is finally successful in birthing a boy to satisfy any qualms about the inheritance of the Darcy fortune. Just to fully impress us with the passion between our main characters from Pride and Prejudice, she delivers another boy to perfect the family picture. Now approaching middle age, Darcy and Elizabeth are called out of the country. Their young boys are left at Pemberly under the care of a tutor, but the girls are happily sent to London to reside under the roof of Darcy's trusty cousin, Colonel Fitzwilliam, and his wife, Fanny.

Thus is the framework of Mr. Darcy's Daughters by Elizabeth Aston. The Darcy girls are a vibrant and beautiful family of teenagers that, of course, somewhat mirror that of Elizabeth's own family from Pride and Prejudice. The eldest daughter, Letitia Darcy is indisputably handsome but rather too pragmatic at times. The third and fourth sisters are a pair of gorgeous and frivolous twins, Georgina and Belle, also known as Night and Day. The youngest is the fifteen-year-old Alethea, who isn't out in society yet, but who has an adventurous heart and a passion for music. However, it is (predictably) the second child that serves as the heart of the novel. Camilla Darcy stands apart from her sisters as the aspirational and headstrong intellectual, directly characterized as taking after her mother. Though she is decidedly less beautiful than her sisters, she more than atones for her physical faults through her unreserved wit and humor.

There are familiar characters carried over from Pride and Prejudice of course, such as Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner, Lydia Bennet (or Wickham), and even Caroline Bingley. But this is, after all, a pastiche and thus focuses more on the second generation of original characters. Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner have made a large fortune in trade and their fair daughter is now armed with a dowry that surpasses even that of the Darcy daughters. Once in London, the Darcy girls each approach the city with different outlooks. While Letitia seeks to stay out of trouble, Alethea devotes herself to music, the twins insist upon showing themselves in society and gaining the affections of every man possible, and Camilla (the heroine in this equation) searches for the adventure unavailable within the protective walls of Pemberly.

Camilla and her sisters do find adventure. What first appears to be a few diverting months in London will turn into an intricate tale of scandal and mystery that includes antagonistic plots, cross-dressing, gays, and secret affections. Camilla discovers herself in the chaotic streets of Regency London, but by the time she acknowledges her true affections, the tangled web of family catastrophe might threaten her happy ending.

Mr. Darcy's Daughters is a truly engaging novel that will intrigue and allure the reader through every page. Aston achieves what I find particularly crucial in any spin-off or sequel: the preservation of the old combined with the creativity of the new. Our favorite characters from Pride and Prejudice all reunite in the high social circles of London, but it is the new characters molded in the mind of Elizabeth Aston that prove to be the most absorbing. While the Darcy daughters are obviously modeled after the captivating Bennet girls, Aston develops them as characters of their own with individual interests and paths. The plot, though inspired by Pride and Prejudice, is where Aston's liberal imagination really takes shape. The reader will never be in want of excitement with a story like this. The author infuses the perfect amount of irony to make Austen and her faithful fans proud.

The most interesting aspect of Mr. Darcy's Daughters, however, is the artistic risk taken by Aston. Sequels are precarious things to write. A drastic tip of the scale in either direction could either leave a book dry or hideously fantasized. Aston's balance is perfect. She speculated on a large uncertainty by breaching subjects that Jane Austen would never have had the courage to even introduce, but the chance paid off and will work wonders. Mr. Darcy's Daughters is an innovative novel that will not only succeed in satisfying the most rigid Austen purist, but will also draw modern crowds to the fascinating world of literature.

Darcy's December

2011-12-02T12:37:00.001-08:00

As I lay my fingers on this keyboard to write to you once again, I can't help but utter a small and relaxing sigh of relief. This week has been a conundrum of English essays, Anatomy labs, art sketches, and US History outlines. I'm surprised I've made it through with as much sanity as I have. In the midst of this, however, I was thinking of what I might do to add a literary twist to the holidays on this blog.

The idea wasn't hard to find. I'm reading Pride and Prejudice (again) as an extra credit book assignment, and it has reawakened my interest for the numerous spin-offs collecting dust on my shelves. There is a ridiculous amount of Pride and Prejudice spin-offs, but what's great is that many of them are enjoyable and completely unheard of. So I therefore deem this month Darcy December, as most of my reviews will probably be related to Jane Austen's books. Fear not, Bronte fans. I am not crossing over to the dark side (even though "Jane Austen" and "dark" is a complete juxtaposition). I am merely trying to spread the holiday spirit by suggesting books that have happy endings and handsome heroes.

After all, this is partly your doing anyway. It was the majority of you who voted for Emma over The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. ;)

"Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy Review

2011-11-24T16:51:00.001-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving to all my bloggers. Is Thanksgiving a strictly American holiday? I never took the time to think about things like that until I became a blogger. What I find particularly perplexing is that the most faithful of my followers aren't American. I've found a way to see the density of viewers in different countries, and thus I've discovered that I seem to have a heavy following in Russia of all places.

Therefore, I guess it's rather fitting for me to be reviewing Anna Karenina, the novel dwelling on the artificial and hypocritical upper class society of late nineteenth century Russia. Usually I have some highly personal or consequential story behind picking up a novel, but Anna Karenina came by mere chance. I closed my eyes, ran my fingers up and down the school reading list a few times, and it just so happened to land there. Finding that it didn't strike my interest enough to buy a fresh one from Barnes and Noble, I picked up a tattered copy from my school library and groaned, mentally cursing myself for choosing a 900 page book when I was expected to do a chapter-by-chapter summary. However, bracing myself, I delved into Leo Tolstoy's world of Russian royalty and nobility, filled with sexual, intellectual, and religious chaos.

Anna Karenina, despite its name, does not merely focus on the repressed and entrapped housewife of a Russian aristocrat, but is instead one of those entrancing novels that ties together the stories of many characters in various situations. Anna is drawn from her wealthy husband in St. Petersburg to Moscow to assist in the marital troubles of her brother, Stiva, who has been unfaithful to his hardworking wife and is now seeking to rescue his family. Around the same time, Kostya, an unreligious country intellectual, arrives in the same city to propose to the younger sister of Stiva's wife. Meanwhile, Stiva goes to the train station to pick up Anna who has been traveling with the mother of Vronsky, whom Kitty (the girl Kostya is proposing to) is in love with. (Are you starting to see what I mean about the intentional connections between characters?)

In the midst of this blur of relations, impressively long names, assorted shortened titles, and strange coincidences, Anna and Vronsky begin an affair that estranges her from her wealthy husband, Karenin, and wages a war of divorce and child custody issues. The aforementioned obstacles are synonymous with scandal and destruction in Anna's world, and thus she slowly begins to sink. Anna conceives Vronsky's child and he fervently pleads for her to legally divorce her husband and marry him. Unable to bear any stain upon his family name (and bitterly hurt by the blow to his conceit), Karenin refuses to grant a divorce and further stipulates that if Anna leaves him that she must give up seeing the son they had together. In the midst of this, Kostya and Kitty make a life together that begins to intertwine with that of Vronsky and Anna. The novel closes rather suddenly, almost peacefully; the end to a chaotic, brain-wracking, and heart-wrenching tail.

While Anna Karenina is indisputably one of the greatest examples of dictional, syntactical, and linguistic literary excellence, it is a lot to swallow. The book is about 900 pages of calamity so vivid in its description that it at times may dizzy the reader. Anna Karenina is a controversial character whose moral and mental strength is subject to strong debate. The social commentary on nineteenth century high society is evident in her plight. However, it was not Anna's story that I found to be the most captivating piece of the novel, but rather that of Kostya. It is his maturation that I found to be the most interesting aspect of the book, and in many ways I might consider him Anna's foil. While Anna's story is the testament to the social, mental, and emotional degradation that often came as the result of real love, Kostya symbolizes the possibility of doing things right and receiving the "happily ever after."

The book is perplexing, alluring, and even appalling. The great strength in that is that the reader is constantly engaged and always reluctant to tear their eyes away. Yet, there is also something mysteriously forbidden about Anna Karenina, as if you are gluing your eyes to something you should not see or perhaps cannot handle. It is much too heavy for the delicate constitution of a Jane Austen lover, of an entirely different breed than that of Jane Eyre, and its conflicts are much more realistic than those of Wuthering Heights. I might perhaps group it more within the range of Tess of the D'urbervilles. However, as confounding is it is, I would not wish for any devoted literature fanatic to miss out on it. Opinions on the plot and characters may vary, but the beauty of Leo Tolstoy's use of language is undeniable.

"The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" by Anne Bronte Review

2011-11-20T14:07:00.001-08:00

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall fell into my lap shortly after I had read Wuthering Heights. By then, I was hungry for anything "Bronte", hoping that perhaps Charlotte's sisters might reach the heights she had when writing Jane Eyre. Wuthering Heights had only disappointed me and left me feeling barren. Jane Eyre had made such a profound mark on my way of reading, my thirst for literature, and my life in general that I felt it impossible to look at any other written piece the same way. So, throwing down Wuthering Heights in frustration, I took another trip to Barnes and Noble and tried the third Bronte sister.

Anne Bronte is often forgotten and pushed into the shadows of Charlotte and Emily. With Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights often vying for first place in the limelight of literature, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall and Anne's other piece, Agnes Grey are usually forced into the background. Being the youngest child myself, I felt a slight pang of sympathy for Anne when reading the introduction of the book. From that page on, I was somewhat convinced that The Tenant of Wildfell Hall would suit me and perhaps even fill the void I felt after having completed Jane Eyre.

The first fifteen chapters of the novel are told through the first-person eyes of Gilbert Markham, a resident of the local village outside of which Wildfell Hall sits. Gilbert makes a comfortable living and leads a complacent existence, sharing a home with an unspectacular family and courting a charming and conventional village girl. When rumor intimates that Wildfell Hall has been let by a single lady, Ms. Helen Graham, Gilbert's family and several other locals pay their visits while Gilbert himself remains behind.

Helen is an introverted and rather secretive single mother who leads a solitary life within the Elizabethan walls of Wildfell Hall. The details of who she is and where she came from are rooted in obscurity, and her insistence on concealing them eventually taints her with suspicion. Gilbert hears of his new neighbor only through the talk of others until he finally happens to see her at church. Put off by her glacial and seemingly condescending air, Gilbert makes up his mind not to like her. However, that (of course) does not last long. Gilbert abandons all affection for his former love interest and instead endeavors to pursue the mysterious and strange Ms. Graham, whose character is now under heavy scrutiny. After offering his heart to her, Gilbert is finally admitted to the secrets behind Helen's sudden appearance at Wildfell Hall and the circumstances that hinder him from attaining her. What he finds out might have the potential of ruining her. In a novel filled with feminist views and moral questions, it's hard for the reader not to fall under the spell of Anne Bronte's writing.

After finishing the novel, I was dazed, awed, and, above all, confounded. The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is straightforwardly written and yet so heavily laden with emotion. Anne possessed a less romantic view of the world than her sisters (if that's even possible), but her literary skill equaled theirs in every aspect. The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is heavy but a sincere joy to read. Though Charlotte's Jane Eyre is often touted as the epitome of the feminist novel, I actually believe that Anne did a much better job of portraying the true extent of suffering in the life of a nineteenth century female. In fact, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is much less a romance than it is a social commentary that plunges the reader into the world of dogmatic male chauvinism. Helen Graham is symbolic of the restrained wife in the 1800s, torn between her social duty and her moral conscience. In her case, neither can be reconciled.

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is a good follow up for those who wish to find the balance between Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre, and might even be a source of interest to those previously interest in Jane Austen. However, it is also a great choice for those who have yet to become acquainted with the Brontes. The language combines the artistry of poetic prose with the poignant sting of realism and contains just enough conflict to keep the Wuthering Heights fan engaged without throwing the Jane Austen reader into depression. Anne Bronte's balance might have cost her the popularity given to her melodramatic sister's, but her work is much too strong to be completely ignored.

"Emma" by Jane Austen Review

2011-11-15T13:31:00.001-08:00

I'm completely unable to believe my eyes. Here I was thinking that I had a faithful Bronte following of eighteen, and yet I am commencing to write the review for Emma by Jane Austen. I didn't think I'd see the day when my blog followers would choose Emma over The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. Yet, that day has come. Despair not, Bronte fans. The Tenant of Wildfell Hall will be reviewed next, followed by Anna Karenina. After that, I'll be back to depending on the whims of my fancy. This would also be a nice time to remind you that if you don't pay attention to the poll margin on the right side of my blog, I suggest you start doing so. I take you responses into heavy account, and I always enjoy seeing which way your fancy leans. Often times (such as now) I'm more inclined to follow yours than my own.

Emma is Jane Austen's fourth published novel, and she immediately makes the difference from the others known in the opening line of the first chapter. "Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her," Austen quotes.

Emma Woodhouse isn't a daughter robbed of her fortune and home like Marianne or Elinor Dashwood. She isn't one of five daughters living under the roof of a struggling father and a frivolous mother. She is beautiful, rich, and possesses all the elegances that ensure a comfortable life. And yet, Emma is determined that she will never marry and instead devotes her time to finding husbands for those who don't enjoy her fortunate position. When our heroine looks in the mirror, she sees a successful matchmaker, and when she becomes acquainted with Harriet Smith she is provided the perfect opportunity to put her "skills" to work.

Taking Harriet's strings in hand, Emma decides to turn her puppet's head towards a local gentleman, Mr Elton. She persuades Harriet to reject the proposal of the infatuated wealthy farmer, Mr. Martin, and pursue Mr. Elton. This decision leads to an unforeseen catastrophe. Emma fails to comprehend that the gentleman's affections are, in fact, for her. The plan results in an obvious failure that proves Emma's devoted friend and inner conscience, Mr. Knightley, correct. But Emma's intrigues don't stop here. The arrival of two new additions to Emma's social circle throws she and those connected to her into a tangled web of mistaken affections, misread signals, and emotional misconceptions that all succeed in strangling the main character. Somewhere in the midst, Emma may have lost the chance of ever being with the man she loves and has perhaps damaged the hearts of those she's trying to help.

While the plot has its fair share of twists and tonal shifts, altogether I found Emma to be boring and decidedly the least entertaining of Jane Austen's novels. Lizzy Bennet, Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, and Anne Elliot all had financial, emotional, and even physical conflicts to overcome. The aforementioned protagonists each had something to fight for. Emma Woodhouse has nothing. Believing herself to be in the right at all times, she manipulates those around her to secure her own amusement and self-satisfaction. Why? Because she has nothing else to do. She's directly characterized as wealthy, beautiful, and intelligent. In giving life to a character like Emma, Jane Austen failed to do what I personally found to be her best talent. She forgot to create a relatable protagonist.

The faults don't stop at the protagonist, however. They extend to the plot as a whole. There is an obvious lack of conflict in Emma that makes it hard for any reader to honestly take the novel seriously. Upon its release centuries ago, Emma was criticized for its lack of substance. That same fault still holds true now. It's hard to see reality in Jane Austen novels where characters with distinct faults always attain a happy ending without the least bit of punishment for their failings. All the same, Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice, and Sense and Sensibility are all masterpieces regardless. Emma is incapable of obtaining such a legacy. It might be a favorite to read on a sunny day, but it has not been (and will not be) in the conversation of the greatest pieces of literature.

I do not mean to be pessimistic, though that may be hard to believe after reading the above criticisms. I merely mean to say that Emma, though it possesses all the irony and wit common to Austen novels, is much too superficial to give the reader any sense of real attachment to the story or its characters. However, there are many in the world who would count this as their favorite novel. Opinions will continued to differ until the world ends. Humans were made with distinct mindsets. It will, therefore, do nothing to read my review and abstain from picking up the novel because of what you've read here. That would hold me somewhat responsible for withholding you from a potential favorite book of yours. I actually insist that you do read Emma and form your own opinion. And once you finish, I'd love to see a comment from you.

"Sense and Sensibility" by Jane Austen Review

2011-11-06T19:40:00.000-08:00

I'm determined to try to juggle school, Nanowrimo authoring, and this blog all at the same time. Thankfully, November is an "easy" month when it comes to school. We literally spend more days out of school (fall break, thanksgiving, etc.) than we do in it. On the other hand, that also means more work assigned to us during off days. Either way, I've found time to continue reading during this hectic schedule.

I'm a strong believer in rereading. I've always had the belief that some things are liable to change though others might remain constant. My love for Jane Eyre is a perpetual and concrete constant. My feelings towards The Scarlet Letter underwent a change after my second reading. There are moments when you feel the rather inexplicable want to read a novel you've already read. Perhaps you're going through a time in your life where you feel like it would help. Maybe something popped out of the blue and just ignited you with the urge to read it again. Who knows?

As you can probably infer from the post title above, I reread Sense and Sensibility for about the third time this past week. It's been a pretty trying time for me. Relationship troubles have been weighing me down and making me feel kind of hopeless, wondering if there's really a happy ending when things seem to be as low as they can get. Cue Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. If anyone knows anything about coping with heartbreak, it would be these two girls.

Sense and Sensibility is another one of Jane Austen's witty and ironic novels, including the predictable plot twist and a mechanically inserted conflict. As you can probably tell, I've always preferred the gothic Brontes over Austen, but I hold this book to be one of Jane Austen's best and would probably even place it ahead of Pride and Prejudice. This novel captures the reality of life better than the rest of her novels. Elinor and Marianne Dashwood are the stepdaughters of a rich man who is dead almost as soon as one opens the front cover (yes, that's quite a hyperbole). Forced to succumb to the good old tradition of primogeniture, Mr. Dashwood leaves all of his property to his only son, John, the product of his previous marriage. Influenced by a petty and meddling (to say the least) wife, John breaks his promise to his father and leaves his stepmother, Mrs. Dashwood and her three daughters pretty much penniless. They're also being kicked out of their house and into the gritty world of which they know nothing. Forced to toughen up and face reality, Elinor and Anne witness firsthand the agony of heartbreak, the uneasy task of perseverance, and the lesson of growing up the hard way.

The book is great. The plot is good. However, it is (as is usual with Jane Austen) the characters themselves that steal the show. Their complexities are what make this novel so amusing to the reader. Elinor Dashwood, the eldest, is the stereotypical older sister. Levelheaded, responsible, and reserved, she is used to repressing her emotions in order to appear strong to those around her. With so many people depending on her for stability, she is afraid to show the least bit of vulnerability. Marianne is the exact opposite. The middle girl is often dramatic, romantic, and even impertinent. She is in love with the idea of love and the expressions that come with it; an imaginative and artistic teenager with a passion for music and adventure. In the end, the opposing characteristics of the two will end up being their worst enemies. Elinor experiences the heartbreak of having to see the man she loves be with someone else, and she doesn't possess the courage to speak out and confess her feelings. Marianne throws herself headlong into a romance without the least bit of caution and her lack of carefulness almost proves to be the end of her.

There comes a time in her life when a girl realizes that she can relate to one (or both) of these characters. Elinor and Marianne aren't just admirable heroines like Lizzy Bennet. They're real people that make the same mistakes in love and have the same flaws. They're you and me. They are a true testament to the idea that love isn't always a fantastic and sappy romance. We don't always end up with the dashing young gentleman because most of the time he isn't all that he's cracked up to be. Sometimes the person you weren't looking for ends up being just the guy to come out of nowhere when you really need him. Love isn't perfect. It's just as influenced and battered by humanity as anything else.

So you probably know my usual conclusion by now. If you haven't read this book, read it. If you've already gotten a taste of it, help yourself to some seconds. It's a good book with a real message. It's truly uplifting if you just glue the pieces together and take it for what it is.

Have any of you read it? What do you guys think?

My Nanowrimo Holiday

2011-11-01T17:31:00.000-07:00

Does it feel like I'm neglecting you yet? I'm really not trying to! And yet, I'm sorry to announce that it'll only get worse from here. National Novel Writing Month has come, and with it comes the new (well, new to me, at least) challenge to write a 50,000 word novel in thirty days. Yes, I am an official certified Nanowrimo author. Yes, I am going to tirelessly devote the next thirty days of my life to actually finishing something I've made an effort to write! Yes, I will achieve thus goal because I don't think i'll be able to live with myself if I don't. So far I'm off to much too fast of a start. I've got 10,000 words in a day. I sat down at the computer this morning and have been traveling in the car all day so I've been given all the time in the world to write. What's even better is the fact that new ideas have just been overflowing for the first time in a long time and my fingers just won't quit typing!

Anyway, I truly am sorry that I won't be around that much. I miss you guys dearly. But, I do have good news. The name of my novel is Edward F. Rochester. You guessed it! My Nanowrimo novel will be nothing other than sitting and writing for hours on end about Jane Eyre from Rochester's perspective only. A fragment of inspiration came to me this past week and since then the words and ideas won't stop coming to me. If I make it to my goal, my dearest wish is that I might share this novel with you. Instead of reading my opinions on the work of others, you will get the (rather frightening) chance to critique my work.

For any of you who have accounts on Nanowrimo, please add me as a writing buddy. My username is Litlover13.

More Doodles

2011-10-30T21:14:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'm still alive! I haven't really been around all that much, I know. The Jane Eyre rankings have been going very well and attracting a lot of attention, and most of the time I like for the hype from one post to die down before I start others. There's also the beginning of my new blog, which only requires short and sweet posts from me. This one requires thought, time, and effort. I was also ill with strep throat for most of last week, and I found myself too sick to even think of what to write about.

Anyway, I just dropped by to express my qualms about Edward F. Rochester. He's the hardest man to draw...it's quite ridiculous really. I've drawn the same Jane about three thousand times, but my Rochester always seems to change. I experiment, doodle here and there. Often times my Rochester drafts all have some feature that strikes gold, but doesn't accomplish the whole character. But then again, I never really established a cemented vision for Rochester. I established the actor I wished would play him, but I don't think that Richard Armitage is necessarily (look-wise) the Rochester prototype. Therefore, I've decided to doodle until I find out what that cemented vision is.

Keep in mind that it's only a doodle. Anything done in pencil is counted to be a mere preliminary sketch by me. I prefer not to do anything final in pencil, and my goal is to one day draw my Rochester with charcoals if the one who satisfies my vision ever comes around.

Just an Announcement

2011-10-19T16:12:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, I created the blog "Happiness in Hightops" which I abandoned after a while. Somehow I didn't feel like it was doing what I hoped it would do. Now I've reopened my venture in a new blog called On Page Whatever. Many of you have come to know me as the teenager I am rather than just the writer posting on Jane Eyre. I'd really appreciate it if you'd check out this blog and follow me. There is more to me than the "Lit Lover" you see here. This new blog will rang a LOT of topics that will always be open for comments and it would mean the world to me if you took the time to follow it and watch me grow as I have since I started this blog. Thank you.

Top 10 Jane Eyre "Reunion Scenes"

2011-10-19T03:23:00.000-07:00

I believe I ought to begin this post by apologizing for what seems to me to be neglect. I haven't posted since last week as I've been drowned with homework during the approaching end of the school quarter. There hasn't been a night that I haven't been up past midnight writing essays for European History or outlining the chapter for my US History class. Now with the weekend under way I feel as if I'm once again able to return to you rejuvenated and ready to write. Therefore, the Jane Eyre rankings will continue with the beloved "Reunion Scene".

The reunion scene is the hardest to rank or grade because it is interpreted with such variance depending on the movie. I'd like to say that the "Reunion Scene" encompasses Jane's return as well as Rochester's following second proposal, but (as many of you well know) a few adaptations don't include Rochester's second proposal. This created a bit of a challenge for me. Should I look at the reunion scene as I always have, or should I allow those few films without a definite proposal equal footing? It was a hard decision to make. Either I'd have to interpret the "reunion scene" as the reunion only and not credit the films with a second proposal for being truly faithful to the novel or I'd have to include the second proposal which would give the films without it a seriously bad grade.

In the end I opted for the first option. Therefore, the rankings of the reunion scene will be based on the reunion alone. The reason for arriving to this decision is really simple, actually. Of the ten popular Jane Eyre adaptations, seven of them don't include the second proposal. It's quite baffling really, but it makes perfect sense. The only adaptations that have the second proposal are all four-hour TV adaptations courtesy of BBC (the 1973, 1983, and 2006). After coming to that realization it seemed a lot easier for me to take the reunion scene literally and focus on the actual reunion.

As usual, comments are always welcome. I have a feeling that this post is going to be a bit more debatable because many of you will probably end up viewing the reunion scene as I normally view it: reunion and second proposal combined. I entreat you, however, to narrow your gaze and judge it a bit differently.

#10: Jane Eyre 1934

There are tears of laughter flooding my cheeks right now. I must have had to type that previous sentence five different times because I'm laughing so hard. There's really nothing to say. This was ridiculously horrible and outrageously funny. "I've brought your tea Edward!" Goodness, I wish I could give it a G instead of an F! Maybe an "F minus minus" will do.
Grade: F- -

#9: Jane Eyre 1949

It peaked at number eight in the "leaving scene" rankings, but it's back where it began. The era still wasn't advanced enough to utilize make-up scars or eye discolorations so they used the good old "Rochester staring into space" technique. This reunion was also rather laughable, but still slightly touching in the cheesiest of ways. It even used a half a quote from the book. Of course, that won't save it from being an "F". I'm so glad that Charlton Heston eventually matured into a convincing and talented actor, but I'm even happier that this particular role remained rooted in obscurity. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have wanted too many people to see it.
Grade: F

#8: Jane Eyre 1996

I'm aware that I might appear too harsh on this version, but I can't help the way I see it. It didn't deliver in any of the other pivotal scenes and the overall tone of the film didn't change a bit here. William Hurt is just too "blah" to be Rochester. His healthy take on the character was already sleepy, but now that Rochester is blind he might as well be dead. There's no life in Hurt's performance, only the same languidness we saw throughout the length of the movie. He does not seem as if he's at all surprised, happy, or even emotional about having Jane back in his arms again. Then again, with Charlotte Gainsbourg turning in a sad last scene like that, it's hard to really cultivate anything on your own. It deserves an "F" but I'll add a plus to that just because I feel sorry.
Grade: F+

#7: Jane Eyre 1944

It took a big drop from previous rankings, obviously. It just wasn't right. Not to say that the breakneck kiss supported by the passionate sounding of trumpets wasn't enjoyable, because it was actually pretty nice. There was just so much missing. The lack of dialogue wasn't really the problem, but rather the lack of faithfulness. Actually, I can't even put a finger on what was really wrong with this scene, but something about it just was. There weren't a lot of lines to begin with, but the lines that were present weren't taken from the novel. The whole ruined Thornfield thing didn't really bother me either. I guess the real reason why this version dropped was because, on the whole, the reunion scene actually makes for a competitive ranking and a lot of the scenes from other films were just better.

Grade: D+

#6: Jane Eyre 1973

This adaptation was once again ranked in the bottom half (though slightly higher than last time) because it was just weird. Jayston seemed so eccentric and...WEIRD! My friend even commented that it seemed like he was on some kind of psychedelic drug (her words, not mine). Really? I was expecting more. This version wasn't actually that bad. In fact, it was faithful and pretty solid. It just didn't work in these last few minutes. I felt no chemistry between the two leads. There was a horrible sense of nothingness. Yet, there were seconds of beauty intermingled with the overall state of strangeness. That moment after Sorcha's eyebrows have once again gone to the roof of her head as she wonders if she's "playing the fool", she withdraws herself from him and in a state of slight panic Michael cries, "No, don't leave me!" It was enough to coax a little "aww" from my mouth and even provoke a slight smile. Those few seconds of need were priceless in a scene that otherwise fell flat.

Grade: C-

#5: Jane Eyre 1997

In retrospect, this is the highest the 1997 has ever made it in any of my rankings. I guess I'm just a sucker for tears, especially when it comes from men. The whole idea of a strong and masculine figure such as Rochester leaking at the eyes is irresistible to me. That being said, however, the first part of this reunion scene was an utter mess. Ciaran Hinds is just intent on being cranky for most of this movie. But during those last two minutes when Samantha Morton asserts herself, takes the reigns, and says, "I will never leave your side again" he becomes a completely different person. That inflamed eye of his (props to the makeup crew there; the blindness seemed very realistic) leaks one tear and then thousands more follow until he's just sobbing in Jane's consoling embrace. Not to mention that when he says, "My heart will burst for want to see your face" my eyes filled to the brink. Now that is the need that a Rochester should feel!

Grade: C+

#4: Jane Eyre 1970

Utter lack of faithfulness in every aspect, and yet it never ceases to make my cry. And I'm not talking about tears that just settle on the tips of my lashes. When I say "cry" I mean there are always tears running down my cheeks after this scene. It's just wonderful. George Scott has his eyes closed throughout the whole scene (one of them has a scar on it but you can't see it until the close angle) and yet there is so much emotion! The way he inclines his head slightly when he hear's Jane's voice and how he calls her name twice is gorgeous. His every movement is cautious and gentle, as if he's afraid that she might be a mere figment of his passionate imagination. Opposite him, Susannah's performance isn't amazingly remarkable, but it is good. I'm a big believer in the idea that the reunion scene should be (on the majority) Rochester's show. Jane is supposed to be the stable one. In the novel every emotionally-charged word uttered by our main man is greeted with a practical and matter-of-fact response from Jane in order to assure him of her reality. Therefore, most of the emotional intensity really comes from Rochester though Jane does have to have an appropriate amount of warmth (better than that given by Charlotte Gainsbourg or Sorcha Cusack).

Grade: B+

Note before we get to the top 3: Could I just call it a tie between the top three? This has to be the hardest decision I've ever had to make! I've watched each clip over and over and I just can't seem to figure out which order I want to rank the last three adaptations in. Each makes me cry. Each has its decided strengths and weaknesses. I just don't know which one is first! Forgive me if you think I did wrong, but in the end I stuck to my gut and did what I thought was best.

#3: Jane Eyre 2011

I'm really sorry, but there isn't an available Youtube video on this particular scene in the movie. Just trust my judgment. Most of you have probably seen it anyway.

I think that this is the lowest I've ever ranked the 2011. Dear readers, I ranked it thus only for you. If it had been up to my personal tastes alone, this leaving scene probably would have been first or second. I break down into complete sobs whenever I watch this scene. There is such gentleness; such beautiful silence that inhabits this scene. It is the simplicity that makes it so breathtaking. That small gasp issued by Rochester when Jane's hand makes contact with his, as if he has been shocked by some kind of spark! The way Mia's Jane leaks tears onto his hand as she leads it to her face! That simple "a dream" whispered by him as he takes her into his arms and she nestles her head on his chest! Of course, when Mia whispers that last line, "Awaken then." The shaking of Rochester's shoulders as he represses tears! The last contented sigh he gives, and then the realization of reality followed by the closing of his eyes. Just picturing it in my head brings tears to my eyes! This reunion scene is hands down my absolute favorite, but I ranked it third in order to please you, my faithful readers. There is a pretty unattractive beard involved that isn't true to the novel. There is no injury of the hand. In fact, there isn't even a scar to the eye. Of course, you can tell that he's blind because of the discoloration, but technically there's supposed to be a scar. It also doesn't take place inside. I personally liked that particular artistic license taken. The beauty of Rochester waiting under that ruined (and symbolic) tree under which he proposed to her physically manifests the metaphor ("I am no better than the old lightning-struck chestnut tree") presented in the novel. There's also a lack of dialogue that many Jane Eyre puritans won't receive to warmly. Oh well. Just know that in my heart, this scene is ranked first.

Grade: A

#1: Jane Eyre 1983

I did what I thought best to do. In my mind the 1983 and 2006 are both so amazing that I really cannot choose between them. The 1983 was beautiful; perfect in every aspect. There isn't a detail left out. That moment when Timothy envelopes Zelah in his arms...priceless. Not to mention that when he says "A free woman?" with hope welling in his breast as she tells him how independent she is, I could die and go to heaven. It's exactly what's described in the book. Rochester speaks imperiously at first and begins to slowly break down into dependence as he realizes that Jane is truly there. All the while Jane is just ambling along in conversation as if she hasn't been gone at all. Zelah breaks out of her reserved shell and actually emits genuine emotion that creates a spark of chemistry between her and Timothy. He isn't pulling the weight of the adaption on his shoulders anymore. The two meshed well, acted well, and certainly pulled out something great. There is such passionate subtlety, screaming silence, peaceful agitation. Yes, there were way too many oxymorons in that last sentence, but they were all packed into this scene!
Grade: A+

#1: Jane Eyre 2006

This was a beautiful reunion. The quickness with which Toby's Rochester jumps to find Jane's hand the minute he hears her voice just sends palpitations fluttering through my heart. Even in his state of dependence, Rochester's masculinity and quickness still shines through in everything he does. His voice is tender; cautious as if he is unsure whether he speaks with shadow or substance. But his strength (as Jane says in the novel) isn't quelled. He pulls her lovingly into his arms, presses his cheek to hers. He does everything to assure himself of her reality. And then Ruth Wilson kisses him and he cries, "You indeed torment me!"As that one tear slides perfectly down his scared cheek, my heart wells. Jane teases him, saying, "unless you prefer I go" and he clutches eagerly at her, holding her even tighter in his needing embrace. Ruth does a splendid job herself. She is practical, as Jane should be. However, she also has this motherly romantic quality to her during the scene that makes her endearing, such as when she kneels and kisses is hand, cheek, and forehead. She sits on his lap as they engage in after-dinner flirtation. Rochester is still rather restless, but we feel things returning to normal. He laughs as if he hasn't laughed in a long time, and when she announces that she has to go to bed, he seems scared. That is the Rochester I imagine. He is afraid that she might never come back if she leaves that room. And then she consoles him with a loving (and chaste kiss) and a smile returns to his lips. Even then, as she withdraws from his arms he holds her hand until he can reach it no more. This scene probably wasn't as spot-on faithful as the 1983, but it captures the relationship between Jane and Rochester down to a science.

Grade: A+

"Rochester" by J.L Niemann Review

2011-10-10T20:25:00.000-07:00

My first experience with this Jane Eyre adaptation came around two years ago, if I remember correctly. Unfortunately, I believe that I was much too young to stumble on this book at the time. Yes, it is a literary derivative technically based on the '06 adaptation of Jane Eyre rather than the novel itself, but it roams decidedly off of the beaten path.

I can start by saying that the book is beautifully written. Whoever our author is (whether J.L be male or female), they are certainly skilled with a pen. The dictional and grammatical beauty of the novel can't be denied. There is such artistic ability in the way the author manipulates words to provoke emotion in the reader. I've always been a sucker for descriptive writing. It paints a mental image; brings the story before me in lifelike clarity. J.L Niemann does just that.

But can I say that this adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's novel is faithful? Absolutely not. I could say (as I said above) that it roams off the beaten path, but it is so very different from the original that it essentially creates a path of its own. In fact, this book is a completely different story with no actual resemblance to Jane Eyre other than the names of the characters and the location. Sure, there are a few borrowed lines here and there, but other than that the plot of this novel takes Jane Eyre into a completely different realm that Charlotte Bronte would never have envisioned (interpret the latter comment in whatever light you wish). Whereas other spin-offs were actually measurable with the source material, the events in Rochester are unable to be matched to those in Jane Eyre.

There are details in this novel that are much too uncharacteristic of the Jane that Charlotte created centuries ago. Even Rochester himself is made into a different man. These alterations are not so much because of changes to the essences of the characters, but rather the actions they perform. The sexuality of Rochester is so blatant that it takes away the believability of the story. Rather than taking Jane Eyre and turning it into a autobiographical account of the novel through Rochester's eyes, Niemann rearranged everything and made the novel into a story dwelling much too heavily on Jane and Rochester's sexual intrigues. The descriptiveness that so captivated me in the first few pages of the novel metamorphosed into the book's own worst enemy, and in truth, by the time I was done with it I felt as if I had just witnessed literary pornography.

Am I too young to read something so sexually advanced? You could argue "yes" and I might actually agree with you. However, I read Jane Eyre's Husband without a problem, and that too had descriptive sexuality. However, the difference between the two spin-offs is vital. In Jane Eyre's Husband, Tara Bradley's descriptions of Jane and Rochester's sexual pursuits only take place after the wedding, therefore preserving the piety that Charlotte Bronte's Jane was meant to have. Though the characters in Rochester didn't indulge in "the real deal", sexual activity was abundant. Let's be honest with ourselves. Do you think that the real Jane, the one who wouldn't even allow Rochester to take her into his arms after the discovery of his wife, the one that hesitated to even shake his hand, would give Rochester a hand job or let him even put a finger on the buttons of her nightgown (much less slip his hand under it)? NO.

Perhaps it is the Jane Eyre puritan in me, but I see no value in saying that a book is "based" on another book and then making it into something that has no resemblance to the source material whatsoever. However, there is a slight internal battle within me. Though I criticize this book as decidedly unfaithful, when I examine it independently (without trying to compare it to the original novel), it isn't all that bad. The problem with that is that you have to recreate the characters all over again and imagine them as completely different people than they were before. If you're a diehard Jane Eyre puritan, you might not want to trouble yourself with the discomfort. In that case, I wouldn't suggest you read the book. It would only anger you, or at best disappoint you. However, if you're an inventive reader that thinks you can take the elasticity with which J.L Niemann stretches the original novel, then knock yourself out. It might not be too bad.

Where am I? My opinion is undecided. This is only the first installment of a three-part series. I thirst for part two not so much because part one was tantalizing, but because I wonder if it might make me love it more or like it less. Right now I'm in that strange and uncomfortable place in between, almost as if I'm sitting on the crease between two seats rather than in one or the other. J.L Niemann might be onto something, but the risk is huge and the heights are great. Rochester could either take a steep fall or an atmospheric flight.

Have any of you read it? If so, what do you think?

Top 10 "Jane Eyre" Leaving Scenes

2011-09-30T18:06:00.000-07:00

Blurry eyed, I dogeared the last page of the chapter and placed it neatly under my pillow (a habit of mine when I read a book before going to sleep). Warm tears pushed past my lashes and silently made their way down my cheeks. Thus, this is how I passed the first few moments after reading Chapter Twenty-Seven of Jane Eyre. I had never cried over the pages of a book before; no written word had ever moved me in such a way. But I felt such agony in Jane's words; an indescribable sense of torment and strength intermixed in one soul.

Chapter Twenty-Seven earned a special place in my heart. The proposal had been enjoyable. I remember halting, sticking a finger in the page and sitting still for a moment to contain the erratic beating of my heart after Rochester uttered the words "equal" and "likeness". However, Chapter Twenty-Seven touched the very depths of my mind and heart. After experiencing my first heartbreak (one rather relatable to Jane's circumstances), I reread the pages only to stain them with tears again. It was then that I decided to become a woman more like Jane Eyre. She was a girl not much older than I. If she could face the world (and the man begging her to succumb to beautifully tempting destruction) with shoulders squared and chin up, why couldn't I?

Such are the reasons why the "Leaving Scene" is single-handedly the most important portion of any adaptation in my mind. The proposal is important, but I allow myself to make certain excuses in that area. The leaving scene is given no optimism. It is scrutinized with weighty contemplation. If disgraced, the movie itself cannot be seen in a positive light. I've been brimming with anticipation; waiting for the day when I might rank this scene and share it with you, readers. That day is here.

But this ranking is actually a lot different from my previous rankings. Often times I admit to you that "this narrowly made it past" or "this could have been a tie". These rankings, however, are concrete. I have placed each in the exact spot that I think it should be, and in my mind that place is permanent (until another adaptation comes out and I have to factor it in). Of course, to you I might have made some hideous mistakes so (as always) I encourage comments!

#10: Jane Eyre 1934

The magnitude to which this scene was dismantled and butchered was so horrible that it was insanely funny (as was the rest of the movie). I couldn't bear to watch it, and yet I replayed it three times just to give myself a good laugh. In circumstances such as these, one can't help but laugh. If I had expected something good then I might have been angry, but after the first five minutes of the film I knew that it wouldn't amount to anything. At least we can give it some credit where we couldn't render it in other scenes. Even that isn't worth mentioning, however. I can barely keep a straight face while writing this paragraph when I think of how Bertha just marches straight into the room and asks, "Are we getting married again?"
Grade: F-

#9: Jane Eyre 1996

Now this actually did anger me for the simple reason that the leaving scene doesn't even exist. There's no possible way that one could even call this a leaving scene! It's merely a quick conversation on Jane's way out the door. In fact, it reminded me of when I leave for school in the morning. My mother stumbles into the kitchen just as I'm packed and on my way out. "I love you," she says. I give her a quick "I love you too" and then leave. Such is the same principle in this leaving scene, only there is a "this is the last time I can say it" after the "I love you too." It is catastrophic! To spend less than a minute on one of the most pivotal parts of the novel when time has been wasted in other areas of the adaptation is an unforgivable sin in my eyes. My face burns at the thought of it. Yet, even this ruinous mistake might have been redeemable if Charlotte Gainsbourg had left the room with even the slightest trace of suffering, conflict, or something! The woman just walks out as if she's departing for a casual walk.
Grade: F

#8: Jane Eyre 1949

Despite the fact that the adaptation was butchered from top to bottom, the director must have still understood the sanctity of the scene because it ended up being the best part of the adaptation. Yes, it was still horrible; but at least it was there (even with its brevity). Jane once again has the dilemma of being too nonchalant about leaving, but Charlton Heston puts up a decent effort that isn't all that bad. He holds her veil in his hands and then, after sensing the merest movement, jumps from where he stands and pleads, "Jane, you won't leave me?" in a way that even evokes a little bit of emotion. Kneeling before her he summarizes a chapter in two sentences and then the scene is done, but at least there was something. It wasn't good, please don't get me wrong. It failed miserably. But it worked enough to actually rank above ninth place.
Grade: F

#7: Jane Eyre 1997

Ciaran Hinds must have been just as angry as I was. Yes, that last sentence was a little bit of a joke, but it's the only plausible explanation because the only emotion I received from those five minutes was grouchiness. Jane walks through the door; he follows her and yells at her, mocking her for being so "immature" when he's the one throwing a temper tantrum. She goes down the stairs and he's still yelling at her. They go out to the garden and he's still yelling. Rochester is many things during his last effort to keep Jane, but he was most certainly not angry. From what I recall there are moments of passion and frustration, but they come and go. When he yells, Jane starts to cry and in a moment he is at her side comforting her and apologizing. When he grabs her in a firm grip, he realizes that it can do nothing because "it is her soul that he wants and not alone her brittle frame." Hinds just yells. Compound that with the fact that the script strayed significantly from the path the novel laid out and made the movie seem like some sappy soap opera, and it almost makes me cringe. I would much rather hear lines of Brontean language than the blatant cheesiness of, "I'm leaving for us, Edward; for what we have." Oh, and Rochester DOES NOT just let Jane walk out!
Grade: F+

#6: Jane Eyre 1973

The first part of this scenes is done beautifully. The look with which Michael Jayston walks through the door brought tears to my eyes before Jane even fell into his arms. He is downtrodden, hopeless; tender. As he takes her in his arms and inquires whether her heart has been weeping blood he says it as if his own heart has been doing the same. However, this is as far as the greatness extends. When the setting changes, so does the performance; heading in a downward spiral into nothingness. I was never a strict fan of Sorcha Cusack's take on Jane, but I can soundly say that she was not so bad here. She made it clear that Jane's love for Rochester was still strong but still managed to capture the independence Jane needed to leave. However, Michael Jayston's performance declined. Perhaps it's just me, but I found no urgency in Rochester's plea. There is no sense of absolute need. Not to say that this scene isn't good, because it is. The adaptation as a whole was solid, but it was only solid and nothing beyond that.
Grade: C-

#5: Jane Eyre 2006

Oh yes, this version sure did take a drop. Were you surprised? After all my previous rankings, one would think that this scene would take another spot in the top three. Nope. Sorry to you diehard '06 fans, but despite all the arguments given to me as to why I should like this scene, I still don't. There is no fallacy in chemistry, I will admit that. Ruth and Toby have a magnetism on camera that is spiritually palpable in every scene, including this one. The major error that brought this scene so far below the mark was the lack of faithfulness. The truth of the matter is that despite the blazing passion between the two characters, Jane and Rochester did not make out in Jane's room the night before she left. And even that pales in comparison to the fact that all of the original dialogue from Chapter Twenty-Seven of the novel was discarded. I'm pretty sure that I might not have minded the kissing so much if it had contained at least ONE sentence identical to that in the book. As it is, the scene is just hideously unfaithful and catered much too much to a younger audience. '06 fans will argue that placing Rochester on top of Jane with his lips on hers gives the viewer an idea of just how much temptation Jane was faced with. That is very true. Yet, it does not eradicate the lack of dialogue. I'm sure the scene provided a lot of sex appeal for new readers, but there has to be a balance between a fresh take on the story and the preservation of the essentials.
Grade: C+

#4: Jane Eyre 1944

The main reason for the 1944's fourth-ranked spot was the fact that Rochester's lines were delivered beautifully and with a commendable faithfulness to the book. He commands the entire scene. Joan Fontaine gets drowned out by Orson Welles intense stares and dazzling delivery of Rochester's last plea. She was already done a disservice by that lack of lines given to her during the scene, but Joan Fontaine was still too vulnerable to be the decisive Jane we needed to see in this scene. The version ranked so high not so much because of its greatness (though it is decidedly great) but because of the lack of competition given from other versions. However, I do not wish to strip all credit away. Orson Welles' performance during this scene was absolutely powerful. His eyes never stray from Jane. It is almost as if he's afraid to take them off of her for fear that she might slip away while he blinks. As he recaps on the first night he ever laid eyes on her, my eyes never fail to fill with tears. The tenderness and yet strength with which he speaks to her is gorgeous, and as he slips from behind the shadows and cries out to her asking if she still loves him I always feel the beginnings of the first tear slipping from my lashes. Beautifully done, Orson. Horribly underrated!
Grade: B

#3: Jane Eyre 1983

The 1983 finds itself in the top three once again. With Timothy Dalton playing Rochester, where can you go wrong? I have an answer for that. In almost every way, this scene was nearly perfect. The script once again proves extremely faithful. Zelah Clarke (who I have a tendency to be critical of because of her age and composure) stepped her game up and surged her character with emotion. The problem here is that Timothy imbues his with a bit too much emotion. In other words, there were various points in this leaving scene where the performances were borderline cheesy. Disagree if you wish, but to me there is a want of artistic restraint in Timothy's outbursts of passion. I'll put some of this down to the fact that this is actually a relatively old adaptation, but I can't omit it completely. Sometimes our leading man needs to learn that less is more (in some cases). Of course, there is striking beauty in this scene as well or else it wouldn't have taken the third spot. There are decided moments of pure perfection such as when Rochester asks, "Do you mean to go one way in the world and leave me to go another?" And as he kisses her forehead and the glimmer of that one tear sliding down his cheek catches the light, I am completely taken in. Never has a kiss on the forehead or cheek seemed so filled with passion and desire. The emotion present in those few kisses easily beat out many sex scenes in modern movies. I loved it.
Grade: B+

#2: Jane Eyre 1970

There is almost a lack of words to describe just how profoundly this scene touched me. It is not the most faithful, but it does a wonderful job of integrating modern vernacular with specific quotes from Chapter Twenty-Seven of the novel. George C. Scott and Susannah York share the scene with equal footing. No one overpowers the other; they work together to compose a scene of raw passion and bared souls. We do not know what Jane will choose; they each argue their case so well. She insists to be recognized as the fortress she is, and then he lays his hands on her waist and looks up with pleading eyes and we wonder if she's making the right choice. Susannah's Jane is mighty, and yet still loving. We are never in doubt of her feelings for the man opposite her. George C. Scott's Rochester is taciturn at first, but with a mere flicker of the eye his entire face changes as if he knows he can never stay angry with her. We get the overwhelming sense that Rochester does indeed need this woman. That is what a leaving scene should be like. The audience should feel the same uncertainty that Jane herself is feeling. She is resolved to leave, and yet at moments she feels as if it is impossible to wrench herself away. So she does what the Jane in the novel did. She allows Rochester to go to bed (or in this case, fall asleep sitting in a chair) with neither a promise to stay or a resolution to leave. When the early morning hours arrive, she vanishes because it is the only way she can bring herself to leave. She knows that if he wakes then he will successfully change her mind. Lovely, lovely, lovely scene from top to bottom.
Grade: A-

#1: Jane Eyre 2011

I can hear the grumbles already. In many other rankings I have often admitted to just how close the 2011 was to another. In this one I have absolutely no doubts or regrets. This leaving scene is just the best, hands down. I have not seen a leaving scene close to its equal. The whole scene is only five minutes, but yet I feel as if it captured Chapter Twenty-Seven the best. There was obvious faithfulness to Bronte's language, but the way in which Wasikowska and Fassbender delivered the lines was so natural that it seems to flow off of the tips of their tongues. Mia's performance is filled with genuine and almost tangible emotion. With each flash of the camera her eyes fill more. Yet, for most of the scene she is determined to repress them. I can feel her soul tearing. After each of Rochester's lines there is a slight pause; a pause that means the world. Those simple pauses tell the audience that Jane is torn; that she earnestly wishes to do what Rochester is asking her to but that she knows she can't. When her tears finally spill forth, so do mine. In that moment Mia Wasikowska is Jane. And when she says "You have a wife", she does so in a way that makes us feel as if it hurts her to utter it aloud. Michael Fassbender matches her intensity with every word. Laying on the floor outside of Jane's door, the first thing we hear from him is tenderness. That tenderness escalates to urgency, and that urgency spills over into unrepressed passion. There is no kiss in these scene, and yet that moment when he takes Jane's neck into his hands I feel the sexual tension; the repression of the desire that each character is trying so hard to fight. And then he cries, "It is your soul that I want." At that moment all hearts (including mine) have completed the process of breaking and I am fully assured that there is no leaving scene to equal this.
Grade: A+

Top 10 "Jane Eyre" Proposals

2011-09-25T15:52:00.000-07:00

Oh yes, it's about that time. I have done no Jane Eyre comparisons/ranking since my Bonnie's "Jane Eyre" rankings post. Seeing that most of you fellow bloggers seem to eat it up and I get to have the joy of communicating with you, I figured that it is once again time to sift through the numerous Jane Eyre adaptations once again.

Oh, the proposal scene! Could I even count the times I've cried while reading those pages? What reader can forget that timeless battle cry? "Do you think that because I am poor, obscure, plain and little that I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong! I have as much soul as you and full as much heart!" And what of the smoldering Rochester, who takes the struggling Jane into his arms and says, "My bride is here because my equal is here, and my likeness."

Every adaptation of the novel is judged through differing eyes, but I'm pretty sure that when one judges it the "proposal scene" normally accounts for at least 1/4 of the overall movie. If it doesn't have a good proposal scene, then how could it possibly be considered a good movie (unless the "leaving scene" or "reunion scene" atone for it. But I'll get to those later)?

So you know the basic idea. There are ten popular adaptations of Jane Eyre. Each proposal scene will be rated from last to first. Perhaps you might be surprised by what you see, perhaps not. Either way, PLEASE comment. It makes my day. :)

P.S: Some of the videos don't show the proposal in their entirety. The full 1944 isn't available on Youtube and neither is the 2011, but the rest should be in tact.

#10: Jane Eyre 1934

Be prepared; this film will probably take a permanent last place in every Jane Eyre adaptation ranking I ever write. It.was.bad. Everything about it was bad. Not only was the acting the worst I've ever seen, but it didn't even preserve a word of dialogue from the book. The woman who played Jane (I won't endeavor to remember her name) sounded whiney. Colin Clive was a bit better, but still BAD. There was a strange shriek in the middle of a tender moment that made me laugh. Bad, bad, bad....BAD. I laughed until tears came to my eyes.
Grade: F-

#9: Jane Eyre 1949

This version will probably stay a perpetual number nine in everything. It's only slightly better than its precedent, but it too was horrible. The proposal was (once again) done inside of a room instead of outdoors and there was also absolutely no faithfulness to the novel. Why did they even bother making these adaptations if they weren't going to use the source material as a guide? Charlton Heston was young at the time, so the amazing actor he later became is almost nonexistent in this made-for-TV Rochester. As he kisses Miss Jane it seems as though he's breaking her neck (the common forties kiss). I don't have much of a comment to give. Slightly better than the 1934...still an epic fail.
Grade: F

#8: Jane Eyre 1973

This version had all the key components of the proposal scene mentioned in the book. It was outside, all the quotes were there, it took place at night (complete with the rain). And yet the leads fell horribly short. Was it the lack of forcefulness on Sorcha Cusack's part, the complete awkwardness with which Michael Jayston delivers supposedly passionate lines, or the utter lack of chemistry between the two that made this proposal so unappealing? Answer: all of the above. The technical elements were most definitely there; the emotional essentials were virtually nonexistent. Where is the passion dripping from their words? Why do I not feel the breaking of Jane's heart when Sorcha delivers her lines? Why does Jayston seem weird and completely unable to emote a good Rochester? I was heavily disappointed.
Grade: D

#7: Jane Eyre 1996

It wasn't all that bad, but it most certainly wasn't good. William Hurt's sleepy and rather nonchalant Rochester doesn't change, making this proposal seem like a drawling mess. Charlotte Gainsbourg seemed to be trying to hard and her Rochester wasn't trying hard enough. It's a horrible combination. Everything from the beginning to the "and so your are Jane" seemed catastrophic, and yet there was a slight moment during the ceaseless kisses and "and so, and so" that I felt the beginnings of a little knot in my throat. It disappeared for another few minutes then came back during the "then stay and marry me" and then was completely wiped away by an awkward kiss and a lack of rain falling from the sky. The rain/thunder/lightning deal is extremely important to me. The symbolism behind the weather in the novel is something too important not to include in an adaptation.
Grade: D+

#6: Jane Eyre 1944

This proposal only fought its way ahead of the 1996 because of the actions before the actual proposal (which I count as part of the overall "proposal scene"). Orson Welles appears in the garden and emits an intense stare at an unaware Joan Fontaine as he answers, "I changed my mind." Of course, the aforementioned line and the idea that he's supposed to be leaving with the Ingrams is a large deviation from the novel, but after those few lines were done with the scene resumed a rather faithful flow. Orson Welles follows Jane as she walks in front of him, his eyes never leaving her. For those few precious seconds before Jane's emotions come forth, I always note this feeling of magnetism between the two that is worth a thousand 1996 proposal scenes altogether. However, after that things don't live up to expectations. Joan Fontaine's assertion of independence is much too restrained and when she utters the words "poor, obscure, plain, and little" it's almost impossible to believe that it's coming from her beautiful lips. The director took the gothic feel to the extreme, stripping away all the passion from the scene and rushing all the dialogue thereafter. Everything just flew by, ending with a storm coming out of nowhere. BUT there was a lightning-struck tree!
Grade: C-

#5: Jane Eyre 1997

I bet you're wondering why I ranked it so high after I've made such a point to mention my disgust with the horrible kiss. But if you disregard that then it's not so bad of a scene. Of course, this proposal scene received a large chunk of points because of Samantha Morton's spot-on performance. Her declaration of equality was positively moving. For those few minutes, she was Jane. Tears dripped on a steely face, and I felt Jane defiantly trying to keep her heart from breaking. When she says, "I am your equal, and you have treated me as such" I want to burst into applause. On the other hand, there is a slight lack of faithfulness to the novel in dialogue. It was almost like they were reading a Sparknotes version of Jane Eyre that paraphrased the general idea. I give points for the rain, but deduct those same points for the absence of lightning. Oh, and BAD kiss!!!! I just had to add that point once again.
Grade: C

#4: Jane Eyre 1970

Perhaps I ranked this too high. It seems as though the 1970 has a power that makes it appealing despite its lack of faithfulness. I'm sorry, but something about this proposal scene was beautiful! Maybe its the riveting score or the way Susannah York's Jane allows the audience to experience a moment of sheer vulnerability when she pleads, "Please, don't make me foolish." Whatever the cause may be, I just can't resist this proposal scene. There was no night, no rain, no lightning, no faithfulness at all, and yet I couldn't even begrudge the failings because of the emotional chemistry. If only a faithful adaptation could have that much intensity! It's just beautiful. The proposal scene of this movie never fails to send tears running to the brink of my eyes. Still, I've been rather hard with my grades today and because of the dismissal of all the technical qualities, it still doesn't have too good of a grade.
Grade: C+

#3: Jane Eyre 1983

From here the race got really tight. Once again, the 1983 takes a solid third. Dalton delivers a knockout performance so true to the Rochester I imagined in the novel. His portrayal was breathtaking. I remember the first time I read the novel. One thing I remember with perfect clarity is when Jane asks Rochester to turn his face to the light so that she can study him. Jane then remarks that, "His face was very much agitated and very much flushed, and there were strong workings in the features, and strange gleams in the eyes." When Timothy Dalton steps from the shadows and lets the light fall on his features, he is the epitome of that description. He brings the perfect blend of agitation, passion, and slight eccentricity that Jane describes in the proposal. Yet, Zelah falls short, which is what lands this proposal scene at third. We must take into account that the proposal is as much about Jane's "declaration of independence" as it is about Rochester's passionate offer. It's such a shame that Dalton didn't have something better to work with. Oh, and once again there was no rain or lightning. Is it that hard to include?
Grade: B++

#2: Jane Eyre 2011

Are you surprised that I didn't rank it first? After all the talking I've been doing about the adaptation, you'd think that I might rank it first in everything. This proposal was lovely in every aspect. Let's start from the beginning. Jane walks along the path and Rochester runs after her. Michael Fassbender blocks her path, walking backwards in front of her; wearing a nervous and yet adoring smile as he asks her whether she likes Thornfield. Mia's Jane is surly, resolved not to let him know the misery she's feeling. Her answers to his questions are direct and acerbic and she tries not to look at him. He then asks, "We've been good friends, haven't we?" He never takes his eyes off of her, and as he turns back around to walk beside her we see their shoulders bump ever so slightly in a moment of brisk and kinetic contact. Jane then starts to break down, and if you listen you can hear the break in Mia's voice as she replies, "Yes sir." It's simply beautiful. Fast forward and then rain starts. The two run inside, skipping through Thornfield's foyer in indomitable bliss. Jane makes a dash up the stairs. Rochester eagerly pursues her, catches her by the arm, and she jumps willingly back into his embrace to share another loving kiss. Yes, there is rain. Yes, there is a lightning struck tree that will wedge its way back into the movie by the end. Yes, there is faithfulness to the novel ("You are my equal and my likeness")! Why wouldn't you rank it near the top?
Grade: A

#1: Jane Eyre 2006

Yes, I ranked it first! I know I've been so critical of the proposal scene in this version (and of the adaptation in general), but after revisiting this scene again I was once again taken by what I used to love about it. I used to ridicule the display of snot and what I used to think of as an overreaction, but I might actually take those comments back. Ruth Wilson's Jane is in a state of mental distress. She bares her soul before Rochester, lays it all on the table, and still tries to wriggle from his grasp in the midst of blinding tears. It's hard not to admire that kind of performance. What would we do if we were in the same position? I would cry, and I would probably cry just as hard as Ruth was crying in this scene. Across from her plays a passionate Toby Stephens who listens with tense composure as she pours her heart out to him. When she suggests the idea that she might actually leave him he jumps up and grabs her as if the thought is unbearable, firmly exclaiming, "You will not leave me Jane." The scene is ugly. She wipes her nose on her sleeve and his voice breaks with alarming severity. It's raw, realistic, and completely akin to the relationship between the Jane and Rochester of the novel. Amidst tearstained cheeks, she asks him if he's in earnest. He entreats her to call him by his name in a way that makes my heart melt and tears come to my eyes. The significance of his pleading her to call him by his Christian name is something easily missed in other adaptions (and even in the novel), but you can feel it here. As they kiss the thunder rumbles in the distance and the rain starts to pour. As they jog back to Thornfield laughing under the rain, a lightning bolt comes from the sky and strikes the tree under which they sat with symbolic power. This proposal scene was very near perfect.
Grade: A

Thoughts on Wide Sargasso Sea

2011-09-24T07:28:00.000-07:00

I woke up this morning to a sunny, dew-dropped day. Yawning, stretching out my taut limbs, and letting my eyes adjust to the light streaming through my blinds, what do you think was my first thought of the day? It could have been the fact that I have choir practice or that I finish up my last two hours of Driver's Ed today. Perhaps I was contemplating on the excitement that my best friend is sleeping over at my house tonight. But no, my mind was occupied by Wide Sargasso Sea.

Not much of a way to start the morning, huh? After all, I've despised Wide Sargasso Sea even before I finished the novel. Something about taking the sanctity of Rochester's character and turning it into a villain (well, even more of a villain I should say) was just unforgivable in my mind. I couldn't fathom my beloved Byronic hero being turned into something I couldn't see him as. Not to say that I saw him as perfect, because I didn't. Rochester had a list of obvious (and almost inexcusable) flaws. Perhaps I couldn't bear the thought of taking those flaws and turning him into a character completely consumed by them.

But I can't help but have an artistic appreciation for Wide Sargasso Sea. It is a valiant effort to dare the opinions of Jane Eyre puritans and orchestrate a story told from the POV of the woman in the attic. If I were an author, I would probably take the same route. With a novel such as Jane Eyre told in the first-person, there's so many allies left open for different interpretation, and when one examines them we find that Bertha's alley is perhaps the widest. What do we actually know about the lunatic hidden away on the third floor besides what Rochester tells us? Jean Rhys capitalizes on Rochester's weakest point to tell Bertha's story. We only know what Rochester tells us, and from what we've seen throughout Jane Eyre, Rochester isn't always the most honest of men. Hmmm...

It's actually quite interesting to shift the focus to the character that often times readers think the least about. In the source material, Miss Bertha Antoinetta Mason is almost just an inserted obstacle. She serves no other purpose than to make things harder for the heroine we're supposed to be focusing on. The focus is never for a minute on the character herself; she merely functions as a tool to peal away the layers of other characters (namely Jane and Rochester).

For example, during the whole revelation of Bertha's existence, the heart of emotion still lies with a tortured Rochester. Who do we fill pity for? Least of all Bertha who's been locked up in a decrepit and fly-ridden attic for all these years. Our thoughts are bent only on Jane and Rochester. What will become of their relationship? What will Jane do? Awww, poor Rochester. And even in the end if we sit down and do some serious introspection, most of us will admit that we were almost relieved when Bertha threw herself off the roof because it was a basic signal that Jane and Rochester were free to be together.

Jean Rhys wipes away that attitude by making Bertha a person. She wasn't always a lunatic. When she was young and beautiful she wanted all the same things that Jane wished for. She was at the mercy of her position in the exact same way Jane was. Entering into an arranged marriage with Rochester might not have been as romantic as a passionate affair with miss Jane Eyre, but do you really think that Bertha knew what she was getting herself into any more than Rochester did?

Grant it, what I'm saying isn't exactly how Rhys paints it. In Wide Sargasso Sea, Miss Mason is the victim, Rochester was in on the bargain the whole time, and it was she who fell madly in love with a man who was using her only to discard her later.

Wide Sargasso Sea take an extreme view on the story but after finishing it and recovering from my initial disgust, I did learn to see Bertha Mason differently than I had before. Though Rhys's portrayal of the story is never in my mind when I read the actual source material (thank goodness), it still managed to impact me in a way that made me a better reader of Jane Eyre. That's the idea here. You might hate the story or absolutely adore it, but either way it helps mold you into a better reader.

That's how I took it, anyway.

Wuthering Heights 2011 Trailer

2011-09-20T12:51:00.000-07:00

The news isn't new, so I don't have to trouble myself with announcing it. Yes, the new trailer for Wuthering Heights has been released.

My sole purpose in writing this post is (as always) to share what opinions I have to give. The first time I watched this the dominant question in my mind was, "Can this really be called a trailer?"

Oh yes it can. Not an average, trailer of course. But then, Miss Andrea Arnold isn't an average director (or average human for that matter...did anyone see what she wore to the Venice Film Festival?). I'm sure that this trailer echoes the movie, which once again proves my assumption correct. This film is going to portray the Bronte world realistically, and with that reality will come cruelty. We thought Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre was harsh just because poor Jane got hit upside the head with a book? I don't think any of that will compare to what this movie will be with its animalistic sex scenes, primitive passions, and feral Yorkshire wildlife shot with the blatancy of a handheld camera.

I can also pretty much assume that I was right about the whole "no dialogue" thing. One sentence in the trailer? I've never seen that before (and I don't believe I've ever witnessed a trailer without a soundtrack behind it either).

This movie will be an interesting piece to watch. I don't think that Andrea was going for faithfulness to the romantic dialogue of the source material here, but to the wildness of both the environment and the emotions of the characters. This won't be your regular old Wuthering Heights adaptation. It is taking a new approach; an approach that might be the 19th century equivalent of Andrea Arnold's Fish Tank. No details are spared. We will be forced to get a glimpse of the real world is it was for Heathcliff and Cathy.

"Jane Eyre's Husband" Available in Paperback

2011-09-17T11:34:00.000-07:00

Do you ever have the weirdest inclination to go out of your way and look at things you already have? It's a perplexing question, and if any of you answer "no" then I must automatically assume that I'm going crazy. It's something I have a tendency to do all the time. For example, I still read Jane Eyre 2011 reviews even though I've already seen it. When I'm roaming around Walmart with nothing to do while I wait for my mother's prescription to be filled, I often cruise by Little Dragon's album, Ritual Union, just to see if it's still there (even though I have the whole album on itunes on perpetual replay). Early this Saturday morning, I was perusing Amazon in search of a book that might catch my eye and for some reason I found my fingers typing in Jane Eyre's Husband.

It was a lovely book; and it sparked a lit lover E-tantrum (known as my "Real" Books post) on this blog because at the time it was only available through Kindle software. The author herself stopped by this humble written dwelling to sooth me (us), and a few weeks ago (or maybe months ago) she returned to inform us that it was now available in paperback.

Where was my head when I was reading that comment? I can't really remember. But since the day I broke down and downloaded Kindle software to my computer just to lay my eyes on the book I had always dreamed of, I've read it twice. The first time, I was ecstatic. I wrote a post sporadically sharing what it was that I loved so much about the novel, but since that day not only have I read it again, but I've also developed a more systematic way of writing reviews and sharing my feelings. Fear not, Miss (or Mrs.) Tara Bradley. My opinion has not altered. If anything, it has strengthened. But I feel as if my last review did not do your lovely book justice.

First, I might as well correct myself and share with you the whole title: Jane Eyre's Husband: The Life of Edward Rochester. And that's exactly what this book is; the Rochester equivalent of Jane Eyre itself. Somewhere behind the scenes, an omniscient narrator is writing a biography of the life of Edward Fairfax Rochester that stretches from the very beginnings of his life to beyond the end of it. It is a long book; it took me a week to read (which is a long time for me). But what else would one expect when we're given a full view into the life of such a complex character?

Jane Eyre's Husband preserves every character mentioned in Jane Eyre, including Rochester himself. Why would I include that point? Because in some Jane Eyre adaptations, Rochester is warped into a person that Charlotte Bronte didn't paint him to be. In Wide Sargasso Sea, he's a spoiled and insensitive Englishman with no cultural respect. In Rochester, he's portrayed as slightly sex-crazed. It's good to find an adapted novel that depicts him as the man that (I believe) Charlotte Bronte truly wished him to be. I have a feeling that if that renowned author were alive today, she would read this and smile. The characters that seemed so minuscule in Jane's life (such as Dr. Carter) are developed and turned into major players in Rochester's world. People shadowed by suspicion (Grace Poole/Richard Mason) through Jane's eyes are made into real people with pasts, emotions, and conflicts.

Though told in a written style that is more modern than the source material, the novel preserves the culture of the time period. Bradley included historically accurate details; details that give the reader insight into the social restraints of the era. She takes us back into a time when sex was considered a woman's duty rather than an act of pleasure, when girls didn't experience their monthlies until late in their teens, and when embracing ones sexuality was uncommon. All the themes from the source material are revisited through Rochester's experiences. We see Jane and Rochester's relationship from different viewpoints that give us a better idea and appreciation of a strong and timeless literary love.

Tara Bradley, well done. :)

Comments?

"The Age of Innocence" by Edith Wharton Review

2011-09-15T18:35:00.000-07:00

Disappointment is a heavy burden to bear. Unfortunately, this burden will be mine until next year. I knew that it was coming, but I didn't want to acknowledge it. However, my denial doesn't wipe away the truth. Wuthering Heights 2011 won't be coming to America until 2012. Is this karma for the late release of Jane Eyre 2011 to the UK? Who knows. Either way, Wuthering Heights 2011 is not long Wuthering Heights 2011 to us here in the states.

To temper the state of defeat, however, I still have the consolation that the much anticipated A Dangerous Method (starring Viggo Mortenson, Michael Fassbender, and Kiera Knightley) will actually be released in late November in the US; a full three months earlier than it was actually expected to be released. Still, my feeling of despair at not having Wuthering Heights on a screen in front of me before 2011 is sour. What does one do when they're faced with such a letdown? They read.

In my case, they read The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton.

After years of keeping my nose in British literature, I was surprised to find that such a marvelous work could be written by Americans (I do not have much of a taste for American lit). Literary critics call pieces like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn the epitome of American literature, but my humble opinion refutes that idea to the fullest. Obviously, those people have not read The Age of Innocence. The artistry with which Edith Wharton composed the novel is astounding; the literary genius present in her writing is among the best I've ever read.

Newland Archer, a wealthy aristocrat of 1870's New York, lives a seemingly perfect life in a high social sphere amongst the best and brightest. Related to one of the most powerful and well-respected families in the area, armed with a commendable position, and endowed with appealing manners, it isn't surprising when Newland proposes to the equally beautiful and wealthy May Welland. Newland is taken with his future bride, truly convinced of his affection for her, and eager to publicize their engagement.

As Newland travels a smoothly paved road towards a happy marriage, a slight pothole comes into the picture. May's european cousin, Countess Olenska, arrives in New York, bringing with her rumors of her separation from her rich husband. Her carefree attitude and rather otherworldly view of life sharply contrast to the norms of Old New York society, but as he and May's marriage creeps closer, Newland finds himself becoming more intrigued by this European woman who contradicts everything he has come to know.

Newland acknowledges his growing attachment to Countess Olenska, and with the certainty that a relationship between them could never be, he pressures May to hasten their engagement. However, Newland soon finds that the very feelings he tried to so hard to overcome will haunt him and the steps he takes to eliminate them will lead him down a complex path filled with decisions. He is no longer confronted with the simple choice between two women, but of the man he is and the man he longs to be.

Of a completely different breed than a Bronte novel, but decidedly much more conflictual than an Austen piece, The Age of Innocence holds its own. I'm a reader who finds a thrill in figurative language, an element that this novel possesses in bundles. It's not a long read, nor will it probably ever rival the great British works of literature that the world has come to know so well. It is underrated; a book that may easily slip under the radar. It is the movie that should have won an Oscar, but failed to because of an early release date. Nevertheless, it is tantalizing. It is the kind of novel that one will close in a state of serenity because of its beauty and yet such unrest wishing that it might not have gone so fast.

Joy's Search for Jane Eyre

2011-09-12T13:52:00.000-07:00

And the search for Jane Eyre continues! This time it resumes with a new follower of mine, Joy. I ran into Joy's blog, Turn Pages, Press Leaves, not too long ago and immediately fell in love with it. In her writing and photography dwells the true artistic spirit. She, like the rest of us slightly-insane lit lovers, is a true Jane Eyre fan who gladly accepted my invitation to do a guest post. I do, however, owe her an apology because I'm not the timeliest "email checker". If it had not been for my sporadic thought process, you might have actually gotten to read this great post two days ago when I told myself to check my email multiple times but never did. I just looked into my inbox a few minutes ago, and after reading this I felt it a matter of necessity to write up the introduction and put up the post as soon as I could. It's absolutely lovely, and I will be the first to say that I agree with everything that you're about to read. If you enjoy these opinions as much as I do, then I encouraged you to take a look at Joy's blog (and follow it).

Joy's Search for Jane Eyre

Like so many others before me, Jane Eyre swallowed me up the moment I opened to the first page. It’s an interesting thing, really, because it is everything I dislike in a novel: written in first person, with a female narrator. The female narrator has been my bane for as long as I can remember. And yet along came Jane, and threw that out the window. I’m not saying that I’m running around willy nilly looking for books that follow this formula – because I’m not. But I will say that I discovered a sort of friend in Jane.

Here’s another interesting point. I very rarely concoct specific images of characters in my mind. In fact, I never do. They are all strangely faceless in my mind, but for some reason, that never seems to draw away from the experience. It does make it particularly awesome when they adapt a story I like to film, and cast someone that just “clicks” in my head. I will say that for Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. But as history has already dictated,Jane Eyre is so well loved that someone else is bound to make another adaptation in the next few years, and surely there are many options for new and wonderful Janes. So why not enjoy the “what-if” factor here? I will forewarn I have made a few unconventional choices. But bear with me, folks.

And may I take a moment to fangirl a little bit about guest posting on this terrific blog? It’s such a pleasure to read an intelligent journal such as this one, written by an equally intelligent young writer, and it is certainly a privilege to get to write for it!

And now...onto the Janes.

Kate Maberly

You may recognize Kate Maberly from 1993’s The Secret Garden, one of my childhood favourites. Though her age is working against her now, I feel that she has a youthful enough appearance that she could pull it off. But aside from such a cosmetic factor, Kate has great subtlety, and I wish she appeared in more films. She isn’t conventionally pretty either; in fact I would say she’s rather plain (does this description sound familiar?), but she has the captivating eyes I always imagined Jane to have – mostly because Bronte said it was so. Plus, if you’ve seen Secret Garden, you know that she can do the stubborn hiding-my-true-feelings bit pretty convincingly. At least, she could when she was eleven. I assume like wine, those sorts of things get better with age.

Sarah Bolger

I will admit up front I have not seen a whole lot of Sarah Bolger’s acting, other than some bits of the Tudors (which I sorely need to catch up on, if anyone cares to know), but from what I have seen, I’ve found her to be fairly good, and definitely worth looking out for. She’s about the right age too (20), and if you imagine that Jane-esque hair style on her, I believe you might be surprised at what you find. Although I will admit she would require colour contacts. But I love her complexion for Jane, and though she’s really quite pretty, she’s not glaringly so. Take away the lipstick and the mascara, and I think a fine Jane lies underneath. And just look at her expression in that picture! Well composed, and maybe even a little bit snarky; just how I always imagined her in those early conversations with Rochester.

Elle Fanning

Okay, okay, hear me out! She is way too young at the moment, which I realize, but I believe that in a few years, Elle could make a really good Jane – even if she’s American. Why not just throw Dakota into the mix then? Well, I’ll tell you. Dakota is good, but Elle has that ethereal quality that I always imagine Jane to possess. I am a huge lover of fantasy, and I think that may be why I latched onto all those endearing comments of Rochester’s about Jane’s impish qualities. Elle has already shown that she is capable of great things, and I think in some ways, she may even be more versatile than her sister. Imagine some dark hair on that girl, and I think she may just be able to capture that magical aspect of Jane’s existence, and also that complete innocence to the ways of the world. Paired with the right Rochester, I think Elle could pull it off.

Charlotte Riley

If you’re a Wuthering Heights fan (which I admittedly am not), you’ll know Charlotte as Catherine. I think she did a good job of playing that character, and her Northern accent is truly endearing. Again, not classically pretty, but still a captivating actress to watch. Judging from her performance as Catherine, I think Charlotte could bring a great deal of raw passion to Jane’s character, especially in the proposal scene. And I think she would do excellently against whoever was cast as St. John.

Now, I would like to give an honorable mention to Tamzin Merchant, who actually plays Mary in the new Jane Eyre. I personally think she has the look...

...and I think she may even have the acting chops. But I exclude her from my main list only because I loved her so dearly as Mary, and wish that there had been more of the character. Alack. Such is the way with feature film adaptations.

Hope you enjoyed! Cheers all!

Joy

--
Joy

Turn Pages, Press Leaves

http://turnpagespressleaves.blogspot.com

Jane Eyre 1983 Review

2011-09-07T14:22:00.000-07:00

I'm a writer and blogger who composes language through complete instinct. The words that scamper through my head are the same ones that assume a place on this blog, because this is one of the only places where they are allowed to roam free without revision. Writing my first essay of the school year today, I realized just how content I had become with writing my feelings without any particular way of organization. This blog seems to have spoiled me.

Because my mind has switched back into "school mode", the carefree and rather primitive writer that summer allowed me to be has been slightly influenced by the formal student lately. For example, while I sat down to write this review, my responsible inner-student asked my why I didn't ever think to simply review the adaptations in order. Now the free-spirited writer in me answers back, "Because I didn't feel like writing them in order." I wrote them at random because at that particular moment a particular adaption moved me to write about it. The art of writing comes in its freedom.

With that being said, I'm also slightly surprised by myself. Perhaps the 1983 should have been reviewed sooner. But no matter. It's being reviewed now, and that's all that matters at the moment.

It's hard to believe that I was ever "new" to Jane Eyre. I'm so familiar with the novel that it seems like an inborn aspect of my being that I never had to acquire. But reminiscing on those eager early days after I read the novel, I remember the anticipation I felt when I discovered the 1983 version on Youtube. I approached the adaption shortly after having seen the '06, and the idea of "multiple adaptations" was still new to me. Feasting my eyes on '83 for the first time, I realized that it wouldn't be so easy.

The adaption is a long one. The '06 is a two-part miniseries divided into two-hour sections. Altogether the '83 amounted to a lot more than four hours, and you definitely cannot blame this adaption for cutting out Jane's childhood and time at Lowood. These scenes mirror the book in atmosphere and dialogue, and no detail is left unshared with the audience. Every character is included down to good old Miss Temple who is cut out of most adaptations altogether. The benefit of such weight being placed on Jane's early years is that the audience feels and comprehends her growth and progression. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that the '83 was the only version that actually made Jane's eight years at Lowood really seem like eight years rather than just breezing over the first portion of her life and making the viewer believe that Lowood chewed her up and spat her out in a matter of minutes.

After inching through the tortuous details of Jane's childhood (which was at various times rather boring, I must admit), Zelah Clarke sits behind the teaching desk of Lowood and hands spelling books to her young pupils. Jane is supposed to be merely eighteen now, but Zelah's appearance, voice, and actual age project a maturity that is much too old to present the physical authenticity of a mere teenager of Jane's inexperience. I grant that Jane's character is a naturally mature eighteen-year-old. Though she isn't necessarily acquainted with the world, she is fully educated of it, and teenagers of that age were held to a much greater standard of maturity than we in the present-day. However, even with those excuses to render, I'm also a firm believer in the idea that Jane's mental maturity should in no case be mistaken for physical maturity, and what Zelah Clarke has is most definitely the latter.

As the adaptation evolves, however, I actually found myself warming up to Zelah's Jane. Though her age continued to irk me, there is a certain kind of reserve and austerity that Zelah infused into the character. The composure with which she conducts herself upon her first encounters with Rochester show Jane's directness and unwavering poise. The obvious sense of self-possession that Zelah's Jane contains can also easily be interpreted as wooden, however, and I often found myself forgetting that Jane was more than a serene and responsible governess. Jane is a character of outward peaceableness and inward turmoil in many cases. The youth in her is essential because it is that aspect that makes her passionate, pointed, and even rebellious at times. Zelah's Jane lacks that vigor completely.

Opposite Zelah Clarke's rather unremarkable Jane, Timothy Dalton's Rochester atones for the failings of his co-star. The 1983 Jane Eyre is truly Rochester's show. Dalton was the perfect man for the job, providing all the fire and conflict that the adaptation's Jane lacked. He was probably one of the best Rochesters to ever grace an adaptation of the novel for the simple fact that he touched on more of Rochester's many facets than most actors before or after him were able to. Dalton is both morosely unattractive and smolderingly handsome. He finds the perfect balance between Rochester's off-putting eccentricity and mysteriously inviting attractiveness. The Rochester we find in this adaption is manipulative, aggressive, strange, passionate, and tender. In my opinion, almost no other actor encompasses the character's sharp contrasts better.

However, in all other areas besides the adaption's Rochester, I found the 1983 extremely lacking. Yes, this is the closest possible adaptation to the book. There are minor changes in some scenes, but after seeing how faithful the miniseries is as a whole one doesn't even remember them. The dialogue is copy-pasted straight from the novel. But there is more to Jane Eyre than the lines of elegant and witty dialogue. There is a passion that exists between the lines; a chemistry that can't be created through the simple rehearsal of identical dialogue, and the truth of the matter is that Zelah and Timothy just don't have it. The minor characters such as Adele, Mrs. Fairfax, and St. John aren't even memorable in this version. The subplots to Jane and Rochester's relationship are presented with such blandness that we barely even take note of them.

Timothy Dalton carries the weight of this adaptation entirely on his shoulders, and his performance combined with the amazing faithfulness of the adaption to the source material is enough to make this version truly enjoyable and even tear-jerking in many instances. But to call this adaptation a definitive is an impossibility. It possessed all the mechanics but none of the skill. Yet, I must hastily explain (for those who are in total disagreement with me) that I really did love it! As with most Jane Eyre adaptions, this one nearly hits the mark. It's as if the definitive is the central mark on a bullseye, and this version has barely missed it. Yet, so close of a distance appears to be so far.

Don't understand me? I fully comprehend your feelings. I barely understand myself sometimes. But the basic idea is that this adaptation--like all the others--is subject to opinion, and in the end my opinion seems rather complex and indecisive. The only thing left for you to do is find out what yours is.

Always love to see comments!

Lady Disdain's Search for Jane Eyre

2011-09-02T19:48:00.000-07:00

I can't tell you how excited I was when I opened my inbox and found Lady Disdain's guest post waiting there quietly. She is probably weary of me after I nagged her so much, but I knew that she would have something great to offer. And my instincts were correct. Lady Distain is a fellow lit lover and a faithful follower of my blog (from New Zealand!). For the past few weeks I've opened up the opportunity for my fellow lit lovers to embark on the "search for Jane Eyre" and Lady was the first to volunteer. She executed beautifully. So without further ado I will allow you to enjoy the rapture. :) Oh, and for any of you who find her particularly enjoyable, please take a little peak at her blog: http://ladydisdainnotes.blogspot.com/

A Lit Lover's Search for Jane Eyre

Eversince I first picked up Charlotte Bronte's most well-known novel, Jane Eyre,there has been in my head a quiet little figure. I suppose you could call itsomething akin to a manifestation of my conscience. She is small, but herpresence cannot be doubted; she is quiet but her voice cannot be ignored. Andshe is forever patient. And no, despite what you think, I have not lost mymarbles. ~~Never mind that I only have a precious few left.~~

Sincethat first Jane Eyre reading and the many re-readings since, one thinghas impressed itself in my mind. Jane's underlying independence, her strongaffirmations of what is right, and her unbreakable ability to hold fast tothose principles on which she bases her life. I greatly admired her unflaggingspirit in the face of despair; I was quietly proud of her resourcefulness; andI applauded her discipline in living a virtuous and principled life. To thisday, my mind cheers every single time she finds the courage to leave Mr. Rochester- to tear herself away from the best thing she has known simply because sheknows that, to not do so, is not right. Bronte created a role model ofsorts for many of her readers when she created her small, but fiercelyindependent heroine. Jane kicks ass without raising a single finger, and that,her quiet infallibility iswhat most impresses itself upon me.

However,this quiet little figure, this Jane-like mentor, who constantly resides in theback of my mind, is just that - a figure. I don't know the details. Not thetilt of her eyes. Or the shape of her lips. Nor the exact shade of hair. So, togive life to my subconscious Jane, and embark on this journey for the searchfor Jane with the wonderful Bonnie, I have come up with a fewsuggestions.

Firstly,down the catwalk is Romola Garai:

(Whadaya know? It’s Fassbender! )

The onlymovie I have seen her in is Joe Wright's Atonement and the filmadaptation of Dodie Smith's novel I Capture the Castle (although Ididn't see the latter in its entirety). But what most struck me wasGarai's ability to reveal the underplay of emotions occurring within with onlysubtle inflections in her expression. This to me is a very 'Jane-ian' quality.She is a very private person, keeping her thoughts locked inside, unless it isabsolutely essential to reveal them. She is not the type to wear her heart onher sleeve. Mr. Rochester, despite his skills in manipulation (yes, how can younot notice? Not revealing his identity in the beginning, flirting with Blanche,even going so far as to dress up as an old gypsy woman) is unable to ever fullydiscern what Jane is thinking or feeling at the time. The only problem is thatGarai, from what I can remember - and this might not be much - seems kind oftall (o, superficial is me). I am a firm believer of The Small Jane. I thinkthere was a reason Bronte intended her to be - her appearance is deceptive, andis meant to hide the fire and strength that lies underneath. But with asuitably tall Rochester that should be easily fixed.

(I had to try SO hard to find a‘plain’ picture of her.)

Second toproceed is Tallulah Riley:

Some ofyou might know her as the ever ambitious Mary Bennet from Joe Wright's (himagain!) Pride & Prejudice. In fact, that is the only movie I haveseen her in so there isn't much for me to base her acting abilities on. Butfrom what I saw she presented a fairly accurate portrayal of Mary. To me, sheis perfect in stature, and possesses that understated prettiness that I believeJane also possesses. Plus, she can easily pull off the 'I'm still quite a younggirl fresh out of Lowood' look that Rochester was so easily able to point outon that first night by the fireside.

Next, KatDennings.

(That background just screams‘moors’ to me)

Now, I haven'tseen Dennings in any film whatsoever so I'm basing this purely on superficialaspects. And ok, I know what you're thinking. Man, those lips are fuller thanHomer Simpson's belly after a Thanksgiving dinner. Well, that's what Iwas thinking anyway. Much too full to be Jane's. But let me point out she iswearing lip stick in this picture and, therefore, the effect is all the moreemphasized. However, even without the lipstick to adorn her lips, you wouldhave to be blinder than a bat with two glass eyeballs to miss them. For somereason, her features just struck me as something that would be suitable forJane. Jane does describe her looks as being "irregular" so for all weknow she might have had the fullest lips, perhaps too full for the rest of her facialfeatures. Dennings lips seem to conquer the rest of her face, so I'd say herfeatures are irregular, too. Just nicely irregular.

But,wipe the make-up off. Pull the hair back into a disciplined bun. Don a blackQuakerish gown. And what do you think Ms. Dennings? I think you'd make a verypresentable Jane. And that is high praise, indeed. And those eyes! It’shard not to notice them; they seem to hold a world of stories. Especially inthat first photo.

Lastly Ipresent to you, Saiorse Roman (pronounced 'ser-sha'. Yes, I love her name,too.)

You mightknow this young lady from Atonement (yes, that's where I cameacross her), and most recently The Lovely Bones (which I haven'tbeen fortunate enough to see). She is a young actress, but an incrediblycompetent one, and according to Peter Jackson, possesses a maturity that goesfar beyond her current years. And her performance in Atonement wasimpressive. To me, she comes closest to my image of Jane: the small face, thesmall chin, the way her hair pulls back from her forehead, her narrow shoulders,they all proclaim ‘Jane’ to me.

(I tried to find a picture of her being plain, andcame up with this. Simply darken the hair and I think we have our Jane, yes?Look at that defiant set of the lips.)

And therewe go. My most humble opinions presented to you, lit lovers. O yes, I can be asobsequious as Mr. Collins, but let's not go there. I think the ones I wouldmost love to see play Jane are probably Romola Garai and Saiorse Roman. Simply,because I think they have the ability to portray the overwhelming passions thatJane often finds herself fighting to control in her quiet, but determinedway.

Now youmay off up scorn, indifference or praise as much as you please.) Although Ihighly recommend the last.

- Lady Disdain

Wuthering Heights 2011 Clips

2011-09-01T13:09:00.000-07:00

Andrea Arnold's new adaption of Wuthering Heights is running swiftly around the corner, turning heads at the Venice Film Festival and getting a few reviews here and there on the Bronteblog. And yes, the clips are finally here and (as usual) ready to be reviewed by a faithful lit lover. If you haven't seen them, here they are below.

My thoughts:

Like the poster, reviews, and screen caps before it, these clips are so vague! I see what the movie makers are trying to do. They're luring us into the movie; coaxing us with the the poison of generality with the hopes that it will kill us to the point of making us dig in our pockets and buy a ticket. Well it's working on me! I'm tortured by the mystery surrounding this film, and as soon as it hits theaters in America (if it hits theaters in America), I will be one of the first to scrape together ten dollars and present it to the box office clerk.

From what I gather from the clips, the film should be much like other Wuthering Heights adaptions (which have all been good for the most part), but from the reviews leaked from the film festival, everyone refutes that idea right off the bat. Every review has a steady comment on something about this version that is different from all the others, and yet (of course) they never tell us exactly what that something is.

The first clip was fine. And too short. The second clip was great, and also too short. The third clip was pretty raw, and also much too short. The fourth clip was by far the shortest and the one I enjoyed most, even though there was no dialogue of any kind and the atmosphere was rather weird. I'm going to venture to conjecture that this Wuthering Heights adaption will be slightly akin to Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre in a certain aspect. If you noticed anything from the clips, it should be the obvious lack of TALKING. Therefore, one would probably guess that this film is going to focus more on the subtly unsaid thoughts and atmospheres. Instead of just spitting the book out onto the screen, Andrea Arnold is going to milk our five senses; the same way she did in Fish Tank. She's going to make us feel what Heathcliff is feeling through the way he exercises his foot in his riding boots and lays in the midst of fog, clutching at rough patches of heather. Mark my words, this film is going to go for the sensual, and if my instincts are as acute as I think they are then we'll be pulled into a world of Wuthering Heights that stirs us from the inside.

P.S: I love the rawness and reality of the accents. Andrea Arnold always pays attention to authenticity.

The Search for Jane Eyre Continues

2011-08-27T17:31:00.000-07:00

I've been seeing quite a few faces that might be suitable Janes lately. Just thought I'd share them with you. Comment and tell me what you think!

Claire Foy

First up is Claire Foy. I ran across her quite by chance when watching the BBC adaption of Little Dorrit, and something about her struck me as very "Janey". Foy isn't what one would really deem naturally pretty, and her performance in Little Dorrit was both sweet and reserved (like Jane) and very young and naive. The problem with her is that she's twenty-seven, which is much too old for Jane. I was actually quite surprised when I looked up her age because she struck me as so much younger. Despite the age problem, Clair has some great strengths. She was raised in Leeds and therefore probably knows the natural Yorkshire tongue and mannerisms that would fit Jane's culture, and she's also (obviously) had experience in solid literature adaptations. Here is a clip of her below. Judge some of her scenes in Little Dorrit and tell me whether you think something about them is a bit "Jane-esque".

Andrea Riseborough

Once again, another girl whose age I was utterly surprised to find out. But something about this lady is so pixie-like and spritely that I just couldn't help but somehow imagine her as Jane. This picture was from The Devil's Whore; a movie that I watched for the satisfaction of seeing Michael Fassbender. Yet, as the movie progressed I couldn't help observe her strong performance, and sure enough the back of my head told me that something about her might be able to suit Jane Eyre. The far-away and forlorn look in her eyes that manifests itself in the movie walks hand in hand with the same wistful gaze I imagine in Jane. Here is a clip from The Devil's Whore:

Felicity Jones

Yet another one whose age surprised me! What is in the water over there in the UK that's keeping people from aging? Anyway, I loved her in Cheri and that's all there is to it. Even though I couldn't stand the movie in its entirety, I like the reserved, young simplicity of her performance and I would REALLY love to see her as Jane. Her face has the perfect juxtaposition of angular roundness that I described in my visual Jane, and the piercing hazel of her eyes fits the character perfectly. She too has a good dose of experience with period pieces. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a clip, so you'll just have to watch Cheri for yourself.

What do you guys think?

"Rebecca" by Daphne Du Maurier

2011-08-24T17:01:00.000-07:00

"There is a story behind every book." A middle school English teacher of mine used to utter those words incessantly, much to the chagrin of her pupils who answered with the usual amount of eye-rolling and guttural groans in the back of the room. Should it be some divine epiphany to realize that there's a story behind a book? Isn't that the point of a book in the first place? In whatever literal or figurative context one chooses to examine the phrase, it is rather useful. In this case it is particularly true of my reading experience. There is seldom a time when I don't remember what exactly led me to read a book. The events prior to a novel's purchase are just as important as the object itself in my eyes, serving as a prologue to the adventure of reading. It is my personal opinion that everyone should read the prologue.

With that being said, I came to Rebecca after going through a particular Hitchcock movie phase. From what you've seen from your fellow blogger, I'm pretty sure that it isn't hard for you to believe that once I latch onto an obsession, I delve into it with a vigorous depth and intensity. After seeing the genius of Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious, I sought more. The search brought me to Rebecca. I approached the film having no idea that it was adapted from a novel, but after finding out that such a thrilling and utterly capturing movie had taken its roots from a piece of literature it wasn't hard for me to go out to trusty old Barnes and Noble to pick up a copy.

What I found was familiarity; the first-person narrative of a young and unsophisticated girl who crosses paths with the tortured older man. I witnessed the gravest flash of deja vu as the aforementioned child attaches to this damaged soul who possesses the complicated (and arguably rather creepy) mixture of both paternal and passionate love for her. He sees in her all the contrasts to the life and people he knew before and places the burden of his purification and escape from sin on her thin little shoulders. But fate spins both characters a screwball and all secrets are now exposed, revealing him to be the true villain and stripping all naivety and innocence from her. If you've any experience with my blog and don't recognize the obvious similitude between this plot and that of another novel, imagine me taking your shoulders in my hands and giving you a violent shake.

Yes, Rebecca shares a plethora of similarities with my beloved Jane Eyre. The unnamed main character wanders dizzily around the globe, uncertain of her place in it. She wishes for an escape from her repressed life of habit and duty. It just so happens that it is while she is submitting to this life that she falls into the path of the man who will change it. The forty-two year-old rich widower, Maxim De Winter, is the answer to any woman's prayers. Never described as handsome, but directly characterized as shadowy and "medieval", this bad-boy should be able to find a spot in the reader's heart right next to his likenesses; Rochester, Heathcliff, etc. Like the latter literary counterparts, Maxim succeeds in luring our main character with his enigmatical conversation, Jaded glances, and moments of irrepressible gloom. However, unlike the Brontes who assert the obstacles with unreserved blatancy, Du Maurier takes a different approach. All courses seemingly run smooth. Maxim De Winter sweeps our timid little protagonist off of her feet, proposes to her after two weeks, and seems to take no notice of her obvious lack of poise and social connection. There is no ruined wedding or insurmountable conflict to hinder them. At least, not at first...

The new "Mrs. De Winter" feels awkward and diffident in world molded for her superiors. She doesn't understand what Maxim expects from her, but is all too conscious of what his neighbors and friends (and housekeeper) demand. The girl who grieved over lack of identity is now stricken by it. She feels nothing more than the "second wife", the "other woman", and the legacy of the woman before her haunts both her and her husband. The author emphasizes this haunting so much as to name the entire novel after this first wife while choosing not to even identify the name of the second. Rebecca is just as much of a main character as Mrs. De Winter and Maxim. Though not present in body, her actions are carried out through the minds of each character. Even though we have all the plot elements of a mysterious gothic love story, it is not the relationship between Maxim and "unnamed protagonist" that commands attention, but the woman who has been dead for years.

I've made quite a mess of this review with my rambling thoughts, but the essential point here is: READ IT! If you have a taste for the mysterious gothic classics, there's absolutely no reason why you wouldn't like it.

Wuthering Heights 1939 Review

2011-08-22T14:45:00.000-07:00

Once again, I must ask excuses for the length between posts. I underestimated the weight of my homework load, and thus have not had much time to blog. With that being said, I also realize that my last few posts have been extremely Jane Eyre centered. I apologize for that also, but justify it with the excuse that with the excitement surrounding the DVD release it's been very hard to keep the novel out of my brain. But now I believe I've come to the end of my rather unhealthy obsession. I've watched the movie countless times and have settled into the comfort and familiarity of having it, which means that I no longer need to write about it and its source material every minute of the day. However, I will continue my "Search for Jane Eyre" because that is a subconscious journey. I still encourage you to submit comments and guest posts (ahem, Miss Lady Disdain!).

With all Jane Eyre demons exorcized, my thoughts now turn increasingly to Wuthering Heights. It's natural for you to wonder why. After all, I was the one who emphatically stated my dislike of the novel in an earlier post. I guess the true answer to that is the fact that though I find the book melodramatic, cruel and insane, I can't resist a good literature adaption. In preparation for Andrea Arnold's take on the beloved tale, I've been taking in a few of the previous adaptions (which are about as numerous as Jane Eyre flicks, I might add). The first one I revisited was the 1939, seeing that it was that particular version that I watched first and prompted me to read the novel in the first place.

We should all know the plot of the novel and even if you might not, there's too many twists and turns in the plot for a remedial teenage writer like me to explain it to you. In so many words, this profound piece of literature dwells on the love between Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff; two characters that defy fate and the normal "starry-eyed" love story by falling in love and then wrenching themselves apart.

The 1939 version was one of the first black and white films I ever watched, and strangely enough it was the first literary film adaptation I ever laid eyes on (yes, even before Jane Eyre). The dauntingly fair-faced and high-cheekboned Merle Oberon claimed the role of Cathy and opposite her was the handsome and well-chiseled face of Laurence Olivier. Both went on to be in that category of timeless Hollywood elites.

Before delving into the process of reviewing the film, I must make one thing clear. Though I have read the book in depth, I don't place as much weight on it as I would on a Jane Eyre adaption. Therefore, I do not necessarily rate it based on faithfulness to the source material. With that being said, however, I do like to point out some details.

The first thing I immediately noticed after feasting my eyes on this adaption just a few days ago was the obvious lack of concern shown for the characters' true ages. Merle Oberon is obviously not nineteen (wasn't Cathy nineteen, or somewhere in her younger years?) and Laurence Olivier doesn't do any better. One thing that I've noticed about Bronte novels is the fact that ages are imperative. I've reviewed many adaptions of a particular Bronte piece (hmmm, I wonder which one?) and always dwelled on the importance of the character's age. The same idea stands true with Wuthering Heights. Cathy and Heathcliff are still teenagers, which means that a naive and childlike heart still dwells in them. In simpler terms, it's easier to justify two teenagers running across the moors and dreaming up spectacular fantasies than it is when seeing two adults.

Merle Oberon as Cathy

With age being discarded, however, I actually enjoyed how Merle and Laurence executed their roles. Merle was a fierce and stubborn Cathy that matched the spiritual essence of the one in the novel. Laurence was decidedly less dark than the "real" Heathcliff, but I found him much more humane than the actual character. When he comes into the kitchen uttering wishes for Cathy's forgiveness, a slight "aww" escaped my lips. Even though the line wasn't mentioned anywhere in the novel, it made Heathcliff a much more likable character that I was willing to sympathize with. The actors matched each other well--a surprising notion when one actually understands how much they despised one another (and the director) when the camera wasn't rolling. I probably wouldn't have had it any other way. By casting two actors that hated each other, Cathy and Heathcliff's turbulent and blatantly hostile relationship was captured perfectly.

Laurence Olivier as Heathcliff. Is it insane to crush on
someone from another time?

Yet, once again we must remember the time period in which this film was made. This era was not known for its subtle acting approach. Outdated "slapping" sound effects, fake crying, and a boisterously string-filled score make a melodramatic plot all the more eye-rolling, sometimes crossing the boundaries of cheesiness. But of course, one would expect that of a film made in '39.

I'm not trying to be tedious or anything, but what happened to the other half of the film? Cathy dies in chapter sixteen. There are thirty-three chapters in the entire novel! Whether it be the need for glorification of romance in black and white Hollywood or not, it's a shame to take absolutely no note of half the novel. Yet, even this can be partially justified. To tell the second half of the story would be to expose Heathcliff's cruelty; a thing that audiences in '39 wouldn't have liked to see.

All things considered, this adaption deserves to be watched. But just like the black and white Anna Karenina or Jane Eyre, it's not worth a watch for its faithfulness to the text. It's simply one of the immortal movies that have cleared a spot in film-making history. If you have a taste for the classic black and whites then you won't hesitate to give this one a try. If not, then I'd strongly recommend you stay away from it.

Doodling in English Class

2011-08-17T13:48:00.000-07:00

The school year always bring back old habits.

I never draw during the summer for the simple reason that whenever I sit down with pencil and paper, I can never capture what it is that I want. I have to be in a place where my imagination roams unwillingly.

My pictures are actually drawn in the classroom on a boring day when the teacher is talking too much. It is then that my mind comes up with the best images, followed by the best capturing of those images.

Today it was Jane Eyre during fourth period AP English Language while my teacher went over Huckleberry Finn. I put pencil to paper and this is what came out. It's obviously not finished, but most likely it will be done during study hall tomorrow.

A Letter to My Fellow Lit Lovers

2011-08-16T12:41:00.000-07:00

Dear Lit Lovers,

I have it! I sit at the computer with the satisfaction of knowing that the 2011 adaption of Jane Eyre now belongs to me, sitting on my bed with plastic wrap discarded. I feel as if a large weight has been lifted off of my shoulders. The movie is officially in my possession to watch over and over. *sigh*

That is all I have to say. I'm going to go watch it now, look at the deleted scenes, and take a peak at Cary Fukunaga's commentary. I'll get back to you later.

--Ari (aka Bonnie)

The Search for Jane Eyre

2011-08-12T20:12:00.000-07:00

I was sifting through some of my old posts and came upon my forgotten "Richard Armitage is my Rochester" post in which I shared my ideal cast of Jane Eyre. While Richard Armitage has always been (and always will be) without a doubt my exact image of Rochester, I remember running into particular troubles finding the woman--or perhaps I should say teenager--to play the beloved heroine.

Rachel Hurd-Wood: the actress whose come closest
to what I imagine as physical look of Jane.

In actuality, I must say that I embarked on the "search for Jane Eyre" three years ago after I put down the book for the first time. Since then, my mental image of the character has taken a permanent residence in my head, always lurking in the corners of my mind. Whenever I watch a movie, I keep my eyes open for the girl that might prove worthy of playing my favorite literary heroine. When walking the streets, I'm always an apt observer of the people around me, and more than once I might find myself examining someone and thinking "she has the physical makings of a Jane." Yes, I understand that this can be found creepy on many levels, but I'd rather look at it as the exercising of an active imagination.

Abigail Breslin: I think she'll make a
presentable Jane when she gets older.

Every avid reader has (or should have) a mental image of the main character(s) of the novel that either springs instantly or seeps slowly into their head. More often than not, that image remains tucked cozily in the corners of a reader's mind. If the reader just so happens to revisit the book that image reemerges, most of the time unchanged. As lovely as this experience may be (yes, I do call the work of the imagination lovely), the unfortunate problem with these mental prototypes are that they are rarely fully embodied on screen or--for that matter--at all.

My image of Jane Eyre is rather detailed, and this is the first time I've ever endeavored to type it out. As my fingers move across this keyboard, I can almost see her before me. I envision an eighteen-year-old girl; one who possesses a wiry and rather undeveloped physical build but whose countenance has an innate sense of maturity. She has the customary "Jane Eyre" box-brown hair, pulled into a neat and severe knot. Atop a circular and yet slightly angular face are large observant green eyes, naturally piercing and captivating. Their fixed gaze is both comforting and poignant in its intensity. Her face is pale, tiny freckles lightly and sporadically dotting her cheeks, though they may not be evident at first glance. Her lips, I imagine as thin with corners slightly upturned, painted with a perpetually forlorn smile. She is short, skinny, projecting a person that appears perhaps younger than her age because of her lack of curvature. The innocence and purity of her outward appearance is at direct variance with the knowing and jaded look in her eyes. From his place near the fire, Rochester observes her and notices the kinetic attraction of the opposition between the solemn calmness of her exterior and the sprightly vigor of her mind. Her words are sharp and at times incisive with their subtle sarcasm. Beneath the simplicity of her opinions lie a decidedly deeper cryptic message.

Richard Armitage (picture from Robin
Hood): my PERFECT image of Rochester.

Her Rochester counterpart is the opposite of her in almost every way. Where Jane's features are soft and rather inviting, his are masculinely angular and (yes) morose. He towers above her, probably just eclipsing six feet while her petite form dwells in the area of 5'5. He has (as described in the novel) an athletic figure; solid and naturally strong to the point of intimidating. His dusky dark curls are windswept from frequent travel by horse, shadowing an already tanned (perhaps approaching olive-hued) face. He has thick eyebrows, knit together in a menacing embrace atop which the glowering haze of his troubling memories sit. Underneath those are penetrating and sullen eyes, so dark that one can barely tell where the iris ends and the pupil begins until holding them under close inspection. His nose is straight and decidedly strong-featured. Beneath those are the "grim" thin lips, set in a brooding line to complete his foreboding exterior. He is decidedly ugly in the eyes of society in the mid-1800s, but to Jane there is some kind of strange appeal to him. His foreboding physical appearance and his sardonic nature make him a dangerous sort of enigma; something about him is ominously attractive.

Now that I've imparted to you my image of the legendary Jane Eyre (and her leading man), I'm giving myself a challenge. Most of you fellow Lit Lovers are deeply acquainted with the novel, reading every piece of Jane Eyre-related material I've ever written. Instead of keeping this mental "search for Jane Eyre" concealed, why not make good use of my quest and share it with my fellow bloggers? And better yet, why not allow these bloggers to embark on this journey with me? I love the feeling of coming to my blog and seeing paragraphs of comments lined up on my posts. I read each and every one of them and make it a point to reply. By sharing my search with you, I am both providing myself with a sort of catharsis and receiving the joy of interacting with you guys.

For the next few weeks, my "blogging doors" will be open to anyone who wishes to share their mental image of Jane Eyre (and/or Rochester). I urge all of you to write a description of your Jane whether it be as a comment to this post, or by submitting a guest post. My email address is available on my profile for those who wish to send me their description, whether it be only a sentence or paragraphs long. Along with that description, I would appreciate it if you also included your name and the name of your blog (if you have one). I guarantee that each submission will be posted.

So how about it, Jane Eyre diehards? Are you with me?

Another "Jane Eyre" Analysis

2011-08-06T17:42:00.000-07:00

I've been going on a "family tour" for the last few weeks of summer, which explains why I've been a bit out of touch and a lot more inconsistent with my posts lately. Oh, the wonders of the internet! I spend half a week without it and feel like I've completely lost touch with humanity. Well, precisely ten minutes ago I helped my mother unload the car, grabbed the laptop, darted up to my room and immediately went to my Blogger dashboard. What is there waiting for me?

Deleted scenes from the 2011 adaptation of Jane Eyre! Eeep! My heart was leaping and my mind was rejoicing, and I hadn't even clicked the "play" button to see if they were any good.

I've missed three days of internet, which means that I've missed three days of "Bronte Blog" news (yes, I visit the blog daily). After sifting through the posts from the last few days, there seems to be nothing else that's particularly exciting. We have the usual positive reviews of the 2011 film and mention of the new Wuthering Heights adaptation.

Luckily, I'm not completely behind because the clips were just posted on the blog today. After watching them (multiple times, I might add), I've come to my conclusions. The clips are attached below. If I were you, I'd look at them. I don't think they would ruin the movie if you haven't seen it, so I won't really caution any readers from other countries.

There are four clips released from what I take will be the "deleted scenes" portion of the DVD coming out in only a week here in the US (squeal), though I hope that a few more will be included. Based on what I've seen in a few featurettes and the trailer and read in the script supplied by the movie tie-in novel, these may or may not be the only ones on the DVD. If so, then I've probably ruined the surprise, though nothing will deter me from purchasing the DVD on August 16th about fifteen minutes after I hop in the car from my first day of the school year.

If you're putting the clips in chronological order from if you were reading the book (or viewing the movie) then the first is the "Badminton in the Garden" clip. In other words, this is the missing scene that those who deemed the relationship "rushed" would have liked to see included in the film because it gives Jane and Rochester one more conversation before the burning bed scene. Here, Rochester looks up at Thornfield and lets Jane into some of the specifics of his past by painting the portrait of Adele's background.

Personally, I have absolutely no idea why this scene was cut at all. The acting was solid, the scene fit perfectly into the progression of the movie, and more screen time between Mia and Michael is always welcome with me. The way this scene was orchestrated was subtly magnificent. Mia plays on Jane's innocence here, asking seemingly harmless and curious questions. When she asks "to fall in love, sir?", I'm truly struck with the idea that Jane believes love to be a painless sort of romance. Through Mia's slight movements of the eye and inflection of her voice, I get the true subliminal message that this is the first time that Jane has ever heard that love can actually bring out the worst in people (jealousy, bitterness, etc).
I remember that Michael said in one of his interviews that he wanted the weight of Rochester's memories to almost physically manifest themselves through his gestures and actions. For some reason, I received that message a lot through this scene. Maybe it's the fact that Rochester is a lot less formal without the presence of his coat, or perhaps it's the way he washed his hands in the pond water. Either way, I got a really great physical sense of Rochester's masculinity and strength. Fassbender and Wasikowska played well off of each other. While Mia's Jane is asking seemingly innocent questions, we can see the slight stab Rochester receives when looking into his memories through Fassbender's sharp intake of breath and his intense delivery of the "stream of life" analogy. Why didn't they keep this scene in???

Next deleted scene: "Jane Meets Rochester in the Staircase." This is a "deviation" scene, meaning that it wasn't actually in the source material so it was just a minute scene.

This clip was fine, but rather unnecessary. I could see why they cut it out. When reading the screenplay, I was actually hoping that this scene might be included as a deleted scene just to see how the actors would carry it out. From what I read, it seems like it might have been included just to provide the audience with one more piercing glance from Rochester. I imagined it as something along the lines of the "I would do anything for you" clip where Jane thinks he's talking about someone else, but it's obvious by his gaze that what he's saying is really intended for her. I was surprised when this scene actually presented quite the opposite. The actors interpreted it literally. Rochester actually is directing the comment towards Blanche Ingram and doesn't even give Jane the slightest bit of recognition. Either way, it wasn't included in the movie and nothing suffered because of it. All it would have done was just add another forty-eight seconds and give us one more line from Blanche.

The third scene is what everybody was really going crazy for here in the US. It's the scene depicting the tearing of the veil and Jane and Rochester's conversation afterwards. A lot of people were really disappointed that this scene didn't make it in, so it ought to be a treat to watch now.

Once again, WHY did they not include this scene? I loved it! It actually sent a slight shiver down my spine. The tearing of the veil in other adaptions didn't seem half as scary as this one. At the same time, I could have done without Bertha laying down on the bed and snaking up Jane's body. Something about it was a little too sexual. In actuality, I don't really know how I felt about it. The sexuality of Bertha's actions could easily be interpreted as all the more terrifying because of the blatantly close physical proximity between the two characters. On the other hand, others might take it as intensely melodramatic. Even with that point in debate, I still think the scene should have been included. Not only would it introduce a bit more of the gothic feel to the adaption, but it's also an extremely important scene to include! I also really liked Jane and Rochester's conversation afterwards. It was short, but pointed, and even tender. For those of you who've seen the movie, including this scene would mean that things would be slightly re-orchestrated. You couldn't just plug it in like filling in the blank.

The last scene is a different take on Jane's escape and a bit more pleading from Rochester as well as the horseback scene...

I mentally divided this clip into two halves; from the start to 1:16, and from 1:17 to the end. With that divide in mind, I hated the first half. It's a basic waste of film and is highly infused with a large amount of cheesiness and repetition. I love Michael Fassbender to death, but every actor has some bad takes. The first half of this scene was one of his. I understand the desperation and longing, but something about the tone of his voice when he pleads "I need you, Jane!" was extremely reminiscent of Marlon Brando screaming "Stellaaaaa!" in A Streetcar Named Desire. The way he said it struck me as (I'm sorry to say it) horny rather than an actual heartfelt plea.
With that being said, however, he toned it down for the "second half" of the scene (1:17 to the end). Instead of pining through the door and harping "I need you", he lowers his voice to a whisper and says "listen to me, allow me to make it up to you." Here I feel my heart warming, and then finally when the camera flashed to him with his head against the door uttering a soft "I love you", I can feel three hearts breaking; his, hers, and mine. At the same time, even the second half gives me mixed feelings because I really liked the way they arranged Jane's escape in the actual film and you can't really include his plea without tweaking that arrangement. Basically (CAUTION: SPOILER) if you want to see Rochester knocking on the door and saying "I love you", then you've have to see Jane jumping out the window. If you inserted the plea into the actual film the way it is, then it would conflict with the method shown in the film where we see Jane's escape begin from her opening the kitchen door, turning her head fearfully to listen for a noise, and then treading through the garden to her escape. When it comes down to it, this scene was probably better off not being included because I liked the escape shown in the film.

What do you guys think? You know that comments are always open and I always love to respond!

Wuthering Heights 2011 Release Date

2011-08-03T15:41:00.001-07:00

Ever since the release of the Heathcliff screen cap last week, things surrounding Wuthering Heights 2011 have begun to pick up. We've received a clue (or, in my eyes, a warning) that at least one of the key scenes is done rather differently (I really DO wonder which one) and now we've gotten the UK release date.

Lucky Brits! Only a month after the rapture of Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre, you will be enjoying the privilege of watching Wuthering Heights on November 11th. I'm still waiting waiting waiting for the US release date. Something gives me the slight inkling that we're probably going to have to wait for it. The problem with British-made movies is that in order to be shown in the US, an American film company has to pick it up. Lets cross our fingers and hope that Focus will step up to the plate since it seems that they're pretty renowned for going the "literary adaptations" route.

A Little Light Shined on Wuthering Heights 2011

2011-07-28T19:17:00.000-07:00

The mystery with which Andrea Arnold's new Wuthering Heights adaption has been artfully concealed is both alluring and alarming. I try to remind myself that some of the best movies are those that don't over-commercialize and become masterpieces that slip under the radar; films that rely on quality rather than quantity. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge surrounding the film also makes me rather apprehensive.

There have been rumors (finally confirmed) that the movie will be appearing at the Venice Film Festival along with other movies I'm looking forward to such as David Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method and Steve McQueen's Shame. As an extra treat to accompany this sudden announcement, someone in "high places" behind the film has decided that us fans are entitled to some knowledge as to how the film will look, even if it's only a little. They went about it artfully, however. We all know that the big "hullabaloo" surrounding this adaption of the novel is the man playing Heathcliff. There are people embracing, debating, and questioning the casting of an unknown black actor as one of the most famous (or should I say infamous?) literary heroes. Whoever was behind the advertising of this new adaption must have obviously known that because in our first screen cap of the movie, we don't get a picture of Kaya Scaledario as Cathy, but of James Howson's dark eyes cast to the ground.

First thoughts:

There's not much one can conjecture from a scant picture. When releasing it, the company knew very well what they were doing. They want to torture us even more with the knowledge that we can't draw any conclusions based on this screen cap. There's nothing in the background to give us any clues as to the setting. There's no piercing stare given by the man playing Heathcliff to leave us with any idea as to how he can project the gloominess and torment of his character. I almost wished that the picture hadn't been released at all because now I pine for the movie even more.

I do like the idea of Heathcliff being black. Not only does it fit the description given in the novel (that people tend to overlook), but it also draws in a modern and more diverse audience. Whether the appeal to that new audience will be a blessing or a curse is yet to be determined. The fairly young (and inexperienced cast) could mean a fresh take to the novel, or it could mean a complete disregard for the traditional components.

With all this uncertainty, however, I remain completely optimistic. Why? Because it is Andrea Arnold, who has proved to be a great director. After her work with Fish Tank, I have no doubt of her ability to pull out a believable and intense take on Emily Bronte's masterpiece. Yes, we do see a new pull to the modern audience, but so far it seems as though Andrea is trying to balance that by committing to the words of the source material. She went roaming through the streets trying to find the man to play Heathcliff after sifting through countless big name actors and holding open auditions. If James Howson is the man she ended up choosing, then there must be something in him that hundreds of other actors didn't have. Andrea Arnold is a proven artist. I have faith in the fact that she would never allow the adaption of such a beloved novel to be taken lightly.

Bring on the comments!

oh..P.S: I found another picture of James Howson. Grant it, it's not from his role as Heathcliff, but at least it'll help us get more acquainted with his face. From what I've heard, people are arguing that Howson looks a little too "baby-faced" to play the glowering Heathcliff. I think this picture gives me a bit more optimism as too how he might pull off Heathcliff's intensity.

Jane Eyre 1944 Review

2011-07-26T17:56:00.000-07:00

I could never neglect to remember my weekly Jane Eyre post, but this week I was almost tempted to skip it. For a moment I felt as if there was nothing left to say on the subject of Jane Eyre after writing my rankings of the adaptions, comparisons of characters, etc. But luckily, I found an error in my judgment. I'm afraid to admit that when I ranked all my favorite adaptions of the novel as well as the actors that played the characters, there was a slight glitch.

Before I rank or review anything related to a Jane Eyre adaption, I make a point to watch all of them in a close time frame so that I might compare them better. The problem with my last few rankings was this; I had not watched the 1944 version with the rest of them. The 1944 used to be on Youtube, but due to the common copyright problem it was taken off again. After searching through my most trusted "free movie download" sites and not finding it on any of them, I gave up looking for a while and thus ranked the 1944 from my memory of it. That's not the most accurate way to go about things because I hadn't actually watched the 1944 version since last year. I remember that I liked it, but I didn't remember why or how and couldn't remember the details that I found positives and negatives in.

By some strange turn of luck or blessing of fate, I embarked on the journey of searching for the movie once more. This time the search results worked in my favor, and last night I watch the Joan Fontaine/Orson Welles version in its entirety.

If anything, I completely underrated this film in all my previous blog rankings. Watching this movie for the second time, I loved it twice as much. I know that this version has a faithful following, and I completely understand why some people would call this their definitive. When watching such an early black and white adaption of a novel, one has to approach it with a certain amount of skepticism. That time period is not necessarily known for producing adaptions that are particularly true to the source material (Ex: Wuthering Heights 1939 which cut out half the novel, Pride and Prejudice 1940, and Anna Karenina 1934 and 1948). Somehow this Jane Eyre adaptation sets itself apart from the usual overly romanticized and diluted black and white adaptions.

Jane Eyre 1944 stars (as mentioned before) two highly praised and historically significant actors, Joan Fontaine as Jane and Orson Welles as Rochester. We also get the pleasure of seeing a young Elizabeth Taylor as Helen. The movie goes through all the appropriate parts of the novel, shining a rather good light on Jane's time at Lowood and especially drawing attention to the harsh and stingy Mr. Brocklehurst. The little girl that plays young Jane hits the nail straight on the head, exuding a passionate and rather hot-tempered little Jane that matches what I imagined in the novel. I enjoyed seeing the connection between her and Joan. Sometimes in Jane Eyre adaptions the child playing the young Jane and the actress playing the grown one don't translate well together and we forget the fact that they are actually the same person.

As great as it was watching the Lowood scenes and marveling at the skills of a young Lizzy Taylor, the adaption really begins to shine when Orson Welles comes galloping through the mist. Welles makes a suitably intimidating, dark, and world-weary Rochester that almost perfectly compliments Joan Fontaine's conflicted Jane.

Fontaine's obvious fault is that she was much too beautiful and glamorous (and old) for the role, but despite that I really liked what she did with the character. In a previous post I remember saying that she played the "damsel in distress" too much, but after seeing the film again I can firmly withdraw that statement. Her Jane is a naturally passionate woman gilded by a timid and unsophisticated exterior. At first, I assumed she was too soft. But after seeing her mutiny against Rochester and say "I am perhaps bewildered sir, but not afraid", it was hard not to acknowledge the spunk that she imbued in the proper places.

Orson Welles was a great Rochester. I can't imagine anyone who physically fit the role more than he did. His dark eyes, ebony locks, and tall stature were all augmented by the black and white cinematography, making him appear to be the perfect man to play the gloomy and intimidating master of Thornfield. Not only that but Welles is convincingly unhandsome. Add a resonant and naturally forceful voice to that mix, and you get the physical essence of Rochester. If any thing, the worst thing you can say about Welles is that his performance easily overpowered Fontaine’s. Before watching the movie, I was fully confident in Welle’s ability to play the brooding and commanding Rochester, but seriously doubted that he would be able to come across as a tender lover. Surprisingly enough, he awed me in some of the gentlest scenes such as after the fire, Jane’s leave of absence, and especially the “leaving scene.”

The leads played well off of each other. You can feel the barbed words in their conversation and see the subliminal kinetic attraction between the two characters. Of course, in a black and white film you’re bound to have a few moments of “cheesy remedial acting” and a few of those moments came, but they also passed very briefly. The only things that I can say were truly bad was “would it be wicked to love me?” and the horrid graphics and over-intensity around “Say, ‘Edward I will marry you.’”

The movie was heartwarming. The director (of course) took the liberty of rearranging and copy/pasting a lot of the elements of the plot, but the movie didn’t suffer too much because of it. Is it the truest to the novel? Of course not. Are these the best performances? Joan’s is most definitely not, but Orson Welles could easily be thrown into the discussion.

I wondered why I enjoyed this version so much, and then it dawned on me that there are a lot of similarities between this and the 2011. Cary Fukunaga (the director of the 2011) admitted he was eager to direct the movie because he had always been a fan of the ’44. You can see the influence that this adaption had on the ‘11. The gothic lighting of Cary Fukunaga’s version is easily reminiscent of the dark cinematography of the 1944. Some of the scenes are even arranged the same way.

Definitely worth a watch, especially if you have a taste for classic film. I couldn’t help but think that the performances, cinematography, and script created a film whose believability and intensity was actually fairly well ahead of its time. It ought to have gotten more attention and is entitled to a larger following than it has.

Comments?

"The Scarlet Letter" Review

2011-07-21T20:35:00.001-07:00

This review is dedicated to my best friend, "Bubblesandsoda." She is a fellow teenage lit lover, though a little less obsessed than I am. Bubbles and I both came into our honors English class and became friends almost instantaneously. We found that we had one binding similar interest, and that interest was reading. However, upon digging deeper I think we both found that "reading" in general was one of the only things we had in common. When it came to what we chose to read, we had completely differing tastes.

My favorite piece of literature was (of course) Jane Eyre. Bubbles' was The Scarlet Letter. What struck us as ironic was the fact that as learned as we were when it came to literature, neither of us had read the other's favorite novel. Jordan had read Wuthering Heights, but for some mysterious reason hadn't stumbled onto Jane Eyre yet. I had always meant to read The Scarlet Letter, but never saw the urgency to buy it when it was right in front of me in the bookstore. With this being discovered, we both decided to take a chance and read the favorite of the other, driven by curiosity, the passion for reading, and (admittedly) to make the other happy.

The Scarlet Letter is probably one of the most renowned novels in the world, right up there with the likes of (yes) Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, and Pride and Prejudice. Only this one is set apart from the others. To speak truthfully, the novel perplexes me because it isn't easily categorized. It combines the language from what seems like the Shakespearian era, the dramatic irony of an Austen novel, and the subliminal gothic elements of a Bronte tale all into one story. The one thing I can say this novel boasts that the others don't is a big emphasis on lust and an unresolved conflict. We also see a lot more of the desolation of social exile.

The novel is set in the Puritan society of colonial Boston, dating around the mid-1600s (which would explain the shakespearian-ness of the language). I think most of us should know the story. Hester Prynne is released from prison with her child in her arms, wearing the infamous "scarlet letter" on the breast of her dress for all to see. The letter is an intricately designed "A", used to symbolize Hester's act of adultery and thus distinguishing her from the other commonplace sinners of her society. Now we come to the details of how Hester landed herself in this predicament.

Apparently Hester was sent ahead by her husband to the Americas. However, he didn't show up behind her so it was assumed that he was lost at sea. During that time, Hester committed adultery (with a presently unidentified man) and gave birth to the child she now holds in her arms. Her sin is only made worse by her refusal to reveal the name of the man with whom she had the affair. The plot knots itself into a tangle as Hester's husband returns, seeking revenge against the man who impregnated his wife while also concealing his own identity.

The mysterious adulterer, meanwhile, is caught between a rock and a hard place (a very hard place). He is the highly admired and well-respected town clergyman, who is supposedly destined for "great things." To the world he appears all that is pure and "God-like", but in the shadows he is just a regular sinner eaten by the guilt he feels for making such a hideous mistake and hanging his lover out to dry. In the end the stories of these three characters all wind around each other. Whether the connection will lead to their victory or doom is for me to know and for you to read.

With a seemingly thrilling plot like that, you'd think that I'd be intoxicated by the book in the same way Bubbles was. But for some reason, upon closing the novel I looked up with crinkled eyebrows and a confused frown. With the combination of Bronte, Austen, and Shakespeare, why wouldn't a lit lover like me be tantalized?

I guess the truth is that though that combination seems like a heaven-sent miracle, I'm not sure that those three completely different styles are capable of coexisting well in one novel. In fact, something about The Scarlet Letter irked me in a similar way to Wuthering Heights. The characters angered me to no end!

You've got an extremely strict and hypocritical society working as the main antagonist, exiling a fellow child of God for a sin that was obviously justifiable. If your husband is lost at sea (which basically renders the assumption that he's dead!), why wouldn't you be allowed to move on and feel free to love who you choose? Grant it, you might want to soften matters by marrying the man before you got to bed with him. Still, it angered me to pain that this so called "Puritan" society allowed a woman to think that she would never see her husband again and then turned around and chastised her for choosing to move on with her life.

Secondly, the man at the center of all this was weak and strikingly hypocritical as well. In novels like Wuthering Heights and (arguably) Jane Eyre, the absence of conscience in the male "hero" is what makes him the villain. In The Scarlet Letter, our leading man allows his conscience to eat at him from the inside, but makes absolutely no effort to confess his sin and stand by the woman he loves (which, in my opinion, is almost as bad as not having a conscience at all). Even then, I'm not sure if it's conscience or just self pity? How can a man torture himself for his transgressions when no one is looking, and yet stand up and preach to a faithful congregation every Sunday?

I could go on forever, but I'll start to close here. Despite all the obvious drawbacks that I found in The Scarlet Letter, I must admit that it was a very good book. However, it's not good for the usual reason. It's good simply because it is one of those immortal works. It's a masterpiece. Symbolism, juxtaposition, and irony are served on a platter to satisfy a lit lover's greatest dream. The discussions and debates that a person could have over this novel are endless. The religious and social motifs present are breathtaking. The problem is that I only appreciated these things after I finished because for most of my reading experience I was too annoyed by everything!

After reading through our "assigned" books, Bubbles and I came to the obvious conclusion that we have two completely different reading styles. She thought Jane Eyre was good, but laughable. I liked The Scarlet Letter, but found it frustrating. I'm sure that neither of us would choose to give the books a second read and I've come to terms with the fact that neither of us will ever fully understand the other's passion for their favorite. But that's the good thing about reading. It never hurts to read something new. The worst that could happen is that you absolutely detest the material. What's great is that it doesn't matter what you're reading; you're guaranteed to close the back cover with a bit more knowledge than you had before opening to the title page.

"Wuthering Heights" Review

2011-07-18T15:14:00.000-07:00

I've read Wuthering Heights before. But with Traxy's "Wuthering Week" and the discussion stemming from my post "Rochester vs. Heathcliff", I was inspired to reread the book (without taking long breaks in between chapters this time).

One might think that reading the book again (and actually endeavoring to pay attention instead of rushing through it to get to the back cover) would bring me to some kind of epiphany. Perhaps I might have an extreme change of heart and realize what so many Wuthering Heights enthusiasts see in the novel. I'm sorry to say that this was not the case.

After closing the purple cover of my Barnes & Noble edition of Wuthering Heights, I felt all the same sentiments I experienced after reading it the first time. I still think it the most depressing and overly melodramatic novel I've ever read, and I have absolutely no idea how anyone could believe that Rochester pales in comparison to Heathcliff. Wuthering Heights is just extremely heavy! It's nowhere near as lengthy as Jane Eyre and yet I felt like it took me three times as long to read. Instead of feeling disappointment at the fact that the book was over, I actually breathed a sigh of relief.

The core characters all had flaws that were so dominant that I could rarely see the good in them at all. Cathy is vain and, in my opinion, weak. I see a woman with no sense of constancy who seeks to make others miserable in order to secure her own happiness. She manipulates Heathcliff and in turn further augments his naturally resentful and devious character. I would have rather seen Cathy resolve to be with Linton and to break all ties with Heathcliff rather than allow both Linton and Heathcliff to struggle for her while she merely allows it to happen.

Heathcliff...where to start? How absolutely evil can a person be? I'm convinced that he had no conscience whatsoever! What man could so easily wreak havoc on the lives of others, even with the "excuse" that he has? He knows no remorse and attempts no apology. Even in Cathy's last moments, neither of them choose to put their selfishness aside. Instead, they're arguing about whose fault it is that she's dying!

I'm convinced that Cathy and Heathcliff's "relationship" can't even be deemed a "relationship." The two are better adversaries than they are lovers. There seem to be no traces of tenderness or regard for one another. But perhaps that's what makes their relationship appealing to so many readers. It's a psychological fact that we are attracted to those who we find similar to us. Therefore, it's only natural that a narcissist is attracted to a narcissist (and yes, I'm convinced that both Cathy and Heathcliff were narcissists).

In conclusion, if you want to read Wuthering Heights, be prepared for a frustrating experience. I must also warn you that if you're reading it as a follow up to Jane Eyre or any other classic Brit romance, don't expect it to show any similitude. The one upside I claim from reading the novel is that now I get to sift through the numerous adaptions again. I like watching the adaptions. They're not as tortuous as the book. Reviews of some of them will probably be coming soon, so be prepared.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye!

2011-07-16T20:58:00.000-07:00

This is going to be a really short post. I just want to give thanks to all my regular visitors and followers who have been so supportive of my writing endeavors in the blogging world. With that being said, I've been rather anxious to start blogging on things besides literature. I love this blog and I love its purpose, and that purpose is to create a place where my lit lovers can read and write on our common interest. Now with this blog beginning to flourish, I've now pretty much learned the ropes to blogging. Therefore, I am now starting a NEW blog. I will still be posting regularly on "Lit Lovers and Corset Laces" as I always have, but I will also be sharing a great deal of things on my new blog.

"Lit Lovers & Corset Laces" is devoted entirely to my interest in English lit. My new blog will encompass a GREAT deal of subjects. As I near the beginning of my junior year in high school, I wish to chronicle my experiences and preserve memories as well as express myself in the best way I know how. That way has always been writing, and so what better way to chronicle my growth than by blogging? For all of you who've enjoyed seeing my write, I fervently urge you to follow my new blog (accessible from my profile). It's the same "Bonnie" and the same satirical writing style, only now instead of expressing my opinions on literature alone, I will be writing life lessons, creating memories, and writing on all aspects of myself instead of only one.

Please check it out. As of now there's only one post, but I hope that you guys will continue to follow and visit me! The link is: http://happynessinhightops.blogspot.com/

Pooh vs. Potter?

2011-07-14T12:22:00.000-07:00

Harry Potter returns tomorrow. But while everyone else is weeping over the last film installment of a worldwide favorite, I'm rejoicing over the appearance of another. What am I speaking of? None other than the most famous bear in the world, Winnie the Pooh! Please don't mistake me. I am an avid Harry Potter fan, but when it comes down to being a teenager without a driver's license and who happens to have a restrictively tight budget, it's almost impossible to part with twenty dollars to watch two movies.

I'm hoping that perhaps I might be able to get away with the illegal method. Both movies are playing on the same night. If the scheduling matches up so that one ends just before the other begins, I'll play the little criminal and pay for one movie and then movie hop to go see the other. If not, I'll have to pick because twenty dollars is a lot of money! Well it's not a LOT, but it's the equivalent of three books and I'd rather have three books that last a life time than two movies that I can only watch once before getting the DVD.

Anyway, with that dilemma coming into play, which should I choose? The obvious answer would be Harry Potter, but I really think that I would rather go see a happy movie that takes me back to my childhood memories than visit a gloomy film, pre-knowledgeable of the fact that all my favorite characters die.

After The Order of the Phoenix, I became convinced that J.K Rowling was trying to torture me. Sirius Black (my favorite) went first, Dumbledore said goodbye shortly after, and in the seventh and by far the most depressing book Lupin, Mad-Eye, Dobby, and Tonks all get wiped out as well (along with other beloved characters). Do I really want to see all those corpses when I have the option of watching a film in which the most depressing thing is helping Eeyore find a tail?

Winnie the Pooh makes a smile come to my lips and a little youthful light return to my eyes. The books provided me with some valuable lessons and gave me guidelines with which to live my life. Does that sound like an exaggeration? Well, it's true! Pooh (though he pictures himself as stupid) is about as wise as they come. You really can't "stay in your corner of the forest waiting for others to come to you", sometimes you have to reach out to them and make friends for yourself. I really am "braver than I believe, stronger than I seem, and smarter than I think!"

It seems like so much has changed since I was the little five-year-old reading Pooh and agreeing with Piglet when he said, "It's hard to be brave when you're only a very small animal." Now I'm sixteen with my sights set on college, soon to fall out of the nest and find the wings to fly. I'm at the place where Christopher Robin was in The House at Pooh Corner where he "came to an end of things, and he was silent, and he sat there looking over the world, just wishing it wouldn't stop."

Sorry Harry! If push comes to shove and I have to choose between you and Pooh, I've got to go with my trusty old pal who taught me the basic morals of life before your source material was even published.

--Bonnie

Bonnie's Jane Eyre Rankings

2011-07-14T00:17:00.000-07:00

I just had a personal "Jane Eyre-a-thon" in which I watched just about every Jane Eyre adaption ever made all day. I've compared Rochesters, compared Janes, analyzed chemistry, talked about and reviewed a few adaptions. Having now compared each and weighed the positives and negatives, I have now officially ranked all the Jane Eyre adaptions according to my personal ("personal" is in italics to emphasize the fact that I know that some of you won't agree with me) opinion.

For any of you haven't seen some (or any) of the adaptions, I hope that this may help serve as a guideline to you, but we must all forge out own opinions when we watch adaptations of novels. I've always stressed in almost every post in which I must compare aspects of an adaption that the success of a film or miniseries wholly depends on your personal image of the novel. With that being said, this ranking is done based on my image. As always, PLEASE comment because even though I am very decided in my opinions, I still always love to hear the rankings of others.

The rankings will go from ten to one with ten being the worst and one being my personal favorite. Each ranking will include a mini (paragraph or two) review. I'll try not to take up too much of your time, but it's hard not to get a bit carried away when speaking (or typing) on a subject as enjoyable as Jane Eyre. So here we go!

10. Jane Eyre 1934 starring Virginia Bruce as Jane, Colin Clive as Rochester.

Oh, goodness! This adaptation was so horrible that it had tears of laughter coming to my eyes. Everything about it just screams "Spoof!" But surprisingly enough, I did genuinely enjoy a few moments when I wasn't laughing myself to death. This version deviated horribly from the novel. Rochester is Adele's "uncle" in this version and there are some other changes that aren't even worth mentioning. Actually, this version as a whole isn't worth mentioning. Everything from the very first scene to Virginia Bruce saying "I've brought your tea Edward" is just horrid. I can't even give it slack for the time period. Grade: F+. The plus sign is only added for a decent effort and a cute Adele.

9. Jane Eyre 1949 starring Mary Sinclair as Jane and Charlton Heston as Rochester

This is only slightly better than the 1934. Actually, that's not true. It's much better but still not very good at all. It was a low budget adaptation made for American TV in the 1940s, so I will cut it SOME slack. The setting made Thornfield seem like an American townhouse rather than an estate and from what I remember, every scene took place in the SAME room. The one upside is that it starred Charlton Heston as Rochester. He wasn't good, but it's Charlton Heston so he automatically counts as an upside. The other upside is that this is the ONLY adaption (from what I recollect) that actually includes Rochester's famous slip up, "Goodnight my--." Grade: D-

8. Jane Eyre 1996 starring Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane and William Hurt as Rochester

For some reason I feel like I'm going to get a lot of heat for ranking this adaptation so low. From what I've seen on the internet, some people actually count this as their definitive Jane Eyre adaption. I don't understand it, but it's all a matter of opinion I guess. For all it's worth, this version really wasn't all that bad. It just wasn't as good as the rest of them. There was a complete lack of chemistry between the two leads, a horrible sense of "blah" from Charlotte Gainsbourg, and a feeling of utter sleepiness from William Hurt.

I'm glad that this version actually paid some heed to the age difference between Jane and Rochester and I also liked some of the blatant symbolism such as "the shadows are just as important as the light" and "the roses had thorns" but it felt like this movie was taken apart and put back together in chunks. And the leaving scene (which I count as one of the most important scenes in the novel) was practically nonexistent! Grade: C-

7. Jane Eyre 1997 starring Samantha Morton as Jane and Ciaran Hinds as Rochester

Once again, not that bad. Just not that good. This adaptation could have ranked so much higher had it not been for Ciaran Hinds who made a horrible Rochester. All I can remember is "scream scream scream." The chemistry was horrible and made even worse by the messiest kiss I've ever seen. There were also enormous details either left out or changed for no apparent reason. All details of Lowood are merely skimmed over. Jane's return to Gateshead isn't actually put in the film at all, it's one of those "I'm leaving" and then cut-to "I'm back!" kind of scenarios. But there were streaks of genius such as when Rochester and Jane watch the sun rise, and even the reunion scene was done solidly. I noticed that Rochester's injuries were done pretty well. I also love how Rochester gives sympathy to his wife in this version. Just a little kiss on the head made him seem like much less of a villain. Grade: C

6. Jane Eyre 1973 starring Sorcha Cusack as Jane and Michael Jayston as Rochester

I only ranked this higher than the '97 because it was the first adaptation to really include all the details of the novel. Details are rather important and can make up for lack of chemistry and acting skill. Sorcha Cusack's Jane had the same facial expression for every emotion! Her eyebrows stayed at the roof of her head for most of the miniseries. Michael Jayston was an "okay" Rochester, but he didn't inhabit the role whatsoever. This adaption made Jane Eyre come off as a "quaint little love story", which it most definitely is NOT! Jane Eyre is supposed to be full of darkness, danger, and passion but this version's cast, music, and setting made everything seem much too happy. There was no sense of torment, no emotionally charged atmosphere evoked by either the set or the actors. Grade: C

5. Jane Eyre 1970 starring Susannah York as Jane and George C. Scott as Rochester

Not bad. I was very forgiving of this adaption for some reason. A lot of details were skipped over and the actors weren't at all who I would pick to play Jane and Rochester, but something about this adaption worked really well. Even though York and Scott weren't necessarily "Jane and Rochester", they had a good on screen chemistry that surpassed that of a lot of other adaptions. The ages of the characters were completely disregarded, St. John is much too nice and very creepy, and the Lowood scenes are breezed over (again) but it was still really good!

I don't understand what it is about this version that had me smiling. It fails in all the small details but when it came to the core of Jane and Rochester's relationship, it delivered. However, its lack of faithfulness to the novel makes it hard to watch sometimes, even with the good chemistry and a few tear-jerking moments. Grade: C

4. Jane Eyre 1944 starring Joan Fontaine as Jane and Orson Welles as Rochester

Are you surprised that I ranked it this high? I know, so am I. But it was good! You really see the true gothic elements of the novel in this movie. Joan Fontaine is much too pretty to be playing Jane, but she was still good. Orson Welles was a very good Rochester. He definitely helped the film a lot because he was the closest to my mental image of the character. He was the first truly intimidating Rochester. They just don't make classics like this movie anymore. Sure, it's got cheesy graphics and melodrama in bundles, but it's still a solid adaption with solid settings, solid actors, and a solid inclusion of some important details from the novel. I also love how this version conducted the big revelation of Mrs. Rochester. It was rather scary! Grade: B-

3. Jane Eyre 1983 starring Zelah Clarke as Jane and Timothy Dalton as Rochester

This is truly the adaption that sticks closest to the book. In fact, it sticks so close that sometimes it seems like there wasn't even any need to write the screenplay because it felt like the actors used the original novel as their only script. The problem with sticking that close is that there is such as thing as too close. Sometimes this adaption just felt like it was too close. But it was still really good! Zelah Clarke (though too old) was a presentable Jane. Timothy Dalton was a great Rochester that actually fit the physical description of the character. The chemistry was lovely (in most areas, not all) and all the details of Jane's childhood and her experiences with St. John were dwelled on with more emphasis than any other adaption.

This version has a very large fan base. A lot of Jane Eyre enthusiasts would deem this adaption their definitive version because of its undying faithfulness to the novel. If you're looking for a cheap way out of reading the book without failing your English test then I would recommend you watch it, even though you could probably read the book faster because this version is very long. But in my personal opinion, faithfulness to the source material is not the only thing to look for in an adaption, and so in a lot of other areas this version fell too short to be my definitive. Grade: B

2. Jane Eyre 2006 starring Ruth Wilson as Jane and Toby Stephens as Rochester

Great adaption! This one has the greatest fan base by far it seems. Details all made it through in tact, gothic elements were definitely present, chemistry between leads was amazing. Ruth Wilson played a really great Jane though she (like the rest of them) was a little too old. Toby Stephens was a lovely Rochester, though not as forceful as I might have liked. You can't deny that the two leads had a great chemistry. I also loved the St. John in this adaption. Something about him was just much more likable than those in previous versions. I warmed up to him much more and he created a better foil for Rochester. Everything about this version was just good. Ruth was a natural and passionate Jane. Toby Stephens was a gloomy and sensual Rochester. I loved the way that this version delves into Rochester's memories. Instead of having Rochester just tell us what he's been through, they show us, which helps fully impress us with the emotions of his past. The flow of the plot moved fast enough to keep me actively engaged without compromising the details from the novel. They even threw in a tweaked gypsy scene! If it's all that good, then why is it only second?

The one thing I just couldn't stand was the lack of faithfulness to the novel when it came to dialogue. It seems like I've said this over and over, but I'll say it again; the script just seemed way too dumbed down! It frustrated me to pain that the screenplay wasn't done better, because if it had been then it probably would have been my definitive version. Oh well. Grade: A

1. Jane Eyre 2011 starring Mia Wasikowska as Jane and Michael Fassbender as Rochester

I can just feel the controversy coming on! Let me just say that deeming this version my favorite was a very tough decision. I can't tell you how close I was to just declaring it a tie between this and the '06. Let me tell you what finally gave the '11 the edge, though. I think that out of all the adaptions ever made, this one did the best job of taking the essence of the novel and translating it to a screen. No, it was not completely faithful like the 1983 when it came to small detail, but I don't necessarily think that every detail of the novel should be put in an adaption. No, it didn't dwell on some things as much as the 2006. But when it comes down to it, this version had the best adapted script, paid the most attention to the gothic details, and arguably had the best portrayal of the characters.
I felt the pain of Jane's childhood without having to spend an hour on it. I could feel the heat of the passion between the two leads through the screen. I got a great picture of Jane's life with St. John and his contrast to Rochester through the use of flashback. Mia Wasikowska was a young, acute, and understanding Jane. Michael Fassbender was a sardonic, probing, and passionate Rochester. The costumes were spot-on. The dark cinematography nailed the feel of the novel. All the essential elements of the novel were compressed without being chunked and translated without being lost. Everything was done well. Is it my definitive? No. None of the adaptions are. Grade: A

I feel some comments coming on!!

Hollywood's Newest Obsession: Corset Cinema

2011-07-12T21:42:00.000-07:00

I've just been full of posts lately, haven't I? But I can't help it! I've come to the solid conclusion that the movie industry is really trying to make me die of happiness. Look at this line up from the eyes of Bonnie:

1. Jane Eyre DVD is slowly making its way around the corner.
2. Wuthering Heights is soon to be released, so I hear. The set date for the UK is late September, so I imagine that it shouldn't be that much later for America unless they decide to pull a "Jane Eyre 2011" on us in reverse order and make the Americans pine for the film while the lucky Brits watch their DVDs.
3. The appearance of both Winnie the Pooh and Harry Potter in theaters on Friday. The latter I'm approaching with a certain amount of skepticism, but Winnie the Pooh was a childhood favorite of mine and my sixteen-year-old butt will be rushing to the theater near me to see it.
4. A Dangerous Method is set to be released in early 2012 near the awards season. It is considerably far away, but still enough cause for excitement.
5. Anna Karenina. Keira Knightley. Jude Law. Need I say more?

And now...the trailer for the Sherlock Holmes sequel has been released. I know what you're going to say. The film installment completely disregards all aspects of the source material except for the name. Still, I loved the bad-boy edge given to the film. It combined Sherlock's eccentric intelligence with a proportionate amount of action sequence, a little touch of romance, and a large dose of sex appeal. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are both in my top ten Movie Star crushes. Yes, I do keep a list.

All the same, I'm a bit skeptical of the sequel. The word "sequel" automatically sends a slight shiver up my spine because they have a notorious tendency to fail miserably. The first Sherlock got great reviews and picked up a new generation of followers. Now I have a feeling that filmmakers will overwhelm themselves trying to usher to this new generation and the film will end up missing all the qualities that made the first one good.

But it's got Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law in it, so I'm going to be excited anyway.
Comments, anyone?

Rochester vs. Heathcliff

2011-07-12T10:13:00.000-07:00

It is tuesday, and my love for the novel makes it imperative for me to write a Jane Eyre related post. It just so happens that just this morning I was conveniently arguing with another lit lover in a very heated discussion. I remember back when I was thirteen (oh yes, three years ago seems like a huge amount of time when you're a teenager) I picked up Jane Eyre on a cozy winter night about two days before Christmas. While the rest of my family sat at the coffee table and played an exciting game of Taboo, I nuzzled myself into a corner and resumed my avid reading of the novel. My sister-in-law came over to me and smiled.

"What do you think of the book?" she asked me. By this time I was already past most of the book and in the middle of St. John's proposal, so I was safely assured of my feelings.

"I absolutely LOVE it!" I exclaimed. She laughed and clicked her tongue at me, which led me to inquire what exactly she found unsuitable about Jane Eyre.

"Most readers either like Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights," she explained. "I could never take Rochester over Heathcliff."

I remember those words still. At that time I hadn't read Wuthering Heights yet. I did on future occasion, however, and after closing the back cover I understood perfectly what she had said. There's something combative about Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre that makes it almost impossible for anyone to like them both equally. After coming to this realization, I was quickly exposed to the results. It seemed like everywhere I turned there was some type of debate between readers arguing in favor of either Emily Bronte's masterpiece or Charlotte Bronte's impeccable tale. Which one was more popular? Which heroine was the stronger? But the most reoccurring question was who is the better male hero; Rochester or Heathcliff.

My answer:

Can you really choose either? Asking the question of "who is the better male literary hero" and then mentioning those two names is so contradictory that it's almost paradoxical. Who in their right mind would really define Heathcliff and Rochester as heros? In truth, they could much more easily be categorized as villains. One is an adulterer who attempts to commit bigamy and lead an innocent teenager into a life of sin, the other is a manipulative and resentful rake whose only goal in life is to seek vengeance against those who misused him and torture the woman that loved him. BOTH are intensely gloomy and vicious characters with shady pasts and violent tempers. What good do we actually find in Rochester and Heathcliff besides the intense passion they have for their lovers? And even that eventually leads them to their "demise."

Who is the more resentful of the two? Heathcliff, without a doubt. Who is more manipulative? Arguably, Rochester. I've come to the conclusion that when people ask "who is the better male literary hero", they're really asking who is the more passionate of the two, and THAT is the question that sparks debate.

Of course, as the Jane Eyre lover that I am I would be remiss not to argue in favor of Rochester. How can you get much more passionate than the man who is so in love with a woman that he would risk losing his soul and going to hell just to be with her in life? You can't argue the passion of a man who says, "You are my sympathy--my better self--my good angel. I am bound to you with a strong attachment. I think you good, gifted, lovely: a fervent, a solemn passion is conceived in my heart; it leans to you, draws you to my centre and spring of life, wraps my existence about you, and, kindling in pure, powerful flame, fuses you and me in one."

But Heathcliff lovers would say otherwise. They would argue that Rochester's attempt at bigamy would show a weakness of character, a lack of forethought. They exclaim that Rochester had only known Jane for months whereas Cathy and Heathcliff had been in love since they were mere children. They say you can't dispute the ardor of a man who asks his lover to haunt him so that he might never be without her. All are good arguments.

So on which side do you stand? And in reality, is there really any way you can choose between two similar but yet completely different characters? Is there some unwritten code that deems one more "passionate" than the other, when even the word "passion" is subject to opinion? Who knows? But for now I stick with Team Rochester!