Worst adaptation I've ever seen!
Pure crap.
shareThat was helpful.
Would you care to tell us why?
- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?
MovieChat Forums > Jane Eyre (2011) Discussion > Worst adaptation I've ever seen!
Not only why, but which other versions you saw?
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Please, forgive my English mistakes!
Don't feed the troll.
Challah if you hear me
True troll trollop. Given there's at least 9 screen versions of Jane Eyre not counting, I guess, some silent versions, it makes me wonder what others the OP has seen. To me, Mia is the best Jane I've seen, followed closely by Samantha Morton. After that, it's kind of a wash with each having their strengths and weaknesses.
shareYou need to see the BBC television version with Toby Stephens & Ruth Wilson.
Wilson is the best Jane I've seen & it's a fantastic adaptation. Although the Sam Morton one was pretty fantastic too.
This version was very rushed & a lot of the build up to their relationship missed out, but the performance by Michael really touched me. Not sure about Mia's performance, a bit flat for me.
You go with whatever works for you, I suppose. For me, these words by Time Magazine's film critic Richard Corliss says it pretty well (writing about his favorite performances of the year)...
"Mia Wasikowska for Jane Eyre
by Richard Corliss
Charlotte Brontë's heroine, a tough, sensitive soul lashed by grim fate and the torrid moor winds, has been played in movies by Joan Fontaine, Susannah York, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Samantha Morton. But never has an actress shown Mia Wasikowska's composure to face both icy adversity and fiery romance (in the person of Michael Fassbender's Rochester). Offscreen, this 22-year-old Australian, who made a powerful impression as a suicidal teen gymnast in Season 1 of HBO's In Treatment and as a deadpan dreamer in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, is a friendly sort in a blond pixie cut who could pass for Michelle Williams' kid sister. But when in character, she becomes a mirror into a rich interior world. Her Jane betrays neither glumness nor self-pity; she observes even Rochester, whom she secretly loves, with the poised intelligence of an extraterrestrial visitor. This illuminating stillness is a gift shared by few English-speaking actresses. Her mentor might be the French star Isabelle Huppert, high mistress of revealing a soul without making faces. Hollywood will do itself a favor if it writes new stories on her blank-slate face; if it finds the strength and mystery in Wasikowska that Rochester did in Jane."
I must beg to differ.
I couldn't stand Samantha Morton or her version of the story. Too much of the story was cut out and Morton's Jane didn't have the spine that Bronte's Jane does.
While I do like the 2006 version, the 1983 version's been my favorite for 30 years and nothing has yet managed to topple it.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
I didn't feel like there was any chemistry between them, and although Jane had a sorrowful life, she seems depressed through the whole movie. I prefer the Toby Stevens version, that Jane seemed more upbeat and pleasant. I even like the William Hurt version more than this. It also seems like it's missing some dialogue and is rushed.
Maybe I need to watch it a second time.
God loves you as if you were the only person on this earth.
The Jane in the 2006 version WAS more upbeat - the 2011 Jane, and overall approach, is much more gothic. Very different in style, obviously - Toby Stevens was also a very different Rochester than Michael Fassbender's. We all must go with what are tastes dictate. You don't need to watch the 2011 a second time, but, who knows, if you get on it's wavelength you might enjoy it. I'm prejudiced, because it's the version I like best and Fassbender and Wasikowska are my two favorite contemporary actors - I always check out what they do - this is in big part because of my reaction to "Jane Eyre". They've come close to doing another film together - not Jane Eyre 2 (of course) - something totally different.
shareI forgot to mention that I have not read the book yet. Maybe Mia's portrayal was similar to the book character's personality. If that is indeed the case, then I withdraw my criticism.
I just love the 2006 version, it made me fall in love with the story.
God loves you as if you were the only person on this earth.
I can't help but agree. It was more focused on "oh look at them walking with feeeeeling in the scenic landscape" rather than putting in much of a story. I rolled my eyes when we got to the third or fourth wide shot of that.
share"Style over substance" is, I think, the best way to describe it. Visually, 2011 is a feast.
- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?
You agree, but how many versions have you seen?
shareWith the exception of the pretty scenery, and the stunning photography of some of the interiors of Haddon hall, I do not like this version at all.
II thought that Mia Wasikowska threw herself into the part of Jane Eyre with conviction, but without any understanding whatsoever of the difference between a genteel CofE clergyman's daughter who finds herself woking as a governess in the early 19th century, and a belligerent 21st century working-class girl who feels that someone is "dissing" her.
As for Michael Fassbender, he was so wooden that he scarcely moved his jaw, and moved as if he had a poker up his backside.
I did not notice the tiniest spark between them. He was nasty and a cad and she was sulky, resentful and uninspired. Whatismore, the sullen way she treated poor Adelle should have got her dismissed!
One very valuable aspect of the Jane Eyre story was omitted entirely. This was her relationship with the dear good committed teacher who loved the children, and taught Jane how a human could indeed rise above the most difficult and degrading circumstances.
"great minds think differently"
As for Michael Fassbender, he was so wooden that he scarcely moved his jaw, and moved as if he had a poker up his backside.
I did not notice the tiniest spark between them. He was nasty and a cad and she was sulky, resentful and uninspired.
That was pretty much my impression too. I haven't read the book, so I guess I didn't get why he was being such a dick, what with flirting with the other women, threatening her, lying, saying mean tings about Adele and generally acting like a cold SOB.
I know many people would say, just read the book, but shouldn't a movie be able to stand on it's own as an enjoyable story?
share
[deleted]
As for Michael Fassbender, he was so wooden that he scarcely moved his jaw, and moved as if he had a poker up his backside.
Wow, really? I think he is the best Rochester so far, not overacting (Hinds) or "underacting" (Hurt). He scarcely moved his jaw? Did you want him to make faces like some other actors who make people believe Rochester is on the verge of madness? Fassbender may not need to move his jaw to make me believe in what he says, he expresses himself so very perfectly.
One very valuable aspect of the Jane Eyre story was omitted entirely. This was her relationship with the dear good committed teacher who loved the children, and taught Jane how a human could indeed rise above the most difficult and degrading circumstances.
I love that relationship too. I feel very sorry that cinematic versions have to expose so little of Jane's childhood. TV series often show more of her childhood friends and enemies. That part of the book was based on Charlotte Brontë's real childhood, Helen being based on her older sister Maria.
I do not remember Miss Temple being shown very well in any adaptation. Briefly in the Zeffirelli's movie, I remember, but what about the other adaptations? I do not remember, to be honest. In terms of best childhood part I think that the Zeffirelli's movie was one of the best, though I adore the 2011 film brief parts too, loved that Jane, and Helen.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Please, forgive my English mistakes! share
Wow....Jeez how long have I been away from the site?! Came back to give my two cents as I love JE and own three versions, saw this for the first time last night and I have to say it's very condensed. They did almost all of the courtyard scene right except for a few - VERY - important absentees
'Jane you rare, you unearthly thing' RARE? This is the biggest line of the whole book and they use 'rare'. Not happy. Where was Rochester's warning to the heavens?
Jamie Bell did good as Rivers, was haughty and aloof as he is in the book. The whole drama of Mason was very rushed - in fact that guy was FAR too young to play Mason - The conversation after was rather sweet, Rochester was always secretive up to the proposal but Fassbender's Rochester goes all honest in his love for Jane.
But where was the banter at the end? It was short and abrupt and without warning the film ended.
Overall it was a decent effort, a lot of things missing. Fassbender was rather sensitive as Rochester. But the courtyard scene should always make or break a Jane Eyre film....It was okay-ish
'Meet the new boss...Same as the old Boss'
Just curious, what are you referring to by "the courtyard scene"? I don't remember any significant scene from the book that takes place in a courtyard...
share[deleted]
The scene where they separate after returning to the house after the proposal and the tree-splitting????
share
Yes, I call it the courtyard scene cos they are outside but within the gardens/courtyard of Thornfield - Okay so this version really was outside but before that Alfa. When Rochester declares himself to Jane, in my mind this scene is the most important and I don't like it rushed or messed about with.
Also this Jane didn't stick up for Adele which annoyed me, Fassbender was great as he showed how curt Rochester could really be. The ending is growing on me as short as it is. That anguished sigh at the end indicating Rochester's nightmare being over that was lovely
'Meet the new boss...Same as the old Boss'
Also this Jane didn't stick up for Adele which annoyed me
Uh, sorry, why do you think that? I think their interaction is marvelous.
I like the ending too. It is perfect for this adaptation because it begins with her going away and leaving him alone with madness - literally, and it ends with her "waking him up", finally returning.
I think some people can not understand how different Jane is at the end because the story is told with flashbacks and they are used to the old structure.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Please, forgive my English mistakes! share
[deleted]
[deleted]
I disagree. I think the one with William Hurt playing Rochester was the worst. Perhaps because I am not a William Hurt fan.
I liked this movie a lot. Of course, there is a lot I don't like about it. I think they cut some corners with some very important stuff, particularly the end. There was so much left out of the ending that I felt cheated.
I still think Michael Fassbender is one of the best Rochesters I have seen, and I have seen a ton of versions of Jane Eyre.
I loved the version with Timothy Dalton, and while I loved his acting in it, I did take some issue with how gorgeous he was. It made Zelah Clarke look even plainer.
I thought Orson Wells was too over the top and the version with Toby Stephens as Rochester was too lighthearted, if not sweet.
All in all, I loved Michael Fassbender as Rochester, it's the first time I have ever found the character sexy and sad all at the same time. And with some exceptions to the script, I found the movie enjoyable.
I still think, however, the Timothy Dalton version was the best. Even if he was too good looking.
I still think, however, the Timothy Dalton version was the best. Even if he was too good looking.
Perhaps because it is the most complete version, longer, with every aspect of the book presented? Pity it is so dated, I like that version a lot too. Well, 1973 is dated too and it has its moments, but I hate its Jane, love Jayston as Rochester.
William Hurt was miscast, he should never had agreed to play the part in that movie. Excellent actor and there are some moments in the '96 movie in which he does sound like Rochester, but it is not enough. Stephens is the worst Rochester to me, he tried too hard and it did not work - also miscast, and the way they tried to disguise the fact that he is handsome made it a complete disaster, in my opinion.
I like that there are tons of versions for us to choose. The book, though, is always better, otherwise it would not be a classic.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Please, forgive my English mistakes! share
This dry desertous waste of nothing is on my screen now andthe only thing that's good about it is the way it looks. Shocked to see this movie has a 7.3. Really? Most people who voted must have only seen this version or the other crappy movie version.
II Timothy 2:15
This dry desertous waste of nothing
Come on, Jazzie, you don't get away that lightly! You can't post something so contentious and then run! Be specific. (You never know, some of us may agree with you. )
Who knows where the time goes? share
[deleted]
Okay, okay, I concede. I will explain or at least try. :p
First off the casting is just all types of wrong. They seem to have taken the fact that Rochester and Jane are plain to whole new levels. Yes, they were plain in looks but they were never plain in personality. Jane is willful and a bit of a spitfire. She's very intuitive and poised, she is not a silly flirtatious girl like the woman that Rochester tried to make her jealous with. In this film she comes across weak-willed, scary, and easily intimidated. There was no trace of that quick-witted spit fire personality that she is supposed to possess.
Rochester (the worst casting, IMHO) had no personality to speak of which was the greatest tragedy of this film. Rochester's personality is larger than life. He is charismatic, vivacious, and above all charming, if not a bit brusque and barbaric. The aforementioned are his character traits and the actor cast in this role showed none of that. He was very wooden and appeared to not have a personality at all. The scene where Jane informs him that she has to visit her dying aunt because of the death of her cousin really showed how much this film failed. That scene should have shown the romantic spark and banter between them as well as the comedy.
Now, going in I didn't expect much but it was worse than I thought it would be. I never expect a movie to truly capture a novel like Jane Eyre because they simply do not have enough time to do so but with what they do show I expect it to be done with a little care. It seemed, to me, that whoever directed it had never read Jane Eyre before or really understood the source material at all.
II Timothy 2:15
Thanks for returning. It's so much better to bolster our complaints with well-considered reasons.
I have to agree that neither Mia nor Michael captured all the facets of the characters of the book. I think this is down to misinterpretation by either the actors or the director, who chose to swathe everything in grimness and misery.
The scene you choose to illustrate your point - where Jane informs Rochester that she is visiting Aunt Reed - is a perfect example of this adaptation's flawed vision. Here's a comparison of this scene in three other versions:
1973: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqH0XudPbP4
1983: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HEpc4hAFbU&feature=relmfu
2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UUeotTS4pY&feature=relmfu
Admittedly these were all made for TV with more time to spare, but they all - in their own way - capture the wit and sparkle of the scene in the book. The corresponding scene in 2011 is as dry as dust.
I was impressed by how much 2011 managed to fit in to two hours - it did far better than either 1944 or 1996. But the relationship between the two leads could have been developed better - 1997 managed to do so in two hours (although I have many problems with THAT version). Maybe another twenty minutes or so would have made a world of difference, or maybe not.
Do you have a favourite version, Jazzie? Or do you think Jane Eyre is unfilmable?
Who knows where the time goes?
My favorite is the 1983 version, although the actors weren't as plain as they could've been their acting is spot on. It's the one I grew up with as my mother was a huge fan of the story. I haven't finished the '73 version but what I've seen so far was good. Didn't know they had a 2006 version.
Admittedly, I don't think it's filmable, at least, not by Hollywood's standards. They always seem to cut out the most necessary parts and keep or add things that could've been chopped. Unless it's a film that they dedicate more than 2 hours to I think they should just leave it alone. Only the TV versions have time to actually tell the story.
II Timothy 2:15
Many people complain about the acting in the 1983 version, especially Zelah as Jane, but I understand why you think her acting is perfect - and I think the leads were not physically fit for the parts. The problem is that Jane Eyre has an introverted personality and we, as readers, only know her well because we get to be "inside" her head, reading every feeling, idea, etc. When they try to make Jane expose her feelings she comes out "out of character" (my problem with many versions, especially 2006).
It is a very difficult story to tell, and difficult characters to perform, imho. What a two-hour movie has to do is to try to get the atmosphere that the book delivers. I love this new version because it brought to me, visually, the feeling I had when I read the book for the first time. Of course over the years whenever I re-read the book I knew what was going to happen but overall the first time I read it I got that feeling of loneliness that the movie transmits.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Please, forgive my English mistakes!
[deleted]
Hi Taylorje,
Umm Umm, not entire crap, but where the Director/Producer was coming from , I
can't tell.
These full length feature films struggle to compete with a mini-series.As far as I know there's been 4 mini-series.
1963 with Richard Leech and Ann Bell @ 180 minutes
1973 with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack@ 247 mins
1983 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke @ 312 minutes
2006 with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson @ 232 minutes
Then in 2011 we are treated to a new feature film @ 115 minutes.
If Cary Joji had less conceit and a little more humility he should have realised that there was no way of improving on the mini-series.
Dear taylorje,have you watched the deleted scenes ? One can see why some of them were deleted, I mean, a resurrected Helen ? One or two of these scenes actually should have been kept , if only to explain some of the actions of Mr Roch.
I have only watched this version 4x since early October because of Fassbender, I quite like him as an actor, but Mia Wassaname, how dead pan can you be and manage to get away with it.
Their attempts at a slight Northern accent I did like: a first, as far as I can tell.
Go tell the Spartans, passerby,
That here, obedient to their laws,
We lie
[deleted]
I found it boring
share