![]() Perhaps to other viewers he did, but as I have watched the 1983 version first, his Mr. ![]() Rochester really was interested in attaining Jane’s love. Michael Fassbender’s monotonous way of speaking sometimes made me question whether Mr. But as for the rest, they didn’t really seem to belong in the classic. I thought Mia Wasikowska was great as the titular protagonist – her performance was moving and I could see her as Jane. But combined altogether, they drastically alter the story from its original.ĭespite the fact that the cast is an ensemble of extremely talented, renowned actors, including Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, and Sally Hawkins, it didn’t feel like that of Jane Eyre. And in the film, Jane doesn’t suspect Grace Poole for the creepy laughing or for the subsequent incidents that occur since Grace Poole doesn’t really come out until the day the secret is revealed on the wedding day. Rochester about her relatives in the beginning while in the novel she doesn’t initially. Other details were changed as well, such as how Jane tells Mr. ![]() Even though the film approaches the plot in such a fresh way, I personally disliked how many details in the movie were altered from their actual source: Miss Temple was erased from the story, I believe, along with Miss Oliver (one could say she was mentioned in an obscure sort of way), and other characters I could not recognize, such as Mary Rivers. It was also interesting to see the film start with Jane running away from Thornfield and going back in time to show her as a little child at Gateshead Hall, her time at Lowood with Helen Burns, and her stay at Thornfield, including the fateful wedding day. Jane Eyre (2011) and Pride and Prejudice (2005) are both masterpieces in terms of aesthetics.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |