![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jane Eyre, again. And Lavinia.
Dec. 4th, 2012 09:06 amI don't know how many big-screen and tv adaptations of Jane Eyre I've already seen, and I'm not even sure how many I've got at home. In any case, since the newest (I think) cinematic version, starring Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikovska, was on sale at Amazon, I ordered it.
I'd loved Wasikovska's acting in "In Treatment", where she played the suicidal gymnast Sophie in the first series. Not sure how old she was by then... OK, I just checked. She was 19, playing a 16-year-old, and she was stunningly brilliant. So I was sort of curious to see her as Jane Eyre.
To make a long story short, the film was a disappointment -- discussion and diverging opinions always welcome of course.
I think it was mostly the script writers' fault. While starting with Jane running away from Thornfield and showing her childhood and the events preceding her flight as flashbacks isn't per se a bad idea, it does have certain drawbacks: 1) loooong flashbacks are, IMO, a bit contrived, unless done very, very skilfully. 2) The problem with structuring this particular script around Jane's flight is that you have to show about two thirds of the plot as flashback, and those are really the most important bits, but by flashbacking them you sort of diminish their value. (Again, unless you really know how to do it)
The cardinal and unforgiveable mistake, though, was one usually made by not-so-good writers, namely thinking that the reader, or in this case, spectator, knows as much as you do. I readily admit that a lot of people know "Jane Eyre", if maybe only from other films and tv series, but that doesn't in any way diminish the screen writers' responsibility of adapting the whole book in a way that even somebody completely unfamiliar with the plot and original work will understand it. And there, they failed quite spectacularly.
It's difficult to put oneself in the position of the "uninitiated spectator", but even though I certainly didn't manage it completely, I succeeded sufficiently well to dismiss the script as pretty much insufficient. From the snippets of Jane's childhood, it is almost impossible to forge a link to the person she is as an adult. From the snippets of her relationship with Rochester, it is inconceivable how they could possibly have fallen in love and why on earth he would have decided to marry her.
I would have to watch it again -- which I'm somehow reluctant to do -- to get a clearer idea of the quality of the acting. I'd say it was nothing extraordinary, and the bad quality of the script certainly didn't help. Plus, there was zero chemistry between Jane and Rochester. Absolutely zero. Even Judi Dench seemed somehow pale and diminished. So there's probably the director, too, to be blamed.
I have to say, though, that Fassbender would be my ideal Sirius Black. (I adore Oldman, just not as Sirius)
While in Vienna, I did of course buy a few books, among them Ursula LeGuin's "Lavinia". I'd previously only read her Earth Sea Trilogy, which is one of my all time favourite books, but have to say that "Lavinia" is a beautifully written story. It's always intriguing to see an author take an episode/character of negligible importance from a timeless, great work of literature and build a story from such scant material; it's even better to see how this new oeuvre fits seamlessly into the original work.
Lavinia is the daughter of King Latinus, whom Aeneas marries (and has a son with) after arriving in Italy and recognizing that this is his final destination. While ample room is given to the description of the various battles Aeneas and his Trojans have to fight in order to settle in Italy, Lavinia herself is a mere two-dimensional, barely-mentioned "royal virgin".
LeGuin narrates beautifully -- and with excellent knowledge of the historical background (is she a classics scholar?) -- how Lavinia, who lived many hundreds of years before Virgil, encounters the dying poet's shadow in the holy forest of Albunea, how he recognizes his error in not giving her more space in his epic, and how he tells her about what's going to happen to her in the near future, i.e. not marrying her cousin Turnus but the foreigner Aeneas. What Virgil has (fore)told does indeed come to pass, and the whole free will vs. predetermination theme is very well handled.
I haven't yet finished the book but will soon. I'm curious to see how it ends.
Oh, and: SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! EXCHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE!!!!
I'd loved Wasikovska's acting in "In Treatment", where she played the suicidal gymnast Sophie in the first series. Not sure how old she was by then... OK, I just checked. She was 19, playing a 16-year-old, and she was stunningly brilliant. So I was sort of curious to see her as Jane Eyre.
To make a long story short, the film was a disappointment -- discussion and diverging opinions always welcome of course.
I think it was mostly the script writers' fault. While starting with Jane running away from Thornfield and showing her childhood and the events preceding her flight as flashbacks isn't per se a bad idea, it does have certain drawbacks: 1) loooong flashbacks are, IMO, a bit contrived, unless done very, very skilfully. 2) The problem with structuring this particular script around Jane's flight is that you have to show about two thirds of the plot as flashback, and those are really the most important bits, but by flashbacking them you sort of diminish their value. (Again, unless you really know how to do it)
The cardinal and unforgiveable mistake, though, was one usually made by not-so-good writers, namely thinking that the reader, or in this case, spectator, knows as much as you do. I readily admit that a lot of people know "Jane Eyre", if maybe only from other films and tv series, but that doesn't in any way diminish the screen writers' responsibility of adapting the whole book in a way that even somebody completely unfamiliar with the plot and original work will understand it. And there, they failed quite spectacularly.
It's difficult to put oneself in the position of the "uninitiated spectator", but even though I certainly didn't manage it completely, I succeeded sufficiently well to dismiss the script as pretty much insufficient. From the snippets of Jane's childhood, it is almost impossible to forge a link to the person she is as an adult. From the snippets of her relationship with Rochester, it is inconceivable how they could possibly have fallen in love and why on earth he would have decided to marry her.
I would have to watch it again -- which I'm somehow reluctant to do -- to get a clearer idea of the quality of the acting. I'd say it was nothing extraordinary, and the bad quality of the script certainly didn't help. Plus, there was zero chemistry between Jane and Rochester. Absolutely zero. Even Judi Dench seemed somehow pale and diminished. So there's probably the director, too, to be blamed.
I have to say, though, that Fassbender would be my ideal Sirius Black. (I adore Oldman, just not as Sirius)
While in Vienna, I did of course buy a few books, among them Ursula LeGuin's "Lavinia". I'd previously only read her Earth Sea Trilogy, which is one of my all time favourite books, but have to say that "Lavinia" is a beautifully written story. It's always intriguing to see an author take an episode/character of negligible importance from a timeless, great work of literature and build a story from such scant material; it's even better to see how this new oeuvre fits seamlessly into the original work.
Lavinia is the daughter of King Latinus, whom Aeneas marries (and has a son with) after arriving in Italy and recognizing that this is his final destination. While ample room is given to the description of the various battles Aeneas and his Trojans have to fight in order to settle in Italy, Lavinia herself is a mere two-dimensional, barely-mentioned "royal virgin".
LeGuin narrates beautifully -- and with excellent knowledge of the historical background (is she a classics scholar?) -- how Lavinia, who lived many hundreds of years before Virgil, encounters the dying poet's shadow in the holy forest of Albunea, how he recognizes his error in not giving her more space in his epic, and how he tells her about what's going to happen to her in the near future, i.e. not marrying her cousin Turnus but the foreigner Aeneas. What Virgil has (fore)told does indeed come to pass, and the whole free will vs. predetermination theme is very well handled.
I haven't yet finished the book but will soon. I'm curious to see how it ends.
Oh, and: SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! EXCHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE!!!!
