![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinI am hip and with it and have just seen the most recent film adaptation of Jane Eyre.
Now, I am really intimately familiar with the story of Jane Eyre, thanks to being in a stage production when I was young, and going to see revivals of that production in the years afterwards. As a result, I didn't have to expend much brainpower on following the plot, and was free to think about things like:
- They clearly had a short window for filming exterior shots at 'Thornfield' because no matter what time of year it's supposed to be, it looks like late March
- Jamie Bell and Lee Ingleby should star in a movie about the Doleful Muttonchop Brothers (I'd go see it)
- Is that supposed to be a chestnut tree? Also that wide shot is totally CG. Very funny.
- Where have I seen that actor before? (I'd say this took about 50% of my brainpower; I was wrong nearly every time)
Anyway, it was beautifully shot, which is really all I signed up for, but the acting left something to be desired. This may have something to do with the director starting his career in cinematography. It wasn't bad acting, it was just ... the characters never seemed really 'present' in a scene. They always seemed to be off somewhere else, mentally, but not in a way that gave depth to the character, more in a way that made them look like they were on drugs. Occasionally there would be flashes of intensity, but then the drugs would kick in and they'd be back to staring into the middle distance and maybe weeping softly. This was especially aggravating in Rochester, who's supposed to be particularly volatile – the scene in which this is most effectively illustrated happens all off-screen. The rest of the time, with the notable exception of Jamie Bell as St John Rivers, everyone's in a half-stupor, apparently so awash in their own emotional soup that they are disconnected from each other and the world around them.
I don't know if I would mind this all so much normally, only I know the story has such potential for really juicy melodrama. For that matter, it has a lot of potential for thrills and chills as well, and I seem to have gotten the impression that this production was going to play up the horror aspect of it, but it most certainly did not. Why even have a crazy wife in your attic if you aren't going to use her? For that matter, why cast Grand Dame of Radio Comedy Rosie Cavaliero as Grace Poole (huge potential for entertainment with her loutish drunken ways) if she only appears in literally two shots? I wonder what awesome performance was left on the cutting room floor ...
Speaking of casting, what has become arguably my favourite thing about the movie I only discovered while watching the credits. I could not take my eyes off Richard Mason whenever he was onscreen; there was something about his [extremely limited] performance that transfixed me, like a cat watching a bird. Upon learning who played him, I realised this was not a coincidence, as it had happened before:
Now, I am really intimately familiar with the story of Jane Eyre, thanks to being in a stage production when I was young, and going to see revivals of that production in the years afterwards. As a result, I didn't have to expend much brainpower on following the plot, and was free to think about things like:
- They clearly had a short window for filming exterior shots at 'Thornfield' because no matter what time of year it's supposed to be, it looks like late March
- Jamie Bell and Lee Ingleby should star in a movie about the Doleful Muttonchop Brothers (I'd go see it)
- Is that supposed to be a chestnut tree? Also that wide shot is totally CG. Very funny.
- Where have I seen that actor before? (I'd say this took about 50% of my brainpower; I was wrong nearly every time)
Anyway, it was beautifully shot, which is really all I signed up for, but the acting left something to be desired. This may have something to do with the director starting his career in cinematography. It wasn't bad acting, it was just ... the characters never seemed really 'present' in a scene. They always seemed to be off somewhere else, mentally, but not in a way that gave depth to the character, more in a way that made them look like they were on drugs. Occasionally there would be flashes of intensity, but then the drugs would kick in and they'd be back to staring into the middle distance and maybe weeping softly. This was especially aggravating in Rochester, who's supposed to be particularly volatile – the scene in which this is most effectively illustrated happens all off-screen. The rest of the time, with the notable exception of Jamie Bell as St John Rivers, everyone's in a half-stupor, apparently so awash in their own emotional soup that they are disconnected from each other and the world around them.
I don't know if I would mind this all so much normally, only I know the story has such potential for really juicy melodrama. For that matter, it has a lot of potential for thrills and chills as well, and I seem to have gotten the impression that this production was going to play up the horror aspect of it, but it most certainly did not. Why even have a crazy wife in your attic if you aren't going to use her? For that matter, why cast Grand Dame of Radio Comedy Rosie Cavaliero as Grace Poole (huge potential for entertainment with her loutish drunken ways) if she only appears in literally two shots? I wonder what awesome performance was left on the cutting room floor ...
Speaking of casting, what has become arguably my favourite thing about the movie I only discovered while watching the credits. I could not take my eyes off Richard Mason whenever he was onscreen; there was something about his [extremely limited] performance that transfixed me, like a cat watching a bird. Upon learning who played him, I realised this was not a coincidence, as it had happened before:
