Jane Eyre

Plot synopsis:
=== Introduction ===
The novel is a first-person narrative from the perspective of the title character. The novel's setting is somewhere in the north of England, late in the reign of George III (1760–1820). It goes through five distinct stages: Jane's childhood at Gateshead Hall, where she is emotionally and physically abused by her aunt and cousins; her education at Lowood School, where she gains friends and role models but suffers privations and oppression; her time as governess at Thornfield Hall, where she falls in love with her Byronic employer, Edward Rochester; her time with the Rivers family, during which her earnest but cold clergyman cousin, St. John Rivers, proposes to her; and her reunion with, and marriage to, her beloved Rochester. During these sections the novel provides perspectives on a number of important social issues and ideas, many of which are critical of the status quo (see the Themes section below). Literary critic Jerome Beaty opines that the close first person perspective leaves the reader "too uncritically accepting of her worldview", and often leads reading and conversation about the novel towards supporting Jane, regardless of how irregular her ideas or perspectives are.
Jane Eyre is divided into 38 chapters, and most editions are at least 400 pages long. The original publication was in three volumes, comprising chapters 1 to 15, 16 to 27, and 28 to 38; this was a common publishing format during the 19th century (see three-volume novel).
Brontë dedicated the novel's second edition to William Makepeace Thackeray.
=== Jane's childhood ===
The novel begins with the titular character, Jane Eyre, aged 10, living with her maternal uncle's family, the Reeds, as a result of her uncle's dying wish. It is several years after her parents died of typhus. Mr. Reed, Jane's uncle, was the only person in the Reed family who was ever kind to Jane. Jane's aunt, Sarah Reed, dislikes her, treats her as a burden, and discourages her children from associating with Jane. Mrs. Reed and her three children are abusive to Jane, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. The nursemaid Bessie proves to be Jane's only ally in the household, even though Bessie sometimes harshly scolds Jane. Excluded from the family activities, Jane is incredibly unhappy, with only a doll and books for comfort.
One day, after her cousin John Reed knocks her down and she attempts to defend herself, Jane is locked in the red room where her uncle died; there, she faints from panic after she thinks she has seen his ghost. She is subsequently attended to by the kindly apothecary, Mr. Lloyd, to whom Jane reveals how unhappy she is living at Gateshead Hall. He recommends to Mrs. Reed that Jane should be sent to school, an idea Mrs. Reed happily supports. Mrs. Reed then enlists the aid of the harsh Mr. Brocklehurst, director of Lowood Institution, a charity school for girls. Mrs. Reed cautions Mr. Brocklehurst that Jane has a "tendency for deceit", which he interprets as her being a "liar". Before Jane leaves, however, she confronts Mrs. Reed and declares that she'll never call her "aunt" again, that Mrs. Reed and her daughter, Georgiana, are the ones who are deceitful, and that she shall tell everyone at Lowood how cruelly Mrs. Reed treated her.
=== Lowood ===
At Lowood Institution, a school for poor and orphaned girls, Jane soon finds that life is harsh, but she attempts to fit in and befriends an older girl, Helen Burns, who is able to accept her punishment philosophically. During a school inspection by Mr. Brocklehurst, Jane accidentally breaks her slate, thereby drawing attention to herself. He then stands her on a stool, brands her a liar, and shames her before the entire assembly. Jane is later comforted by her friend, Helen. Miss Temple, the caring superintendent, facilitates Jane's self-defence and writes to Mr. Lloyd, whose reply agrees with Jane's. Jane is then publicly cleared of Mr. Brocklehurst's accusations.
The 80 pupils at Lowood are subjected to cold rooms, poor meals, and thin clothing. Many students fall ill when a typhus epidemic strikes, and Jane's friend Helen dies of consumption in her arms. When Mr. Brocklehurst's maltreatment of the students is discovered, several benefactors erect a new building and install a sympathetic management committee to moderate Mr. Brocklehurst's harsh rule. Conditions at the school then improve dramatically.
The name Lowood symbolizes the "low" point in Jane's life where she was maltreated. Helen Burns is a representation of Charlotte's elder sister Maria, who died of tuberculosis after spending time at a school where the children were mistreated.
=== Thornfield Hall ===
After six years as a student and two as a teacher at Lowood, Jane decides to leave, like her friend and confidante Miss Temple, who recently married. She advertises her services as a governess and receives one reply, from Alice Fairfax, housekeeper at Thornfield Hall. Jane takes the position, teaching Adèle Varens, a young French girl.
One night, while Jane is walking to a nearby town, a horseman passes her. The horse slips on ice and throws the rider. Despite the rider's surliness, Jane helps him to get back onto his horse. Later, back at Thornfield, she learns that this man is Edward Rochester, master of the house. Adèle is his ward, left in his care when her mother abandoned her.
At Jane's first meeting with him within Thornfield, Mr. Rochester teases her, accusing her of bewitching his horse to make him fall. He also talks strangely in other ways, but Jane is able to give as good as she gets. Mr. Rochester and Jane soon come to enjoy each other's company, and spend many evenings together.
Odd things start to happen at the house, such as a strange laugh, a mysterious fire in Mr. Rochester's room (from which Jane saves Rochester by rousing him and throwing water on him and the fire), and an attack on a house guest named Mr. Mason. Then Jane receives word that her aunt Mrs. Reed is calling for her, because she suffered a stroke after her son John died. Jane returns to Gateshead and remains there for a month, attending to her dying aunt. Mrs. Reed confesses to Jane that she wronged her, giving Jane a letter from Jane's paternal uncle, Mr. John Eyre, in which he asks for her to live with him and be his heir. Mrs. Reed admits to telling Mr. Eyre that Jane had died of fever at Lowood. Soon afterward, Mrs. Reed dies, and Jane helps her cousins after the funeral before returning to Thornfield.
Back at Thornfield, Jane broods over Mr. Rochester's rumoured impending marriage to the beautiful and talented, but snobbish and heartless, Blanche Ingram. However, one midsummer evening, Rochester baits Jane by saying how much he will miss her after getting married, but how she will soon forget him. The normally self-controlled Jane reveals her feelings for him. Rochester is then sure that Jane is sincerely in love with him, and he proposes marriage. Jane is at first sceptical of his sincerity, but eventually believes him and gladly agrees to marry him. She then writes to her Uncle John, telling him of her happy news.
As she prepares for her wedding, Jane's forebodings arise when a strange woman sneaks into her room one night and rips her wedding veil in two. As with the previous mysterious events, Mr. Rochester attributes the incident to Grace Poole, one of his servants. During the wedding ceremony, Mr. Mason and a lawyer declare that Mr. Rochester cannot marry because he is already married to Mr. Mason's sister, Bertha. Mr. Rochester admits this is true but explains that his father tricked him into the marriage for her money. Once they were united, he discovered that she was rapidly descending into madness, and so he eventually locked her away in Thornfield, hiring Grace Poole as a nurse to look after her. When Grace gets drunk, Rochester's wife escapes and causes the strange happenings at Thornfield.
It turns out that Jane's uncle, Mr. John Eyre, is a friend of Mr. Mason's and was visited by him soon after Mr. Eyre received Jane's letter about her impending marriage. After the marriage ceremony is broken off, Mr. Rochester asks Jane to go with him to the south of France, and live with him as husband and wife, even though they cannot be married. Refusing to go against her principles, and despite her love for him, Jane leaves Thornfield in the middle of the night.
=== Other employment ===
Jane travels as far from Thornfield as she can using the little money she had previously saved. She accidentally leaves her bundle of possessions on the coach and has to sleep on the moor, and unsuccessfully attempts to trade her handkerchief and gloves for food. Exhausted and hungry, she eventually makes her way to the home of Diana and Mary Rivers, but is turned away by the housekeeper. She collapses on the doorstep, preparing for her death. St. John Rivers -- Diana and Mary's brother -- and a clergyman save her. After she regains her health, St. John finds Jane a teaching position at a nearby village school. Jane becomes good friends with the sisters, but St. John remains aloof.
The sisters leave for governess jobs, and St. John becomes somewhat closer to Jane. St. John learns Jane's true identity and astounds her by telling her that her uncle, John Eyre, has died and left her his entire fortune of 20,000 pounds (equivalent to over £1.3 million in 2011). When Jane questions him further, St. John reveals that John Eyre is also his and his sisters' uncle. They had once hoped for a share of the inheritance but were left virtually nothing. Jane, overjoyed by finding that she has living and friendly family members, insists on sharing the money equally with her cousins, and Diana and Mary come back to live at Moor House.
=== Proposals ===
Thinking Jane will make a suitable missionary's wife, St. John asks her to marry him and to go with him to India, not out of love, but out of duty. Jane initially accepts going to India but rejects the marriage proposal, suggesting they travel as brother and sister. As soon as Jane's resolve against marriage to St. John begins to weaken, she mysteriously hears Mr. Rochester's voice calling her name. Jane then returns to Thornfield to find only blackened ruins. She learns that Mr. Rochester's wife set the house on fire and committed suicide by jumping from the roof. In his rescue attempts, Mr. Rochester lost a hand and his eyesight. Jane reunites with him, but he fears that she will be repulsed by his condition. "Am I hideous, Jane?", he asks. "Very, sir: you always were, you know", she replies. When Jane assures him of her love and tells him that she will never leave him, Mr. Rochester again proposes, and they are married. He eventually recovers enough sight to see their first-born son.

Tags: insanity, cruelty, gothic, flashback

Review:
I have seen most of them, some multiple times–-both out of my deep love for the tale, and as part of the research for my novel "The Secret Diaries of Charlotte Brontë," the true story of Charlotte's remarkable life, her inspiration behind "Jane Eyre," and her turbulent, real-life romance.Every screen version of JANE EYRE has its merits.
Rather than telling the tale in a linear fashion, it begins at a crisis moment later in the story, and tells the majority of the tale in flashback–-which works wonderfully well, enabling screenwriter Moira Buffini to effectively compress a long novel into a two-hour time span.The movie opens as Jane is fleeing Thornfield after having discovered Mr. Rochester's dark and heartbreaking secret.
As Jane ruminates about the past events that led to her escape, we are treated to the story in flashback.The casting of Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre also sets this production apart, since she is closer in age than most actresses who've played the role to the character in the novel, who was about 18 years old in the Thornfield section.
Although I wish Mia's Jane was a bit more "swoony" over Mr. Rochester earlier on (yes, she is supposed to be stoic, but I missed that phase where we get to see her blossom as she falls in love with him, and then is utterly crushed when she believes him to be in love with Miss Ingram), Mia truly inhabits the role, beautifully portraying Jane's sense of self-respect, integrity, and restraint, as well as her passion and vulnerability.Michael Fassbender embodies Mr. Rochester with the ideal blend of charisma and sinister brooding, while at the same time allowing glimpses of his underlying desperation and the wounded depths of his soul.
Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Reed effectively portrays the icy ogre who menaces the young Jane (a spirited and appealing Amelia Clarkson.) And Judi Dench, as always, gives a superb performance as housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax.The film's locations do justice to the novel's often gloomy, atmospheric tone.
It caught me off guard but I must say that scene left me breathless and is an effective way to convey how much Jane longed for her true love.But in the end, even though I adore Fassbender, he still hasn't replaced Timothy Dalton as my favorite Rochester.
This is a beautifully filmed, engrossing, and haunting version of the classic Charlotte Bronte novel Jane Eyre.
I hope the Academy Award is awake and paying attention!Loving the novel as I do, I found a few flaws I must mention: I didn't think Blanche was nearly pretty enough; Bertha was not frightening enough; Rochester's kindnesses to Jane were not displayed here (an audience member might wonder why she loved him as she did); St. John Rivers was a much harsher character here --not gentle and lovable as he was in the book; and lastly, the film was less than two hours long and therefore too much was left out of the story.
Hopefully, it will prompt new generations of fans to read the novel and fall in love with Jane Eyre, as so many of us have since it was published in 1847.This film is beautiful, romantic, frightening, sometimes funny, and ultimately very moving.
Charlotte Brontë's seminal literary work "Jane Eyre" has been adapted countless times and prepared in a myriad of ways from the 1943 Joan Fontaine/Orson Welles version that was whittled to an hour and a half to the 1983 BBC mini-series with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton that spans five-plus hours.
That certainly begs the question of why anyone, from writer Moira Buffini to director Cary Fukunaga to Dame Judi Dench, would feel inspired to recreate this coming-of-age story about love and accepting its blemishes.Fukunaga's ("Sin Nombre") take doesn't exactly provide an amazing revelation or epiphanic justification for bringing "Jane Eyre" back to life, but it does prove that no classic can be so overdone that it becomes untouchable; even the most tried and dated of love stories can find new life.
Fukanaga has given "Jane Eyre" a photorealistic makeover devoid of frills and fiercely au naturel, but no less gripping than the story's "livelier" retellings.Fictional period dramas often feel overtly pristine and glazed over to the point of fairytale, but in watching this film, you get the sense that this is quite possibly how the story would have looked and felt if it had been true.
Nevertheless, the short beginnings prevent the film from showing the whole scope of Jane's troubled life.Fassbender and Wasikowska work terrifically and manage to communicate the class and age discrepancy that made "Jane Eyre" a juicy read back in the 19th Century.
His love for Jane then feels more sincere.An actress as magnetizing as Judi Dench choosing to play the caretaker Mrs. Fairfax sums up the humble attitude of this "Jane Eyre." She uses her gravitas to the effect of being the film's lone comic relief and complements the scenes rather than stealing them from Wasikowska, who is 55 years her junior.The film itself aims for subtlety and chooses not to amp up the shock value of the story's most pivotal scenes.
It should introduce a new audience to the classic tale.After scoring in the title role in Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND, Aussie thesp Mia Wasikowska is compelling with a plain Jane styling here again as title character, with her story told effectively in flashback, starting with her escape from the Gothic mansion of Rochester (Michael Fassbender), getting a school marm's gig from sympathetic young pastor "Sin-jin" (St. John, played by Mr. BILLY ELLIOT himself, Jamie Bell).Her "tale of woe", as Rochester mockingly describes it before even hearing a word, is the familiar Charlotte Bronte yarn -suffering a scary childhood at the hands of such ogres as Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins, in her least giggly role to date -very effective).
The visuals alone make this remake worthwhile, backed by the BBC but definitely not a "Masterpiece Theatre" small-screen effort like the recent re-dos of all of Jane Austen.The big reveal regarding Rochester's "secret" is well-done, though I was a bit disappointed that the hindsight of two versions of Jean Rhys' prequel WIDE SARGASSO SEA was not taken into account here.
I think it may be one of the most underrated books of all time.Now for the movie.Let's get to the good: 1) The casting- Michael Fassbender is perhaps the hottest Rochester I could ever imagine.
Instead, the writers went for a Jane Austen ala P&P sequence that slowly fades out with them.Boring and anti climatic to a very predictable movie based on a very harsh and real love story.How can a true fan of the book say this is great?
But Jane still loves Mr. Rochester and feels only fraternal love for St. John Rivers."Jane Eyre" is a visually stunning adaptation of the classic romance of Charlotte Brontë, with a perfect lead actress in the role of Jane Eyre but missing important parts of the story.
Jane Eyre is a classic story for a reason, and this is as fine an adaptation I've encountered with great acting all-around, but it's the visuals and Gothic atmosphere that really made me enjoy this as much as I did.
I'm speaking specifically of Jane and Rochester, who are portrayed as being totally in love with each other without much of a reason why ever seen by the audience.That's a small complaint, though, and one that's easily overlooked if you're watching the movie for more than just the romantic aspect, like I was.
Cary Fukunaga (The Director) has done a very good job considering these difficulties.The casting of Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre) and Michael Fassbender (Edward Rochester) are appropriate.
Jamie Bell's performance seems to be dwarfed by the acting of the two lead actors, which is otherwise a decent performance.The ending of the movie, in my opinion was a bit abrupt – considering the way it is narrated in the novel.Overall this movie is one of the best adaptations of classical literature I have seen.10 out of 10..
I certainly can't fault much of Cary Fukunaga's interpretation of Charlotte Bronte's timeless story of a woman who resents being anyone's property and is one of literature's first women to seek independence from men, but I can't say that I found this film particularly entertaining.The story of an orphan girl who was mistreated for most of her life until she finds love in the arms of Mr. Rochester, Fukunaga's film follows the original novel quite closely, though some important details were seemingly deleted for no reason, and can be found in the special features of the DVD.Mia Wasikowska, in a very strong yet dreary performance (also seen this year flexing some excellent acting muscle in "Albert Nobbs") plays the titular character in a very honest, earnest fashion, but never seems to enrapture her enough to truly click with the viewer.
Michael Fassbender, so strong in a bunch of films this year, including "X-Men: First Class," "A Dangerous Method" and "Shame" (for which many feel he was robbed of an Oscar nomination), makes it terribly easy to understand why anyone, not just Jane, would fall in love with his terribly handsome face and masculine demeanour.
Masculine is the word I think.In this version of Jane Eyre you actually see the difference between Jane and Rochester - physical, intellectual, social, and emotional - and Mia and Michael do a convincing job of making us see why these two unlikely lovers should fall in love, and their ultimate reconciliation echoes the truth of that love which surmounted those difficulties, made them aware of their faults, brought them together as equals, and promised a happy life thenceforth.I was delighted to see that minor character were not overlooked, and were given their proper share of importance.
I was very disappointed because you do not get the feel for the characters and the story behind each of them.I can see how it would be hard to capture the book in it's entirety in a two hour movie but some of the best parts and little details were left out which really upset me.I would not watch it again.
Though there have been many versions of Charlotte Brontë's 1847 Victorian novel JANE EYRE the current incarnation as sensitively written for the screen by Moira Buffini and directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga at least for this viewer is the strongest thus far.
She is completely believable in the role of a Governess to Adèle (Romy Settbon Moore), a brave young outspoken lass to her evil Aunt (Sally Hawkins), a good friend to the housekeeper (Judi Dench), a responsible teacher for the missionary St John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters Diana (Holliday Grainger) and Mary (Tamzin Merchant), and most importantly she stands up to her own coming of womanhood to the harsh Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender).
We are always on Jane's side, no matter what decision she makes, not through a bias in the story but because of how convincingly Wasikowska plays the role.If you've followed me or have read my posts at all, you know that I am a massive fan of Michael Fassbender and any new performance of his is cause for celebration for me.
Perhaps I'm talking this film up a bit but I just really enjoyed it, could feel the depression, anguish, love of the characters and was impressed so much by the performances by Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Mia and Michael Fassbender.Go see it!.
This Jane Eyre version excels in every department: acting, screen writing, music, sets, costumes, pacing and story development.
Indeed the cast which includes Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre, Judi Dench and Michael Fassbender as Rochester sets a very high standard for good Classic work.
There are countless of stage, film and television adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's novel Jane Eyre, that you may wonder if the world needs yet another version, if not to update and reintroduce it to another generation who have yet to read the source material, and through a different medium be intrigued enough to want to find out more, especially on subplots not covered.
Directed by Cary Fukunaga, you'd come to expect a certain aesthetic quality associated with a period film, and this one doesn't disappoint.Essentially telling the story of the titular character from childhood until her late teens, we go through her miserable time at her aunt's at Gateshead, and fast track through her strict education at Lowood School, essentially told in quick flashbacks that glossed over plenty of details and being spared a series of wrong doings dished out toward this outspoken little girl, whom by the time she's played by Mia Wasikowska, we're introduced to a very mannered, cultured young woman where the bulk of the narrative takes place during her stint as a governess at Thornfield Hall for the ward of Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender).
Therein lies a problem, given societal norms of the time what with social standing, and impropriety coming from an employer-employee relationship, which Mrs Fairfax (Judi Dench) never fails to remind.Starring Mia Wasikowska who shot to prominence here in Tim Burton's adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, she played the character of Jane in truly plain Jane fashion and constantly decked in frumpy coloured clothes to highlight her dedication and quiet strength, coupled with her high morals in refusing to do what's not right nor succumbing to the affairs of the heart, despite what I would believe are concerns that are likely glossed over in today's context.
I have not seen any previous film adaptations but love the story of Jane Eyre.My analysis about this film is that if you have not recently read the book...or you don't remember a lot about it...this film is not for you.The film does a good job at showing what it shows but it leaves the viewer to remember and fill in all the important things that it does not show.
The key roles in this latest film version are played well by Dame Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax), Michael Fassbender (Rochester) and Mia Wasikowska (Jane).
We could have spent more time, for example, justifying Rochester's Proposal and on the uncomfortable moments leading to the wedding; and, as much as I loved Judy Dench and her performance, we could have lost a bit there (I don't remember that character having such a big role.) Things were missed, but you can't keep everything.Books can obviously not be replaced, so I'd urge fans of the movie to pick it up.
Director Cary Fukunaga wisely chooses to play it fairly straight with this latest version of Jane Eyre, and what results is a moody and atmospheric film that hits all the right notes of the classic tale.For a novel to be adapted repeatedly as Jane Eyre has speaks volumes about the quality of the source material, and as such it's probably unnecessary to delve into the story too much here.
'm gonna get into my review of Jane Eyre, based on the classic novel by Charlotte Bronte.Centering on young, seemingly emotionless girl, Jane Eyre (Played terrifically by Mia Wasikowska), the film follows her struggles through an orphaned childhood, and then to the age of 19, a time where she now works as a governess for a rich, but cold Englishman (Played by Michael Fassbender).
It's a powerful expression of quiet emotion that easily makes her the MVP of the cast, and that's saying something, considering that she has to hold her own against the likes of Michael Fassbender and Judi Dench.I must also applaud the film's visual designers for contributing lovely work to the movie.
This was such an exquisite film that I had to go back and read the novel all over again - when I did, I couldn't help but picture Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender and Dame Judi Dench as the characters - I now probably always will.
"Jane Eyre", the book, is not some musty and quaint relic from the Victorian past, it is a timeless story that deeply touches our humanity - I was thankful for this film sending me back, once again, to Charlotte Bronte's wonderful classic..
This Jane Eyre version with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender definitely wasn't my favorite for various reasons.
This time Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) plays the main character, Jane Eyre, and Michael Fassbender (Inglorious Basterds) plays her love interest, Edward Rochester.
Film Review: "Jane Eyre" (2011)After an impressive first feature "Sin Nombre" directed by Cary Fukunaga releasing on Sundance Film Festival in January 2009, comes this following up picture based on several-times adapted content of Charlotte Brontë novel "Jane Eyre" from 1847 on the story of an handmaiden, falling for a man of property, who she works for; beautifully shot by cinematographer Adriano Goldman from sunny to stormy on-location countrysides in England, setting the mood for atmospheric classic drama led by actress Mia Masikowska, who portrays the character of Jane Eyre with dignity, but is unable to find a break-out scene of desperation, in which she might have been shown her dramatic qualities at an early age of twenty-one.
This film adaptation of Jane Eyre is told in flashbacks but looks like a stripped down version of the story.Mia Wasikowska looks plain and innocent enough as a governess for the daughter of a wealthy man.
The real gem is the cast, particularly Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre, Michael Fassbender as Edward Fairfax Rochester, Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers, Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax; these performers are quality signs to be followed and enjoyed everywhere.
Charlotte Bronte's novel has been adapted countless times for television and cinema; yet the most obvious thing about this version is that 'Jane Eyre' has never looked better on the silver screen.
It is always hard to like a movie when you have read the book or have watched a previous version, at least the factor of an unknown story isn't there but this isn't a weakness in Jane Eyre 2011 it sure isn't.