Podcast: Jane Eyre
Monday, March 28, 2011 at 12:03AM 
New season of the podcast starts now. Though Oscar season is still many months away the Big O (and I don't mean Oprah) is not required for hearty movie conversations. Even if he likes to muscle his golden way in from time to time. In this week's episode Nick and Katey and I have gathered to talk about the dreaminess of Michael Fassbender, the skill of Mia Wasikowska, the promise of Cary Fukunaga and drafty manor houses on the moors filled with dark secrets.
For those who haven't yet read the book or seen the movie we pull back from the spoilers so fear not. But go see the movie! All three of us were fans of this particular adaptation. Also discussed, however briefly: Rango, Certified Copy and Andrea Arnold's forthcoming adaptation of Wuthering Heights. It's a big year for those Brontë girls.
Cary Fukunaga, Jane Eyre, Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Podcast in Podcast
Reader Comments (19)
'She'll be figuring out a way to turn the Pearly Gates into jewelry'.
THE BEST.
Just ... SLANDER.
yayyy, my subway ride tomorrow will have this delight.
i loved the film, so i can't wait to listen to it.
How sad is it that I'm probably going to see the movie just to be able to fully appreciate the podcast?
Lovely to hear you focus on a specific movie! Too bad Jane Eyre comes to Greece in, I dunno, a year from now? I will have forgotten its existense by that time.
Cheri was released here some weeks ago. Lol.
I would just die (AFTER listening) if you guys did a podcast talking about Mildred Pierce but even if you had all seen it (my guess is no) I know that it's hard to find time.
Anyway, thanks once again and Kate.. I saw you talk about Terms of Endearment and um, don't think I'm straight or anything, but you're hot.
Hey, you've all talked about Fassbender for about 5 hours if we go back to all the podcats ;)
I am dying to see Mildred Pierce and would love the podcast as an excuse to watch the whole thing. Plus it'll give us a chance to moan and groan about the The Reader again!
Katey -- i saw it last night but since i didn't get a screener, so i have to wait 3 weeks to see how it ends ;) But I prefer Jane Eyre ;)
Joe -- it's affectionate slander.
Nathaniel - Really? Do you want/plan to say more one the subject or you want to wait for the whole thing to end? Obviously, I'd love it if you said something now but you're too far away for me to tie you to a chair and make you. :p
Affectionate, yes, I appreciate it. Just so long as I get to defend myself as a Fassbender appreciator who merely falls short of slobbering mania. (Weirdly enough, I was hoping to hear you guys talk about Fassbender MORE. At least in the context of his performance in the movie, as I bailed on Jane before he even showed up.)
As for Mildred ... we mortals have to make do without screeners too, so I'd still be up for a week-to-week discussion.
AWESOME podcast. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books of all time, and has been so ever since I was about 8-9 years old, so it feels strange to hear you refer to various characters as "that girl" or "that guy", (I kept correcting you in my head) but your analysis was still amazing. Mia isn't the right Jane, IMO, but I appreciated her performance more after hearing your podcast. you guys rock
Saw this yesterday afternoon with two work friends. I went to see the oh-so-sexy Fassy, one went because she was fan of the previous film versions, and the other came because she thought the trailer looked cool.
We all enjoyed the movie, but thought the movie moved slowly, particularly the first half hour. I think though that there wasn't enough of a build up between the declarations of love between Jane and Rochester. It didn't ring true to me because we didn't get to see them fall in love. I saw respect and admiration, and even a cool friendship of sorts between employer and employee, but love? Eh, no, not exactly. Though I can easily understand Jane falling in love with Rochester. He's handsome, passionate, wealthy, and intelligent (and Fassy is the sex-bomb). But he's also tempermental, sharp tongued, and even mean spirited at times. It's more difficult to understand why Rochester would fall in love with Jane. She's plain and poor and not of his social class. Though she's articulate, witty, willful, well educated, and kind. Neither are without faults, of course.
Not that I'm implying that people can't or shouldn't fall in love with others that are not from their social class. But given the time of the story's setting, there's really little that Jane could offer to attract a man such as Rochester. If we had been shown more of their interactions, and how their friendship could deepen and turn to love, well then, that's would have made it more believable. As it is, it struck me as two people infatuated with each other for different reasons. Jane's in love with Rochester because he's handsome and beneath the gruff exterior, a kind hearted man. It seems to me, that he's in love with her because she's a good person, pious, and one that could help ease the misery of his past misdeeds.
Bear in mind that I have no knowledge of the novel, have never read it, nor have I seen previous film versions of this story. Thus my thoughts are based solely on what I saw on screen.
Someone upthread said that Mia is all wrong for this role. Just curious, but why is that? She's a good actress, and she definitely deglammed for the role, but is there some physical attribute to Jane that seemed wrong or out of place because of Mia? Originally, Ellen Page was suppose to be Jane. In fact, Jane Eyre is EP's favorite novel. However, once Cary F was signed on as director, the role was recast and EP was dropped. Is Jane suppose to be short of stature? I'm just asking because in a pivotal scene between Rochester and Jane, she make's reference to being small. I wasn't sure if small was being meant as a literal reference or a metaphorical one, in which small meant poor social standing.
@Blinking Cursor - not sure if you're referring to me, but I thought Mia had exactly the right *look* for Jane - but whether she fully captured the vitality and passion of Jane Eyre, who Charlotte Bronte modeled after herself, is more questionable. Really liked (and kind of loved) this adaptation, but you are right, it somewhat reduces the extraordinariness of their relationship into something more happenstance. IRochester's past might have explained it a little more - he embarked on a series of passionate and illicit affairs, and steadily grew disgusted with all of them. He's finished with fashionable women like Blanche Ingram. Jane, on the other hand, "poor and plain, obscure and little" as she is, has a will, passion, and intellect that surpasses everyone else he's ever met, and their connection in the story transcends all other social boundaries. Most importantly, they are soulmates in every regard. I'm sorry if the movie didn't fully capture that for you.
Though you have a good point about social classes - it's an important theme in the book. Jane's social and financial inequality causes her a lot of uneasiness during the engagement, and that's why Bronte bestows the inheritance on Jane - so she can return to Rochester as a woman of solid financial footing. Bronte was pretty feminist about that.
I haven't seen this movie but I have read the book a few times and I am reading it again at the moment. Probably a mistake if I want to see the movie .
Jane is supposed to be little and mousy and Rochester heavy and dark with an unruly mane of hair. Both are conventionally unattractive. But this is only how others see them. To each other they are beautiful. The book presents the relationship between Rochester and Jane as a case of like minds coming together at the wrong time. In the book Rochester is not handsome so maybe Fassbender is also wrong. Jane tells him quite bluntly that he is ugly while keeping to herself (and her "dear reader") that she worshiped his visage above all others. Their looks don't matter because they are soul mates. They cant help but fall in love because they are meant for each other- destiny brings them together, and they fall in love despite their social inequality.
Rochester has traveled the world. Has been fooled and flattered by many socially sanctioned beauties and continues to be flattered by Blanche Ingram. But he is not fooled. She is vapid and mean spirited and only wants him for his money. He only pretends to court her because convention expects it and also to make Jane jealous.
His attraction to Jane is other worldly. He refers to Jane from the start in pagan spiritual terms as a fairy or an elf. He refers to her as an "elemental spirit", and accuses her of bewitching his horse and eventually bewitching him. His love for her, though, is reinforced in practical ways as she stands up to him, holds her own during their intellectual conversations and provides him with a peace and quietness of spirit that has been lacking in life.
Furthermore there is evidence in the novel that Jane is not really all that plain. As the book progresses and Jane grows in confidence others observe how she blossoms and though she "will never be a beauty" she is not unattractive.
The problem here for movie makers is to present a passionate love story between two fairly ordinary looking people. So they hire attractive actors.
Joanne -- I don't know. Ithink it works for the movie. Both Wasikowska and Fassbender are ridiculously attractive people but they're not altogether "conventional" or generic beauties so with the right makeup and such -- well i think it works for the film and they do have a conversation about Rochester not being pretty to look at. And Wasikowska is convincingly "plain" as someone with a robust spirit that doesn't happen to be wearing gobs of makeup can be in a movie.
It has to be a movie first. I really do think it works.
I hope you are right. As I said I haven't seen the movie but I'm looking forward to seeing it. As a movie it has to be visually convincing and if the pair are unconventional yet attractive the viewer can be as enthralled by watching Jane and Rochester's love story unfold as the reader is by the reading the flowing poetic language. Sounds like this may be the case here. Just have to wait til it opens Down Under.
Another home run of a podcast, I always love these! If reading TFE is the hearty meat and potatoes then these hilarious podcasts are the delicious desserts we get every so often. Rare but welcomed.
The Elizabeth Taylor jokes were equally perfectly loving and hilarious. It's that kind of 'small stuff' perfect balance that I love here.
Saw Jane Eyre a couple weeks ago and I'm superficially glad the lovely windblown paleness of the actors was brought up. Gorgeous they were, it was definitely a highlight for me. Also, the wonderful costumes could be remembered since O'Connor is in the club.
I, too, vote for a Mildred FIERCE themed podcast when it's all wrapped and done. There'll be so much there to talk about, I'm sure. The least of which is some major Actressing involved. Nate, it must happen! ;)
@Caroline and Joanne, thanks for the thoughtful and detailed responses. It does answer some of my questions regarding the story and film.
I'd been waiting for a chance to see this before actually listening and I'm glad I did because now I can just nod and agree with (almost) everything you guys said. The film isn't out in Australia until August (!!!) but the studio thankfully held an early screening.
But, yeah, I agree with all of you. Loved the stuff you were saying about Mia and being able to *see* what she's *thinking*. Reminded me of the "Birth" opera sequence. Gives me faith that Wasikowska could go on to be a far better actor than I original thought. The only thing I disagree on is Judi Dench, who I thought was really great. Loved the way, as Katey spoke of, she had this presence of having been in the manor for so many years, and yet still knowing she's nothing more than the help.
Great podcast. As for Oscar? I'd love Wasikowska for Best Actress, as well as Film, Adapted Screenplay, Costume, Art Direction and depending on how the rest of the year pans out, Actor, Supp Actor, Supp Actress and original score.
Seeing all the Michael Fassbender films at once-- I guess you could call that a "Fass-bender?"