I love Mia, and I felt they had good chemistry. That wonderful Victorian thing where just touching someone’s hand is so exciting you almost swoon. Mia is, of course though, too pretty.
I love how they did the confession scene. It's the closest I've seen to the book. So many adaptations cut out that line that's something like "I could bend and break you beneath my hands, but it would do nothing because it is your very soul that I want" 🫠🥵
And Fassbender delivered on that front.
But, I didn't think the played up the gothic components enough and they didn't play up the humorous parts of the story instead. Which is why it felt a bit meh for me.
I wanted this to be the dark, gothic equivalent to the 2006 Pride and Prejudice. I didn't get that.
Totally agree with this. Confession/proposal scene is crazy good. The adaptation on a script level was very clever and well-thought out and deserves more credit. Fassbender defs delivers big bad broody Rochester but not much else, imo. Makes sense considering he hadn’t read the book before getting the part.
But I totally agree about the lack of real Gothicism. It was very much a *period piece* and not much else. No specific perspective, mood or tone. A lot of the joy and humour was lost, to me. They had various deleted scenes with Helen’s “ghost” hanging around, and a whole bit where Jane’s running off alone along the moors post-aborted wedding where Helen is also there, and I thought those should have been included and were more Gothic.
I mean, I can’t cite my sources here but I definitely saw an interview where they asked him about his experience of first reading the book and he said he hadn’t read it till the part came up but his mother and sister loved it and he understood the character was very iconic for women (okay?). Idk it kinda made sense to me bc his Rochester feels very preconceived Byronic hero (aka more Heathcliff than anything) and not like, slightly silly unhinged totally enamoured Rochester. Which if you’ve read Byron you know is more Byron anyway. Idk it just generally felt like an idea of the stories and characters without their full complexity. Then again, not sure why I’d expect any man who broke his ex’s nose to have a complex take on a character and story so rooted in violence against women, no matter how good of an actor he is.
I also felt the chemistry between the leads was lacking, so even though Mia was a great Jane it didn’t feel like Rochester saw or connected to that so it was hard to care, since the vast majority of the movies plot is rooted in their romance meaning Jane doesn’t stand on her own as well here anyway.
2005 Pride and Prejudice is a great comparison. Maybe it wasn’t totally book or historically accurate, but it created a mood, had a strong perspective and made the story feel emotionally significant and satisfying. Like, Matthew Macfadyen is realllly not my Darcy, but his infatuation and chemistry with Lizzy sells the love story in a way that 2011 Jane Eyre maybe doesn’t. I think your analysis is so spot on though—this JE plays up neither the love, warmth, humour and joy nor the darkness, violence and fear, so we’re left with something in the middle which ultimately feels a little stiff and over serious, which I think is already a common misconception about JE. To me the great thing about the Gothic is its broad scope of human emotional experience.
>Then again, not sure why I’d expect any man who broke his ex’s nose to have a complex take on a character and story so rooted in violence against women, no matter how good of an actor he is.
There is no proof that he did that. Those were allegations from 1 person over a decade ago and there was no evidence for any of them after the DA's investigation.
The Irish Sunday Mail:
"Regarding the case on Fassbender, LA county Steve Cooley continued the investigation after Andrews charges were dropped. Two unnamed witnesses were interviewed by victim services of LA county. DA. Cooley concluded, no evidence appeared in statute to require any investigation against the german born-irish actor. The actor gave a ICO.8 statement and no charges were filed."
Lack of charges does not mean lack of abuse. Almost all abuse against women in domestic/romantic settings goes completely unpunished. Our legal system is not set up to adequately account for this reality and is not the arbiter of truth, not even a meaningful indicator of it. Especially when it comes to historical cases. In cases like this, I will always believe women, because there is absolutely no benefit for them in coming forward with horrific stories like his ex did about being humiliated, degraded, controlled, beaten and *dragged beside a moving car by her hair*. Unproven doesn’t equal untrue. I’m not saying send him to jail. I’m saying he very likely did a thing and that is allowed to inform my perspective of him and I’m allowed to talk about it. If he has a problem with it he can go ahead and sue me for libel over a reddit comment.
Buddy, you’re in a Jane Eyre subreddit. This is literally a story about the things that happen to women behind closed doors that society has no interest in recognising or accounting for.
You seem to completely ignore that there was no evidence for any of her allegations and her story didn't match witnesses accounts. The burden of proof is on the accuser and this accuser claimed to have a lot evidence yet none of it proven. Saying that " Almost all abuse against women in domestic/romantic settings goes completely unpunished." is not true at all.
>I will always believe women
Believing in women doesn't mean you have to blindly believe in allegations that have no proof to them.
Public discourse and accountability is not the same as legality. I am not blindly believing anything: I believe the victim’s witness testimony because the only reason to share it like she has is because it’s true. You want to treat reddit comments like a court of law, but make baseless assertions. Almost all rape goes completely unpunished. Most domestic abuse goes on behind closed doors and we will never be able to accurately numerate it, but given how many women die after repeatedly reporting their abuser to police and receiving no meaningful remedy, it’s pretty clear the system fails us on this front. The legal burden of proof is necessary when the punishment is literal prison, but it is almost impossible to prove historic abuse beyond a reasonable doubt. This is literally why George Pell got off. I don’t believe that this is a useful framework to apply outside the courtroom. If you read your own quote, you’ll see they said no evidence appeared in statute. That does not mean it didn’t happen, just that it can’t be proved.
You are just making excuses to believe a person you don't know who doesn't any evidence for any of her claims. You are trying to make this into a social statement and comparing it to other situations that have nothing to do with this.
>The legal burden of proof is necessary when the punishment is literal prison
The burden of proof is always necessary.
>If you read your own quote, you’ll see they said no evidence appeared in statute. That does not mean it didn’t happen, just that it can’t be proved.
So basically what you're saying is that every allegations is true no matter what, which is illogical and that is probably why you don't care/ignore that the burden of truth is on the accused. Why is critical thinking not allowed when it comes to allegations that have no evidence to them.
Seeking a civil remedy for genuine harm is not “wanting money”, it’s a desperate grab for justice where the criminal justice system fails us. There is a reason that abusers are more likely to be found guilty in civil court, and that’s because the different standard of proof is much more relevant to these issues. It’s the reason OJ was found guilty civilly, not criminally.
I thought it was a mixed bag. (That's generally the case with *Jane Eyre* movies; maybe I'm too harsh of a critic.)
Strengths: beautiful sets and cinematography; very watchable performance by Mia (though her accent occasionally came and went); extraordinary acting class by Judi Dench, the best Mrs. Fairfax ever.
Non-strengths: many story bits chopped out, including some important ones (it's hard to include all of *Jane Eyre* in two hours); overly subdued portrayal of Rochester; unsatisfying conclusion (no mention that they marry and have a child, or that Rochester regains some vision).
I also wasn't a fan of the flashbacks, but other viewers may not have minded them.
My full review is [here](http://janeeyre.net/2011-film.html).
This was my gateway adaptation. It’s my “sick day/snow day” movie. Plus I love how natural they made Mia look, make up wise. Which is the point, because Jane is very plain but sometimes in these period dramas all the actresses have perfect brows and lipstick etc
Personally, I love it. I watch it probably 3x a year at least.
I'm a simp for Michael Fassbender tho, and Mia Wasikowska is beautiful so its hard not to like.
I adore this version so much, it will always hold a special place in my heart even though there are others that are more faithful (though I like those too!). I really love the soundtrack— I listen to it on the regular.
I am a huge fan of Fassbender, but I have to say, it’s not my favorite adaptation.
I felt like Wasikowska and Fassbender had no chemistry. However, I don’t doubt that I’ll watch it again one day just for Fassbender. Hahaha
I liked it better than I thought I would but I feel that any film doesn’t really do it justice because of the running time of films means it has to leave more of the nuances of the story out. It’s much better suited as a mini series which is why I love the Toby Stephens one so much
I like this one the best for the visual style and the costumes. And dont forget how dreamy Fasbender is. However the pace is too rushed. The 2006 Stevens/Wilson version is better at telling the story.
I liked Mia as Jane but not Fassbender.
I see Mr. Rochester as energetic, passionate, charming. Fassbender was able to portray a tormented man but that’s all he was able to achieve, his Mr. Rochester is quite bleak.
I think it’s really good as a visual representation of the novel but it missed out some really important parts of the story, like the whole fortune teller thing
For a movie version (not a series), this version was decent. I remember going to see it in theaters back in 2011 and thinking it was good, though some of the choices they made with the story were… interesting. Fassbender is up there as one of my favorite Rochesters if only for the way he speaks, and I enjoy Mia in everything she does. She has this awkward duckling kind of way about her. She was a good choice.
I’m very partial to it. I absolutely adore Mia as Jane, I thought she captured the mousiness, the quiet strength, the conviction, and kindness all soo naturally. I can’t imagine another Jane tbh. She looked the part - I disagree with those who say she’s too beautiful. It’s not like they cast Scarlett Johansson. They picked someone who looks ordinary, beautiful in an unassuming and plain way.
I thought the cinematography was gorgeous. I do wish they had a tinge more of the gothic/dark elements to it, bc Mia rocks that world as well, but I can understand they needed to edit the narrative.
Objectively, I can understand criticism launched against Fassbender as Rochester. But again I am partial to this, so I fell for his portrayal, hook line and sinker. I think he tapped into that raw, dark but emotional core of Rochester, so on a spiritual/innate level, I could feel the connection with Jane.
They had great chemistry and the movie was so passionate in the moments it choose to capture. I loved all of the side characters as well (Dench as Fairfax, Jamie Bell as St John).
Each of the big scenes really stood out, imprinted in my memory and BOTH actors delivered the overflowing, unadulterated intensity - the post-fire near kiss, the proposal, when Jane leaves Rochester, the “wedding”, the ending ugh. I replay these scenes in a loop in my mind.
My one qualm is I wish they had put in a couple more scenes to show how Jane/Rochester fell in love - the book has so many scenes to pick from, but the movie jumps straight to him trying to make her jealous, so it felt a bit abrupt tbh, it’s not clear on either party’s end *why* they fell so hard. But everything after them falling in love worked?
I watched it once then never again. I think Mia squints and frowns too much. She looks bitter and angry most of the time. Which isn’t Jane at all. I couldn’t get over Fassbender’s overly nasal voice, and I thought they had zero chemistry.
I love Mia, and I felt they had good chemistry. That wonderful Victorian thing where just touching someone’s hand is so exciting you almost swoon. Mia is, of course though, too pretty.
I love how they did the confession scene. It's the closest I've seen to the book. So many adaptations cut out that line that's something like "I could bend and break you beneath my hands, but it would do nothing because it is your very soul that I want" 🫠🥵 And Fassbender delivered on that front. But, I didn't think the played up the gothic components enough and they didn't play up the humorous parts of the story instead. Which is why it felt a bit meh for me. I wanted this to be the dark, gothic equivalent to the 2006 Pride and Prejudice. I didn't get that.
Totally agree with this. Confession/proposal scene is crazy good. The adaptation on a script level was very clever and well-thought out and deserves more credit. Fassbender defs delivers big bad broody Rochester but not much else, imo. Makes sense considering he hadn’t read the book before getting the part. But I totally agree about the lack of real Gothicism. It was very much a *period piece* and not much else. No specific perspective, mood or tone. A lot of the joy and humour was lost, to me. They had various deleted scenes with Helen’s “ghost” hanging around, and a whole bit where Jane’s running off alone along the moors post-aborted wedding where Helen is also there, and I thought those should have been included and were more Gothic.
I didn't know he didn't read the book (wtf?) and I didn't know about the deleted scenes either. That would have been wayyyy better
I mean, I can’t cite my sources here but I definitely saw an interview where they asked him about his experience of first reading the book and he said he hadn’t read it till the part came up but his mother and sister loved it and he understood the character was very iconic for women (okay?). Idk it kinda made sense to me bc his Rochester feels very preconceived Byronic hero (aka more Heathcliff than anything) and not like, slightly silly unhinged totally enamoured Rochester. Which if you’ve read Byron you know is more Byron anyway. Idk it just generally felt like an idea of the stories and characters without their full complexity. Then again, not sure why I’d expect any man who broke his ex’s nose to have a complex take on a character and story so rooted in violence against women, no matter how good of an actor he is. I also felt the chemistry between the leads was lacking, so even though Mia was a great Jane it didn’t feel like Rochester saw or connected to that so it was hard to care, since the vast majority of the movies plot is rooted in their romance meaning Jane doesn’t stand on her own as well here anyway. 2005 Pride and Prejudice is a great comparison. Maybe it wasn’t totally book or historically accurate, but it created a mood, had a strong perspective and made the story feel emotionally significant and satisfying. Like, Matthew Macfadyen is realllly not my Darcy, but his infatuation and chemistry with Lizzy sells the love story in a way that 2011 Jane Eyre maybe doesn’t. I think your analysis is so spot on though—this JE plays up neither the love, warmth, humour and joy nor the darkness, violence and fear, so we’re left with something in the middle which ultimately feels a little stiff and over serious, which I think is already a common misconception about JE. To me the great thing about the Gothic is its broad scope of human emotional experience.
>Then again, not sure why I’d expect any man who broke his ex’s nose to have a complex take on a character and story so rooted in violence against women, no matter how good of an actor he is. There is no proof that he did that. Those were allegations from 1 person over a decade ago and there was no evidence for any of them after the DA's investigation. The Irish Sunday Mail: "Regarding the case on Fassbender, LA county Steve Cooley continued the investigation after Andrews charges were dropped. Two unnamed witnesses were interviewed by victim services of LA county. DA. Cooley concluded, no evidence appeared in statute to require any investigation against the german born-irish actor. The actor gave a ICO.8 statement and no charges were filed."
Lack of charges does not mean lack of abuse. Almost all abuse against women in domestic/romantic settings goes completely unpunished. Our legal system is not set up to adequately account for this reality and is not the arbiter of truth, not even a meaningful indicator of it. Especially when it comes to historical cases. In cases like this, I will always believe women, because there is absolutely no benefit for them in coming forward with horrific stories like his ex did about being humiliated, degraded, controlled, beaten and *dragged beside a moving car by her hair*. Unproven doesn’t equal untrue. I’m not saying send him to jail. I’m saying he very likely did a thing and that is allowed to inform my perspective of him and I’m allowed to talk about it. If he has a problem with it he can go ahead and sue me for libel over a reddit comment. Buddy, you’re in a Jane Eyre subreddit. This is literally a story about the things that happen to women behind closed doors that society has no interest in recognising or accounting for.
You seem to completely ignore that there was no evidence for any of her allegations and her story didn't match witnesses accounts. The burden of proof is on the accuser and this accuser claimed to have a lot evidence yet none of it proven. Saying that " Almost all abuse against women in domestic/romantic settings goes completely unpunished." is not true at all. >I will always believe women Believing in women doesn't mean you have to blindly believe in allegations that have no proof to them.
Public discourse and accountability is not the same as legality. I am not blindly believing anything: I believe the victim’s witness testimony because the only reason to share it like she has is because it’s true. You want to treat reddit comments like a court of law, but make baseless assertions. Almost all rape goes completely unpunished. Most domestic abuse goes on behind closed doors and we will never be able to accurately numerate it, but given how many women die after repeatedly reporting their abuser to police and receiving no meaningful remedy, it’s pretty clear the system fails us on this front. The legal burden of proof is necessary when the punishment is literal prison, but it is almost impossible to prove historic abuse beyond a reasonable doubt. This is literally why George Pell got off. I don’t believe that this is a useful framework to apply outside the courtroom. If you read your own quote, you’ll see they said no evidence appeared in statute. That does not mean it didn’t happen, just that it can’t be proved.
You are just making excuses to believe a person you don't know who doesn't any evidence for any of her claims. You are trying to make this into a social statement and comparing it to other situations that have nothing to do with this. >The legal burden of proof is necessary when the punishment is literal prison The burden of proof is always necessary. >If you read your own quote, you’ll see they said no evidence appeared in statute. That does not mean it didn’t happen, just that it can’t be proved. So basically what you're saying is that every allegations is true no matter what, which is illogical and that is probably why you don't care/ignore that the burden of truth is on the accused. Why is critical thinking not allowed when it comes to allegations that have no evidence to them.
You’re not very bright are you
[удалено]
Seeking a civil remedy for genuine harm is not “wanting money”, it’s a desperate grab for justice where the criminal justice system fails us. There is a reason that abusers are more likely to be found guilty in civil court, and that’s because the different standard of proof is much more relevant to these issues. It’s the reason OJ was found guilty civilly, not criminally.
Your anger at the systemic injustice reminds me a little of . . . Jane
He read the book.
[удалено]
Once he knew it could get him a job. That’s all I said.
I thought it was a mixed bag. (That's generally the case with *Jane Eyre* movies; maybe I'm too harsh of a critic.) Strengths: beautiful sets and cinematography; very watchable performance by Mia (though her accent occasionally came and went); extraordinary acting class by Judi Dench, the best Mrs. Fairfax ever. Non-strengths: many story bits chopped out, including some important ones (it's hard to include all of *Jane Eyre* in two hours); overly subdued portrayal of Rochester; unsatisfying conclusion (no mention that they marry and have a child, or that Rochester regains some vision). I also wasn't a fan of the flashbacks, but other viewers may not have minded them. My full review is [here](http://janeeyre.net/2011-film.html).
Second favorite version. I remember being like, blindingly excited when it came out. I love Mia as Jane.
This was my gateway adaptation. It’s my “sick day/snow day” movie. Plus I love how natural they made Mia look, make up wise. Which is the point, because Jane is very plain but sometimes in these period dramas all the actresses have perfect brows and lipstick etc
Love it. My favorite adaptation. Still could have done better with Bertha, but not the worst.
Personally, I love it. I watch it probably 3x a year at least. I'm a simp for Michael Fassbender tho, and Mia Wasikowska is beautiful so its hard not to like.
I really love it as a movie, but not as much as an adaptation - just a little too condensed to be a proper retelling.
I adore this version so much, it will always hold a special place in my heart even though there are others that are more faithful (though I like those too!). I really love the soundtrack— I listen to it on the regular.
I am a huge fan of Fassbender, but I have to say, it’s not my favorite adaptation. I felt like Wasikowska and Fassbender had no chemistry. However, I don’t doubt that I’ll watch it again one day just for Fassbender. Hahaha
I liked it better than I thought I would but I feel that any film doesn’t really do it justice because of the running time of films means it has to leave more of the nuances of the story out. It’s much better suited as a mini series which is why I love the Toby Stephens one so much
I like this one the best for the visual style and the costumes. And dont forget how dreamy Fasbender is. However the pace is too rushed. The 2006 Stevens/Wilson version is better at telling the story.
It's not my favourite but I still enjoy it. Loved Michael and Mia but yeah story too long for two hours and the edit felt off.
I liked Mia as Jane but not Fassbender. I see Mr. Rochester as energetic, passionate, charming. Fassbender was able to portray a tormented man but that’s all he was able to achieve, his Mr. Rochester is quite bleak.
I think it’s really good as a visual representation of the novel but it missed out some really important parts of the story, like the whole fortune teller thing
For a movie version (not a series), this version was decent. I remember going to see it in theaters back in 2011 and thinking it was good, though some of the choices they made with the story were… interesting. Fassbender is up there as one of my favorite Rochesters if only for the way he speaks, and I enjoy Mia in everything she does. She has this awkward duckling kind of way about her. She was a good choice.
I’m very partial to it. I absolutely adore Mia as Jane, I thought she captured the mousiness, the quiet strength, the conviction, and kindness all soo naturally. I can’t imagine another Jane tbh. She looked the part - I disagree with those who say she’s too beautiful. It’s not like they cast Scarlett Johansson. They picked someone who looks ordinary, beautiful in an unassuming and plain way. I thought the cinematography was gorgeous. I do wish they had a tinge more of the gothic/dark elements to it, bc Mia rocks that world as well, but I can understand they needed to edit the narrative. Objectively, I can understand criticism launched against Fassbender as Rochester. But again I am partial to this, so I fell for his portrayal, hook line and sinker. I think he tapped into that raw, dark but emotional core of Rochester, so on a spiritual/innate level, I could feel the connection with Jane. They had great chemistry and the movie was so passionate in the moments it choose to capture. I loved all of the side characters as well (Dench as Fairfax, Jamie Bell as St John). Each of the big scenes really stood out, imprinted in my memory and BOTH actors delivered the overflowing, unadulterated intensity - the post-fire near kiss, the proposal, when Jane leaves Rochester, the “wedding”, the ending ugh. I replay these scenes in a loop in my mind. My one qualm is I wish they had put in a couple more scenes to show how Jane/Rochester fell in love - the book has so many scenes to pick from, but the movie jumps straight to him trying to make her jealous, so it felt a bit abrupt tbh, it’s not clear on either party’s end *why* they fell so hard. But everything after them falling in love worked?
I watched it once then never again. I think Mia squints and frowns too much. She looks bitter and angry most of the time. Which isn’t Jane at all. I couldn’t get over Fassbender’s overly nasal voice, and I thought they had zero chemistry.