The Further Adventures of Deluzy

Portrait of a governess (part 2)

The other night I watched the second part of the Masterpiece Theatre production of Jane Eyre (2006) -- in the U.S. it aired in 2 two-hour episodes. I've already written about Part I, and despite some reservations, I looked forward to Part 2.

Its weaknesses:

• I kind of hated the editing in Part 2, dictated somewhat by the screenwriter's choice to have Jane lose her memory as she wanders the moors after leaving Rochester and then recover it in chunks.  (Why was that dramatically useful?) There's a really abrupt cut from Jane, post-aborted wedding, to her, disheveled and roaming the countryside, which at first causes one to believe that one of the most famous sequences in the novel (hell, in English Victorian literature) has been left out altogether:  Jane's almost super-human effort in her leave-taking of Rochester.  But no, that's rendered a little later, in flashback -- but again, why the need for flashbacks?! It made the narrative flow very choppy for no good purpose.

• Updated dialogue and narrative situations:  For me these continued not to be effective tools in adaptation because, for one thing, too often there were ridiculous words coming out of the characters' mouths, redeemed only by the fact that (thankfully) Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens are, indeed, fine actors as Jane and Rochester, respectively, and were able to transcend the break in illusion.

• Example: in defending Rochester, Jane tells St. John Rivers that he "made [her] Jane Eyre" -- and even St. John knows enough to deny this.  Bronte's Jane knew this as well -- what on earth was that line doing in her mouth?  There were numerous other examples -- little ones, granted, but for me they constantly ruptured my willing suspension of disbelief.

• Example: Rochester and Jane embracing on the bed in her room, as he tries to persuade her not to leave? Wha??? Huh???  Why not put them in the back seat of a car, for heaven's sake?

Its strengths (and to be fair, I think the strengths of this production do outweigh its weaknesses):

• Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens.  They're good, and they're good together as Jane and Rochester.  I'll still take Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton, but I'll probably buy this DVD as well.

• I loved some individual shots:  Rochester walking Jane fast and furiously uphill through the graveyard to the church to be married ... Jane sobbing heart-brokenly after her memory of the wedding fiasco and all that she's lost ... Jane on the slab of rock on the moors (you can't help but remember Hardy's Tess, laid out on Stonehenge). There are others.

• Oddly enough, the scenes between Jane and St. John Rivers were really well executed.  Most productions downplay this section of the novel, but this version gave them their due -- including the importance of the Rosamond Oliver-St. John relationship.

• Ferndean Manor.  Perfect selection of a site for that house. (Thornfield Hall was a tad too castle-y and Gothic for my taste, though that's understandable as Bronte herself gives it Gothic twists even as she also describes it as a gentleman's manor house), but Ferndean was spot-on

• You'd think I might hate the final shot, in which a now-married Rochester, Jane, their children, and their extended family of servants, friends, and relations gather to sit for a portrait, in contrast to earlier scenes of Jane's exclusion from the Reed family portrait in Part I. The scenes aren't in the novel, and they're pretty un-subtle.  But by that point I just shrugged and thought,  "Okay, it's hokey, but whatever."  I did chuckle at seeing Grace Poole incorporated into the group (how likely is that?!), but of course all adaptation is a process of interpretation, and Jane's lack of family is a paramount concern through so much of the novel that I threw up my hands and was unwillingly charmed by this final shot.

Reader, I finished watching it. As things stand now, I'd recommend this version, the 1983 production with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton, and the 1944 version with Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles. The second in the list is my personal favorite -- but then, I've already made that clear in earlier posts.

Still tripping over JANE EYRE and YouTube

Okay, get this:  two different fans, each using Josh Groban's "You're Still You" as a new soundtrack for the 1944 and 2006 versions of Jane Eyre (the former is the first version I ever saw -- in fact, now that I think about it, it may have occasioned my first reading of the novel), construct their own videos. 

To me it's pretty fascinating to see the slightly different takes on the basic narrative that each fan video offers, using the Groban song as a kind of filter. Image and sound, of course, shape and reflect each other.

1944

2006

(The cinematography of the 1944 version hails from an entirely different, more advantageous and nuanced filmmaking universe, of course -- different medium, different production system, different era altogether. It certainly bears the stamp of Orson Welles' visual style far more strongly than the credited director Robert Stevenson's, though Welles was not officially involved other than acting. Actually, there's an interesting article on the subject of Welles' directorial contribution to the film, which of course I'd thought of writing but didn't, so kudos to whoever-it-was who did ... I should look it up and include the reference here.)

My film majors are going to think I've lost my mind, but I swear I'm bringing in some of this stuff to class in the fall to teach basic principles of editing sound and image.  Not the how to's of making, I hasten to add, but the how-to's of reading.

For that matter, I may ask the students all to take the same film (I'd love to assign Jane Eyre  in one incarnation or another, but I think I might have a full-scale revolt on my hands if I do that) and reedit it to a song of their choice in, say, a four-minute segment. Of course, then I'd have to watch 40 of them.  40 x 4 = 160 minutes of viewing time for me.  Crap, that's not feasible -- it doesn't even factor in grading time.  Hmm. Still, there's a kernel of a good idea there.

(Yes, this is how I procrastinate -- by obsessing and then relating obsession to my work.)

Treasure trove

Okay, clearly I'm on one of my recurring obsessive Bronte tears that strike every few years or so (you can tell this from my preceding few posts).  For those of you who couldn't care less, move on right now because I'm about to rave into the night.

I've just run across the blog of an M.A. student in Halifax, Nova Scotia devoted to the Brontes that's really good (I've added it to my sidebar), and thanks to her, I've bumped into a treasure trove of  Jane Eyre-related material (of all kinds) on YouTube (well, and elsewhere also -- her blog is worth spending some time with and clicking through if you're interested in things Bronte).

Now, I admit to being behind the times. My students all know about YouTube and while I certainly know about it, I have yet to get used to searching it routinely for unexpected gems whenever there's something out there that's media-related that I or my students might be into. 

Anyway, naturally there are endless Jane Eyre fans out there, many of whom have access to desktop editing software, and some of them have put together images from their own favorite film (or television or theatrical) version of Jane Eyre with all manner of contemporary music -- and some of the results are kind of fascinating.  I've always been attracted to various kinds of popular culture fan interactions with primary, favorite texts: they are almost always performed as labors of genuine love, admiration, and (yes) obsession.  Okay, so the editing isn't always fabulous, and the music isn't always wonderful, but hey -- I teach media, I like Jane Eyre, and hell, I'd give some of the efforts As if they were done as class projects.

Here's only one of many, and I include it simply because it comes from my personal favorite adaptation of the novel, mentioned in earlier posts:  the 1983 BBC paroduction with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton.

Theft update

Link: Paul Potts to improve his pearlers

Aside from the faintly snarky language of this piece, it seems to point to the fact that Paul Potts, the winner of the U.K.'s Britain's Got Talent program (see previous post), is a decent, down-home guy.

Aw.  I like that.

Theft

Okay, I stole this from Julie's All Things Sparkly blog today because, well, it's a moving piece of video.  Note: I do not watch American Idol (this appears to be a U.K. riff on the program, in which people try out for the show), but I'm as riveted by stories of an ordinary guy who gets a shot at his dream as anyone else. (Ultimately, the man featured in the video wins the season competition.)

And I love Puccini.

And I just have to point out that one of the reasons this piece of video makes an impact is that its sound and images are very cleverly and tightly edited so that the well-known aria operates in tandem with carefully selected reaction shots of judges and audience and with panning and crane shots. Without those, and the bit of popular music in the background, and the framing tale  of a diamond-in-the rough ("a little lump of coal") and the frog who becomes a prince, it would simply be another guy -- with a beautiful voice, yes, but there are lots of guys out there with beautiful voices.

I might have to use it to teach basic film grammar to one of my intro classes.

Virginia Tech shootings

I'm a faculty member at a university and so this story hits close to home.  I'm also a media scholar, so I'm  interested in (and appalled by) the 24-hour news networks' franchising of the event since it occurred. Who's to blame, how could it have been prevented, where does fault lie? Developing stories, breaking news ... that are rarely either.

It's too early for answers just now, but it's already clear that the shooter was one disturbed individual and had a history. Students knew it, faculty knew it, mental health professionals knew it. Maybe folks could have done more, intervened more effectively, and prevented this event.

But maybe not.

Maybe what's so terrifying about this story is that someone can become so radically alienated, despite intervention, that he can kill dozens of people in the space of a couple of hours. 

Maybe it's that really horrible, inexplicable, random events can, will, and do happen out of the blue to ordinary, everyday people and there is no larger reason for them, no larger meaning to them except those that we create.

Maybe the truly terrifying thing is the X factor -- that factor for which one can't control in life, no matter how many explanations are offered.

My university sent out a memo from the president's office assuring faculty and staff that it had its security measures firmly in place and web links up to various resources.  It was a CYA memo, designed to do no more than lay the groundwork for its own defense in the event that something similar were to happen here.

I deleted it immediately. It was little more than whistling in the dark.

Isn't This How We All Feel?

Link: because i said so: media and other trivialities: Isn't This How We All Feel?.

Absolutely heartbreaking. Maybe Bush needs to watch this.

Maria Shriver hosting on CNN?

Good god, she's substituting for Larry King this evening -- who irritates the hell out of me these days himself.  But what is the current governor of California's wife doing in an anchor position -- even of a chat show -- on what purports to be a 24-hour news network? (Yeah, yeah, I know -- emphasis on purports).  Sorry, she doesn't get to do that -- not until her husband is out of office.  Them's the breaks when your spouse chooses political office.

Which can't come soon enough for this California resident.

Speaking of which, it wasn't until a couple of years ago when I saw Maria Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger together in the same piece of video (as opposed to a photograph) that it hit me:  one seriously body-dysmorphic person married another. 

Let's face it, they're one very peculiar-looking couple!

Anna Nicole Smith dies - CNN.com

Link: Anna Nicole Smith dies - CNN.com.

Okay, it's almost 2:30 p.m. PST and CNN has been doing its "breaking news" thing over the death of Anna Nicole Smith. For some time now.  And no, other than the fact that she's dead, there isn't any further news on the matter.  So, like, change the subject.

And ask me -- why do I find it offensive that they have an audio feed of Larry King commenting on her life, death, looks, weight, and intelligence (or, according to King, a lack thereof) on (the equally annoying) Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room"? Two self-important old men commenting upon and judging a woman whom their very words objectify ... Okay, so she objectified herself, too.  Her self, her choice.  That doesn't mean others get to during the coverage of her death, forgodssake.

Nancy Grace isn't helping the situation, either.

No wonder other countries think the U.S. is just fucked up.