Confession: I'm not a very good reader

"I mean, I can read, of course. And I'm not suggesting you can't read out of doors."

D'ya get it? huh? huh? That was a quote from the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, which I watched last night. Guess what, I've only read Pride and Prejudice completely once (I reread parts of course). Shocked? Confused by what this all has to do with itself? Lemme 'splain...

I read the first of the Boxcar Children books in first grade and loved it, then hated the second so stopped reading outside of school assignments.

Around seventh grade I decided I was going to be pretentious and work through the British classics, starting with Whuthering Heights. Woof. Do not start your 12 year old with unabridged Emily Bronte. I'm amazed I continued after 60% of all characters died (I did the math, it's in my journal).

Amazingly I moved on and got Pride and Prejudice from a book order (remember those?!). It was paper back and had a terrible painting of blue satin and pearls on the cover with yellow writing. I underlined every word I didn't know. Words like "condescend" (thanks Collins!) and "felicity". Oh man, good times. I loved P&P and remembered that some yahoo sent it to the printer so that it read "how ardently I admire and






love you."
The last two words were on the NEXT PAGE! I had to turn the page! Ugh, the worst. Can you even imagine? Anyway, I loved it and got the '80s BBC production to watch right away, then the '95 when I realized the '80s version was not "the good one".

This was the beginning of my reading phase, and a foreshadowing of its end. I began setting reading goals for myself, and my reward was watching the film...eventually I couldn't read fast enough and so just left the books behind. BUT I did get quite a bit knocked out.

I...
read each Austen before I was 16.
read one of each Bronte before I was 18.
read a Gaskell, read a Forster, and started some Dickens and Thackery and Rand.
read more Brontes and an Ishiguro and Salinger.
read a lot of historical romances and a little dragon fiction...

I tried to keep up with each BBC or Merchant/Ivory film I found that had been adapted from a novel, but I just got lost in the films and left the books all together.

Am I proud of this? No. Have I tried to fix it? Yes, but I fail. I've come to accept that I am not a good reader. I read sewing books, Wikipedia articles, any and all historical tidbits I can find that add up to hours, but it seems my novel days are over. I have reread Persuasion and Little Women and North and South and Ella Enchanted. Part of it is that I have this idea that I've read all the good stuff. I'm sure the novels are better than the films I've read, but I know Tess of the D'Urbervilles ends at Stonehenge...I know how Bleak House and Howards End go.

I'm terrible, believe me, I know. I have this whole self-loathing thing for my bad reading habits. Everyone assumes I read because I've seen the films, or Wishbone, and/or have a pretty quick and ready knowledge of Brit Lit in general. People give me referrals thinking they've found someone with whom they can share the loveliness of their new literary find, but it's no good.

I love to read actually. When I have a good book I love to be transported and get consumed and I stop feeding myself and all of those things, but I just have the hardest time starting. Reading the first Boxcar book in first grade was actually forced on me by my mom and I was not happy about it. I remember. She made me read it, and I loved it, then it was over and I was done.

So there it is, my dirty secret. I'm not a great reader. Now you can all shun me and ignore any conversations we've had about books.

What I have read:
Persuasion, Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, Northanger Abbey, Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Whuthering Heights, Agnes Grey, Tennant of Wildfell Hall, A Room With a View, North and South, The Remains of the Day, Little Women, The Great Gatsby, The Importance of Being Earnest, Pygmalion, The Catcher in the Rye

What I've started:
Vanity Fair, David Copperfield, The Mayor of Casterbridge, Gone With the Wind, This Side of Paradise, Wives and Daughters, Howards End, The Fountainhead, Catch-22

A rather old list of what I've seen can be found here.

favorite picture: Michael Fassbender

oh so very thin in his fall front pants.

I once read a review of Jane Eyre describing Michael Fassbender as "greyhound lean". This is what they meant...

Sometimes I can't get over how narrow men are. It's probably because I have the boniest and most angular hips around. I know that's the point, girls have hips, boys don't, but it surprises me all the same.

Also, everything else about this picture is wonderful and I want to watch the film again.

Books to re-read in the next 5 months

I've settled into a nice routine for the build at USF and will do so again when I'm just dressing. This is my list of books to re-read in the next 5 months a la my having read the Austens before 16 and one of each Bronte before 18.

:-:To Kill a Mockingbird...bc we're doing the play here and I'm sure I'm going to get so much more out of it than I did in 8th grade.
:-:Pride and Prejudice...bc I've never actually re-read all of an Austen again besides Persuasion.
:-:Persuasion...bc it's my favorite and I love it!
:-:Emma...bc I love Knightley
:-:Northanger Abbey...bc it cracks me up
:-:Sense and Sensibility...bc it's not my favorite, but I want to like it more.
:-:Mansfield Park...bc it's under appreciated.
:-:Little Women...bc I'm craving it recently, just watched the movie last night, and I don't think I fully appreciated Prof. Bhaer in 6th grade.
:-:Vilette...bc I waffle between liking it more than Jane Eyre
:-:Jane Eyre...bc I lurve it
:-:NOT Wuthering Heights...bc that's unnecessary nonsense

Books to read for the first time:

:-:The Professor...lots o' Charlotte's are the same-ish, but s'ok, I love a good age gap ;)
:-:Shirley...to round out my Charlotte anthology
:-:Lady Susan...to round out my Austen anthology
:-:Something totally fluffy that doesn't have vampires, suggestions? I need to read some more Ishiguro, but he might not be fluffy enough for me.

I also want to read a book on the history of Washington, DC and some other nonfictions, suggestions?

You better believe I'll be posting s'more insights on these novels, and maybe doing some renderings of the Austens at least.

Halloween

Costume designers tend to be the Ebeneezer Scrooges of Halloween. I honestly can't say whether or not I'm going to be a great costume mom, I'll probs be burnt out by then. If I get paid to design and build costumes, why would I go all out for my kids? It's like if a mom gets paid to be a nurse why would she treat her kids at home, wait...

Anyway, most or all of my costumes were either made by my mom, or thrown together from things I had lying around. Last year I was a 1920s tennis star bc I had a white 20s dress and a racket. This year I was Hipster Jane Eyre: unflattering hair, red lip stain, nerdy boy glasses, scarf, grandpa sweater, skinny jeans (from Urban Outfitters in London, bc that's the hipsterest) and moccasins.

Jane Eyre

Some avid Shakespeare attendees I have found develop an abhorrence for Hamlet. Everyone does Hamlet and it's a very long and arduous play. I knew a woman who refused to see the David Tennant Hamlet at the RCS because she was so over Hamlet. I couldn't imagine this! Every Hamlet is new! and David Tennant! Although Hamlet is not my favorite, so I might have skipped it as well had I not been such a Tennant fan, but we're not going to talk about Shakespeare. We're going to talk about Bronte!

With the recent movie Jane Eyre being the 4th in fifteen years I think that some of us have become a little weary of this particular piece, but not me! It was hard for me to imagine a better telling than the most recent BBC production starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. At four hours it included everything I loved and gave a new life to the story.

When I heard about the new version I was skeptical at first. The Jane, played by Mia Wasikowska, did not thrill me as she was nothing special in Alice in Wonderland. Rochester looked hunky, but I was concerned that he was barely ten years older than Jane, not close to twenty. The costumes of course (by Oscar winning designer Michael O'Connor) were going to be a win, but even after watching clips online I was unsure about casting and was interested to know how this version could be different or noteworthy among the so many others.

In truth you can't really change Jane Eyre up too much. This version did change the order of things a bit, but that was perhaps the most novel thing about the actual story line, but that was the best part! This version went back to some of the essentials in the book that I feel have been missing from other versions, while updating it enough to make it palatable for the audience. Case in point: the after the wedding scene.

In the Timothy Dalton version this scene is followed faithfully with Rochester going NUTS and throwing the biggest tantrum ever, as the literary Rochester does.
In the Toby Stephens version this scene is split up into memories of Rochester in Jane's room in less than vertical positions.
In the newest version the essence of the book, Jane and Rochester's absolute defeat, is portrayed beautifully, violently on Rochester's side, but without turning the audience off to him. It was just absolutely breathtaking.

Other scenes of note are of course after the fire, when Rochester falls off his horse, and the proposal. The very former was again, breathtaking.

Wasikowska's performance was better than I'd ever hoped. Again, the script returned to the book in such a way that the real, feisty but careful Jane was revealed. I was so pleasantly surprised by her performance. Michael Fassbender was fantastic, and attractive in such a peculiar way that while not being ugly enough for Rochester (no man yet cast has been) had a strange look about him that wasn't entirely knock you over attractive. His portrayal of Rochester I feel was new enough and lovable.

Other performances of note were Dame Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax and a never looking better Jamie Bell as St. John (whom, opposite of Rochester, has never been cast handsome enough).

The costumes were perfect to distraction. The accuracy in the women's wear was exhaustive, even down to the little known flap on the front of Jane's chemise to prevent any chance that her corset might be seen. The material choices in the menswear were especially interesting as Rochester's evening ensemble seemed to be some sort of polished cotton. In general Rochester was costumed impeccably, if not mildly stylized and slender. Set in the 40s when the book was written Rochester had a fly front pair of pants, something I'll have to research. I don't doubt O'Connor found research for this. Down to the collars and bustles (not to be confused with the 1870s usage) the costumes were spectacular.

As was the hair and make up. Oh man, so great, and pristine.

Jane Eyres

With the upcoming March 2011 release of a NEW Jane Eyre I thought I'd review the past versions. To some outside the costume drama circles it might seem strange or ridiculous that there are so many versions of the same story, but those in the know know that British literature lends itself to wonderfully different interpretations. Sadly, not all interpretations are created equal. If you'll permit me I'll now give you my opinions about five versions and what I think of what I've seen of the new Jane Eyre.


Ok, so truth be told the first two reviews are going to be rather short and broad b/c I just watched the pivotal scenes on Netflix. First up, Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine in the 1943 movie. By pivotal scenes I mean the proposal and the reunion. I watched a few more from this version because I didn't mind it too much, but here are my impressions, characterization wise, costume wise, production wise and overall wise.
Characterization: Run of the mill. You'll find with most Jane Eyres that Jane, b/c she's supposedly so plain and small, is played very subdued and deadpan. Rochester was pretty similar, VERY deadpan. There was very little fire and passion, but Welles made up for it with his RIDICULOUSLY sexy voice. He was rather captivating but she was nothing to scream about, too beautiful.
Costumes: Run of the mill. Made in 1943 the costumes had a very 40s feel to them, mostly in the menswear (what's with normal pointed collars? I should NOT see Rochester's neck, weird). Jane's hair was beautiful in a perfect, subdued, coming out of the 30s, into the 40s, looking historical sort of way. The costumes were more 1840s than 1830s which is when the novel is set (written in the 40s, tells the story of ten years prior).
Production: What you'd expect of a 1940s romance, very Casablanca. Lots of maudlin shots of the heroine with glistening tears and the man looking brooding.
Overall: It seemed like a pretty straight interpretation of the novel, with exact lines from the book. It really had the subdued feel of a 40s movie.


Oh William Hurt. I thought I'd watched bits of this on Netflix but it's not on Instant Play, so maybe it used to be, or maybe I actually had it sent to the house, I don't know. I barely remember it though...For being a Zeffirelli you'd think it would have made more of an impression, but it didn't. So, Rochester played by William Hurt, Jane by Charlotte Gainsbourgh, from 1996. Rochester was more passionate than Welles, but I remember thinking he wasn't as passionate as real Rochester. Gainsbourgh as Jane I do remember, totally underwhelming. Yes, Jane is poor, obscure, plain and little, but she's NOT soulless and heartless. Jane's written witty and clever and refreshing for Rochester. Gainsbrough was completely lifeless. The proposal scene was painful. I can't remember enough else to give you a good review about anything else.


Jane Eyre '97. Rochester=Ciarin Hinds, Jane= Samantha Morton. This version tried to be sufficiently moody.
Characterization: Rochester was temperamental, probably the closest to the book as any of the Rochesters so far. Hinds, whom I adore in Persuasion and other films, groused about and had a mustache and was probably ugly enough for Rochester, but lacked the lovableness that one gains for him as the novel progresses. Samantha Morton. Not. a. fan. I always feel like she needs to sniff her nose to keep it from dripping. She plays Jane soft spoken and timid. I watched this one awhile ago so I can't remember much else. Yes I am prejudiced against the woman, but I don't remember much to dissuade my prejudice.
Costumes: Fine, again, set further back in the 1840s. I remember Rochester being a little too big, like his silhouettes didn't do it for me. Jane was plainly dressed of course, and I don't remember enough petticoats. One could argue this was a choice to show her reduced circumstances. Nothing to write home about.
Production: Dark, bleak, very Bronte.
Overall: Not a fan. At about 100 minutes (which all the versions have roughly been thus far) it rushes a great story. I hate to be away from Rochester too, but rushing their separation is a disservice to Jane's development.


Alright! Here we go. I read Jane Eyre in 10th grade and loved it. After I read it I went straight out and rented this version, and got it for my subsequent Christmas. Timothy Dalton is Rochester, Zelah Clarke is Jane, 1983. I love this version, it was my favorite for a couple of years.
Characterization: Rochester is very passionate but lovable. Of course Timothy Dalton is no where near ugly enough, or ugly at all, to play Rochester, which truth be told we are all grateful for. He's tall and dark and has his growly Welsh baritone. His characterization is very changeable and I feel like the closest to the book. Zelah Clarke as Jane switches between looking and seeming 19 and looking and seeming much older, which I think is a hallmark of Jane. She's sharp like she is in the book and when called for she's just as passionate as Rochester. I think she's also the most appropriate portrayal of the novel's Jane.
Costumes: Set in the 1830s! Yes! I have nothing against setting the film in the 40s because the costumes are all together more palatable for the modern palette, but I can't help but love the 30s and this version has done them up right. Rochester's costumes are a little dated but I love that his neck is pasty white (b/c it really never would have seen the light of day. Jane's costumes, while plain and grey are the perfect examples of 1830s gigot sleeves. Her collars are adorable and everything is piped! The hair is also fantastically 30s with many a style a la Chinoise in the house party.
Production: Overall the production value was rather poor. The lighting was awkward or dark, the faces needed powdering desperately and the overall film quality was rather awful but the locations were good and the set dressings very appropriate.
Overall this is my second favorite Jane Eyre. It is probably the truest to the book in my mind with its characterizations, lines and storytelling. It is also something like 4 hours so it really tells the story like it should. The supporting characters are lovely. If you need to cheat and watch a movie instead of reading the book I'd say this is your best bet.


Oh baby, oh baby. 2006. Rochester=Toby Stephens, Jane=Ruth Wilson. I waited and waited for this version to come to the US on Masterpiece Theatre and I have journal entry after journal entry from the Sundays it was on extolling this version's virtues.
Characterization: Definitely modernized. Rochester is grouchy and changeable, but much more dragged down and worn. With extra pounds of muscle and long curly hair Stephens is of course, again, too beautiful to play Rochester, but again, we don't mind. His Rochester is lovable and vulnerable in a way the others aren't. Scenes and lines have been added pointing to Rochester's dependence on Jane even before he declares his love. The reunion is heart warming and tear jerking. Stephen's Rochester is a man's man while still being absolutely desperately in love. Wilson's Jane is the feistiest and most full of character of any Jane I've seen. She acts a lot from just looks, something I think that is lost in other versions. There's no ignoring that she has a duck face and no chin, making her plain enough for Jane, but she has a beauty, especially with her hair down, that makes sure we like her. The relationship between the two really develops and you understand why they are drawn together.
Costumes: 1840s, great. I LOVE Rochester in this one, mostly because Stephens put on so much muscle weight that is excellently shown off by his tight breeches and high boots. Jane's costumes are appropriately plain, but well fitting. The house party's costumes are what there is to scream about. I just love them all.
Production: Excellent, of course. The modern BBC productions are unparalleled. The locations were breathtaking, the set dressing meticulous and the attention to detail was greatly appreciated. The supporting characters, with their own personalities and new characterizations and scenes were enjoyable and made our time away from Jane and Rochester bearable.
Overall: My favorite, duh. It is a very modern version. Time has been played with, esp with the after the wedding flashbacks. I don't mind it. This version is a lot more smoochy than any others. I don't mind. At four glorious hours this version also takes its time, but doesn't dwell too much with little Jane, a vital portion of the story I know, but once you've read it you don't need the entire back story on film. I just love this version for all its little extra touches which I feel don't take away from the story or the original novel.


http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/janeeyre/
Alright, new Jane Eyre. Due out March 2011 starring Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska. Fassbender's been in 300 and other things I haven't seen. Of German/Irish decent he sure looks like a hunk. Mia Wasikowska (say that 3 times fast) was Alice in Alice in Wonderland. I was underwhelmed by her in that one, let's hope she brings more to the table with this one.
Characterization: Fassbender's 33 in real life, compared to Wasikowska's 21 I don't think the difference is enough, but there you go. I'm not going to complain TOO too much, b/c I mean, look at Fassbender, yum. Meanwhile, how weird is it that Wasikowska's younger than me? Weird. Anyway, moving on. Rochester looks rather brooding, but not dark enough. We'll see if Jane falls into the timidity, no personality trap. Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax is exciting!
Costumes: By Michael O'Connor!! of Oscar winning "The Duchess" fame! So excited. Again, set in the more palatable 1840s these costumes look GORGEOUS! Jane's look quite fancier than any I've seen, but I'm not one to say O'Connor nay for dressing her mildly above her station. The striped dresses alone of Jane and Blanche are enough for me. Also, watch the trailer above and checkout the shot at 1.36, yum yum Rochester's pants w/ his skinny skinny waist. Also, he rides that horse.
Production: Looks pretty great, big budget stuff.
Overall: I'm excited. The trailer claims that it's a bold new look at the novel. From the trailer I see nothing that's especially different from any other version. If they're playing up the Gothic, Romantic and horrific elements of the story I'd say that's slightly new, but not unheard of. Jane Eyre is a creepy, scary, unsavory story with fires, insanity, disfigurement and creepy laughs. It looks to me like this one might just capitalize on this more than others. I'm excited to see Sally Hawkins and Jamie Bell again, and I'm sure I'll have to buy this one.