A Review on the movie, Jane Eyre (1944)

童話課作業

Dec 10, 2013

Jane Eyre has been adapted into different versions of movies and television shows. I haven’t seen many of them except the 2011 version and maybe the first chapter of the book. After seeing this movie, though, I’m now intending to read the whole thing through, and for some very strange reason: I find it hard to enjoy the film wholeheartedly, and can barely call myself a fan of their love story.

According to the story, Mr. Rochester is supposed to be a brooding, somewhat unattractive man, and Jane Eyre a very plain-looking girl. I get it that the actor must not be too obviously handsome, but the problem is…I didn’t find his suffered soul attractive after quite some time, either.

Perhaps it is because it’s just not the kind of love I would appreciate. They were two people who both had nowhere to go, who in this case felt the need to cling unto each other. Jane Eyre is the girl who’s had a grim past, and the chances for her to get a decent job are slim. There’s no family or anybody she could care about, before she met Mr. Rochester, that is. I’m sure Jane Eyre is a woman with strong will, but I don’t think she is old enough or nearly experienced enough to tell whether this man is really what she wants. Maybe she just wanted to save him, but it could have been any other man that came across. (It could also have been a result of the portrayal in the movie, which is why I’m desperate to find out more details in the novel!) As for Mr. Rochester, his life was fairly miserable, with nothing good happened to him but a good fortune. This fact, after reading “Beauty and the Beast,” became very intriguing to me, because the Beast also had no apparent merits except a lot of money.

        One other complaint is that I really don’t see the point of hiding the secret about Mr. Rochester’s wife from Jane Eyre. Surely he must anticipate that once he tries to remarry, the law will forbid it, and things will get exposed. What was him thinking?

        Still, the movie had some extremely funny moments which made it less dark. For example, the scene where Mr. Rochester said “Let’s shake hands.” was so quirky it cracked me up. Also how similar to “Beauty and the Beast” it was for Jane to answer “No, (I don’t find you attractive) sir.” to Mr. Rochester...

PS. Not really relevant to the main topic but I personally adore Dr. Rivers.

《Rebecca》（蝴蝶夢）

童話課作業

Nov. 2013

I remember reading Rebecca by author Daphne du Maurier for the first time: at 16, it looked but an old-fashioned romance novel with great suspense. It was afterwards that I watched Hitchcock’s film by the same title, and I was utterly thrilled. Later over the years, although I’ve been introduced to classics such as Rear Window, Psycho, and Dial M for Murder, Rebecca still remains my favorite Hitchcock film. In the book, the haunting opening passage gives readers a dreamlike and almost ghostly impression on Manderley, a mansion where most of Rebecca’s story takes place. “Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again…” The movie also had that introduction. It did such a great job in drawing the audience in, adding a mysterious, unfortunate shade to the later story. And to think about it, Manderley was really the heart of all those deeply hidden secrets.

The most important and prominent figure in this film of course, was Rebecca, the woman who never showed nor did she have any line but was everywhere to be seen in the film. I mean, her name was even featured as the movie title! In comparison, the 2^nd Mrs. de Winter was really the one without a name, the one who was so shy and awkward, and the one whose anonymity was too “deliberately” overlooked by other characters that this couldn’t be just an accident. In fact, the author and director have done such a great job of building Rebecca’s fierce character, that her existence outshined that of 2^nd Mrs. de Winter’s. Her phantom haunts, in every twist and turn of the story, her stuff all over Manderley with the big cheeky “R” on them. As the audience, it was as if we could feel the 2^nd Mrs. de Winter’s pressure of being an outsider and living under the shadow of someone from the past. (The phone scene where Mrs. de Winter picks up and tells the dialer “Mrs. de Winter is dead” is brilliant.)

        Rebecca is also said to be of “Bluebeard” reference. I think there are some striking similarities indeed. Still, one should take into account that the story of “Bluebeard” was set in the medieval times, when murderers could easily get away with crimes. Up until the early 20^th century, technology wasn’t so commonly used in crime investigation, and so writers could still produce stories like Rebecca. If “Bluebeard” is going to be realistic right now, it has to transform, perhaps into a more metaphorical, psychological version like Atwood’s rendition. Modern readers are still able to relate to the “Bluebeard” motif though, in a sense which has more to do with abusive relationships. It seems to me that in Rebecca, Maxim’s character is a typical emotionally (and with the potential of being physically) abusive one, although for the most part the audience can well regard him as the good guy. (And Laurence Olivier was super beautiful!) He’s got quite a temper. Touch an unexpected nerve and the consequences may be dire. The relationship between Maxim and Mrs. de Winter was becoming so questionable with each time of Maxim getting furious, scolding and scaring Mrs. de Winter, apologizing, and eventually being forgiven. Maybe it was the director trying to build suspense, but still, Maxim was a rather moody man.

        In a nutshell, Hitchcock was truly a genius, in that he had us all on the edge of our seats, creating such an atmosphere in which we couldn’t even decide who was more scary and suspicious- was it Mrs. Danvers, Rebecca, Jack, or Maxim?- until the very last minute. Yet, when the truth came out, it managed to be convincing to say the least.

註：就在班上看完電影後幾日，便傳出了女主角Joan Fontaine逝世的遺憾消息。Aged 96, it wasn't as tragic a death as an untimely one, but it was still a great loss for the movie world. R.I.P Miss Fontaine.

Mockingjay- an itch that's not well satisfied

I spent half long of my winter vacation writing the S&R review that I've been working on for over half a year now, which, I think, is finally slowly, painstakingly approaching 6000 words. I was aiming for 8000, just so you know. Now that I know this won't be a problem because there are just 2000 words ahead of me and I've still got plenty of bullocks to fill the thing in, I feel relieved to be focusing on getting the contents done and refining my structure.

Coincidentally, another work I finished reading, also a trilogy, is The Hunger Games series finale, aka., Mockingjay.

I think the ending was mildly dissapointing, although not to the point that I'd hate it. The trilogy as a whole was good, but it just seems that the writer got SO lazy with this last installment, that the entire thing comes across as rushed and barely satisfactory. It was almost frustrating imagining how it could have ended differently, better, ect. Tie up a few more loose ends and it would have done justice to an overall engaging story. Remind me again why we were addicted in the first place.

While I was pleased with the previous two books and desired to know what happened with the last, Suzanne Collins didn't nail it.

The first half of Mockingjay was somewhat tedious and had me yawn a lot (well, partly as a result of the tendency I have to read in bed, a few hours of pleasure before I go to sleep). That I can accept. What I CAN'T accept is how, when all a reader wants is for the story to pick up in the latter half, it comes to a halt before the said reader can actually comprehend what was going on.

Every fiction is bound by a perspective, a narrator, whether it makes you see the world through the eyes of a character or someone who knows it all is telling you things you ought to know. A good fiction, however, should always have its POV work for the audience. Cuz we are the boss, to be perfectly honest. And a capable writer would definitely strive to pull off his/her chosen perspective.

Sadly, in Mockingjay, we see the transformation of Katniss through...well, a series of mental chaos, alongside being constantly sedated, traumatized, unconscious, and semi-conscious. Oh there, Katniss passed out again. Oh wait she's awake. What day is it? What? Four days have passed? Things like that just keep happening in Mockingjay. We miss every exciting event that's going on out there. We as readers don't even get a front-row seat (saw someone using this expression and thought it was cool) when the Capitol fell. Okay, I get it, Katniss is just a 17-year-old girl who's happened to be the icon of a rebellion. It won't be realistic to have her know everything, participate in everything, or have a say in everything. And this is warrrr, destructive, traumatizing war. No one survives the war not even the winner.

I praise the writer for wanting to go deep, but that just seems too convenient to simply block us out doesn't it? And then the writer doesn't even spare us a decent explanation in the end. Finnick and Prim's deaths were ruthless, if not meaningless. I mean really, what's the point? Somehow I get Prim's. It's the irony of it all. Katniss sacrificed herself trying to save Prim's life, but at the end, Prim died trying to help others. But Finnick? Even Collins mentioned right after half of the crew was killed by the mutts, that "Katniss shouldn't let them die in vain" (maybe not in the exact words), but still, they did, dying for nothing and for no reason close to convincing at all.