Sigh

...really?...

If anyone's interested, I'll pontificate on this in the comments after I battle the whirlwind that just ate my soul.

Okay, never mind. I can't NOT speak here.

Jane Eyre is one of my absolute favorite novels from my young adult years. It opened my eyes and heart to so much more than just good literature (to which I had already been introduced). I have already written (albeit briefly) about my love of this novel, so I won't go into the details here. This is about the movie, anyway, not the book.

I have no issue with the hollywoodization of novels. The industry feels it is so sadly lacking in fresh story ideas, it seems. So if my choices are to see Rush Hour 25: Gridlock! or and adaptation of a great novel, I think my choice is clear. I also understand that what makes great written stories don't necessarily make great movies, and therefore changes must be made, things cut, subtle plot points turned into frying pans to beat the viewer's heads in. But good screenwriters and thoughtful directors make choices that translate the story faithfully despite any changes.

The first of these thoughtful choices is in your lead actors. Keira Knightly and Matthew Macfadyen were strong choices in what could have been a disastrous turn of a brilliant novel. And while Gwyneth Paltrow usually bugs me a little (and breaks rule #1), she embodied her character to an honorable enough degree to not ruin her title movie. But a bad choice in lead actor can ruin even the most amiable adaptation.

1. When your novel is set in England, please please please employ British actors.

They do exist, you know. Very talented, those Brits. One might even say they've held an acting tradition that supersedes ours by, oh, a couple centuries? Ellen Page is as cute as a button, but I feel I'm pointing out the painfully obvious by stating she is NOT BRITISH! If one was doing a Clueless-like adaptation, then I could understand, but a straight-up retelling? Did you learn nothing from Jena Malone (a fine actor by her own right, but by far the weakest link, along with fellow American Donald Sutherland, in the recent P&P)?

2. When part of the appeal, hell, one of the main aspects, of your protagonist is that she is not beautiful, do not cast someone beautiful and plain her down for the part.

The world is filled with mightily talented actors who happen to not look like Charlize Theron. Or Ellen Page. Some of them might even be British. And keep in mind that Rochester is no looker, either. And older than Jane by far. I can't fucking wait to see who they cast.

3. It's really okay to cut out parts of the novel to fit into the delegated screen time, but make those cuts judiciously, keeping in mind the arc of the story. And there had better be a damn good reason for changing actual plot points.

No one, other than me and a few die-hard Austen fans have seen the brilliant Persuasion. I recommend for everyone a study of a fine fine novel which was in turn adapted into a fine fine movie. This was made easier by the fact that Persuasion-the novel is very short. It can be read in a day. Eyre, on the other hand, is not only not short, it is full of layers and story arcs that traverse Jane's whole brief life. The importance her childhood plays in decisions she makes later in life cannot be ignored, or glossed over, or covered in 10 minutes of screen time. And anyone who watched the disastrous Scarlet Letter doesn't need me to go any further on the whole changing plot points thing.

I feel a caveat is needed here: I will probably go see this version, as I have seen every other. I will go with trepidation. I will be ready to enjoy it in spite of..., and I will attempt to take what I can from it without letting it discourage me completely. Then I will bitch about the hollywoodization of favorite novels and watch this adaptation, which (while cheating a little because it is a miniseries) is the best of the bunch - sexy and smart with a great cast.