#but i feel like the film adaptations are too into rochester in a way that the actual book is not

[dollsome-does-tumblr]

unlike every adaptation i have seen, i am absolutely obsessed with the moor house section of jane eyre

[candlelightreader]

I am currently on a Jane Eyre bender, having watched every single adaptation since 1943 (I couldn't find 1934 or prior) in the last two weeks, and I have a lot of thoughts! But two thoughts are at the very top:

a) This piece of literature has had a TV or feature adaptation practically every decade, sometimes more, since the 1910s (and I'm only counting British and American version) and is we're due one this decade. Bring it on! I'll take a series after 2011, but hey 2006 is great already so maybe we just need another film? Or just give us the 2011 director's cut, you cowards!

b) (and this is the bigger point for today) I cannot explain to myself why, while I find age gaps intolerable in real life and especially in modern times, I really can't see it (and forget about it even) in Jane Eyre--for the most part. It doesn't truly bother me that she's barely 18 and Rochester 20 years older. Not even when you take into account the kind of life he led before he meets her and the added major power imbalance in their situation as boss/employee.

I mean, I have come to understand that the power imbalance given the norms at the time is the reason he brings in Ingram to try to get her to admit her feelings. He can't come outright and ask her for fear of appearing like a cad and stepping over the line if she doesn't reciprocate his feelings. At the same time, she can't ask him plainly because if she is wrong about his feelings, she'll only be the cliché governess who comes on to her boss and probably have to leave the very nice job and first refuge she ever had. So they are both at an impasse.

(I choose here to take at face value the idea that Bertha is truly mad and not driven mad and that the whole thing is tragedy because he's unable to divorce her. It's its own rant to discuss what she may represent or what the truth may be with her. Also noting that the age gap is only problematic because she's a teenager and he's basically middle-aged. If they had met later, at least nearer 25 for her, then it wouldn't be the same, although it really only stops being concerning after about 29, right?)

Anyway, I come back to the fact that I feel bothered that I am not that bothered that they have such gap. Because the other imbalances (wealth and employment status) adjust themselves eventually, but not age; he remains older and she younger. Is it because in the very specific context they are in they are equal in spirit and each really have something to teach the other? Or perhaps the time period? Because I definitely feel I would have an issue with the story if it was set in the 21st century, only because an 18yo today is not in any way the same as one in the mid 19th century.

She also has a superior self-awereness to her, given her life experiences that he lacks when they meet. He just has to first be humbled and taken down notches to get to her level. In that sense, he is no more mature for having lived longer and is stuck emotionally and perhaps mentally too in the age he was when his father and brother's died soon after his first marriage. But it remains she is a girl with absolutely no experience with men and he's a lothario who's been gallivanting the globe seducing women and being a sugar daddy.

One may say it's also because it is addressed by the characters themselves and that Rochester seems self-aware that he is much older, even at a time when many men of his station would see it as their due to get the 'young thing'. He makes remarks on his age in a way that diffuses the idea that she is blind to the potential for corruption that is there in their situation. He knows she deserves better.

But most important perhaps is that, in real life, the idea of a 38 yo and 18 yo getting together feels wrong because we have no insight into the relationship and only see the imbalance (justifiably because we know too well of the way older partners will manipulate their younger ones) no matter the gender. So the insight into Jane Eyre's mind manages to convince me of the validity of the relationship than if I was reading it as a document removed from her voice.

Jane Eyre is not the only story where I have contradictory views of age gaps. I am sure I've read other romances with gaps that don't bother me, when in real life I find it reprehensible for the most part.

Anyhow, I will certainly be looking into academic breakdowns of the couple to seek some answers, as I do.

These where thoughts I wanted to put down. Will come back later for thoughts on the adaptations.

[eyreguide]

The Curious Case of the First Jane Eyre 2011 Trailer

Let’s rewind to a better time and a more tranquil and relaxing year - 2011.  It had been roughly 5 years since the last adaptation of Jane Eyre (the ever popular 2006 BBC mini series) and I, as an avid fan, was eagerly awaiting the latest adaptation - this time for the silver screen.  The very first trailer came out, and I was astonished at the tone it took.  It was darker, more Gothic, and horror infused.  It took elements of the story where Jane might be nervous and scared and highlighted them.  I was VERY skeptical about where this new version was taking the story, and I was not entirely pleased.  Even though the casting looked amazing, I had very strong doubts about this adaptation.

And then it came out and I absolutely loved it.  

It did not live up to it’s creepy and unsettling first trailer, and was instead a very nuanced and faithful portrait of the novel, and it ranks in my top two favorite adaptations of Jane Eyre.  I know that trailers are cut by the marketing team, but I found that the particular vibe of the first trailer was so specific, with scenes filmed that added to that aura, yet never made the final cut, that I wonder at the direction this film took.  Was it originally going to be more “scary” than previous adaptations?  Did Cary Fukunaga want to lean more into the Gothic tendencies and then decided not to?  Who knows.  But for now, I thought it would be fun to deep dive into that first trailer, and examine it in all it’s Gothic glory. 

If you haven’t seen it, or don’t remember it - you can find it on YouTube:

It's such a strange trailer for Jane Eyre! Let's start with the very FIRST shot:

Jane Eyre - a book always known for it’s graves of dead bodies.  This might be Lowood?  Showing the devastation of all the children who caught typhus - it’s a dramatic and valid scene, but it didn’t make the final film, and is such a weird way to introduce an audience to the story in a trailer.

With the voiceover from Brocklehurst talking about where the wicked go after death, and shots of young Jane running (again not in the film) and the fire, this starts to feel like a fan made trailer trying to make Jane Eyre into a horror film.  It’s fun.

There are a couple genuine shock/scare moments in this adaptation, and of course one of them makes it into the trailer - the cloud of black smoke that issues from the fireplace in the Red Room.  If I was thinking a ghost might come, and then THAT happened, I would be scared too!  (The other scare moment to me happens when Jane is walking to post a letter, and a bird comes up very suddenly in her way - the sound of the bird exploding upward during a pretty quiet scene is intense, and made me jump the first time I saw it.)

The trailer than begins showing some text to explain what happens and it’s classic:

From a loveless past...

She sought refuge...

and found a place...

With shots of Mr. Rochester and Thornfield being shown, along with some ominous music being played - it really seems like Jane is going into Bluebeard’s castle here... Kudos for including the “You’re afraid of me” line here from Mr. Rochester to really drive that home.

There’s also the inclusion of a clip from when Jane is talking to Rochester about seeing her veil torn (”It was not a dream I know what I saw”/ “It must have been half dream, half reality.”) Another scene not included in the final film, but perfect to showcase that something unsettling is going on.

There is also this shot of Helen Burns in a white, ghostly nightdress on the moors (now I know it’s at the Rivers house):

I read a copy of the original script for this adaptation some time back, and I remember that there was a part where Helen Burns would appear to Jane in times of trouble.  Like Mother Mary appearing to Paul McCartney in “Let it Be”, Helen would provide some comfort to Jane as her memory bears her through all her trials.  It’s a wonderful, theatrical invention, but I am glad they ultimately didn’t go with it.  But I might have also loved it’s inclusion if it was well done, and really made me feel for Jane’s friendship with Helen.

I also love the series of “alarmed” faces that soon follow - of all the characters reacting to things that vary in their level of actually inducing fear (now that I’ve seen the film, I know this), but it’s fun to see it all cut together like this:

And I wanted to comment on this shot of a fly on a book:

There was also an ongoing thread in the original script of a fly being a foreshadow (?) of Bertha - maybe?  There were lots of fly shots, and in the final film there are a couple moments still of that - with Bertha collecting dead flies on her window sill, and spitting a fly on Jane’s wedding dress when she first sees her.  It’s weird, and I’m glad they didn’t lay too heavily into that.

Lastly we have this supremely weird and Gothic moment to end the trailer.  We now know that Jane imagines Mr. Rochester coming to her schoolhouse after she’s left him - she opens her door and he’s there.  But in the trailer, they completely black over Mr. Rochester’s eyes!

Maybe this was just for the trailer, as I can’t imagine they would have tried this for the actual film. It just seems too outrageous for the story to have Jane imagine Mr. Rochester like this: their romantic reunion in her mind, seems much more appropriate than this scary manifestation.  But it definitely created a WTF reaction from me when I first watched the trailer.  So entertaining!  

A part of me would love to see a more horror centered film adaptation of Jane Eyre, just to see what that would be like.  But I am glad that this trailer gives me a glimpse, and also makes me wonder what was going on in the mind of the producers and marketing team at the time!

[schmergo]

Regarding your very interesting and thorough post on the Jane Eyre films and unconventional beauty... I'm curious as to whether you believe the casting is at fault or the makeup/costume department? I think we could place some blame on both, but casting should be first & foremost about choosing the best performance not necessarily the appearance. If I were to choose the best representation so far, I agree with you 100% that the 2006 version came the closest to the novel's authenticity.

I actually think the makeup/costume team did a great job OTHER THAN they coulda made Rochester look WAY MORE INJURED at the end!

Some other versions of Jane Eyre have Jane in obvious eye makeup and stuff. In this one, she had a real clean, fresh-faced look even though I’m sure she must have been wearing makeup. Her dresses were very appropriate for the character, too (and I loved her cute simple wedding dress).

The hair extensions/dye for Toby Stephens and darkening his eyebrows were very well done. The dark hair also kinda washed him out in a way that made his freckled complexion look more rough and weathered rather than just typical fair-ginger-guy-freckles. His costuming was EXCELLENT- I really think his styling, his hair and facial hair, his physicality, his stupid hat, were all perfect for the character. The guy in them was just way too naturally pretty for the role.

All that said, I don’t want to necessarily complain that the casting team did a bad job. Like I said before, I think the actors really gave good performances and I enjoyed their chemistry very much. I don’t want to erase this movie from movie history or replace the actors. This is my favorite adaptation of the book I’ve seen.

But I feel like the next time this book is adapted to screen, I’d like to see them cast the net a little wider in casting. I’d love to see more plus-sized men playing romantic leads. I’d love to see more young women with visible acne and eye bags unhidden by makeup onscreen. I’d love to see more asymmetrical faces, imperfect teeth, scars, blotchy skin, all the little flaws that many people have and certainly had back then in the 19th century.

(Also, if I were directing or writing the 2006 movie, if I found that handsome Toby Stephens was the best choice for the role, I might have cut one or two of the lines about how ugly Rochester is or at least toned them down, though I would have kept that “Am I hideous, Jane?” “Very, sir. You always were, you know” exchange because it’s A++++)

[tcm]

Overlooked Bernard Herrmann Scores By Jessica Pickens

His name is synonymous with staccato violin notes that remind audiences of knife stabbing and have made many reluctant to take a shower. Composer Bernard Herrmann is the master behind iconic scores for films like THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (’41) and PSYCHO (’60). The Academy Award-winning composer scored the two films that are often argued to be the best of all-time: CITIZEN KANE (’41) and VERTIGO (’58). His work continues to be reused in pop culture, from his whistling TWISTED NERVE (’68) theme used in Quentin Tarantino’s KILL BILL: VOLUME 1 (2003) to Lady Gaga using part of VERTIGO’s prelude in her “Born This Way” music video.

Known best for his collaborations with directors Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles, other works of Herrmann’s often go overlooked. Below are a few of his scores that are less often discussed.

JANE EYRE (’43)

In this adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s novel, Jane Eyre (Joan Fontaine), who is hired by the wealthy Edward Rochester (Orson Welles), works as the governess for Rochester’s daughter which leads to her discovering secrets in the house. “On a project like ‘Jane Eyre,’ I didn’t need to see the film beforehand. One just remembers the book,” Herrmann said in a 1975 interview, discussing this film’s score.

JANE EYRE was Herrmann’s first project with 20th Century-Fox, which started a 19-year partnership with the studio and a long friendship with composer and Fox music director Alfred Newman. Fox studio head Darryl F. Zanuck initially sought composer Igor Stravinsky to score the film, but negotiations fell through. Producer David O. Selznick and Welles were the driving force behind hiring Herrmann for the project, according to Herrmann’s biographer Steven Smith.

Herrmann’s score has a dark, gothic feel that matches the theme of the novel. New York Herald Tribune composer critic Paul Bowles described the score as “gothic extravagance and poetic morbidities. It contains some of the most carefully wrought effects to be found in recent film scores,” Bowles wrote. According to Smith, Herrmann called it his first “screen opera.” The score foreshadowed work on another Brontë project — his “Wuthering Heights” opera that didn’t see a full theatrical performance until 2011.

ON DANGEROUS GROUND (‘51)

Directed by Nicholas Ray, an adaptation of Gerald Butler’s book Mad with Much Heart. The film follows a rough city police officer, Jim Wilson (Robert Ryan). After Jim is too violent with a suspect, he is sent to a rural area as punishment. His job is to help with a manhunt for the murderer of a child. A blind woman, Mary Malden (Ida Lupino) is the sister of the murderer, and she tries to convince Jim to protect her brother.

ON DANGEROUS GROUND is one of Herrmann’s few film noir scores. Film noir expert and host of TCM’s Noir Alley Eddie Muller said, "Herrmann's score is one of the most distinctive crime scores of the era." In a June 2019 introduction of the film, Muller noted “Herrmann’s score is unlike any other music written for film noir. A dramatic clash of brass, strings and percussion that goes a long way to unify the film’s unusual — almost schizophrenia — structure.”

Herrmann admired Ray’s storytelling and engineered a creative score that illustrated good and evil. For Lupino’s character, Herrmann used the viola soloist Virginia Majewski, who Herrmann advocated to have on-screen credit. Herrmann also had the rare freedom to compose, orchestra and conduct the entire score. The most notable cue is “The Death Hunt,” that has a driving, frantic tempo and can be compared to his later NORTH BY NORTHWEST (’59) score. Muller noted that to make sure “The Death Hunt” cue was effective, Herrmann fought to have the sound mix corrected during the scene so that the barking dogs wouldn’t drown out his score.

THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO (1952)

Based on an Ernest Hemingway short story, Gregory Peck plays Harry, a novelist who uses his earnings to travel. While on safari in Africa, Harry suffers an injury that results in a deadly infection. As he lies dying, he thinks back on his life and past romances, and his safari companion Helen, played by Susan Hayward, nurses Harry through his illness.

While some of Herrmann’s most famous scores drive thrillers and adventures, scores like THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO show he can create beautiful, gentle and charming tunes. His cues are dreamy and wistful, matching the mental state of the ill Harry, whose mind travels to the past while on his death bed. Herrmann’s cue entitled, “The Memory Waltz,” is particularly dreamy. Herrmann said he tried to create music of “a highly nostalgic nature” as a man dies and deals with his “emotional past.”

On the film’s release, New York Times film critic Bosley Crowther praised Herrmann’s score. “For it is Mr. Herrmann’s music, singing sadly and hauntingly, that helps one sense the pathos of dead romances and a wasted career. A saxophone and a piano in a Paris studio, an accordion on an old Left Bank bar and an arrogant guitarist in a Spanish café—these are also actors in the film. Perhaps they come closer to stating what Hemingway had to say.”

MARNIE (1964)

Marnie (Tippi Hedren) is a thief who suffers from psychological trauma of her past, which comes to a head after she marries a widower (Sean Connery) from a wealthy Philadelphia family who does not readily accept her. MARNIE was the end of an era. It marked the last of seven films that Herrmann collaborated on with director Alfred Hitchcock on, beginning with THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY (’55).

Much had changed for both Herrmann and Hitchcock by 1964, including how they were both viewed by Hollywood executives. Herrmann and Hitchcock were being pressured to be more “hip” for 1960s audiences. The studio even urged Hitchcock not to hire “old-fashioned” Herrmann. But if Hitchcock did hire Herrmann, they encouraged him to also have a title pop song, according to Smith. The film was a box-office failure — Hitchcock’s first failure in many years. Today, the film is now appreciated by audiences, but Herrmann’s score still is often overlooked when compared to other Hitchcock titles.

The main title of MARNIE features blaring horns, which sound haphazard against more melodic violins — illustrating the mix of trauma and beauty. A notable cue is “The Foxhunt,” which begins with a jaunty, almost cheerful, tune filled with horns and violins. But the cue turns more haphazard and frantic as it continues. While this was Herrmann’s last completed score for Hitchcock, Herrmann started work on TORN CURTAIN (’66) but was replaced due to artistic differences.

IT’S ALIVE (’74)

The Davies family (Sharon Farrell and John P. Ryan) are expecting their second child. But when their baby is born, he is a monster who kills anyone in his path. The 1970s marked a new era for Bernard Herrmann. He began working with younger filmmakers who appreciated his work of the past. These included Martin Scorsese and Brian De Palma. One of these collaborations spawned a friendship with director of IT’S ALIVE, Larry Cohen, who cited Herrmann as a major influence in his career up until his death in 2019.

Herrmann enjoyed the experience with his film because he enjoyed working with Cohen. To add to the eerie, creepy vibe of the film, Herrmann incorporated a Moog synthesizer into the score. He also uses a viola for a mournful note, according to Smith. Herrmann also had fun naming his cues, such as “The Milkman Goeth” when the baby kills the milkman.

Herrmann was set to work with Cohen again for the film GOD TOLD ME TO (’76), but Herrmann died in 1975 before he could begin.

[jadelotusflower]

Roundup: August 2021

This month: Jane Eyre, Wide Sargasso Sea, Don’t Call it a Cult, The Secret Garden, Showbiz Kids, Masters of the Universe: Revelation, Lucifer.

Reading Jane Eyre (Charlotte Bronte) - I’ve been meaning to read the Wide Sargasso Sea for a long, long time, but first I thought I’d revisit the source material. I find my opinion hasn’t much changed - I still love the prose, still love Jane as a character, and still find Rochester extremely unappealing. The section with Jane at school is the most engaging for me, and her early time as a governess at Thornfield, but as soon as Rochester shows up I just find him so irritating I have no idea why Jane loves him so much (other than he was the first man to ever show her a scrap of attention). I mean, I know to an extent - I've read the Takes, and part of fiction is accepting what you want for the character as a reader and what they want for themselves can be two different things, and that's not the fault of the text. I can be satisfied by the ending because Jane gets what she wants, I just can’t help but wonder about a Jane who was found by John Eyre before she went to Thornfield, or who took her inheritance and made her own way after Moor House. Byronic heroes just aren't my thing I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Wide Sargasso Sea (Jean Rhys) - The first Mrs Rochester of Jane Eyre strikes an uneasy tone to a modern reader; she does not utter a word in the novel, is depicted as animalistic and almost demonic, her story only told in a self-serving manner by Rochester, and conveniently disposed of so Jane can return to claim him. Rhys reimagines Bertha as Antoinette, a “white Creole” of Jamaica in a postcolonial take on the racial/social prejudices and hierarchy only hinted at in Eyre, where Bertha being Creole primarily an aspect of her Otherness, and in which Rochester describes himself as being desired as a husband because he was "of good race" . In Sea, although Antoinette is white (passing, perhaps), he sees her "not English or European either" and this contributes to his rejection of her (and perhaps his willingness to believe she is mad). The novel is surprisingly short - it skips over the meeting and courtship of Antoinette and Rochester (tellingly unnamed in the novel) entirely, jumping directly from her childhood/coming of age to the couple already married, and over much of Bertha's (renamed by Rochester) sad life in the attic. Still, there's a density to the writing, much is implied beyond the sparse use of words and recurring imagery - subjugation, reflection, and of course, fire - when freed slaves (Rhys changes the timeframe to after the passing of the Emancipation Act of 1833) set fire to Antoinette's family plantation, a pet parrot whose wings have been clipped by her English step-father Mason, cannot flee and falls to a fiery doom, in a grim omen of Bertha's fate. It did, however, leave me wanting more - I understand Rhys' stylistic choices and restraint, but in her effort to give voice to the voiceless, Antoinette/Bertha remains somewhat an enigma. Don’t Call it a Cult: Keith Raniere and the women of NXIVM (Sarah Berman) - I continue to be disturbed but intrigued by the NXIVM case, not only because of my abhorrence of MLMs/pyramid schemes, but my bafflement as to how this thoroughly unremarkable man was able to hold sway over so many women. My mild criticism of the two documentaries on this subject was that they tended to jump around in time so you never really got a good idea of what happened when. This book provides a well researched, detailed summary of events and linear chronology of Raniere’s perverse pathology reaching all the way back to childhood, and so is both an excellent supplement to the already informed, and broad overview to those new to the case. Berman is a Vancouver-based journalist who was present at Raniere’s trial and gives insight into witness testimony, supported by her own interviews and extensive research. There's less of a focus on the sensationalised celebrity members, with greater emphasis on the lesser known victims - including the three Mexican sisters who were all abused by Raniere, one of whom was kept confined to a room for years. It's difficult reading, consolation being the

knowledge that Raniere is rotting in prison and that his crimes finally caught up with him. Watching The Secret Garden (dir. Marc Munden) - Spoilers, if one needs a spoiler warning for a 110 year old novel. One of those stories that is adapted every generation, and generally I have no problem with this, since new adaptations can often bring something new or be a different take on old material (see Little Women 2019). But a part of me can’t help feel why bother with this when the perfect 1993 version exists. There is an Attempt at something new with this film, moving the setting forward to 1947 (Mary’s parents having died during the Partition), and turning the garden from a small walled secret to a mystical, huge wonderland full of ferns and flowers and endless sun. But in doing so, the central metaphor is lost - rather than Mary discovering something abandoned and run wild, gently bringing it back to life with love and care, she merely discovers a magical place that requires no effort on her part. There’s also less of a character arc for Mary, remaining unpleasant far into the proceedings, forcing Colin to visit the garden instead of it being his true wish, and generally succeeding by imposing her will on everyone else. In many ways she’s more like Burnett's other child heroine Sarah Crewe - the film opens I’m with her telling stories to her doll including Ramayana, which is eerily reminiscent of Alfonso Cuaron's (also perfect) 1995 adaptation of A Little Princess. But I suppose a sliver of credit where it's due - Julie Walters' Mrs Medlock is less of an antagonist, with Colin Firth's Lord Craven being Mary's primary obstacle. There's also a subplot with Mary's mother's depression following the death of her sister being the reason for her neglect (and Merlin alum Rupert Young shows up briefly as Mary's father) but like shifting the time period, there just doesn't seem to be a point to it. The climax of the film involves the Manor burning down (writer Jack Thorne stealing from Rebecca too, lol), with Mary and Craven have a very calm conversation as fire and smoke surrounds them. It’s all very bizarre, but also…rather dull? Don't bother with this, just watch the 1993 film again. Showbiz Kids (dir. Alex Winter) - a really interesting documentary on the titular subject - Winter was himself a child actor on Broadway before his film career kicked off in The Lost Boys and Bill and Ted, and has been able to assemble a broad range of interview subjects - Mara Wilson, Evan Rachel Wood, Wil Wheaton, Jada Pinkett Smith among others - former child actors, those still in the business, and some up and comers like Disney star Cameron Boyce (who I was sad to see in the coda has passed away). We also follow two young hopefuls - Marc, attending acting classes and auditioning in pilot season, yet to book a job but his parents are invested in "his" dream, and Demi, already established on Broadway but having to start to make choices between a career and a childhood. There's no voiceover, no expert opinions in this, letting the actors speak for themselves, but there is a telling juxtaposition of Marc returning home, jobless but having fun in the pool with his friends, while Demi has to cancel the summer camp she had been so looking forward to because she has booked a new role. The film is fairly even handed, but ultimately I took away that there just seems to be more harm than not in this industry, and abuses of many kinds. It does make you wonder about the ethics of child acting, at least in the current system where the cautionary tales are plentiful. Masters of the Universe: Revelation (episodes 1-5) - Mild spoilers I guess? I was never really into He-Man as a kid, other than the Secret of the Sword movie, so most of the in jokes and references in this went over my head. I have to admit, it was actually seeing all the outrage that made me want to check this out and see what all the complaining was about. I actually…really enjoyed it?!? I’m sympathetic to the complaints of a bait and switch (creators really need to learn to say

“just wait and see”), but other than that in my view the rest seemed completely unfounded. Adam/He-Man being killed in the first episode and the impact that has on Eternia and those left behind is actually a really interesting premise. This isn’t a TLJ situation; in contrast everyone (except Evil-Lyn) is always going on about how much they miss Adam, and the whole point of the first arc is him coming back. There’s also a nice little detail of Adam in Preternia (heroes heaven) choosing to remain as he is rather than as He-Man where all his predecessors have chosen their “ultimate” forms. I love him and his Magical Girl transformation. As for Teela - female characters can’t win, it seems. If they are perfect, they’re Mary Sues, if they have flaws, they’re unlikeable. Teela is Going Through things and is on a journey, but I often feel (and it seems the case here) that people confuse a character arc with author intent. No! Just because a character says/does something it doesn't mean you're supposed to agree with them! Some of Teela's actions may be petty and her demeanor less than sweet, but people make bad choices as a response to grief, and I actually thought her anger over Adam never telling her his secret and how that manifested was a pretty interesting take. I'll be interested to see the next half of the season, and ignore the ragebait youtube commentary. One more thing - Evil-Lyn (perfectly voiced by Lena Headey) was an absolute delight. Lucifer (season 5 part 2): They’ve basically given up on the procedural side of things by now and are leaning heavily into the mythology, which works for me since the case of the week is always the least interesting part of any show. It also struck me this season that there’s gender parity in the main cast (Lucifer, Amenadiel, Dan and then Chloe, Maze, Ella, Linda) - and actually, that’s more women than men. How often does that happen?!? I can’t say I’m particularly engaged with the Lucifer/Chloe pairing, but am happy to go along with it since that’s where the whole plot revolves. The best scenes for me this season were with God’s Dysfunctional Family, even if the lead up to the finale felt rushed (I understand the need to wrap things up in case of cancellation but still). I would have liked to see more of the sibling dynamics between the angels and less romantic drama, but hey. The character death got me, as well. I didn't see it coming and I didn't realise how much I had enjoyed that character until they were gone and well...it got me. I see the last season is coming soon, I'm not exactly sure where they can go from here, but looking forward to it nonetheless. Writing I was actually quite sick this month with a throat infection, so wasn't in the best frame of mind to get anything finished like I had planned to. I'm going to hold off posting the word count this month and roll it over to September when hopefully I've actually posted things.

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

Top 5 Gothics romances

1. Wuthering Heights

It’s been ages since I read this cover to cover, so I’m somewhat more fond of the general story as opposed to the prose. I remember the language being occasionally too dense— as many novels of the era are— but a few knock out lines that really hit home.

I love this one for the dysfunctional, bitter tragedy of it. All the relationships in this are just festering wounds, and I adore that.

2. Phantom of the Opera

I was iffy about including it because you asked about gothic *romance* but I think it’s close enough.

While phantom has always been one of my absolute favorite stories, it’s def one that I prefer in a cultural gestalt sense. No one iteration really stands on its own for me, but I do have a soft spot for the original novel.

Either way, I find the (both implied and explicit) themes of loss, betrayal, and trauma the most interesting part of it.

3. Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre... did not age well. In retrospect I find both leads insufferable, and Rochester wholly unethical.

Despite that, I love the atmosphere and prose. The character I sympathized most with from the very first time I read it has always been Bertha, but lol even so I find the Dark Tragic Secret aspect of the novel very compelling.

4. Bluebeard

Most specifically Angela Carter’s Bloody Chamber, but I enjoy most versions. Again, it’s not exactly a romance, but close enough!

My favorites are the retellings that focus on the protagonist’s relationship with Bluebeard. And just what goes on in her mind, what she’s feeling, etc. I also really like the fairytale logic of the key staining her hands bloody, and how baffling the main concept is. Why would anyone just leave the corpses of all their wives in a single room? Why do people do the awful things they do?

Most versions I’ve read posit the question, then never answer it. And I honestly love that.

5. Cocteau’s La Belle Et La Bête

I used to like most retellings of Beauty and the Beast, but the more common dynamic of a very volatile Beast paired with a headstrong Belle doesn’t appeal to me anymore.

The more surreal and subdued Jean Cocteau film is my favorite adaptation so far. It’s gorgeous and atmospheric in a way that no other version I’ve seen has been able to match. And the way the enchantment is handled is just very compelling to me.

[nitrateglow]

Re-reading Jane Eyre: Blanche shows up (or, wth Rochester?)

Okay, so my posts are a bit out of order, since Aunt Reed’s death occurs during this section with Blanche, but I don’t care. This isn’t homework.

So, we get to the scenes that make Mr. Rochester, in many modern people’s minds, what we would call “problematic.” His mind games with Jane are certainly less than attractive (to put it very mildly): he drags over a snobby, stupid woman he can’t stand (and who we later learn happens to physically resemble his despised wife) and makes Jane think he prefers Blanche just because she’s hot and an aristocrat. Why? Because he wants Jane to tell him, “No you can’t marry Blanche, because I love you!!” What’s worse, he baits Blanche and her mother when they start hating on governesses in general... when Jane is in the room.

From the first time I read the book, I had a hard time understanding his logic. Now I realize there really isn’t logic: Rochester is a selfish, narcissistic guy for much of the book. When he has Blanche talk of governesses, I don’t think his intent is for Jane to be humiliated (though, duh, that’s how she must feel), but to illustrate how unworthy the Ingrams are as a bunch. He’s silently mocking them... of course, that would mean Jane needs to be in on the joke though... which she isn’t.

Rochester, what the hell?

I don’t know... it’s so weird. However, does this make me entirely dislike Rochester? No, for some reason it doesn’t (and this isn’t even the most reprehensible thing he does-- but more on that loveliness later)... maybe because he does eventually grow the hell up-- and he’s too damn entertaining as a character (I forgot how hilarious a lot of his lines are). Plus the way he finds redemption is interesting. I personally don’t see this as a story where the “rake” is redeemed through “the love of a good woman,” but through being brought low by his own bad life choices and then waking up. But that’s a discussion for a later post.

So, Rochester tries baiting Jane and then when that fails, he pulls out the Halloween costumes. Oh man, I find the fortune teller disguise scene hilarious for so many reasons:

1) You just know Rochester wants to just mess with his snobby, gullible guests. He tells them things no strange woman could possibly know just to get a rise out of them.

2) HOW DID NO ONE KNOW THE FORTUNE TELLER WAS ROCHESTER? The guy has a distinctively ugly-ass face and the sardonic personality of the fortune teller matches Rochester’s. That his dumb rich friends don’t know it’s him is more credible, but I have a hard time believing Jane wouldn’t see past it (though if she had, I think she would still play along just to mess with Rochester right back).

^^^ LOOK AT THAT OMG-- Jane should be like,

I don’t know, maybe he secretly has Lon Chaney-esque make-up abilities and the voice acting talent of Mel Blanc all in one. Whatever the case, it’s hilarious. I’m sad most adaptations don’t bother with the scene because it’s so bizarre.

And then there’s Mr. Mason getting attacked. Jane is made to tend to his wounds for two hours while Mr. Rochester gets the doctor; however, she and her patient are forbidden to speak. I can only imagine how creepy this scene was to the original audience. The suspense and intrigue created in the sequence are brilliant, from the creepy religious images on the wall glaring into the dark to the sense of danger looming.

One more note: so many film versions cut out the religious elements of this story, but one of the most interesting things about this is Mr. Rochester’s blasphemous equating of Jane with Jesus-- he views her as his only hope for a worldly salvation. It reminds me a bit of Catherine Earnshaw’s rejection of the conventional Christian heaven for the joys of the natural world in Wuthering Heights, only Charlotte seems to have been more orthodox than Emily in her ultimate affirmation of traditional doctrine (critical as she is of the way church leaders abuse their power).

[marybeatriceofmodena]

No hate, but it's weird that you ship Reylo but dont like Erik/Christine since they're very similar lol

Okay, so here’s the thing (and that’s where A LOT of confusion comes from): 

Kylo Ren/Ben Solo = Cursed Prince archetype

Erik/the Phantom of the Opera = Tragic Monster archetype

NOT THE SAME THING. AT ALL. 

Now, I understand why the two are easily confused. And for a very long time, the Monster (especially in 30s-40s horror films) was used as a means to show the female lead’s forbidden sexual desires, which she needed to fear and run away from. This is also a recurring theme in A LOT of gothic romances (going all the way back to Ann Radcliffe or Matthew Gregory Lewis back in the late 18th century), and in those cases, it goes thusly: 

The heroine rejects the dangerous sexual LI and ends up with the socially acceptable LI (see Dracula: Dead and Loving It) 

The heroine ends up with the dangerous sexual LI once he is reformed (see Jane Eyre) 

The heroine ends up being “corrupted” and/or destroyed along with the dangerous sexual LI (see Wuthering Heights, Dracula (with LUCY, not Mina) )

Another common mistake is that the Byronic Hero and the Tragic Monster tend to be mixed up involuntarily. Rochester is a straight-up Byronic Hero. So is Alucard from Castlevania. Prince Lotor from VLD also falls in that category. Heathcliff, for instance, is an intentional case from Emily Brontë: he is a deconstruction of the Byronic Hero (as poor Isabella Linton finds out later on), who turns out to be more of a Tragic Monster. Francis Ford Coppola’s film adaptation of Dracula, however, mixed up the Byronic Hero and the Tragic Monster, tried to have their cake and eat it too, but ended up with a confused mess characterization-wise. (Not to mention that it makes no sense in this good year 2019 that Mina would dump Keanu Reeves.) 

The POTO novel goes into the first category, but it also subverts it: Christine is not a damsel in distress in the novel, and she’s easily one of the most intelligent and capable characters. Far than going for a comfortable life, she actually ends up being an outcast of sorts with Raoul, since they have to flee the country since Raoul is accused of having murdered his brother (the Phantom actually did it, of course). 

Guillermo del Toro also did a good job subverting the above outcomes as well: The Shape of Water has the Monster actually be the innocent, wronged party in all this, since he is in no ways malevolent, although he does fight the people who abused him, while the audience is totally on his side during all this (which you can’t really say about the Phantom). While he’s not exactly the “socially acceptable” choice, Eliza is also a social outcast (while Christine in the musical is not) and the happiest ending she can get for herself is living underwater with Sexy Fishdude. 

Saying it’s just a case of sexual repression is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY oversimplifying it. 

The Phantom is definitely not a Cursed Prince archetype in the novel. In the musical, and even moreso in the film, he sets himself as one, but it’s just yet another mask, adding itself to one he wears to cover his deformity. He’s a Tragic Monster - albeit a sympathetic one. He’s not a man who has to act like a monster because of a curse, he never was a man in the first place - and he knows that, and that’s what pains him the most. 

Ben is a Cursed Prince (with a whole lot of Byronic Hero since he rebels against society’s norms, in his own way) because he was human before, before he became a Monster in a Mask. The Call to the Light is not something that’s unfamiliar to him - on the contrary, it’s a call to come back home, which he feels like he cannot do because of his curse/plight. 

So that’s the main difference, basically. Two different things, so of course, their romantic dynamics are going to be different. 

[douxreviews]

Jane Eyre (2006) - Series Review

“Do you think because I’m poor, plain, obscure and little that I have no heart?” Charlotte Brontë was a woman ahead of her time. Surviving arguably the most dysfunctional family in literary history, she was a writer and educator for years. Her most famous novel, Jane Eyre, has endured as one of the great love stories in English and has been widely praised for its depiction of feminism and class issues a century before they became popular topics. The story has been adapted dozens of times for film, television and radio. My favorite is the 2006 BBC version starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. This review assumes that you know the basic story; so, if you don’t, beware the spoiler kitty. 

The BBC, as they so often do, pulled out all the stops for this version. The screenplay was adapted by Sandy Welch who is brilliant at maintaining the feel of the original story while also making it accessible for a modern audience. The series was directed by Susanna White who, if I had my way, would direct every costume drama from now until the end of the time. The producers were almost all women as well.

This group of women took a chance in hiring Ruth Wilson. Fresh out of LAMDA, Jane Eyre was not only Wilson’s first leading role, it was her first professional role. She did a brilliant job depicting Jane, and (I mean this with all due respect to Wilson’s beauty), she allowed herself to look the part. Jane Eyre is not a beautiful woman.

Toby Stephens is a beautiful man (he is, after all, Maggie Smith’s son) and the producers didn’t even try to tone it down. In the book, Rochester is not handsome and there are long passages where Jane tells her readers that he became much better looking as she fell in love with him. No matter; it is easy to overlook this flaw when one is watching the man on screen.

The key dynamics between Jane and Rochester, however, are the age difference and the chemistry between the two. In the book, Jane is eighteen and Rochester is pushing forty. We will move on from the obvious and just accept that times were slightly different in the 1840s. Although there is an age difference between Wilson and Stephens, it is not as great so the producers were able to gloss over what could be an ick factor in the story. The chemistry between the two, however, is undeniable. From their first meeting to their happy ending, anyone with a soul is rooting for them to end up together.

Their chemistry is so good that Welch made the decision to condense much of Jane’s childhood and her stay with the Rivers to which I say, amen. These two sections of the book take up a good third of its pages, but if one is watching a love story, one wishes to watch the couple in question.

One of the great meetings in all of romantic literature is Jane causing Rochester to fall from his horse without realizing who he is. In fact, I would argue it is the first meet-cute. It is done exactly right in this version as are the subsequent conversations as Rochester and Jane get to know each other. Rochester is gruff; Jane is not intimidated, but slowly they open up to each other and we get to watch as they begin to care about the other.

Another of my favorite scenes in all of literature is the proposal scene. It is simply astonishing to read on so many levels. Jane is, in many ways, not Rochester’s equal. She is a woman in a time when women had very little value; she is poor; she is a servant in Rochester’s house. Yet, she stands up and gives him a good telling off, declaring to him and to the world that she is his equal and that she loves him. Rochester is, of course, completely enthralled and proposes. What makes this scene work so well is that Jane does not lose her independence. She refuses to believe him; accuses him of mocking her and only accepts him after quite a bit of persuading.

Every version of Jane Eyre includes this scene; Wilson’s version is the best and it was the one I pictured as a I re-read the book to write this review. She perfectly captures the heartbreak, the anger, the pride, and the love that Jane is feeling. Unfortunately, what should have been the best scene in the entire four hours is a bit marred by the single most awkward kiss in the history of BBC costume dramas. Luckily, Wilson and Stephens get better at it.

The class issues are as important in the novel as the feminism is. Throughout the book, Jane struggles with the fact that she is penniless and Rochester is so rich. One of the reasons that she is able to return at the end is that their comparative worth is on a much more equal footing than it is at the beginning of the story. We get a glimpse of this in the scene where Rochester pays her so that she can travel to visit her aunt, but it is very much downplayed through the rest of the production.

A theme that plays much more in the production than in the book is that of home. Jane has never had a home, until she arrives at Thornfield. Not only does she consider it home, but the others in the household consider her an integral part as well. In the third hour, when Jane returns from visiting her aunt, she tells the coachman that she is “almost home;” Rochester tells Eshton that his swallow has “returned home,” and later talks about “our guests;” Mrs. Fairfax and Adèle greet her like family with hugs and kisses. Throughout, Jane cannot stop smiling and it all comes to a head when she includes her favorite book in the Rochester library. When you start mixing your books, you know you’re really living together.

The coda reinforces the idea of home. Although she had been excluded from the Reed portrait as a child, Jane is now the central figure in another. Surrounded by her husband, her children, her cousins, their husbands, and all the servants we have come to know, Jane has established a home and is blissfully happy.

The novel was incredibly sexual for its time. Rochester talks to Jane openly on the subject, admitting that he married Bertha to sleep with her and telling her about the mistresses he has had since he moved his wife to Thornfield. There is a fair amount of touching and kissing between Jane and Rochester, which would have been shocking to a early Victorian audience.

This production maintains that stance, ramping up the scenes so that a modern audience gets the idea. Once they are engaged, Jane and Rochester are always touching and kissing each other. The night before she leaves Thornfield, the conversation they have doesn’t take place in the parlor with them sitting on chairs; it takes place while they are making out in bed.

The best example of this is the final scene in the show. In the book, it is hinted that one of the reasons Jane stays and marries Rochester is to take care of him. Welch turns this on its head and has Rochester tell Jane that he wants a wife, someone with whom he can have sex on fairly regular basis. It is only when he says this that Jane smiles, climbs on top of him and begins to kiss him passionately. I like to think that they finally consummate their relationship on the bank of that river.

I get crazy when adaptations try to re-write a classic story. What makes this one work so well is that it remains faithful to the plot, while ramping up the parts of the story that everyone, finally, wants to see. I have loved this version since it originally aired in the UK and have watched it too many times to count. A wonderful way to spend a rainy afternoon.

Four out of four dragonflies with emerald wing. 

ChrisB is a freelance writer who spends more time than she ought in front of a television screen or with a book in her hand.

[power-chords]

I’m re-reading Hannibal which is, weirdly, the literary equivalent of comfort food for me, and as with many things I periodically re-visit from childhood, I reap different rewards as I age. I pay attention to different things, too. I don’t know that I gave much consideration to the method behind Harris’s tense-jumping until now, but he uses it like a cinematic device, shifting over into present tense the way the rapid cuts in an action scene draw you in and quicken the pace.

A while ago I was talking about Westworld and linked some graduate student’s paper (which was quite good!) on the trope of the loss of a hand — that disfigurement or amputation of the hand is associated with a particular kind of metaphorical transformation. Usually, that transformation is bad, or at least other-ing, and signifies an irreparable “point of no return” for the character: he has become monstrous or alienated from humanity (the Westworld example was the Man in Black blowing off his own hand); maybe a terrible, course-altering knowledge has been ascertained (Luke Skywalker); a judgment has been meted out or a debt fiendishly repaid (Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre). This is without going into the sexual implications, and it is not coincidental that the aforementioned characters are men, that they tend to be men.

ANYWAY, Hannibal is fun because Harris is so delightfully aware of this trope and plays with it, maybe even inverts it. I’m a little bummed out that neither the movie nor the TV show elected to include this detail because it’s one of those easily overlooked symbolic bombshells: Hannibal Lecter has a fully formed sixth finger on his left hand. He has it surgically removed, when he escapes prison, because it is such a conclusively identifying characteristic.

So Dr. Lecter, the cannibal, murderer, and monster, is marked not by lack or loss but by an unnatural and perfectly functional surplus, which is consistent with how he is portrayed in the novel and in every media incarnation of the character. We KNOW he is a monster; society has branded him as such and we rationally understand this to be true. He is called one repeatedly, emphatically, by those who encounter him. 

And yet... the monster possesses a supernatural grace and brilliance, wisdom and equanimity, literally superhuman senses, a profound and deeply emotional connection to art, an appreciation of beauty in all its forms, an enviably uncomplicated relationship with pleasure.........

Hannibal Lecter has not been shunned by society so much as he himself has made a fool of it, has elected to transcend it in pursuit of some individual sublimity. Unselfconsciously indulging every sense, however ephemeral the moment; finding further joy within the memory as he builds upon his palace for reflection. Hannibal Lecter does not feel fear, anxiety, or shame; we envy him because he has stared into the abyss, and he is free. The ubermensch is a monster, but sometimes we all wish we could be a little monstrous.

The book and the film diverge significantly in the final act. While Ridley Scott’s adaptation is flawed, he gets the atmosphere right, and the aesthetic element really is so much of the story. It is trying to turn you toward savoring, relishing these dark impulses in spite of their implicit horror. In the book, which is a romance when you get to the heart of it, Clarice makes that final turn. She is corrupted in the way we might like to be.

In the movie, she is not. In the movie, Dr. Lecter cuts off his own hand to spare hers. He cannot bring himself to harm her, and she cannot bring herself to compromise her principles. It is as appropriate a finale as the one in which she embraces the monster. Both seem to fit. Both are heartbreaking, and both are vindicating.

I’m not sure which ending I like better.

[samayla]

The fic meme, number 1 for Impossible to Please and An Utterly Impractical Magician, also number 11 and number 4 for both of them?

Thanks for the ask! I love both of these stories, so it’s always fun to talk about them :)

I’ll tackle An Utterly Impractical Magician first -

1) Inspiration? First of all, I adore Susanna Clarke’s writing, so it has been a ton of fun to try and imitate her style and cadence and general flavor! 

As for the Jane Eyre spin, well, I have always been a fan of Jane Eyre, so I have become something of a connoisseur of film adaptations. For my birthday a couple years ago, right around the time I was rereading Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell again, I received the 2006 BBC version with Toby Stephens (from Black Sails) as Mr Rochester. He immediately struck me as being a little Childermass-ish, and Childermass is my favorite character ever, so I decided to write Rochester into the JSMN universe, and everything else just sort of happened. 

Somewhat bizarrely, one of the first scenes I wrote notes for, was actually a confrontation between Childermass and Rochester after the truth about his wife comes to light. Then Norrell was stalking around in the background, angry and ineffectual, and I needed a reason why for all of that, so Jane became their ward. Everything else followed from there.

4) Favorite line of dialogue? Jane, to Childermass when he comes to take her books away: 

“If I were big, a woman grown, I should keep you from having any of them at all!”

I love Jane’s lines in most of this scene. It was another of the early ones I wrote, and I just love the little quirks of her syntax. I feel very proud of the characterization I think I created for her here, and when I get stuck on her lines, I actually go back and reread her argument with Childermass to get a feel for her again.

11) What do I like best? I like playing through the complex relationships in these stories. Like Jane and Norrell, for example. He’s selfish and curmudgeonly at his core, but Jane brings out hints of generosity and animation. Then, Drawlight and Lascelles come on the scene and bring out the worst in him again, and it gets hard for Jane, but she does not give up on him. Not for a long time anyway. I won’t get into too many details for now…

And now for Impossible to Please-

1) Inspiration? There was this dialogue prompt meme going around at one point, and someone sent me the line “When all this is over, I want my sanity back!” for a platonic Vinculus/Childermass story. I had written it several different ways from Childermass’ point of view, but it always came off as superior and stuffy, and when considering Vinculus’ eccentricities, Childermass feels more like Norrell than himself. So I swapped POV and played around inside Vinculus’ head. His view of Childermass is much more entertaining…

4) Favorite line of dialogue? I really enjoyed Vinculus’ narrative voice in this one, but of his spoken lines, I’d have to say my favorite is his declaration when Childermass asks where his new shirt is: 

“Ain’t got one, do I?” Vinculus answered absently. “Spent the whole of my allowance on my dashing new coat.” 

He’s just so matter-of-fact about it…

If we’re counting his internal voice, though, I’d have to say my favorite line is right near the end:

“He started for the door, still fuming to himself over the oppressive, ill-humored, capricious bear of a man that was John Childermass.”

11) What do I like best? Probably Vinculus’ narrative voice. 

“He felt rather like an elemental spirit, all quickness and fire, while Childermass lurked behind him, a disapproving shadow.” 

I mean, it doesn’t get much better than that…

[notasapleasure]

For the film asks, @jimtheviking gave me 3, 9 and 11. Thanks Jim!

3. An actor/actress you’ve seen in more than 8 movies? Name the movies.

*cracks knuckles* letsdothis. James Purefoy, I can say without a doubt, is someone I have seen in more than 8 movies. And you know they're going to be _quality_ films. I don't even need to include TV movies in this list to make up the numbers :D

Let's start with the good, shall we?

1. A Knight's Tale: the fluffiest Black Prince who only speaks in innuendos (christ even before the line about 'withdrawing early' I'm collapsed in fits of hysterical laughter on the floor) with a big old smirk. He just wants jousting! And justice for jousting! Not v historically accurate tbh but he wears that weird split leather floor length coat and a white shirt so I will forgive him everything.

2. Solomon Kane: wait, you thought I meant *good* good movies? Heh. Evillest of pirates promises never to kill again to prevent his soul being dragged straight to hell, is forced to go on murderous rampage to save Pete Postlethwaite's daughter. Also there's plague? Witches? He... Pulls himself off a crucifix?? So much black leather. Bonus west country accent. Excellent stuff.

3. Ironclad: the most accurate bit of this movie about the siege of Rochester Castle is where King John blows up one of its towers using pigs. But James Purefoy has a Very Large Sword and seems to be playing some weird Templar fanfic version of William Marshall? He has a band of merry men, he cleaves some people in twain (no, literally, it's a Very Large Sword), Kate Mara is unsurprisingly into that. The guy from the 13th Warrior is a blue-painted pagan mercenary from Denmark who John somehow has some leverage over? Oh yes and King John is played by Paul Giamatti. Delightful. Did I mention that Brian Cox gets fired from a trebuchet at his own castle while shouting 'no surrender!'?

Now the bad...

4. Resident Evil: what's there to say? He's quite pretty in that grey t shirt but zombies are boring and he ends up deservedly getting his face eaten off. I feel there may be some sort of undead interlude but I wasn't paying attention by that point. At least Mila Jovovitch is great.

5. Vanity Fair: idk maybe I need to read it, but I felt this movie wanted us to like its characters too much for something that was meant to be a satire. He's tragically dumb and comes to a tragically dumb end, and I shouldn't have been sad about it because damn I wanted to root for Becky but... Somehow... No?

6. Maybe Baby: I WATCHED A BEN ELTON MOVIE ABOUT MAKING BABIES FOR YOU JAMES PUREFOY. I DID NOT ENJOY IT.

The ugly:

7. Mansfield Park: not really 'ugly' for the film per se, I have enjoyed both adaptations I've seen and it's not an Austen I've read so haven't formed any strong opinions. Anyway, he's Tom Bertram the son of the slave owner and I think he just lies about being feverish a bit so Fanny can discover his drawings of the atrocities on the plantation.

8. The Wedding Tackle: lolololol I remember next to nothing about this. It's very 90s. The Lads don't want to be Tied Down (unless it's in that way you know what I mean hurrrrr) and her from the later series of Ballykissangel is in it. Mark it down for a rewatch. I was lucky ("") to find it on VHS in my local library before.

9. George and the Dragon: I have seen this more than once. There's a dragon poop joke. I think it's one of those where the dragon isn't evil? The dragon upstage all the other cast, who cannot act because Patrick Swayze is demolishing the scenery and it's too distracting. Our noble hero plays the innocent ingenue. It does not suit him.

10. John Carter: fuck I almost forgot! I want to love this movie, I want to so much. But it drags. on. so. long. James's finest moment is getting a piggy back from John Carter as he leaps through the Martian landscape: his little face is so happy! It singlehandedly makes up for Ciaran Hinds' grimace of continual confusion because his hair and his epaulettes match so closely. And sadly I rarely get to that point of the movie because I have given up from boredom long before. Oh yes, and James wears a skirt and crop top armour, with very fetching swirly red tattoos. V pretty.

So tbf his better stuff is from TV: really good things are The Mayor of Casterbridge (though dodgy Scottish accent alert!), Beau Brummel: This Charming Man, and obviously Rome. Hap and Leonard is his only current project I'm keeping up with, and season 2 was fantastic.

9. The most aesthetically pleasing movie you’ve ever watched?

Oh, tough! Recently I think it has to be Blade Runner 2049. The colours! The composition! But particularly the soundtrack and the use of everyday sound in combination with each other.

I think aesthetically I'm quite easily pleased with movies. I find it easier to pick out animation that really stands out: Song of the Sea and Princess Mononoke are my favourites there, and Persepolis of course.

11. Your favourite movie genre?

So I think this is a really hard question, I am both very picky and very not picky. I won't see something *because* it's a particular genre, but I may avoid something if it's marketed as a rom-com (look my 'not like other girls'-ness is very ingrained and this is a part of it I have not felt the need to re-evaluate, partly because I don't like the cynicism of the marketing or the tropes of the stories. I'm thinking of very specific things here, you know: white background, red or pink title writing, two or three white people looking adorkable). Can I cop out and say 'action'? That covers everything from superheroes to Con Air to shite medieval stories right? Or 'drama' because that covers everything else? Anyway down with arbitrary genre distinctions, boo, Jim, booo!

[eyreguide]

A recap of the Brontë2020 Virtual Conference

On Friday the very first virtual Brontë conference was held and included a program of various talks and presentations by people knowledgeable on many different aspects of the Brontës. And reader, I had a wonderful time.  

This post is just a brief overview of the event, with some commentary on the different topics and comments that were discussed and that I found interesting. This conference was held as a way to help support the amazing Brontë Parsonage in Haworth as they are going through a difficult time with the impact of Covid-19. If you are able, please donate whatever you can to the Parsonage by visiting this site. Help them reach their goal!

I live in the United States so I wasn’t able to attend all the panels - I decided to make my first one the discussion with Sandy Welch (screenwriter of the 2006 Jane Eyre adaptation) which was 5 am my time! I was so excited to hear what Sandy had to say about writing Jane Eyre that I was wide awake by the time her panel started.

Special Guest: Sandy Welch

First off, I didn’t realize Welch had also written the screenplay for North and South (one of my absolute favorite period dramas!) so I was pretty much in awe of her talent, even though the 2006 Jane Eyre isn’t exactly my favorite. If you read through my reviews of all the adaptations here. I have a few issues with the scenes after the failed wedding where Jane and Rochester are on her bed. And also I felt like the dialogue and added scenes did not always feel true to the novel. But Welch talked about her approach to adapting Jane Eyre and I agreed with all of her comments. Jane is a modern woman in that she is making her own way in the world, and that her thoughts and prose in the book are direct and clear to the reader. And Welch was glad to give more time to the conversations between Jane and Rochester so that the humor and intelligence that connects them shines through. The emotions were allowed to develop and we can see how Rochester changes with Jane.  

There was some discussion about the character of Rochester and how the audience needs to see that they deserve each other and are equals. So you see more of Rochester’s vulnerabilities and emotions in this adaptation. It’s important to remember too that Charlotte made Bertha irredeemable so that Rochester could not make his situation better, but he tried his best to take care of her.  

A question from the audience did bring up that scene where Jane must say goodbye to Rochester and they end up on her bed - I was very keen to know what Welch would say. She acknowledged that it was a bold choice, but there is that sensuality in the book, and Rochester wants to “impress” himself on Jane, and throughout the novel, Jane is very passionate. It seemed natural to Welch to have that shown on screen. It’s a bit of artistic license that still doesn’t sit easily with me, but I am glad to know the thought process was grounded in trying to take a realistic approach to how that scene would develop.

Another question also asked about the addition of the twins and the doubles theme in the adaptation. Welch included that to give Jane an opportunity to participate in the conversation around her since she is intelligent and able to hold her own. And to show that not all of the people in Rochester’s party are horrible. It also gives a little foreshadowing to the call across the moors between Jane and Rochester near the end.

The last topic I want to mention is when someone asked what the difference was between approaching Margaret Hale’s character (from North and South) and Jane Eyre. Welch worked to make Margaret more sympathetic and Thornton a little less so, so that they were equals in the story - much like Jane and Rochester already are.

A Day in the Life of the Parsonage

I was very excited about this next panel, where Ann Dindsdale, the collections manager of the Parsonage, and Rebecca Yorke, the communications manager, talk about what it is like to manage the Parsonage day to day. It made me long to be able to work there myself! Just think how lovely it would be to be up early in the morning at the house, preparing for the visitors that day.

On my last visit to the Parsonage, I was able to take the VIP tour (which I talked about here) and I have to say seeing a glimpse of the place behind the scenes and led by a knowledgeable docent was amazing. They do wonderful work there!

The two talked about the work that goes into maintaining the house - especially during the month-long closure in January where they clean every book and check every piece of furniture! When asked how they decide what to display, Ann said she puts out “what she likes” (lucky!) but it was also good to rotate everything regularly.  

The Parsonage feels it is important for guests to “engage with the Parsonage” - a wonderful way to describe how the guests are made to feel when they visit - as a part of the experience. And with social distancing right now due to the pandemic, visiting the Parsonage couldn’t be a more personal and intimate experience. I so wish I could make the trip across the pond right now and visit!

Author Roundtable: The Brontës, the 21st Century and Us

This was a fascinating panel with talented authors. I’ve read some of their books so I’ll link to my review of their work when possible. The panel was moderated by Rowan Coleman (The Vanished Bride) and included Finola Austin (Brontës’ Mistress), Syrie James (The Secret Diaries of Charlotte Brontë), Sarah Shoemaker (Mr. Rochester), Julie Cohen (Spirited), Lucy Powrie (The Paper Hearts Society) and Nikita Gil (a well-known poet, although unfortunately I am unfamiliar with her work.  

The conversation was dense and thought-provoking. The authors touched on many topics and ideas beginning with how each author felt about the Brontës’ work. Their books are about identity and who we are as people - we can live by their ideals, said Lucy. Sarah said that women are still not equal to men in how they are treated today and she loves how Jane does not hesitate to tell Rochester that she does not think him handsome - it’s an unconventional answer, the unexpected one, and it shows how they are opening up to each other and on their way to being equals. Syrie is fascinated by the almost mythical story they lived in their little place in the world. And how you can feel their rage against patriarchal societies in their work. Nikita pointed out that patriarchy erases the role of women, but the Brontës have endured in spite of that.

In their approach to writing stories that revolve around the Brontës and their work, they try to be as reverential as possible and stick to the facts because so much of their lives are known, and their stories can be very autobiographical.  

Julie talked about how we read the Brontës to find out about ourselves. With Villette especially there is a sense with Lucy Snowe that she is hiding a part of herself from the reader and people can relate to that.

The talk ended with thoughts on publishing bias - how women may not need to publish under pseudonyms today, but there is still a bias against what a woman writes and against race, sexuality, and many other things. We as readers need to show that we are interested in reading about a variety of lives and experiences.

In Conversation with Adam Nagaitis

Adam Nagaitis played Branwell Brontë in the film To Walk Invisible and talked with the organizers about his role. They opened by asking him trivia questions about Branwell to see how much he remembered from his research. Adam mentioned that he is still in touch with the actresses who played his sisters which I think is wonderful. They seem to all have gotten along very well.  

Adam read all the classic works on Branwell to prepare, but he also dived into documentaries on alcoholism and it’s gruesome realities to understand Branwell better. Branwell wasn’t mature enough to deal with the vicissitudes in his life - with his relationship with Lydia he was excessive and consumed. He thought that turned her off from him, and that started a cycle where he blamed himself for the failed relationship and his failures in his art.  

Because he was always surrounded by the people who knew him best, he was always reminded of his failure. Adam’s approach was very sympathetic to Branwell and tried to understand him mentally. Adam also talked about how he felt Branwell was never free as an artist. He always needed to work for the family or money but he could have been a brilliant newspaper satirist - something that might have been more along with his interests since he made wonderful biting cartoons.

In Conversation with Sally Wainwright

The last panel of the conference was a talk with Sally Wainwright - the writer and director of the superb Brontë biopic To Walk Invisible. Sally was approached to write this back in 2010 but she didn’t have time until 2016 which coincided with Charlotte’s bicentenary. It was a tough shoot for her as she felt she didn’t get all the shots she wanted, but the set was fantastic. They recreated the Parsonage as accurately as they could, resulting in a place that is bleaker and more isolated than the actual Parsonage today.  

Sally also mentioned something that I found interesting - that she felt like the “Victorian” speak that people use today in period dramas probably didn’t really exist. We have constructed people in our period drama adaptations to speak in a particular way. And that the inclusion of curse words in her program showed that the characters were very like us - of course Branwell would curse and say the F-word.  

Her approach to adapting the story was always to show it as realistically as possible and she wanted to show how the family was an interdependent team. For people who felt that Branwell was featured too much in the story - it’s important to remember that he was the leader of their gang as children and that when they were older, living with an addict affected their work as can be seen in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall and Wuthering Heights.  

And speaking of Tenant of Wildfell Hall, apparently, Sally is working on a screenplay for the story, although it is on the backburner at the moment. She is having a hard time empathizing with Helen - especially because it is difficult today to empathize with a character who behaves in a certain way solely because of their religious beliefs. I do hope we get to see her adaptation of Anne’s work someday soon though!

[iamthenightcolormeblack]

This great overview of Jane Eyre adaptations was inspired me to do my little reviews (click here to read them). I've only seen 3 of them in full so I won't comment on the others.

I disagree with the rating for Timothy Dalton's Rochester; he should have been given 5 stars. In my opinion he seems to be the most book-accurate Rochester I've seen and he matches my mental image of the character with the dark Byronic looks and mischievous glint in his eyes. Most importantly he captures the intensity and quick wit/sarcasm that are essential to Rochester's personality. Yes he does steal the show, but the Jane actress does not seem to be his match (too composed and calm at times).

2006 is my personal favorite even with the creative changes because it effectively developed the characters and the themes. Lots of flashbacks/color imagery were used to reveal the passion underlying the Jane/Rochester relationship and hint at Rochester's sins. Other things which were overlooked in other adaptations but which give insight into the characters' inner thoughts/feelings are included in this version (Jane's dreams, the adorable carriage ride, and her drawings of herself and Blanche). Also the chemistry in this version is the absolute best.

Mia Wasikowska's portrayal matched my mental image of the character because she has the right balance between passion and restraint. As for the film itself, it had lots of potential (gorgeous Gothic atmosphere, good chemistry, included lots of original dialogue from the book) but because of the short run time it wasn't able to effectively develop the characters or the themes in the book.

Also the treatment of Bertha Mason is something that isn't addressed in OP's overview but I'd like to share some thoughts. Bertha is overlooked in some of the film adaptations where she appears briefly as haggard and scary before dying quickly (like how Jane perceives her) and her character (the contradictory aspects of her being animal and human at the same time) is never quite explored.

So far, only the 2006 version attempts to show Bertha as a human being rather than a scary monster. It's interesting how 2006's Bertha has been humanized through the neat hair and clean clothing so as to present Rochester as humane (the cell where she's confined doesn't look like jail at first) while calling into question whether it was right to jail her. The flashbacks featuring Bertha show that both she and Rochester are similar to each other in that they both have lots of sexual desire. Also the choice of jailing Bertha in a red room links her to Jane and highlights how she's a double for Jane's repressed emotions. After setting the house on fire, she looks up in childlike wonder at the sky and attempts to fly like a bird, further linking her to Jane (because they both want freedom but achieve it in different ways). The final scene paints her as the tragic figure that Bronte intended her to be; trapped by her mental illness and longing for freedom.

I don't think there's a perfect Jane Eyre adaptation out there yet. For me it would have to be a miniseries so that there would be enough time to develop the characters, themes, and symbols. In addition to great chemistry between Jane and Rochester, I would also like to see a bit more of the school years and an exploration of St. John's character as a foil to Rochester's passion (while still struggling to suppress his feelings). Also would like lots of original dialogue from the book and a nice gothic atmosphere. For casting Rochester I suggest Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, or Aidan Turner.

Tags: @appleinducedsleep @princesssarisa @thatvermilionflycatcher

JANE EYRE: A Comparative Study

I am not talking to you now through the medium of custom, conventionalities, nor even of mortal flesh: it is my spirit that addresses your spirit; just as if both had passed through the grave, and we stood at God’s feet, equal–as we are!“ - Jane Eyre

Doesn’t that just give you chills?!

With a strong, female lead, complex themes involving proto-feminism, wealth, love, passion, propriety, hedonism, and purity, the gothic, 19th century romantic novel, Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte,is my favorite work of fiction. 

It is so layered and beautifully complex, and as a lover of both books and movies, it is only natural that I have looked for a good adaption. But, I must say folks. It is painstakingly difficult to adapt this book! And, there are so many! The most popular are probably 5 non-silent films from 1934-2011, 2 mini series from 1983 and the other in 2006, and a direct-to-tv movie from 1997. 

In this blog post, I am going to simplify your Jane Eyre viewing experience. I will rate these adaptions in these areas:

capturing the spirit of the novel accuracy  the Jane the Rochester the cast in general the chemistry between the leads

Lastly there will be best proposal scene, best/worst Jane and worst Rochester awards. Jane Eyre fans, are you ready?! Let’s go!

1. Jane Eyre (1934) - Starring Colin Clive and Virginia Bruce

Now, this was the first talkie Jane Eyre adaption! I have not seen this version (the only one of the ones I have mentioned) so I cannot rate it. Please go and see this for yourself and report back. I am not too interested in seeing this version because I have read that it has omitted several key parts from the book, and generally isn’t that great. Judging from this picture, the movie was all wrong.

I don’t know what the standard of beauty was in 1934, but a major point in Jane Eyre is that Jane is PLAIN. This woman is beautiful! #confused #no. ONWARD. 

2. Jane Eyre (1943) - Starring: Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine

Running time: 1 hour and 36 minutes. 

This is a QUICK movie. Definitely the SparkNotes version of Jane Eyre, but I enjoyed it. It was adapted in part by Aldous Huxley (author of that book you read in high school) and based on a radio series of Jane Eyre. Great if you want to watch in a hurry. 

On capturing the spirit of the novel : 4 out of 5 stars! This is a black and white motion picture, and I think that medium really captures the brooding, dark nature of the novel! My biggest issue with the movie was that there wasn’t more of it.

Accuracy: 3 out of 5 stars. They cut out when Jane goes to see her Aunt Reed again, and also the giant St. John Rivers subplot for time. If they included those parts, this may have been my favorite adaption. They kind of compounded the St. John character into a new doctor character at the Lowood School called Dr. Rivers, but he isn’t really a romantic interest for Jane. Key, passages from the book are retained in some of the dialog although the American accents kind of threw me off.

the Jane:4 out of 5 stars. I really like Joan Fontaine. She was a bit elegant for the role, but she captured both of Jane’s steeliness and also kindness. 

the Rochester: 5 out of 5 stars. ORSON WELLES was bomb. Perfect! Possibly my favorite Rochester. Strangely (not classically) handsome and it grows on you. Thundering, deep, voice, brooding and a bit scary. Fabuloso. 

the Cast: 5 out of 5. Brocklehurst was so delightfully wicked and ELIZABETH TAYLOR starred as Jane’s childhood friend, Helen. That woman was beautiful from the start. 

the Chemistry: 5 out of 5. Look at this picture. The end. 

OVERALL: 4.3 out of 5 (very good!)

3.  Jane Eyre Miniseries (1983) - Starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke

Running time: nearly 4 hours. 

Yes, James Bond was once Edward Rochester! With 30 min episodes, you can find this on Netflix or on YouTube. Great if you want the most complete version.

On capturing the spirit of the novel : 3 out of 5 stars! It’s in 80s color which is bit less charming. TImothy Dalton is WAY too good looking to play Rochester but he acts well. 

Accuracy: 5 out of 5 stars. This version is super thorough because they have the time to do it. 

the Jane: 4 out of 5 stars. Zelah Clarke is a bit boring next to Timothy Dalton to be honest with you, but at least she looks the part. She acts well!

the Rochester: 4.5 out of 5 stars. Timothy Dalton kind of steels the show with this one.  

the Cast: 3 out of 5. A bit forgettable. 

the Chemistry: 4out of 5. It’s pretty good. Their height difference is a bit distracting, tho! 

OVERALL: 4.08 out of 5  (good!)

4.  Jane Eyre (1996) - Starring Charlotte Gainsbourg (whoo woman first billed) and William Hurt

Running time: nearly 2 hours. 

Really beautiful looking movie! But overall, a bit meh. 

On capturing the spirit of the novel : 4 out of 5 stars! Franco Zeferelli does a lot of the artistic design for Metropolitan Operas so he has quiet the eye for detail I think.

Accuracy: 3 out of 5 stars. This version condenses and eliminates major parts of the novel. It is generally accurate, though. It spends a lot of time in her childhood. 

the Jane: 2.5 out of 5 stars. This Jane almost seems angry. A little too severe for me. I do like how she seems about the right age.

the Rochester: 4 out of 5 stars. Hurt is of the right age to play Rochester and definitely looks the most Rochester-esque in my opinion!

the Cast: 4out of 5. Good supporting cast. Anna Paquin was a great young Jane and her time in Lowood was well done. 

the Chemistry: 3out of 5. Not too hot, but it works for them. Lacking a bit of passion. 

OVERALL: 3.4 out of 5  (okay!)

5.  Jane Eyre (1997) Made for TV - Starring Samantha Horton and Ciaran Hinds

Running time: 1 hour and 48 minutes

Least favorite! Too much time spent in Jane’s head. The language is a bit too modern. 

On capturing the spirit of the novel : 3 out of 5 stars! Costumes and etc are on point, but the language and the removal of key lines from book are a bit confusing to me.

 Accuracy: 3 out of 5 stars. Two major subplots are removed. Good job to them for making St. John good looking like in the book, but his characterization was all wrong. He was too amiable and not severe enough. So many important details were left out of this version. 

the Jane: 2 out of 5 stars. Least favorite Jane. She is too mopey and feels a bit too sorry for herself. The thing about Jane is that she endures so much but does not give into self pity!!

the Rochester: 3 out of 5 stars. I like Hinds in general but that uggo mustache was not a good idea. He generally looked the part. He was a bit manic (which I suppose is like Rochester) but in bizzarre ways. He was also too nice to Adele (Rochester’s love child). I liked how Rochester sang in this version.

the Cast: 4out of 5. Good supporting cast! I loved Mrs. Fairfax played by Gemma Jones (she also plays Bridget Jones’ mother!) and Blanche Ingram was very good too!

the Chemistry: 3out of 5. Their proposal scene is a nightmare…don’t watch while eating or just after eating. 

OVERALL: 3 out of 5  (basic) We have A&E to thank for this mess.

6.  Jane Eyre (2006) Miniseries - Starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens 

Running time:  4 hours. 

A definite step up from the last few! BBC knows what’s up. 

On capturing the spirit of the novel : 4.5 out of 5 stars! Beautifully shot and more thorough. 

Accuracy: 4 out of 5 stars. Pretty accurate but with definite bouts of artistic license. Some people like this, but if are a purist when it comes to adaptions, that may not be for you. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z6CAvY4_pA

the Jane: 5 out of 5 stars. Ruth Wilson is an excellent Jane! Pretty much how I imagined her. She actually makes you a bit teary! 

the Rochester: 5 out of 5 stars. Evenly matched with Ruth Wilson, Toby Stephens is very charming although possibly too handsome to play the role. 

the Cast: 4out of 5. I particularly liked (SPOILER) Rochester’s wife and the flashbacks. Adele was also pretty good!

the Chemistry: 5 out of 5. Some of the best chemistry out of the adaptions!

OVERALL: 4.6 out of 5  (very, very good!)

7.  Jane Eyre (2011)  - Starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender

Running time:  2 hours. 

Probably best feature film although I  enjoyed the 1943 version better. 

On capturing the spirit of the novel : 3 out of 5 stars! Really beautiful film, although the end erks me a lot. SPOILER ALERT but Rochester is blind but regains his sight in the end! That is left out maybe to make it seem like some kind of tragic romance? 

Accuracy: 4 out of 5 stars. Includes most important things while omitting others. It is hard to fit it all in 2 hour movie, which is understandable. I also was not a fan of having the movie kind of start at the end and then have flashbacks, but that’s a personal thing. I think Bronte wrote it linearly for a reason. This adaption is for those who have definitely read the book backwards and forwards and those who just wanted to see Michael Fassbender. 

the Jane: 4 out of 5 stars. Mia really held her own again Fassbender (whom can really do anything). She is also the right age to play Jane. 

the Rochester: 4 out of 5 stars. Fassbender is DEFINITELY too good looking and too charming to be Rochester, but he is so natural at playing brooding people that can’t be ignored. When I saw this in the theaters, there was a scene when he tells Jane to stay put and not go to her room or else he will come fetch he,  and an old lady behind me said, "He can come fetch me any day!” Need I say more?

the Cast: 3out of 5. They are a little forgettable even with Judy Dench as Mrs. Fairfax. 

the Chemistry: 5 out of 5. It’s actually gorgeous. 

OVERALL: 3.8 out of 5 (pretty good!)

IN SUMMARY

I would definitely recommend: 1943, 1983, and 2006 versions. I would tentatively recommend 2011 version. I would say that die-hards should watch 1996 version and say that all should avoid the 1997 version like the Plague!!

PROPOSALS RANKED  (in order of awesomeness)

1. 2006 (comprehensive, romantic, and beautiful): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRPszu5loaA

2. 1983 (because it’s done properly): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyTpzvElJck

3. 2011 (FASSBENDER. A bit too short, tho): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ard8hElhUY4

4. 1943 (nice and eerie): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PI8GcRW79s

5. 1996 (meh): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47eTkbpfe68

6. 1997 (they kiss like alien sea monters): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lHKxDq33_g

Best proposal: 2006/ Worst proposal: 1997

Best Rochester: Orson Welles 1944/ Worst Rochester: Ciaran Hinds

Best Jane: Ruth Wilson (close runner-up: Mia Wasikowska)/ Worst Jane: Samantha Horton

I’m still waiting for an adaption to have it all, but this has been fun! Watching them all has really enhanced my appreciation for my favorite book! What do you think? I encourage fans to watch the adaptions and decide for themselves! What is your favorite book? Has it been adapted? Go and make a comparative study of your own.

If any film makers read this post, please remember to be thorough, avoid stream of consciousness (major blunder in 1997 version) and cast Benedict Cumberbatch as the next Rochester!!

Thanks for reading! :)

[tefltraininginstitute]

Using Literature To Teach Language (with Anne Carmichael)

Lots gets said about the value of graded readers, but how can teachers use these in class? We speak with Diploma in TESOL course director Anne Carmichael about using graded readers with students at different levels, how teachers can integrate different skills using graded readers and how teachers can deal with new language from the texts.

Using Literature to Teach Language - Transcription

Ross Thorburn:  Hi, everyone, welcome back to "TEFL Training Institute Podcast." This week, we're talking about using literature to teach language. We've talked on the podcast before about using graded readers to help students learn.

In this episode, we'll go into a bit more detail about how to actually use a graded reader with a class, almost in a way like you'd use a course book. To do that, we have Anne Carmichael.

Anne started off as a teacher in the 1960s. She's taught multiple languages. Since 2008, she has run TESOL Training Scotland, running Trinity diploma and TESOL courses around the world. Anne is based in Aberdeen in Scotland.

In this episode, Anne tells us about her experiences, basically throwing out her course book and replacing it with graded readers with her students. Lots of great ideas in this one for activities, for using graded readers to teach language. Enjoy the interview.

  Ross:  Hi, Anne. Tell us about using literature in language classes. We're not talking here about just passing out the original copies of Jane Eyre to the student, are we?

Anne Carmichael:  No, but they got the B1 version of it, which is still in print, I've checked. It now has ‑‑ which you didn't then ‑‑ an audio version. At the time, these were classes for more casual English learners.

Aberdeen had so many incomers with the oil business. Mostly, they were the oil lives, but they were really keen to improve their English, most of them to integrate into the community. I had the idea that our lessons were residing in a course book too much. One day, I'd said to them, "How about we actually read a proper classic English novel, say by Jane Austen?"

Now, many of them had heard of Jane Austen. Many of them had perhaps read her in French translation. They all agreed that they would buy a copy. I got the bookstore to make sure they had enough copies.

I thought, "Well, each week we can take a different chapter and we can deal with it in a different way." For example, picking out, initially, ideas and reactions to chapter one and feelings. I felt, "Well, what these ladies most need is to somehow relate to feelings, emotions, even the literature, even the writing itself and relate to the characters and so on."

We would deal with that. It would be a little bit like a bond tie because one emotion would spark off vocab or more and more experiences. They could describe a time when they had felt overwhelmed. That would be perhaps one response to a chapter.

Another chapter, we might look at in terms of narrative and using the past tenses, anecdotes about moving house because Jane had to move from her aunt's rather luxury house to a horrible school, or going to school, things like that, so first impressions of school. We could relate it to that and also enjoy the literature.

We could do a little bit of prediction, so predictive stuff. We could also do role play. For the first time, Jane encounters Rochester. We could get the ladies up acting it out, perhaps making up a little bit more of the dialog themselves and learning it.

They would write it all down and script it, and then learn it and then come out to the front and perform it. We could then say imagine you were looking at this in a film. I don't think there was a film of Jane Eyre at that point. I'm going back a bit but who would you choose to act in it? Who would be the heroine? Who would be the hero in that film?

We would discuss who the best actors at that time were and so on. Perhaps do a mock film review, or disagree or agree with one another, "No, I don't think Meryl Streep would be the best person to act Jane. I think you need somebody thinner and more sad‑looking," or something like that.

That again developed. If you were to set it in a film, what background music would you use? If you were looking at old paintings, for example, what paintings would most reflect that particular chapter or scene that you were reading about? They would think about that. They would come with ideas.

It was actually developing it in far wider than just the story itself, but including the language and enabling the ladies to express their feelings, emotions, opinions about literature, film, life in general, moving to Aberdeen. How it was different from living in their home countries, for example.

Ross:  For me, one of the challenges of using semi‑authentic materials like that is finding some language to focus on. Unlike in a course book, obviously in a graded reader, you won't have 30 examples of the past continuous in chapter one and then a dozen examples of the present perfect in chapter two.

It's not always so easy to find something to focus on. Do you want to tell us a bit more about how you can use graded readers and really focusing on some language point?

Anne:  Obviously, it's particularly good for narrative. For the narrative tenses, it's very, very good. For the writing, that spills over into written reviews or written summaries of a chapter.

You can also do it written as predictive. I think, next week, [laughs] Charlotte will etc., etc., or I think the strange person in the attic will. [laughs] It's completely possible. Nothing is impossible. That's my philosophy anyway.

It can be made relevant and interesting, and yet follow a theme and instructional because they're dealing with English literature. You could do it with Emma. You could do it with Joseph Conrad. There are so many of these lovely really well‑adapted readers that you can use for that.

Ross:  How then did you deal with new and unfamiliar words when you were teaching then? I think there's those rules that say that students need to know about 98 percent of the words in the text if they're going to be able to understand what they read. How did you make sure that students didn't get lost without too much new vocabulary?

Anne:  I might have perhaps pre‑taught some of the vocabulary before we went on to a new chapter. In those days, it wasn't so much getting the students to work it out for themselves. In those days, pre‑teaching was quite the fashion.

It would have been based on what had gone before, so predicting, and then providing vocab lexis, perhaps expressions that I knew would be coming up in the next chapter.

Pre‑teaching is great but not in a sort of table ‑‑ here are 10 words, here are 10 definitions, match them up. Not cold quite like that but as some kind of warmer and elucidation where possible.

I also think it needs to be done in some kind of context, so you might be able to elicit some of the vocab through a well‑judged warmer. It can be very useful because if the students are being exposed to that within the last three or four minutes, then they're probably going to remember it when they actually hear it.

All that needs to be recycled and elicited at the end so that the grasp can be assessed, that they've actually got it and also that they can pronounce it properly. Obviously, it'd be on the board, it would be transcribed probably, and that it can be personalized.

Ross:  Those were obviously slightly higher, maybe intermediate students. Do you want to tell us about using literature with lower level learners?

Anne:  I had another group, also in the '70s, of Vietnamese refugees. Now, they should be in the boat people and for them, I chose Grace Darling. Many of them were near beginners, certainly elementary by the time we had them.

It was very personalized. It was very effective and I suppose to some degree with these beginners elementary, quite integrated in a way. I didn't expect them to read or write. It was purely listening and speaking.

A lot of them were in a family, so some of their ages range from probably 15 or 16 to about in their 70s. They came as a family and that was security for them. I thought, well, Grace Darling.

It's not too threatening about a disaster at sea but it is about a ship wreck, and some of them had been shipwrecked. It is again about feelings and emotions and responses and rescue, and I wanted them to be able to use that when they were talking to their social workers and so on.

They couldn't all read. I would sometimes read aloud, and they would simply listen. It was really a facilitating device, again, to compare and contrast their lives at home with their new lives here, which were very difficult, for some of them at the start, adapting.

You could barely imagine...You can imagine, you can but many people couldn't. The social workers, I didn't think could. It was important for them to have that resource if you like to draw on and to be able to express.

Some of them had been so abused as well during their boat journeys, some of the girls especially. It was hard but they seemed to be happy to talk about it. It was a very protective, very closed little group. That was also very rewarding, and they liked the story. They like the bravery of the rescuers, which again they could relate to.

That went on for quite a number of weeks. We ran that maybe 10 weeks for a term. We ran that story and developed it. They could tell the story back, and then they could tell their own stories.

Ross:  What I found really interesting there, Anne, is that I've heard from teachers who also teach vulnerable people like refugees that usually take great care to avoid any sensitive topics with their students.

For example, even just things like talking about family, which is really common topic in the course book. You might want to avoid with groups like that because it's very likely that maybe someone in their family has died.

With your example, it sounds like you did the opposite. You really chose the book because it did involve talking about something that was sensitive but also relevant to the students.

Anne:  They need to speak about it. What I would be very sensitive of, because this happened to me once in a formal Cambridge interview. When I was actually doing the interview, there was a pair of candidates, and I showed them a picture.

It was a picture of a beautiful little wooded glade, a beautiful little scene with kind of Greek pillars in it. They were asked to comment on it and reflect what they feel. One of the candidates simply got up and ran out of the room in terrible distress.

I paused the interview and told the supervisor, and then went on with the next candidates. Towards the end of the day, I found out that one of the candidates had been in a dreadful situation where she had seen an atrocity take place in a glade very similar to that.

That's always stayed in my mind, always, when dealing with traumatized students that you cannot predict what will trigger a response.

Ross:  Something I noticed whenever I read anything aloud to students is that I tense is a grade whatever I'm reading as I'm reading it. Did you do anything like that when you were reading? How did you go about reading out the text out loud? Any tips there for teachers?

Anne:  When I was reading aloud, I didn't do gapping or anything like that, especially with beginners. It was sentence by sentence and pausing. Ross, this is something I'm so keen on, is pausing.

This is coming from Silent Way but I was doing it before [laughs] I'd read about Silent Way ‑‑ to let the language sink in. People need time to process. I discovered that pretty early on in my teaching. I would always be quite measured and allow time. Just count to three in between sentences for that to sink in.

I might even just say "Everybody OK" or give a look or gesture, "Everybody OK with that?" before I would move on. If it's a live listening or an audio, especially audiotape, it's so difficult being deaf. One of the things I so need is to lip read as well. Students can benefit from that as well.

Ross:  That's so interesting what you say about reading people's lips there, Anne. I found recently with going to meetings at work in Chinese that happened over the phone, I found those so much more difficult to understand than if it's a meeting that I'm in face to face.

It also must be the same for students and probably find listening to audio more difficult compared to a live reading or something.

Anne:  You've hit the nail on the head, Ross. Absolutely. Knowing that this was one of the drawbacks of the audio lingual, that they couldn't see the speakers, they could only hear them.

I've even had deaf students in the class and I'm always very careful to face them or anybody who's maybe a wee bit slower to process language. It's a good thing to actually turn round to face them, maybe slow down, just a fraction, keeping it natural but slow down a fraction, and repeat, and check. Again, just that little nod, "Is that OK?" to check.

  Ross:  One more time, that was Anne Carmichael. For more about Anne, check out her website, tesoltrainingscotland.co.uk. Thank you again to Anne for joining us. If you'd like to find more of our podcast, please go to our website www.tefltraininginstitute.com. We'll see you again next time. Bye‑bye.