The Toybox

people for the conservation of limited amounts of indignation


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
movie: jane eyre
children of dune - leto 1
seperis
You know, and I say this with deep romantic love, Rochester is a creepy creepster who is creeping creepily. Just. For the record. Oh my God his creeping over Jane. How did I forget how unearthly unsubtle Rochester is? He's not even goddamn trying not to be creepy.

Christ, man, just get a fucking sign that says "I HAVE A CREEPY SECRET WHILE I CREEP OVER YOU, JANE."

"Poor and obscure as you are", how did I completely block out this?

Jane Eyre version with Michael Fassbender, which just makes it weirdly appropriate. It's like, Magneto in the nineteenth century whose mutant power is Creepiness. Creepneto. IDK. And also, not genocidal. I mean, I assume, but I've forgotten a lot of the book, so maybe he leads some kind of--yeah, no idea.

Suffice to say, Creepneto is freaking me out badly.

Oh, strangulation in the church. That's--what the hell.

Wait, I'm about to meet the wife. This is terribly, terribly disturbing.

Posted at Dreamwidth: http://seperis.dreamwidth.org/98855.html. | You can reply here or there. | comments

  • 1
It's so scarily accurate it's unreal. *shivers*

Yeah, Rochester is not even slightly subtle. He is just lucky that Jane is pretty much a baby, who has spent the last nine years or so in a highly isolated, abusive and repressive girls' school in the north of England. And even then, she still kind of knows that something's up.

I am always very ambivalent towards Rochester. On the one hand, boy's got issues, and would really benefit from some treatment for his bipolar tendencies. On the other, he at least seems to realize that Jane is the bestest ever, which is more than anyone else in canon does. And she wants him, and Jane (being the bestest ever) should have anyone/anything she wants. So.

And she wants him, and Jane (being the bestest ever) should have anyone/anything she wants. So.

This is pretty much my entire thing right there. Jane is awesome. She should have exactly what she wants. Apparently, it's Rochester. So.

the ONLY reason I can stand Rochester is because Jane is Just. That. Awesome. And *she* sees something redeeming in him, god only knows what.

Is the new version worth watching though? I love the Toby Stephens version like crazy and I'm not sure I really want to see this one, despite the fact that I really like Fassbender as an actor.

I've personally always liked Rochester's weird creepy twisted-ness. Jane Eyre is one of my favourite books precisely because of the twisted, disturbing romance. :P

Yes, he basically drips creepy issues, it's awesome. And Fassbender plays him very, very well.

'06 > '11 but '11 definitely worth watching!

(Deleted comment)
IT IS SO TRUE AND UNEARTHLY.

At least it's not Wuthering Heights.

Yo, I love Wuthering Heights. It's such glorious melodrama. Just downloaded the Tom Hardy version!

It's glorious melodrama, but I don't think Rochester's creep factor comes close to Heathcliff's.

That said, Tom Hardy playing Heathcliff? Sounds well worth a watch.

Technically, yeah, but Rochester is (in theory) a good guy, so that adds plus ten to teh creep just on the principle that villain and/or antihero are entitled to creepiness but heroes, not so much.

Though I'd pit the last two Rochesters against the last two Heathcliffes and see who came out in the Sociopathology Is Sexy Pageant.

Random drive-by comment...

I always cut Rochester so much slack simply because he's not Heathcliff, thanks to having read them back-to-back at a young and impressionable age. My 98% of brain tries to tell me, "no, seriously, he's a creepster! He's not okay! If Jane weren't so badass (or this were an Anne Bronte book), she'd be doomed to grief forever!", and that other two percent just goes, "tra la la, not Heathcliff, all is well!" and it all just gets handwaved away. He's not so bad! The ongoing headgames aren't as evil as they could be! He only has one secret crazy wife! And he's not Heathcliff! (And even more importantly, Jane is not Cathy, thank goat.)

Seriously, brain, knock it the hell off. We are too old for this.

Re: Random drive-by comment...

(And even more importantly, Jane is not Cathy, thank goat.)

Dear God this. I just watched the Tom Hardy Wuthering Heights and somehow between re-reads and adaptations, I always forget how much I want to strangle her to death.

(Also, okay, not my fault, there's a scene where they're making out in the moors right after Heathcliff gets flogged and his shirt is still flecked with blood and I was all "Daww." Not my fault. Just. Oh Heathcliffe.)

hands down the most accurate review ever.

It is like Rochester's raison d'etre is done brilliantly. He creeps.

Danny and I watched this a month or so ago, which was a serious test of my love for Fassbender, because I hated the book when they tried to make me read it in high school, and I came away from that reading hating not just Rochester but Jane too, and I already hated two other Brontes, so what was one more?

I found the film, overall... not as loathsome as I remembered the book being. probably in part because it was shot so beautifully, and a sweep of the camera could sum up what in the text was probably interminable description; in part because the leads really were actressin' the hell out of it and I am inclined toward fondness* for them both. and there were a couple of moments of "okay, that was hot" where I could sort of see my way toward what ladies found appealing about Rochester.

but mostly? straight creepin'.



*extreme understatement in at least 50% of that statement.

Edited at 2011-08-14 06:06 pm (UTC)

Straight creeping appealingness. I mean, to borrow from avilio, yeah, you know you too will end up driven crazy and locked in the attic, but Rochester's general feeling of creepy hotness makes you kinda think, worth it.

I just still don't get what he's got to offer, though, aside from money, which yeah, Jane says she doesn't care about but it sure sweetens the deal. his personality is terrible, he doesn't appear to have any gifts other than his mad creeping skills, it's like... take Picasso. some of his women ended up insane and/or dead, but he at least was Picasso. what is so special about Rochester?

He's a romance novel heroine with a penis. A girl with a crazy husband would be in the same predicament that Rochester is in, with the trapped in a terrible marriage and the only option is to lock him upstairs. Unless I am really off on my canon law for Britain, it was far more likely that Rochester as a male could have divorced/killed his crazy!wife, not cared for her for years and forgave her for like, trying to kill him and everyone else over and over.

Running theory on romance tropes is a lot of the heroes are basically girls with a cock, which isn't exactly a bad theory when you look at how the male heroes are written as opposed to Male Villains, and if you look at Loretta Chase's redemption arc for one of her villains-turned-hero (and for that matter, Georgette Heyer's), there's an argument that its less girl imagining hero than girl imagining if she were a guy and a hero.

I'm sorry, I still don't understand... any of that. :( you've now moved into a language I don't know. :((

Jumping in to say, wow, what an interesting theory on romance novel heroes. Can you point me to some evidence or further explanation?

I read most recently linked about two years ago (or possibly three) off of Smart Bitches, Trashy Novels, but originally it was mentioned in a lit course I was in circa 1999. I can't be more specific; I've been slowly going back through their archive when I think about it, but I haven't hit that one yet. There are a few via google, but most of them are short pieces on the idea, nothing near as comprehensive as that one. That one had, if I remember correctly, reference to specific research, which is why I'm still looking for it.

Which reminds me to go looking again.

Actually, let me check my old bookmarks; I didn't save that one, but during the recent discusison on rape in romance fic last year I was reading another one that was (somewhat) related that I meant to follow up on because it picked up some of the same line of thinking, though the subject was on specific plot tropes, not the genre in toto.

I just finished reading "Jenna Starborn" by Sharon Shinn. About 15 pages in I had a weird feeling of deja vu, and realized I was reading a re-working of Jane Eyre - set in a space faring universe.

...seriously?

(Deleted comment)
I don't think so, but I need to rewatch; I kept leaping for my copy of Jane Eyre trying to remember key plot points. He creeps, though. Dear God, Rochester.

Not in this one, unfortunately.

I actually love that scene (which never makes it into movies, alas) because it is just so damn random. Rochester, you WEIRDO. It's one of the things that kind of almost makes me like him, because not many Byronic heroes would dress in unattractive drag, crash a party at their own house, talk smack about themselves to their guests, and then proceed to flirt with the heroine.

His may not be an attractive personality, but by God you can't say he doesn't have a personality.

(Deleted comment)
Now I remember why I love your movie reviews so much. :D He's pretty much Creepneto aka Lying Liar Who Lies No Jane Don't Listen, but I must have blocked out the strangulation, where is that?

I think my favourite Jane Eyre adaptation is still the 2006 BBC one.

In the church he starts strangling the younger of the two guys that coem to stop the wedding. It's--weirdly hilarious.

I went back and watched the entire thing - and he tries the strangling again! With Jane! By a fireplace and with soft threats, but oh god, I have never noticed the extreme levels of creepy like this.

I mean, Heathcliff is basically tall, dark and creepy, but Rochester's giving him some serious competition there.

he tries the strangling again! With Jane! By a fireplace and with soft threats
super freaked out when I read this in the book again too, clearly had blanked it from my mind :S :S :S

This is what happens when you read classics at the age of 11, go, 'hey, that was a good book', and never pick them up again.

I have this strange urge to pick up all my Austens to make sure they're not all crazy sociopathic bigamists too.

YES OMG.

But then I reread it and still thought it was a good book and blanked all the shitty bits out? Therein lies my problem. :S

(lol rewatching the '06 miniseries which delivers way more on the inappropriate touching for that period O_o)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind! Thanks for telling me, but you're probably not the only one. It's like that thing with Disney movies and catching all the implications on the second go-round. Your brain's probably trying to preserve your childhood.

Ahhhh Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson! I remember watching the entire series thinking, 'He's McGonagall's son! Omg!'

CREEPNETO. YES. SO MUCH.

I watched this with my mom. We have watched ALL THE OTHER JANE EYRE movies together (there's like 3) and THIS ONE has the creepiest Mr. Rochester. CREEPIN' AWAY LIKE A CREEPERFACE.

Mind you, that didn't stop me from enjoying it a hell of a lot.

But I was like HOOOOOLY INAPPROPRIATE TOUCHING FOR VICTORIAN TIMES BATMAN for a lot of the movie.

But I was like HOOOOOLY INAPPROPRIATE TOUCHING FOR VICTORIAN TIMES BATMAN for a lot of the movie.

Oh my God WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT? He was creeping her up every time she was in range of his creepy hands!

He definitely didn't get hugged enough as a child. O.o

CREEPERFACE.

Drive by, with feeling.

My theory for the inappropriate touching is that Jane was a baby and didn't know how to properly respond to that sort of thing, but later comes to the conclusion that a) hot and b) she will rip off his arm and beat him with it if he tries again. And then they got engaged, so...

We have watched ALL THE OTHER JANE EYRE movies together (there's like 3) and THIS ONE has the creepiest Mr. Rochester.

This entry's sort of kick-started me into re-watching all the Jane Eyre I have, which is apparently: four different versions, but Fassbender is definitely the worst - he's also the most abrasive and bitchy, though that might just be the Magneto leaking through.

You should watch A Bear Called Winnie, the cognitive dissonance is WOAH UP THERE.

Re: Drive by, with feeling.

There's one who's more tempestuous than Fassbender, in terms of being shouty, but I don't remember which version it is. And Fassbender wins the bitchy!Rochester prize.

I'll do that, that sounds fun. XD

Re: Drive by, with feeling.

Toby Stephens, I think. He was the shouty!Rochester.

In case you need further persuading: it has Fassbender playing wrestle with a tiny black bear cub (a tiny, forbidden bear cub, because they were in the army and stuff). IT IS SO ADORABLE.

Re: Drive by, with feeling.

Oh my god that sounds so cute.

Re: Drive by, with feeling.

More shouty than Ciaran Hinds? Normally I love Ciaran, but wow, did his Rochester holler. (Samantha Morton was a lovely Jane, though.)

  • 1
?

Log in