I was a little surprised when I read that in Variety yesterday. I'm glad Page is taking on varied roles - she's too talented to get typecast as Juno-esque characters - but I admit that Jane Eyre seems a rough fit. Starting with the fact that I'm not sure I've ever seen her look comfortable in a dress. Ah well, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I see some footage.

Reply

You can kill me if you want, but I can see her as Cathy Earnshaw... more than I can see Natalie Portman, that is.

Reply

I've never read Jane Eyre, but Ellen Page has already played the most depressing heroine I've ever seen in The Tracey Fragments. Not to mention An American Crime . . . that one doesn't sound too cheery and uplifting either.

I'm not sure if I can picture her in a BBC period piece, though. Hope she can pull off the accent.

Reply

imagine if someone posed this question about renee zellweger and bridget jones? seems a bit dumb now, huh?

she's a great little actress and i have no doubt she will kick the shit out of it

Reply

"...she's become so identified with the snarky, wise-cracking teenagers she played in Juno and Smart People..."

Well that's just the point - actors who like to do a range of parts, need to break away from those associations as often as they can. She's hot right now, and now is the time to go for it.

I haven't seen all of either film, but judging from the bits I have seen of HARD CANDY and AN AMERICAN CRIME, I can see it. She can make it work.

Reply

I can see her in this role because physically she fits the part, but are they going to have her do a British accent? Some actors are quite good at accents but others aren't, so for me that would be the dealbreaker. Then again, does the world *really* need another Jane Eyre adaptation? I loved the book and miniseries from 1983 with Timothy Dalton and haven't bothered to see any of the adaptations since then.

Reply

She's wicked talented. I know she'll be great in any role she chooses.

Reply

We've just came off of a misrepresentation of Brontë's novel -- with a wonderful lead actress mind you, Ruth Wilson -- but still a misrepresentation. Chick-flick basically. Film versions of long, complex narratives are not necessary anymore. And there are too many bad ones of JE as is. NO ONE talks about the film versions of JE anyway. Only the miniseries.

Greedy producers are just stealing Brontë's material and making lame love stories out of it, essentially ignoring or playing down the larger themes and dense threading.

If HBO had the project, you could do a 5-6 hour adaptation, cast perfectly (I mean no one gave a crap that Falco and Gandolfini weren't household names) and do a darker, more ambiguous story. The one that Brontë actually wrote, using much of her language.

Page may be talented but a Brit will trump her in terms of nuance and essential understanding. It's too specific.

Why do people feel they have a right to take liberties with such a gifted author?

Reply

Wouldn't James McAvoy make a great Mr. Rochester?

Reply

I just want to second what Liz Newcomb said. I discovered the '83 Dalton/Clarke adaptation just this past year (I reviewed it and others on AMAZON). And while flawed -- at likely the lowest budget per hour -- it's the only one I can watch! Too bad they didn't have the money for production values and necessary time to tweak that recent versions had.

But they proved that in the right hands, Brontë's language holds up remarkably well.

The writing in the new one (courtesy of Sandy Welch) was flat out awful!

Reply

Jane Eyre is my all time favorite book. I love everything about it. I believe Ellen Page can do this. She can play such a dark character. Jane Eyre is witty and if you watch interviews with Ellen, she is as well. I think that it might be hard for her to do an accent but I think she can pull it off and do it well.

Reply

"Wouldn't James McAvoy make a great Mr. Rochester?"

Unfortunately not. Mr. Rochester is supposed to be a much older man. McAvoy is 28?

My choice for the role is Joseph Fiennes (from Shakespeare in Love), who in his late 30's now.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Ellen Page does with this character. Great choice in mixing her roles up! If she can nail the accent and the period, she'll be invincible.

Reply

James McAvoy looks VERY young and he's very cute, despite claims to the contrary. He demonstrates intensity, but not the natural authority of say, Richard Armitage. Who's also too handsome but closer in age and imo, resonance, and a tremendous actor. So he'd be a clear winner of the two, if cute men were the only choices available. But again wasted in a two + hour movie.

Reply

I like James McAvoy as Mr. Rochester because he is compelling rather than classically handsome or pretty. I suspect he could easily embody Mr. Rochester as described in the book, a man with: - "so haughty a reliance, on the power of other qualities, intrinsic or adventitious, to atone for the lack of mere personal attractiveness, that, in looking at him, one inevitably shared the indifference, and, even in a blind, imperfect sense, put faith in the confidence …" He also has a kind of intelligent, analytical talkativeness, imperative for carrying on all the great talks between Mr. Rochester and Jane. As for age, Mr. Rochester is described as an athletic, vital, energetic man in his mid-thirties, capable of lighting up a room. McAvoy, 29 now, will be close to thirty by the time this movie gets made. That's not such a stretch. The New York Times described James McAvoy as "hardly a conventional sex symbol." What more unconventional sex symbol exists in the history of English literature than Mr. Rochester?

Reply