@jaimeleigh We will have to agree to disagree. We only have those things still because of past governments. I also believe they will continue to be threatened through subtle techniques and that we too can have a culture war here. And we already see it in terms of environmental issues -- opposed to the Tar Sands? You're a terrorist! I am sure you recall the kerfuffle over not recognizing same sex marriages of non-Canadians performed here? The back bencher who wants to reopen questions surrounding abortion to determine when a fetus is human? We are in Santorum territory with Harper and his band of climate change deniers. They are probably "stuck" with gay marriage and abortion but there is still A LOT to ruin, like health care,. #Canadasplaining
Well Canada is actually really warm now! But, our government is now way to the right of yours. In actual fact, our current government is not too far away from Santorum territory on social issues and the rest of the crazy righties on financial issues if the worst case scenario is to be believed. Our official retirement actually WAS raised to 67 last week. So there is that.
That is a shirty way of getting to a bigger issue I had, which is about the kind of passion that counts as passion in a contemporary movie. It's histrionic, while I think the Brontës very well do the tamped down crazy intense passion better than anyone in literature.
This is the best point Claire makes about the short comings of this film. It is way too swooningly romantic for a Bronte novel! That was clearly something that was added on to the text that did not belong there.
The other complaints feel like nit picks to me a bit (sorry!), because as Dan says, it's a film! And as a film based on a well known adapted text, it really succeeds. I was also miffed by certain choices, but only one stood out as a glaring error. This is the omission of Miss Maria Temple. Personally I can see it being mystifying for those unfamiliar with the book to see Jane leave Lowood so accomplished when all they saw of Lowood was the really bad stuff. (Also I loved that character!)
Yes, it is important to show how bad Jane's upbringing was, but to omit all good from it was a logical failure of the adaptation because if Lowood was nothing but filthy beatdowns, why is Jane so worldly in her accomplishments? It's a logical breakdown!!
Aside from that, there really was a lot to like. Personal freedom is more important than class in this novel, because the character of Jane Eyre herself really transcends male / female and rich / poor dichotomies as her world view is much more spiritual than material and male/female/rich/poor are just not important to her. Check Jane's equal sharing of her fortune with people she barely knows as one example.
I love the book, but i also loved the movie.
Thanks for paying attention to both of these in these here pages!!
A fat nap.
Hmm. I recall being on a trans atlantic flight recently where a fat old white man needed to lie down due to a medical issue and no one raised an eyebrow. Attendants rushed to his aid and we landed at our scheduled destination.
More importantly it is the official mode in which these words are printed in this province. Michelle is showing respect, and further happens to be fitting in a column of this nature. Contrast this with a special lack of respect above and welcome to my world.
@djfreshie I agree with you about Layton. Something about him just rubs the wrong way.
@jaimeleigh The folks I know in Toronto really seem to love Olivia Chow and NOT her husband. Layton just seems too opportunistic and smarmy for me personally. I dunno. I *want* to like the man, I just don't.
@djfreshie: Total agreement. I fell hard for him during the debates last election. He's super cool and hot, his kids all work in Quebec film and television and he's a Montreal dude through and through.
Last weekend Gilles outright called Sweatervest a liar. But in calling the man a liar, he is only telling the truth and not being a dick. SWEATERVEST LIES! So much love for Gilles Duceppe. I will never vote for him, but if i ever see him around, i will seek him out and swear my eternal fandom.
@TheRtHonPM: Total agreement! The Liberals I know who would love to love them a Liberal loathe the man for this reason. It's not so much he's been out of the country as a successful academic, it's that he was a giant d-bag while out there doing it!
@jfruh: 'P' stands for politician. He's the only one out of the big 4 i find remotely doable (see notes on Dominic Leblanc above).