Austen or Bronte

The Washington Post published an interesting article debating between Bronte or Austen. I don't think I can choose between them. Austen and the Brontes are so different but they appeal to us in different ways. Some people have argued that Austen is a little boring in that she only focuses on the conversations of the genteel class. However, Austen writes with a witty satire and creates genuinely likable characters. I mean how can one not like and respect Elizabeth Bennett or Emma Woodhouse? The Brontes, on the other hand, write such passionate, chaotic, and dramatic novels. Emily's Heathcliff and Catherine are such complex, troubling characters that readers are torn about loving or hating them. Same with Charlotte. Do we really want Jane to end up with Rochester? His actions are rather disturbing at time.

The article from The Washington Post wonders why the Brontes are making a comeback in the movies, stating that "Some analysts have wondered if the Brontes are built for economic downturn — that difficult times draw us to difficult stories. The Bronte heroes find happiness, but not without losing a hand or their eyesight, or having their manor burned down. It’s a bruised happiness, one that might appeal to the foreclosed modern viewer." This is an interesting point. I hadn't considered how our economic times may influence our choice in movies. I suppose we want to go to movies where the characters struggle and don't have an easy path. I wonder if a Wuthering Heights is in the works...

A New Movie on Jane Eyre. Why all the 19th-century movie adaptations?

I'm very excited to see the new Jane Eyre movie. See the trailer for Jane Eyre. It's playing in the Landmark Downer theatre down in Milwaukee. There have been a least nine movies made of Charlotte Bronte's fabulous novel, from 1933 up to the present. It has been a research interest of mine to reflect and hypothesize why so many 19th-century novels are made into films. What is it about that literature that inspires us to remake them? I could give the stock answer that those novels have universal truths of which we can still relate. That is true, but why else? Perhaps 19th-century novels just lend themselves to become movies. Novel reading was a source of entertainment to 19th-century audiences much like movies are a source of entertainment for us today.

I actually have done some writing on seven different versions of Dickens's Great Expectations and found that the way Estella says her final lines of the novel is slightly different in each movie. The ways she offers Pip friendship ranges from a question, to a timid request, to an assertive declarative statement. I've concluded that Estella's increase in assertiveness is a result of the changing views of femininity throughout the 20th century. That's aside from Jane Eyre but maybe it's something similar. How does each movie portray Jane and her world? And what can contemporary audience understand from a new movie? Do young women see themselves in Jane? After all, young women are no longer threatened with being a governness if they don't marry. Is it the love story? Why are we so captivated with Jane and Rochester's uncertain and ambiguous relationship? Or, is the storyline just that good? The Bronte sisters were definitely not the typical female women of the 19th century. All three sisters were rather isolated, well read, loved Byron, and published novels. Perhaps it's the Bronte myth that keeps these stories alive and well.