Forget-Me-Not Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 So, I rented this from Redbox tonight, because DH is holed up in the office with charts :D I noticed when I rented it that it had a PG13 rating for 'brief nudity'. I seemed to recall hearing that it wasn't too bad, so I went ahead and rented it anyway (and because it's Jane Eyre. . . how bad could it be?). And now I'm :confused::confused::confused:. What was the nude scene? The part where she held a candle up to the oil painting of a Rubenesque naked woman? That was the only thing I noticed in the entire movie that had anything to do with nudity. Which is great (not complaining about lack of nudity, I'm pretty picky about movies). . . it just surprises me that THAT is what earned it a PG13 rating. The 2006 MPT production had a scene that was way more sensual than anything I saw in this version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garga Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I just saw that movie a couple of weeks ago. I don't remember any nude scenes. Weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplain Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 From Googling, it appears that the brief nudity was indeed that painting. DH thinks maybe the producers wanted the movie to have a PG-13 rating. Many young adults and adults won't deign to watch a movie rated anything less than PG-13. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Peach Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Yes, I thought that was bizarre. I liked the movie, though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linguistmama Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 That's good to know! I've tried watching some things on netflix that were rated PG, but that I would have classified as PG13 or R. I should just post here and ask when I wonder so I can get an accurate picture of the movie adaptation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatmansWife Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I didn't know there was a new Jane Eyre movie. I'll have to look for that. I love, love, love the A&E version. :001_wub: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuirkyKidAcademy Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 From Googling, it appears that the brief nudity was indeed that painting.DH thinks maybe the producers wanted the movie to have a PG-13 rating. Many young adults and adults won't deign to watch a movie rated anything less than PG-13. I've heard that about many movies. The higher rating markets the movie to a different audience. Hmmm....where's the nearest RedBox???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stayseeliz Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I didn't like it. I felt it was very disjointed and just not interesting. The version made about 4-5 years ago is MUCH MUCH better!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-FL Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I agree! I just watched the 2006 w/Toby Stephens (all on and it is over-the-top better. Granted, it's a miniseries, but it's (IMO) much better than any of the other versions. My only complaint is the editing out of Miss Temple (headmistress) and leaving Lowood School as the abusive place. (In the book, it gets upgraded after 1/2 the students die of typhoid. The reverend is reduced to a member of the board, not the final word, so the food & treatment improves.) Jane would have had to be a very remarkable person to come out of someplace like that w/any positive attitude! Esp. w/o a loving teacher like Miss Temple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silliness7 Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I didn't like it. I felt it was very disjointed and just not interesting. The version made about 4-5 years ago is MUCH MUCH better!! :iagree::iagree::iagree: 1000% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanvan Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I didn't like it. I felt it was very disjointed and just not interesting. The version made about 4-5 years ago is MUCH MUCH better!! :iagree:too. I had the same reaction, though I will say the scenery was beautiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle My Bell Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 On a side note, I was so disappointed in this version. I love love love the BBC version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairProspects Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 On a side note, I was so disappointed in this version. I love love love the BBC version. :iagree:I almost quit watching the new version because I disliked it so much. The costuming was decently good though Mia Wasikowska didn't seem to understand the character at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle My Bell Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 :iagree:I almost quit watching the new version because I disliked it so much. The costuming was decently good though Mia Wasikowska didn't seem to understand the character at all. I actually DID stop watching it because I fell asleep. That is almost unheard of for a movie buff like me. I didn't even have any desire to finish watching it the next day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in TX Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Now, I only saw this movie on an overnight flight back from London, so I was half asleep, but I'm pretty sure there was a scene depicting intercourse (if not actual nudity), when Rochester is describing how he discovered his wife was mad, her licentious behavior, etc. (He apparently caught her in the act with someone.) I don't remember the painting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mothersweets Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I thought this new version was pretty terrible. My dds and I had our hopes up for this one but were sadly disappointed. The 2006 version K-FL linked is very good! So much that is normally left out of the movie versions was included in this one. Another great version is the 1973 BBC version with Sorcha Cusak and Michael Jayston. The production values aren't up to the quality that we expect today (most of it looks like a stage play) BUT the chemistry between the actors is wonderful! I love Michael Jayston's Rochester, too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I've heard that about many movies. The higher rating markets the movie to a different audience. The director of Gosford Park said he put in one bad word three times just to get an R. I watched it again, and there were said so quietly in the middle of a rather rapidly spoken sentence. He said he didn't want any tittering 12 year olds in the back ruining it for the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forget-Me-Not Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 Now, I only saw this movie on an overnight flight back from London, so I was half asleep, but I'm pretty sure there was a scene depicting intercourse (if not actual nudity), when Rochester is describing how he discovered his wife was mad, her licentious behavior, etc. (He apparently caught her in the act with someone.) I don't remember the painting. Nope, nothing at all like that in the version I watched last night. I'll have to pull out my MPT production and rewatch it. So the oil painting was it. Strange. Good movie though. I think I like MPT version better, but wowza the light usage and scenery and music in this one was amazing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in TX Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Nope, nothing at all like that in the version I watched last night. I'll have to pull out my MPT production and rewatch it. Maybe I dreamed it! :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mothersweets Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Now, I only saw this movie on an overnight flight back from London, so I was half asleep, but I'm pretty sure there was a scene depicting intercourse (if not actual nudity), when Rochester is describing how he discovered his wife was mad, her licentious behavior, etc. (He apparently caught her in the act with someone.) I don't remember the painting. I think the scene you are remembering is from the 2006 version. I just watched it last week with my young teen/tween dds and I had them cover their eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in TX Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I think the scene you are remembering is from the 2006 version. I just watched it last week with my young teen/tween dds and I had them cover their eyes. Oh, maybe that's it--whoops... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 The only adaptation I've seen is the BBC one with Timothy Dalton. It was pretty good and fairly true to the book. I was hoping for a new one that's really good, but it sounds like I should skip this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrapbabe Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 It originally said "brief nude image". Yes the painting is the "nudity" it is referring to. I liked this version because the characters were spot on! Jane and Mr. Rochester in this version are, to me, the best yet. It did seem a little disjointed, and they left out some of my favorite parts. However, Jane was true to her character from the book - not like the 2006 version where she makes out with Mr. Rochester on the bed. Jane Eyre WOULD NEVER do that. I thought the chemistry between Rochester and Jane in this new version is also the best. Although it is a hollywood version trimmed down, I like it because the characters were just how I imagined them in the book. I haven't found any other version where I thought that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary in VA Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) It originally said "brief nude image". Yes the painting is the "nudity" it is referring to. I liked this version because the characters were spot on! Jane and Mr. Rochester in this version are, to me, the best yet. It did seem a little disjointed, and they left out some of my favorite parts. However, Jane was true to her character from the book - not like the 2006 version where she makes out with Mr. Rochester on the bed. Jane Eyre WOULD NEVER do that. I thought the chemistry between Rochester and Jane in this new version is also the best. Although it is a hollywood version trimmed down, I like it because the characters were just how I imagined them in the book. I haven't found any other version where I thought that. :iagree::iagree::iagree:While the 2006 version has more of the story that has to be cut out when doing a 2 hour movie, the way Jane behaved with Mr. Rochester is TOTALLY out of character. For that reason alone I can't stand the 2006 version. They did the same with the new Sense and Sensibility, had Marianne with Mr Wlloughby alone in a house. That is totally untrue to the characters in the book, well maybe true to Mr. Wickham, but it didn't happen!! I hate when new versions try to modernize the stories by making sensual physical interaction between the characters that never happened in the books. I do like the new Pride and Prejudice, even though they did the same thing. It's hard not to like Matthew McFadden striding through the morning mist to Kiera Knightly. But I found the ending of the Colin Firth version better. Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy continue strolling down the lane. You could cut the tension with a knife and it was true to the original. I understand when movie makers have to cut the story to fit it in time limits, but I really want them to be true to the characters!! Mary Edited October 31, 2011 by Mary in VA Willoughby not Wickham, both bad guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.