#i'll have to think about which discovery episodes belong in this | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

starsarefire824 · 1 year

Note

Everyone are having doubts do you still believe in byler endgame and if you do how you think will be? Not what do you wants but what really will happens knowing the duffer and how they write the show.

Hey anon, thank you for the ask!

As far as Byler goes, I'm still at the same point I've been this entire time...I honestly and truly believe that the writing has hinted at, suggested, alluded to it being real. I h lol ave personally been on the "wrong" side of a different major fandom (which I won't mention here)---ridiculed, called crazy, obsessive etc--to then have everything we had claimed from the beginning be proven true in the final act. If you want to know what I'm talking about you can probably figure it out from my profile or you can message me and I'll go on that rant in private lol.

Either way, my point is.....everything that is happening in this fandom...mimics that one entirely. It is a fandom that is dominated by a generally male, white, hetero-normative point of view. And so I think it's easy to lose hope, it's easy to give in to those people telling you that you're crazy for seeing what you're seeing.

But what it comes down to in the end is, most of us have been here since season 2. Most of us have been noticing the hints for years. And after season three, I'm not really sure what people are looking at if they are not seeing the complicated relationship that Mike has with El and Will. It is a canon fact that he cannot balance them emotionally. When one is in his life, the other is out. Season 3 proved that when they are both in his life at the same time, he cannot make it work. When he is paying attention to El, he is hurting Will. When he is paying attention to Will, he is hurting El. And this all comes to a head in season 4.

And season 4 is interesting to me because once again, El is (after a few episodes) quickly removed from Will and Mike's immediate story line. Mike, once again, ends up with Will in situations that make them work together. Situations that make them be emotionally vulnerable with each other. Situations that allow them to become closer.

I firmly believe that there is a reason, besides Mike being emotionally stunted by his family, that he can't say "i love you" to El. I think that the writers' had specific intentions when they wrote Mike's "love confession" to El as a direct response to Will's emotions. I firmly believe that if I was supposed to be rooting for El and Mike to be together, I as an audience member, would have been given a private, softly lit, romantically coded emotional scene between Mike and El post "2 days later". But we didn't. The softly lit, emotional, intimate moment we got? Was with Will.

Furthermore, El and Will have been directly paralleled since season one and since season 2 both of their storylines have directly revolved around Mike. And one character, Will, has been the one that has been show to need and want Mike in the way that he needs to be needed and wanted. Will has been the character that specifically benefits from Mike's attention and love. El's journey has always been for herself. It has always been figuring out where she belongs in the world and claiming her autonomy from Brenner (and Henry and many others).

As for how I believe the Duffer's will accomplish this? I have as good a guess as the rest of you. I am just a humble fan. But from the context clues that we've been given throughout the show....I have a hunch that El and Will will discover some sort of connection between the two of them. This connection will probably directly relate to the pull they feel towards Mike. I think that El will continue her journey from season 4 of self-discovery and standing on her own two feet, rejecting the men (people) around her who tell her they know what she wants/needs/desires. I think that Will will have his "coming of age". He will finally accept himself for who he is. I think it will be revealed that Will has some sort of direct connection to either the Upside Down or Henry himself. I think that he is the "cure" or the "key" to healing what has been broken. I really love the "wonder twin" idea that Will and El will work together to defeat Vecna.

And finally, I think that Mike, the knight, the paladin, the heart of the party....he'll finally realize where his heart truly lies. And Will, understanding that his love is reciprocated, that their love is true. I really think it will, in some way, (even if it's one small working part in the huge machine that is Stranger Things), help defeat the evil that has reigned over Hawkins for too long.

Maybe I'm too much of a romantic. But I'm gonna continue to believe it until I'm proven wrong. I will be the first to admit defeat as it comes, but for me....

There are just too many parallels, hints, subtext etc. for me to believe anything else at this point. I don't think the Duffer Brothers are pulling our leg, I don't believe they are trying to queerbait us, I don't believe they made this show for the people of Reddit and Facebook. I truly think, when they said it was for the "outsiders" and the "misunderstood" they meant it. And imo, Byler is a real part of that that will be made clear in the final act.

Let's hope we're right! <3

#byler #byler ask #stranger things #stranger things 5 #asks #will byers #mike wheeler

40 notes · View notes

thatscarletflycatcher · 3 years

Text

Jane Eyre 1983: Total Eclipse of Jane Eyre

(1996)

(This belongs to a -hopefully- series of "reviews" of Jane Eyre adaptations, in which I'll attempt to explain -and by explaining, understand- how each of them, through filtering and transformation, becomes a character study and a commentary on the novel itself.)

Disclaimer: I only read the novel once I was done with most of these adaptations, which colors my opinions on them, as does the fact that, while I found the novel engrossing and the characters interesting, I didn't fall in love with it; that makes me less attached to the text of the original story and less averse to changes in adaptation.

The technical aspects

I always think it is unfair to judge older productions in terms of the technical accomplishments of the present; a lot of the stuff cannot be helped (though, certainly, I won't deny it influences one's emotional reaction). That said, in terms of what 80s British tv could produce... compared with series like Pride and Prejudice (1980) and Sense and Sensibility (1981)... it is definitely not the best that could be offered at its time, in terms of sets and camera work.

Top to bottom: Pride and Prejudice (1980), Sense and Sensibility (1981), Jane Eyre (1983)

The music is more or less the standard of the time, not much to say there.

Not being an expert in costumes, I cannot say much about them in detail, but they were nice to look at, specially those of Mrs. Reed and Miss Temple, and the lace work of collars and such. Costumes are used effectively to convey character and plot points (for example, the upgrade in the Lowood uniforms after the episode of tiphus).

I also really liked that we are allowed to see Jane's hair getting messy from time to time, it was a nice touch.

The Script

One of the things that surprised me was that I went in with the idea, as I had read here and there, that this adaptation was a play by play of the novel, and that this was one of its assets. While it is true that it covers the most of all modern adaptations, there are some things, even important things, missing or changed.

- On the very first episode, Jane's choosing school over going over to possibly poor relations is omitted;

- Betsy's ghost stories are nowhere to be seen.

- At school, there's a scene added where Helen is given a letter to carry around her neck, and in a fit of passion, Jane burns it.

- Mr. Brockelhurst's family is omitted, as is his wealth, which makes him just overzealous rather than being avaritious, hypocritical and sadistic.

- Jane going out and forgetting Helen Burns, and her goodbye and death, of all things is omitted.

- Jane seeing Rochester the morning after the fire.

- Jane's artistic pursuits are dropped beyond Rochester seeing her drawings (there's no drawing of Rochester during her stay at Gateshead, nor crossed portraits of herself and Blanche Ingram) and only reappear briefly when they are needed for the discovery of her true surname.

- Mrs. Fairfax believing Mr. Rochester and Miss Ingram were going to marry as a given.

- There's no shopping at Milcotte.

- Christmas happens before Jane's inheritance is revealed (there's no remodeling of Moor House).

Not saying that all these choices are bad, they are just changes that challenge the notion of the play-by-play adaptation.

There are also some strange choices, for example:

- Having the girls at school be very chatty and lively which seems to contradict the way hunger, discipline, and lack of proper clothing were emphasized in the novel.

- Jane cutting Bessie short when she tries to tell her about the fate of the Reeds. John complaining about having to carry boxes is... I get it is a joke, but it's not a very good one, and the set up and pay off are too far apart that I think it does get over most viewers' heads unless they are maratoning the series.

- Mr. Rochester himself putting out his bed fire while Jane looks terrified from the side (in this Jane suffers from the damisel-in-distress varnish such female characters got in 70s and 80s adaptations --thinking as well of Margaret Hale in N&S75').

- There being a whole day gap between Rochester telling Jane that he found her a position in Ireland and his proposal.

- Cutting to Rochester at the height of Jane's "Do you think that because I am plain..."

- The omission of the "give me my name, call me Edward" line. HOW????

- Rochester having no hurry on his way to Church.

Leisurely strolling to Church with one's bride, as one does when one fears someone will stop us.

- Jane's writing to Mr. Eyre is ommited, so the first time audience have no idea how the wedding was discovered at all.

- As many of the adaptations of the time do, the ending does rush to its conclusion (we don't get to see the scene of Jane coming back from Church and telling Maria that Rochester and her are just married) though a little less than usual).

I know many people condemn voiceovers altogether, but I don't think they are always an evil, and in this case, they make sense and are not overkill (except close to the end, where Jane narrates the opposite of what she ends up doing. While it is in the novel, it is very distracting in an adaptation).

Characterization

- Bessie, Mr. Lloyd, the Reeds, Miss Temple, I found excellent... and we got a dark haired Blanche Ingram! And she is every bit as haughty as she's meant to be!

- Mr. Brockelhurst was too old, though in figure he did fill the most important aspects of the character.

- Starting a trend that followed most adaptations afterwards, Mrs. Fairfax is a rather tall and almost sophisticated woman, instead of a small, kind, but not very bright little old lady.

- I found Helen Burns to be a little too stiff, even in book terms. She does correct Jane in the novel, but there is a far closer proximity to the treatment Miss Temple gives her, than that of, for example, St. John, who manifests a lot of piety as well. Helen Burns' piety is a kind and merciful kind of piety. Besides that, a lot like Rochester, Helen in the books is an ADHD icon and I am sad that it never transpires into adaptations.

- Adele is characterized as a somewhat spoiled child, but without any of the sensuality she has in the novel, which I think is an improvement.

- Handsome Mr. Mason in his tight, tight, tight breeches was very good.

It's a miracle he can stand in those.

- St. John Rivers. This is one of the highlights of this adaptation. This St. John is in appearance and manners, as close to the novel as it gets, in my opinion. A truly inspired portrayal, perfect balance of beauty and cold fascination.

- Diana and Mary are as good as they can be considered that they did not have much of a personality to begin with on the novel.

- Bertha Mason. The series appeals mostly to not showing her, but she does get a voice (she screams "I hate you!" to Rochester before she jumps off the roof). She is disheveled and prone to hysterics, but shows human intelligence. While her symbolic parallels with Jane are not portrayed, at least the most common pitfalls are avoided with this character, so, all in all, well done (we are not moved to either feel for her or against her).

- Young Jane, even if she has the canonical outbursts, is an expressive, mostly sweet pretty girl.

- Older Jane is consistent with the character of her younger self; spirited, expressive, but also mostly sweet and caring, with a newfound sense of self that keeps developing throughout the series, but never the proud woman, too proud to take Rochester's jewelry, beg or to have her pride wounded by Rochester's remarks on her work.

- Timothy Dalton, I have seen, is considered by many, many, the best Rochester around. While I can say his acting is very improved since Wuthering Heights, I didn't find him that extraordinary.

Though Jane is the main character of the novel, Rochester is certainly the most enigmatic one. Finding a balance between his anger, despair, childishness and intelligence is a very hard task. In this adaptation in particular, his anger and cleverness are highlighted, sometimes played to the extreme of almost humiliation and wickedness, which makes his demeanor and pranks even less forgivable. This, compounded with the absence of character growth after the fire at Thornfield makes of this Rochester one I have a very hard time getting past.

Character dynamics

This is where things break for me in this adaptation.

Jane and Mrs. Reed

By making of young!Jane a sweet pretty girl, we are deprived from one of the reasons (unfair, but reason in the end) why she's mistreated by Mrs. Reed: she's a plain girl and an all around silent, observant child, with an otherwordly air. Her jealousy of Mr. Reed's affection is also omitted.

Jane and Helen Burns/Miss Temple

While it is a little more distant that in the novel, these relationships are portrayed with enough sympathy and time for them to stand out.

Jane and Mrs. Fairfax

Jane, and here comes the reason for the title of this post, is eclipsed at Thornfield, mostly by Rochester, but by Mrs. Fairfax as well. When we meet Adele, it is Mrs. Faifax and not Jane the one to tell her no when she asks to dance or go outside. We do not get a sense that the only spiritual equal Jane finds at Thornfield is Rochester; if anything, she is at the level or below Mrs. Fairfax.

That's not what I'd call a little old lady.

Jane and Adele

This is one of the weak spots, as we never see Jane teach Adele! They barely even interact!

Jane and St. John

These two actors play off of each other beautiful and it is a pleasure to watch, not in a shippy sense, but the dynamic is kept perfectly, the intensity of their opposite personalities, and the evolution from Jane's boldness about the Rosamund affair to the gradual suffocating influence of St. John's personality on her (though it never reaches the extreme it does at the breaking point in the book).

'Cause you are hot and you are cold... what do you mean that's not how the lyrics go?

Jane and Rochester

Whenever Dalton's Rochester is onscreen, he eclipses Jane, because the characterization ends up painting him as more interested in putting her down than in drawing her out. Consider, for example, their first chat: when he tells her "hurts your pride", it is disconnected from any reaction on her side, which makes it look like an unfair reproach; he more or less throws her her portfolio when he asks her to take it away. On their second chat, his prodding, as she doesn't answer, comes across as something akin to bullying. At every turn Jane seems to scramble trying to understand and manage the situation at hand, and when she does succeed, she barely does it.

Someone could say "ah, but that's the actress problem!"... yet it is not. Once Rochester is out of the picture, Jane recovers her stature, she even holds her own very well playing against St. John! She becomes interesting to watch and follow. While I don't 100% blame Dalton, as it might have been just as well a problem of direction, the result to me is two actors acting past each other, two characters that are not living on the same wavelength, and when those two characters are your main leads that's a problem; when the novel tells us that Rochester helps Jane flourish, but the series shows him dwarfing her, that's a problem. This shows the most on the scenes where Bertha is revealed (Bertha and Jane are not even allowed by blocking to make eye contact or be put on the same frame) and Rochester tries to persuade Jane to stay with him (we don't get the line of Jane saying that she should respect herself). Both scenes are heavily focused, by script and camera, on Rochester rather than Jane.

In fairness I also have to say that there are points in which they seem to click well:

- The first time Jane asks him how his ride went and he quips about her bewitching his horse

- When he tells her she might have terrible vices, she raises an eyebrow and he gives her an "okay, I pushed that too far" look.

- Jane's return to Thornfield from Gateshead.

- Their embrace the morning after the engagement.

My favorite bits from this adaptation:

- Mrs. Reed being afraid of Jane.

- Any scene where Mrs. Temple is in.

- The fortune teller's sequence is great, not only by being there, but for Rochester in drag

- Mason and Rochester's meeting and goodbye conversations.

- Older Georgiana and Eliza

- Every scene St. John is in (seriously, he's that good).

- Jane and Hannah.

- Mr. Rochester calls Mr. Briggs for his help.

- Jane visits the burned down Thornfield Hall.

Summary

While I didn't suffer this adaptation, and was engaged mostly for the last episodes, there are aspects, beyond the technical that make it, in my opinion, not a very enjoyable adaptation. While the dynamic between Jane and Rochester is broken, and Jane eclipsed by him, the more complete telling of the story, specially when it comes to Jane's childhood, and the excellent development of the Moor House part of the story make it worth a watch.

Last Notes: themes

At the top of the post I spoke about finding themes, messages and interpretations.

This adaptation of Jane Eyre, I believe, works under the message that sometimes a story is just a story. Ommissions, additions and changes in characterization don't seem to follow any clear pattern; there doesn't seem to be moods, sensations, messages or ideas from the book that the writers and director choose to highlight or thread. The portrayal of Bertha, I think, is the most clear example of this point. Is she good, is she bad, how is the audience supposed to feel about her? The series doesn't say. How does Jane's traumatic past affect here? Doesn't say. What are the arcs of these characters? Unsure. How do characters like St. John or Rochester relate to each other? What are the lessons to be learned? Doesn't say. Jane Eyre 1983 wants to be just a story, and just a story it is.

#Jane Eyre #Jane Eyre 1983 #Charlotte Brontë #period drama review

24 notes · View notes