Winner Breakdown: Costume Design

Costume Design:- Anonymous
- The Artist
- Hugo
- Jane Eyre
- W.E.


To be honest, I'd say there's a pretty solid year for costume design, and there were many other's that could've made the list (My Week With Marilyn, Midnight in Paris, War Horse, etc). So, this is really anyone's game in this category, though I'd say most likely to win is Hugo. Hugo's been nominated in all technical/art categories except Makeup, and I expect, for the most part, it'll sweep, here in included. Hugo had a great array of costumes, from the Paris 1930's, to the Silent Film era, and all those film costumes. However, hot on it's heels is The Artist, which was 1930's Hollywood, filled with Tuxedos, flapper dresses, and an array of costumes used in- lookie here- Silent films! However, I'd say it'll most likely go to Hugo, though I'd love to see something like Jane Eyre win, simply because it did have great costumes and it's not up for anything else. But I'd say count on Hugo, but I'm not ruling anything out to steal it. Anyone could easily take it. 

Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse:W.E.
Who I Want to Win: Hugo

JANE EYRE

Written by Moira Buffini

Directed by Cary Fukunaga

Starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell

and Sally Hawkins

Jane Eyre: I wish a woman could have action in her life like a man.

It agitates me to know that the horizon is our limit.

A young lady with a stern, hard look on her face leaves a large stately manor. She makes her way into the rain-soaked fields that stretch on as far as she can see. Soon, she can no longer hold back her tears and they stream down her cheeks while she forges ahead toward an unknown destination, an undetermined future On the surface, the introduction to Cary Fukunaga’s second feature, and first major production, JANE EYRE, based on the Charlotte Bronte classic, can come off as dramatic, even overly so. Fortunately for him though, the woman walking this mile in Jane Eyre’s shoes is Mia Wasikowska and it is clear from one look at her that if anyone possesses the resolve to bear the burden of Eyre’s hardships, she does.

There is a particular brand of period piece that always seems to feature women who just don’t fit into the molds society expects they should. Jane Eyre, taken in as a child by her aunt (Sally Hawkins) after her parents passed, has never been looked upon as though she matters. She has always been plain in the face and difficult to control, which renders her somewhat useless, as the only purpose a woman held at the time was to be married off. An uncontrollable tongue needs at least be camouflaged by a pretty face to make it worth the trouble. She grows up surrounded by attempts to make her conform but emerges from the torture triumphant when she pursues a position as a tutor to a young girl who comes from reasonable means. While she continues to be reminded of her place in her new surroundings, she also finds herself the object of affection of the master of the house, Mister Edward Rochester (the strapping, sturdy Michael Fassbender). No one has ever loved her before and suddenly her years of abuse endured show their far reaching ramifications.

Fukunaga entered the world film scene with his brilliant immigration drama, SIN NOMBRE (click for review) in 2009. His eye for understated beauty and sensitivity shown to character in that film are put to great use in JANE EYRE. Like his heroine, the sets and costumes are all spectacular but matted as not to overwhelm. Instead, they are further appreciated for their restraint and delicacy and the same can be said of the entire cast, led by another surprisingly potent performance by Wasikowska. She plays Eyre with so many layers that even she seems unaware of them all at times. She claims to have no tale of woe when asked what hardships she has had to suffer through and her determination to carry on despite everything she’s known is certainly commendable. However, as strong a woman as she is, she cannot escape unscathed, forcing her to learn that love for one’s self is a challenge that is always ongoing. As for allowing one’s self to be loved by another, that takes a strength we may not even know we have and this is what JANE EYRE embodies.

Jane Eyre (1944)

I have literally hundreds of DVDs and videos in my collection, but the one title women friends of mine would ask to borrow was the 1944 film version of “Jane Eyre” starring Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles. I don’t know if they read the book when they were younger, or they saw it on TV and wanted to see again, but whatever the reason, when they would peruse my list and see I had it, they asked to borrow it. I must have loaned it out six or seven times, which doesn’t seem like a lot, but compared to the other movies on my list, it’s probably my most popular title.

I didn’t even have a pre-recorded version, but one I taped off Cinemax. It shared the tape with another classic black and white film “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir” (1947), so my friends got a double dose of classic Twentieth Century Fox dramas with that rich and creamy black and white cinematography and those classic Bernard Herrmann scores. It was my fondest wish that these women became Herrmann fanatics, but alas, it was not to be. But they watched – and loved - both movies, which pleased me greatly.

Anyone who says black and white photography is boring should take a look at “Jane Eyre.” Deep blacks and shaded grays offset by much flickering candlelight frame the famous Gothic melodrama of an orphan cruelly treated in her youth who grows up to become a governess at an estate on the English moors. She falls in love with Edward Rochester, the master of the estate, and they plan to marry, but the house holds a terrible secret that affects their lives together.

I’ve never read the famous book by Charlotte Bronte, but I would like to after seeing this adaptation. Joan Fontaine here echoes her portrayal in “Rebecca” (1940) as a decent young woman who comes to a large estate only to be engulfed in melodrama as the past rears its ugly head. She fully inhabits the role and is marvelous in it.

No one ever stormed across the moors with his cape billowing behind him quite like Orson Welles does as Rochester. It’s a marvelous, larger than life performance and he inhabits the character well, not surprising since he had previously essayed the role several times in radio adaptations.

Like so many great movies of Hollywood’s Golden Age, the film is chock full of marvelous character actors, including Agnes Moorehead, Sara Allgood, Aubrey Mather and Edith Barrett. Special mention must be drawn to Henry Daniell, as the chilling, icy orphanage headmaster Brocklehurst. He scared me when I saw this movie as a kid and he’s every bit as unsettling today. A very young Elizabeth Taylor shows up as Jane’s only friend in the orphanage.

The film was directed by Robert Stevenson, who later went on to become a prolific director at the Walt Disney Studios, including “Mary Poppins” (1964) and “Old Yeller” (1957). Many scholars believe Welles was a co-director of sorts, and many of the scenes do have a Wellesian touch to them. However, a documentary on Stevenson on the DVD relates that he reined in Welles early on in the filming, but looking at the film it’s likely that Stevenson used some of Welles’ suggestions.

Poverty Row studio Monogram Pictures made a version in 1934 with Colin Clive and Virginia Bruce, and its not bad (for Monogram that is). I’ve never seen the 1970 version with George C. Scott and Susannah York, though I love the John Williams score. The 1996 version directed by Franco Zeffirelli isn’t bad, but I didn’t like the actress playing Jane (Charlotte Gainsbourg). I remember her body language and posture more than the character herself. William Hurt made a good Rochester, if memory serves.

But all in all, the 1944 version is hard to beat, the one where acting, writing, directing, cinematography, set decoration and music all come together as a seamless whole. It’s a marvelous film.

Rating for “Jane Eyre”: Three and a half stars.