I just realized I never really blogged about the final presentations we did last week. My group focused on comparing the graphic novel of Jane Eyre to the BBC series we watched earlier in the semester. I thought it was incredibly fascinating to look at something that is entirely based in the visual rather than the visual. The assumptions and conclusions that one makes from a written work are based off of textual evidence and imagination. However, when words are sparse and visuals are everywhere, you are being told in a different way, how you should think.
So going into the graphic novel with that understanding, I was still incredibly surprised at what we were being told to think. Bertha Mason, as we discussed in our presentation, made a complete transformation into the 'other'. The only semblance of humanity she retained was her feminine figure--the rest was completely transformed into animal (of the gorilla variety). Why did the artist choose to do this? Why did he keep her figure, but make her walk on the tops of her hands?
While it was funny to talk about it in class, I was really disturbed by her depiction--as well as the female depictions in general. Jane was wearing an incredulous amount of makeup, Blanche looked more like a sculpture than a live human being, etc. What was the intent? Here we are given the madwoman in the attic and the 'angel in the kitchen' (is that what the other one is called? i can't remember). It is very clear what the artist is trying to say about gender roles. However, it is curious that Blanche should be the most regally depicted character. Under what I assume to be a gender bias, one would almost think that Blanche should be the one Rochester chooses in the end--based on the artist's depictions.
It is unnerving to think that some people will only ever be exposed to radically hurtful images such as the ones presented in this graphic novel. The perception and treatment of women can only be perpetuated by ignorance/complicity/etc. and pictures like these almost give permission for it.
I was captivated by the representations of some of the characters as well. Based on the cover art, Jane appears more beautiful than plain. Yet in comparison to Rochester her face had less detail and shadow. Perhaps this was meant to reflect the depth of the characters. Jane's plainness seems to be not in looks but in superficiality. She is ordinary in that there is no depth or detail that makes her unique. Perhaps the makeup is an attempt to create the illusion of depth, yet it is still superficial. I had a thought on the depiction of Bertha but the moment for bringing it up passed in class. If my memory serves me right, in the scene where Bertha attacks Jane and Rochester catches and ties Bertha, I noticed a transformation in her appearance. While unbound Bertha looks the most like a gorilla monster. Yet once restrained she seemed to take on a more feminine appearance. I believe this opens up a world of commentary with regard to women, the domestic, and restraint.
ReplyDelete