Thursday, April 02, 2009

New Moon: Dakota Fanning as Jane (*Spoilers*)

I am very much looking forward to the upcoming Twilight film sequel New Moon, scheduled for release Nov. 20, 2009. But I'm not entirely sure I agree with casting Dakota Fanning in the role of Jane*.

Here is a description of Jane from when Bella first sees her in New Moon: "At first I thought it was a young boy.... The body...was slim and adrogynous. But the face was too pretty for a boy. The wide-eyed, full-lipped face would make a Botticelli angel look like a gargoyle." (pg. 456). On the next page, it refers to "the little one called Jane", and later, when Jane smiles, the narration notes that "the expression [makes] her look like an angelic child." (pg. 467).

I will give that Dakota is very sweet and angelic looking, and even happens to have wide eyes and full lips. But I'm less convinced that this budding young woman can be made to look "androgynous", nor that doing so will get any easier the older she gets, nor that the film makers will even try, given that beautiful women tend to be a selling point for Hollywood films.

There is also the issue of her voice**. In New Moon, Bella notices Jane's "childish voice" (pg. 456), and when Jane laughs, "the sound sparkle[s] with delight like a baby's cooing." (pg. 464) In the climax of Breaking Dawn we see another side of her: "Jane let out a high-pitched scream of a snarl."

I just watched a bunch of videos of Dakota Fanning, (including this one) and her voice is not child-like any more (it used to be). It's deep and rich, definitely teenage, and even in the trailer for Push, where her character is more bad-ass, I can't imagine her doing Jane's high-pitched witch-girl scream. Granted, she's an actress, and can probably do a lot to sound more girlish, or more evil, but again, I highly doubt that the director is going to ask her to do that.

I'm not just arguing against this casting choice because I don't like films changing stuff from books. Normally I don't care, or I even side with the filmmakers. I don't care intrinsically if the actress playing Jane is older than she is in the book. What I'm worried about is that she's too old to play the character. Jane's character is defined largely by the fact that she looks and sounds like an innocent child, yet she is the most sadistic of all the vampires. Casting a young woman instead of a girl diminishes the repulsive contrast between Jane's angelic appearance and girlish voice, and her demonic personality.

Is there really that much difference between the innocence of a 10-year-old and that of a 15-year-old? Yes there is; it's called puberty. The obvious signs of womanhood make it impossible to ignore a young woman's sexuality, and in Western culture (the setting for Twilight), sexuality is the opposite of innocence.

I'm sure Dakota Fanning will do a fine job in New Moon. She might even rock Jane's character, instilling fear in our hearts, and putting Jane on a future edition of Entertainment Weekly's Best Villians list. But I will always wonder: could Jane have been even better if they had cast a younger girl?


*In case you missed it, there was a big toodoo about Taylor Lautner continuing in the role of Jacob. Apparently not everyone was convinced that this cute 17-year-old boy could play a 25-year-old, 6' 5" werewolf. I think he'll do just fine, with a little time to bulk up, (which he is doing), and with some help from camera tricks and make-up. He definitely has Jacob's sunny smile, as well as great chemistry with Kristen Stewart (Bella).

**I can think of some pretty innappropriate voices cast in recent films. Even some in which only the actor's voice was cast! Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn in LOTR (way too nasally for a great king, let alone a kick-butt ranger), Eddie Izzard as Reepicheep in Prince Caspian (um, he's a mouse, he should have a high, squeaky voice), and Rachel Weisz as Saphira in Eragon (she's a gigantic dragon, but her voice is soft and light).

Loading image

Click anywhere to cancel

Image unavailable