Jane Eyre (2011) Short Review (Rated PG-13)
Like most, I was forced to read the novel by Charlotte Bronte (English teachers loved those Brontes) in high school, but to tell the truth I never actually read it. I somehow passed the tests given, probably because of the shortened versions available. I don’t think I was capable of understanding it at the time or cared to. Now though, I was curious to see what I should have read then. While I liked this for the setting (and the actors were certainly very good in this), it certainly was presented with a tonal blandness. The plot was a little more direct and without complication than I would have suspected, also. It’s melodramatic but seems much to do about nothing more than anything else. Even when the (barely hinted at) Big Secret is revealed, it’s done with a casual matter-of-factness rather than the extreme shock that I think it was intended to be.
The film has some divergences from the book, shifting some of the sequence of events as well as making some outright changes. Here, the story begins when Jane, cold, rain soaked and feverish, shows up on the doorstep of St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) who takes her in. His two sisters insist that she stay (and she does). St. John eventually sets her up as a governess. Jane takes an offer from Ms Fairfax (Judi Dench), housekeeper of Thornfield Hall, to educate a young french ward of the house. Jane has already met Rochester, the head of the house, when she surprised the man’s horse into throwing his rider.
The melancholy Rochester is immediately taken by Jane and upon trying to force her into giving him ‘her tale of woe’ is confounded by her when she turns the conversation on its ear. He is further drawn to her when she resists his very formal advances, partially because of her strong morale fiber and partly because of her naive nature.
The story is of course a gothic romance, so there’s plenty of titillation. There are secrets that simmer below the surface literally. There are secrets held in the House that Rochester built.
I was told much of the gothic elements of this had been taken out. Sure, the local and manors in the film are gothic, but after seeing some of the deleted scenes I could see that there re many more ‘ghostly’ elements and involve the spookiness of staying in such a large house (at night). It concentrated more on the pragmatic. I think I would have enjoyed the film with more of the mystery elements present. It also lacks in a proper buildup to the secrets that Rochester is keeping. There are events in the film that seem almost like Deus Ex Machina. I’m guessing (after seeing the deleted scenes on the DVD) that was the fault of the filmmakers leaving some important elements on the cutting room floor for some reason.
The film’s strength is Mia Wasikowska as Jane and the verbal parrying between she and Fassbender, especially early on. Even when she says nothing, there is obviously a lot of emotion. She fully plays up the fact that she is a gothic thriller heroine. There were some amusing shots of her where she is quietly sitting in the background, completely at rest, but her chest is heaving as though she’s just been working out. Maybe, her corset was too tight or something. Wasikowska’s certainly not a ‘plain Jane’ as described by Rochester, though. She looks like she just stepped out of a Waterhouse painting in every single scene.
Michael Fassbender is a great actor and I liked what he does in the film, but somehow I was expecting a little more bitterness. From what I did read of the book, he seemed a little more abrasive. A lot less suave. The entire cast was what you’d expect from one of these lavish period flicks.
Judi Dench was her usual self. She’s right at home in these films but doesn’t really have to do a whole lot here except to be reassuring to Jane or to move the story along with an explanation. A good effort by the cast all around. I think the director Cary Fukunaga should have ramped up the performeances a little, though. I expected a little more theatric spectacle from this sort of genre.
I did like the film. It’s a solid presentation, but thought that it lacked in how the story is told in some ways. Visually it features all of the grand beauty of one of these period pieces. The locales, costumes and sets are all of the highest quality. The detailing was impressive. For instance here were several closeups of Jane’s dress that when looked at from a distance just looked like a black dress, but upon closer inspection had a heavy detailing and patterns made with very closely complimentary colors. It was impressive, from an artist’s viewpoint.
l just think the film lacked in atmosphere. Sure, there is striking imagery, but it evoked little. I thought there would be more of the ‘cover up’ of the biggest secret in the house, but the film eschews most of that for focusing on Jane’s inner turmoil and Rochester’s not so subtle advances that sail over the girl’s head. Still, the dialogue was interesting in a poetic way, even, and was delivered by the actors without sounding like it was being read from a book.
4 of 5
