Yes, I had high hopes for this movie. I mean doesn't this trailer look awesome and like it really catches the story, right? It's unfortunate that a few key scenes were in the trailer that were not in the actual movie. I hate when they do that, grrrrrr.
Anyhoo, have you read the book? I think this is key to understanding my review. Clearly, I have read it but in fact, only within the last two years. The core elements of the book/story are (imho):
- Jane's isolation and longing to belong, to have friends, family, love (& I think Mr. Rochester is actually seeking the same)
- The mystery of Thornfield, in gothic style
- Mr. Rochester's taunting of Jane, pulling and releasing her. And this is equally important: Jane's own teasing and taunting of him. As her confidence grows, she truly becomes his equal.
- And well, of course, the Romance of it all.
Pros:
- The actors do quite well. Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre) pulls the plain off quite well. Michael Fassbender (Mr. Rochester) is appropriately grumbly, though he is supposed to be a bit more eccentric and unpredictable in his behavior.
- The aura of the movie, I don't know what you call it. The coloring, the music, the stylings, whatever. They were just right. Ah, looked it up, cinematography. Yep, this was great.
- Oh, there is a scene where we are informed that her imagination has overwhelmed her. I liked that addition.
- Poor direction. Should we laugh or should we cry? When she as a child bangs her head on the door and is knocked unconscious, was that supposed to be comical or sad? When Mr. Rochester & Jane return to Thornfield unmarried, the house staff in ignorance throw flowers at them and Mr. Rochester yells at them to stop, was this supposed to be comical or sad? When Mr. Rochester tells Jane that he feels tied to her in a way that he has never felt before, was this supposed to be comical or serious? Well, I can tell you that the audience I saw this movie with laughed at all these parts and more that to me didn't seem like they were intended to be funny.
- Perhaps it is just poor editing rather the directing that caused the above.
- The mystery of the house was barely noticeable. Where's that gothic feeling of mysterious horror?
- Jane is too somber. I like the idea of her being a free independent spirit that has never really been able to be this way until she settled at Thornfield. In this version, she is so serious that Mr. Rochester goes even so far to ask Jane if she ever laughs? She never seems to tease Mr. Rochester as she ought to do so.
- Perhaps Jane Eyre is not a story that can be told in 2 hours.
Ultimately, I highly recommend the 2006 version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens (son of Maggie Smith, I couldn't believe this when I found out because she is awesome!), the BBC and Masterpiece Theatre TV mini-series. Ruth and Toby are Jane and Mr. Rochester to perfection. (Though, I suppose they are both still a little too pretty ;)
I decided to widen my view a bit by watching two other versions of Jane Eyre. (Thanks to Danielle, I could watch them both streaming through Netflix.)
First, Jane Eyre (1943) with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine. Of the women you could pick from during that era, Joan Fontaine is a very good choice (I'm thinking of her role in Rebecca (1940), in some ways a very similar character). Orson Welles has a strong screen presence, which works well for Mr. Rochester's character. This movie certainly carries the mystery of Thornfield. The end, unfortunately, is where it fails. It is like suddenly they look at the clock and realize there is only 10 minutes of movie time left but about 4 hours of story time still to go. So major cutting of plot occurs. I suppose it works out okay but it was a bit surprising to someone who has read the book. From character development perspective, Jane's character is not given the opportunity to grow in understanding of herself and her need for family/community in this version. But I don't want to give away the details.
Second, the much talked about Jane Eyre (1983) with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Now this is actually another BBC TV mini-series. Something like 11 episodes of about 30 minutes each. Now I have to admit not being a big Timothy Dalton fan, only knowing him from some unfavorable roles. However, I think he is able to pull off Mr. Rochester. Zelah Clarke is fine, but a bit too old, being around 28 years old. These two seem much closer in age, so a little less scandalous. Now because this was a low budget mini-series, artistic cinematography is practically non-existent. Most of the interior shots look like cheaper theater sets (& probably are). The story moves slowly, trying to hit a number of the details in the book, but still changing many as you would expect. The soundtrack for this TV series does nothing to help the pace of the movie. Fortunately, this Jane and Mr. Rochester do tease each other. She is gentle but firm while he is brusque and a little wild. It is pretty much what you would expect from a good 1980s BBC TV series book adaption.
My final comment is on a piece of the book that is one of my favorite components that I have not yet seen shown in movie form. And this is after Mr. Rochester and Jane become engaged, he wants to treat her differently, really to treat her as his lover, but she shuns him away. Jane will only see him after dinner and keeps him at a physical distance as well. While this aggravates Mr. Rochester, it also leads him to respecting her more. In this case, Jane is not teasing him but rather securing their relationship as friends, companions and equals before they become a true united couple. I can't figure out why all the film versions ignore this part. It really adds so much more to their relationship and I think it is instructive even for us today.
Okay, so there is my Jane Eyre ramble. I started writing this post on March 28th and have finally finished!!! Phew.
