Saturday, November 12, 2011

Jane Eyre (film)



So I've been wanting to see the newest adaptation of Jane Eyre basically ever since I heard they were making it. It had a limited release, so I didn't get to see it in theatres, but I finally got around to getting it at the library. And considering that I was like, 350th on the list, I've been waiting a LONG time to see this movie.

I was very prepared to fall in love with this movie. For one, the trailer seemed like it was going to accurately capture the gothic feel of the book. Jane Eyre was (and still is) creepy and scandalous. I mean, so much so that Charlotte Bronte had to publish it under a different name because she thought people wouldn't believe a woman wrote it (well, for other reasons too). I'm not saying I didn't love the movie, not at all. But Jane Eyre is my second favorite book in the world (the first being Gone with the Wind). As an adaptation of the book, however, I think this film is only so-so. Granted, it's a long book, so some stuff has to go when a film is being made. But the whole Blanche Ingram storyline is completely glossed over, and I think that cuts out quite a bit of characterization of both Jane and Rochester. I love any scene where he's trying to glean information from Jane either about himself or about her life. That's how he falls in love with her, after all.

However, the acting in this movie is FREAKING BRILLIANT. Mia Wasikowska is homely-but-pretty enough to make a good Jane, and she displays the right balance of strength and insecurity that is Jane Eyre. I think in movies there's a tendency to make Jane too confident and secure in her decisions, and that's just not the case in the book. Jane does doubt herself. While she may have bursts of brilliance, every move she makes is not as deliberate as some film versions seem to suggest. Mia's portrayal of Jane shows her vulnerable side without losing that inner strength that endears a lot of people to Jane Eyre as a character. Side note: Mia has the TINIEST waist I've ever seen. I sort of noticed it when I saw Alice in Wonderland, but damn. She looks amazing in this movie.

And let's face it, Dame Judi Dench is a perfect Mrs. Fairfax. She's the right amount of motherly and nosey for the part. Plus, even though she's a major star, she plays in the background perfectly. With so much gravitas, it would have been easy for her role to have been greatly exaggerated, but it was played with just the right amount of subtlety. Nice touch.

And Michael Fassbender. Oh my God. I will forever picture him as Mr. Rochester now. People gave Fukunaga flack for casting Fassbender because he's "too pretty," but I disagree. Yes, Fassbender is good looking, but he's not classically handsome--and that's how I've always pictured Rochester. Not classically handsome, but not necessarily ugly. Interesting looking--and Fassbender most certainly is just that. Not to mention that Fukunaga's cinematography and styling make it so Fassbender has those rough edges that Rochester is known for. Fassbender's portrayal of Rochester is SPOT ON. I mean, he captured the spirit of Mr. Rochester to a T. He's brash, abrasive, possessive, and, at the appropriate times, a little sketch. And his passion for Jane is SO believable. The scene where he begs Jane to stay is just...oh my God. It's exactly how I pictured it in the book. I mean, they even include Rochester's veiled threats to make her stay. Wasikowska is no slouch in this scene, either--her physical portrayal of Jane's conflict is perfect. Once again, I think there's a tendency to play Jane here with ABSOLUTE resolve that she's leaving, but Jane clearly has her doubts. Wasikowska plays it as if Jane just barely has the strength to do it, which I think is more true to the character.

On a side note: I was poking around on the IMDb page for the film, and I noticed a reviewer saying they were disappointed that the movie didn't include the Wide Sargasso Sea interpretation of Bertha. This is something I do not agree with at ALL. While I love the concept of Wide Sargasso Sea and I've heard great things about the book, considering it part of the Jane Eyre canon just isn't right. Is Rochester as innocent in the whole Bertha incident as he makes himself out to be? Well, probably not. But Jane Eyre is Charlotte Bronte's book. Any portrayal of the story containing elements from outside the novel is not an accurate reflection of the work--even if those elements make sense in the context of the story.

It's one of the reasons I'm not fond of recent film or book interpretations of Dracula. People seem to have latched on to this idea that Meena and Dracula have this extremely sensual, intense love affair. And true, there is some sexuality between those two in the book--but she's not love with him. You don't yell "Unclean, unclean" after someone you love touches you. And I think people underestimate just how much Meena loves Jonathan. I honestly believe she wouldn't do that him. She just wouldn't.

Anyways, I digress. I enjoyed the movie. It's just about 2 hours long, and I didn't feel like my time was wasted. And the interactions between Jane and Rochester, the sparks that fly between them...it's all so authentic. I never once doubted their love for each other, which is something I've done in other film adaptations of the book. There was commitment to and understanding of these characters, and it really shined through. While I don't necessarily agree with all the story cuts that were made, the acting alone makes it well worth the watch.

No comments:

Post a Comment