Director: Cary Fukunaga
Running Time: 120 minutes
Copy: Netflix
Watched: May 14
Spoilers: Minimal--I mostly discuss the construction of the story, not the plot itself
Two admissions before I embark on this review: I haven't read Jane Eyre since high school (somehow I doubt The Eyre Affair counts as a proper reread), and I have never found Rochester particularly attractive. The latter is particularly important because my reluctance to swoon over Rochester means I am incredibly skeptical of this love story.
My first review of this film was a text to my best friend. I will quote it, only because it will save time:
It's odd, but utterly watchable. They tell the story out of order, which is jarring, but fairly effective. They cut a dramatic amount of the story, but that's to be expected. Excellent costuming, good casting, and beautiful scenery. As a book adaptation, no more than 5/10. As a standalone film, more like 7.5/10Mia Wasikowska as Jane is perhaps the finest casting I have ever had the pleasure of seeing. Her ability to simply stare at Rochester is phenomenal. She is the only actress that I've ever seen who can actually convey something with a blank stare. The make-up artists also make her exceptionally plain-looking, which I respected and enjoyed. Too often film adaptations of books refuse to follow descriptions of the characters, but this one actually refused to go the "stunning beautiful" route, and in so doing, made an exceptional Jane. I deeply appreciate the Jane of this film, even if I don't necessarily appreciate the entire film.
Michael Fassbender as Rochester is a little less believable. I never for a moment fear that this particular Rochester would lose control; his temper was never quite convincing and he seems far too smart to have been trapped in a loveless marriage. (The depiction of Bertha was equally dissatisfying, for a variety of reasons. She is hardly in the film, except as a phantom noise, and the one scene that does include her is fairly overwrought and cliche. I think, perhaps, I am influenced here by Wide Sargasso Sea, which drastically changed how I conceive of Bertha.) Fassbender is, naturally, utterly British throughout the film, but he doesn't have an edge. The role requires darkness, which Fassbender doesn't quite have. (Even his android in Prometheus lacked a certain element of threat. David seemed petulant and whiny, not sinister.) I think an actor like Idris Elba or Benedict Cumberbatch (or even Daniel Craig, if we wanted to go a little older) would have worked better. That low-level, seething rage would do more to capture Rochester than any shouted speech.
Finally, I thought Judi Dench was woefully under-utilized. Her Mrs. Fairfax was stuck on the sidelines; she was never given enough time on-screen (no doubt because people thought she might steal the show--which would not have been a problem, in my mind). Honestly, seeing her in this film made me want to watch Pride & Prejudice (2005) (perhaps because the actress who plays Georgianna was in this film as well...); there she was allowed to possess as much of the film as she could, with fantastic results. (I also think that Wasikowska is a strong enough actress to hold her own against Dench--my impression is that the filmmaker was concerned that Dench might steal the whole movie from the younger actress.)
Well, so much for the casting. I'm going to shelve the costuming--honestly it was beyond glorious and in some ways I'd recommend people watch the film just to get a crash course in exquisite 19th century clothing (especially hats!). This leaves the elephant in the room: How is this as an adaptation of a classic novel?
First off, let me acknowledge that I am in no way a snob when it comes to book adaptations. I loved The Count of Monte Cristo (2002); to say that adaptation took liberties with its source material is to indulge in almost sarcastic understatement. Persuasion (1995) remains my favorite Austen adaptation, despite its deviations. I find Romeo + Juliet (1996) deeply amusing and astonishingly true to its roots. And so on. All in all, I do not mind a retelling. I say this because I do not want you to think that I found this film a dissatisfying retelling simply because I don't like change. I have a deep respect for change, and the difference between film and page.
I can't applaud this film as an adaptation of Jane Eyre simply because it does not capture any of the themes that made the book a classic. Gone is the examination of education; gone is the complicated and unusual feminism; gone is the uncomfortableness of the ending. The film concentrates on the love story (sort of? I still didn't find Rochester's affection believable--but that might just be me), and jettisons everything else. Of course, a film can only focus on so much, but I am unhappy that the actual progressive aspects had to be the parts to go. (Hence my double rating--the film only barely captures the novel, but as a love story isn't so bad.)
Overall, I'd recommend this film to anyone who likes period pieces, especially those who liked Vanity Fair (2004). The film is beautiful and the costumes are impeccable. The love story is affecting and well-executed. (Honestly, see it for the costumes, if for no other reason.) Do not watch this expecting a thorough adaptation of the book; watch it as a separate beast entirely.
