Reader, before I begin. I must confess that I adore Jane Eyre as a story and therefore have no ability to resist any adaptation. I love it in a way that means, far from being appalled at the prospect of a beloved book being adapted, I look forward to any sort of retelling of it. Seriously, if some artistic soul decided to film this story using sock puppets in an empty garage, I would go see it. It's like Shakespeare in that sense, to me anyway. So, when I heard that a little-known American director, Cary Fukunaga, was making a new film version starring an Australian as Jane and a German as Mr Rochester, I knew I would love it regardless. Also, it contains Judi Dench as Mrs Fairfax, a piece of casting that I knew would cure all ills. We all know the story: small steadfast orphan girl, unloved by relations, is placed into miserable boarding school, becomes teacher, leaves to become governess in bleak Yorkshire mansion, falls in love with moody employer, discovers moody employer has mad wife, and goes on to end with a dramatic and satisfying finale which I won't spoil for anyone who hasn't read it (you have to go get hold of a copy now though, go on...).
So, as I said, I was excited when I heard they were making this film (over a year ago now), despite the fact that I love the book and also despite the fact that I regard the BBC's 2006 version as the definitive adaptation. And, unsurprisingly, I thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish. They've messed around with the chronology a bit, skipped a few crucial parts of the story, and cast Magneto as Rochester, but apart from that Mr Fukunaga hasn't done too bad a job. It's a sweet and romantic version of the story, and is pleasingly Victorian and bleak in aspect. As ever I loved the costumes, especially the dresses worn by the Rivers sisters, which looked like full-body governess armour, and the severe Victorian hairstyles (of which Jane's satisfyingly falls apart when she heads out onto the moors), but they aren't what you'd call "pretty". The whole thing is very dark and compressing and you can understand Jane's fears of restriction. The lighting is also very pleasing in that there isn't much. As Jane and Mrs Fairfax wander through Thornfield at night we are occasionally plunged into pitch blackness, which makes it all the more delightful when we finally reach Jane's room, lit by a fire and at least 6(!) white wax candles. It all feels very authentic, which I thoroughly approved of - it's the 19th century and we're in deepest Yorkshire, it gets DARK.
The score, by Dario Marianelli, is sadly lacking his usual flourishes and originality, but also works well with the film in that it's surprisingly sparse. We get the predictable tinkly piano for the romantic bits, and sweeping strings for the wide wild moor shots, but there are equally many scenes which are unnervingly silent, which again makes you appreciate just how quiet and remote Thornfield is.
The casting was something of a surprise. Much of it is brilliant - period ingenues du jour Holliday Grainger and Tamsin Merchant are very sweet as the Misses Rivers, and I loved Jamie Bell as St John who is sombre but characterful enough for you to almost feel tempted when he proposes to Jane. As I've said Dame Judi as Mrs Fairfax is perfect casting and I was also pleased to see Sally Hawkins as Mrs Reed, who does pinched Victorian so very well. As for Jane and Mr Rochester. Well, initially I was curious but sceptical that Mia Wasikowska could carry off such a plain and English role, and was more convinced by the casting of smouldering Michael Fassbender as Mr Rochester, as he has so recently proved his acting chops in X-Men First Class and Inglorious Basterds. Unfortunately for lovely Herr Fassbender, it was Ms Wasikowska who really impressed in this film as he proved he doesn't have quite enough depth for such a complex character. I'd been impressed by Mia Wasikowska's performance in Alice in Wonderland but did worry that she'd be just too pretty for Jane, however she does have the sort of face that can be a blank canvas and with the aforementioned severe hairstyle and minimal make-up very much convinces as plain Jane. However, she also grasps the spirit within Jane as well as the exterior, and I found her enchanting and compelling. Hers is a very still and very quiet, subtle, performance, but you are in do doubt that inside this small woman is a conviction and intelligence you could bounce rocks off. The same, sadly, can not be said of our hero. Fassbender has the dark good looks, for sure, and carries off a tight pair of breeches very well indeed *fans self*. However Rochester is supposed to be a man possessed, and Fassbender appears to be merely slightly distracted by the fact that he's got his wife locked up in the attic. Also, they skipped the gypsy bit, which is one of my favourite Rochester moments, though I guess I should blame the editor/director for that. I was convinced by Jane and Rochester's relationship, thankfully, but wanted more depth and passion from Mr Fassbender, which was sadly lacking. Still, he does look undeniably fantastic so I'm not complaining too much.
The film looks exactly how you would want it to look, the locations are gorgeous and dramatic, and they use both North Lees Hall and Haddon Hall to great effect as Thornfield. I also loved the Rivers' cottage and Jane's apartment/schoolroom; solid-looking functional buildings that nonetheless are convincing as places that Jane feels safe and protected. I also enjoyed the 'crossroads' moment on the moors when Jane runs away from Thornfield. The darkness of the night scenes mean that when you do get a sunny scene you appreciate it all the more, and there are some very pretty scenes when Jane and Rochester are falling in love over the summer.
I wasn't entirely convinced by the adaptation of the plot. There are a few sections missed out from the book so that, for example, Adele becomes a small French mystery as we never hear how Rochester acquired her. Also, they've fiddled with the chronology a bit by having the film start with Jane arriving at the Rivers, and then flash back to Jane as a child and then to Thornfield. It works fairly well but means that the Rivers section is then a little disjointed as it is spread throughout the film.
However, as you may be able to tell, I liked this film a lot, and will most likely go and see it again before too long. A solid adaptation that doesn't quite tick all the boxes but is a pleasing and enjoyable watch. Read the book or see the 2006 TV version for all the good stuff they missed out!
Comments