Movie Review: Jane Eyre (2011)
Two wonderful performances stand out in this Gothic romance
Photo: Focus Features
Cold and isolated is the best way to describe director Cary Fukunaga's Gothic romance based on Charlotte Bronte's classic 19th century novel; a novel I've unfortunately never read. But despite my unfamiliarity with Bronte's prose, it's quite easy to recognize when screenwriter Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) borrows straight from the book, just as it's easy to be impressed by those times when words aren't necessary to express what the characters are feeling thanks to a pair of standout performances.
Fukunaga's direction of Jane Eyre is the dark sister to Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice. Both are literary staples featuring strong female protagonists at their core and both feature actresses worthy of acclaim for their characterizations of those lead characters.
The cast includes Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, Sally Hawkins, Imogen Poots and Holliday Grainger. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Jane Eyre" is a Focus Features release, directed by Cary Fukunaga and is rated PG-13 for some thematic elements including a nude image and brief violent content. The running time is 2 hours 1 minute.
From here we get brief glimpses at her tumultuous childhood and her time at an all girls school as eight years quickly pass by. She begins work as a governess at Thornfield Hall where she cares for a young French girl and ultimately falls in love with her employer, Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender).
Fassbender and Wasikowska are perfect in the two lead roles. Their characters' lonely and isolated souls feed into the initially despairing story line. As Jane and Edward grow closer so does the audience to the story. There's a slow and steely build to this narrative and the words of Charlotte Bronte (or at least I am assuming they are words lifted directly from her novel) flow like silk as traded from Jane and Edward's lips to our ears.
Wasikowska's performance is strong and in control. As Jane she's required to stand tall in the presence of the initially fearsome Rochester. However, only fearsome to the audience it would seem as Jane holds her own and then some. Wasikowska's work here doesn't come across like a performance, but rather a fully developed character you don't have the slightest inkling to question, and Fassbender is with her every step of the way. There's something in the eyes of both actors. Twice one asks the other, "What, nothing to say?" and just as each offers a well-timed reply, their faces at each moment say just as much.
My earlier comparison to Joe Wright's 2005 adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice goes deeper than the fact we're talking about two 19th Century novels. Like Wright, Fukunaga depends on composer Dario Marinelli for a quietly haunting score and even Judi Dench plays a part in both, here as Thornfield's reliable housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax.
Where Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice diverge is in the tone and nature of the story. Jane Eyre plays like an artistic ghost story, complete with a jump scare of its own and things that go bump in the night. Of course, there is nothing spectral about this story and to go too far with the claim it's a frightener would be disingenuous. Yet, there's definitely a menacing tone to certain corners of this story and Fukunaga isn't afraid of keeping those corners in view, even if they are only kept visible by the gentle lap of a candle's flame.
The film, however, is not without its faults. Most notably, the early pacing of the story. Jane's childhood years are told through flashback and while the story ultimately comes together quite well, the flashbacks seem ill-timed and, occasionally, abrupt. It's obvious the attempt to condense Bronte's story was the cause for this. Had the screenplay structure been developed any other way the story would have felt incredibly rushed. The fractured narrative allows for the stretching of the timeline without wasting actual running time. Yet, it still feels like a scene or two are missing around the time Jane leaves school to when she becomes governess at Thornfield.
I was also disappointed certain story lines, such as that of Jamie Bell's St. John Rivers, are so quickly forgotten and never again touched upon. This, again, seems to be due to the flashbacks and the goal of keeping the running time as close to two house as possible, but it would have been nice to get a little closure with regard to certain situations.
Everything said, Jane Eyre remains a film worth seeing. It's not as tightly bound as I would have liked, it has some bumps in the beginning and the end, but the middle-third is quite good and the performances are reason enough to give it a watch.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 14 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Loved Sin Nombre. Loved Wasikowska in Kids Are All Right. Loved Fassbender in everything I've seen him in.
Never read Bronte and I'm generally cold to this kind of period Victorian romances, but this particular film had me in its corner since day one. Can't wait to see it.
Nick, the novels by all three Bronte sisters are extremely dark and complex, they are completely different in tone to the Jane Austen adaptations you are probably thinking of.
I admit that you're right about the last part. Thank you, good to know I'm more or less wrong.
I love the book, so I'm really looking forward to seeing it. It seems sad that St. John is kind of forgotten. He is a great character that most Jane Eyre movies do not adequately explore. I suppose it's because of the time-constraint, but I was really hoping that this movie would bring him out.
I really enjoy Jane Eyre, book and well as movies and am very curious to see this one.
I thought this film had enough buzz to get a larger platform release. Just shows that who is releasing your film really matters. Focus Films is too small to take risks that would be normal for a bigger entity.
You are talking about the same Focus films that released Burn After Reading to an almost $20 million opening and released Coraline to a $75 million domestic gross. They are releasing Hanna wide next month. I'm sure if they wanted to do the same for Jane Eyre they would do it.
I think my point was that the platform release for Jane Eyre was small, even for Focus Films:
Film/theater count
Jane Eyre 4
Brokeback Mountain 5,69,217,269,483,683,1196,1654,2089
The Pianist 6,90,328,557,…842
Lost In Translation 23,183,488,864,882
Atonement 32,117,306,310,583,950,1291,1400
Pride & Predjudice 215,221,1299,1327,1335
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind 1323,1357
The Constant Gardener 1346,1381,1387
Caroline 2299
Burn After Reading 2651
The American 2823
The Pride & Predjudice release pattern is more what I was expecting with Jane Eyre. I hope they are releasing Hannah wide because it is testing well in focus groups (see what I did there?). It doesn't seem like a highly marketable movie.
P.S. I was originally hoping to watch it this weekend, but it's not playing in my city.
Saw a sneak preview last night. I was actually able to drag my reluctant hubby with me (he hates chick flicks). Although Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska were excellent, I thought Fassbender was not as dark and brooding as I would have liked his Rochester to be. He took to Jane a little too quickly. I would like to have seen their master/governess relationship drawn out more before he becomes enamored of her. Mia was a standout as Jane. There was definite chemistry between her and Fassbender. If you did not know the story (as my husband did not), it was slightly confusing as the story goes back and forth between present day and the past quite abruptly, so a little hard to follow at times. It ended a little too abruptly for me as well. Would like to have seen what happens to Jane and Rochester after she returns to Thornfield. My hubby was even able to sit through it without too much grumbling although he did not like the Dickens-type school scenes at the beginning. Overall, although I was very pleased with the production, I saw the recent PBS Masterpiece version and unfortunately I think I was comparing the two a little too much. PBS had more time to draw out the characters and plot so this version left me wanting more.
I was an early screening on the 23rd, and I thought it was pretty good. My only real complaint was the slow pace.
Strange to see a review of the movie from someone who has not read the book — or even seen one of the earlier adaptations. The 2006 adaptation rocks. This pales in comparison — the only thing they got right was the ages are closer (20s and 30s) to the book (18 and 38), but good acting and makeup could have worked around this anyway. This film has neither. The performances are one-dimensionaly and unimpressive (ie, proposal scene) on both Jane and Rochester's accounts. They don't capture the essence let alone the complexity of the characters laid out in Bronte's novel.
The movie has only just been released in Sydney, Australia, and I have been waiting impatiently. I was really quite disappointed in this new version of Jane Eyre, from the aspect of the actual adaption of such a well known and loved literary work. There was so much left out – both with characters and situations. The developing relationship between Rochester and Jane was not handled well – I felt no intensity from either of the main actors – Judi Dench was absolutely wasted- the relationship with the Rivers family was never properly enunciated and the ending was far too abrupt. The filming was very dark and lacked the light and shade of the transition through the seasons that Jane spent at Thornfield. But Haddon Hall as Thornfield is always amazing. The whole movie was not a patch on the 2006 version with the amazing Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson from a beautiful screenplay by Sandy Welsh..I know that timing constraints applied, but overall the new movie was a major disappointment and felt much akin to the Knightley/McFadyen version of 'Pride & Prejudice' – made for people with a short attention span who have never read and loved Charlotte Bronte's beautiful book. Sorry, not up to standard for me – they really shouldn't have bothered.
Wholeheartedly agree. I was suspicious about it even being possible to condense the story into two hours, but thought I'd give it a try – my misgivings were justified. I just don't think this story is one that CAN be shortened into a feature length version.