I would like to think I am a bit of an expert when it comes to Jane Eyre, as would my sister, one of the things we have in common is that one of our favourite books is Charlotte Brontë's classic tale of the young governess who falls for her stoic employer.
Now there have been a total of ten (yes ten) adaptations of this novel since 1934, most famous of which is probably the 1944 version starring Orson Welles who put in a powerful and erratic performance as Rochester. This is going to be a review of the latest film version with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, using the TV serial from 2006 starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens as the comparative piece.
This years film begins unusually for Jane Eyre in the middle of the story, we see Jane distraught, wandering the moors, eventually being picked up by Jamie Bell and taken into his home. In previous versions the early story of Jane has been left out completely, focusing on the Rochester part, but this film like the mini series of 2006 goes back to Jane's childhood, how she came to be so even tempered and to have the demeanour and feeling that unimportant is just her place in the world. For Mia's Jane her story is told through a series of flashbacks as she sits in St John's (Bell) kitchen with his sisters. For those who know the tale of Miss Eyre this is not too much of a problem, it does not affect the main plot its just told in a slightly different order. You can understand why the film is beginning in the midst of Jane's spiral of depression, its exciting for the newcomer to find out what has brought her to this point. In the mini series we began at the beginning so to speak, and for a four hour serial this is possible because you can be detailed in the retelling, and in fact the series is highly successful in this regard as it leaves hardly any detail out.
What I missed in the film was a few crucial details, part of the novel and the series I loved was the revelation that Jane has family after all, she belongs to another group of people. They leave this out of the film, substituting it for Jane creating the same family with money, which is sad, but perhaps done so to avoid the 'ick' factor when it comes to St John asking Jane to accompany him to foreign parts as his wife, when in actual fact from the novel we know them to be related by blood.
However the film does get the most crucial part right, and that is the casting of Jane and Rochester. If ever a novel was dependant on characterisation it is in Jane Eyre, you have to become absorbed in the protagonist and the object of their affection otherwise the plot is pointless. Many books, and a great deal more movies, suffer from all action no character, I believe the power behind Stephanie Meyer's Twilight Saga is not the fact it concerns a Vampire romance but because you are seeing through the eyes of the girl falling in love with the dangerous man, remarkably similar to Jane Eyre's tale, though of course Rochester is no bloodsucker.
Mia Wasikowska (Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) is physically the ideal Jane, she is tiny in proportions and has quite a plain sort of face, obviously they made her look washed out but she does not have striking features to distract the viewer or to make Fassbender (X-Men: First Class) stop in his tracks because of her beauty. For an Australian Mia does an impressive job with the accent, she slips slightly from being Northern to standard BBC English but with her mix of locations in her lifetime its something the audience can accept. She also embodies the innocence and the frail nature of Jane, who ahs struggled her entire life but thinks nothing of it, has happiness snatched from her but remains true to her own standards. I call Jane frail but she is not, physically yes but mentally she has had strength since childhood, strength to forgive those who have wronged her, but also the power to leave a situation she does not agree with when she could quite easily stay and be happy.
Fassbender too embodies Rochester's power, he has strength in physical terms but comparatively with regards to Jane he is incredibly weak. There is a point in the story where the audience realises it is not Rochester who has the power in this relationship but Jane. Unlike Toby Stephens' portrayal of the tortured Master there is no humour to him, and it is a failing due to time constraint that we cannot empathise more with his own past mistakes and understand why such a creature as Jane could possibly tempt him while beauty and wealth seek his attention. The bond between Rochester and his ward Adele is also neglected, whereas in the series time is devoted to showing the three of them spending time together, the film concentrates on Adele as a nuisance and to only concentrating on the conversations between Jane and Edward.
Fassbender is frightening when angry and convincing when announcing his feelings for Jane, he does very well, and it is a shame he could not be a more teasing version of Rochester as Toby Stephens was able to be in the series.
Another character who is portrayed well is the deeply religious and inscrutable St John Rivers, the clergyman who takes Jane in from the cold after she escapes Thornfield and her beloved Edward. Jamie Bell is a fine actor who seems to pick the wrong films, hats off to anybody who liked Jumper, but here his abilities are not overcast by a poor plot or fellow cast members and so we see a man finally where for so many years we have only seen Billy Elliot. Brontë describes St John as being like a Greek statue, godlike in appearance but cold and aloof like stone. Meyers in the Twilight Saga describes her own Edward as looking like a Greek god, so you wonder whether Brontë is responsible for a little more than just Edward Rochester fans, the twentieth century Vampire does appear to resemble both clergyman and rich gentleman, with a little of the supernatural thrown in.
Bell is a very good St John, his purpose and religious nature are presented well and no audience member could fail in their realisation that although Jane is unwilling he wants to be more than a brother to her.
This is a good film, and fans of the novel will not be disappointed, however neither will they be overwhelmed with love for it. In 2006 the partnership of Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens was magical, she was strong and he was slightly scary, but both passionate and perfect as Jane and Rochester. The story was well thought out and they had four hours to clearly build and explain the story of Jane Eyre. Cary Fukunaga had just under two hours and luckily the sacrifices are not dramatic enough to affect the nature of the story, the morals are intact and the cast are ideal.
Though not perfect, I hope this film brings Charlotte Brontë a new legion of readers, and a new generation of women will see what it is to be lowly but strong in this world.
No comments:
Post a Comment