Jane Eyre

"All governesses have a tale of woe; what's yours?" asks Edward Rochester of Jane Eyre, a governess working in his employ, in the latest adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's 1847 novel. Jane replies that she has no tale of woe, but we know better--we have seen her horrid upbringing, first being raised by an aunt who views her as a servant, and then in one of those awful Dickensian schools where children are beaten and ostracized.

I have never read the novel (I think I tried once and didn't get very far), but I have enough literacy to know the basic story, and the big surprise that comes toward the end, which I won't reveal here (I have seen the film version of The Wide Sargasso Sea, which tells the story from another character's viewpoint). This adaptation, directed by Cary Fukunaga and written by Moira Buffini, is very well executed, and a cut above of the usual "Masterpiece Theater"-type movie that is very common these days.

But, I couldn't help but feel that something was missing. I very much enjoyed the first half, which lays out in flashback Jane's story. We first see her stumbling about on the moors, depressed about something and ready to die. She's taken in by a preacher (Jamie Bell) and his sisters, and periodically the action cuts back to her as a child. Then the major section of the film starts, when she works as a governess at Thornfield Hall, which is owned by the mysterious Mr. Rochester. She meets him in one of the most famous meeting scenes in literature, when she accidentally spooks his horse (the two have no idea who the other is). Rochester, played here by Michael Fassbender, is a Byronic figure who is both romantic and just a bit scary, but when he finds Jane to be a cultured, educated woman, he is enamored with her.

The romance between the two, which has complications, have made many swoon over the years, but it's here that I think the film doesn't quite work. Mia Wasikowska is Jane, and she's perfect for the role--attractive yet somewhat plain, with a permanent look of determination (Rochester asks her if she ever laughs). And Fassbender is quite good as the brooding Mr. Rochester. As I watched the film I forgot who was playing him, and was stunned to see Fassbender's name in the credits. I've seen him now three times in recent weeks, in the films Fish Tank, Inglourious Basterds (a second viewing on DVD), and this one, and I have a hard time reconciling that it could possibly be the same actor.

But I just didn't buy the romance. The two didn't have any chemistry. They seemed to fall in love only because the script said they had to. I could see why he like Jane--he was tired of women who were vain and scatterbrained, but as to why Jane like him, well, aside from his smoldering good looks, I couldn't figure it out (and she does tell him that she doesn't think he's handsome).

Otherwise the film is lovely to behold. The photography by Adriano Goldman, using a great deal of natural light, is first-rate. Fukunaga's direction emphasizes the Gothic elements of Bronte's novel, especially those scenes in which Thornfield Hall seems to be haunted by some kind of spirit, and the motif of fire, which will play a great part in the story, is used to great effect.

After reading a plot summary of the novel, it would appear to be quite faithful to the book, although certainly some things have been left out. Many have commented that it is one of the best of the umpteen adaptations, but, having seen only this one, I have nothing to compare it to. I do recommend it, though, especially for fans of Victorian literature.

My grade for Jane Eyre: B+