Jane Eyre is a classic tale. I had high expectations for the film, knowing the quality of the source material. The book by Charlotte Bronte has inspired well over a dozen motion pictures and nearly as many television programs. The book has even inspired a host of other pieces of literature. If you intend to undertake a challenge like this, you should be sure to get it right. My expectations were not met.
For the uninitiated, Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) is taken in by her aunt, Ms. Reed (Sally Hawkins) after her father's death. The aunt is a vengeful woman who cares little for Jane. Jane is sent off to a strict religious school where her artistic imagination and strong will are stifled. She eventually leaves the school to work as a governess for a wealthy landowner, Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender)
Rochester has mood swings, but finds good company with Jane, who speaks bluntly for someone of her station. While Rochester publicly courts another young lady, his passion lies in his intimate talks with Jane. The relationship is awkward and marked by strange events within Rochester's house. When Rochester asks Jane to marry him, it is like a fairy tale come true. But the wedding is set off course when it is announced that Rochester is married. His wife, Bertha Antonietta Mason, has been kept locked in a room within the house because of her battle with mental illness. Jane realizes she cannot lead the life she wants and sets out on her own. During her self-imposed exile, she comes to terms with her own circumstances and determines her own future.
Charlotte Bronte's original is a classic. The characters are engaging, the story unique and the setting enjoyable. Moira Buffini's adaptation of the book left plenty to be desired. I am not certain how much was the screenplay and how much was Cary Fukunaga editing, but the story was choppy. The rough transitions did not interrupt the flow of the story excessively, but did give the film an uneven feel. The characters were also mixed. While I was absorbed by Wasikowska's performance, Fassbender didn't do much for me. His character lacked some credibility, which may lie in the performance. I did not feel the connection between Jane and Rochester the way I should have, which affected my enjoyment of the entire film.
Wasikowska was brilliant. Her performance was impeccable. She poured all of her emotions into the role and created a Jane Eyre worth watching again. Fassbender lacked something. I don't know if it was character development in the writing or a genuine chemistry with Wasikowska, but I did not find his character to be credible. I barely recognized Sally Hawkins as Ms. Reed. She is a chameleon. On the heels of her spectacular performance as Rita O'Grady (Made in Dagenham), her cameo was brief but impressive. I also enjoyed Judi Dench as the motherly Ms. Fairfax. Amelia Clarkson was also nicely cast as the young Jane Eyre. The performances were mostly good, although I don't feel Fassbender was right for his role.
The only work I am familiar with from Cary Fukunaga was Sin Nombre, which he wrote and directed. I enjoyed that film. Fukunaga has worked as a cinematographer, writer, director and producer. He created a strong visual presence in the film, often lingering on characters for effect. However, the transitions did not seem smooth in this film. Maybe it was just me, but I felt like the film lacked balance. You have to chop parts of the story to get the meat of the story presented in a two hour film. I can understand that aspect, but the movement seemed awkward at times. The film had rich visual qualities with abrupt transitions.
Jane Eyre is rated PG-13. The rating stems from a couple of violent scenes. A couple of the scenes could be considered child abuse. Jane's cousin, John Reed, also chases her around the house with a sword in the opening sequence. There were some tense moments, but nothing that seemed likely to provoke nightmares. If you find art offensive, there was a painting of a naked woman on a wall of Thornfield that Jane dwells on. I think all of those factors are mild and should not be a reason to restrict the audience.
Jane Eyre has been done many times over. If Fukunaga sought to undertake a challenge like this, he should have ensured it would be an improvement on the others. It wasn't. It was still a good film. The cinematic qualities were rich. The acting was excellent, although I wasn't impressed with Rochester/Fassbender. I haven't decided whether it was the writing or performance. The film had awkward transitions at times and felt a bit choppy. It is definitely worth seeing, but disappointed me. I thought it might offer some improvement, but it failed on that front. 6.5/10.
