Do I have thoughts and opinions on the newest adaptation of Jane Eyre? Of course, I do!!! But they have calmed down a little since my first viewing of the film last fall. My first impression was that it was a horrible adaptation. It felt like they shuffled the pages of the script and didn't care to sort them out properly again. I just didn't understand why anyone would want to play around with the timeline and pacing. Why start the movie with Jane Eyre on the run? Why put viewers on the same page with the Rivers family? Why start there?! If you've never read Jane Eyre--never seen a movie version--it could prove VERY confusing to say the least. And I can only guess that it would influence one's impression of Mr. Rochester when we do
finally meet him. Knowing from the start that this love story ends badly--with tears, angst, desperation, she's RUNNING away, etc.
Would this movie make any sense at all if you'd never read Jane? Is there enough of a story there for viewers to piece together the proper story? I can never answer that because I've read Jane Eyre and I've seen Jane Eyre countless times. I didn't necessarily find it confusing--in terms of story--more puzzling in terms of WHY did they choose to interpret it this way? The two are not the same, I know!!! The story does feel rushed, in a way, especially if you're more accustomed to a longer adaptation (2006, 1983, 1973). But it doesn't feel AS rushed as it used to feel to me since I've seen other adaptations that were comparable in length (1944, 1996, 1997, 1970). And compared to the hour-long adaptations I've seen (1934, 1949) this one was
so much better.
My first impression of Michael Fassbender in the role of Mr. Rochester was not favorable. Seeing it again, I've softened a little. At first, I thought he got so little time on screen that it would be absolutely impossible to like him--or love him--for his character, personality, charisma, whatever you want to call it. But. Now that I've seen some other (shorter) Jane Eyre adaptations, I realize that it's not so horrible after all. Other adaptations--longer adaptations--give you MORE to love, perhaps. They may add different dimensions to the character of Mr. Rochester--for better or worse--and have their own way of interpreting Mr. Rochester, bringing him to life from the pages of a novel. But I think he does try. One reason why I had such a strong dislike for this portrayal was in how he chose to "react" to Jane's resolution to leave. His anger, his violence, his temper was SO out of control, so over the top. But having seen the 1997 film starring Ciaran Hinds, I have a different perspective. His rage doesn't seem as over-the-top to me because Hinds performance was even worse. Granted, I still don't "like" this scene; it still makes me uncomfortable. But I've seen worse now.
My first impression of Mia Wasikowska in the role of Jane Eyre was not the best either. I didn't dislike her by any means. The problem was that she didn't leave much of an impression at all--either good or bad. She just left me indifferent. How do I feel now? Well, I can say with absolute confidence that she is so much better (or better suited) in the role than Susannah York, Mary Sinclair, and Virginia Bruce. She at least feels like
she belongs to this story. And while she may not have amazed me with her performance, she does a good job. Nothing in her portrayal of Jane is unbelievable or out of character. Nothing she adds to the role offends in any way.
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
