Jane Eyre

First of all, this is a gorgeous movie. Every indoor shot, close-up, and sweeping view of the landscape is an example of how cinematography can elevate a movie. Jane Eyre is a classic story for a reason, and this is as fine an adaptation I've encountered with great acting all-around, but it's the visuals and Gothic atmosphere that really made me enjoy this as much as I did. 

On the negative side, there never really seemed to be enough interaction between the characters to justify their attachments to one another. I'm speaking specifically of Jane and Rochester, who are portrayed as being totally in love with each other without much of a reason why ever seen by the audience.

That's a small complaint, though, and one that's easily overlooked if you're watching the movie for more than just the romantic aspect, like I was. I've got to admit, Mia Wasikowska was an excellent Jane. She fit into the time and place shown like a hand in a glove, naturally speaking the poetic dialogue. Michael Fassbender continues his inexorable climb to A-list actor status, and Judi Dench (who I didn't even know was in the movie until I saw her on the screen), is a welcome presence, as always. Jane Eyre isn't a perfect movie, but for me, its strengths far outweighed its flaws.

The story isn't well told. Situations come and go without connection as if all the audience had read the book. They had eliminated things that, in the opinion of the writer, may be garbage (which makes the situation worse)...

We are not given the opportunity to be involved in the relationship Jane/Rochester because there is any chemistry between them. There is no gradation in their relationship! Where is Grace Pole and the suspicious laughter? (They have been ignored.) Rochester has no charisma! There is no real excitement, except in the scene where they expose their love. The following scene: marriage/ discovery of the secret happens with a rate that ruins any climax! Mia Wasikowska: seems that her talent really only appears in the most dramatic scenes in which she had to use tears. Moreover, in the rest of the film her expression and facial changes are scarce.

Is a disappointment because this movie adds nothing. a movie is much more than its technical side ...

If you want to see a real adaptation see the one made by BBC in 2006

I've seen JANE EYRE in many versions, holding the Susannah York/George C. Scott edition on a special pedestal, but this new atmospheric adaptation proves to be worthwhile. It should introduce a new audience to the classic tale.

After scoring in the title role in Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND, Aussie thesp Mia Wasikowska is compelling with a plain Jane styling here again as title character, with her story told effectively in flashback, starting with her escape from the Gothic mansion of Rochester (Michael Fassbender), getting a school marm's gig from sympathetic young pastor "Sin-jin" (St. John, played by Mr. BILLY ELLIOT himself, Jamie Bell).

Her "tale of woe", as Rochester mockingly describes it before even hearing a word, is the familiar Charlotte Bronte yarn -suffering a scary childhood at the hands of such ogres as Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins, in her least giggly role to date -very effective). Years at a school for castoff girls, where corporal punishment is de rigeur, merely season Jane for life's hard knocks.

The romantic sweep of her dealings with Rochester are well portrayed, and director Cary Joji Fukunaga makes terrific use of the stark locations, shot in painterly fashion. The visuals alone make this remake worthwhile, backed by the BBC but definitely not a "Masterpiece Theatre" small-screen effort like the recent re-dos of all of Jane Austen.

The big reveal regarding Rochester's "secret" is well-done, though I was a bit disappointed that the hindsight of two versions of Jean Rhys' prequel WIDE SARGASSO SEA was not taken into account here. I guess screenwriter Moira Buffini adhered to a more purist approach.

Fassbender has already suffered casting criticism as being too good looking, but his acting carries the day -combining the right amount of sinister to temper the matinée idol veneer. After all, Jane is going to fall for him eventually. I still prefer Scott or Orson Welles in the role -tough competition indeed.

Besides the principals, Dame Judi Dench is solid as a rock as Rochester's housekeeper, giving it her always-A-game approach and adding nuance to what could be merely a stock role.

This is the third version of the Bronte novel which I have seen, the others being a TV serialisation and the other the Orson Welles version. I enjoyed the former and the less said about the latter the better! This,for me, is far and away the best.The photography is top-notch and, as an avid lover of silent movies the preference for the visual over the oral puts this film high up on my favourites list. Top marks to all cast members and a bonus point for the divine Judi Dench (I have been a fan of hers since seeing her at Stratford in about 1970). To fit the whole novel into a two hour format is no mean feat, but here it is done so well that those who have read the original can supply the missing sections from their memory, while there is enough left in for the non-initiate to enjoy the tale as it stands.

The oft-filmed Charlotte Brontë's Gothic novel has been adapted into TV and film more than two dozen times. Here's a summary of what works and what doesn't in this 2011 version:

THE GOOD:

• Cary Fukunaga's direction. He preferred natural light for much of the film, forgoing camera lighting and instead opted for candles which created the proper dark, moody and gloomy atmosphere that matches Rochester's temperament perfectly. He used some hand-held camera work to great effect, but not too much so that it became distracting. Thornfield Hall, Rochester's expansive mansion looked like something Count Dracula could comfortably settle in. It practically becomes its own character here and adds the necessary spookiness we come to expect from this Gothic tale.

• Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax – When does Dame Judi ever disappoint? Apparently never. Even in small roles, the scenes she's in are one of the best ones in the movie. There was an important scene involving Jane and Rochester where Mrs. Fairfax didn't utter a single word, but she made quite an impact just with her expression.

• Mia Wasikowska as Jane. A lot of the issues I have with literary adaptation is that the supposedly plain heroine usually ends up being played actresses who are too glamorous for the role. Fortunately in this one, Wasikowska was believable as a plain young girl, though she obviously is a pretty girl. At 18, she's also the perfect age for the role. If I were to nitpick though, she's not exactly 'little' as she's described in the novel as Rochester doesn't quite tower over her. In any case, I thought she did a wonderful job carrying the film. She captures the essence of the strong-willed character who holds her own against her much older subject of her affection, and one who despite 'not being well-acquainted with men' doesn't seem intimidated by them.

• Michael Fassbender as Rochester. In many ways, we evaluate a Jane Eyre adaptation by its Rochester, and as long as we use that 'calculation,' I think he measures up quite well. He has a strong screen presence and is the kind of actor who's usually the best thing even in a so-so film, and he makes the most of what's given to him. Even with the relatively short screen time, which is less than what I had hoped, he's able to make us care for Rochester.

THE NOT-SO-GOOD:

• This cliff-notes version feels way too fast. With a complex story like this, no doubt it'd be a challenge for any filmmaker, no matter how talented, to pare it down into a two-hour movie. So it's inevitable that this film just moves along too quick for me. Of course that is not Fukunaga's fault and he really made the best of it, but still this version just leaves me wanting more. I guess this is perhaps a more 'accessible' version for the crowd that otherwise would not watch JE. But to me, the story is compelling enough that an extra half-hour would only enhance the viewing experience and allow enough time for the characters to develop an authentic connection.

• Dialog omission. This is perhaps a result of being 'spoiled' by the comprehensive 1983 version (which at 5.5 hours is perhaps the longest screen adaptation). Of course it's impossible to include every single dialog from the book, but I was hoping at least some of the important ones are kept. The famous quotes such as "I am no bird; and no net ensnares me", "Do as I do: trust in God and yourself", "Reader, I married him" are not spoken in this adaptation. I also find some of the delivery lacks bite, y'know that certain oomph that an actor does to bring those timeless words to life.

• Jamie Bell seems miscast. Now, keep in mind I really like Jamie as an actor and have said so many times on my blog (http://tinyurl.com/mozzs5) However, I don't feel he's right for the role of St. John Rivers. Firstly, when you've already got someone as striking as Fassbender as Rochester, I'd think the casting agent would have to find someone much fairer than he. No offense to Jamie, but that's not the case here and he certainly doesn't fit the book description of 'tall, fair with blue eyes, and with a Grecian profile.' Now, physical appearance aside, he also lack the solemn and pious sensibility of a Christian missionary.

• Unconventional storyline – Moira Buffini's script tells the story in flashback mode instead of following the novel's linear storyline. The movie starts off right as Jane is leaving Thornfield, which is right smack dab where the main crisis of the story begins. Now, I can understand that it's done to make it less tedious, yet it gets confusing at times to figure out which part happens in the past or present. I think for someone not familiar with the book, the shuffled time line might be a bit tough to follow.

IN CONCLUSION, despite leaving the theater wanting more, I do think this is a worthy adaptation. The production quality is top notch, with gorgeous cinematography, affecting light work and music that serve the story well. There is even one scene of Jane and Rochester that Fukunaga took liberty with that's quite tantalizing. It caught me off guard but I must say that scene left me breathless and is an effective way to convey how much Jane longed for her true love.

But in the end, even though I adore Fassbender, he still hasn't replaced Timothy Dalton as my favorite Rochester. Sure, the production quality of this one is superior, but what makes a Jane Eyre story so fascinating and memorable are the heart-wrenching connection between the two main protagonists and the dialog spoken between them, so in that regard, the 1983 version is still the one to beat.