Jane Eyre (2011)
Alright, I know I’m a little late in the game for this movie, but here goes.
Jane Eyre (2011) is an adaptation of the Charlotte Bronte book. It chronicles the journey of a teenage girl (Mia Wasikowska) just out of school who becomes the governess for the charge of a Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender). While he is a difficult master to please, Jane’s troubled past more than prepares her for his unpredictable mood swings, much to his surprise. As Jane and Mr. Rochester grow closer in their shared lives of “woe,” she soon finds out that he does have a secret she can’t quite handle.
My first impression of the film was that the photography was just so gorgeous. I loved seeing the contrast between the wide, sweeping shots of the British countryside and the more closed-in interior shots. I also thought it was interesting that the attitude of the cinematography was very still (yes, I’m going to be that pretentious). I think this was because the focus of the camera is very sharp in some places, and there wasn’t much actual camera movement. It was appropriate since it gives us the impression of English stiffness, such as in the beginning when Jane is living with her aunt.
The lighting and colors were appropriate as well, since they often had a white or grayish tinge. Normally that might look awful, but thankfully, it wasn’t. The music didn’t overwhelm the story either—it came in and out at appropriate moments (although I don’t think they could fit in more mournful violin if they tried). The combination of all of these made the overall mood ethereal, and almost creepy.
The costuming and sets were dazzling. I wanted pretty much every single dress in the movie, even Jane’s more “frumpy” ones. And I would love to live in whatever mansion (or mansions) they decided to film in for Thornfield Hall (Mr. Rochester’s estate). I still get jealous of the access the British have to so many fantastic settings.
What I loved most of all though were Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender’s performances. Wasikowska underplays it all, but it works. She’s passionate when she needs to be, though restrained for the most part. Fassbender is flamboyant and dramatic, but falls just short of melodramatic (or rather, too melodramatic). He doesn’t seem like he’s trying too hard, so it feels more genuine, like he was tailor-cut for the character. The two play off, and complement, each other—Fassbender is the life of the party while Wasikowski is the silent observer in the back. Yet they still share a stubborn individuality, which makes their attraction believable.
I was also thoroughly amused by the dialogue, especially from Mr. Rochester himself. When he asked Jane to tell him of her “tale of woe,” I about fell out of my chair from laughing. Almost every line he had, actually, made me laugh (in the less serious parts). His bitterness was very well crafted.
The only real criticism I have is that I felt like we didn’t see enough development of Jane and Mr. Rochester’s relationship. In fact, it seemed like many parts of the story were cut short, and it was difficult to get a sense of time, especially towards the end. However, I figured this must be because the director skipped over some plot for the sake of time, although I haven’t read the entire novel, and can’t say for sure.
It was a beautiful film, and sincerely emotional, which puts it near the top of my favorite romance movies.
