Cary Fukunaga’s version of Jane Eyre might not have been needed but trumps plenty other remakes.
Jane Eyre makes for a successful film adaptation. Again
In the years since its 1847 publication Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre has come to be regarded as an important proto-feminist novel ahead of its time. In contrast Cary Fukunaga’s film would seem well past its time. Does a story that’s already been adapted for film and television almost a dozen times (excluding silent and foreign language versions) really demand yet another kick at the can whatever the latest version’s merits?
Yes and no. This Jane however well-acted and strikingly designed isn’t really original enough to feel essential. On the other hand Brontë’s novel wouldn’t have been filmed so often were it not a compelling story and this film tells it fairly well. It’s not easily dismissed either.
The film — which begins in media res with a distressed and haggard Jane (Mia Wasikowska) seeking shelter in the home of rural clergyman St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) after leaving her lover Edward Rochester — seems a little flat at first. Amelia Clarkson is captivating as the young Jane an orphan who spiritedly defies her guardians. But the more reserved older Jane of the early scenes seems dull in comparison as she explains to St. John what brought her to his door. Bell is adequate but his comical muttonchops are more of an attention-getter than his acting.
The action picks up however when Jane comes to the part where her teenage self (now also played by Wasikowska) leaves her charity school to serve as a governess at Thornfield Hall home of the wealthy Rochester (Michael Fassbender). She gets off to a rocky start with this stern brooding man but soon starts to fall for him. It might seem like a strange attraction but Fassbender makes it convincing. The rare moments where his character’s snarls and scowls give way to his radiant smile and charm illustrate that Jane is attracted to him because while his softer side is hard to draw out that makes doing so all the more rewarding.
Wasikowska in turn adeptly conveys Jane’s feelings for Rochester as when her face poignantly reveals the shock and sorrow she feels — and her futile attempt to conceal it — upon learning he’s left the estate without telling her. And in their scenes together she shows why Jane appeals to him a man who could have a woman of higher status but prefers one who isn’t going to let societal conventions hold her back.
But Jane Eyre isn’t just a love story of course it’s also a Gothic horror story. Since most viewers know what’s behind those strange noises Jane hears in Thornfield at night the film wisely chooses not to contrive suspense on this front though it tries unsuccessfully to make the appearance of Rochester’s wife (Valentina Chervi) seem frightening. In this day and age the idea of the madwoman hidden away in the attic seems more ridiculous than scary but since this film seems content with being a period piece it doesn’t matter that much. And from the grand old mansion to the stylish costumes and the eerie surrounding moors it elegantly renders both the period and the setting
Did we really need this Jane Eyre ? Probably not. But given the scores of mediocre remakes Hollywood’s churned out lately it seems churlish to fault this film — which is certainly better than most of them — too much. Originality would be nice but in its absence tried and true is a decent alternative.
