Most already know the story of Jane Eyre: a young girl who has been tormented all her life eventually finds solace in a mansion haunted by secrecy and anguish. The well-known plot and beloved characters only complicate the task of bringing a new vision of the book to the screen. There are over 20 film versions to date, but director Cary Fukunaga’s visually stunning adaptation manages to bring Jane to a fresh light without losin
g any of the heart of the original text.
Fukunaga’s version does not begin with Jane’s childhood, as does the novel, but instead picks up as she seeks refuge from a generous stranger, St. John Rivers, and his sisters. Desolate and drenched, Jane suffers painful flashbacks as she explains her story to the Riverses. It is in this way that we learn of her abusive family and her difficult upbringing.
Screenwriter Moira Buffini does an outstanding job of bringing out the important parts of the novel and compressing them in a new way. Though initially unsettling, the change in the story’s pacing actually worked much better for the screen — it takes the storyline in a direction that is more dynamic and easier to follow. This does mean, however, that we miss out on some of the understanding behind what makes up Jane’s character.
The title role is played beautifully by Mia Wasikowska of Alice in Wonderland. Her Jane is soft-spoken but not quiet, principled but not righteous. Wasikowska makes Jane, a plain, almost colorless character in terms of outward expression, personable and feeling. Her voice is timorous enough to make even her boldest comments sound polite and unassuming. Her eyes are warm and wondering, and they speak even when Jane is silenced by fear or by love. She is plain but not boring, a balance of traits that defines the character of Jane Eyre. Wasikowska’s Jane is a feat of characterization, a commendable performance considering the role’s weighty connotations.
Another clear standout is our brooding romantic lead, Edward Rochester, portrayed by Michael Fassbender. Because he plays Rochester as a more likable character than normally depicted, he creates a captivating contrast to Wasikowska’s Jane, and the two play off each other beautifully. Their conversations are laced with spirited interchanges that leave the viewer certain of their chemistry, even when it appears as though Rochester intends to marry the beautiful but vacant Blanche Ingram (Imogen Poots). Fassbender is clearly in control of every scene, but manages to avoid being overbearing or distracting from Wasikowska’s more subtle loveliness.
Even if it were nothing else, the film is just beautiful to watch. The cinematography is brilliant, with wide-framed shots of the lonely-looking English moors. The majority of movie is toned with dark blue and gray, providing the dark, gloomy feel that accompanies the story. The lighting is used brilliantly to convey different moods. The viewer feels wet and cold as Jane falls into the dark mud; they feel warm and reawakened when Jane and Rochester sit in the shade of a cherry tree on a sunny day. The movie brings to life the vivid descriptions and imagery that make Brontë’s novel so spectacular.
That’s not to say, though, that all of Brontë’s original vision is brought to the film. The film omits large parts of the text — this in itself is not a problem, considering the length of the novel, but it does take away from the overall thrill of the story. No, we do not need the many melodramatic scenes that color the novel. No, we do not need the lengthy descriptions or the thorough character development. Were I seeing the film having not read the novel, I probably would not have taken any issue with the storyline. This was not the case, however, and I found myself feeling cheated out of the full story on more than one occasion. The film chooses to omit many of the small scenes that help to build up the chilling mystery behind Rochester’s secret; most notably, we are left without the scene in which a mysterious figure comes into Jane’s room and tears her wedding veil. The film felt almost diluted without all the chills and thrills, though not necessarily in a bad way. The story certainly works without them, and those who don’t know the book well will likely find themselves pleased by the plotline introduced.
The film also concludes with a very cinematic-feeling ending. Rather than the book’s thorough epilogue, the movie ends immediately after Jane returns to Thornfield. There is no “Reader, I married him,”; no description of their firstborn son. This omission does not necessarily make the ending more or less effective, though it does end the film on a note that seems more suited for a romantic comedy than a tragic love story.
Overall, though, the film is easy to follow and it’s a good compression of such a hefty story. Though the mood is overwhelmingly dark and distressed, it’s sprinkled with a few gems that keep it from becoming too tortured. Judi Dench is brilliant as the homely Mrs. Fairfax, housekeeper of Thornfield Hall. Newcomer Romy Settbon Moore is equal parts charming and irritating as Mr. Rochester’s ward, Adèle. A few chuckle-inducing quips here and there balance the more serious dialogue, and occasional breaks of sunlight complement the overcast shots of the moors. Jane is innovative and it’s interesting, a real feat for an adaptation of such a well-known story. Fassbender and Wasikowska play the most famous couple in literature to perfection, and director Fukunaga brings one of the most famous stories to life in a truly sophisticated way.
If you think you know Jane Eyre, you don’t know it like this. It’s warm-hearted and it’s sweeping, while still managing to make my skin crawl. It’s beautiful to the eyes and stimulating to the mind. It’s easily one of the best versions of Jane out there, one that may become the definitive adaptation.
Fukunaga’s Jane Eyre is classic without being too stuffy, and fresh without being too modernistic. It’s a must-see for any lovers of the novel, and a should-see for any lovers of great filmmaking. I promise you’ll find that this Jane is anything but plain.