Saturday, April 9, 2011

Version 1,439 of JANE EYRE


Apparently, Richmond is NOT a hub of cultural importance because we JUST got a theater that would play the new version of Jane Eyre, a full month after the official release date. This? This is the lame. Going to this movie was supposed to be my final outing as a non-mother before my kids were born. Instead it turned into my first outing after the birth of my kids. I guess that'll do, pig. That'll do.

This version may not technically be the 1,439th but it certainly feels like it. It's a safe movie to make, I think. A well known and well loved plot, lots of old English houses available for the set, dresses borrowed from other Victorian novel adaptations. It's almost formulaic: Jane in the red room, Jane at Lowood, Jane scaring Rochester's horse, flirty flirt flirting, ruined wedding, and then reader, she married him.

This is not that. This version starts with Jane stumbling half dead up to the home of St. John Rivers and his sisters- a portion of the book many movie versions leave out. The rest of the story is told in flashbacks. It is also a much more atmospheric Jane Eyre than any version before it. There are a lot of sweeping landscape shots of dreary moors. Scenes shot in the homes are all candle-lit, leaving every exchange slightly creepy and gloomy. No one really smiles, or ever laughs. Everything feels very isolated. In this, I think it's a more realistic version of what life was like in Northern England at that time. I also think it's closer to the feeling Bronte was going for than any other version of the movie.

The casting was stellar. Jane is composed but fiery, as opposed to the largely timid versions of the character in other adaptations. Rochester is a total ass, but you love him for his realizations of what an ass he is. He smolders- not in a Very Sexy Male Victorian Lead sort of way, but in a Guy With Very Big Secret That Sucks But Hey, He's Probably Not So Bad sort of way. However, I never really got the chemistry between Jane and Rochester. For one thing, their age difference is way obvious and a little weird. For another, this movie leaves out whole swaths of important material- and that brings me to my BIG ISSUE with it.

Nothing is ever really explained. Important back story and events in the book are alluded to, but never drawn out. Rochester brings Blanche to Thornfield to make Jane jealous- but that's never really explained. She's just sort of there. The wife in the attic is sort of an afterthought. Jane and Rochester's relationship never goes through evolution- they have two conversations and then it's sort of assumed that they're TRULY MADLY DEEPLY and whatnot. The movie focuses (and succeeds) at creating this perfect gothic atmosphere, but at the expense of fleshing out the plot. If this were a five hour miniseries, it would be perfection.

Final verdict? Definitely worth seeing, but only if you've read the book. Otherwise you'll be hella confused.

P.S. One more positive thing is that the movie avoids the over-emoting so common in modern remakes of classics (I'm thinking of all the emoting and walking about in underwear in the Keira version of P&P as my most irritating example).

10 comments:

  1. Very nice review. I still want to see it, but my expectations are tempered.
    Which theater is it at? Westhampton?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, do see it! It's a good movie if you've read the book and know what's going on :) It's playing at the Bow Tie Cinemas on Boulevard, near the Diamond.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The best version of Jane Eyre I've ever seen is the Masterpiece Theater 2006 adaptation. The casting is perfect as is the atmosphere. This one was...bland. From the trailers I thought it was going to read way more gothic romance than it did. I was very disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Too bad it isn't a miniseries. I always thought it would be a little hard to fit Jane Eyre into a 2 hour slot. Even 4 hours would be an improvement. I'm waiting until this comes out on DVD before seeing it, though for some reason I thought it was already playing in Richmond (I live in Richmond too). Ah well, it seems it's always a trade off with something–great atmosphere without the fleshed-out plot, great plot development without a stellar cast... there's always something.

    ReplyDelete
  5. At 90 minutes this adaptation of a 700 page book is too short. In addition, unless one has read the book, this version's plot is nearly impossible to follow. I had high expectations, as I rarely go to opening night events, but the sniggering at the end of the film at Westhampton Theater said it all. At the abrupt ending the audience was like: WTF??

    My review sits here on Jane Austen Today: http://bit.ly/dSrm4R

    ReplyDelete
  6. Okay, yeah. I'm thinking I need to see this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Correction,IMBD says that the film was 120 minutes long. I must have snoozed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I really, really, really want to see this. I just moved to the UK, and I looked it up and it's not going to play here until September! What is up with that?! It was freaking written by a Brit. So lame.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm dying to see this one. I'm glad to hear it's not a disappointment.

    Kristi - I can't believe the UK doesn't get it until September! That's ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So sad that it sounds disappointing! I was looking forward to seeing this (when it comes on video that is....). I like videos that are mostly faithful to the book. But I'll probably see this for the atmospheric setting you describe. That sounds nice!

    ReplyDelete