The movie isn't perfect, of course, but most of its problems stem from the fact that the story has had to be pared down to fit into a two hour time frame. A lot of the really great dialogue has been cut, as well as the interactions between Rochester and Jane, which makes their deep attachment seem a bit sudden for my taste. Also, Fukunaga chose to start the film with Jane running away from the Hall and arriving at the Rivers' house, and then showing everything which happened before in flashbacks. Most of those watching were okay with this because we know the story well, but one person was viewing Jane Eyre for the first time and also hadn't read the book (suspected philistine) and he found this a bit confusing at first. Lastly- and this is just a quibble, really- I have a hard time taking Jamie Bell seriously as St. John Rivers. He seems a bit... not right, though I'm not sure why exactly. But every time he's on the screen with his big side whiskers I feel inclined to laugh, which probably wasn't the effect they were going for. This is, however, a very small thing, and the movie is definitely worth your time.
Last night we watched the 2011 film adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's 1847 novel, Jane Eyre. This book has been adapted to film many times; I've personally seen three or four of these. This 2011 version holds up quite well, for a number of reasons. First, it would be hard to screw up Bronte's excellent work very much, and the director- Cary Fukunaga- doesn't. Also, Mia Wasikowska is excellent as the titular Jane: quiet and unworldly, yet firm in her opinions and beliefs. Michael Fassbender doesn't get a lot of screen time as Mr. Rochester but makes the most of it; he does jaded and bitter very well. This adaptation plays up the gothic atmosphere of Thornfield Hall, which is delightfully creepy at night with its dark shadows, hidden doors, and the creaks and moans which may or may not have a human origin. The movie isn't perfect, of course, but most of its problems stem from the fact that the story has had to be pared down to fit into a two hour time frame. A lot of the really great dialogue has been cut, as well as the interactions between Rochester and Jane, which makes their deep attachment seem a bit sudden for my taste. Also, Fukunaga chose to start the film with Jane running away from the Hall and arriving at the Rivers' house, and then showing everything which happened before in flashbacks. Most of those watching were okay with this because we know the story well, but one person was viewing Jane Eyre for the first time and also hadn't read the book (suspected philistine) and he found this a bit confusing at first. Lastly- and this is just a quibble, really- I have a hard time taking Jamie Bell seriously as St. John Rivers. He seems a bit... not right, though I'm not sure why exactly. But every time he's on the screen with his big side whiskers I feel inclined to laugh, which probably wasn't the effect they were going for. This is, however, a very small thing, and the movie is definitely worth your time.
Comments
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |