I really love Jane Eyre... The novel is one of my favorites, even it really goes too much into religion for my personal taste... At this point I do not remember if I read the novel first and then saw one of the movie adaptations, but I'm pretty sure I read the novel first... I think the reason why I love the novel so much is because it touches on sensitive topics, religion, redemption, perseverance, sense of self, love, passion, etc. I have a hard time reading most of the beginning of the novel because of all the things that happen to Jane during her formative years... To date, I have also seen 6 movie adaptations, they are listed in order of my personal preference, with the last 3 on the list actually all being tied for the worst:
- 2006 BBC adaptation with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson
- 1983 BBC adaptation with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke
- 1973 adaptation with Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston
- 2011 adaptation with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender
- 1996 adaptation with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg
- 1997 adaptation with Samantha Morton and Ciran Hinds
To me, watching this adaptation was partially painful... I spent a majority of the movie bringing my hand to my face, shaking my head, and pointing at the screen in a "wft" moment... The book starts with her early life, as do most of the movie adaptations... I do give credit where credit is due... The 2011 version does not exactly start at the beginning, it starts in the middle and deals the majority of the movie in flashback... While I prefer the movie to begin as the book, I do understand why it starts where it does because it helps to draw in the viewer, so it is aimed more with American audiences, because for those who have NOT read the book they will be drawn into the story, wondering why the hell she's running... I do like this change in the beginning...
My biggest problems with this adaptation:
- length of movie
- character development
- use of sexuality
- lack of suspense
- scene (shot) stealing
- lack of backstory for all of the characters
Also the relationship between Jane and Helen Burns is a very crucial part of the storyline, how Helen effected Jane's life... Helen was the first friend Jane ever had in her life, she was the first person to really show Jane any affection or kindness (other than Bessie one of the maids in the reed household)... She was the driving force in the shaping of Jane's character... This version did not do the relationship justice at all, because it was so glossed over...
The movie also did not show how or why Jane left Lowood Institution for Thornfield Hall (which, I don't even remember if they mentioned the name of the estate in the movie), she just arrives at the hall in a carriage... They do however show the mistake of Jane's thinking Adele is Mrs. Fairfax's daughter, and that the estate belonged to her... I did NOT like the focus on the nude painting on the wall as Mrs. Fairfax is showing Jane to her bedroom... Right from that moment, I knew that the focus of the movie was going to be on sex and not the emotional and spiritual connection between two characters (which is the truth and actuality of the novel)... (I have no objection to classical nude paintings, but for this particular movie the usage is very incorrect...)
There was just way too much emphasis on sexuality in this movie, the novel barely has any inference of sexuality... For example the bedroom scene:
- in this version Mr. Rochester has no pants, only his dressing gown, and puts his pants on while Jane is in the room
- in most versions Mr. Rochester is wearing pants while laying in bed
- in the novel Jane walks out of the room to fetch a candle while Mr. Rochester changes his soaked clothing.
In this version the budding relationship between Jane and Rochester seems very much based on attractive looks... In the novel there is definite stress on the fact that neither Jane or Rochester are attractive individuals... The biggest attraction between the two characters is the fact that their minds and intellect are similar... Rochester falls in love with Jane because she doesn't fall all over him like most of the women he has met, and she doesn't give a wit about his money... He is attracted to her because she is all that he has been searching for... He acted the way he did because he wanted HER to fall in love with HIM... That whole bit is completely lost in this version...
Also Blanche Ingram and her mother are suspicious of Jane??? Where did that come from? Blanche did not come across as mean at all in this movie, she's not supposed to be suspicious of Jane... She looks down on Jane because of her position in the household, not because she is suspicious of Jane and Rochester being in love... The big undercurrent of Mr. Rochester taking liberties with his servants was a very questionable use of plot line... His character is not like that, so I don't know why they felt the need to put that in the movie... Mr. Rochester, though full of many faults, is an honorable man... If he wasn't, he would not have taken in Adele, and he would not have kept Bertha in the house and taken care of her... None of this really comes across in the movie...
There is just so much more wrong with this version:
- no explanation of why Rochester lied to Jane about being married
- the relationship reveal of St. John Rivers and his sisters to Jane is missing (they end up being cousins)
- Mrs. Fairfax being at Thornfield and speaking to Jane when Jane returns to find out what has happened to Mr. Rochester after she had fled
- Mr. Rochester not being at Ferdean, and instead was at Thornfield
- no actual resolution to the story, other than Jane and Rochester embracing (wtf was up with the beard?? also his arm wasn't withered nor was his eye scarred)
Once the movie comes out on DVD, I am going to give it another try... I will watch it again, and most likely post either new things that I missed, or if I have changed my mind about the movie... But on first impression this version gets a massive thumbs down...
No comments:
Post a Comment