With close to 100 previous features, TV, stage, prequels, spinoffs, and reworking incarnations it might be safe to surmise that it would be rather difficult to put any kind of new spin on Charlotte Bronte’s classic novel, “Jane Eyre.”
Austere yet not brittle, robust but measured, director Cary Joji Fukunaga’s production is steeped in gothic dreariness and steadfastly avoids the flowery British period piece trappings most all other versions have wallowed in. In a manner similar to that of Stanley Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon,” Mr. Fukunaga (“Beasts of No Nation,” “No Time to Die”) keeps the interiors (and emotions) dark and dimly lit, and the resulting trepidation is palpable.
Not a Condensed Book
The 120-minute theatrical cut might not please some “Jane Eyre” purists, but for regular viewers who can take only so much emotional drain, it is more than enough. Judiciously jettisoning some of the less important religious subtexts and brilliantly condensing flashback passages of Jane as a young girl, screenwriter Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) wisely wrote a movie, and not just a condensed version of the book.Ms. Buffini and film editor Melanie Ann Oliver (who shaved a whopping 90 minutes off of Mr. Fukunaga’s first version) deserve as much credit as the director in making this movie as streamlined and audience friendly as could be possibly expected.
Seeing the minute details of a film before and after it shoots is always preferable but, with a story like “Jane Eyre,” the casting of the two leads is the most crucial aspect, and Mr. Fukunaga totally nailed it.
The Jane character is one of the most demanding in all of English literature. If played correctly, she says little and must rely almost completely on a limited range of body language.
Even with her two impressive breakthrough 2010 performances (“Alice in Wonderland,” “The Kids Are All Right”) Mia Wasikowska (pronounced vah-shee-kof-ska) was an unlikely choice for Jane. Usually played by older brunettes, Ms. Wasikowska, with her severely pinned-back, dishwater-dull, mousy blondish hair and flattened, grayish porcelain complexion, is a perfect fit.
With two noted exceptions, Ms. Wasikowska voices no emotion for the duration, yet is able to deftly display the silent strength, unwavering resolve, and put-upon nature of the character Ms. Bronte so elegantly imparted with the printed page.
Enter Mr. Rochester
Starring opposite Ms. Wasikowska as Mr. Rochester is Michael Fassbender, best known at the time for his role of the exacting British officer Archie Hicox in “Inglourious Basterds.” For reasons not explained until well into the third act, Rochester is a frequently bitter and sullen man prone to mercurial mood swings, and one who doesn’t suffer fools gladly.Rather than turn Rochester into a maniacal tyrant as many before him have done, Mr. Fassbender, like his leading lady, externalizes through precise movement, although his Rochester is far more demonstrative than Jane.
Initially indifferent and borderline dismissive of Jane, Rochester grows to respect her because of her intellect and refusal to callow in his presence like the majority of his other employees. Even though fond of and impressed with Jane, Rochester isn’t beyond messing with her head and toying with her heart in a most underhanded manner.
Stellar Support
As superb as both Ms. Wasikowska and Mr. Fassbender are in their respective roles, it is the collective efforts in three supporting roles that push the film into quasi-masterpiece territory.Equally adept at playing good guys (“Defiance,” “Flags of Our Fathers”) and villains (“Skin,” “Surrounded”), Jamie Bell takes on the pivotal part of St. John Rivers. A minister who believes himself to be saintly (hence his audacious, self-appointed name prefix), Rivers is alone in that opinion. Rivers has an arcane mindset that confuses love and spiritual support with possession, servitude, and passionless intimacy. He wants a maid, a cook, and a passive concubine—not a wife.
Sally Hawkins (in a rare antagonist performance) co-stars as the equally if not more despicable Mrs. Reed, Jane’s cold-hearted aunt, who lives to torment her young niece.
Offering deft counterbalance to the Rivers and Reed characters is Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, the benevolent widowed housekeeper at Rochester’s Thornfield Hall estate where Jane is hired as a governess. Initially providing a long-needed positive mother figure to Jane, she scoffs somewhat when Jane and Rochester become an “item.”
Not a “chick flick” in any sense of the term, this version of “Jane Eyre” is more of an exploration of old-school female empowerment and not letting a long string of defeats get the best of you. If anyone ever had multiple reasons to repeatedly throw in the towel and give up, it would be Jane. Modern-day women (and men, for that matter) could learn a great deal from her.
