Jane Eyre (***1/4)

Haven’t seen the 1943 version with Joan Fontaine as Jane and Orson Welles as wealthy Mr. Rochester. Haven’t seen the 1996 Franco Zeffirelli version with Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt (and Anna Paquin as the younger Jane). Nor have I seen the 1970 TV movie (Susannah York, George C. Scott), nor the three different miniseries versions, nor, certainly, the multiple silent versions, or any other of the 22 versions listed on IMDB. Who knew? Haven’t read the Charlotte Brontë novel for that matter.

So I kind of lump in the Brontës with Jane Austen and English period pieces generally, which all seem to have a giant house—nay, an estate—a plucky put put-upon heroine, and a a lot of genteel, old-money folks, often contrasted with their lesser-born and/or poorer countrymen. Sure enough, Jane is a poor lass, orphaned as a pre-teen, sent away to boarding school by her aunt for being a little too plucky. The film begins with Jane at a literal crossroads—one of several striking uses of imagery by director Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre), and dispenses with this part of the story (in flashback form) in a few minutes. The main plot follows Jane’s employment as a French child’s governess in, yes, a large estate, and her relationship with its genteel, wealthy, but sharp-minded owner, Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender). The screenplay is by Moira Buffini, whose other recent adaptation was Tamara Drewe.

It’s notable that so many of these English period pieces are proto-feminist in their way, with convention-defying heroines, yet one of the few ways to express the heroine’s independence is in her choice of man. In fact, though, Jane doesn’t even do that. She states her mind, and he makes the choice to become intrigued by her. In the title role, Mia Wasikowska conveys an incredible expressiveness with her face that shows through her character’s shell of propriety and stoicism.

Although I can’t speak to what was left out of the novel, the movie weaves a credible story line without obvious omissions or the sense of trying to cram too much into the story. The plotting is simpler than Austen, and the movie is devoid of the fancy social functions in adaptations of Austen and others. The role of society and culture is present, but not so prominent. For the most part, though, this was a drama that was what I expected it to be, mostly a good thing.

IMDB link

viewed 3/31/11 at Ritz 5 and reviewed 4/4/11

Never Let Me Go (***3/4)

It is 1978. Life expectancy in England had exceeded 100 years in the previous decade, and this had changed things, although, for three young people at an isolated boarding school, there was little sign of that. (Think of Hogwarts without the eccentric professors, or the magic, or Harry Potter.) The first third of the drama (adapted from the Kazuo Ishiguro novel) takes place at the school. Director Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo) and screenwriter Alex Garland carefully telescope years of experience into brief scenes. A girl’s friendship with an outcast boy. The jealousy of her friend. Nothing confusing, but something mysterious there. Children who are afraid to leave the school grounds for fear of disappearing. This beginning is suggestive of a certain type of psychological horror film, and indeed this can be regarded as such, although it is not at all “scary” in that sense. Talk of “donors” and “carers” in Carey Mulligan’s introductory voiceover is another hint that something is amiss. (We learn what fairly early on, but it’s better not to know.)

The rest of the film takes place later, when the three children have become young adults, played by Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield. By then we already know, mostly, the paths their lives will take. Although the plot is nothing like that of Remains of the Day, the Ishiguro novel previously adapted into a film, the same feeling sticks with me. Both stories are of people whose lives are circumscribed by both their own natures and the roles in society. They are stories of longing, and lost years, and sadness. In each case, they are told with a kind of economy of expression. I felt I knew these characters, even though the film is brief and skips forward in time.

I’ve deliberately downplayed the science-fiction aspect of the story, because that is not the kind of movie it is. As Romanek admitted in a recent interview, those looking for a conventional sci-fi film will be disappointed. There is no explanation of why things are as they are; there is no suggestion that the characters will rebel, or that doing so would be effective. I would enjoy seeing a more sci-fi/action take on the same story. (Screenwriter Garland has, in fact, written movies like that—Sunshine and 28 Days Later, both directed by Danny Boyle.) But the absence of these aspects didn’t annoy me, because it seemed like they were beside the point. The point is not how the world got to be that way, but to observe the behaviors of these characters in their situation. Though its spareness (not slowness) may not suit all tastes, Never Let Me Go is like a sad song so beautiful you that you still want to hear it.

IMDB link

viewed 9/20/10 at Ritz East [PFS screening]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (***)

Does this movie need to be reviewed? Maybe not, but anyway…. This is neither my favorite nor my least-favorite of the series, but was enjoyable enough. Steve Kloves, who authored the screenplays for all of the movies except 2007’s Order of the Phoenix, has returned, and David Yates directs his second straight entry in the series. As with the last one, a new teacher (Jim Broadbent, yet another Oscar-nominated British thespian) at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is the impetus for the main storyline. Not as obviously evil as Imelda Staunton’s character in Phoenix, Broadbent’s potions professor is nonetheless mixed up somehow with Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape; Snape is mixed up with Harry’s nemesis and fellow student, Draco Malfoy; and Malfoy is mixed up with Lord Voldemort. I already can’t exactly remember the details, but I mostly followed it as I watched, although a better memory of the other films would have helped.

Voldemort used to be called “He who must not be named,” but Harry and his friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) are getting too old for euphemisms. Old enough to have romantic desires, certainly, and even to feel jealous. The increasing maturity of the main characters plays naturally into the increasingly dark feel of the series, yet provides comic relief as well, notably in Ron’s having to contend with a bubbly classmate’s florid crush. While action and fantasy elements, like a luck potion and an exciting quidditch match, continue to play a part in the events, ordinary human desires create the real magic of the series. There is too much going on for the films to create the depth of characters that would make me love them, or that the J. K. Rowlings novels perhaps inspire (I’ve not read any), but there’s enough that I want to see what happens next.

IMDB link

viewed 7/17/09 at AMC Marple; reviewed 8/6/09

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (***1/4)

A dangerous contest tests Harry’s magical skills, while quarrels with his friends and a school dance reveal gaps in his social skills. The emphasis on character dynamics as well as the contest effects (particularly dragons) make this fourth film in the series perhaps the most enjoyable yet.

In the previous Potter films, I’ve always enjoyed the parts detailing the Hogwarts school rituals and the character dynamics more than the parts about the various nefarious plots against Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends. This fourth entry, which might have been subtitled “Harry Enters Puberty,” leans in that direction. Harry’s bad dreams about Voldemort mean evil will crop up eventually, but meanwhile he faces the toughest test yet of his skills, a dangerous contest against three older students. Included is a brilliantly staged battle against a dragon. The most significant new cast member, Brendan Gleeson as a mildly demented new instructor, teaches an amusing lesson featuring some new spells. But, as Harry learns, being the star pupil doesn’t make it easier to find a date to the school dance. The contest and the dance reveal fissures in the friendship among Harry and his pals Ron and Hermione, as well as hints of sexual tension in the boys’ relationship with Hermione. No doubt Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will pursue this tension further. This nicely paced entry (thanks to new director Mike Newell and returning screenwriter Steve Kloves) has me looking forward to 2008.

IMDb link

circulated via email 11/23/05 and posted 9/21/13