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