I have mixed feelings about this version of JANE EYRE, one of three that I have seen. I'm not one to reread his favorite books before watching the films, and so I didn't for this one. It has been years since I read this Charlotte Brontë's classic, and I was excited to sit down and let this heartbreaking love story unfold before me again.
A lot of the novel is missing here. Many story lines and important characters are omitted. Are they necessary?--that's what I'm trying to answer. I feel like my brain was doing a lot of filling in the gaps, drawing from what I remembered from reading the book. I wonder, would I have felt like the story was too thin or somewhat incomplete had I not read the book? The actors are so well cast. Jane is supposed to be plain, and Mia Wasikoska is plain here, but she makes plain interesting. Both her innocence and her idealism are believable. And who can resist Michael Fassbender? Rochester isn't supposed to be attractive. Fassbender is, but can act otherwise. Both actors look unconventional, but in the context of JANE EYRE they are captivating and compelling. It is beautifully filmed, too. I don't think it is as bold as it wants to be, but it is far from the much more mainstream version in 1996, as if its main goal is to resist being anything mainstream audiences would want it to be.
I had a great time. It captured my attention all the way through. I found it fulfilling. Is it a great film? I still can't make up my mind about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment