The New Jane Eyre Movie Review
I just got back from seeing the new Jane Eyre movie. I have been looking forward to this for a long time. I even wore my fan-girl t shirt that says, "I know what Grace Poole does in the attic..." Yes, I am a geek. I restrained myself from bringing my Charlotte Bronte bag. I figured one fan-girl prop was enough. No one got it anyway. They never do. I'm that geeky.
I liked this version. That is my basic opinion and what most of my friends have said when they've seen it. The writer and director stayed very close to the book. The costumes, sets and music were lovely. They did a good job condensing a huge sprawling story into two hours. The acting was decent. It was nice. Was it the best version I've seen? No. I still love the recent Masterpiece version better, but it was firmly up there with the better versions I've seen.
Here is a piece of advice for you for when you go see it. Do not go to a matinee like I did. During today's viewing I acquired a new prejudice--a senior citizen packed theater. No offense to any seniors reading this. I'm sure you are better behaved than they were.
I was probably the only one under 65 in the theater. People always complain about how kids are so loud and annoying at the theater, but the loud and annoying thing reaches the other end of the spectrum as well. I knew I was in trouble during the previews when they were showing a clip of a movie staring Christopher Plummer. A guy behind me said (very loudly), "That's that fella from Sound of Music."
The lady by him said (very loudly), "What?"
"The fella from Sound of Music."
"What?"
"SOUND...OF...MUSIC"
"What?"
"SOUND...OF...MU..."
"Oh, Sound of Music. I remember that show."
They (and pockets of other seniors who also talked very loudly) kept commenting through the whole thing. It was so distracting. The part where Jane is at Lowood and has to stand on the chair because Brockelhurst said she was a liar and Helen sneaks her some bread, the lady behind me said (really loudly), "Really, that's all you need if you're starving--some good bread. That would be enough for anyone who was really hungry." EVERY SINGLE THING that happened they had to make some kind of comment like that. Also, they laughed all the time. It's not a comedy--at all. I guess they just didn't get it. After a while, it started cracking me up, and I started paying attention to them instead of the movie--or bracing myself every time something happened because I knew I was about to hear commentary about it behind me. "That's some good looking bread. That's really all a person needs if they are really hungry." "I didn't expect that bird to fly up there like it did. It made me jump. Everyone jumped. I didn't expect that." "Now who's that fella with the funny hair?" "His wife? It figures."
Even with all the dozens and dozens of slightly amusing, slightly annoying distractions, I was able to enjoy the movie. I don't think it was quite award-winning quality because they tried to squeeze so much this-happened-then-this-happened into the screenplay, that they forgot to explore the characters' deeper natures, and that might make things confusing to a viewer who hasn't read the book before. But it was nice.
That really is my main complaint with the film--and what I believe keeps it from being great--the absence of deep character examination. In the book, Jane goes through a journey that Charlotte Bronte, with her fierce religious upbringing might have described as "putting off the natural man." It's a scriptural term meaning becoming a charactered, whole and complete person, not controlled by or shut off from passions, but someone in control of herself with virtue, integrity and self-respect. That's really what the book is about--Jane's journey from being the natural man to a complete woman of character and dignity. That's what I love about the book. It was written in a time when women weren't believed to be passionate, or that the natural man thing didn't apply to us, but it does. It was one of the first books ever where the female lead character is a human being and not just the proverbial "angel in the kitchen" as they called it back then.
Jane in this movie didn't seem to have that passion for growth and learning and becoming the best person she could be. True, in the book, it can get a little overbearing sometimes, but for a book about what it's about, it is surprisingly undidactic. In this movie version, Jane seems to be a girl that a lot of hard stuff happens to. That isn't character growth. That's just a bunch of stuff that happens. Actually, the same thing could be said (and was said) about my WIP, so I can personally understand how these oversights can occur. But it left the movie a little flat.
Again, I want to say that I liked this movie. The character depth problem I had with it would be very difficult to correct when you are trying to put a meaty novel like that into a two hour time frame. Things have to be cut and condensed and over looked. The screenwriter has to emphasize some characters and some character traits while getting rid of others for the sake of time and keeping the story tight. I just felt that maybe the writer didn't quite know the characters as well as she should. But that's just me.
Another thing that I wish was emphasized more (and this is just personal preference and not necessarily a flaw of the film) was, as the latest screenwriting book I'm reading calls it--the "Monster in the House" element. I love this stuff. I love the idea of the big old rather creepy house. I love the idea of creepy, mysterious Grace Poole. I love the strange sounds in the night and mysterious fires and strange don't-go-to-the-west-wing kind of thing. Maybe it's not very literary of me, but I just love a good monster in the house scenario, and this book was built for it. This movie version kind of skipped over it except for one scene. It was a really creepy scene, but for something like that to work, the underlying anxiety has to be set up ahead of time and we have to see it play out in signs and symbols and little escalating hints all throughout. You can't just suddenly make it scary. We have to have a sense that something is going on here right from the beginning. We have to have the sense that we need to look over our shoulders, or sniff the air, or pull back a mysterious curtain, long before there is a need to do any of it.
I tend to dwell on the things I wish were different when I'm reviewing a film and this one especially because I liked a lot of it and what can a person say about that other than, I liked it. Overall, it wasn't perfect, but it was for sure good--and one of the better film versions out there. Even if you are a Jane Eyre snob like me, go see it--also buy the soundtrack. It's great! I don't think you'll come out of the theater saying WOW-EE like with The King's Speech or anything, but you will have had a nice, rewarding experience at the movies--especially if you also get treats--really, though, a good piece of bread is all you need if you're hungry and this movie was a good piece of bread.
I liked this version. That is my basic opinion and what most of my friends have said when they've seen it. The writer and director stayed very close to the book. The costumes, sets and music were lovely. They did a good job condensing a huge sprawling story into two hours. The acting was decent. It was nice. Was it the best version I've seen? No. I still love the recent Masterpiece version better, but it was firmly up there with the better versions I've seen.
Here is a piece of advice for you for when you go see it. Do not go to a matinee like I did. During today's viewing I acquired a new prejudice--a senior citizen packed theater. No offense to any seniors reading this. I'm sure you are better behaved than they were.
I was probably the only one under 65 in the theater. People always complain about how kids are so loud and annoying at the theater, but the loud and annoying thing reaches the other end of the spectrum as well. I knew I was in trouble during the previews when they were showing a clip of a movie staring Christopher Plummer. A guy behind me said (very loudly), "That's that fella from Sound of Music."
The lady by him said (very loudly), "What?"
"The fella from Sound of Music."
"What?"
"SOUND...OF...MUSIC"
"What?"
"SOUND...OF...MU..."
"Oh, Sound of Music. I remember that show."
They (and pockets of other seniors who also talked very loudly) kept commenting through the whole thing. It was so distracting. The part where Jane is at Lowood and has to stand on the chair because Brockelhurst said she was a liar and Helen sneaks her some bread, the lady behind me said (really loudly), "Really, that's all you need if you're starving--some good bread. That would be enough for anyone who was really hungry." EVERY SINGLE THING that happened they had to make some kind of comment like that. Also, they laughed all the time. It's not a comedy--at all. I guess they just didn't get it. After a while, it started cracking me up, and I started paying attention to them instead of the movie--or bracing myself every time something happened because I knew I was about to hear commentary about it behind me. "That's some good looking bread. That's really all a person needs if they are really hungry." "I didn't expect that bird to fly up there like it did. It made me jump. Everyone jumped. I didn't expect that." "Now who's that fella with the funny hair?" "His wife? It figures."
Even with all the dozens and dozens of slightly amusing, slightly annoying distractions, I was able to enjoy the movie. I don't think it was quite award-winning quality because they tried to squeeze so much this-happened-then-this-happened into the screenplay, that they forgot to explore the characters' deeper natures, and that might make things confusing to a viewer who hasn't read the book before. But it was nice.
That really is my main complaint with the film--and what I believe keeps it from being great--the absence of deep character examination. In the book, Jane goes through a journey that Charlotte Bronte, with her fierce religious upbringing might have described as "putting off the natural man." It's a scriptural term meaning becoming a charactered, whole and complete person, not controlled by or shut off from passions, but someone in control of herself with virtue, integrity and self-respect. That's really what the book is about--Jane's journey from being the natural man to a complete woman of character and dignity. That's what I love about the book. It was written in a time when women weren't believed to be passionate, or that the natural man thing didn't apply to us, but it does. It was one of the first books ever where the female lead character is a human being and not just the proverbial "angel in the kitchen" as they called it back then.
Jane in this movie didn't seem to have that passion for growth and learning and becoming the best person she could be. True, in the book, it can get a little overbearing sometimes, but for a book about what it's about, it is surprisingly undidactic. In this movie version, Jane seems to be a girl that a lot of hard stuff happens to. That isn't character growth. That's just a bunch of stuff that happens. Actually, the same thing could be said (and was said) about my WIP, so I can personally understand how these oversights can occur. But it left the movie a little flat.
Again, I want to say that I liked this movie. The character depth problem I had with it would be very difficult to correct when you are trying to put a meaty novel like that into a two hour time frame. Things have to be cut and condensed and over looked. The screenwriter has to emphasize some characters and some character traits while getting rid of others for the sake of time and keeping the story tight. I just felt that maybe the writer didn't quite know the characters as well as she should. But that's just me.
Another thing that I wish was emphasized more (and this is just personal preference and not necessarily a flaw of the film) was, as the latest screenwriting book I'm reading calls it--the "Monster in the House" element. I love this stuff. I love the idea of the big old rather creepy house. I love the idea of creepy, mysterious Grace Poole. I love the strange sounds in the night and mysterious fires and strange don't-go-to-the-west-wing kind of thing. Maybe it's not very literary of me, but I just love a good monster in the house scenario, and this book was built for it. This movie version kind of skipped over it except for one scene. It was a really creepy scene, but for something like that to work, the underlying anxiety has to be set up ahead of time and we have to see it play out in signs and symbols and little escalating hints all throughout. You can't just suddenly make it scary. We have to have a sense that something is going on here right from the beginning. We have to have the sense that we need to look over our shoulders, or sniff the air, or pull back a mysterious curtain, long before there is a need to do any of it.
I tend to dwell on the things I wish were different when I'm reviewing a film and this one especially because I liked a lot of it and what can a person say about that other than, I liked it. Overall, it wasn't perfect, but it was for sure good--and one of the better film versions out there. Even if you are a Jane Eyre snob like me, go see it--also buy the soundtrack. It's great! I don't think you'll come out of the theater saying WOW-EE like with The King's Speech or anything, but you will have had a nice, rewarding experience at the movies--especially if you also get treats--really, though, a good piece of bread is all you need if you're hungry and this movie was a good piece of bread.