Un-Moored 

"Jane Eyre" gets shoddy treatment in latest adaptation.

click to enlarge When Rochester met Jane: Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska meet cute in a lightweight adaptation of "Jane Eyre." - LAURIE SPARHAM
  • Laurie Sparham
  • When Rochester met Jane: Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska meet cute in a lightweight adaptation of "Jane Eyre."

The various producers of the latest "Jane Eyre" adaptation, including BBC Films and Focus Features, were probably hoping to shake up their period film by handing it over to a young upstart director.

The only problem is they went too upstart, choosing Cary Fukunaga, who, having directed only one previous feature, an odyssey of Honduran immigrants, proves far too green and probably ill-suited to handle this material. His writer, Moira Buffini, has been around a little longer, but the limitations born out in the film belie the honors her script received before it was produced. There are many bones to pick with this adaptation of "Jane Eyre," but overall it's just an unaffecting mess.

The movie's principle fault is in racing through Charlotte Brontë's story, while rearranging its plot in an attempt to give it a contemporary pace and flavor. We get two scenes illustrating young Jane's (Amelia Clarkson) heartbreaking treatment at the hands of her adoptive family, then two more of her confinement at Lowood School — arguably the most moving portions of the book reduced to obligatory highlights.

The rest of the film concerns adult Jane (a beautiful but vacant Mia Wasikowska) and her tempestuous relationship with her employer, Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Jane is given more room to vent her frustrations and hopes in this section, but they lack the proper perspective and significance wrought from Jane's earlier years, which, of course, were mostly cut (probably because they couldn't include Wasikowska).

"Jane Eyre" continuously interjects scenes from the last section of the novel, in which she flees to the home of an infatuated missionary (Jamie Bell), a completely unnecessary and interruptive structural device. It all might have come off a lot better if the picture retained any of the novel's qualities, such as its depth of feeling.

Fukunaga's film continuously indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of what's at stake in Jane's world, which is not making sure minor characters are populated by the likes of Judi Dench. It's easy to see why novices would be so eager to take on a plum job like "Jane Eyre." The question is why someone let them. (PG-13) 115 min. S

Tags:

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

  • Re: Five Questions for the New President of the Virginia Historical Society

    • Watchthisspace, see answer to your question from Bosket posted above. Thanks for the comment.

    • on December 2, 2016
  • Re: Five Questions for the New President of the Virginia Historical Society

    • He is so Handsome!

    • on December 2, 2016
  • Re: Five Questions for the New President of the Virginia Historical Society

    • Another question: with the loss of Dr. Lauranett Lee, will there be another curator of…

    • on December 2, 2016
  • More »
  • Latest in Movies

    More by Wayne Melton

    Copyright © 2016 Style Weekly
    Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture and opinion
    All rights reserved
    Powered by Foundation