Mediocre Movie Club Movie Reviews

Jane Eyre (2011)

2/25/2016

C
1.89

A mousy governess who softens the heart of her employer soon discovers that he's hiding a terrible secret.

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga
Starring Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, and Jamie Bell
Initial Review by Blair Setnor

Welp. I think in general my picks have been well received, but I apologize for this one. There was good reason to pick this. I google searched best films on Netflix and many of the movies we've watched were on there - Short Term 12, Blue is the Warmest Color, Snowpiercer, White God, etc, etc... I can't seem to find the link, though.

Anyway, this made the list and the director was Cary Fukunaga. If this could even come close to the First Season of True Detective, I was in! Further, it scored an 84% on RT. The trailer also sold it as a sort of horror-mystery film...which it was far from. AND, I do find Michael Fassbender handsome.

Finally, the reason I picked this was because a small place in my brain remembered that I enjoyed reading the first part of the book my junior year of high school. I remember being disappointed by the end, but from my list of prospects the trailer won me.

Overall I found this film boring. While I thought Jane was brave, I didn't have exceptional feelings or empathy for her character. While I admired her decisions, I would have liked to understand them. Neither did I care for Rochester. I wasn't emotionally invested in either character. Of course because of my career, I'm most interested in Jane's "tale of woe" as Rochester puts it and how it's formed her. I think they missed a big opportunity here. Yes, they give us a little backstory on her life in an orphanage but I'm on the whole wanting more. Why is she strong and independent? Where did she find her strength? It would seem likely that most who live in an orphanage do not find the courage to do as she does - so just showing me she's been there and survived isn't enough.
That's about all I want to say.

Likes: The film was pretty. Michael Fassbender is pretty. The acting was also very fine. I just didn't feel engaged or invested in the story line or characters...not sure if I should take that up with Charlotte Bronte or Fukunaga.

Grade: C...maybe even a C minus

11 Comments

Sean

2/25/2016 11:21:55 pm

I remember hating this book so much in high school. I remember several girls loving it. I realize now it was mostly the plain and bookish girls who were able to identify with Plain Jane and fantasize about finding true love. Sure some of the poetic lines Rochester tosses out in conversation can make a young lady swoon but the poetic speech patterns are boring.

I see the appeal but it's not for me- C-

Phil

2/27/2016 01:44:17 pm

I'm going to go fairly short here b/c I'm just not wildly inspired to write much here. A few thoughts...

- This was an ok movie if you're willing to make the investment, but it just isn't worth it.
- I can understand why this story has survived the test of time at least. Jane is a bit of a rebel for her time, and I'd imagine this was fairly scandalous in the 1840's.
- I also didn't particularly like any of Jane's suitors either. Bleh.
- It's shot fairly well by Fukunaga. I liked the opening seen with the hand-cam behind Jane. Fukunaga has wisely continued to stick with urban warfare since Jane, and that was smart.

If you want a better version of this movie, watch "Far From The Madding Crowd" from last year. Higher quality filming, better story, much better female protagonist... Just better in every sense of the word. It's on HBOGo.

Grade: D+

Lane

2/29/2016 07:37:06 pm

Cary Fukunaga did quite a few things right in this film (and admittedly I’m a Fukunaga fan boy)—he made the movie look dark in both visuals and tone; he kept things often tense and sometimes surprising; he had a good cast. Alas, it might have been too high a task too early in his career to make this film great. As it stands, it’s OK, but misses the mark.

What Fukunaga attempted was completely admirable: rescue Charlotte Bronte’s classic from its mischaracterization as a Victorian era novel of manners. Jane Eyre the book was never meant to be nice or tame. Bronte was what would happen if Jane Austen went off her meds; it was Anne of Green Gables meets Alfred Hitchcock.

However, it might have just been too long a haul to finish the job. The dialogue just fell flat to me. It had none of the poetic resonance that can be so beautifully done with older iterations of the English language (think Deadwood). And there were just long stretches where the action just didn’t interest me. I found myself struggling to care what happened. Novels have so much more space to tease out the building tension of love affairs and scandalous secrets. It might be that there are some books that are just too difficult to turn into a focused, interesting film.

That’s not to say there aren’t really good moments. The opening sequences of the film were beautiful and intriguing, and I think Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender did really good (though not Mediocrity worthy) acting jobs. And like all of Fukunaga’s work, it’s beautifully shot. I would have liked to have seen this on the big screen.

But it wasn’t enough to garner a winning grade. Fukunaga appears to improving dramatically with each project. Jane Eyre is an ok start, but not good or great.

Grade: B-

Jon

3/1/2016 03:16:26 am

British chamber dramas don't qualify as a favorite genre. They've fallen out of fashion after a boom period in the 90's, and it's not something I miss. Instead of competing for Best Picture, the scraps of Best Costume Design are the best they've been shooting for lately. The preferred flavor is 2011's Wuthering Heights, another Bronte adaptation that ditched most of the dialogue for a chilly dedication to sense memory and learned cruelty and stakes greater than just romance. Without the overwrought back-and-forth, that film succeeded where Fukunaga's Jane Eyre just scoots by. This isn't quite a slog, but I did have to struggle to pay attention, breaking up the two hours over two nights.

It's not like there isn't plenty to admire in Jane Eyre. Fresh off The Witch, I certainly appreciate the cinematographer's (Adriano Goldman) use of natural light, handy in creating shadows and negative space and a general sense of foreboding that synchs with the Gothic atmosphere on display. I think all the actors are well-suited for Victorian dialogue, something that can't always be said. I've been a Wasikowska fan since her US debut in the underseen In Treatment, and there aren't any negatives on her ledger here. This might be Fassbender's worst movie, but he's got nothing to with that. I like the broken structure of the narrative, and am curious if that's specific to this version of this story. The chemistry between Jane and Rochester works in miniature, as they've got a nice back and forth even while I doubt the romantic part of it. Fukunaga's no slouch, and he's brought together a strong cast and crew in an interesting location.

If that's the case, why doesn't this film quite work? I think it's an issue of stakes. The most harrowing part of the film is when young Jane's at school getting shunned by all except a doomed friend, and the film glosses over this period. At Thornfield, everything seems fine with or without the romance. I got the impression that things will work out for Jane, and Rochester is icing on the cake. The threat of marriage from the Reverend carried no weight, as she would just be able to find a new job without him. I completely forgot about the Deus Ex Rich Uncle, further making any struggle meaningless. Everything rests on the romance, and while I like their early sparring, there's no distance between that and Jane suddenly declaring that she would do anything for Rochester. She just falls in love with the first man that's ever paid her any attention, and he falls in love with her... why exactly? Fassbender perhaps too intense and Wasikowska's too withdrawn. It doesn't make for a great romantic combo.

For a more frivolous complaint, Mae Whitman (Parenthood, lesbian girlfriend in Scott Pilgrim, Egg from Arrested Development) recently starred in a movie called The DUFF, in which the film labels her the titular acronym of Designated Ugly Fat Friend. Never mind that Whitman is a beautiful woman (mayon-eggs notwithstanding), just shut up and eat your popcorn. That dissonance, between a movie trying and failing to ugly up its characters, is present in Jane Eyre as well. Someone who's read the books, help me out here, but isn't she supposed to be plain? Isn't Rochester supposed to be brutish? In what universe is Mia Wasikowska unattractive? Who could decry Michael Fassbender as the handsomest man alive? These roles existed prior to their respective births, so there's a pre-set mold for them, but maybe edit out the lines in which they run themselves down for ugliness.

This is the only adaptation of Jane Eyre I've seen, and I'd be willing to bet it's the most interesting one. The Gothic aspect might be baked in by Bronte, but I have a hard time imagining this story looking better. I'm just not into the story. C

3/1/2016 06:20:13 pm

Good call on "In Treatment." She was great in that, and I think that's one of the more underrated HBO shows.

Shane

3/2/2016 09:30:23 am

I can't really add anything to the analysis: Competent acting with good-looking people, wonderfully shot, but low stakes and a bit of a drag. We all agree there. I'm gonna call this a C.

But I'm going to go out and say that this -is- a feminist novel, even if she seemingly relies upon a man for her happiness. Jane chose Rochester. She made that decision and pursued him, even when he shamed himself. She denied the Reverend (TEAM ROCHESTER) and made her own way, furthering her independence. I know about Deus Ex Uncle, but I think its important to note she gave away most of that money because she preferred her independence.

But independence does not equal equality you say! Bah! The equality statement is that she marries the man she's not allowed to marry. She marries up when that is forbidden because damnit, even common folk can love. I don't need Jane to come out and declare, I make my own choices and I identify as a cis straight woman!

New Business, yo.

Joe link

3/2/2016 09:27:59 pm

There's a lot here that has already been said, but I'm going to focus on a couple things that haven't really been delved into too much. The first is that unless you are really going to go the distance and make a 3 to 4 hour epic, there is simply too much book to try and fit in. I've never read, or knew what the book was about, and that seemed painfully obvious only 15 minutes in. The source material demands a miniseries. By fitting the movie into a more audience friendly 2 hours, the viewer is forced to fill in the gaps. For someone like me, who is ignorant of the book details, I felt like was playing catch-up for over half the movie. While I enjoyed the clever dialogue back and forth between Jane and Rochester, their relationship felt very much rushed at times.

That rushed feeling is really unfortunate, because I felt Fassbender and Wasikowska played their roles beautifully. It's a shame we couldn't enjoy more of Jane developing her toughness, or why Rochester found her intriguing, or how much he anguished over his batshit crazy wife. Both characters I found believable. They just didn't get a chance to show it.

C+ for me. The movie is shot beautifully, capturing the rolling green hills very well. Of course the attire also looked great, but I really haven't the slightest fucking clue on the accuracy. Don't care. Looked cool. All that, however, can't make up for the break neck pace. I'm sure this would make a killer miniseries and WASP women would miniseries parties and cry and eat popcorn and shit.

Bryan

3/3/2016 03:43:15 pm

"The first is that unless you are really going to go the distance and make a 3 to 4 hour epic, there is simply too much book to try and fit in."

I totally disagree. It's almost as if Fukunaga tried as hard as possible to fit as little as possible in.

Could. He. Have. Taken. Any. Longer. To. Cover. Any. Less?

3/3/2016 03:41:58 pm

It's almost as if Jane Eyre was the first Mumblecore of its time. The speech patterns are slow and boring. The time between characters speaking is entirely too long as well. I disagree that it was beautifully shot. I think Fukunaga had a grey screen over the lens causing everything to be entirely too dreary.

Jane's character is really fired up about things and that's the only saving grace of this movie. D+

I remember seeing Pride and Prejudice remakes which were much more exciting.

3/3/2016 05:32:09 pm

"I disagree that it was beautifully shot. I think Fukunaga had a grey screen over the lens causing everything to be entirely too dreary."

Have you ever been to Northern England. That's exactly what it is. Grey and depressingly dreary. If not for the lush green hillsides even the sheep would be killing themselves.

John Peters

3/3/2016 09:34:44 pm

I don't have much to say about this movie except that it didn't keep my attention very well and it was really slow. I had to break it up into four thirty minute sessions to finish it. and I can normally push through a movie no matter how bad it is, but I guess that's the difference between a bad movie that still was trying to entertain and the slow boring Jane Eyre.

The acting was good and the scenes were decent looking, but I must have missed parts of the movie because it seemed as if stuff was just happening out of nowhere. Mind you I have never read the book or even heard anything about it other than people telling me it's good. This story had nothing to it and I'm typically alright with that, but for me if you are going to do that you should probably make sure that the dialog is good and that everything is clearly displayed. I felt that this didn't happen, such as them falling in love. It seemed as if everything this whole movie(after the school) happened in a 3 month period. She scares the horse and then the next day they fall in love and then 2 months later they get married. Maybe that's actually what happened, but it seemed to me like there was just a bunch of time I was missing.

I'm just going to make the assumption that book has a lot more and hopefully a whole hell of a lot more and way more substance than this.

oh well. Just another movie I won't be recommending to others. It's a C- for me.

Jane Eyre (2011)

C
1.89

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

Jane Eyre (2011)

C1.89

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

C
1.89