Fukunaga's Jane Eyre: An English Teacher's Perspective

Jane Eyre is quite possibly my favorite book ever (I say possibly because, really, who can pick a single favorite?)  I have read it at least half a dozen times since the fateful first encounter when I was sixteen and absolutely riveted by Jane and Rochester, the breath-catching romance and the flesh-creeping spookiness.

I was, however, rather nonplussed when I first heard that a new film version was coming out.  I have seen several different renditions of the novel in film and am unimpressed with all of them, except for the 2006 Masterpiece Theatre miniseries.  That version, starring Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson was quite good, so much so that I didn't think there really needed to be another version already.  After seeing the film on Saturday, however, I feel that Fukunaga's version has definite merit.

There are a few problems, the most significant being length.  It is just too problematic trying to cram a 500+ page Victorian "loose baggy monster" into a 2-hour feature film format.  Several scenes that I found important (though, admittedly, not essential) were cut, in particular the ones in which Mr. Rochester attempts to deck his fiancee in finery, which she is having none of.  Of course, this is no doubt due to my interest in fashion in literature, but I see these scenes as important in establishing Jane's resistance to attempts to manipulate her sense of self and identity.  The other significant scene cut is Bertha ripping Jane's veil and blowing the candle out in her face the night before the wedding.  I was particularly shocked that this was eliminated, since from the trailer it looked as though the film was going to play up the Gothic elements.  However, Bertha actually gets very little screen time at all.

Also, while overall the casting was quite good (and excellent in Mia Wasikowska as Jane, but more on that later), I was a bit dissatisfied with Michael Fassbender's Rochester.  He's just a bit too....mean.  Particularly in the earliest scenes, he is vicious.  Which doesn't match the Rochester of the book, where he is stern and gruff and commanding, but also funny and tender; Fassbender seems to forget the latter in his efforts to convince us of the former.  Jamie Bell's St. John Rivers is also problematic, but for the opposite reason: he is too nice.  The film insinuates that St. John is actually attracted to Jane and wants to marry her for romantic, as well as evangelical purposes; we have none of the St. John of the book's icy "you were formed for labor, not for love" pronouncements.  And there is, of course, no Rosamund Oliver.  Oh, and Jane being a cousin to the Riverses is not mentioned at all....

But, enough with the problems.  First, the film is gorgeous.  It opens with Jane's flight across the moors as she leaves Thornfield, a red sky with rain in the distance behind her, and it just gets better from there.  There seems to have been a commitment to authenticity in many of the details.  For example, the scenes shot in those dark corridors of the Thornfield appear to be lighted by only the candle the actors are carrying--no mysterious, bright-as-day "moonlight" creeping in--you actually see what it might have been like to live in a pre-electric time.  The clothes are also wonderful, from the chemises, petticoats, and corsets outward.  Jane appears in her blacks and greys of course, but with subtle plaids and stripes.

And, then, Jane herself.  Mia Wasikowska is fantastic.  She looks like Jane, who is described as small and plain.  The plain part is easy: even the prettiest woman stripped of her make-up and forced into that distinctive 1840's hairstyle with that severe center part and braids looping around the ears is going to look plain. But Wasikowska is able to pull off expressions that convey the sense of passion being forced back by reason.  It's all about restraint.  I like Ruth Wilson's Jane, but she is a bit too jolly, smiles a bit too easily, and cries a bit too heartily.  Wasikowska is more subtle: a flicker of flame hinting at (but neither revealing nor hiding) the inferno beneath.

There were so many really good scenes, but I'll just mention two that were particularly memorable--the proposal beneath the oak tree really demonstrates Wasikowska's restraint.  I have told my students that I think the most important lines in the novel are probably the ones where Jane says "Do you think that because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little that am soulless and heartless?"  And Wasikowska nails it.  It was during this scene that my husband, who has never read the book and does not profess any great interest in classic British literature, looked at me and announced, "This is good."  The other scene that is particularly well-done is the one where Rochester is trying to convince Jane to stay after the discovery of Bertha.  Oh, the agony.  But, oh the restraint.  You can see Jane struggling, not allowing herself to touch Rochester, literally crying out to God for help.  It's breath-taking.

If you haven't seen the film, it is definitely worth watching (and I would love to know what you think).  Good luck finding it in a theater near you: we drove to the next county to find it in a small, artsy theater.  But it was certainly worth it!

Easter Goodness

I had a great Easter this year. The drawback was not going home to be with my family - we were singing in the choir at church and felt that we should be there. But we still had a great time with friends who joined us for church and then came over for lunch.

We didn't make it to the Sunrise Service and Easter Breakfast at church this year. Instead, we slept in a bit, and got ready. The 10:00 service was great, though. The choir sang four songs and our soloists were amazing, and our pastor delivered an impassioned message about the different responses of Mary, Peter, and John when they saw the empty tomb, asking us to consider our own response. I want to be like John, who saw the empty tomb and believed immediately that Christ was Lord and risen. Peter was fearful and skeptical, and Mary Magdalene, who desparately wanted Jesus to be alive, was so distraught that at first she couldn't recognize Christ. Like John, of course, I have believed and trusted in Christ for salvation, but I am often like Mary, fearful and unable to see Christ at work or recognize the fulfilment of His promises.

Lunch was great - I am afraid the ham got a little dry, but it had a tasty pineapple-brown sugar glaze, and we had roasted veggies (asparagus, carrots, and onions), deviled eggs, macaroni and cheese, and cheesy bread (my friend brought the last two). For dessert, I made carrot cake cupcakes with cream cheese frosting, all from scratch. I am always amazed (though I shouldn't be) how much better things made from scratch taste than things out of the can). I ate an embarassing number of cupcakes myself. We dyed Easter Eggs, and then I nursed a migraine (the only other drawback of the day) from the couch, watching Mary Poppins and all but the very end of The Sound of Music. I hadn't seen Mary Poppins in years, although I watched it constantly as a kid, and I had forgotten how good it was. I had never seen The Sound of Music, and I loved it, although I am still going to have to watch it again, so I can see how they escape the Nazis.

All in all, it was a good day.

Handsome, Clever, and Rich: A New Film Adaptation of Emma

Sunday night was the first installment of a new BBC adaptation of Jane Austen's Emma. PBS is broadcasting the film on Masterpiece Theatre, and will show the next part this coming Sunday. I have to say, Austen adaptations can be hit or miss. The BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle) is beyond excellent. Their version of Sense and Sensibility that came out last year was wonderful. The version of Mansfield Park (starring Billie Piper) that was shown on PBS last year was wretched.

So, I was apprehensive about this adaptation of Emma. However, I was pleasantly surprised. The acting is great. Romola Garai plays Emma with great expression and Johnny Lee Miller plays a young, but attractive Mr. Knightley (he's supposed to be sixteen years older than her, but they look the same age). The sets are beautiful, the script is well done, and, my very favorite, the clothes are superb. Beyond beautiful. Not just the typical whispy pastels you see in most Regency-era films, these clothes have substance to them. And you see characters wearing the same dress again in a different scene - a touch of realism, since most people, even the rich, would not have had an endless wardrobe.

If you missed the first part Sunday night, you can watch online. The webpage also has some behind-the-scenes video and interviews with the cast and writers. Definitely worth checking out.

P.S. Thanks to Natalie at Horatio's End for the timely reminder to watch and also for the link to the PBS site.

What I'm Doing Now

What I am currently reading:
The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova - again. I loved this book the first time I read it a few years ago, and since I recently picked it up for $1 at the used book store, I am loving it again. It is surprising how much I had forgotten, which is actually a great thing for me - I often mourn that I can only read a book for the first time once. I love the mystery and adventure and history, and all those little details about academia. Fun, fun, curl up under the covers and read fun.

Shakespeare by Another Name by Mark Anderson. This one was lent to me by my cousin Jan and it is quite intriguing. A biography of Edward deVere, the "man who was Shakespeare," it asserts that Shakespeare's plays were not written by the glover's son who was born in Stratford-upon-Avon and married Anne Hathaway, but Edward deVere, Earl of Oxford. So far, the evidence for this claim has mostly been based on the coincidences from deVere's life that match events from the plays, which is not the most convincing, but it is still early in the book - I am willing to be persuaded.

Fodor's England 2008. Maybe, maybe, there will be a trip this summer. With our fingers crossed and our bank account unravished.

Jane Eyre - still meandering my way through this much-read, much-beloved book. Good stuff.

Movies I Want to See:
New Moon - of course. It looks better done than Twilight - at least the hair does, anyway. Everyone's hair. And the feeling is more epic and grand in scale, it seems. And, as long as they stuck to the book, which the director has been claiming he has at every point, they should be OK.

The Road - I haven't read the book yet, but the film looks fantastic. Viggo Mortenson (one of my favorite actors - it really seems that he becomes the character and you don't have that feeling that you are watching Viggo pretend to be someone, but you are actually seeing that character) and Robert Duvall (a legend, of course) in a post-apocalyptic survival story. It looks gritty and beautiful at the same time - which is think is true of Cormac McCarthy's other writing as well.

The Last Airbender - I will admit, I have seen the cartoon on Nickelodeon, and I will give my attention to almost any anime/manga style thing that comes on, at least for a while. And this looks like a nice, epic, big-budget film, and perhaps M. Night Shamaylan's chance to redeem himself after Lady in the Water and The Happening (which I didn't even bother to see.)

Fun with Rochester and Jane

I recently, at the strong recommendation of a friend, saw the 2007 BBC adaptation of Jane Eyre. Why I had not seen this sooner is a mystery, but it is wonderful. I had previously seen two versions (the 1997 Zeffirelli version with William Hurt and the 1983 BBC version starring Timothy Dalton) and neither of these greatly impressed me, both, primarily because of the leading men: William Hurt came off as too old, and didn't have that charismatic spark that I believe Rochester has, and Timothy Dalton... I mean, come on, Timothy Dalton? He's too pretty to be Rochester. However, the BBC got it right in 2007 with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson. However, the film isn't great just because the casting matches up with my conceptions of the characters. It is surprisingly faithful to the text, both in letter and spirit. Much of the dialogue is lifted directly from the book, and every important event is accounted for. Of course, there are a few minor changes: for instance, Rochester hires a gypsy woman and hides behind a screen while she predicts the future for his guests, which isn't accurate, but it must be a bit unsettling to see the leading man actually in drag. At any rate, the film is definitely worth seeing, especially if previous versions left you a bit cold, and even if you enjoyed them, this is still a great adaptation. It must really mean something if I can get choked up watching a story that I know so well, and that makes me want to read the book again - which I am currently doing for at least the fifth time in my life.