Jane Eyre (2011 film): a review

When it comes to the classic story of Jane Eyre, I'm totally there. I loved the book, and also thoroughly enjoyed the 2006 BBC miniseries starring Ruth Wilson. It's a great story with a wonderful sense of mystery running through it, and plenty of drama that never quite seems to veer into the cheesy or overly melodramatic.

So it was with great anticipation that I sat down to watch the 2011 movie adaptation with Mia Wasikowska, especially since it got rave reviews and a solid 85% on Rotten Tomatoes.

I was deeply disappointed.

This is about the dullest and most boring adaptation of a classic novel I have ever had the misfortune to witness. I can't quite put my finger on why, but the entire movie just dragged: the pace varied between 'glacial' and 'Oh look, an important plot point! *blink* Wait, I missed it!' The gothic mystery that, to me, is one of the defining characteristics of the tale was completely absent, as was any kind of chemistry between Jane and Mr Rochester.

In fact, for such a strong and emotionally-driven heroine, Jane shows an almost complete lack of emotion of any kind. Wasikowska's face displays all the expression of a doorknob, save for fleeting glimpses of tears when that oh-so-unrealistically-stolid wall finally breaks down. I'm sure many will argue that this is meant to be subtle, a reflection of the Jane we meet in Charlotte Bronte's original work, but to me, it was frustratingly lifeless.

Here's Jane, looking stoic.

And here she is again. Same expression.

And again.

Mildly perturbed, but...still mostly blank.

Apathy, side-lit.

And - hold on! Wait a minute! TEARS! EMOTION! Whoa, director! You've outdone yourself!

And back to stoicism again.

There's just no time for expression in the countryside.

Viewers unfamiliar with the story would most likely feel a little lost. Important plot points and pivotal scenes were slashed to just one or two lines of dialogue, seemingly in favour of non-speaking footage of Jane wandering around pointlessly looking blank, or a bizarre focus on irrelevant details (a lot of attention is paid to a painting in Thornfield with no apparent explanation or reason given). Some key elements of the story were left out entirely - Grace Poole wasn't even mentioned, for instance. I can understand the need from a director's point of view to cut out stuff that isn't necessary in order to squash a story into two hours of footage, but I think the 'cutting' in this case was too heavy-handed.

The ending is also very abrupt. And I hate abrupt endings. They leave things feeling unfinished.

The end.