After a miserable childhood, Jane Eyre becomes the governess for the ward of the owner of Thornfield Hall. This mysterious Mr. Rochester is rarely at home; the first time that Jane meets him is when she accidentally startles his horse, causing him to fall and complain that she’s bewitched his mount. He is a strange man, Mr. Rochester, but he and Jane become friends despite their difference in age and class. When he proposes marriage, Jane happily accepts, but a dark secret from Rochester’s past impedes their ability to be together and forces Jane to flee Thornfield Hall.
Cary Fukunaga’s version of Jane Eyre was very prettily done. The costumes were gorgeous, of course – fitted bodices, full skirts in plaids and printed calicos – who doesn’t love a dress from the mid-19th century? Very flattering, free of the ridiculous puffed sleeves popular in the 1820s and 1830s…but I babble. The fabrics were chosen very well; Jane tended to wear subdued, darker colors that made Mia Wasikowska look even dowdier and plainer.
Since movies simply don’t have the luxury of time that novelists do, I thought whoever was in charge of paring down 400+ pages of Bronte’s gothic romance did a pretty good job. Now, it’s been a while since I read the book (close to ten years) but I know there were a lot of omissions from the story. There were scenes I wish were included because they would have been entertaining to see on the screen, like Rochester’s gypsy scene, but they weren’t necessary to the story so I understand why they’re gone. I don’t think there were any major changes to the characters, and that’s the most important thing.
Some of the dialogue just cracked me up. It was so cheesy! I swear it wasn’t as bad in the novel; but again, I last read that when I was a teenager so it could be very over-the-top for all I know now. But something about the way Michael Fassbender delivered Rochester’s lines was hilarious, but I don’t think I was meant to be laughing in most of those scenes.
Ah, well. It was fun and I’d watch the movie again.