Brooding Victorians and Moody Costume Dramas

Brooding Victorians and Moody Costume Dramas

by Kristin Battestella

Well, the title pretty much says it all. If you're looking for angst, frocks, pathos, or British accents, settle in for these windswept period pieces and literary flavorings.

Jane Eyre – Lace, candles, bonnets, frills, and waist coasts open this eleven episode 1983 adaptation starring Zelah Clarke (Dombey & Son) and Timothy Dalton (The Living Daylights). The print is flat now and the production values hampered, however the attention to detail accents the gloomy manor house and its cruel family, abusive isolation, and rare comfort in books. Supposed problem child Jane is passed along to a terrible school where the punishment only increases because of her defiance in the face of starvation, illness, fatal friends, and instruments of correction. Often excised scenes are here word for word, and the very British glum and decorum may be boring for some before the warmth and comfort found in the governess position at Thornfield Hall. Kindly housekeepers and friendly chats let Jane express herself, but locked rooms, ghostly echoes, and whispers of the peculiar master build ominous before an enigmatic roadside encounter with a handsome stranger. Aren't all Jane Eyres identified by their Rochesters? Dalton's brooding suave is very much what we think of in a Rochester – smoldering and easily flustered by Jane in debates over tea where dialogue and performance are primary. He's used to having his way but this lowly governess won't buckle despite the unresolved sexual tension before there was even UST. Jane isn't exceptional but won't yield on her convictions, earning a begrudging respect from the melancholy Rochester, who can confide in her about reluctant gentry matches and superiority versus equality. He admires Jane's purity and would seek to reform through her, wearing his heart on his sleeve even as his secrets would corrupt her. Sinister violence and mysterious accidents make happiness too good to be true alongside beds set on fire, fascinating dualities on character and wickedness, and wild versus saintly symbolism. Jealous resentments dampen pleasant outdoor scenes, turning charming one on one banter into angry, looming, and yearning repression. Rochester is not the silent type, and the scene chewing in many ways has to speak for both characters and draw out do gooder Jane. In spite of the deathbed confessions, age differences, be on your guard warnings, and symbolic white veils torn in two – talk about red flags, girl – we're here for it hook, line, and sinker, swept up in the impediments at the altar, scary attic scenes, bitter revelations, and fleeing into the moors to forgo love and be true to oneself. Seriously though, what is St. John's problem anyway? While this is a wonderful story, the finale does rely on sudden relatives and coincidental fortunes, and I for one was always disappointing something more spooky wasn't afoot. Late episodes away from Thornfield drag thanks to odd scenes without first person narrator Jane and this is a little too long to marathon all at once, but this unabashedly takes its time to assure a complete adaptation. I love the 2011 version for its compact, more gothic spirit; however this is delightful for fans of the cast, period piece audiences, classroom comparisons, and Bronte lovers.

The Man Who Invented Christmas – Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey) stars as Charles Dickens alongside Christopher Plummer (Somewhere in Time) and Jonathan Pryce (Hysteria) in this whimsical 2017 account on what really happened during the 1843 writing of A Christmas Carol. Our successful author has toured America to much fanfare, but Dickens is ready to get back to work despite unforthcoming publishers thanks to the poor sales of Barnaby Rudge, negative Martin Chuzzlewit reviews, and gasp – writer's block. It's expensive being a London gentleman when the wife is redecorating, bills are mounting, and everyone wants a donation from the exhausted Dickens, who has no creativity and a deadline to meet. Fancy garb, carriages, quills, candles, and humorous crescendos create charm alongside entertaining children with fairy tales and holiday mentions of veils being lifted as spirits roam between worlds. Grim alleys, dark cemeteries, bitter mourners, snobby friends wishing the poor would die, and humbug revelations inspire Dickens to write about a vile money maker learning the err of his ways thanks to sprites and spiritual intervention. Unfortunately, there wasn't a market for Christmas books back then and no profit in such a minor holiday. Going it alone, Dickens bounces about his bower mimicking voices – because if your find the character's name, he will appear. Similar to Miss Potter, Dickens transcribes Carol quotes from bemusing encounters with the famous characters entering his chamber. Scenes we know and love are acted out before him until an abrupt “That's as far as I've gotten” halt while the players add their opinions on the tale whether he wants them to or not. After starting well, begging for money and mooching relatives slow the spirited possibilities, and we shouldn't leave Dickens' breakthrough once the wonderful frenzy happens. There are hints of darker Dickens aspects, but his debtors fears and realistic problems feel shoehorned in once the fanciful comes to life. It's tough to have the author mirror Scrooge with contrived overnight changes and revelations about Dickens' terrible childhood when we know his life story and anything truly heavy is off limits. Problems are created just for a third act resolution, and one on one confrontations with his father regarding Dickens' lingering shame and brokenness are more powerful. The source here is a non-fiction book, but the film is obviously fiction, and viewers know Dickens had success before and will again. Maybe the real world Victorian issues are meant to parallel the Carol constructs, however the narrative can be uneven, interrupting arguments about killing off characters while they wait about his room or repeating his struggle over what of himself to put on the page before wondering what the point of a story is if there is no hope. After all the forgiveness discourse, a quick postscript with newfangled Christmas trees says everything turned out just fine – although writers today seeing Dickens' need to self publish and inability to get a $300 loan know circumstances haven't really changed amirite? This isn't necessarily a Christmas movie, and the family friendly fantasy may be too much for those seeking a hardcore Dickens biography. Some audiences may be sly to the author within his own story gimmick, too. Fortunately, there's enough charm in the wholesome nuggets and inventive twists on the familiar tale, and I'd also here for Plummer playing Scrooge en masse yes please.

The Turn of the Screw – Downton Abbey alum Michelle Dockery joins Dan Stevens (again) and Nicola Walker (MI-5) in this ninety minute 2009 BBC adaptation of the Henry James askew moving the repressed ambiguity to 1921 institutions with post war doctors analyzing our governess' infatuation with her employer, the topsy turvy male shortage, and of kilter Bly Manor. Fashions, hats, sweet automobiles, fine woodwork, and hefty antiques sell the refreshing setting, however the nonsensical strobe flashes look amateur on top of the time wasting, disjointed doctoring add-ons and unnecessary narration. Visions of dalliances that initially upgrade the Victorian scandalous soon hit the viewer over the head one too many times as the governess imagines her master and his saucy approval. She insists she's not the nervous type, but the dark interiors, maze like staircases, and distorted camera angles add to the strange noises and creepy country manor unease. She's in charge, above housekeepers and maids, but there are too many flighty women doing all the work in this house. Parasols and summer white contrast eerie fog and trains as her boy charge is expelled from school without explanation. The cheeky children whisper about their previous, pretty governess – unbothered by screams, accidents, or dying maids. Melancholy piano music, graveyard echoes, dark figures amid the trees, and faces in the window build on the female isolation, yet all insist there are no ghosts – surely she's just hysterical, overwrought, and obsessed with men. Rumors of suicide and a woman ruined by her lover seem proved by hidden pictures of the master's up to no good valet, and tales of his violence among the unprotected women are better than seeing suspect flashbacks. The prim style degrades to loose hair and nightgowns as our governess jumps to dire conclusions and possessive delirium, but the shouting about it afterward with her doctor interruptions break the tainted picnics and frantic tension. We don't need his sounding board to deduce her fears, just let us see the abusive violence and water perils. Crazy laughter and disembodied voices escalate as the phantoms, repression, and projection possibilities culminate in a one on one battle for the truth. The deviations here are flawed, and while the horror lite is fine for gothic period piece fans, some viewers will expect more than the have it both ways attempt at the ghosts and crazy ambiguity. This isn't the best version but thanks to the cast and unique setting, it can be a good introduction for audiences who haven't seen The Innocents.

A Disappointment

Under Capricorn – Ingrid Bergman (Anastasia) and Joseph Cotten (Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte) star in this overlong 1949 mystery from director Alfred Hitchcock (The Birds) with an opening narration filling in the Colonial Australia history and past Ireland secrets before 1831 governors, stiff upper lip politicking, and wooden exposition. Who has money, who's related to whom, who's doing the land deals – it's all clunky and yawn worthy on top of a period setting perhaps obscure for American audiences then and now. Colorful waistcoats, cravats, and frocks alongside muddy frontier streets and carriages attempt an early Victorian meets Wild West tone, but the shrunken heads rolling at their feet is more awkward then shocking. Hitchcock attempts new techniques here in his second Technicolor film – long takes, zooms, and tracking cameras following the players in scene. Unfortunately, the direction is stilted, moving from men talking to other men talking about what the other men just said. The first fifteen minutes of convicts turned businessmen and conversations while bathing in a barrel could have been excised, opening instead with the newly arrived scoundrel eavesdropping on a suspect dinner at the creepy manor house. Iron-fisted housekeepers, beaten staff, and disobedient convicts add to the drinks, whispers, social shunnings, and an intriguingly absent wife – who has some history with the new man in town. So much time is spent talking about the past at the expense of the present, yet people readily drop all their secrets and explain their life stories to folks they've just met. A few sentimental winks and smiles bolster the love story elements, however it's awkward to see Bergman both lighting up the room as well as playing the drunken barefoot and wobbling sickly. Uncharismatic, strong chinned men, swelling crescendos, and fainting women combine for all the things audiences bemoan about period pieces, and the supposedly scandalous love triangles remain undynamic. A stable boy eloping with the master's daughter and killing her brother in the process while the maid secretly poisons the wife would make for an interesting tale, but most of that action is told after the fact rather than shown. The tiara ensemble and divine ball make for the one exceptional, uninterrupted sequence capturing all the guilt and performance lacking in the rest of the film. Despite horse chases, who really shot whom revelations, and deportation threats; the drama never seems to happen before the abrupt happy ending. One can see what Hitchcock is trying to attempt with characters bound to the visual frame as well as their inescapable history. Unfortunately, calling attention to the drama with the camera only shows how thin the story is. Even if viewers leave any Master of Suspense expectations aside and like romantic period yarns, this is really only for the Hitchcock and Bergman completists.

Jane Eyre (2011) Blu- Ray Review

The New Jane Eyre is Better on Blu-Ray

By Kristin Battestella

Instead of a Dickensian Christmas- that Victorian treat is being saved for Dickens’ bicentennial in a few months- I’m taking time out to revisit the new 2011 Jane Eyre on blu-ray.  After all, it is the Fassbender Festivus, don’t forget.

Governess Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) abandons Thornfield Hall and the manor’s mysterious master Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender) - with whom she has fallen in love.  While recuperating at the home of minister St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell), Jane remembers her unscrupulous Aunt Reed (Sally Hawkins, Happy-Go-Lucky) and the ruthless Lowood School before coming to meet housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) and her charge at Thornfield, Adele (Romy Settbon Moore).  Will Jane be able to escape society’s confines and Thornfield’s secrets and be true to herself?

Charlotte Bronte’s 1847 tale is a familiar one indeed. Thankfully, director Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) and screenwriter Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) play with an untraditional timeline- and the changes are great.  This flashback storytelling creates more suspense and mystery- especially if one didn’t know the Jane Eyre story. The Lowood scenes are also dynamic, with just enough twistedness. I do, however, wish there was more of Freya Parks (Creation) as sickly little Helen and newcomer Romy Settbon Moore as Adele.  Those unfamiliar with the novel might not quite understand her relationship to Rochester here.  Fortunately, the literary dialogue shines in lovely fireside scenes. Though everyone is held in check by the Victorian customs, there is plenty of heat and tension amid the firelight or nighttime blue conversations. The superb natural camerawork, light and shadow plan, and period photography all do wonders- but I do wish there were more of the missing cuts and deleted scenes instead of a few slower transitions. This Jane Eyre is not slow paced by any means- the suspense telling is quite the contrast from other period films in fact. However, we shouldn’t pause for pretty reflection and romantic montages when there is so much more from the book to tell.  Likewise, despite those great darker storytelling strides, the presentation could have been a lot spookier. I always find it a disappointment as to what was really going on in the depths of Thornfield Hall, but romance fans and period drama lovers will eat this Jane Eyre up. All the societal barriers, conflict, and love triangles are here without being uber sappy and overwhelming for non-fans. Again, the retained language from the book is just great; you want to be able to quote this stuff in regular conversation! I actually prefer this Jane Eyre here on blu-ray more than having seen it in the cinema. At home, you can see everything, hear everything, and read the words onscreen.  Sigh. 

 Though a delightful encapsulation and presentation all around, I do have a few quibbles. The deleted scenes- snips only available previously in the Jane Eyre trailer- are not restored in the film proper. Most of these scenes are longer set up bits and transition extras and probably excised for good reason, yes. However, there is no reason to not put these 16 minutes back into the picture for the video release, as several of these pieces give much needed exposition about Rochester’s relationship to Adele. Their absence takes a lot away if you consider the fact that this Jane Eyre film is trying to do in 2 hours what the 2006 miniseries did in 6.  The loss of extra scenes with Helen’s ghost and a very creepy Bertha also makes this Jane seem somewhat lightweight- even as it prides itself on its would be horror tone.  What’s worse is some bits still appear to be missing from the trailer.  Awards acclaim is happening for Jane Eyre, but not as much as there could be, in part perhaps because it is as if the production didn’t go all the way or at least take their Jane Eyre vision as far as they could have.  The blu-ray release is indicative of this fault.  Take the time you need, tell your tale to the fullest, sell your ‘for your consideration’ on video where there are abso-toot-ly no restrictions.

Fortunately, Mia Wasikowska (The Kids are All Right) gives everything to her embodiment of the eponymous governess, measure for measure indeed.  Mia makes no pretentions as Jane nor trumps up any airs or graces, and yet there is such a poise and old world class to her performance.  Despite being a truly good girl, Jane just can’t help but put her intelligence and self-respect above her station- which was a big Victorian no-no.  We instantly like Jane and enjoy her transformation from sickly and pale to radiant and confident. Jane’s unusual relationship with Rochester opens them both up, and Bronte’s dialogue is delivered in perfect banter and timing. Jane sounds so good, strong, and natural.  It really makes you wonder why we don’t speak like this anymore or carry ourselves with such properness or value.  But of course, these societal barriers must be broken down for Jane, and this silent battle and forgetting oneself is addictive! Despite being bound by their respective conventions, Jane and Rochester recognize their kindred souls. Mia and Fassbender are great together, and that’s all the more props and ‘Go Jane!’ for not giving into Rochester! I wish more women today stuck to their convictions as Jane does. And don’t say we do, just take a look at all the talentless people selling their souls on reality television! Charlotte and Jane are quite progressive for their day, with great Dickensian circumstance before Dickensian turnabout was so decidedly Dickensian!

And what of That Fass? Oh, if there was ever a greater literary introduction than Rochester’s- and Fassbender works it!  Rochester’s angry debut was my favorite part of reading the book as a kid. I found it so scary, as if the Master of Thornfield is just an apparition, a dreamed up phantom. Who is this nasty guy wanting such respect and service and yet being such a pesky ass himself? All this brood is established in the character, but Fassy’s Rochester is also dang cool. You want to slap him for his initial snarky and attempts at jealous with the shallow Ms. Ingram.  But Rochester is also socially unobtainable to Jane, and thus all the more attractive. Fassbender layers in a great spin to his voice, a deeper, harsh, received Victorian, and that fireside conversation with Jane is simply excellent. Fassbender keeps Rochester menacing, but sexy, tongue in cheek, and intelligent.  Not many actors today can pull off such balance, much less look so perfect about it. Fassbender hides Rochester’s loneliness with begrudging attitude. He wants a friend and trusts no one but Jane, this spitfire who doesn’t quite know it yet has just stirred him so! When Rochester does get frank and opens himself up, it is no less intimidating even if there is quite the sigh worthy and backwardly flirtatious wink wink. The audience gets swept up along with Jane, as Fassbender again completely disappears into his performance.  He looks totally dang different in every frickin film he’s in this year, and hardware is rolling in for Fassy’s work in Jane Eyre, X-Men: First Class, A Dangerous Method, and Shame.

The fan girls may make Jane Eyre just another episode in The Michael Fassbender Show, but I wish more attention was paid to Jamie Bell (The Adventures of Tin Tin, Billy Elliot) as St. John Rivers. He is warmhearted yet stilted by his position. John is not willing to break his society’s standards regardless of how he really feels.  We like him, but feel sorry for him at the same time. There also isn’t much time spent on Imogen Poots (Centurion) and Tazmin Merchant (The Tudors), though there is an intriguing examination in their opposite representations- snotty Blanche deserving none of her privilege and poor but entitled to more Mary Rivers. Amelia Clarkson (The Sarah Jane Adventures) is also wonderful as the young Jane. You could have spent the entire two hours just on her at Lowood! I don’t have much to say about Dame Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love) except that she is simply awesome and time traveled to research this role, I swear!

I am quite pleased to see Jane Eyre getting some- a few but not all- technical awards and recognition.  The costumes- upscale, humble, men, women, horses!- are just divine.  I love everyone’s frilly nightgowns and heavy frocks- I love the word ‘frocks’ almost as much as this wardrobe! There is no reason to not award the clothes or décor in this picture.  This Jane Eyre has the looks of today with modern filmmaking in mind, yet it also seems to be old, as if it were made then. The music and score are also wonderfully authentic, with emotional strings and piano from Oscar winner Dario Marianelli (Atonement).  Even the horrid Lowood school looks wonderful along with all the locations and decorations high and low Oh, Thornfield!  There is such a bright and happy castle charm, but also a cold, foreboding, mysterious slight. The Hall does seem like Jane’s salvation, but it is a delicate balance between that happiness and the spooky and brooding.  Jane Eyre’s foggy, stormy scenery allows for illusions and phantoms on the wind while the lovely English gardens visually layer the happiness, ornamentation, or upscale torment as needed. Major props also for the perfect use of that period lighting. The flickering casts change to highlight characters- Lowood is overshadowed and bleak but Helen’s scenes have a halo aspect to them. It’s all natural lighting, and yet there’s just a hint of supernatural glaze. The candles and firelight work two fold in creating old-fashioned warmth and ambiance and more darkness and shadows. This dark and light looks just perfect on blu-ray; you can see everything clearly amid the lovely glow.

But of course, for all the glory that is the visuals on blu-ray, the BD live features and meaningless previews are a real pain! These long winded opening delays and annoying pop ups aren’t trailers like the cinema- they are commercials.  Don’t kid us!  I also had a panic when I couldn’t immediately find the subtitles option. Not only were they somewhat cumbersomely placed, but a soft spoken period picture with great English English of olde such as this requires them.  The  director’s commentary is nice, but the behind the scenes features are too brief.  Separate shorts on music and lighting are better, but the total is not nearly enough for today.  More insightful interviews and featurettes can be found online. Again, Jane Eyre’s release on video seems like it was a bit rushed or even an afterthought when it could have been much, much more.  Where are the costuming features? Full cast interviews and video diaries? A conversation with screenwriter Moira Buffini and a book to film discussion would have been awesome!

Fans of the Charlotte Bronte classic should definitely see this Jane Eyre. Even in even this short adaptation, there is so much to dissect, divulge, and study.  While some definitive enthusiasts might find the reduced time or structure changes here too altered, this quick Bronte fix is perfect for classroom analysis, fans of the cast, and period piece aficionados. Fortunately, the blu-ray price has come down in recent months, too, so there’s more opportunity to rent or buy. Indulge your Victorian sensibilities and spend the night at Thornfield with Jane Eyre.  

Jane Eyre (2011)

Latest Jane Eyre Lovely and Damn Tempting!

By Leigh Wood

I had to wait a little bit to see this latest umpteenth adaptation of Jane Eyre from director Cary Fukunaga thanks to its limited release schedule; but hot damn, now I am glad it isn’t at my nearest theater, for then I’d be there every day watching this unabashedly sappy, spooky, and brooding Bronte!

Unless you’re not of this planet, you probably know the story: Young Jane Eyre (Amelia Clarkson, The Sarah Jane Adventures) is treated cruelly by her Aunt Mrs. Reed (Sally Hawkins) and is subsequently sent to the even more horrible Lowood School, where she befriends the sickly Helen (Freya Parks, Creation). Years later, Jane (Mia Wasikowska) takes an appointment as governess to Adele (Romy Settbon Moore), the young French ward of the mysterious master of Thornfield Hall, Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) warns Jane of the drafty and scary ways of the house- and to be careful of her budding relationship with Rochester. Thanks to familial secrets and social boundaries, Rochester instead courts socialite Blanche Ingram (Imogen Poots). When marital disaster strikes, Jane eventually flees to the home of St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell). Of course, I’m sure you know how it ends, so I I’ll stop there.

I deliberately stayed away from the numerous onscreen adaptations again or a re-reading of Charlotte Bronte’s 1847 novel in my anticipation of seeing Fukunaga’s (Sin Nombre) supposedly fresh, 21^st century, dark interpretation. At first, I was also a little leery of the way the marketing and all was spinning things- it’s been done over 20 times, I suppose there’s only so many ways you can twist and lure in your campaign. Thankfully, the flashback presentation from screenwriter Moira Buffini (The Enlightenment, Byzantium) does work as they said it would, and actually akins this version closer to the framing of my slightly more preferred Wuthering Heights. (The whole implication with Heathcliff and Catherine’s dead body; you know there was something twisted and kinky going on there!) Online venues and magazine reviews of course have already mentioned some of the prior Jane Eyre takes- I suppose I like the 1983 Timothy Dalton version or William Hurt’s 1996 take the best. One always knows their favored JE by the Rochester, does she not? However, the first words out of my Dad’s mouth when I told him I saw this one, “Who’s playing Jane Eyre?” Of course, everyone inevitably mentions the 1944 Orson Welles version, but for my money, the recently late Elizabeth Taylor was the best thing about that one. Oh her little Helen! Maybe it has the time to get deeper into the book, but I’m not a Toby Stephens fan, so the 2006 miniseries was a tough for me. Younger audiences new to the literature can definitely enjoy this version at hand indeed. Despite its flashback angles, it’s straightforward- unlike some of the Masterpiece Theatre fluff we so often expect- but no less intense in its players or tale. Though it may only scratch the surface of the novel, it damn near has me getting my copy from the bookshelf. Teachers and scholars can have a relatable classroom showing when this Jane Eyre comes to DVD, oh yes. 

Yes, I’ve always been more partial to Wuthering Heights thanks to the gothic elements and, well, the tormented morbidity out weighing the traditional Austentonion romance. Yuck! Maybe I was younger and didn’t appreciate the relationship or just really like me some kinky implied horror, but when first reading Jane Eyre, I was scared out of my wits. The abuse at Lowood, the budding sinister, mystery, and isolation of Thornfield Hall- I was a little disappointed to find out the supernatural was just a red herring. Fortunately, Fukunaga does keep to his promises of a spookier telling here. The real romance actually comes a little late, and we further feel the love is too good to be true or cannot be thanks to meeting all the creepy night time shenanigans and dangerous moors first. Allowing a few jump in your seats moments both makes room for non period romance fans whilst also strengthening the relationships to come.

Forgive me the pun, but Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are All Right, In Treatment) is no plain Jane. She totally transforms into the bland and restricted but no less passionate and spirited Jane and looks completely different from her off-screen style thanks to the rigid corsets and lots of heavy and ugly fabrics. We like Jane from the start, and come to like her even more as she refuses to give Rochester the sob story we’ve seen as any excuse for whatever faults this society may find in her person. We want to see something good finally happen to her- nay we must see a happy ending as a reward for such good convictions. Despite the scares and pessimism and our modern cynicism, we need that damn happy ever after for this Jane! And I’m sorry but I have to let the fan girl deep down inside out and say hell yeah we want her to marry mother fucking Michael Fassbender, because you know damn well you’re upset that you can’t marry him either. You crazy stalkers, you! Fassy’s Rochester may be pretty or at the very least, more pretty than we are accustomed or expect in a brooding older scary Hall master, and thus he perhaps initially seems a little lightweight compared to some of the other renditions. However, this handsome style- goodness the charisma- and presumed levity makes this Rochester all the more intriguing. Why is this seemingly upscale and well-traveled man so interested in little school teacher Jane? Is it all amusing to him? Why does he seek such solace in her? He’s rich and educated and traveled-compared to Jane what does he have to be so dang glum about? Despite their odd pairing, the class divide, and all this Victorian rigidness, there’s actually a lot of intensity between the leads and characters onscreen. I even felt a little giggly in seeing Jane get as blushed as she was going to get- yeah, flustered in the 1840s, oh my! And come on, forget the Fireside Poets, you know you’d want to sit by the hearth all aglow with the Fass. Rochester’s sneaky way of spending time with Jane, egging her intellect forth and including her in the mysteries of the household while at the same time trying to make her jealous and actually keep his secrets, it’s all just great. I want to let out a big happy sigh. Even with society pushing these two iconic players up against the wall, you want to see the happy ever after. It’s all a little pre-Dickensian how wealth, tragedy, and circumstance come into play, but I’d rather have this justice, irony, people, and plot than special effects. Graphics are so meager in comparison!

My only major fear here is that the twitty text obsessed current generation will be scratching their heads at the old speaketh, not understand the subtly of what is being said, and thus think Jane Eyre a stuffy and crappy movie. Which, if that comes to be the case, then it is a mother fucking pity! Frankly, if we ever needed a reason to return to not ending sentences with prepositions (besides, you know, that it’s the grammatically correct way to speak) it may be this movie. Who knew proper English could sound as sweet and enchanting as this? While I’d love to be proven wrong, I’m also sad to say that I don’t see Oscar wins for Mia and Michael for this film. There’ll be nominations and other award wins for sure- I’d be pissed if there were no acknowledgments or hardware recognition! However, I fear competition will be tight and the dopey Academy may be tired of Jane Eyre adaptations in general, or consider the performances here only similar to or on par with the standard in this latest wave of beloved Austen-esque material. It’s an Oscar ‘Almost there, kids!’ rookie dismissal instead hoping that these leads will go on to bigger and better films they need not share with so many literary others. Mia has already had plenty of this youthful acclaim- if it were up to me, she should win Best Actress just for being the best Jane yet. And as far as I’m concerned Fassbender has already given three potentially Academy worthy performances in Hunger (Too IRA political for the Oscars? Hogwash! You can award Bale for his starvation and not Fass?), Fish Tank (We can’t acknowledge fine performance if there’s a hint of pedophilia but we can award Polanski?), and Inglourious Basterds (If Waltz wasn’t so good as Landa, Fassy would have at least deserved the Supporting nom, Hicox was da bomb!). He needs to be acknowledged by the American film establishment and soon! If Fassbender were to receive a Supporting nod here but go home with Best Actor for the upcoming A Dangerous Method or Shame, I would be as content as the Happy Little Clouds in a Bob Ross painting. If it were vice versa or both, I’d be orgasmic. Of course, no man has ever one the Supporting Actor and Best Actor in one year, but The Fass has The Power of Grayskull to do so, no lie. He’s also going to be Magneto in X-Men: First Class for goodness sake!

Ahem, there is all this lead steamy somehow taut amid the rigid and stuffy Victorian ways, but let’s admit there is something near enchanting about such style, formality, and class. Not their ridiculous obsession with social status, but you know, a sense of grace and carriage about themselves where one would not use a phrase like ‘you know’. Of course, Dame Judi Dench (how can you be a filmgoer today and need a Dame Judi reference?) always has such a classic element about her person and her good-natured Mrs. Fairfax adds just the right amount of humor and levity or honest concern when needed. This is not in the stereotypically fluttering English housekeeper oi oi oh me oh my fan and faint played up for the laughs either, thank goodness. Likewise, Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot, Nicholas Nickleby, The Eagle- do you think him and Fass compared with Centurion?) is very impressive as the passive and buttoned up minister St. John Rivers who nonetheless carries a reserved silent strength and latent admiration for Jane. While his feeling is probably no less in emotion or care, Bell perfectly captures the restraint of the time via St. John. Had he lived today, I’ve no doubt he’d run off to India with an unattached Jane for charity and adventure, conventions be damned- there’s that much good and wonder in his soul, really there must be- he just can’t show it! Ah, those lovely 19^th century formalities come with a very restrictive downside, don’t they? Dench and Bell, I do believe stand a better chance to walk away next year with some Supporting hardware from Jane Eyre. Unfortunately, we don’t see as much of Sally Hawkins (Persuasion), Imogen Poots (Centurion- in a movie with Fassbender twice! That, at least partially, makes up for her unique but someone unfortunate name), Tazmin Merchant (The Tudors) or other characters as finite fans of the novel may have expected. However, everyone is on form nonetheless and fits the look in period fine fashions, unlike most of the new Hollywood crowd who would be preposterously unbelievable in Princess Leia buns or mutton chops. Fass may very well bring them back- after all, they worked for Isaac Asimov! 

Unfortunately, though it adds a wonderfully realistic ambiance and timeless, spooky look, not all may enjoy the dark candlelit cinematography in Jane Eyre. Even in the almost all-dark theater, a few scenes are just a little too dim for our modern eyes. We are just too accustomed to glowing monitors, screens, day glow phones, and lit buttons to appreciate how critical candles were to these people- or how much darkness and suggestion could so easily scare them. But of course, the costumes and set design are definitely awards top notch. Likewise, these are great locations; you can imagine in our idealized Bronte mind that this is how England really used to look, or may even still look in the furthest misty and isolated Midlands. We all need those great shawls and hefty velvet bed curtains while we snuggle up beside a hearth that’s big enough to fit you and all those petticoats! The fashions are both enticing in their lace, form, and classic beauty- no one can really look ugly in such style- while being old fashioned, over the top and cumbersome at the same time. It’s amazing how the wardrobe advances the attraction as well. These people are so prim and proper and even their nightgowns are so lacy and ruffled- and yet there is something so friggin’ juicy when they do glimpse each other in those flirty white and barely there gowns and caps! And Fassbender! My God, those silk and satin frock coats, waist jackets, tight pants and high boots. I swear, I wish men still dressed like this! Everyone is talking about the mutton chops, but by time you are well into Jane Eyre, the looks and styles come naturally. Later in the evening after seeing the film, I found myself turning to the television expecting to return to the Midlands; only to remember, oh yeah, that was this afternoon at the movies. I just have this urge to dig up the old Civil War re-enactors gear, tighten up my corset, and perch on the edge of my wing backed chair with Little Women! Ah, this is the power of cinema!

I’ve meandered in my favorable comments and let my fan girl get the better of me, but this Jane Eyre isn’t totally perfect. Again, I hope to see numerous awards and acclaim coming, including serious Oscar attention. (If I say it enough, they may hear me.) However, there are a few strikes against the film. While it’s all an intriguing spin, there may be too much missing from the screenplay for purists to consider an Adapted Screenplay nomination. Likewise, though the direction is lovely, American audiences may find it too slow or feel something is too broad or understated in the silent scenes. Some things are understandably missing do to Jane Eyre’s 2 hours runtime, so hopefully any and all extra material will be included on the eventual video release. At a quick glance, it seems like at least ten shots in the much loved trailer are absent, and I’m really not sure why these are lost. If they powers that be have only planned a limited theatrical run, there is no need to excise necessary scenes to squeeze as many showings into the day as possible. It’s a shame really, because some of those lost scenes fester this somewhat incomplete feeling for Jane Eyre enthusiasts and probably hurt this film’s Best Picture chances. We’re not talking about Return of the King and its dozen endings adding character moments and explanations for the Extended Edition here. Perhaps with these spread out releases and international designs forthcoming, maybe more will be put back into this Jane Eyre in an awards season push. Then again, maybe they just think us Americans won’t get it so they gave us the quick and easy Cliff Notes version. 

Thankfully, even in limited box office, stateside audiences are getting this dose of Jane Eyre. It was mostly women in the theater when we went, and it was not quite half full for this the second noon showing. Though I don’t wish to be a stereotypical girl and condone the occasionally negative implications on JE as super romance and for the feminine only- heck my Dad loves this book!- there were only two or three men in the theater. They were coupled with old ladies who probably dragged them to the cinema and could hardly even hear-sometimes the ladies had to whisper some of the softer dialogue to them! Longtime fans of the novel and previous adaptations can, will, and should definitely take in this Jane Eyre and delight. New audiences, fans of the cast, and younger viewers can also enjoy casually for the first time or fall in love with Charlotte Bronte, Jane, Mia, Rochester, Fassy, or Jamie Bell. You should damn well already love Judi Dench. If you haven’t read the book, clear your literary schedule or plan to spend a lot of time at the movies with Jane Eyre’s Victorian visuals this spring.