The novel is by no means an unadaptable one, as proven by some of the earlier excellent screen versions released decades ago, but it is hard to go up against such a high standard set by Robert Stevenson`s 1943 version, starring the film legend Orson Welles. Director Cary Joji Fukunaga still does a rather good job, working from a pared-down script by screenwriter Moira Buffini. As someone who has studied the novel back in our schooling days, we felt that Fukunaga has kept the very crucial and essential elements of the novel intact, and purists of the novel will be suitably pleased.
The gothic elements are there: the menacing, almost sentient Thornfield Hall; the supernatural(?) forces at work; the psychological tension and paranoia; the dangerous and yet thrilling romance. Fukunaga nails all the gothic elements down with much panache, and the script retains all the high points of the novel, but it is the romance here that suffers a little.
Mia Wasikowska brings a plainness and innocence to the role of Jane, a teen orphan who has known much hardship, first at her aunt`s hands and then at a girls` school. When she comes to the almost menacing looking Thornfield Hall to work for Mr. Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender), she might have just gotten herself a better life, but there in the mansion lurks many secrets. The cordial and friendly housekeeper Mrs Fairfax (Judi Dench) is unable to hide the fact that there is more to Thornfield Hall than meets the eye.
The performances by the cast are uniformly good, but Wasikowska`s Jane is meek and subdued. Of course, back when the novel was written, most women were like this anyway, but the novel was written as a means of female empowerment; its titular character is one that through much hardship has decided to better her life and she has a fierce independence and rebellious nature to her, which is not shown in Wasikowska`s vulnerable Jane. It is also this rebellious energy, and not the romance even though Wasikowska and Fassbender have good chemistry between them that modern audiences will relate to the most, and which also works for the screen the best, so we suspect the absence of such a spark will render the film almost too tame for most people.
All in all, an elegant film which provides a slow burn for patient viewers, but does not quite outdo its predecessors, especially the 1943 version, and does not have enough of a modernist interpretation to differentiate itself from the dozen other versions swimming out there.
Â
Raymond Tan