Were the glaring gaps left because the filmmakers knew I would be able to fill them all in with my previously acquired knowledge of the story? What about all the first-timers? Are they to be left with the impression that the only joy must come through one's own imagination? Why, why, why did it have to be soooo gloomy, and soooooo austere, and sooooooo heartwrenching? And this is coming from the queen of heartwrenching. I love books and movies that successfully pull my heartstrings to hurt and to ache and to pine. I crave this stuff.
But on the other hand, throw me a few crumbs of joy. Please! A love story cannot be exclusively built upon a few passionate conversations. It comes from the day to day experiences, wherein we laugh, we work, we eat, we enjoy life. The profession of affection comes too abruptly and without enough evidence to make it believable.
Still, it is a masterpiece of filmmaking. Visually, it is stunning. And the few tidbits of Spring color are welcome relief for weary eyes, amidst all the darkness and sparsity.
It stars the brilliant Mia Wasikowska as Jane, and Michael Fassbender as Rochester. Their chemistry is real, but the script doesn't allow them enough lattitude to explore it or capitalize upon it.
1) the book, itself, by Charlotte Bronte
3) or the 1996 version with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg
4) or the 1997 version with Ciaran Hind and Samantha Morton
5) or the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke
Each one adds a new dimension to this timeless tale. Each Rochester is irresistable in his own unique way. Each Jane is a symbol of courage and integrity, which is the real reason this book lingers in the top of my all-time favorites list. She may be put upon, harshly dealt with, yet she never loses sight of right and wrong and self-respect. She makes no excuses and I admire that.