Three reasons to watch the latest Jane Eyre adaptation
“Oh but they’ve changed the book, the novel was so much better. They’ve ruined it for me! Forever! They missed out x, and put in y!” These are some of the many comments thrown about by book lovers after one of their favourite novels makes the shift in medium from imagination to screen. Adaptation rarely lives up to readers’ great expectations, but TV and film companies are constantly remaking old classics and new works for the screen. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. We still get excited/nervous when a new adaptation is announced, and we still go and see it, even if we complain the whole way through that it’s ruined everything (I’m talking to you mum: Knightley’s Pride and Prej, 05).
Jane Eyre was released this autumn in the UK by director Cary Joji Fukunaga and stars Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. I’ve seen several Jane Eyre adaptations in my time and particularly enjoyed the BBC’s four part series with Ruth Wilson. If you are a fan of the original text, there are three reasons why I think this version is better than other adaptations.
REASON ONE- THE ENDING
Not the ending of the film, but the ending of the book. In fact, the end forms the start of the film. The last third of Jane Eyre is always the rushed part, in reading and in films. Adaptations often linger over every detail of Jane’s youth and her interactions with Rochester. Then they gloss over, or cut completely, the last third of the novel in a rush to get Jane back across the moors and into the arms of her (slightly singed) lover.
This version starts at the end. It then retells Jane’s childhood and her time and Lowood through a series of flashbacks. While many parts of the novel’s last third are still missing or skimmed over, the film gives equal importance to all three parts of Jane’s life through the way her story is retold.
REASON TWO- MIA WASIKOWSKA
I love Mia. Like Ruth Wilson, she fits the ‘pretty-plain’ mould necessary when actresses audition for the role of a plain character. I think Mia’s unique features suited this role well. What I liked most about her in the role, was that she reminded me that Jane is just a girl. Without losing the sexual chemistry/curiosity with Rochester or her underlying, quiet confidence, there is an overriding sense of innocence and youth from her that made everything more believable.
REASON THREE- BLANCHE IS BRUNETTE
One thing that always wound me up about Jane Eyre adaptations (and here I come close to a “How dare they change the book!” rant) was when they had a blonde Blanche Ingram. I don’t know whether this was because, visually, directors thought this set up a good contrast between fair Blanche and dark Bertha, with mousy Jane somewhere in the middle? Or maybe because, with a name like Blanche, she sounded fair?
BUT WHY???
The novel describes Blanche several times as a dark haired beauty, and while it may seem like a small detail to get hooked up on, I think it’s an important aspect of the book. Blanche is supposed to mirror Bertha, not act as her opposite. She is a dark, exotic looking temptress wanting to marry Rochester for his money. The fact that Blanche reminds Rochester of his first wife is exactly why he is not interested in her, and would therefore prefer someone completely different, like Jane.
As the detailed diagram below illustrates, this version had a dark haired Blanche, and therefore I was happy. Well done Fukunaga.
Still not convinced? Well, the whole thing is beautifully shot and atmospheric, it has Judi Dench in it, and although I’ve yet to see One Day, I’m sure it’s safe to say that Mia’s yorkshire accent is a lot more believable than Anne’s.
Reviews I enjoyed (and that obsess less over hair colour):
Reasons to hate the film? More reasons to like it? Opinions on adaptations? Feel free to comment.
express.lit 
I completely agree with all of the above (especially the Blanche point – in one version they cast Elle MacPherson – Elle bloody MacPherson!) But Emma love, you’re missing one other glaringly obvious reason.
I realise you’re analysis is from a literary perspective, but please; MICHAEL FASSBENDER. This is vacuous, I know, but he is, next to William Hurt in Franco Zeffirelli’s adaptation, my perfect Rochester. He’s tortured and brooding, yet still manages to convey Rochester’s humility, humour and overwhelming sadness. I LOVE him.
You make a very valid point! From a general life perspective The Fass would be reason #1 every time!
Hi Emma! Really enjoyed reading this review. Thanks so much for mentionig mine.