Jane Eyre or Twilight for the Gothic Set

Zoe: After 2010 being the year in which I saw exactly five movies in theaters, I made a New Year’s resolution/pact with my friend Scotty to see at least one movie a week. Both being oral thinkers, once the movie lets out, we tend to find the nearest discussion bench and talk about what we just saw.

Scotty: And for some reason we tend to discuss these movies in such a way as if we have an audience listening to us, We even sit in the stage “V” position and periodically turn to face our nonexistent audience. We have issues.

So, to feed our fantasies of being prominent, well respected movie connoisseurs/critics we have decided to record our conversation via google docs. Unfortunately, for me, this means I cannot do funny voices. One day we may include audio, but for now we will stick the easily skimmable written word.

So, for our first review we’re gonna go chick flick on you. Jane Eyre, our most recent adaption of Charlotte (the one who people actually know and wasn’t crazy) Brontë’s novel that neither of us have read but both have on our bookshelves.

Emily was crazy? That explains Wuthering Heights.

I kinda like Wuthering Heights.

You would. Let’s start this review.

Jane Eyre starts in medias res with the protagonist (Mia Wasikowska) collapsing on the doorstep of a reverend and his two sisters. She is brought in and nursed back to health when a flashback occurs to Jane’s depressing upbringing, first at the hands of a resentful aunt and then at boarding school that can best described as the complete opposite of Hogwarts. Child trauma ensues. She leaves to take a position as a governess at Thornfeild for an adorable little French girl. There, she meets the owner of Thornfeild, Edward Rochester, who woos her with his dark and brooding manner, albeit while also seeming to go after another genteel woman. However, this man and his mansion hold a secret.

So, let’s start with the obvious, I really liked Jane Eyre as a totally atmospheric period piece. Your average movie-goer might have a problem with the pacing, which is really quite slow, but serves to immerse you in the gothic, dreary, puritan England of the 1840s. The movie is told mostly through flashbacks, they cut out most of Jane’s depressing school days in favor of spending most of their time at Thornfield interacting with our tortured (very attractive) love interest.

Twilight fans will eat this shit up though.

I had a problem with the pacing of the film, but I actually felt that it was too fast in some parts, specifically the build up to the inevitable romance between the principle characters. It felt almost rushed and a bit awkward, especially in contrast to the first and third acts of the film which had such deliberate pacing. I would have been all right with the movie being a little bit longer to give more room for the second act to breathe. Then, maybe, the two characters would have shown a little more chemistry.

The place where this movie succeeds above all else is in its sheer gothic awesomeness.

You should have seen Zoe’s face during the movie. It was hilarious. (Zoe is such a wimp when it comes to anything remotely scary; I’m surprised she wanted to see this movie.)

I didn’t know it was going to be scary in parts. Pretty much as soon as Jane arrives at Thornfield, the ghost story kicks in. There are strange sounds, the young ward tells her about a vampire that supposedly roams the house at night, things catch on fire, someone is stabbed and it’s AWESOME! Sadly, this part of the movie kind of gets made the B-plot in favor of the romance. Romping around in a fully lit garden is so totally not as interesting being bade to tend to a mysterious visitor who has been stabbed and being told they are not allowed speak. All of this after following strange laughter in the dead of the night, lit only by two candles. After reading the book’s plot on Wikipedia (the god of all knowledge) after the movie was over, we found out there is the perfect climax to this creeptastic vein in the story already in the source material that is discarded for a much tamer reveal. Seriously, look it up, it’s so cinematic that it hurts.

Really, if you want to make a rich man / poor girl love story, stick to Jane Austen. The Brontës are the owners of dark mansions and tortured shadows. The cinematography to create these effects slightly remind me of the classic horror The Haunting, showing little but whispers and bangs. The film also makes the use of extended close ups to establish mood, such as a lit match meeting tinder to light a fire. (There is a continuous theme of things being lit on fire in this movie.) As well, there are sweeping scenes that are overarching Brontësque, for example, a dramatic kiss with a graveyard in the background. It can be a bit cheesy at times, almost like the film is overtly saying “oooh, it’s moody!” but it fits in some way.

When you notice it’s off, you just say “eh, it’s Brontë” but when the movie gets it right, it gets it AWESOME. And just so I get it in here, the costumes are amazing even if all the back closing dresses bothered me. They might be a bit somber for the time period but they fit the tone of the movie perfectly.

So, to sum it up, if you can sit through a slow, atmospheric romance, it’s totally worth it. And it’s Mad Men slow, there isn’t constant action.

But, if you’re into this sort of stuff, it’s a great romp in the dreary, depressing, tortured, moody world of the Charlotte Brontë. (Not Emily, her world is nuts.)