Bertha Mason | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Bertha Mason’

A Dream? Awaken Then…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Adèle Varens, Bertha Mason, Cary Fukunaga, Charlotte Brontë, Edward Rochester, General Comments, High Moderate to Low Strong Movie Recommendation, Jamie Bell, Jane Eyre, Jane Eyre (2011) — movie review, Judi Dench, Lowood School, Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Movie Reviews, Mrs. Fairfax, Mrs. Reed, Pride And Prejudice, Reviews, Romy Settbon Moore, Sally Hawkins, Shakespeare, St. John Rivers, Thornfield Hall, Valentina Cervi on March 27, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Jane Eyre” (2011) — movie review
Today’s review is for the period-romance / gothic-drama “Jane Eyre” (2011), starring Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre, the plain, principled governess whose quiet strength anchors the story; Michael Fassbender as Edward Rochester, the brooding, wounded master of Thornfield Hall; Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, the kindly housekeeper who gives Jane her first sense of belonging; Jamie Bell as St. John Rivers, the earnest minister offering Jane a life of duty rather than love; Sally Hawkins as Mrs. Reed, Jane’s cold, resentful aunt whose early cruelty shapes her resolve; Valentina Cervi as Bertha Mason, Rochester’s “mad” wife hidden in the attic whose presence drives the central crisis; and Romy Settbon Moore as Adèle Varens, Rochester’s young ward, whose vulnerability and near-tragedy in the fire raise the emotional stakes. Directed by Cary Fukunaga, the film leans into the darker, more atmospheric elements of Charlotte Brontë’s novel while keeping the emotional core intact.

Background: I first saw a film with this story in the early 2000s, but it was not this version. This is my first viewing of this version and it might as well have been my first viewing – full stop – as I had no “real” recollection of the other version(s). All I remember is it being dull. I have never read the novel the film(s) was based on, so I can’t honestly say how close the film is to the source material. This version, released in 2011, “Jane Eyre” earned strong critical reviews and received an Academy Award nomination for Best Costume Design. Historically, it seems to be a grounded, modern adaptation of the novel (I guess) — focused on mood, isolation, and emotional self-reliance. It didn’t make a major awards run, but it seems to be held up as a respected, serious take on the material (based on background reading as prep for this review).

Plot: The story follows Jane from her harsh childhood under the Reed family to her years at Lowood School, and then to her employment at Thornfield Hall as governess to Adèle. There she meets Rochester, whose brusque manner hides a complicated past. Jane and Rochester develop a wary connection that deepens into affection, but just as Jane begins to imagine a future with him, she discovers the secret he has been hiding — a revelation that forces her to flee Thornfield. Lost and starving, she is taken in by the Rivers siblings, where St. John offers her a life of missionary work and a marriage of obligation. Jane nearly accepts, but she hears a final call from Rochester — emotional, intuitive, and almost supernatural — which leads her back to Thornfield, where she finds him blinded, humbled, and alone. The story ends with their quiet reconciliation and the promise of a life built on honesty and mutual respect.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; excellent; atmospheric and effective; a few; yes.

Any good? Yes. This “Jane Eyre” is one of the better modern literary adaptations because it respects the source material without trying to be too Victorian in dialogue. The film is not a sweeping romance — it’s a quiet, steady story about two people who find each other despite their own damage. The restraint works. The film feels lived-in, not staged, and it avoids too much melodrama.

Acting: Wasikowska gives a strong, grounded performance as Jane: calm, intelligent, and emotionally contained without feeling cold. She carries the film. Fassbender plays Rochester with intensity but not excess; he’s brooding, yes, but also vulnerable in a way that makes the character feel human. Dench adds warmth and credibility as Mrs. Fairfax. Jamie Bell’s St. John is appropriately rigid — a man who confuses discipline with virtue. Hawkins is convincingly unpleasant as Mrs. Reed. Cervi’s Bertha Mason is mostly seen in flashes, but those moments are unsettling and effective, giving weight to the secret Rochester has tried to bury. Moore is believable as Adèle — energetic, a bit fragile, and just present enough to remind us that Rochester’s choices affect more than just himself. The ensemble fits the material cleanly.

Filming / FX: The cinematography is one of the film’s strengths. Fukunaga uses natural light, muted colors, and tight framing to create a sense of isolation and emotional pressure. Thornfield feels both grand and claustrophobic, which suits the story. The moorland scenes are bleak and beautiful. There are no special effects to speak of, but the visual choices (candlelit rooms, long corridors, fog‑covered landscapes) give the film a consistent tone.

Problems: A few. The film’s restraint may feel slow to some viewers, particularly in the early sections. The script seems to compress certain parts of the story, which occasionally makes emotional transitions feel abrupt — especially Jane’s time with the Rivers family and teaching school. The ending is effective, but may leave some viewers wanting a bit more emotional / passionate release. None of these issues break the film.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s a thoughtful, well-acted adaptation that feels serious without turning it into a costume-drama cliché. The performances are strong, the mood is consistent, and the final reunion scene lands with a quiet power. It’s not flashy, but it’s emotionally satisfying in a steady, understated way.

Final Recommendation: High moderate to low strong recommendation. “Jane Eyre” (2011) is a well-crafted adaptation with excellent acting, a clear sense of period and cinematic atmosphere, and a respectful approach to a classic novel. Its Academy Award nomination for Costume Design reflects the care put into the production, and its grounded tone makes it one of the more accessible versions of the story. If you enjoy period dramas, literary adaptations, or character-driven romances, this film is worth your time. As mentioned above, I know I’ve seen other versions of this “title”, but I don’t really remember them or when I saw them. I will try to remember to watch and review them at some point for better comparison. It strikes me that this will be like “Pride & Prejudice” or Shakespeare in that you have to watch a few different versions to appreciate the strength / weakness of any given version – not simply watch the same version multiple times. Maybe it’s just me… LoL

PS: On posting the link to this review on my page for “J” films, I note I not only have seen this title, I’ve seen this version (review here). The prior review is much shorter than the current format and dates from back in 2014, so in a way, it also serves as kind of a review of my blog dynamics…

.
Click here (27 March) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.