Jane Eyre; Moll Flanders

"There's gold in them thar classics," seems to be the latest battle cry from the Hollywood ranks as every pipsqueak with a word processor and a library card ransacks the literature shelves for overlooked gems. Admittedly, some good has come of this: Jane Austen became one of the most popular dead authors of 1996, largely on the strength of three major motion picture adaptations (Emma, Sense & Sensibility, Persuasion) and one excellent TV mini-series (A&E's Pride & Prejudice). But I suspect at least one venerable professor of English literature somewhere popped his or her heartstrings while watching Demi Moore and Gary Oldman destroy Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. Current or upcoming releases include: Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, Romeo & Juliet, and Hamlet; Henry James' Portrait of a Lady, Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure (shortened to Jude for movie audiences), and-- poor Hawthorne--Young Goodman Brown from Troma (the company renowned for such intellectual fare as The Toxic Avenger and Surf Nazis Must Die). It's too early to say whether the Bard, not to mention the already mortally wounded Hawthorne, will be spinning in their graves, but I suspect that Daniel Defoe is not exactly kicking up his heels over Moll Flanders.To gauge the distance that Moll Flanders has traveled from its 1722 publication as a novel to its 1996 appearance in theaters, one need only be aware of Defoe's original title: The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders Who Was Born at Newgate and During a Life of Continued Variety for Three Score Years, Beside Her Childhood, Was 12-Year a Whore, Five Times a Wife (Whereof Once to Her Own Brother), 12-Year a Thief, Eight-Year a Transported Felon in Virginia, at Last Grew Rich, Lived Honest, and Died a Penitent. Granted, one can understand the urge to abridge the title; unfortunately, writer/director Pen Densham decided to jettison most of the contents of the book as well.The film, which moves at a glacial pace, uses a lame framing device, in which a man named Hibble (Morgan Freeman, in a waste of his considerable talent) finds the daughter of Moll Flanders, and reads Moll's story to her as they embark on a long journey. The story of a whore, felon, and social climber? Please, this is 1996. Moll is, from the first frame to the last, depicted as a self-righteous victim. As portrayed by Robin Wright (who didn't read Defoe's novel, since the filmmaker didn't want the author's ideas interfering with her performance), Moll is an utter bore. After her birth, we first see Moll stabbing a knitting needle through a priest's pawing hand, and then running away to stand in a fountain, arms outstretched in Christ-like fashion (pick your own interpretation). Next, Moll is taken in by Mrs. Mazzawatti, an aristocrat with two jealous daughters who torment her with cruel remarks, while she, in turn, torments them (and us) with sermons. Eventually leaving, Moll takes shelter under the roof of Mrs. Allworthy (Stockard Channing), a madam who turns Moll into a prostitute. Out of desperation, she takes up the bottle until a kindly painter (John Lynch) wins her heart. There's more, but I think you kind of get the drift--what we have here is a social melodrama, an anachronistic TV movie of the week. Ironically, just as we were going to press, PBS ran the Masterpiece Theater version of Moll Flanders (slated for home video release from Anchor Bay Entertainment in early 1997). Bawdier, by far, than the theatrical version, the PBS entry presented us with an affable rake (albeit female), as opposed to the movie's preachy victim. Not recommended.By contrast, Franco Zeffirelli's Jane Eyre is actually about Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. The classic gothic romance, first published in 1847 (and in print ever since), about an orphaned girl turned governess (played by Anna Pacquin as a child, and Charlotte Gainsbourg as an adult) who falls in love with her arrogant, but tortured, master of the house, Mr. Rochester (William Hurt) is here given lavish treatment by director Zeffirelli (Romeo and Juliet). And, if you haven't read the book, you may be inclined to like the film--not that the latter strays in any large part from the former (it's pretty faithful); it's the richness of point of view--that is, Jane's voice--which is lost, and it's a pretty substantial loss. The other fault lies in the casting of the main actors: Charlotte Gainsbourg is too dour to have much appeal as Jane, and William Hurt seems to be more preoccupied with method acting than in showing us a Rochester with much passion. Still, this is a flawed adaptation, unlike Moll Flanders which is a trashed classic. An optional purchase. (R. Pitman)[DVD Review—Nov. 8, 2011—Echo Bridge, 116 min., PG, $8.99—Making its second appearance on DVD, 1996's Jane Eyre features a fine transfer but no special features. Bottom line: an unexceptional release of an unremarkable adaptation of the classic novel.]