The embers of Firelight

Having been intrigued ever since reading the post on the Bronteblog a while ago, I finally managed to watch Firelight (starring Sophie Marcaeu and Stephen Dillane) after getting a hold of it from the local library.
Here are some observations:

Outwardly, Firelight resembles Jane Eyre. There’s the governess (Miss Elizabeth Lorier), the master of the house with a past (Charles Godwin), a little girl (Louisa), and a housekeeper (Constance). The interior of the house is dark and drab, resembling Thornfield in many productions of Jane Eyre. A secret that connects all of them is at the heart of this story. However, there are significant differences. Unlike the plain Jane Eyre, Elizabeth is ravishingly beautiful, as evidenced by the household’s reaction to her appearance. She manages to attract the elderly Mr. Godwin as well as Charles’ American friend. As opposed to the morally pure union of Jane and Rochester, Charles and Elizabeth consent to an illicit act with the understanding that their actions will contribute toward the greater good, for their main concern is helping their fathers. Instead of the discovery of Rochester’s previous marriage, the ‘secret’ in Firelight is represented by Louisa, who is Charles and Elizabeth’s daughter. While we don’t learn about Bertha till the first half of Bronte’s novel, we are aware of the existence of Charles’ wife from the very first. Mrs. Godwin, presiding as a comatose invalid entombed in a dark chamber, is not a mystery in the manner of Bertha in Jane Eyre. Elizabeth is aware of her existence from the beginning and Louisa is told that she is not her real mother. Charles also brings Elizabeth to visit his wife soon after the former arrives at his house. The governess falls in love with the master of the house despite her awareness of the obstacle to their union, unlike Jane in Bronte’s novel. While half of Jane Eyre takes place outside Thornfield, the bulk of Firelight takes place within Godwin’s estate.

In contrast to Jane Eyre, who unites with Rochester only after going through a pilgrimage of sorts, including finding strength and integrity within herself, Elizabeth’s happiness is largely dependent on others, namely Charles and Louisa. Though it is evident that Elizabeth is trapped at the beginning of the story (her reaction to the waves and the water changes through the course of the movie, thus symbolizing freedom and release. While she starts of with barely a voluble sound, she manages to contrive a scream by the end), we are not sure if the entrapment is a result of an external or internal conflict. Even though she seeks to release her father from prison, we don’t know if this is the one factor that troubles her before she meets Charles. The film does not show us Elizabeth’s inner world. Furthermore, though the film strives to show Charles and Elizabeth falling in love with each other, I was not really convinced on that score. I would have wanted more character development, a glimpse at a reparetee between the two, an intimacy beyond just the physical. The same can be said of Charles, for we are not sure if he is eager to make love to Elizabeth because he is starved for sex on account of being deprived of it due to his wife’s condition, or because he genuinely loves her. Thus, the inclusion of an intellectual connection is necessary so as to clarify the nature of this relationship in the minds of the viewers.

Even though Jane Eyre arrives in Thornfield with excess emotional baggage, her main purpose is to find something for herself (“I care for myself”, she claims). She strives to work for herself and earn a living. She longs to be independent. When she leaves Rochester, one could argue that she did so for fear of being trapped into an imprudent union with him as he had concealed the existence of his wife from her. Jane finds herself destitute and weary at the price of purchasing her independence. Even by the end of the novel, Bronte’s purpose is to show that Jane can only return to Rochester after she has lived amongst other people, worked for herself, and procured a fortune (even if this fortune is bequeathed to her by someone else). Jane’s succeeds at the price of Rochester’s loss of power, for the latter loses his house and is maimed by the end of the novel. Jane’s journey is one of power, control, and independence primarily for herself.

While hints of women’s freedom are present in Firelight, Elizabeth does not seem to practice what she preaches. Though she implores Louisa to learn her lessons because education is one thing no one can take away from a woman, claiming that women are imprisoned by men and Society, Elizabeth’s liberation at the end of the movie is ambiguous. Her means of procuring happiness, quite frankly, lies in winning Louisa’s love, being a mother to her, and being intimate with Charles. Elizabeth came to teach Louisa not because she wanted to exercise her own mind, but rather, to find and teach her child. We don’t know if Elizabeth’s intellectual development was sharpened by any conversations with Charles that dealt with subjects other than Louisa, his wife, and their love. While Elizabeth is a passionate woman, I am not sure if this passion is directed at anything else besides intimacy with a man and mothering a child. I wonder if such a life is what she wanted for Louisa when she told the latter to learn her lessons. How much use would all Louisa’s learning in the schoolroom be if all she does at the end is marry a man of standing and exercises her motherly instincts by watching her child grow? Elizabeth’s identity as a woman is tied to her duty as a wife (or passionate lover rather) and loving mother, and if this what she wants for Louisa as well, then where is the scope for the reform she suggested when she implored Louisa to ‘learn’?

Although it bursts out in flames intermittently, the fire is easily quenched in Firelight. While it does not shy away from exploration of sexual desire, Firelight lacks depth in its character development. This movie had a lot of potential but fell short of reaching them and I believe this is the result of a poor script. All the actors performed their roles very well, including the little girl (Dominique Belcourt) who played little Louisa. Though Elizabeth is the antidote to the unhappiness of the father and loneliness of the child, she is herself a troubled character. With a wealth of rich elements at hand, Firelight only needed a closer working on the writing to turn it into incandescence.