New Jane Eyre adaptation...

[Lulabelli]

Hi all, for those of you who are in England or get BBC1 channel, what are the thoughts on the new Jane Eyre adaptation starring Toby Stephens as Mr Rochester?
I've seen a few versions of Jane Eyre- the Orson Wells and bits of the Timothy Dalton version, and whilst I'm enjoying this one, I must admit to stuggling to like some of it- i think perhaps it is too modern in it's language?
Can't remember anything off the top of my head (useful i know!) but they way they were speaking just seemed a bit out of place.
My own suspicions were confirmed when i spottemd my mum out of the corner of her eye having a coronary at every word and shieks of "NOOO!!!! She'd never say that!!!" and "that doesnt happen like that" folowed by a quick shake of the head in a distraught manner...
Any thoughts anybody?
Bear in mind, my family are total literary purists and generally prefer adaptaions that are true to the novels!
Cheers x

[Bysshe]

I've been watching the BBC adaptation too, and I have mixed feelings on it.

I was never a devoted fan of the novel, which may be the reason why I'm quite enjoying it, despite the occasional inaccuracy. The second episode was more enjoyable than the first, and I'm looking forward to the next episode.

The cast are all good, but I agree that it is too modern in places. Mr Rochester, for example - maybe I need to re-read the book, but I swear he wasn't that "modern"! He's far too cheerful, apart from anything else.

[Mazaroo]

Hello, it's so funny.. today I watched the original Jane Eyre with the young Liz Tyler (having never read the book or knew of its existence) on Sky Movies. Very good story I thought, I didn't want it to end. Then, I just so happened to turn the channel to BBC1 and caught their version. Its can't compare in my opinion, just doesn't pull on the emotions as the original film (no doubt to the book either). Not that my two pennies count, but I can't say I enjoyed the BBC adaptation and it's wasn't altogther correct, if compared to the original film.

Just registered to this site today.
Bye.:)

[Bysshe]

I am enjoying it, despite its faults.

No TV series can ever quite match up the book (Brideshead excepted!), but the BBC adaptation is really quite decent, considering how easy it is to mess up a book. It's been such a long time since I've read the book, but as far as I can tell, it's remained fairly loyal, only making the occasional changes here and there.

Mr Rochester is my only major complaint.

[u9930841]

I think the new adaptation is fantastic. It seems to bring out the passion in the book. My only complaint is they cast the Mr Rochester too attractive. He is meant to be ugly where as Toby Stephens is very sexy. It made me read the book again. It also made my mum favourite romantic hero change from MR Darcy to Mr Rochester. As for me I've always loved him.

[Bysshe]

Yes, Toby Stephens is too good-looking.

As for favourite romantic heroes, I'm afraid Mr Rochester will always take third place:

1: Heathcliff (if you can call him "romantic", or a "hero")
2: Mr Darcy
3: Mr Rochester

[Lulabelli]

Having now seen the whole adaption, I must admit I did rather enjoy it in the end. The only problem I have is that they navigated too far away fom the novel.
There were far too many scenes of them kissing and that did annoy me- it's 1840s for goodness sake! Gaahhh!
But, on the plus side, I am now more of a fan of the story, I wasnt before really.
Toby Stephens is a bit too good looking, but i think he managed to be quite gritty as well. Jane Eyre girl (I forget her name!) having annoyed me a bit at the beginning grew on me a little- have now resigned my self to her lips, which have decided are real, not the result of some hideous attempt at a Trout Pout....!

Having said all that, whilst enjoying it I wont be rushing out to buy it.

[fortunesfool]

I love the book and the BBC adaptation recreated it well (in most places). I missed the first episode, but the others were well acted and directed.

Well done the Beeb!

[jane-charlotte]

The 2006 Jane Eyre by no means fully represents the fullness of the novel--regarding language, I agree that it mostly lacks the elegance and beauty of Bronte's own words. *the scene that really grates on me is after Mason's attack, and Rochester says "It's been a long night Hey Jane..."Hey" ? what?!!!* At least use the original utterances from the book, like "eh" ...*
All that being said though, the film makes very clear its interpretive bias regarding Jane's growth as woman, thereby as sexual being. Psycho-analyist theory abounds... color, costume, setting all participate in the formation of Jane's self-hood in the film leading to her eventual fullness.
Shame though that the faith of the book and of Jane was a minor and overlooked factor in the film.
Ruth Wilson is an interesting Jane, beautiful in a unique way--not plain whatsoever...but she does well.

[sciencefan]

Drat!
I just picked up this version from the library and I was very anxious to see it- until now.
I hope I am not as disappointed as these posts suggest I will be.

It says Masterpiece Theatre
as seen on Public Television (USA)

Screenplay- Sandy Welch
Directed- Susanna White
Starring- Ruth Wilson, Toby Stevens

BBC & WGBH Boston 2006

[Niamh]

I really enjoyed this adaptation up until the last installment. I didnt like how they finished the story off. was very disappointing, and somewhat annoying.

[jane-charlotte]

you will not be disappointed when you see the film, but just keep in mind that no adaption is perfect...:) This one has many good symbolic elements

[sciencefan]

you will not be disappointed when you see the film, but just keep in mind that no adaption is perfect...:) This one has many good symbolic elements
Thank you for the encouragement.
I have just finished watching about 3 hours of it.
Jane has just taken off her wedding dress and put it away.

To those of you who thought Mr. Rochester too handsome,
I didn't think so at all.
He's not ugly; he is pleasant enough.

Now the girl who plays Jane, she is too pretty,
but then again, not when she is crying. :)

Well I shall definitely have to read the book again
so I can know just how far off the mark they were.
On it's own merits, I am enjoying it so far.
I like Rochester's insights into Jane's soul.
It's like they are soul mates. It's very romantic,
but I don't remember that being in the book.

[sciencefan]

I have finished the rest of the movie.
They have sufficiently confused me.
I shall have to read the book again.


The movie was okay, but I would not recommend it.
There are others that are better.
Perhaps I will feel differently after I have read the book again.

[Lucretia]

I thought it was an enjoyable adaptation.
There is one question nagging in my mind... What IS that song that Adele sang, the French one that Sophie taught her? She sings a bit of it when she asks Mr. Rochester to tell her about the Caribbean.
I would so appreciate it if anyone could tell me the name of it and/or where it's from... It is such a lovely song...

[emmsi_*tobyrox*]

Like my title says, i thought it was pretty amazing, even compared to the other great versions on film. Toby Stephens MADE Rochester his own, and it was a good portrayal, remember not everyone's interpretations are the same hence why so many people loved it and others not so much. I thought it stayed pretty true to the novel so what else can you ask for?

Plus i know i am only one in millions who admired Toby's performance as Rochester, and as a debut, Ruth Wilson did an astounding job.

[motherhubbard]

It says Masterpiece Theatre
as seen on Public Television (USA)



I wondered if you were talking about the Masterpiece Theater version I saw. I loved it, I really did. I let my kids stay up late to watch and they loved it, too. Netflix has several different Jane Eyre movies. I'd love to watch another if someone can recommend one. I ordered one and did not like it as well as the Masterpiece Theater version.

[emmsi_*tobyrox*]

I wondered if you were talking about the Masterpiece Theater version I saw. I loved it, I really did. I let my kids stay up late to watch and they loved it, too. Netflix has several different Jane Eyre movies. I'd love to watch another if someone can recommend one. I ordered one and did not like it as well as the Masterpiece Theater version.

Hi, erm i think it is the masterpiece theatre version, many people on myspace speak of it, after seeing pictures of Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson they say they have seen it - this IS the one i was talking about. Here in Britain it is made by the BBC, but i think it is the same but under the name of "masterpiece Theatre" elsewhere...just read through my reply and it's a bit confusing sorry about that:blush:

[sciencefan]

I wondered if you were talking about the Masterpiece Theater version I saw. I loved it, I really did. I let my kids stay up late to watch and they loved it, too. Netflix has several different Jane Eyre movies. I'd love to watch another if someone can recommend one. I ordered one and did not like it as well as the Masterpiece Theater version.
I DON'T recommend the Miramax version where William Hurt plays Rochester;
they over-modernized the story and changed it too much.
I would barely have recognized it if they had named it something different.

I DO recommend the A&E version with Ciaran Hinds as Rochester, and
Samantha Morton as Jane Eyre.

[emmsi_*tobyrox*]

I DO recommend the A&E version with Ciaran Hinds as Rochester, and
Samantha Morton as Jane Eyre.

Hi, i haven't heard of this version, the same Cairan Hinds as in Persuasion? There is an A&E Emma version aswell, does anyone know what A&E stands for, it's been bugging me for ages!

Emma J x

[sciencefan]

Hi, i haven't heard of this version, the same Cairan Hinds as in Persuasion? There is an A&E Emma version as well, does anyone know what A&E stands for, it's been bugging me for ages!

Emma J xYes.
Persuasion (1995) .... Captain Frederick Wentworth

He was also in:
The Nativity Story (2006) .... Herod
The Phantom of the Opera (2004) .... Firmin
Rules of Engagement (1995) .... Cambell Ferguson

I got this information from the Internet Movie DataBase:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001354/


A & E stands for Arts & Entertainment.

[emmsi_*tobyrox*]

Cheers sciencefan! :D

[kiki1982]

Well, I liked the new Jane Eyre adaptation... until I read the book... And I saw the original Rochester... Now: if they would combine Timothy Dalton's Rochester (1983) (grandeur, real gentleman), Ciaran Hinds' Rochester (1997) (pure arrogance, uglyness (sorry for the honesty, fellow) and above all could sing and speak French in a proper way!!) and Toby Stephens' Rochester (flirty and out to get her) AND if they would get a woman to write the script and who can catch the reason why Jane falls in love with this hideous figure who is nontheless for some reason soooooooo attractive, then we might finally get what he should be.
They also changed a few crucial parts and above all they added the scene on her bed after the wedding was cancelled... :flare: They didn't at all get it??? I understand that for 2006-people religeous principles are not a priority, but Jane is very consequent in this, so it is absolutely unthinkable that she would have allowed him in her bedroom after that desastrous wedding, let alone lie in bed together and also let him kiss her.
Also... Did anyone find that the first proposal of marriage was a little odd? I watched it a few times on TouTube (you can watch the whole series on there!) and it was just as if they had already done it like 50 times that day and they were tired and both actors were waiting for their moment in the scene (Stephens sighs mechanicly and then goes on to "we have been good friends, haven't we, Jane?" and she looks to the side until she can take off to start "how can you imagine that, what do you think I am???" etc) in the book it is nicely built up to the point where the passions rise and stay until the end, but here it doesn't really take off... The start is there, but maybe they did it too many times, then Hinds' and Morton's version was much better...
Anyway, it was a nice version, but I found it lacking a bit in arrogance o his side. Jane was credible, but maybe a little too modern... More later...

PS: Pardon me for any spelling mistakes, I'm a belgian, so English is only a third language...

[sciencefan]

http://eyreguide.bravehost.com/

[Newcomer]

http://eyreguide.bravehost.com/
Very useful. Good job.
How does the '07 version compare to the '73 of Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston?

[Annamariah]

I really liked the new version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. The story wasn't exactly as it is in the book, but it never is when a book is turned into a film and this one wasn't bad adaptation at all.

I think Ruth Wilson did a great job, and she looks like Jane Eyre might. I still can't say, whether she's pretty or not, and that's exactly as I've always thought Jane should look like :D

As for some people saying that Toby Stephens is far too good-looking to be Mr Rochester, I must say I don't think so. I think he's gorgeous, but most of my friends are like "Eww, he looks just AWFUL! :sick: " I think Toby Stephens makes a great Mr Rochester, he has the right attitude to it :)

[sciencefan]

Very useful. Good job.
How does the '07 version compare to the '73 of Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston?Do you mean the one with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens?
According to the "Enthusiast":
"Beautiful cinematography and music are featured in this BBC miniseries and Ruth Wilson makes a really fantastic Jane- presenting her many emotions in a believable and subtle way. Toby Stephens is not quite the Rochester of the novel, he's more of a charming "rake" and his absolute love for Jane is not as apparent as his absolute love for tail. A thoroughly modern interpretation, sensationalzing the novel and turning it into more of a Gothic/Harlequin romance."

I thought that they changed the script so much that it was almost unrecognizeable as Jane Eyre. Had they changed the names, I would not have known. I did not like the 2007 version at all.

The "Enthusiast" says about the 1973 version:
"A BBC miniseries, which is, in my humble opinion, the very best adaptation of this novel. Cusack presents a very credible, layered Jane, and Jayston is superb in bringing out all the aspects of Rochester's complicated character. The script is the closest to the novel with little added scenes and whole chunks of dialogue lifted from the book. Absolutely outstanding."

She makes me want to buy it.

[kiki1982]

I think Ruth Wilson did a great job, and she looks like Jane Eyre might. I still can't say, whether she's pretty or not, and that's exactly as I've always thought Jane should look like :D

As for some people saying that Toby Stephens is far too good-looking to be Mr Rochester, I must say I don't think so. I think he's gorgeous, but most of my friends are like "Eww, he looks just AWFUL! :sick: " I think Toby Stephens makes a great Mr Rochester, he has the right attitude to it :)

Yes, both actors are not universally ugly... But then again who is??? What actually troubled me the most in Stephens looks, were his nostrils, when he was taken in close-up. Certainly when I watch more than one episode after another, I start to be irritated by it. Then I see these 2 black holes in the middle of his face... Nevertheless, good acceptable interpretation.
I and many people with me apparently found Ruth Wilson's lips also quite noticable. But I suppose that there are men who don't mind...
I guess this book is the ideal one to interprate as an actor if you are not Hugh Grant or his female counterpart... You can never be too ugly...:D

[staticgirl]

I think that it may not have been the most faithful adaptation of the book but by 'eck it was a great evening drama and I swooned over Toby Stephens rather a lot. :blush: The book I like for different reasons - it's more subtle.

[Elizabeth1226]

I liked it very much :thumbs_up

[Newcomer]

Jane Austen's observation, "The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.", applies equally well to film adaptations of novels. We poses highly specialized visual and language areas of the brain and derive complementary pleasure from both and it would be difficult to state which predominates. Steven Pinker writes “ Our language has a model of sex in it {actually, two models}, and conceptions of intimacy and power and fairness. Divinity, degradation, and danger are also ingrained in our mother tongue, together with a concept of well-being and a philosophy of free will.”. What a surprising and concise summation of Jane Eyre.

Textual Fidelity vs. Adaptations.
In my opinion the often stated critique that an adaptation is not true to the book, is misguided. While the text can be viewed as objective, our reaction, our understanding is anything but. The connotations and denotations of words, the sense of a phrase, the similes and metaphors, all are interpreted through our experience, the degree of attention reading, the mood of the moment, and are subjective. Rarely can two people agree on the meaning much less on the pleasure extracted from the 'objective' text. Only by rereading the text or reviewing the dramatization can we note a new interpretation and thus broaden our subjective impressions. However I do not wish to imply that understanding or aesthetic response is all relative and therefore any discussion pointless. Let me give a few examples from recent post in the Forum.
“Jane Eyre- represents the woman in each of us, that feminine and mysterious look, that unforgettable poetry. She is everywhere a secret window, a secret glance the truth in the eyes of the night.”, is more substantive than “i hate this book. its dumb”. Both tells us more about the writer than about the subject. Some are amusing, as the response to an actor portraying Rochester, “What actually troubled me the most in Stephens looks, were his nostrils.....I see these 2 black holes in the middle of his face.” Some less so, “I understand that for 2006-people religeous principles are not a priority, but Jane is very consequent in this, so it is absolutely unthinkable that she would have allowed him in her bedroom after that desastrous wedding, let alone lie in bed together and also let him kiss her.”(errors uncorrected), as it illustrates a self righteous moral myopia, the inability to follow an aesthetic illustration of the developing character of Jane Eyre because of preconceived 'religious principles'. This scene requires a fuller explanation.
In Moor House, in a flashback, Jane recalls her emotions when after the aborted wedding, she is caressed by Rochester and in spite of the emotional letdown, responds to him, yet makes the decision that she has to leave him. After the flashback, Jane sobs uncontrollably, overwhelmed by the memory of what she has lost. The scene is masterful conceived visualization of an inner emotional state, of her loss and of the love that she still bears him. In chapter 27 between “Mr. Rochester, I must leave you.”and “Mr. Rochester, I will not be yours”, Charlotte takes 18 pages to illustrate Jane's moral dilemma and another 8 before the resolution, “My daughter, flee temptation! “ - “Mother, I will.”. Susanna White and Sandy Welch does the same in the flashback scene. Which is more powerful, I'll leave it up to you, however the example illustrates the different requirements of prose and visualization to make an idea affective.

The Different Adaptations of Jane Eyre.
Thanks to sciencefan for- http://eyreguide.bravehost.com, we can have an idea of the adaptations of Jane Eire from 1934 to 2006. And even of 2 musicals? Hard to imagine! The one paragraph critiques give us in bravehost's own words “The Enthusiast's Guide is only meant as an overview, and is full of my own opinions.”
Three caught my attention:
a) Jane Eyre 1973, “Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston,A BBC miniseries, which is, in my humble opinion, the very best adaptation of this novel. Cusack presents a very credible, layered Jane, and Jayston is superb in bringing out all the aspects of Rochester's complicated character. The script is the closest to the novel with little added scenes and whole chunks of dialogue lifted from the book. Absolutely outstanding. “,
b) Jane Eyre 1983, “Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton Another BBC miniseries which fails to capture the novel so precisely as the previous 1973 version, but does a very good job. Zelah Clarke gives a good though not too passionate performance, and though Dalton can be too theatrical sometimes, he presents a credible Rochester.” and ,
c) Jane Eyre 2006, “Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, Beautiful cinematography and music are featured in this BBC miniseries and Ruth Wilson makes a really fantastic Jane- presenting her many emotions in a believable and subtle way. Toby Stephens is not quite the Rochester of the novel, he's more of a charming "rake" and his absolute love for Jane is not as apparent as his absolute love for tail. A thoroughly modern interpretation, sensationalzing the novel and turning it into more of a Gothic/Harlequin romance.”
What also caught my attention was that the 1983 adaptation was directed by Julian Amyes and the dramatization was by Alexander Baron, while the 2006 adaptation was directed by Susanna White and the dramatization was by Sandy Welch. Could gender of the director/script-writer, explain the very different style of the adaptation? Perhaps the inclusion of the 1973 adaptation, directed by Joan Craft, dramatization by Robin Chapman, would have modified the cleavage of gender or of style. My impression is that the 1983 adaptation is more linear, hence 'truer' to the book and the 2006 adaptation is more 'flow of consciousness', and more incisive of the mind of Jane Eyre. Julian Amyes uses the technique of the non intrusive author telling a story, adhering fairly closely to the chronology of the text, with a few monologues of Zelah Clarke giving us an insight into what Jane is thinking. Susanna White utilizes the full range of camera techniques to visually represent Jane's emotion of the moment. Ruth Wilson expands the insight into Jane's thoughts and emotions by the extraordinary plasticity of her wide and uniquely beautiful mouth. A small pleasure is signaled by a minute upturn of the corners of the lips while an emotion of happiness has the mouth spreading till it seems that the ears are the only limit to the smile.
I have labeled the 1983 adaptation by Julian Amyes as linear in contrast with the free flowing 2006 adaptation by Susanna White. By this I mean that Amyes divides the dvd into chapters like those of the book and that essentially he directs from a third person view point with a few off screen monologue illustrating Jane's thoughts. Jane's character as portrayed by Zelah Clarke has a lackluster quality that fails to connect the young Jane's - “To this crib I always took my doll; human beings must love something, and in the dearth of worthier objects of affection, I contrived to find pleasure in loving and cherishing a faded graven image, shabby as a scarecrow.” and the woman's - “Do you think i can stay to become nothing to you? Do you think I am an automaton? - a machine without feelings? And can bear to have my morsel of bread snatched from my lips, and my drop of living water dashed from my cup? Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong! - I have as much soul as you, - and full as much heart! And if God had gifted me with some beauty, and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you. I am not talking to you now through the medium of custom, conventionalities, or even of mortal flesh: - it is my spirit that addresses your spirit; just as if both had passed through the grave, and we stood at God's feet, equal, - as we are!”
These lines require the experience of a Shakespearean actress to make concrete, one who has plumed the depths of despair and of love. Zelah Clarke can not manage this or perhaps Amyes as a director can not bring this out of her. The portrayal of Rochester by Timothy Dalton is quite the opposite of Zelah's Jane. He is too Byronic. On him the lines: “My bride is here, because my equal is here and my likeness!”, have real force but his repentance “I thank my Master, that in the midst of Judgment he remembered mercy. I humbly entreat my Redeemer to give me strength to lead henceforth a purer life that i have done hitherto!', sounds too much out of character. But the fault lies with Charlotte and not with Dalton's Rochester. It's notable that Andrew Bicknell as St. John Rivers, is also much more fully developed than in the Susanna White's adaptation, which has lead me to the supposition that the gender differences in director/script writer has resulted in the fullness of portrayal of the principals.

Criticism of the Adaptation.
I'm not at ease with 'bravehost's' opinion that the Susanna's Jane Eyre (2006) is “A thoroughly modern interpretation, sensationalzing the novel and turning it into more of a Gothic/Harlequin romance.”, if I take the characterization “Gothic/Harlequin romance.” as a put down, a deviation from the 'high art' of the novel. I can't find any changes from the novel that can be termed sensational. On the contrary, Sandy Welch dramatization limits the references religion, to Evangelism as practiced by Brocklehurst, the otherworldly forgiveness of Helen Burns, Jane's appeal to Mother (Nature) in the moment of moral crisis, or the Calvinistic subjugation of desire by St. John. This unorthodox religiosity of Jane Eyre is what is not brought forth but attenuated in Welch's dramatization and in my opinion limits our understanding of the changes in Jane's character from child to woman.
Sandra M. Gilbert's and Susan Gubard's observation that “It seems not to have been primarily the coarseness and sexuality of Jane Eyre which shocked Victorian reviewers .. but .. it's “anti Christian” refusal to accept the forms, customs, and standards of society – in short, its rebellious feminism. They were disturbed not so much by the proud Byronic sexual energy of Rochester as by the Byronic pride and passion of Jane herself.”
So what is the 'sensationalizing' that bravehost objects to? Can he possibly mean the visualization of feelings? For I consider that as a strength, not a weakness in this adaptation. An example: The text narrates Jane's arrival as, “but there were houses scattered all over the district; I felt we were in a different region to Lowood, more populous, less picturesque; more stirring, less romantic....The roads were heavy, the night misty... and came upon the long front of a house: a candle-light gleamed from one curtained bow-window; all the rest was dark.”
In the Alexander Baron 2006 adaptation, Jane arrives in daylight and is greeted by a maidservant at the front door. She conducts her to Mrs. Fairfax room: a large, paneled sitting room. The dramatization is factual, lacking any undertones of Jane's emotions. In the Susanna White/Sandy Welch dramatization of 2006, Jane arrives at Thornfield Hall in the dark and is lead through a foreboding courtyard by lantern light to Mrs. Fairfax parlor. The room is cheerfully lit, a fire in the heart, a glad welcome and hot plate of stew. Her first in eight years, as she informs the incredulous Mrs. Fairfax. The dramatization of arrival at night is not to create a feeling of dread but of contrast to the cheerfulness of the welcome. In the morning Jane awakes in a large white bed with bright morning light streaming through the window. The contrast with the gloom of first entrance into Thornfield Hall is dramatic.
Not only is the 2006 dramatization more accurate to the time of the text but it visualizes Jane's feelings in contrast with the 1983 adaptation where the arrival scene is much more mater of fact.
Lets examine the contrast how the two adaptations treat the drawing room scene of chapter 17. The text takes 14 pages to describe the guests, “a band of ladies stood at the opening; they entered, and the curtain fell behind them.
They dispersed about the room; reminding me, by the lightness and buoyancy of their movements, of a flock of white plumy birds.”
Amyes uses a high camera angle to show the gusts milling around the entrance hall with Jane and Mrs. Fairfax observing from a balcony. The camera shifts to a chest height but there is no particular emphasis as it pans among the guests.
The White/Wright adaptation starts with the camera at ankle height and focuses on the womens dresses as they enter the room. The first pair is a orange-red dress and a blue-gray, the camera speed is slowed down so that the dresses sway as if an undulating wave is to overtake us. Then a second pair of dresses come into view, white as in “a flock of white plumy birds.”Jane and Adelaine are watching through a crack in the door. The view shift to panoramic, very high camera angle. Jane and Adelaine are watching from the balcony. The guests in the drawing room are separated into couples, the pattern has a sense of a choreographic use of space as the focus shifts to Rochester and Blanche. It is Jane's focus and it is clear that the visualization is of Jane's emotions to the scene.

Is the Adaptation a Gothic/Harlequin Romance?
Jane Eyre has been labeled by some critics as Gothic and by some as a Romance. Both are inadequate since the first third of the novel is clearly autobiographical and the second third is diffused with themes from the Angria romances of the juvenile Charlotte Bronte. Yet such reductionism does not explain the beauty of the book. I fell that 'bravehost's' label is unjustified for the 2006 adaptation of Jane Eyre.
Let us first define Gothic: “Gothic fiction include terror (both psychological and physical), mystery, the supernatural, ghosts, haunted houses and Gothic architecture, castles, darkness, death, decay, doubles, madness, secrets and hereditary curses...The stock characters of gothic fiction include tyrants, villains, bandits, maniacs, Byronic heroes, persecuted maidens, femmes fatales, madwomen, magicians, vampires, werewolves, monsters, demons, revenants, ghosts, perambulating skeletons, the Wandering Jew and the Devil himself.”
Charlotte's novel has darkness, death, Byronic heroes, madwomen and fortune tellers. However they exists in both adaptations and are not central to the theme. Especially they are peripheral to the White/Wright adaptation where the focus is the visualization of Jane's emotions to the incidents of the story line. The director takes great liberties with the chronology of the text but she succeeds in portraying the emotional truth of Jane Eyre. Therefore I think that it is the greater artistic achievement of the two adaptations.

Lose Ends.
The Amyes/Baron adaptation costuming by Gill Hardie has the distinction of the ugliest womens dresses in an adaptation. The waist is very high with the skit flaring into an enormous tulip shape with different amounts of lace over the shoulders. The Victorian Web summarizes as : “An enormous variety of styles was worn by women during this half-century, many of them remarkably ugly,” If Gill Hardie, costume mistress chose the 19th century authenticity, Ames as a director still bears responsibility for the impression of abysmal ugliness in the women's dress.
Too easily overlooked factor is the use of music in particular sequences. In the White/Wright adaptation the original score is exceptional in heightening the mood of the scene. It is complementary to the facial magic of Ruth Wilson's face. In the Julian Amyes and Alexander Baron dramatization the musical score is rarely used and of little consequence.

[sciencefan]

Excellent essay. Thank you. :thumbs_up


"modified the cleavage of gender"
tee-hee

[iorix]

i think jane is a christ figure. a good christian women with good ethics and moral standards. all of the adaptations completely ignored the christian basis of the book and turned the story into some pagan creature feature.

the 2006 adaptation contained too much "female spirituality", implying that there was some unspoken connection between the mad woman and jane and that the whole issue was about the "overthrow of the patriarchy"

the adaptation was not true to the novel, because it completely ignored the christian basis of it. i think the book was corrupted by editors to appear like a gothic horror when bronte probably meant it to be pure moral literature about a woman who suffers like other righteous people do, who is filled with good intentions and faith in God and who is rewarded with fulfillment and bounty after her period of trials and difficulty.

i dont think feminism has a "prototype" in jane eyre at all. (by the way)

[sciencefan]

i think jane is a christ figure. a good christian women with good ethics and moral standards. all of the adaptations completely ignored the christian basis of the book and turned the story into some pagan creature feature.

the 2006 adaptation contained too much "female spirituality", implying that there was some unspoken connection between the mad woman and jane and that the whole issue was about the "overthrow of the patriarchy"

the adaptation was not true to the novel, because it completely ignored the christian basis of it. i think the book was corrupted by editors to appear like a gothic horror when bronte probably meant it to be pure moral literature about a woman who suffers like other righteous people do, who is filled with good intentions and faith in God and who is rewarded with fulfillment and bounty after her period of trials and difficulty.

i dont think feminism has a "prototype" in jane eyre at all. (by the way)
I agree wholeheartedly!

[kiki1982]

'The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.'

Jane Austen was indeed a very intellegent woman, but she didn't know the medium tv yet. What they can sometime make of books... One wonders why they made the effort.

If you do not want to respect the plot of the book why do you make a film of a certain book? That scene on her bed absolutely missed the plot and morals of those days. They totally went mad when they had the guests leave after Jane got back from Gateshead Hall. There are enough stories you can make about a governess caring for an illegitimate child and falling in love with her master and eventually marrying him, only don't call it Jane Eyre.
I find it a matter of disrespect towards the writer of the book. Like telling him: 'your story was not good enough, we made it better'. If you want to make a film adaptation of a victorian book, you do not expect sex, a lot of kissing, passion etc. on the screen. Then take one of a later period.
I can understand that you can't just film the scenes in the book, because then it's in pieces, like the 1983 version, where every 10 minutes the screen was black. But you can create scenes that are relevant and not change the order of the story, like they did now.

The french usually make better films of their books. If they change the story they do it with expertise and with reason (too long, too difficult...), unlike the last anglo-sakson film adaptations I saw.

Of course it was fun to watch, but not as Jane Eyre.

[dissenter]

I totally agree!

The bedroom scene totally changed the entire story, and ruined it. Some people who liked the 2006 version with all that stuff said that it had "chemistry" that the book lacked...otherwise, it made "no sense" why they "fell in love".

If they think that, well....
they sort of missed the entire point of Jane Eyre, the book.

[kiki1982]

There was "chemistry" in the sense that they fell in love, but not at first sight and certainly not physically. They found each other plain, ugly, not handsome... But they were two kindred spirits, so that's why they got attracted... Anyway, they were not even supposed to think about physical activities in those days, although Rochester probably didn't do anything else (as he offered for her to be his partner and go and live in France :p). But I don't think that he would have dreamed of going into her bedroom and lie in her bed, in his house, with all the servants who could start gossiping. In another country, yes. In another city, yes. But not in the same place. Her reputation would be at stake, and he has too much respect for her as to make her the laughing stock of the town... He wants a commitment, if not in church, just among themselves and then it will be possible to do what married people do.

Why do they take such great pains with clothing (stuffing Ruth Wilson in a ten inch corset until the poor girl nearly chokes, gets rashes everywhere and gets pains all over) if they don't want to reflect the proodish spirit of the times??

[MeWeed]

I've just finished reading and then rereading Jane Eyre for the first time in my adult life. It is a FABULOUS BOOK! I read it BECAUSE I saw the new BBC/ Masterpiece Theatre version a few months ago. (I didn't care much for the Wm. Hurt version- it felt very two-dimensional and flat when I saw it years ago.)

Some have commented in this thread about the pages and pages of conversation the evening after meeting-Bertha-after-the-cancelled-wedding incident between Edward and Jane, versus the kissing and talking in the new movie.

Here's my take:
The book is written from Jane's perspective. We hear her thoughts, know her motives for doing/saying, or not doing/saying various things. In this scene, there is a lot of her being firm or weepy while Mr. Rochester is ranting or tenderly caring for Jane, as a way to help keep him in check. This kind of mental motivation does not translate to the screen.

The movie has the audience as a fly on the wall, watching the story. We don't hear the thoughts....

In the book, Edward tells Jane all about Bertha, plus the other two mistresses in those many pages. In the movie, the Bertha back story was told to all the wedding witnesses. In the book, we know from his words and her thoughts that they are both very torn by the current situatuion. Mr. R. doesn't want the laws of man to have to apply to him. Being true to her integrity is most important to Jane. The way the movie portrays this is yes, much steamier than the book, but I feel the same motives for each character are reflected.

I wish the Ferndean wedding proposal in the movie was the version in the book -- "choose her who loves you best...Choose her I love best"

Yesterday I made the connection in "Eyre" as pronounced "air" - putting on "airs" is something that all the other affluent women in the story do as a matter of fact. The Reed women and the Ingram houseguests at Thornfield all had the attitude that Jane was "beneath them" (expressed thru expressions, sighs, etc.) Jane could in no way have anything of value to contribute to the conversation. Jane, on the otherhand, is so grounded. I think this inner calm and stability (vs. "appearances") is what attracts Mr. Rochester to Jane. She is different from anyone else he has ever met.

Someone asked about Rochester 'parenting' Adele. The attitude in this story - as shown by Aunt Reed and the Ingrams - was that children who were wards should be gotten rid of to (boarding) school, and "children don't have feelings!"

I'm glad I discovered this thread! It is nice to have someone to discuss the book with!

[kiki1982]

MeWeed, I agree that sometimes an adaptation can make you read the book. The same with me: I suddenly developed the absolute urge to read Jane Eyre when I had seen the adaptation...

But bad adaptations can give a totally different impression and then people find the book dull in comparison to the film...

About the William Hurt version: that was indeed very flat. Zefirelli, the director, did his best to make a really poetic version of the story typical Italian style, but sadly his Rochester didn't work well. Certainly not in connection with Charlotte Gainsbourg. Although, the vewers of now probably also had the ugh-effect about the age gap, because Charlotte really looked her age and Hurt also looked his age.

I always have the impression that in general people feel too much with Rochester. I think in the book there is a fine line between sympathising for Rochester and putting the blame on him. You can understand him, why he did all those things, but he is also to blame for his own sorrow, and I don't think the reader should feel sorry when Jane leaves him after the wedding insident.
I think they put that feeling in place very well in the 1997 version with Ciaran Hinds as Rochester. There was also the age gap apparent, and you can feel for Rochester, but when he throws her luggage over the banister and when he shouts at her, you have realy something like 'ok I sympathised with you, but now not anymore, and what do you expect if you lie to someone? Were you going to tell her afterwards, or what?'. I believe that Jane, after she has seen Bertha, is scared of Rochester. Scared that she will become like that and that he will also lock her up. That fear, that Jane feels, is not easy to put in a film, certainly not if you don't want to have to spend too luch time, but they converted that fear to be locked up into a fear of him being aggressive. I think that in the book, you think he has gone too far, and in the film of 1997 you also think so, but for another reason. In the end, there is the fear that Jane feels, and that is the most important.
They were also very consequent in that they only wanted to film the love story between Jane and Rochester. They took everything out, also the gypsy scene which everyone dreads because they don't know what it means.
Beside that, Hinds was the only Rochester that really fit the bill: could speak French admirably, being together and having a child with a Française, and could sing beautifully. It is a shame that it was just an underrated film from the start. A shame for his colleaugue Morton too, because she had done quite a few costume dramas then and she made a very good Jane. Maybe the best I've seen so far, even.

Concerning the 'air'-thing. I think that's right. Outer apearance was very important, and Rochester also based his marriage with Bertha on that. Sadly he was very much mistaken and had to pay for that. Jane, on the other hand, doesn't believe in that and so still marries him when he looks even worse than before and has less to show...

Concerning Adèle: the saying in England still exists. Children should only be seen, not be heard. Victorians didn't like children and left them to a maid and saw them once a day, or left them in school, although boarding schools were quite new at the time the book plays. Rochester also says 'it's too expensive'. Not at all for him of course, but it shows that they were quite for the elite.
I heard somewhere that there were quite a few cases like Adèle, I mean an illegitimate child being left on the hands of the father by the mother who ran off. We now think it's the mother's concern to care for her child, maybe with the help of the father, but apparently, in the Victorian period it was the other way around. Fathers had more chance of claiming custody when the wife left him and illegitimate children were often left behind to the father. No matter what the wife thought of that. It is now unthinkable that one would do that, but apparently it was often the case then...

[Agatha]

About the William Hurt version: that was indeed very flat. Zefirelli, the director, did his best to make a really poetic version of the story typical Italian style, but sadly his Rochester didn't work well. Certainly not in connection with Charlotte Gainsbourg. Although, the vewers of now probably also had the ugh-effect about the age gap, because Charlotte really looked her age and Hurt also looked his age.

Yea, neither did I enjoyed Zefirelli version. It wasn't a bad movie, but it didn't touch my heart. But BBC version... It was really briliant. Actors: Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilison were perectly matched to their roles. And the movie has myserious, gloomy climat like in the book. But I didn't like that "Bed" scene, it completely spoiled last epsiode. After watching this, I became convinced again that the British make the best adaptations of their classic literature: Jane Eyre, Cranford, North&South, Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejduice, Bleak House and maaany others.

[kiki1982]

I find that the BBC does her best, but sometimes misses the victorian ball in the way that they put things in their adaptations that are not true to victorian culture...
But anyway, if you value the BBC adaptations so much, watch some French adaptations of French literature. The french also do a very good job, I would even say, a better job sometimes than the BBC.

[MeWeed]

MEMORIES...
I rented the DVD of the BBC version of the story, and have been watching it a lot. My kids (6 and 9) enjoy the story, too! The most recent time I watched it, something struck me about Jane's 4 flashbacks while she is living with her cousins. I think they are fantasy.

1. Memory: While regaining her strength after being found on the Moors, Jane remembers running back into Thornfield after the wedding is called off. Flower petals are falling out of her bouquet. She runs upstairs. Rochster runs in the house after her, and calls out to her, not knowing where she went. Reality: Rochester drags her back to meet Bertha with the others. She was in shock, absorbing the news.

2. Memory: When Jane is sitting in St. John's church, she remembers the last time she was in a church. The bible falls to the ground with the news of the other wife. Symbolic of her dream come crashing down. Reality: The minister places the bible on the ledge behind him before he follows the others up to Thornfield.

If the first two were inaccurate "I wish I had..." memories, why shouldn't the last two be, too?

3. & 4. Memory: Jane's final conversations with Rochester - her fiance no more. In memory Jane adds the kisses and caresses she was longing for on her wedding night. Her room has a warm glow of golden light that has never been present in her room at any other time in the movie. I don't think her room had a fireplace needed to cast such a warm glow. Her room usually had a cold gray light, day or night. (The first time I saw these scenes, I knew they had been filmed by a woman. High on sensuality, not sexuality.) Reality (according to the book): Jane refused all advances, as they were no longer allowed. She was willing to listen to what he had to say for hours if need be. Still wanting to be with him for a little longer, even if she could never be WITH him.

I was thinking back to when I was Jane's age (18-19 yrs) - almost 30 years ago now - and it was not uncommon for me to do the same thing. I would remember events with my boyfriend as a blend between what they were and what they might have been. For Jane, the fantasizied kiss or carress from the man she loved was the only kind she could have any more. It would hurt too much to remember the event with her rejecting his advances and the torment that caused him.

EXPECTATIONS...
I have also re-read the book, cover to cover. This time making notes in the margins - something I have not done since school! (FUN!) From the beginning, Rochester accurately predicts what Jane would do if asked to do something wrong (i.e. run off with a married man) -- she wouldn't do it. So he devises a plan to get her to do that wrong thing without her knowing it. The plan is discovered and Jane behaves EXACTLY as Rochester knows she will. Her integrity is one of the things he respects about her, whether he likes the decision or not.

I like how in this story both Jane and Mr. Rochester can read so much about each other in the other's eyes. What the eyes say is almost as important at times as their words. In thinking about their future, I wonder how that changes after they are finally married. Since there are no more secrets, is it not much of an issue? Do they get some of that communication back once he regains partial eyesight? Can you read the soul in the eyes of a blind person?

One of the things I really like about this story (book and movie) is having a male character that is so moody and expressive. It is a real treat! Toby Stephens does a wonderful job in expressing the wide range of feelings that male characters today are not even asked to express. I love watching his face - stern, relaxed, tormented, playful, anxious, happy, can-my-dream-really-be-here-in-my-arms, joy. Wonderful! Can you imagine any of the box office wonders being able to pull off this role? Not a chance!

[kiki1982]

Waw, MeWeed, like that I hadn't looked at it yet...

I think you're right. The flashbacks were want-to-be memories... However, for the average viewer that was not really clear, I found... I didn't really spend a lot of time watching it, you obviously have. If I had spent more time, I could have noticed that... Thank you for that insight.

About the eyes-thing:
I believe that he and she are much alike. They are both passionate, convinced of their own rightness (although Rochester is a little too convinced in the beginning), they say what they think is right and they are honest (the most touching part in that is Jane who says 'no' to his question 'do you think me handsome'), although Rochester still needs to get honest with himself, but like the end implies and like Jane wrote to a reader, Rochester has the seed of good nature in him.

I suppose, to each other, they are really an open book, so, when he finally becomes blind, she knows what he wants/thinks/feels/wishes/etc. without reading it in his eyes and without him telling her or without her asking him.
When she writes to her cousins to tell them that they got married and they write back that they will come and visit 'after the honeymoon', Rochester says that, if they waited until after the honeymoon, they would never come, because that the honeymoon would only end with a grave. I think that's telling all: the honeymoon is a time of bliss, utter togetherness and symbiosis (or supposed to be). And with that marriage it is reached for ever , they have really become one flesh in the sense that they know everything about each other as if they were part of each other really. They don't need eyes to read in them what they already know.



aaaaaaaaaaah:D

[MeWeed]

Kiki, you mentioned a few posts ago that people don't like the gypsy scene - they don't understand it. I really liked the scene in the book - it was really full of lots of layers of good stuff! Rochester-as-gypsy won't touch her hand to read her palm... the game would be up if he did. I think I will go back and read it again!

I have a question... what is a "byronic male"? I'm new to Victorian literature. I'm guessing it may have something to do with Lord Byron; but what, I have no idea.

[kiki1982]

I'm quite new to Victorian literature as well, so I'm not a specialist, but I'll make an attempt...

The normal name for such a (anti-)hero is 'Byronic Hero'. Indeed, it has to do with Lord Byron, as you said, but not like you think, probably... Although he was kind of Byronic himself, not only in a name, he created the first ever Byronic Hero in literature, hence the fact that that kind of character was named after him.

A Bryonic Hero is (mostly) a man who is not handsome, but has lots of charisma, larger than life, has priciples of his own that go against society, is (consequently) kind of an outcast, mysterious, is intelligent, cynical, critisises himself, is highly educated, but nonetheless doesn't take notice of rank and privilege, struggles with integrity, is moody, arrogant, sometimes self)destructive, is highly seductive, has a troubled past. Although he's a hero, he does have bad points. I got helped by Wikipedia :D.


The gypsy-scene has a lot of significance, and it goes very deep into links with Manfred and King Lear. It is a lovely prank, of course, but it is much better than that...

[MeWeed]

I watched the version of the story today with Morton and Hinds. The BBC show with Wilson and Stephens is 2 parts - 4 hours. This one is just over 1.5 hours. Wow...what a difference. So little time... so much left out!

I liked how some of the conversations were closer to the book - particularly the first few conversations between Jane and Rochester. Yet, key parts seemed left out, too. (The comment about the difference between informality and insolance, for one.) I never saw this Rochester crack a smile, as Jane describes in the book - "the rare smile he seems to save for special occasions." This Rochester is gruff from start to finish.

The whole theme of buying people (or selling their soul) for their affections was mostly left out.

Some of the missing storylines... the gypsy's visit... Mason & Jane staying silent as Rochester fetches the doctor... Coming back to the house after becoming engaged to have Mrs Fairfax see them... the conversation between Mrs F and Jane... Adele chapperoning the trip to town.... Some of the new storylines: Meeting Blanche in Milcote on the shopping spree... Having the household staff attend the wedding... Mrs Fairfax in attendance at the meeting of Bertha....

And most importantly altered: Uncle John Eyre's existance is left out... Jane introducing herself to Diana and St. John as "Jane Eyre" not "Jane Elliot"... St. John and Diana (and missing Mary) are not discovered to be family... Jane doesn't get an inheritance, thereby going back to Rochester as a peer with money... A sense of love and belonging to family is a dominant theme in the story.

In this version, Rochester acts much more like a father to Adele - much more affectionate. He also admits to being her father, which, in the book never does. Bertha lives in a padded cell, like a caged animal.

I didn't care for Rochester's rant at Jane after the wedding, when she had packed her bags, and was trying to leave Thornfield. There was no apology, which in her heart, she could accept. He acted the spoiled brat who wasn't getting his way. In the book I get the feeling that a friendship had really been growing, and at this point in the story he is desparate and aggitated-- torn between grief over the hope of a future with Jane lost, and, what is beginning for him to be true love for her, caring for her welfare. In this version of the movie, I never had any sense that Rochester was more than manipulative with Jane. I didn't see any reason she would like him, let alone fall for him. Was she so desperate for the attention of a father figure?

(A few weeks ago, I was telling one of my friends part of the story line of this book. I told her how Jane went back to her room after meeting Bertha, and spent the day alone, numb. Late in the day she noticed how no one had been up to check on her. She thought that she was now either the laughing stock of the house, or someone to be avoided by everyone else. Even Adele did not come to check on her. Jane left her room to get something to eat, not having eaten for almost 2 days, and she trips over something upon leaving her room. Mr. Rochester has been sitting there all day, in her doorway, waiting for her to come out. He catches her. My friend said, "Oh! That is SO romantic!" :blush: ) Neither the BBC nor the A&E versions did this scene right, as far as I am concerened!

Jane's quiet Quakerish ways in this movie didn't work for me. She seemed blank and distant, not thoughtful and introspective. Her vacant expression didn't match with the strong sense of self she had when she opened her mouth. I DID like the way that we got to hear Jane's thoughts, which helped to tell the story.

My favorite line was when Jane returned from her aunt's funeral: "Jane, as you are a governness, perhaps you can explain to me the concept of the 28 day week." Very funny! Why would he rant about not receiving a letter from her? Wouldn't that have been very inappropriate, as they are from different classes?! We don't hear Jane's line that "wherever [Rochester is], is her home."

I have a question about unmarried people alone..., which was discussed in the King Lear vs. Rochester thread. St. John and Jane are alone together a lot. In the book, he visits the school, and visits her home in the evening twice. In the movie, Diana goes up to bed, leaving the other two alone, when non-cousin St. John proposes to her. Does the convention of having a chapperone not apply to him since he is a minister?

I think I still prefer the BBC version and the book!

[kiki1982]

MeWeed, you're right, that version with Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton is very blank indeed...

But, it had one good point: the writers were very consequent in the fact that they clearly had a view: they wanted to film the love story, no more no less... They were very consequent in that and they took everything out that didn't belong to that. They left the gypsy out because it does indeed not belong to the love story as a good prank, but to Rochester himself as narcissistic figure or as King Lear. They give the fear Jane feels at the end because she sees the demon in him, another reason: violence. That's maybe a little rash, but it does work better than have him rant on about his woes when you haven't spent any time on that in the rest of the film.
Rochester was indeed very grim, and didn't smile, that's a shame, but here again, the writers had a very clear view of a very grim man, rather than the flirty version of Toby Stephens that was then too far to the other side of the spectrum... On the other side, I believe that modern versions tend to really 'modernise' Victorian ways too much. Both actors in that film had good experience in costume drama. They probably knew very well how to act as a person 100 years ago and then the lacking of flirting, passion, smiling etc etc is maybe in its place. Potentially, I think, Ciaran Hinds was the best Rochester of them all, but it's a little sad that he got the wrong script. I think they wanted to make a blank version of the story. They didn't really have a lot of ambition, and in that it did work.

For the BBC version of '83 he was too young and for that film in '96 (?) he was just right, but got the wrong script... Sad. Although he played a radio version of Jane Eyre and that's where he was picked up by the director of the film...


Was she so desperate for the attention of a father figure?

No, I think that that rant is to create the fear Jane feels, also before the wedding. I think she is torn between her passion and the knowledge that Rochester has a big, big bad patch on him... In a certain way, I think she knows from the beginning that he is kind of possessed, or, if you want to tone that down, she knows that there is something wrong anyway. Of course it is very difficult to put that in a film... You can evoke that with text read by the actress who plays Jane, but that's tedious for the viewer and spoils the surprise. Or you can of course very obvious, evoke that like they did with the read shawl, but that's not according to the story because Bertha was locked in a cell without a window... In the last monologue of Rochester, Jane's fears are confirmed, but how do you put that in film? It is not only the secret that has to be exposed, it's his real state of reason that needs to come to light. The fear Jane feels in the book, is realised in the 1996 version because he is violent. Although, of course, Rochester doesn't really frighten her in the same way, Jane is still scared, along with all the (women)viewers, which wouldn't have been the case if you had that monologue from the book, because you need to be very conscious of religion to realise the danger that lies there... You don't get that fear in other films because the writers probably missed it themselves... The fact that you ask the question yourself: 'How could she fall for him?' is maybe the question Jane asks herself: 'How could I fall for him, believe him?' Then for another reason, of course, but nothing is nothing, having it for the wrong reason is at least having it. It depends what you want...
I think there wasn't an apology because they thought, rightly, that an apology at that moment coming from Rochester is not a real one anyway. He does apologise in the book, but his apology is a false one as he still goes on about living together. That apology is kind of more blaming himself for not pulling it off then it is a real apology. So, in stead, to save themselves the time and viewers that don't understand and then see Jane as the stupid girl for leaving the 'poor man', the writers decided to make it in 5 seconds clear that Rochester is not worth it at that moment...

Concerning the Mrs Fairfax and attending the wedding:
There are several opinions as to the fact that Mrs Faifax knows that Bertha is married to Rochester. Half of the people says that she knew, being family, and the other half says she didn't and knew, like the rest of the personnel, that there was a lunatic, but not that she was Rochester's wife... In several versions, they make out that Fairfax knows, including in this one. It's only what you want to believe. I would say that she didn't, but knew about the lunatic, there is something to say about the other opinion because she seems to care about Jane's wellbeing, why? That can of course be explained by chaperoning like we have discussed, but for modern people who don't know about that it might be too difficult.
Concerning the added story lines:
Meeting Blanche Ingram on the shopping spree to Millcote, and she has with her this gastly old gentleman she doesn't like, not by far. It evokes the theme of wanting a marriage for money very well in a modern way. They didn't have much time to drag out the guest phase of the story and so they put the intentions of Ingram in the story in 5 seconds. Otherwise they'd had to pay a lot of actors, in a lot of scenes and they didn't have that money, nor the length of film. Too little time, you're right... 1.5 hours for a 600 (?) page book... That scene with Ingram in the film just sums up her character in much more economical terms... They missed an opportunity to film more lovely scenes in Rochester's house though, because Hinds and Morton had good experience but the writers chose to do it like that...

About the '28-day week'-thing:
I love that scene! He's really a little spoiled brat, like you call him before, who doesn't get what he wants!!
Did you also notice that he says: 'Even Pilot got a letter!' Jane then laughs and he asks why she laughs at the fact that she didn't notify him. She says: 'I was merely laughing at the fact that you thought that I would write Pilot a letter, sir.' (or something like it) And his face when he asks 'Jane. Will you walk with me?' Soooooooooo lovely.
That scene is also very cleverly put together. It puts the fact that Rochester is wildly in love with her into perspective, in 2 minutes max. Is it during that walk that he asks her? I think so, but I can't really remember...

Although it would be inappropriate for him to get a letter from her, maybe it can be argued that she would notify him that she was coming back, although I would think that she would rather notify the housekeeper in case he would have left in the mean time... The letter, I think, is just an excuse from the writers to make him look jealous. Just as the fact that she has learned from Mrs Fairfax that he went to London to buy a new carriage, is a cause for him to wonder what else Mrs Fairfax tells her... He feels spied upon as it were...
Indeed the scene is less romantic towards the home-bit, but then again she is about to burst her emotion at him under that tree... So probably they balanced the two outbursts and put Rochester's outburst there and Jane's a few minutes later...
Did you also notice how Rochester just looks at her when she starts to cry during the proposal? Just stands here with his arms folded. It looks cold, but it really evokes the kind of cold and calculated side of Rochester. As if he is thinking 'Yes, I did it, now she is really blind with love. I conquered her.' And then he takes her in his arms... And then the most passionate and ugly kiss in film history follows. Very effective and passionate indeed. Shows you just how ugly passion can be... (now, would that have been a plan of the writers too, then?).

Concerning the chaperoning:

I am not a specialist but I'll try to reason...
I suppose a minister knows the limits, but on the other hand is still considered as a man. Of course, he has business with her, as she is the teacher of the village school, so he does have his reasons to be there... People can't really accuse him of coming there to 'have fun' with her, let's say. Whereas a man like Rochester doesn't have any business with his governess every evening, let's say... You clearly see the difference. Although Rochester does not need a chapperone for Jane, because she is his servant and he can ask for her when he wants and how long he wants, because he can claim she serves him...
When St John proposes, I thought that they already knew they were cousins?
But if that is not the case, I think that for the working classes principles were not so strict. Honour and reputation was not as important as for courting in high society. But still, Jane didn't have to receive him during nights and nights on end in her own cottage, because people would have started gossipping... Probably the facts that he was a minister and the fact that they were in fact working class combined, makes probably the ground for not chaperoning Jane and St John.
Or maybe Diana felt from her brother that he wanted to propose? Naturally she would leave them alone...

In was not so that unmarried people were never alone with each other... You had to give them a chance to have private conversation, but on the other hand, not too long... Half an hour was probably unforgivable. Probably the older a woman you were the more the time increased, because then you were not that naive anymore... (I would imagine) Old mades for example were unmarried but still would probably be allowed to spend time among men alone. No-one would think anything bad of it, unless it was the same man for half a day on end, of course... For that you don't even have to be a Victorian to start imagining things ;). Old mades were girls/women from about 25, round about. So even Ingram could have been an 'old made'...

Concerning the whole film with Hinds and Morton:
I agree that a lot was left out, and it was very bleak. But it had really the one good point that it evoked some of the themes very well, in another way than the book, but still got the point across. Their biggest aim was the love story, and they attained that aim. They didn't wish for anything more. They would better haven given the film a sub-title to make clear that it was not intended as the whole story...
I firmly believe that the two actors that were casted for the lead roles were the best they could have found for their parts. It is not easy to find an experienced 19 year-old who can put down such a believable Victorian Jane. She looked naive enough and plain enough. I think, nowadays, it is very difficult to find a woman of that age that is still naive or can act it that way... Or, on the other hand, a woman of that age that can act such a deep historic character...
On Hinds:
I believe he acted a man of the age. It was not his first film like that, not even his first Rochester. He didn't seem strangled by his 'cravatte' (neck-cloth?), didn't seem bothered by his (crotch-revealing) trousers. He just had something over him like 'I wear these clothes every day'. Didn't walk with his legs open (which is one thing apparently modern men tend to do and which is extremely upsetting in costume dramas!). His looks were also ugly enough. Nothing against him, actually the man is not at all as ugly like he was there, actually rather normal looking, even on the handsome side, certainly on the charming one, but they made him look the part: grim enough with his dark hair and beard, and the beard gave him something sinistre... The fact that he sang that song and also spoke that sentence in (admirable) French ('Ah/Attention, mon pied!', 'oh/be careful, my foot!') was another thing that the other Rochesters didn't have. At least they don't make him do that in other versions, whereas that is something that really makes Rochester attractive to Jane, I think. It's a shame that they didn't play his French out. They had the chance there as Hinds has a French girlfriend and daughter with her and so speaks French with a perfect accent like Rochester is described in the book. He could also sing, haleluja! Beautifully too, as it happens. They did play that out in one scene, like in the book...

That film with Morton and Hinds they filmed in 5 weeks only and the first scene they filmed was the proposal and they didn't take a lot of time rehearsing. Considering that, I think Hinds and Morton, the director and the crew made a bloody good film!

In the new BBC version I found Jane not naive and not plain enough. I think Jane should be something like a grey mouse: nobody needs to notice her, like Ingram doesn't see her sitting in the window seat when she bends over, eager to see Rochester come back just before the gypsy arrives... She only sees her after a while when she has already bent over to the same window as Jane is sitting in... Jane needs to be unnoticable and naive to the point where she has never seen another man than Brocklehurst, and no other place than, very briefly, Gateshead and Lowood... Ruth Wilson was too self-conscious. Jane needs to be self-conscious and needs to have her own ideas but shouldn't believe it's normal, as aunt Reed and Brocklehurst made her believe...
Toby Stephens I didn't like because he was too grim, to the point of rudeness. Rochester wasn't rude, he was moody and used to servants and so giving orders. He had no experience with governesses that were to be treated differently than a Leah or a Sophie. It is not to be forgotten that Rochester has been well rased as a gentleman, I can't see that in the first scenes of Rochester in the BBC version. His hair was also too wild. There was no way that your hair would have stood up like that in Victorian times. The time of the French revolution was long gone... That was the time of wild hair in France, but then in England there was more order so the wild hair probably never came into fashion. He was dressed much too dark (that was obviously not his choice of course). A Victorian gentleman was dressed in a black or dark long jacket and trousers (not always in the same colour) and there was some colour in his garments as to the waistcoat and the neck-cloth. Toby Stephens was just black, black and more black!?!?
They did a lot of interpreting in the latest BBC version, but not always to the good side... They left a good part of the real Victorian ways out of it (when the ask Jane what she thinks of education, or something, in front of the guests... What was that about???), including cloting, customs...
We have now established the thing with the bed room scene, so they are pardoned for that.

I think Jane Eyre is extremely difficult to adapt to film because it is so deep and because it is told from one point of view. You need to include certain pieces with text read by Jane to be able to make people understand...

Probably the best way to really see the book in action, without symbolic scenes, added scenes, scenes taken away or changed (not too many) and a lot of Victorian principles and attention to clothing as well (!) is the 1982/3 BBC version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke in the lead roles. Admittedly, like it says here in some posts, it is a little theatrical at times, certainly from Dalton's side and also a little difficult coming to life in some parts (like a car driving without gears) but it does stay true to the book and it's a good thing to really see the story in action and also to see certain tones of voice, certain things that happen in the book but that you didn't really see because they were described rather than acted out.

[MeWeed]

I've added the 1982 Dalton version of the movie to the top of my DVD rental list. I'm glad to see that it is 2 discs--330 minutes -- 5.5 hours. That should really help get the story right!

Kiki, you said that the Hinds version trimmed a lot out, to keep it to just one story line. Perhaps. But for me, they trimmed too much. I never would have guessed that this movie was a love story, Victorian or otherwise. Maybe I need to watch it a second time, with that in mind.

My children (6 and 9) like the Harry Potter stories--books and movies. Those movies leave half the book out, too, creating a similar yet very different story. We have come to expect that the movie won't be the book. We now vow not to reread the book before the next new movie. Last time, we did. During the whole movie our reactions were "they left this out... that whole storyline is missing... etc." Perhaps the same is true of any attempt to film a book.

I appreciate your thoughts. :)

[kiki1982]

It depends what you are: a purist or not a purist...

But like you say, maybe we just get aggravated because we have actually read it... And we start to miss things that others don't even see...

It is a shame for the two actors that they got such a bad script... They could hve gone into history as the best Rochester and Jane. But that's life, I suppose.

I didn't like that version either until I started to think about it. Watch it again, and think about it... If you haven't given up yet.

In the 1982 version with Dalton and Clarke you can actually follow with the book next to you, it's so alike! Enjoy it.

I also appreciate talking to you!

[kiki1982]

I was watching Eating with the enemy on BBC the other day and this person came on the screen... Restaurant critic and member of the jury for the amateur cooks on the programme...

If he were an actor, oh my God! They would have found their true Rochester: ugly, dark, arrogant or at least sometimes and oosing sex appeal. A-ma-zing.
When he came on the screen I was just blown away and instntly thought of Jane Eyre.
Shame about his profession.

The name of the man is Jay Rayner, writes for The Observer.

[Peripatetics]

Lets imagine that we go into a gallery and are captivated by a painting. We inch closer to examine the figures, to intensify the pleasure we fell. We're astonished at the skill of the painter, how lifelike the figures are, how intense an emotion they convey. We study the brushwork, the hues of color, the contrast of adjacent shapes. The more we look the more we wish to grasp the secret of the artist.
Not satisfied with our eyes, we use a magnifying glass to study the figures. What we see are individual specks of paint frozen in space, in time. The movement, the emotion of the figures are lost.
I'm using a painting as an analogy to the novel. The author defines the characters, the scene, the theme within the text as the painter the figures on the canvas. They are fixed in time, in place, in the pages, the phrases, the words, of the author. If she is very good we feel the transference of emotion, the character come to life. And here in my view lies the danger when we attempt to extend the limits that the author fixed in the text. When Pygmalion like we attempt to expand the attributes of the characters, we overlay our own values on them. Sometimes cultural but more likely religious or moral.
Thus when we bring the character to life, paradoxically we bring him or her to death. By defining goodness or evil beyond the fixed attributes of the author, we take it on ourselves to reward or punish. And the ultimate punishment for social transgression is death.

Film Adaptation
The 18th. And 19th. centuries did not have to deal with visual translation of the text. Not that distortion of the author's intent was absent. Subliminal denotations and connotations of words by readers did the job, so that two people comparing the experience of reading more often than not were talking past each other. Yet subjective interpretation is very different from visualization by an actor. To some extend the read character is still limited by the text. The authors character, interpreted by the actor has a persona that does not end with the spoken line or facial gesture. He/she does not have to be brought to life. The actor has a past and a future and the attributes of beauty (sex appeal in contemporary usage) or fame from previous roles, underlays the portrayal. Now a director, if she is sensitive to the authors intent, can use these physical attributes to highten, to extend, the characterization. Not to mention music and scenery that draws us into the story. Conversely the same attributes, misused can damped or even distort to the point of unrecognizable, the authors vision. Therefore the visual translation of a novel can not, need not and in the best case, is never textual.
For example in Susanna White's Jane Eyre whole sections of text that moved the story line from one location to another are left out but the result is not a loss but rather the tightening of the emotional narrative.

Character Reinterpretation
The most obnoxious extensions/reinterpretations of characters from historical fiction seem to be by modern writers who from sociological or religious perspectives attempt to 'fix problems' in famous novels. In visualization Austen seems to have suffered the most, in novel, Bronte. I'll close the subject with kiki1982, 08-10-2008 posting - “I wholeheartedly disagree with the fact Jean Rhys' provided an intriguing twist on the relationship between Berthe and Rochester... Wide Sargasso Sea is a fictional work (if 'work' it can be named) “. She is much more polite that I can be.

[Fleederhus]

Kiki1982 and MeWeed: I hope you're checking back for comments on this thread. I skimmed through your reviews of various film versions and noticed that you don't mention the version of 1973 with Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston. If you go to IMDB.com for opinions you'll find very enthusiastic feedback. The DVD is available from amazon.de in the original English. Not cheap but worth every Euro cent. Enjoy!!!!!

[Rebecca H.]

I too have tried to find out which is the song that Adele sings during the Caribbean scenes in the 2007 BBC adaptation of Jane Eyre. Despite my efforts I've never been able to discover what it is, and there was no soundtrack released for this production. I do not even know if it was an existing song or written for the production.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

[Janine]

I DON'T recommend the Miramax version where William Hurt plays Rochester;
they over-modernized the story and changed it too much.
I would barely have recognized it if they had named it something different.

I DO recommend the A&E version with Ciaran Hinds as Rochester, and
Samantha Morton as Jane Eyre.

I agree with this assessment. I purchased the A&E version and I like it very much. I think the other great version is the Timothy Dalton one. That is set more like a stage play and very intense. You can view scenes from it on Youtube - lots of Dalton fans over there. I wasn't aware that Elizabeth Taylor every played Jane. She just never struck me as the plain Jane type. That is quite interesting to find out. I can't imagine that old film at all. I will have to do some research. The William Hurt version was not bad but totally abreivated and a little on the modernized side, indeed.

Stick with the first 2 and I think you all will enjoy them very much.

[Cultivated]

I watched it, despite some of its faults. The cast were fantastic, and the BBC did not disappoint me too much with this adaptation. The finishing somewhat dismayed me. I'm currently assigned an essay for my AS English Literature course on Jane Eyre, which I'm finding very interesting and joyful to complete.

[kiki1982]

@Fleederhus:

I haven't been able to watch that adaptaton on YouTube yet. I regularly check whether there are any new ones, but if it is as good as the 70s adaptation of Emma, then at least it scratches the profound surface of this work.

About the adaptation with William Hurt. I didn't know it was Miramax, but now everything starts to make sense! They did the same romantic sugary stuff to Emma. Would it be any coincidence that they are a daughter company of Walt Disney?

Anyway: Zefirelli did his best to make a profound poetic adaptation, but I think he decided to make the actors too passionless. In French this works very well. The more passionless, the better. The more silence, the better. But in English... I have never seen a more disinterested Rochester, almost. Up to the point that it makes you laugh. I mean, come on! If you read how happy he is when Jane returns and if you look at Ciaran Hinds doing it, please, you'd swear William Hurt's Rochester could not care less. Or that scene when he falls off his horse. He swears for God's sake (in the novel). Where is the fire, where is Rochester in fact??!

What I did find very good, and no version has topped that, is the interpretation of light and dark in it. If they get Rochester right, it's a triumph, let alone any seriously thought through interpretation. Zefirelli had it, but then ruined it with French-style acting. I thought Charlotte Gainsbourg was a bad actress until I saw her (in French) in Les Misérables of 2000. I realised then that it was the silent, passionless style embedded in French acting that did not suit English plots, and certainly not Jane Eyre where sometimes the passion spits off the page/screen.

To me, made abstraction of the 1973 version which I have not seen, I agree with Sciencefan: A&E was definitely the best. Orson Welles was a frightning Dracula-like monster who you swear was going to bite Jane when he was proposing and he acted as if he was continually drugged or so. Although that version was the only one who made Bertha both locked up in a dark whole and really raving mad. No extanuating circumstances there for Rochester. William Hurt was disinterested and there did not seem to be any communication between him and Jane. Timothy Dalton did very well depicting the Victorian gentleman, but failed in the sense that his voice is much too theatrical and dramatic. That works for a James Bond (very well *swoon*), for a time lord in Doctor Who, but it does not work with 'What love have I for Miss Ingram? None! And that you know!' You were really not touched by that. On top of that Jane was in fact a 30-year-old who needed to seem half her age. The actress did her best, but just looked too old to the point where you went haha at that phrase of his 'Fairfax Rochester's girl bride'. A&E could have made the definitive Jane Eyre-adaptation, had it not been for the fact that they did not afford enough time and so had to shorten the thing severely. Nonetheless, they did manage to capture the characters very well and that in such short time. Sometimes one sentence tells almost a whole chapter. Very clever and the best casting! That I admire. And down to Rochester: Ciaran Hinds confessed never to have read the novel (Morton did), so if his depiction was good (which it was very much, true to the original and not the fantasy of a few), credit to the writer. It is the most ugly kiss in film history under that tree, but a kiss of pure passion. And when Jane returns! Unbelievable. Only 5 weeks of filming.

The latest one I personally did not like. It was not intelligent enough and to me did not capture even the surface of it. Jane too self-secure for a girl who has never seen anything apart from the four walls of her school and walking distance from there. Rochester too cute and soft. St John scary, adn his two sisters too much girly to be governesses in the big town. Adèle was too old and not French enough. Again, A&E captured the childmuch better. Though Welch did even worse with Emma. I have the impression that the BBC thinks its public is stupid or so...