kiki1982
02-27-2010, 05:07 PM
As I have often said, and as I keep saying, to me, Hinds was the only actor and his version's writer the only writer, who got even close to the original Rochester. Despite what critics say about him being a shouting brute, I cannot see where that comes from. If there was any shouting brute up to the point of rudeness, it was Stephenson. 2006 was a grand pile of nothing-saying writing. The same writer wrote the latest sadly mediocre version of Emma. Naturally never won any awards for her work.
The reason why the 1997 film is not liked is probably down to its length, and also to the fact that a lot of readers ironically do not seem to read, but rather make up their own story about this book. That Rochester comes across as an arrogant bastard with a lot of charm, is probably... because he is one arrogant bastard with a lot of charm! I love that character, and I have done a lot of study on it. All adaptations are too soft on him. He is not adorable, he is dangerous, arrogant, mysterious, and foremost unpredictable which makes him more dangerous. I cannot possibly understand how people get fooled by his character. Who thinks a liar (someone who actually lies about having a wife and who does not even face up to his mistake) is cute?
Orson Welles I have seen and that was even worse than 2006. He looked permanently drugged. There was just nothing human in the man. If he had been playing Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, that wouldn't have been misplaced, but Rochester is no vampire for God's sake. Joan Fontain was better, but was much too old and looked too much of this world. So did Ruth Wilson in 2006. At any rate, the 1940s film was the best Bertha's way (very cruel and dark), but the worst plot-wise. Typical Hollywoodian plot changes do not appeal to me and do not bring anything more to a film. That Bessy 'had always been nice to [Jane]' was just a plain lie.
William Hurt looked disinterested and not passionate enough. Rochester is incredibly passionate. Too much so. William Hurt did not have that. He was too calm, as was Jane. I have actually said a lot about the concept of Zefirelli's film in another post of mine. Charlotte Gainsbourg acted in her usual way, but that did not work in English. I don't think they saw that until the whole film was finished with music and everything else. Real shame, because the Zefirelli-film was brllliant in its set-up and poetic/symbolic nature.
I think in 2006 people got fooled by effects and mysterious things (the red scarf) whereas there was near to no contents in that adaptation. Not to mention that Rochester was no gentleman, but a working class man in proper clothing. He had no posture, no air, no proper speech, no address, no nothing. It was hard to believe that he had been educated by a governess or in a public school like Eton, had studied at college, had gone to Jamaica and back (an experience not to be underestimated), had got a wife and become unhappy, then had turned back to Europe and had become disillusioned with the world and humanity. It was also hard to believe that his Jane had never seen anything else but the four walls of Lowood. She just looked too world wise; she was too talkative, too much at ease with him as a man.
The couple that did fit their roles, that had address, posture, the right demeanor and the right looks, were ironically Hinds and Morton only. Yes, Rochester was violent. I do believe Rochester capable of that, and he is scary in the end before she leaves (though for a different reason, whether religious or not). Rchester is the typical man who needs to have control or otherwise loses it; he is the typical man who will beat his wife and to then claims he loves her, but cannot help turning violent 'because she provoked [him]'. I do not say that because I hate the character, I say that because he does turn aggrassive at the point where she does not want to take his money, f.i. Also at the point where Mason turns up in the church to stop the marriage. Jane was plain, shy and enough so as to come from Lowood only.
But I suppose people rather want to find Rochester cute and nice to his wife instead of a brute (and a potential one to Jane at that). Once there comes a satisfactory portrayal of the book and the public does not approve because of what they believe Rochester to be, not because of what he is. Admittedly, the plot was very short, but I think that team managed to portray that book better than all other adaptations together. Zefirelli did his best, but saddled with a too passive Rochester, it did not work. The sparkle went out of the whole thing and Rochester turned into this sad and lonely figure where he has to be enjoyable (at first sight) like Hinds' Rochester: 'I won't have any of it!'
Hinds played that role twice by the way. Once a first time on the radio and once on the screen and based on his radio performance, the director decide on him as Rochester. I suppose he will never be valued, although his Rochester was very similar to his role of Bois-Guilbert in Ivanhoe, and the two characters are definitely related.
The reason why the 1997 film is not liked is probably down to its length, and also to the fact that a lot of readers ironically do not seem to read, but rather make up their own story about this book. That Rochester comes across as an arrogant bastard with a lot of charm, is probably... because he is one arrogant bastard with a lot of charm! I love that character, and I have done a lot of study on it. All adaptations are too soft on him. He is not adorable, he is dangerous, arrogant, mysterious, and foremost unpredictable which makes him more dangerous. I cannot possibly understand how people get fooled by his character. Who thinks a liar (someone who actually lies about having a wife and who does not even face up to his mistake) is cute?
Orson Welles I have seen and that was even worse than 2006. He looked permanently drugged. There was just nothing human in the man. If he had been playing Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, that wouldn't have been misplaced, but Rochester is no vampire for God's sake. Joan Fontain was better, but was much too old and looked too much of this world. So did Ruth Wilson in 2006. At any rate, the 1940s film was the best Bertha's way (very cruel and dark), but the worst plot-wise. Typical Hollywoodian plot changes do not appeal to me and do not bring anything more to a film. That Bessy 'had always been nice to [Jane]' was just a plain lie.
William Hurt looked disinterested and not passionate enough. Rochester is incredibly passionate. Too much so. William Hurt did not have that. He was too calm, as was Jane. I have actually said a lot about the concept of Zefirelli's film in another post of mine. Charlotte Gainsbourg acted in her usual way, but that did not work in English. I don't think they saw that until the whole film was finished with music and everything else. Real shame, because the Zefirelli-film was brllliant in its set-up and poetic/symbolic nature.
I think in 2006 people got fooled by effects and mysterious things (the red scarf) whereas there was near to no contents in that adaptation. Not to mention that Rochester was no gentleman, but a working class man in proper clothing. He had no posture, no air, no proper speech, no address, no nothing. It was hard to believe that he had been educated by a governess or in a public school like Eton, had studied at college, had gone to Jamaica and back (an experience not to be underestimated), had got a wife and become unhappy, then had turned back to Europe and had become disillusioned with the world and humanity. It was also hard to believe that his Jane had never seen anything else but the four walls of Lowood. She just looked too world wise; she was too talkative, too much at ease with him as a man.
The couple that did fit their roles, that had address, posture, the right demeanor and the right looks, were ironically Hinds and Morton only. Yes, Rochester was violent. I do believe Rochester capable of that, and he is scary in the end before she leaves (though for a different reason, whether religious or not). Rchester is the typical man who needs to have control or otherwise loses it; he is the typical man who will beat his wife and to then claims he loves her, but cannot help turning violent 'because she provoked [him]'. I do not say that because I hate the character, I say that because he does turn aggrassive at the point where she does not want to take his money, f.i. Also at the point where Mason turns up in the church to stop the marriage. Jane was plain, shy and enough so as to come from Lowood only.
But I suppose people rather want to find Rochester cute and nice to his wife instead of a brute (and a potential one to Jane at that). Once there comes a satisfactory portrayal of the book and the public does not approve because of what they believe Rochester to be, not because of what he is. Admittedly, the plot was very short, but I think that team managed to portray that book better than all other adaptations together. Zefirelli did his best, but saddled with a too passive Rochester, it did not work. The sparkle went out of the whole thing and Rochester turned into this sad and lonely figure where he has to be enjoyable (at first sight) like Hinds' Rochester: 'I won't have any of it!'
Hinds played that role twice by the way. Once a first time on the radio and once on the screen and based on his radio performance, the director decide on him as Rochester. I suppose he will never be valued, although his Rochester was very similar to his role of Bois-Guilbert in Ivanhoe, and the two characters are definitely related.