Screen adaptions of Jane Eyre

I did finally see the whole 1973 adaption yesterday with Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston. It was funny to understand that this adaption must have been an important inspiration for the 2006, even if the childhood and religion have less space in the latter.

It was interesting to see much of the same choices adapted in two so very different screen cultures. 1973 was an epic theatre on screen – I remember the style well from the seventies – with a narrator adressing the audience and directing the scenes, deliberately preventing any illusion of reality. The emotions were conventionalized and the approach very intellectual.

And then the 2006 adaption which is a full-blooded screen approach, with a subtle mixture of light, music and passionate acting. The 2006 adaption is not literary at all. Instead Susanna White used every option of the modern TV-drama medium, when necessary sacrificing the famous lines.

I believe the difference is between “showing” the scenes before the audience and letting the audience “peep” into them as if the characters did not know they were watched.

But the warmth, humor and passion from the novel was there, though “stylized” in the first and acted in the later. They took pains with the playful conversation, the strong-willed Jane and the romantic bastard of a man you can never know whether it is wise to get involved with or not. They even gave the more generous picture of StJohn, not really like the novel but softer and more sympathetic.

It was the hypocrite and self-pitying portrait of Mrs. Reed, very truthful to the novel, Rochester's capricious treatment of Adele, the teasing and unsentimental Jane in the end. Even the fear-inspired illusion of a ghost in the red room was there.

And still two very different adaptions even if the objective contents are very similar. It is fascinating.

The picture of Bertha is interesting. In the 1973 she obviously knows she is lost in the world. She only wants to go home. It feels like a modern approach on insanity. In the 2006 she seems too mentally disabled to even understand her own circumstances. In more faithful adaptions I have seen she is more like in the novel – making at least me think more of calling for an exorcist than a doctor. (In a literary world that is, not in real life;))

Anyone seen the 1970 adaption?
I saw it a few days ago and now I believe I have seen all versions that are complete on YouTube.
But I must admit, the 1970 passes me:smilewinkgrin:
I tried to understand it but - at least not yet...

Is there anyone out there (I know quite a few people have followed this discussion) who has a clue? She seemed to be so remarkably strong and still went back to a man that obviously still had some kind of relationship with his wife... and without any means to support herself if he failed her!

And I felt Edward Rochester had became a little peculiar(?) in the end. I do not know if that is right word. It is difficult sometimes since I am not a native English-speaker. But not really mad, only not wholly in tune with the real world...

This is just a quick "thank you" to both Kiki1982 and MsSilentia. I have really enjoyed this post. You two have put so much into it (that I am still getting through it in fact) and I wanted you to know that I've been lurking about on the side-lines.
I actually found this post in my quest to figure out why I absolutely love the 1997 version so much while most Jane Eyre fans find it so reviling to the point of finding Mr. Hind's version of Mr. Rochester creepy. Now thanks to Kiki, I do not feel so all alone, lol. :D

Ah, glad to be of help. I actually waned to carry on the discussion, but then I got translation work...

Anyway, I think the dislike for Hinds's Rochester stems from Rochester as the romantic hero, much the same as Heathcliffe who is absolutely adored by teenage girls. I mean, how creepy can you get! Rochester wasn't too far from Heathcliffe, although a bit weaker and more realistic as a person than Heathcliffe who was literally a devil in disguise. But Rochester was pretty creepy to start with. All those films seem to make him a bit tormented, but not totally deranged and debauched (in Victorian terms then) as he is. The way his logic twists you as a reader is quite worrying seeing that you really stat to wonder at yourself, whether to believe him or not, although Brontë has made it very clear that he is not trustworthy. Still, whoever reads past that and only gets the plot is completely taken in by his lies and that is quite daunting.

I never found Mr. Rochester creepy, -not in the book and not in the 1997 adaptation. I did find him volatile though and thought Hind's version brought that out. When I read the book I do hear him as a man prone to a bad temper (and I do find him rude!). He always seems to check himself though which I see as a mellowing possibly as he heads into middle age? I've seem so many versions where he is just plain mean i.e. speaking poorly of Mrs. Fairfax whilst she is standing there in the room yet the A & E version does not portray this, nor does the book unless I have it wrong. The 2006 Mr. Rochester had me sick listening to him degrade Adele in a manner she understood.
Yes, I can see some similarities with Heathcliffe but I find Rochester much more tempered though they are both very passionate. I sometimes wonder if that is why C. Bronte has Rochester loose his sight and a hand, not so much that it symbolizes castration but that he is now "broken" enough for her heroine to master him without being completely trampled. Yes, I see Rochester as the embodiment of the horse he rode in on. I'd better stop here before it gets more weird, lol.
No, no need to carry on, just a "thanks, you got me thinking." :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dovekie

I never found Mr. Rochester creepy, -not in the book and not in the 1997 adaptation. :)

---

It's not creepy to keep your wife (whom you have always hated) locked in the attic and then try to marry some young governess? It's not creepy to dress up as a female gypsy and interogate said governess under false pretexts? Good grief! Rochester is about as creepy as they get!

I vote for the Orson Wells "Jane Eyre" as my favorite adaptation (although I haven't seen the current one yet). Wells had the necessary creepiness, and Joan Fontaine (although too pretty) played the shy observer well (think of her in Rebecca). Margaret OBrian was the young Jane.

Jane Eyre is a melodramatic, creepy, and operatic novel, filled with big emotions. You can't play it as realistic and get away with it -- it's too weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dovekie

I never found Mr. Rochester creepy, -not in the book and not in the 1997 adaptation. I did find him volatile though and thought Hind's version brought that out. When I read the book I do hear him as a man prone to a bad temper (and I do find him rude!). He always seems to check himself though which I see as a mellowing possibly as he heads into middle age? I've seem so many versions where he is just plain mean i.e. speaking poorly of Mrs. Fairfax whilst she is standing there in the room yet the A & E version does not portray this, nor does the book unless I have it wrong. The 2006 Mr. Rochester had me sick listening to him degrade Adele in a manner she understood.
Yes, I can see some similarities with Heathcliffe but I find Rochester much more tempered though they are both very passionate. I sometimes wonder if that is why C. Bronte has Rochester loose his sight and a hand, not so much that it symbolizes castration but that he is now "broken" enough for her heroine to master him without being completely trampled. Yes, I see Rochester as the embodiment of the horse he rode in on. I'd better stop here before it gets more weird, lol.

---

haha, you do know that the 'no need to carry on' will only come true when you refuse to still type an answer :hand:. Oh, well... :D

I didn't find him rude, I found him just about well mannered enough not to be rude, but also not pleasant. He was too blunt to be enjoyable company and I think he enjoys the power he has over Jane in the beginning: she is his servant, if he summons her, she will have to come, and he can just be as blunt as he likes, she will only go when she is dismissed. Although that feeling of enjoyment in bossing her around is very short, because he starts to enjoy her company, which is weird to him in any case.

You are right, Heathcliffe is a lot worse than Rochester. I once read an article that called the first 'the Byronic Hero gone berserk' where Rochester is that bit more man and realistic as one.
I think the loss of his sight and hand cannot only function as a means for Jane to master him. If there is any interest in that at all and if that is the case in a world where even blind men had more rights than women... I think it can also function as a means for himself to lose his reservation and his tendency to keep himself to himself and throw himself totally at her mercy. Only then can he (and one) truly love.

hmm, there is something in the horse, but I always thought the dog was a nice indication of his true self.


Orson Welles:

I found him a bit too Dracula-like... I don't know, he was just that little too far to be a man one could love, but you are right, Ecurb, that his original is also creepy, particularly in that gyspsy scene (beside locking up Bertha) and then still finding it funny too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

haha, you do know that the 'no need to carry on' will only come true when you refuse to still type an answer :hand:. Oh, well... :D

---

True dat! Ah, well... one person's creep sandwich is another's all-you-can-eat romantic hero buffet. My compliments to the chef, Ms. Bronte. ;D

I have seen three different adaptions of Jane Eyre and, in my opinion, the 1983 BBC's series is by far the best one! Why? Because the director didn't try to give his own interpretation, but he simply tried (and, in my opinion, he succeeded) to represent on screen exactly what Charlotte Bronte told in her book, moreover all the actors did a very good job! It's true that Zelah Clarke seems a bit much passive, but physically she's just the Jane described in the novel! Is she too old? Perhaps; but don't forget that Edward tells her that without arithmetic it would have been difficult to guess her age, so it's implied that she doesn't look like a 18-years-old! About Timothy Dalton I agree that he has not "le physique du role" to play Rochester, but he played that character very very well! And you ought remember that when Charlotte tells that he's not handsome, she speaks in relation to the victorian beauty standards which were based upon the greek standard!
I absolutely hate Zeffirelli's version: Hurt and miss Gainsbourg are completely miscast, he was too old, while she was totally inexpressive! That movie was cold, boring and very far from the novel, and there were many inventions!
I've also seen the 2006 version by BBC... Not too faithful to the book, but quite well done but for the awkward love scenes which were absolutely unlikely during victorian age and especially in relation to such a high-principled character!

I have seen three different adaptions of Jane Eyre and, in my opinion, the 1983 BBC's series is by far the best one! Why? Because the director didn't try to give his own interpretation, but he simply tried (and, in my opinion, he succeeded) to represent on screen exactly what Charlotte Bronte told in her book, moreover all the actors did a very good job! It's true that Zelah Clarke seems a bit much passive, but physically she's just the Jane described in the novel! Is she too old? Perhaps; but don't forget that Edward tells her that without arithmetic it would have been difficult to guess her age, so it's implied that she doesn't look like a 18-years-old! About Timothy Dalton I agree that he has not "le physique du role" to play Rochester, but he played that character very very well! And you ought remember that when Charlotte tells that he's not handsome, she speaks in relation to the victorian beauty standards which were based upon the greek standard!
I absolutely hate Zeffirelli's version: Hurt and miss Gainsbourg are completely miscast, he was too old, while she was totally inexpressive! That movie was cold, boring and very far from the novel, and there were many inventions!
I've also seen the 2006 version by BBC... Not too faithful to the book, but quite well done but for the awkward love scenes which were absolutely unlikely during victorian age and especially in relation to such a high-principled character!