New Jane Eyre adaptation...

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

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.

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.:)

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sciencefan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motherhubbard

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motherhubbard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sciencefan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emmsi_*tobyrox*

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 x

---

Yes.
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.

Cheers sciencefan! :D

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...

http://eyreguide.bravehost.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sciencefan

http://eyreguide.bravehost.com/

---

Very useful. Good job.
How does the '07 version compare to the '73 of Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston?

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newcomer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Annamariah

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

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.

I liked it very much :thumbs_up

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.

Excellent essay. Thank you. :thumbs_up


"modified the cleavage of gender"
tee-hee

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)

---

I agree wholeheartedly!

'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.

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.

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??

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!

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.