Jane Eyre Adaptation set for 2011

I don't know if anyone's heard much about this yet (It's only in its very early stages of production according to imdb.com, so it's okay), but a new adaptation of Jane Eyre is going to be made this year. The Director will be Cary Fukunaga, the director of "Sin Nombre", which I hear is excellent. Something you also may have seen of his are the Levi's commercials with the Walt Whitman recitations. Personally, I think those are probably the best commercials I've seen in a while.

While I might not agree entirely with the casting, I think both of the primary actors are very good at their craft. Michael Fassbender will be playing Rochester. (You may have seen him as Lt. Archie Hicox in "Inglourious Basterds") And Mia Wasikowska will play Jane. (She will be playing Alice in Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland". A better representation of how she may appear as Jane Eyre may be her performance in "Defiance")

They're both too attractive for the roles, but Michael Fassbender is a wonderful actor, and I think he will be able to hold the role of Rochester significantly better than Toby Stephens. Stephens seemed too weak an actor and played the character too week for it to seem an accurate portrayal. I am actuallly very excited about this adaptation. In general, the level of skill of the filmmakers and actors seems above what it has been for past versions. Never, much to my dismay, will there be a perfect film version of Jane Eyre. It is sad, but the book is too (wonderfully) complex and intraverted for it to be successfully translated to the screen.

Anyway, I guess the point of this was that I wanted to ask all of you what you think of this recent development, and what you hope to see in the movie?

If Rochester is worth Hinds's version and Jane Morton's version then I'm happy.

Toby Stephens was indeed not good, but I think we should look at the director or writer for that. If the writer has the wrong idea about Rochester as a weak sad creature who is desperately looking for love then he turns into a tragic figure. The tricky thing about Rochester is that he is indeed a sad creature looking desperately for love, but he cannot show it in the beginning. He must pose as being in charge, but must progressively come across as one who doesn't quite manage. The real desperte nature and sadness is for when Jane returns, and then he still hesitates. I could see him crying after his wedding (finally), but he has trouble to himself about his weakness which he was confronted with when he was cheated by Bertha (powerlessness). That powerlessness is not in his dictionary when it comes to the outside world, certainly because in that world men were everything. What was a man worth if he could not even keep his wife in check?

With Stephens there was too much of the anger, mounting up to rudeness, at the start and too much lovy-dovy tenderness in the middle. There was no lovy-dovy tenderness left for afterwards when it is supposed to make a huge contrast with the strong man he was until he collapsed sobbing on the sofa, and even then he does not let it go. Stephens did not have a contrast, he was begging from the start. In a certain sense it was too much based on the Disney version of The Beauty and the Beast: at first the beast withdraws from Belle (disillusioned with the world), but then is surprised at her wanting to be nice to him, and then falls in love with her. And then afterwards he turns into a prince when she cries over him as the beast dies. That is not what is in Jane Eyre though. It is beside the point. Rochester is disillusioned with the world, even with love as he returns (almost ruined) from the third (and last) mistress. He does not believe that people can actually be happy. And then he meets this insignificant girl who strangely moves him. Although it is endeering and is like The Beauty and the Beast on the surface, the lying Rochester does to get what he wants, preparing to trick Jane into an unlawful marriage that if discovered, will drag her down to the lowest ranks of society, is unforgivable. Unlike The Beast, Rochester is not only hard in his façade, he is it also inside, but with a little crack (the India Rubber Ball). He does not expect to be struck, but he will be.

That mix of vulnerability and hardness is difficult to grasp, but Hinds (and the crew no less) did it. Stephens was a man who falls in love. And Hinds could handle those clothes, walked upward and with his legs closed.

In the last version Jane was too well-knowing. She didn't come out of another world. She should though. I guess it is difficult for an actress (and for a writer, certainly if a modern womn herself) to identify with a girl who has never been more than 5 miles from her school in the whole of her life. Gateshead is a distant memory. Jane knows nothing of the world. That is what is so sad as she gets seduced by Rochester: she is not able to resist and is fooled by his stories because she doesn't know that men like that do exist. In a certain sense he gets a good object for his lie: a naïve one. She is intelligent though, and can speak her mind when asked to. That is what is so unique about her: she is an intelligent woman who soon embraces the circumstances she is in and does not fail to deal with them. It is not to be expected from a person who has never seen anything but the four walls of her school. I suppose that is what intrigues Rochester, because he has worked himself into a problem (locking up his wife and living a lie as the single man he poses to be) because he has failed to deal with his own sorrow ever since that night in the Caribbean. And now, he is stuck in that created situation and in danger of being exposed. In Jane's situation (so far from home, alone in the world), he would cringe (as a man). She, as a woman, doesn't even blink and isn't even afraid to go 100 miles, on her own, to go and see a dying lady she doesn't even like. It intrigues him. She takes her lot and rejoyces in it (however unfair), he takes his lot and fights it, consequently never gets anywhere.

If that contrast between these two people is there, I am happy too.

And then maybe a litle poetry like Zefirelli's adaptation that was lacking everything else apart from that, and this new film will be great.

Although, I am of the fatalistic sort and haven't seen any good ones made since 2000 more or less.

I liked both Toby Stephens as Rochester, and Ruth Wilson as Jane. In fact, I loved their performances. But that's not to say I didn't like Hinds too. I don't know the 2 actors proposed for the latest version, but I will look forward to it.

You're right -- I think the writing will need to be particularly strong for this to impress me at all, but I also think that this project is on the right track. Fukunaga is, supposedly, wonderful. I guess the same was said about Zeffrelli, but Fukunaga seems less eager to make popular, box-office successful movies than Zeffrelli, and therefore he will be more atuned to what is artistically -- minutely -- necessary for the movie to be successful. After the acclaim "Sin Nombre" received, studios will be anxious to see whether he can pull off the same level of artistry consistently. Jane Eyre is a particularly unusual choice for someone who is trying to establish himself, therefore, I think he will try and do it well. I have a sneeking suspicion that he will not be as faithful to the book as we would all like, but I am certain he will come up with an entirely original interpretation of the characters. This is my hope. I have given up expecting perfection -- the best we can hope for is something authentic and of good quality.

As for the acting, Hinds did a fair interpretation of Rochester's character. He got down the bluntness and the rudeness (and the loudness) of Rochester's character. The passion was most certainly there. However, he did not present Rochester as a very refined person - which he definitely is, having been raised as a gentleman, being well-read, well-educated and musical - and as a result the performance was a little flat for my taste. I understand that this is due in a large part to the writing, but still...he is not my favorite. He is, though, very nearly perfect in looks, apart from the mustache (blegh). Hinds has the build and the black hair that I longed to see with Toby Stephens. Dalton was too good-looking. His version was wonderfully faithful, but I would say he was too refined.

I don't know if you've seen the 1973 version with George C. Scott, but I peronally found him most compelling as Rochester. The writing of this translation took the story too far away from the book, but Scott played the character well nonetheless. His look was what I always wanted Rocheter to look like. He was old enough, ugly enough, but not too ugly, refined, passionate, intelligent, self-important enough. He was wonderful apart from his annoying, too-posh accent, and the end scene where he is blind is not acceptional. I don't know about all of you, but I prefer an older Rocheter to a younger one. Stephens was close to the right age, but I think the audience gets a better sense of the stark contrast between Jane and Rochester's characters if they at least LOOK significantly far apart in age. Rochester must look emotionally weathered, tough, experienced, but vulnerable. Jane must look innocent, young and child-like but beyond her years, and acutely smart.

I undoubtedly agree with you, Kiki, on all accounts. However, I am not a fatalist, and am determined to keep an open mind. I think the key to enjoying any new Jane Eyre adaptation (or any adaptation at all) is not to expect too much, and try to have fun. I hope this may be achievable for you!

By 1973, I meant 1970. The 1973 version was awful.

Haha, I was gone with the 1973-version. I haven't seen those ones (70 or 73) because they haven't been on YouTube. If they are not really good, then naturally, fewer fans and no YouTube crazy fan-person ;).

I'm a Hinds-fan. :D So what did you say??

Nono, seriously. I think the problem with his version was that his character was not afforded enough time. If you only have an hour to do his character, then you cannot have the whole works. You cannot show the man delighting in intellectual activity, reading, entertaining, etc. You have to stay on the surface. You do have time to give a reason for his actions (which was the best of all versions), but not to build up a true Victorian gentleman-façade. I do think the Victorian gentleman was there, not least for Hinds's experience in costume drama, but also because he had played the character earlier in a radio-show. That is where the director picked him up and decided Hinds was the man for his film.

Dalton is a puzzling case to me. At first I found him GOOD! But then, I started to wonder. I think I found out why he didn't really satisfy me. It was not his Jane who was too old (by 10 years) (she did do her best to talk and look like a 19-year-old and did a good job, but in the end the small startng wrinkles you cannot by no means disguise), it was not anything of his demeanor that struck me (very well educated in manners and everything, like Hinds in fact); it was his voice and manner of speaking. Dalton has a very deep (sexy we might say for all the women :p) but very theatrical voice. His last exploit, Doctor Who, was very good because there was need for a deep voice and theatrical speech, and his James Bond was the best according to experts, much better than Sean Connery and Roger Moore together. But when you do not need that theatrical voice is in tender scenes: in the orchard when he is proposing 'What love have I for Miss Ingram? None and that you know!' You really start to doubt if this man is at all real. I mean, no-one who is proposing and really anxious for the other's reply, and really concerned about his wife up there (not least God who is angry), will say it in such a way. Then 'the ugliest kiss in television history' (in the words of a YouTube-comment) of Hinds and Morton was truer. There, in the orchard in the dark with Dalton you didn't really believe there were two real people there, it was rather two actors playing their part; the feelings of two people who love each other weren't really there for the viewer although set-up and re-enactment was the best of the versions I have seen.

Zefirelli I think was the best adaptation when it came to symbolism, typically in the poetic Italian tradition. Sadly, I think this film would have worked better in French or maybe in Italian than in English. Why do I say that? After seeing that film I thought Charlotte Gainsbourg must be a really sh*t actress (sorry). Until, a few weeks later I saw her in 2000's Les Misérables... There she was phenomenal. Why? Her part in Jane Eyre wasn't badly written, better than the latest BBC version (no misplaced individuality or anything), her speech was gentle (no shouting or other modern ways of talking), but what was the problem? After a week of being puzzled about it and watching again and again the same bits, I was convinced that she didn't essentially act differently in either film: she kept the same gentle and almost silent style. That is a French tradition though. It is a way of acting that relies on silence more than talk and the French films make a lot less use of music than Anglosaxon ones (with the odd exception). William Hurt was apparently also odered to rely on silence more than talk. But... it works in French (and possibly Italian, even Spanish), but not in English. English is not a passive language. In French films, you can get away with emotionless acting which is backed up by silence or very light but emotional music. In Italian and Spanish, you can do that also. Enlgish is not so. Maybe it is the way people talk in these different languages or maybe it is their own cinematograhic tradition. Maybe, because the French/Italians/Spanish have the name to be passionate, they can get away with pulling the emotion out of their speech so that one feels it simmering beyond the surface, even stronger. English have the name to have 'a stiff upper lip' and talk a little superficial, so take the passon/emotion out of their speech and nothing is left. Or maybe it is their own film-tradition: the French and the others have gone away from the typical hollywoodian pure superficial emotion with loud music in the background to the more gentle and less clear approach wich tells more with less. Maybe it is the fact that people are not longer used to the English-film-without-music though. But all in all, the silence of Zefirelli didn't quite work.

No, I guess I should expect less, but there is no-one who really seems to take care. But maybe, as the guy in question who is doing the new adaptation is a good director, we are going to get something that is right in its approach and right in its style.

Even if he is a good director, I fear a false step has already been taken, Michael Fassbender is far too "Holywood" Handsome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Even if he is a good director, I fear a false step has already been taken, Michael Fassbender is far too "Holywood" Handsome.

---

Funny thing is, plain characters are fine on the page (and usually easier to relate to), but I'd rather watch an attractive actor any day of the week, even if it's not an accurate depiction of the character they portray. This is human nature, I suppose. I wish it wasn't so, but that's the ugly reality of it (pun unintentional and not particularly funny, but accepted), for me anyway.

Back to the original post: I did see that Levi's commercial and remember being struck with a sudden desperation to own a pair of Levi's. The add was remarkable. I'm eager to see more of his work based on that commercial alone.

Yes, the question is 'Is there any actor who is NOT goodlooking these days?' Same for the fact that Rochester is supposed to look 20 years older than Jane, who needs to look plain and naïve. Is there any actress who looks plain these days, as wel as naïve?

For the naïve part: that is down to play and writing. But... the goodlooking- and age-part is a modern day problem. There is no actor of 40 these days who doesn't look like he is 30 or even younger. They don't have wrinkles because they solve that with botox (as do the women), as otherwise they can't get any roles anymore but the ones for older men (which are scarce). So they try to look young, but then... comes along a character that is supposed to look its age... Problem. It is quit impossible to cact a 60-year-old for the role...

As for ugly or not. Ugliness is a relative concept. Ok, the hunchback in the Notre Dame is ugly universally, but Rochester is altogether something else. He is not extremely goodlooking, girls wouldn't fall for his outer appearance on its own when admiring him from a-far, though they do cling to him because of his charm. He is not repulsive either, he can be seen, you can walk along the street with him without being truly embarrassed which you couldn't with the hunchback. But, goodlooking actors can actually be turned into plain and slightly ugly: the right hair, a few painted wrinkles, darker make-up on the sides of his cheeks/around his eyes and he optically looks a lot thinner than he is, the right/wrong clothing is also a thing to look at... If you do not want someone to look dashing, then certainly do not dress him to his advantage. The wrong mustache or beard is also a great one to make an actor look ugly.

Samantha Morton... You should have a look on IMdB. In Dreaming of Joseph Leas (or something like that): such a beautiful girl! In Jane Eyre: pretty when she smiles, otherwise plain and one-dimentional. She had different make-up for both films and the result is remarkable. Also her hairdo did a lot for plain Jane. A year before Jane, she played Harriet Smith in A&E's Emma: totally different and really quite pathetic little girl with curly hair, but looks more radiant than Jane a year later.

Then look at Hinds: he is a great example. He plays everything: romantic heroes, villains, Dumbledore, great people like Julius Ceasar, yet he pulls it off. Polyvalent looks: looks plain and can be changed into something that looks its part. He played ugly Rochester (which did look ugly in fact). You would never have fallen in love with his looks alone... Then he played goodlooking Captain Frederick Wentworth. He was indeed dashing in his uniform, self-secure, looked like a teined and healthy seaman. Yet, he looks the villain when playing an American secret agent, and scary too.

Look at Charlotte Gainsbourg: she looks plain and a little scared as Jane. Yet, three years later she plays Fatine in Les Misérables and looks a worn-out single mother, no longer radiant. Then, when she dies, she looks like it. All make-up, though, and demeanor together with clothing.

To stay with Les Misérables: look at Depardieu. From galley-labourer/rower to gentleman. Ugly as the night, scary too, in the beginning, yet gentle as an angel at the end. You'd swear he had never been on the galleys as a prisoner. All down to clothing and manners (not so much to make-up on its own).

Of course, the production team has to want an ugly Rochester, and I think the main problem lies there, to be honest... There are many more women that can be hooked (they think) on a handsome one than there are to be hooked with mere charm. What do they know, hey?

I didn't know Hinds played Dumbledore, I thought it was Richard Harris and Michael Gambon, but then I haven't watched the films. Did he play the character when he was younger or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

I didn't know Hinds played Dumbledore, I thought it was Richard Harris and Michael Gambon, but then I haven't watched the films. Did he play the character when he was younger or something?

---

I don't know, haven't watched any of those films since the second one, but the actor who played Dumbledore originally died or something? Or was that the character in The Lord of the Rings (also with a beard :p)?

... [looking for info]

no, Richard Harris (who obviously played the role originally) died in 2002 afer which, I expect, Hinds took over. Amazing isn't it?

Woo hooo!! But 2011 is a long time to wait ;(

I'd like it if they remained faithful to the text - so Rochester isn't a vampire etc. Food for thought... To be perfectly honest I don't care. I'd still sit through it all and love it and get all excited about it!

I agree. I'm still going to be really excited. I'm sure it will still be satisfying in certain ways. Maybe it won't be exactly what I hope for or want, but it's still Jane Eyre. It's satisfying just to have hollywood acknowledge it again, because it isn't a book that is popular in a vast, everybody-knows-it kind of sense, and it's just nice that someone else thinks it's worth making another one.

Hinds did not play Dumbledore. Michael Gambon does. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MyOyster

Hinds did not play Dumbledore. Michael Gambon does. :)

---

Ok, apparently I got a little too hasty it seems, as I haven't actually read the Potter-books, but Hinds will be playing the brother of original Dumbledore in the Deathly Hallows-films. ;)

Still it is not your average character.

More of the cast has been selected and entered in imdb.com.

You can see it here:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1055413/

Mrs. Fairfax - Judi Dench (What a beast! I love her.)
St. John - Jame Bell (Also Mia Wasikowska's love interest in "Defiance".)
Mrs. Reed - Sally Hawkins ("Happy-Go-Lucky")

Very exciting! Everything Judi Dench is in is generally taken seriously as a dramatic piece. This is at least something in this adaptation's favor.

Happy days, y'all!

Have you seen the version with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg? They leave a lot out, but I think the actors are marvelous.

I have not seen any data on the new adaptation that you mention. I happen to be a Hinds fan, although I did not particularly like his portrayal of Rochester. He actually sounded cruel at times--lacking that saucy repartee that is in the novel. I did not like William Hurt's portrayal--or Toby Stevens. Actually, my favorite Rochester is Timothy Dalton although his looks may be a tad too "pretty" for the character. At times, he was less handsome but as for the tone of the character--he was dead-on target. He seemed to know when to be playful and when to be serious. He was abrupt and scolding at times--paralleling the novel.
I am probably not the best judge because I have read the novel over fifty times, taught it in high school, both public and Christian [which was nice because we could explore the Bible allusions & verses], and in college. It is my favorite novel and I have an audio that I carry in my vehicle. I never tire of seeing Jane in my mind and hearing her demand equality from Rochester in the garden with the "it is my spirit that addresses your spirit" speech.
I am always up for a good debate, although my new job is rather stressful and time-consuming. When I was just an instructor, I had more time for discussions. JE is my first love and I am always ready for in depth discussion with textual references for debate. Cheers!

Much as I love the book, and I do love it, I really wonder why so many adaptions are made. (It might be good, of course, if they can rescue it from all the travesties the 2006 one did to it!) I'm quite certain "Pride and Prejudice" is even more popular, and yet they don't make so very many adaptions of it. I suppose that's because the 1995 version is almost universally acknowledged the best.

I am not familiar with the 1995 adaptation. Most adaptations are limited because the novel is 38 chapters long and many choose to eliminate the St.John Rivers character or alter him into some unrecognizable person in the film. Why so many adaptations? The answer is easy. It is a brilliant novel with multi-layers and very interesting characterizations. Unlike Austen's novels, there is real dialog and plenty of description to use for a screenplay. It is also possibly one of the most fantastic love stories ever written. It has a moral foundation--i.e. where Jane says she cannot rewrite the doctrines of her convictions--with a great many allusions to Bible verses and seems to be relatively popular among the reading public. Most of the adaptations are sub-standard, in my opinion, and although I grew up with Orson Wells characterization or Rochester, I have seen Michael Jayston who was reasonably good; my favorite is Dalton. My only argument with the 1983 BBC version is that Zelah Clarke, although small, did not look 18 and Julian Sands character of Rivers was much too cold. I think Rivers was a cold fish, but there was something charming about him that endeared him to Jane. In the film, he is rather cold and cruel. I think if he softened the characterization slightly--it would be more believable. Hurt's characterization was a sleeper; Hinds was good but could not work the repartee which at times seemed cold and cruel. The minute Stevens called Jane a witch --I was through with the film. He never calls her than in the novel. There is a monumental difference between witch and the men in green. It is merely personal preference, of course. I read the novel long before I ever saw the Dalton portrayal. I do believe Hinds admitted he had not read the novel and Dalton did. I remember Colin Firth saying he had not read Austen's novel prior to signing up for the P&P version, which was fantastic. Austen is easier to adapt because not all the specific dialog is written; much is left to the reader's imagination. Andrew Davies did a marvelous job. I think I read somewhere that only six scenes from the novel were eliminated from the production. Whereas in Jane Eyre, much is always left out. And also, a great deal of the novel is Jane's own words which do not always transfer onto the screen as effectively. If she doesn't tell us her thoughts, it has to be created in other ways.

Don't get me wrong! "Jane Eyre" is one of my favorite books!

I suppose LM the Third (man that's some name!) is right on the P&P-front: there is so much competition of Firth as Darcy, that no-one bothers any longer, or they make a twisty one like Lost in Austen with a very very good Darcy in his own right.

About Jane Eyre: I suppose there is no definitive adaptation like there is from P&P. There is no-one who this new Rochester will be compared to, apart from for the die-hard fans who always compare with their favorite. If there was to be a new Darcy, everyone, absolutely every person who went to see it in the cinema (if short version) or everyone who watched it on TV would compare to Firth. That is the problem: Rochester can be re-interpreted, Darcy not. He has had his make-over and that's it, he looks like he looked and acted in 1995. To a certain extent, Cowan in Lost in Austen could not even get rid of that image totally, although Andrews handed him his own interpretaton that worked very well...

I don't think Rochester was too cruel in Hinds's version. I think that was pretty right, actually. Being compared to the devil himself, he should not be a pussy-cat, but a dangerous man. Whether that was well-portrayed in having him chuck Jane's stuff over the banister is discussable, but at least it did it in a much shorter and less melodramatic way...

Dalton I found very good, but he sometimes goes over the top in a theatrical way. At the point where he is proposing in the dark (brilliant scene, and the only film who actually does it in the dark!) and he says: 'What love have I for Miss Ingram? None and that you know.' He says that in such an amazingly artificial accent, that I can't stop laughing at that point. There are a few problems with delivering his lines... When they drag him in the beginning upstairs with his sprained ankle, he also coms across as too theatrical. While his manerisms are great, he kind of ruins it with theatrical speech à la Blackadder's two actors (woooooaaaaa, Friends! Fellows! Countrymen!). Mind you, it is just his way, so it is not only his version of Rochester. Where that is quite scary for James Bond (and best James Bond according to fans), and also great for a scary Time Lord, it is not really desirable for a passionate real man...

But everyone has his preference. The 1983 (?)-version is good if one wants to see the book in action uninterpreted. The others make their own thing of it where 1983 BBC leaves all interpretation aside and consequently all allusions in it so you sometimes see allusions or poignant scenes you did not pick up when you read it.

P.S. The scene in the garden at night... was strange because when Jane was talking, the camera was on Rochester.

I think it is because the book is so packed full of scenes and meaning that it's very hard to adapt. I don't know if I'll ever see an adaption that can effect me on nearly the same level as the book has. Of course, I've only seen the 2006 and the Hinds versions, so far. But today, time permitting, I'll watch the Dalton one. Actually, I think I'll go put it on now, while I fold laundry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneEyre21

Have you seen the version with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg? They leave a lot out, but I think the actors are marvelous.

---

I really liked it actually. Of course it was cut down a lot but it was very good visually and the actors were good.

I liked the one with Timothy Dalton in too, although it was filmed in a stagey way. The women playing Jane Eyre was particularly good.

2006 one I wasn't keen on. The woman wasn't plain- she had pouty lips- and Toby Stevens didn't look old enough for Rochester. I know Rochester is supposed to be late thirties but as the actress playing Jane is always older than 18, they're going to have to raise Rochester's age too so that there is a notable age difference.

The Pride and Prejudice 2005 film was all wrong. The BBC had done a wonderful version in '95- why did they need to make a movie? Mr Collins was portrayed wrong, so instead of being a comic bore, he was a diminutive creep and not funny whatsoever. Whatever humour there was in the film looked too false and glossy- and why were there farm animals wandering around? P and P is a light social satire not a weepy love story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I really liked it actually. Of course it was cut down a lot but it was very good visually and the actors were good.

I liked the one with Timothy Dalton in too, although it was filmed in a stagey way. The women playing Jane Eyre was particularly good.

2006 one I wasn't keen on. The woman wasn't plain- she had pouty lips- and Toby Stevens didn't look old enough for Rochester. I know Rochester is supposed to be late thirties but as the actress playing Jane is always older than 18, they're going to have to raise Rochester's age too so that there is a notable age difference..

---

It's a long time since I saw Jane Eyre on the screen but after this version I see no need for me to bother with any other. They really don't make them like this any more and haven't done for quite some time.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hJfVTgkERw

[QUOTE=Lumiere;836601]Funny thing is, plain characters are fine on the page (and usually easier to relate to), but I'd rather watch an attractive actor any day of the week, even if it's not an accurate depiction of the character they portray. This is human nature, I suppose. I wish it wasn't so, but that's the ugly reality of it (pun unintentional and not particularly funny, but accepted), for me anyway.

Back to the original post: I did see that Levi's commercial and remember being struck with a sudden desperation to own a pair of Levi's. The add was remarkable. I'm eager to see more of his work based on that commercial alone.[/QUOTE

I can confess that I really adore the 2006 BBC adaption of 'Jane Eyre'! It was the most romantic I've ever seen! And Toby did a great job (I cannot say the same thing when he kisses for the first time Jane, after the proposal).
Back in time, the 1997 was pretty good! I liked Rochester's plea to Jane to stay with him, after the wedding, where he brings her to the chestnut tree and so on. I really despise the part where Jane kisses Rochester like a damn virgin!
The 1996 version was a very good, and I don't say that because of the actors, but the adaption itself: a very good script and location! I liked it 80°% I really didn't like the differences between the ages: I know some will say the ages were exactely the same as the book says (Rochester was 20 years old her master), but here, William Hurt looks like 60, not 40 :confused:
The 1983 version was perfect: Timothy Dalton rocks! I liked it very, very much. It was complete, romantic, no missed mouth kissing, no fake scenes! I didn't like the height between them =)) she was 2 heads smaller than him!!!

And, finally, the last 2 70' adaptions, which were awful!

They finally got a trailer for the new Jane Eyre.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/193417/mov...lers-jane-eyre

I am not sure if it has been mentioned in earlier posts but the new 2011 movie will be released March 11. I am looking forward to it as I liked most of the versions though a couple were not very good. Also, I think this may have been the first time it has come to the big screen. I am curious to see how well these actors do.

Was Zefirelli's film with Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt not a real feature film, not for TV?

Yes it was(1996). I checked information from sdon.com.
But this 2011 one is the first I might actually see on theatre :drool5:

I think it looks good so far, only I suspect they will have to butcher it in order to press it into the short format. It might still be good for that form.

The only other adaptation I've seen is the 1983 miniseries with Zelah Clark and Timothy Dalton, which scared me half to death. But that was probably just because I was around 13-14 years old at the time.
Anyway, my point is that I really don't have any other versions to compare the 2011 movie to so I can't say whether or not it's the best adaptation of the book ever.

That being said, this movie has definitely earned a spot in my Top Ten Best Movies of All Time list. It's heart-trending, witty, intense and joyful, all at the same time. My favourite aspect would have to be the script, which is pure poetry.

The acting is inspired, especially from the two leads, but also Dame Judy Dench's rendition of Mrs Fairfax and Jame Bell's St. John Rivers. The chemistry between the two leads is positively electric, the scenes well-measured and drawn-out, while still retaining much of the original feel of the book.

The only complaint I have concerns the short amount of time given to Jane's early years, which seems to rely on the fact that viewers have already read the book. I understand it's because of time restraints, but it just seems kind of rushed to me. Although, I greatly admire Freya Parks in her very short stint as Helen Burns.

I give this movie 9/10.

I thought the 2011 movie was nicely done.