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.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by iorix
). 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. 
