Have you seen the version with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg? They leave a lot out, but I think the actors are marvelous.
Jane Eyre
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.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
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!
I really liked it actually. Of course it was cut down a lot but it was very good visually and the actors were good.Originally Posted by JaneEyre21
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.
Last edited by kelby_lake; 03-19-2010 at 01:20 PM.
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
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.
"The ease of his manner freed me from painful restraint; the friendly frankness, as correct as cordial, with which he treated me, drew me to him." Jane Eyre
Was Zefirelli's film with Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt not a real feature film, not for TV?
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
Yes it was(1996). I checked information from sdon.com.
But this 2011 one is the first I might actually see on theatre
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
