Jane Eyre

ErylRavenwell · Jul 9, 2008

Anyone seen this version of Jane Eyre on screen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpyNuJp-yo&feature=related

I've downloaded all seven parts from youtube onto my laptop and grouped them in a playlist so I can watch it like movie later. But from the sneak peek on youtube, I think they did a very poor job adapting the book on screen. What's your opinion?

gypsyscarlett · Jul 9, 2008

I own the DVD if that tells you anything.

I belong to a Bronte group on yahoo. The general opinion is that this is the best version of Jane Eyre ever made. Of course, one also has to take into account how awful some of the older versions were.

The good things about this version:
1. the actress who plays Jane is great. Really captures her spirt
2. there's lots of passion like in the book (Charlotte couldn't spell it all out as strongly as we do now- but it was enough to get her Victorian critics all riled up)
3. Toby Stephens as Rochester. Yes, way too good looking for Rochester. But he embodies the character extremely well

What I didn't like:
1. it moves from her childhood into when she becomes a governess much too quickly. Her childhood years were vital in determining who she became. It would have been better as a three part BBC production, rather than 2 parts
2. The ending. I'd have ended it when they are reunited. Instead, they show them having a family portrait taking together (some years later). It seemed more fitting for some cheesy Lifetime flick.

So- no, it's definitely not perfect. But it has a lot to be said for it.

ErylRavenwell · Jul 10, 2008

gypsyscarlett said:
I own the DVD if that tells you anything.

I belong to a Bronte group on yahoo. The general opinion is that this is the best version of Jane Eyre ever made. Of course, one also has to take into account how awful some of the older versions were.

The good things about this version:
1. the actress who plays Jane is great. Really captures her spirt
2. there's lots of passion like in the book (Charlotte couldn't spell it all out as strongly as we do now- but it was enough to get her Victorian critics all riled up)
3. Toby Stephens as Rochester. Yes, way too good looking for Rochester. But he embodies the character extremely well

What I didn't like:
1. it moves from her childhood into when she becomes a governess much too quickly. Her childhood years were vital in determining who she became. It would have been better as a three part BBC production, rather than 2 parts
2. The ending. I'd have ended it when they are reunited. Instead, they show them having a family portrait taking together (some years later). It seemed more fitting for some cheesy Lifetime flick.

So- no, it's definitely not perfect. But it has a lot to be said for it.

But the physical appearance? They failed. They look nothing like Jane and Rochester. I haven't seen the whole movie, just part 3 (Rochester falling from his horse), and I think the actress did a good job capturing her spirit as you pointed out. Anyway Jane is too odd looking to find an actress ressembling her. She has "rather the look of another world", to quote Rochester. The physical appearance of the actress playing Jane is of prime importance for me, because in my mind's eye Jane is very real and as Bronte described her.

Hey good to see there's another Bronte fan here. Love her to bits.

gypsyscarlett · Jul 10, 2008

Nice to find you here, too.

(being the Bronte fanatic that I am)

I understand what you mean about the physical appearances. Toby is way too handsome to fit the description of Rochester in the book. However, I do think that Ruth Wilson succeeds. If you look at her closely, she is rather plain looking. But when she smiles, her whole being lights up. I think that reflects the essence of Jane. Plain on the outside, overflowing with passion on the inside.

Now for true horrors- there was an early version made with a beautiful, blonde Jane. I think it's somewhere on youtube. Pretty funny.

I'm still waiting to see a definitive version of Wuthering Heights. The Olivier/Oberon film is a masterpiece in its own right (much better than Gone with the Wind, which won the oscar that year). But it lacks the violent passion of the book. The characters and story are softened way down. Plus, half the book is missing. The Ralph Fiennes/ Bioche film covers the whole book but was dull, dull, dull...

btw- should this be in the movies forum?

ErylRavenwell · Jul 10, 2008

Ruth Wilson her name you said. Now that she's growing on me, she's not a bad Jane Eyre, but still a little bit off. Jane Eyre is very frail-looking, almost child-like (her growth was stunted because of the poor treatment at Lowood), and her appearance does not do her justice as it contradicts her great inner strength. Below is a portrait of Jane that also figured on the cover of the book I have. I didn't like it at first sight but after I read the book I couldn't take my eyes off it.

Ol' Fashioned Girl · Jul 10, 2008

gypsyscarlett said:
btw- should this be in the movies forum?

I think so, too.

Hold on!

Calla Lily · Jul 10, 2008

*swoons thinking of the Timothy Dalton-Zelah Clark version*

That's the only one for me.

gypsyscarlett · Jul 10, 2008

ErylRavenwell said:
Ruth Wilson her name you said. Now that she's growing on me, she's not a bad Jane Eyre, but still a little bit off. Jane Eyre is very frail-looking, almost child-like (her growth was stunted because of the poor treatment at Lowood), and her appearance does not do her justice as it contradicts her great inner strength. Below is a portrait of Jane that also figured on the cover of the book I have. I didn't like it at first sight but after I read the book I couldn't take my eyes off it.

That's actually a portrait of Charlotte Bronte. It's not a drawing of the character, Jane.

Agreed about not being able to take your eyes off of her. She has such a strong, intelligent gaze.

gypsyscarlett · Jul 10, 2008

callalily61 said:
*swoons thinking of the Timothy Dalton-Zelah Clark version*

That's the only one for me.

I actually never saw that version. I have heard good things about it. One day I'll have to pick it up.

Calla Lily · Jul 10, 2008

gypsyscarlett said:
I actually never saw that version. I have heard good things about it. One day I'll have to pick it up.

The best way I can explain it is by analogy.

Eons ago, I saw Colm Wilkinson sing the title role in Lloyd-Webber's Phantom. We were 9 rows back, dead center. Wilkinson's voice is outstanding. He's also...short. So the visual was skewed at first. But when he started to sing "Music of the Night," my immediate reaction was: "Yes! I'll live in the sewer with you! Right now!"

That (minus the sewer) was my reaction to Dalton as Rochester. I'm really not the Byronic hero-type, but he's just...wow.

nevada · Jul 10, 2008

Totally agree. Timothy Dalton was fantastic as Rochester. I sometimes wonder about the looks of Rochester. Back then, men who were genteel, small, almost feminine looking were considered handsome. Today we have a much wider range of what we consider to be attractive. And I wonder if Rochester was attractive to our standards, so I don't worry too much about what he looks like. As long as it's not John Hurt. lol

BarbaraKE · Jul 10, 2008

Add another vote for Timothy Dalton as Rochester. But Zelah Clarke as Jane threw me off. No complaints about her acting but she looked much older than she was in the book. And there was too much difference in their heights.

Jane Eyre

ErylRavenwell

gypsyscarlett

Ma fin est mon commencement

ErylRavenwell

gypsyscarlett

Ma fin est mon commencement

ErylRavenwell

Ol' Fashioned Girl

Hand? What hand?

Calla Lily

On hiatus

gypsyscarlett

Ma fin est mon commencement

gypsyscarlett

Ma fin est mon commencement

Calla Lily

On hiatus

nevada

BarbaraKE