Customer Reviews

Jane Eyre (BBC)

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

After having had the opportunity to view several adaptations of Jane Eyre, Sorcha Cusack captures the heart, mind, and the look of Bronte's groundbreaking characterization of Jane. After the exquisitely masterful acting of Cusack in this role, it will take some adjustment on my part to see her in other roles. To put it as plainly as I can, Sorcha was Jane Eyre. The overall casting was very good; Michael Jayston's Rochester was very true to Charlotte's Bronte's vision of a deeply wounded misguided man searching for true meaning and fulfillment in a very Class conscious, frivolous society. It was refreshing to see Stephanie Beacham as a young woman who was the very female prototype of that priviledged, claustrophobic, and very clueless world that shunned people such as Jane. For literature purists, this Jane Eyre is a must-see!

It took over 20 years for this adaptation to be released for home viewing and what a gift to the viewing public it is. I first saw this version on PBS in the early 1980s. (I actually bought my very first VHS machine so I could record it!) One of my recorded tapes became corrupted over the years and I've been searching high and low for a viewable copy of this made-for-TV masterpiece for at least a decade. To finally have it available is, for me, a dream come true.

What makes this version so superior to the many versions of this story that have been produced before and since? Two things: the script, which is scrupulously true to the novel in every detail and which uses Bronte's beautiful dialogue straight from the book, and the inspired, magical performances of Sorcha Cusack as Jane and Michael Jayston as Rochester.

Yes, it's a clunky 1970s era, BBC production with sets and costumes that look a bit cheesy and the videotape filming medium is far from ideal, but these are minor quibbles. I've watched every version of Jane Eyre since the Orson Welles/Joan Fontaine movie from the 1940s and none of them come close to capturing the true meaning of the story like this one does.

If you love Jane Eyre you owe it to yourself to buy/rent/borrow this version and get ready for 4.5 hours of magic!

Okay...Everybody knows the story so no purpose reiterating it. As far as this adaptation goes...very simple...you take two extremely talented actors (Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack) and a fine script (very close to the book) and it = A classic first rate mini-series. This mini-series was far superior to the 1983 version. In the 1983 version (didn't like it), the actress who played Jane was horrible...underplayed the part...and no chemistry between the lead actors. In this version, there was character development and chemistry between Jane and Rochester. Compared to the book, there were some updated changes made in the script which were refreshing and appropriate. This is a "must have" DVD for Jane Eyre fans.

i must admit at first i was not convinced that this adaptation would find its way into my heart.

please forgive me for using this analogy, but i would like to compare this adaptation to an old rickety wooden roller coaster. it starts off slowly. you chuckle to yourself that this is no 'real' roller coaster. you roll your eyes at the imperfections of the track, contemplate that it is outdated and lame, that there will certainly be no thrills, and you wonder why you're wasting your time. then, slowly, as you near the end of part two, you feel the beginnings of that steady pull that grows stronger and stronger and you realize your knuckles are getting white as you hang on for dear life! wow!!

the child actors are fine, but as i said, towards the end of part 2 is when it really starts cooking. when she saves mr rochester from the fiery bed, there are more than burning curtains that are sending off sparks. sure, its subtle - after all this is a story from the 19th century, but if you're a hopeless romantic like me, you can feel the respect and love blossoming between jane and rochester. the chase is on.

i own the 1983 dalton/clarke version, which i enjoy despite its faults (i commend dalton's performance especially). i own the 1997 hinds/morton version, which though terribly condensed, features two excellent actors and has its enjoyable moments. i have seen the hurt/gainsburgh one as well, which is quite lavish in comparison to all these others, but passes the palate much too quickly for a serious jane eyre-lover to savor.

that being said, i believe that this 1973 version has the most going for it. it includes the most detail and conversation from the book, it is of excellent length. jayston is a superb rochester. he is truly magnetic. his voice is wonderful (i can see why he has done so much narrating for audio books). cusack - after i got past her initially annoying coy expressions, often-raised eyebrows and the fact that there is no way she could pass for an 18 yr old, (and yes her inner monologue was feeling a bit silly early on), i became more impressed with her as the movie progressed. indeed i think she was a great jane eyre. (fyi, samantha morton is my personal favorite.)

i feel this is the best jane eyre in movie form now available to us and well worth the purchase.

The '73 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" with Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston is a decent adaptation of Charlotte Brontė's classic novel - and heaven knows there are few enough decent versions around - but it pales in comparison to the outstanding BBC production of '83 in several respects. Firstly, the '73 version has the weaker script, which very often stays too close to the novel for is own good, yet at times diverts unnecessarily from the literary model. It may sound paradoxical that a production of Jane Eyre can stay too close to the novel, but so it is. The long dialogues between Rochester and Jane are a joy to read, but when they are transferred to the screen in nearly their full length as in this production, their complexity and very unusualness create an impression of artificiality and staginess. The '83 version, on the contrary, shows how superbly these dialogues can be adapted to the screen. There, scriptwriter Alexander Baron did not keep all the lines, but infallibly picked the core lines which are essential to characterize the protagonists and convey the essence of the scenes. Faithful as the long conversation are rendered in the '73 version, they appeal to the intellect rather than the heart, they are interesting, but not captivating, and they lack the focus and also the intensity of the scenes between Rochester and Jane in the '83 version.

Another negative point is the more than frequent use of Jane's voice-overs. Nearly all versions make use of that technique and with just reason, but in this adaptation it is driven to absurd extremes. Jane's inner voice constantly interrupts even the dialogues between her and Rochester, only to inform the audience about what is already blatantly obvious and what could have been shown as effectively by plain good acting. Alas, Sorcha Cusack's acting abilities are limited - at least in this role. She either raises her eyebrows or wears an amused, know-all smile, which is simply not enough to render the character of the novel's heroine. But then her whole concept of Jane is wrong. She plays Jane as a self-confident, sophisticated and worldly-wise young woman, who is right from the beginning on terms of equality with Mr Rochester. She completely misses Jane's guardedness, her shyness, modesty and inexperience. Her Jane is even snappish and pert at times. But the misrepresentation of Jane's character is not Cusack's fault alone but partly also due to the script, which brings me back to my first point of criticism: Since the script is overall so faithful to the novel, the viewer naturally concludes that each word uttered in this version must come straight from the novel - but such is not the case. A very attentive reader of the novel will have noticed that they frequently put repartees and remarks in Jane's mouth which she does not utter in the novel and which give her a sophistication, shrewdness and boldness the young and inexperienced Jane of the novel does not possess. And getting Jane wrong they also got the relationship between her and Rochester wrong. She constantly has the final say during their conversations, she dominates and lectures Rochester instead of being lectured by him.

With such a Jane there is little Michael Jayston as Rochester can do. Jayston is an admirable, subtle actor, who speaks his many lines well and who is really the highlight of this version, but unfortunately he lacks that charisma, that great overpowering presence and natural authority which are necessary to play Rochester and which for example make Orson Welles a more convincing Rochester in the '44 movie, although he has much less screen time than Jayston and does not possess the latter's subtlety. Jayston is superb at playing the eloquent and refined gentleman, but simply cannot portray Rochester' imperious and dark side, and his outbursts of anger and temperament seem unnatural and forced. In the '83 version all sides of Rochester's character are rendered in equal perfection by Timothy Dalton, who combines magnetism and a great acting range and who is furthermore unrivalled in his incredible delivery of Charlotte Brontė' unusual language. Unfortunately there is also little chemistry between Jayston and Cusack: their interplay is amusing but it lacks feeling and their love scenes are passionless and dry.

As regards the plot most of the novel's important scenes are faithfully shown in this version - although the part between Jane's flight from Thornfield and her arrival at Moor House is cut out - but two scenes are altered and to their disadvantage. The first is the gipsy scene. In this version Jane guesses who the gypsy woman really is even before she sees her. Rochester can only say a few sentences before Jane makes him stop the masquerade. In the novel this scene is an admirable means of characterizing both Rochester and Jane - here it only serves to make Jane look very smart and Rochester like a fool. Better to leave out that scene than to mutilate it in that fashion. The second is the parting scene after the aborted wedding. This scene would have benefited if they had stayed closer to the novel, but for some reason they considerably shortened it and consequently that scene conveys next to none of the heartbreak and despair of the scene of the novel. Again, both these scenes are done to perfection in the '83 version.

Let me conclude by saying that despite all my points of criticism I still think that this version in its overall great faithfulness to the novel is miles above nearly all other Jane Eyre adaptation, and I would invite all true lovers of the novels - and using that term I exclude all those who earnestly affirm that the silly 2006 perversion of Jane Eyre is true to the novel or to the spirit of the novel - to watch both the productions of '73 and '83 and to form their own opinion. For my part I have found the definitive Jane Eyre in the '83 adaptation.

After seeing a notable number of Jane Eyre adaptations, I have just found that the '73 adaptation is the best among all: it has the advantage of a good length which allows the perfect character development, it has a fire-spirited Jane and a bewitching Rochester (both very true to the book's characters), it has a sparkling interaction between the main two characters, and its script has some well-chosen small deviations from the book, which only make the story more credible (e.g., see the gypsy scene).
I personally found it much better than the '83 miniseries.
Simply put: a gem, a real gem!

At the risk of upsetting other reviewers, I just wanted to give another perspective; this is an expensive DVD set. I have at least a half dozen movie versions of Jane Eyre on DVD, and if I had been able to view this version prior to my purchase, Im not sure I would still have bought it. The main issue I had with this production was Jane, or the actress that portrayed her. I did not find her believeable, or even that likeable. Yes, I am being harsh. But I found her more coy than sincere, and her frumpiness was just too much for me. I loved Mr. Rochester and was really trying to convince myself that he was attracted to her, but just couldnt do it. I believe he really is a terrific actor just for carrying her through the production. As far as casting someone "unearthly" in the role, the result was more "uninteresting". I found myself fast-forwarding through her sole appearances, which is not something you want to do when you spend this kind of money. My humblest opinion only.

I never thought I would enjoy another version of Jane Eyre as much as I have for years the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke version; and while that one remains for me the most loved, I have to admit that after buying this one on a whim with birthday money recently, I am amazed at how well it was done. I disagree with those who 'diss' Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack in comparison to Zelah Clarke and Tim Dalton - I think that while the comments by one reviewer that perhaps Cusack is a bit tall for Jane are justified, other than THAT I thought both of their performances, while more 'lighthearted' and more subdued than the Clarke/Dalton one(which, assuredly, went more for the melodramatic and heavier gothic feeling of the novel) were excellent. Cusack's Jane very much captures Rochester's comments on her piquant and pixie-esque qualities, and I do think they had some real chemistry - in fact comments I found online by Jayston said there was real attraction between the two of them during filming and I think it shows. I think Jayston's performance is brilliant - he chooses to bring a Beethoven-esque type performance to Rochester which I believe is certainly a valid way to go with his characterization, but shows his great sensitivity and pathos with incredible artistry. I liked Cusack's portrayal of Jane's quiet humor, and she chose to portray Jane with more serenity in her reserve rather than other actresses who have played her have chosen to interpret that word. The only thing I think that is perhaps lacking is a clearer representation of Jane's hunger for human love, having been so starved of it in her growing up years, which is certainly the main reason why the temptation is so huge for her to overcome and why Helen's words about not putting too much stock in human love come back to her when Rochester proposes to her to be his mistress. For me the Clarke/Dalton portrayal of that scene, taken almost verbatim out of the novel, remains the most pathetic and heart wrenching of all versions, but still I think Jayston's torment, while less melodramatic than Dalton's, was still very effective and touching. There is also much less here of Jane's time in deprivation and with her cousins, though what is left out isn't offensively left out, and unlike the recent Wilson/Stephens BBC JE, the dialogue here, while somewhat 'fleshed out' in Jane's private thoughts and at times changed slightly from the novel, still retains the 'flavor' of Bronte's writing, while the recent one to me does not at all.
The gypsy scene is here too which pleased me greatly since that is one of my favorite ones, though I still love Dalton's portrayal of that best. But for now Jayston and Cusack are my second favorite and I will love watching this one in alternation with the other Clarke/Dalton one in the years to come. It makes me sad to think that they were never paired again in another romantic pairing since I believe they did have real chemistry as a screen pair.

I have now seen all the many versions of Jane Eyre, with the exception of the silent movie.
This is a very good film version of Jane Eyre. It is faithful to the book. I really really like Michael Jayston. He plays a very wonderful Rochester.
Why I didn't give it 5 stars is because of Sorcha Cusack. I did not care for her as Jane. Through most of the movie she has this strange little smile on her face. She came off very frumpy partially from that horrible wig or fall they gave her to wear.The penciled brows did not help either. They gave her rather an owlish Garrison Keillor type quality. Her acting was insincere and coy rather than the Plain, strong willed yet sincere, kind and ernest fairy, elfin like character so vivdly described in Charlotte Brontes ever classic literature.
It is Michael Jayston with his terrific talent that carries this movie through.
I will say as one other reviewer stated. this is a very expensive DVD. Rent it first or wait until it comes down in price a little
May I suggest The Orson Welles or Timothy Dalton version. while Welles version is very condenced, Orson is the most perfect example of mr Rochester I have ever seen. The movie has a gothic moodiness that is perfect. Joan Fontaine while too pretty has an etherial wholsomeness that is very appealing.Plus lovely Elizabeth Taylor as Helen Burns.. I just wish they had put more of the content of the book in that version.
Daltons version while he too handsome to be Rochester,overcomes that fact magnificently by his absolutley unpresidented acting. He is Edward Rochester. He understands the part and the Shakespearian training he had really pays off... that film adaptation is also most faithful to the book. The chemistry between him and Zelah Clark is wonderful....... Especially the amazing Gypsy scene that is much more in depth and color than that of the Jayston Cusack version.
In conclusion, view them all as I did and come to you own conclusion.

I believe I have every movie/TV version of Jane Eyre ever made, except for a version done for TV in the 50's starring Kevin McCarthy. I have watched my Jane Eyre movies numerous times but have never had a definitive favorite until now, after watching this version of Jane Eyre I can announce to the world that this is my favorite version. Sorcha Cusack is perfect as Jane Eyre (better than Zelah Clarke)she portrays the sensitivity and strength of Jane Eyre to perfection. Michael Jayston portrays Mr. Rochester excellently he is only the second actor (the first being Orson Welles, who is my favorite Mr. Rochester)that can deliver gorgeous lines straight from Charlotte Bronte's book fluently with the ryhthm, emphasis and emotion intended by the author, particularly the line in regards to the "...cord of communion being broken..." The screenplay was written excellently. In regards to the cinematic look of this version it must be noted that this is a version made for TV and it looks just as good as the version made in the 80's by the BBC. The fact that is was filmed in 1973 does not take away from the telling of the story at all and should not distract new viewers.
I did not know that this version existed until a few weeks ago, I would like to thank Amazon.com for making this most important addition to my Jane Eyre movie collection available.