Customer Reviews

Masterpiece Theatre: Jane Eyre

5 star:		(368)
4 star:		(53)
3 star:		(21)
2 star:		(15)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

"Masterpiece Theater" has long been a benchmark in bringing quality British TV to American viewers. With a prestigious history, some legendary programs--including "Upstairs, Downstairs" and "I, Claudius"--have found acclaim, awards, and international audiences. Of late, "Masterpiece Theater" has been showcasing some ambitious literary adaptations with mixed results. Last season's high point, and a must for any lover of film, was the flawless adaptation of Charles Dickens' "Bleak House." A triumph in every regard, and featuring Emmy nominated turns by Charles Dance and Gillian Anderson, this program should be essential viewing for those that value literate, classy and wildly entertaining TV. This season's offerings have included "To The Ends Of The Earth" (an adaptation of William Golding's seafaring trilogy--'Rites Of Passage,' 'Close Quarters' and 'Fire Down Below'), a robust new version of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre," a reimagining of Bram Stoker's "Dracula," and the swan song of Helen Mirren's Jane Tennison in "Prime Suspect 7."

What can one say about "Jane Eyre" that hasn't been said before? Being familiar with the novel and countless prior adaptations, I'll admit that I wasn't all that excited to revisit what I consider to be a very familiar tale. However, I diligently sat down to watch the latest 2 part "Masterpiece Theater" production. And, boy, am I ever glad that I did. While there are some liberties taken with the source material, that's to be expected. Anyone who envisions every adaptation of a novel to be a literal translation is denying the power of the film medium to create new and enduring art. In fact, it often annoys me when people carp on how something is different in lieu of accepting the merits of the interpretation. This "Jane Eyre" succeeds so well due to the credible romantic relationship, the intelligent screenplay, and the genuinely haunting quality of the central mystery.

While this version breezes past Jane's difficult childhood, it effectively settles into the heart of the story--when Jane takes a position at Thornfield Hall. Jane becomes fascinated by her new employer, Mr. Rochester. The two interact believably, and as Jane gets past Rochester's gruff exterior and erratic mood swings--she starts to have feelings for the man. Part One of this miniseries details the evolving, but chaste, relationship. In addition, the mysterious goings-on at Thornfield are excellently depicted. I was riveted by everything in this first part--particularly the intelligent banter between the two leads and the underlying sense of dread that exists in the manor. Easily 5 stars, the first half of this miniseries is flawless. In Part Two, physical romance blossoms and secrets are revealed in a very satisfying way. However, as "Jane" fans know--there are still plenty of obstacles in the way of true love. As the story wanders away from Thornfield, the program loses some of its momentum and its magic. It's still a good adaptation--but when the leads are separated, it loses a bit of its spark.

In case you haven't guessed, I was thoroughly impressed by Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, as Jane and Rochester respectively. Wilson is the perfect Jane--intelligent and appealing. It's hard to imagine someone not falling in love with her, she's so sensible and caring. Stephens does a terrific job, as well. Playing the tortured Rochester, he is a trapped soul that's yearning, but unable, to escape. While referred to in the dialogue as ugly (which he's not), it is also easy to see why this man would be a challenge for and an equal to Jane. A wonderful combination, Wilson and Stephens make this "Jane Eyre" sing. Even if you've fallen in love with other versions, there is a vital romanticism that distinguishes this lovely film. KGHarris, 02/07.

For me the Timothy Dalton version could not have been bested, but I was wrong. The Dalton version,so faithful to the original novel is still excellent, though on re-viewing seems locked indoors and low-budget.

The Dalton version gave the story about 6 hours, with a substantial amount of time spent on Jane's childhood at the horrible boarding school.
Again, this was straight from the novel, but, let's face it, for those of us who know the story, we're waiting for her to grow up and meet Mr. Rochester.

Now, on to the current version. The story remains a great mixture of seething passion, frustrated hopes on both sides, and the struggle within one heroine between steely, virtuous, self-reliance, and a simple desire to be loved. Toby Stevens is younger than the hero is often portrayed, but still looks as if he's seen the world and fought against the unhappiness and cynicism that years of dissipated living can bring. He is handsome, but not pretty. Ruth Wilson's Jane is written as chaste but not priggish, lonely but eager to love, and, most especially, strong and independent, but in no way inappropriately feminist for the 19th century of the setting. If anything she's a bit more physically passionate than we've seen before, but it does make her seem more real.

The budget is high and it shows--lots of gorgeous outdoor scenes, beautiful period interiors , sumptuous gowns. Here and there there are some breaches of Victorian etiquette that don't ring quite true, and there are of course some deletions and skimping on some of the story lines,particularly with the Rivers family. However, I think once the decision was made to have this fit into 4 hours, the plot choices they made were mostly good ones. There is great chemistry between the two principals and most importantly, they seem entirely believable and at home in the period of the story. Spoiler warning: the final scene struck me as little too Hollywoody and 'sunny' for what is essentially
a Gothic-style dark novel (madwoman in the attic and all) but at least it is nicely romantic.

According to many sources on the internet the US DVD does not have the Special Features that the UK version has. For some reason they are distributing the DVD with all of the Special Features later in May. The US DVD reportedly only has cast filmographies and a biography of Charlotte Bronte. The UK version includes all of those above and deleted scenes, audio commentaries, interviews with cast & crew, and a photo gallery.

If all the extras aren't important to you by all means go ahead and order this beautifully done adaption of Jane Eyre. Of course these sources could be untrue but I'd rather wait to find out then to go and buy another copy of it in May.

I thouroughly enjoyed this production on PBS. As I was poking around on Amazon to see what others thought, I noticed a few negative reviews. These negative reviews, it seems to me, can be grouped generally under one heading: So-and-so in the movie wasn't true to so-and-so in the book.

So this weekend, after seeing the production for the second time, I reread the book (I had read it in high school, but not at the level of attention it deserved). So as I read, I kept in mind the question: Is this movie version true to the book? So here are my observations:

First, Wilson and Stephens do, generally speaking, seem to match the physical descriptions of Jane and Rochester. Rochester, if memory serves, is most often described as broad-chested, with a large forehead, and stern mouth (among other things). It seemed to me that Toby Stephens fit this description within reason. Ruth Wilson also seemed to fit well as Jane. So when I was reading the book, I never had a red flag go up--in other words, at no time reading the book did I feel as though either Toby Stephens or Ruth Wilson made a counterfeit Rochester or Jane.

Some reviewers said that Stephens wasn't brooding enough. However, if you read the book, especially during Jane's first few months at Thornfield, you find Rochester to be moody, yet never missing an opportunity to keep Jane off balance, playing devil's advocate with her, and generally enjoying a good verbal sparring match that includes, yes, a spirit of playfulness. And so in this respect, I thought that Stephens captured this element of Rochester's character with great skill. You could really see that although Rochester's sprits are lifted by Jane's presence, he soon remembers the chains that bind him. So to me, Stephens successfully captured the complexity and depth of Rochester's character.

Other reviewers complained about the dialogue being dumbed down. However, as I read the book, it struck me that in some very important scenes (e.g. when Eliza gives Georgiana a verbal clobbering) the dialogue seems to match the text of the book almost verbatim.

Still others complained of Jane's relationship with God as not being prominent enough in this production. As I read the book, I noticed references to God more toward the end (more after her encounter with St. John). At the end of the book, Jane's thoughts dwell more on the spiritual, but it seemed to me that for most of the book, allusions to Providence and such were present, but not exactly what I would describe as being in the forefront.

So I loved this production. The only improvement I would have asked for is this: that the events from after the failed wedding to Jane's travels to Moor House should have perhaps been rendered in chronological order. That having been said however, I must admit that having the post-wedding scenes between Rochester and Jane as flashbacks made for some quite powerful viewing. Also, this struck me as being true to the book because in the book Jane is constantly thinking of Rochester while at Moor House. In a text format, as author Bronte could say that Jane is thinking of Rochester while other action is taking place, but how do you depict that on screen? So after thinking about it a little, I began to see the wisdom in doing things that way because it kept the movie from straying too far from home while showing Jane's continued devotion to Rochester. A nice way to adapt that part of the story to the visual medium--although I didn't like it at first.

The areas in which I did notice the production deviating from the book was in the locations of things. For instance, in the book, when Jane hears Rochester calling her, she's in the drawing room with St. John, but in the movie she's outside. Also, in the book when she finds out about what happened to Rochester, she's at an inn, but in the movie, Jane is outside in a field adjacent to Thornfield Hall. So there were a few differences there.

Bronte's writing is so rich and loaded with emotion. Consider for a moment the depth of the writing when Bronte describes Jane's inner struggles (e.g. when she is on her way out of Thornfied Hall after the failed wedding). The folks who make movies have to figure out ways to bring this to life in a visual medium. That's a challenge, to say the least. The person writing the screenplay, I suppose, has to deal with that more than anybody. So to me, this production was really well done. They did a wonderful job of bringing this story to life from a literary format (text) to a visual format.

Addendum:

Some folks have complained that Jane would not have kissed Rochester after the failed wedding. So I went back and looked at the book again, and it's true--in the book, Jane resists Rochester's physical affections on moral grounds, noting that he is, after all, married. So in the movie, when Jane is at Moor House and has the flashbacks to the scenes from after the failed wedding (where there is much smooching), I agree that those scenes aren't exactly true to the book.

After watching many clips of the other movie versions of Jane Eyre, I must say that no other version comes close to this one as far as the expressiveness of the actors. The acting in this movie is of the highest caliber. Wilson, for instance, has been nominated for a BAFTA and a Golden Globe, and deservedly so.

Some complain that Toby Stephen's Rochester is too handsome and young. I disagee, having been read Jane Eyre for 30 years. Rochester and Jane cannot be as ugly or as plain as the novel says they are. Today he would have been called ruggedly handsome. Rochester was "one and twenty" when he committed the "capital error" of marrying Bertha Mason, fifteen years before trying to enter into a bigamist marriage to Jane. That makes Rochester 36, about the same age as Toby Stephens. His Rochester is macho but vulnerable, sarcastic but charming, and underneath it all a better man than he thinks he is.
Ruth Wilson's Jane is quiet and modest, but passionate, intelligent, free and and quietly indomitable. Their on-screen friendship and subsequent romance is so believable. Their chemistry just sizzles!
Some scenes were a little too 21 Century in their sensiblities, but I wouldn't change a hair. There are many versions of Jane Eyre, and even if this one is not exactly faithful to the book, I found it rather refreshing. A great alternative view.
I love this movie--I can watch it over and over again!
I will add it to my other favorite Jane Eyre productions starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke, and Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine.

Toby Stephens, to my taste, is the perfect Mr. Rochester. True to character, he's certainly not "pretty" and he is gruff and brooding. But many "Jane" versions have the ferocious, unattractive boss bullying the quiet governess, and when she speaks up in his presence her tone sounds offended and resentful--and the audience is left wondering what the heck the girl sees in this guy. NOT this version. Here we see the humour behind the dialogue. When the characters argue, it's more like the teasing banter of equals instead of plain old bickering. We see that Mr. Rochester definitely respects Jane, and she respects herself enough to hold her own with him.

And this Mr. Rochester certainly isn't gorgeous--but he IS sexy. Though nothing "happens" when Jane rescues Mr. Rochester from a fire, the "chemistry" (read: sexual tension) that occurs between the two main characters is incredible. Toby Stephens is truly "hot" in that scene, with his shirt unbuttoned, silhouetted by the firelight. Suddenly he's transformed from being mean, cynical, and unattractive to someone quite beautiful, vulnerable, and gentle. Jane clearly sees this transformation, and we see her transform as well--she glows in the next scene, until she decides she had just been "imagining things" and tries to be plain and sensible again. And of course we learn later that her calm sense and sanity are very attractive to Mr. Rochester--and why.

This is a story I will want my daughter to learn about, once she is old enough. One thing I always loved about the book "Jane Eyre" and its author is the fact that they dealt with things that we tend to think of as "modern" problems all those many years ago. Bronte's brother struggled with a drug addiction and the book's characters struggle with the temptation of extra-marital relations. In a world of divorces and affairs and people living together out of wedlock, it's hard for a "modern" person to imagine why Jane wouldn't simply have run off with Mr. Rochester to live somewhere else. Who would have known?? SHE would have known, of course, not to mention the Higher Power in Whom she steadfastly believed. Plus, the characters aren't flawlessly lovely fashion models and movie stars--they are ordinary. Yet people love them for themselves, not for their superficial appearances. In a world of shallow Disney Princesses and bombshells created by plastic surgery, young girls should have more heroines like Jane--passionate heroines who also possess independence, intelligence, morality, virtue, substance, and sense.

I just received my DVD of this fabulous adaptation of my favorite classic, and I could not stop watching it! My first thought when I heard there was yet another version was, "Good grief, why do they need another one?" (my same reaction when I heard that another Pride and Prejudice was being made). I own a copy of nearly every version of Jane Eyre that has been made, except for the Orson Welles version, which I hated anyway. This is by far one of the most worthy additions to the list.
I had not thought that the 1983 Timothy Dalton version could be topped, but I believe this one did it. I had my own gripes with that version-Timothy Dalton was far too beautiful to play Rochester and Zelah Clarke was too old (she looked 27, not 18) too curvy (Jane was very tiny and thin), and far too perky. But it followed the book much more than did other versions. However, this adaptation followed the book quite well, more so than the Ciaran Hinds version did. I love Hinds in anything he does, but he admits he hadn't read the book, and played Rochester as a raging bull type of character.
Toby Stephens looks Rochester's age, 36-38, and he is very nice looking but not too handsome for the role. He does a good job expressing both Rochester's deep seated emotional pain and his quixotic sense of humour. Ruth Wilson is amazing, sometimes plain and sometimes as beautiful as Rochester tells her she is in the book. The chemistry between the two is electric, you really believe their feelings.
This isn't perfect, of course. Rochester is supposed to be very dark, with black hair and black eyes. I always look to the last scenes to see how the versions portray Rochester's injuries. In the book, he has lost his left eye and his face is terribly scarred. His other eye is injured but he regains the sight in it over several years. He also loses his left hand. In this version, Rochester appears to stay blind permanently. His scarring consists of what looks like some acne on the left side of his face, and his hand is intact but bandaged. The book doesn't portray Rochester and Jane lying on her bed with him feeling her up as he tries to convince her to stay, nor does she lie on top of Rochester once she agrees to marry him. (although she does sit on his lap). But if the book didn't have them sprawled all over each other, you know they WANTED to be, and the book might well have been written that way had it not been written in the mid-1800's. These touches add to the vein of passion that runs all through the book, you cannot deny that Jane and Rochester are highly sexual people. So I didn't object to the slight touches of added sexuality, in fact, (snicker) I hit the remote and watched them more than once!
This film also didn't really touch on Jane's deep religious faith or strong sense of self, so people of today watching this might not "get" why Jane had to leave her true love. It was a bit silly to have the line in which Rochester offers to take her off to live as brother and sister, as he obviously wants a sexual relationship with Jane as part and parcel of his great love for her. And Jane leaves precisely because she KNOWS she wants him too and can't live as a mistress, as she values herself too highly and knows how Rochester came to despise his other mistresses. The version also doesn't make it clear how Charlotte Bronte, and her character, both believed in the guiding of Providence in lives. Jane didn't go back to Rochester because her values had changed, she went back because she felt God leading her back to him as opposed to leading her to marry St.John (another fascinating and complex character who was given rather short shrift, but then, how does one really explain St. John Rivers, anyway?)
All in all, this is among the best, if not the best, of the Jane Eyre adaptations. I used to belong to an online Bronte discussion group, and we would spend a lot of time planning the definitive, "Jane Eyre to end all Jane Eyre" versions. We didn't have any of these casting choices, but I have to say this version certainly comes close to what every Jane Eyre fan could possibly want.

I agree with the reviewer who said everyone interprets the book in a different way. I've always been slightly irritated with the other versions that render one of the most passionate books so tame and mannerly. Jane Eyre is not a Jane Austen novel. It is over the top and gothic and melodramatic. Jane and Rochester are two passionate creatures in the book--they are always storming and raging and lightning is symobolically burning trees next to them--but in the movies they are so chaste. I was thankfully surprised that in this one they are touchy-feely. In the book, when he is trying to persuade her to stay with him, there is a lot of crushing her to him going on. I'm glad they showed that in this version. I really believed these two were in love, mentally, emotionally, and physically.
I think it's funny that a couple people said they were too good looking but nobody mentions that the actress in the Timothy Dalton version looks about 38. I never could believe it when she says she's 18. And she has none of the impetuousness and rage that young Jane Eyre has. I loved this one. I thought she captured all the power and passion surging in Jane's soul. And I like that she is cute to us but would have been considered ugly by Victorians. That is how I always pictured Jane--as somebody who didn't live up to her age's standard of beauty, whereas Blanche is supposed to be the epitome of that ideal.
I thought this version was more in the spirit of the book than any of the others (a spirit of passion and vehemence and rage). I would recommend it.

I have loved the story of Jane Eyre since I first read the novel thirty years ago. Since that time, I have seen just about every version. It takes alot for me to be impressed and impressed I am because this version gave a new perspective on a story I know very well. It's exciting and satisfying to view a familiar story from a different angle.

I would venture to guess that the writer and director considered Jean Rhys Wide Sargasso Sea as the backstory to this version. This Rochester realizes the "mad" woman in the North Tower is as much a victim as he is and because of that he has a tenderness that is not always present in other adaptions. He is not as selfish as he is sometimes portrayed. Although I do know from the book and other versions that Rochester's motives for bringing Blanch to Thornfield were to make Jane jealous, in this telling it almost seemed that he did it to put a buffer between them -- to protect Jane. This Rochester is protective and caring as he constantly struggles between what he wants and what is right for Jane which demonstrates a strong true love.

Both Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens are well-cast. Ruth Wilson brings life to Jane, making you see why Rochester -- a man who has travelled the world -- would fall in love with her. Unlike many other versions, thier kinship is evident as we see there friendship grow. Although some have "complained" that Toby Wilson is too handsome to fit Rochester, it should be remembered that by the standards of the early-to-mid 19th century, he would not be considered conventionally handsome. The ideal of the day was the blond-blue-eyed look of St. John.

This version may not follow the text exactly --- if you want that read the book--- but it is a wonderful story to lose yourself in for a few hours.

I have not seen every film adaptation of Jane Eyre but I have seen a number of them and while I agree with some of my fellow reviewers that this version takes certain modern liberties (more on that later) I do believe it gives a perpective of Jane and Edward's relationship that has not been seen before. I thought the beginning very creative, the end at Ferndean Manor satisfying, and appreciated the inclusion of the Gypsy scene. Also, I appreciated that Stephens' Rochester was mutli-layered. Many previous versions of this story place the burden on the viewer to reconcile Jane's attraction to a dark, brooding, crass man. At least in this version a context is created whereby the viewer finds themselves recognizing the good that triumphs over bad in his character--beneath the prickles and barbs of his exterior.

However, I do agree that a certain modern sensibility was imposed on this version especially once their love is pronounced. While the retrospects are titilating, they diverge from the text almost completely. Where was Rochester's fiery, violent temperament?! Where was Jane's resolve?! Instead Rochester is attempting to seduce a passive Jane into becoming his pseudo-wife with whispers and caresses! Very out of character. There is no attention paid to Jane's Christian moral center which weakens this version's Jane over others (I am reminded of the Ciaran Hinds/Samantha Morton version).

However, aside from this I was overall pleased with the film. I thought it had a good pace, a strong chemistry between the main actors, and a mostly honest adaptation. If you enjoy this story I think you will find this film satisfying.