Podcasts

  • With... Adam Sargant - It's our last episode of series 1!!! Expect ghost, ghouls and lots of laughs as we round off the series with Adam Sargant, AKA Haunted Haworth. We'll be...
    2 days ago

Monday, January 29, 2007

Monday, January 29, 2007 2:37 pm by M. in ,    19 comments
After the second and last part of Jane Eyre on PBS, the reactions:

The live-blogging of the episode by fellow-ette. Always funny to read.
10:56. Credits roll. My mother, whose re-reading of J.E. inspired me to try it for the first time at the age of 10, calls me. "IT WAS SOOO GOOOD" we shriek at each other over the phone for several minutes. "I can't believe it's OVERRRR."
The Little Professor reviews the second episode. An interesting post to read carefully:
Script-wise, I thought that using flashbacks for Jane's decision to leave Thornfield was an interesting and mostly successful choice, even if there was perhaps just a wee bit too much incipient erotic congress involved. (...)
Overall, though, I think large chunks of the plot became problematic--to say the least--once ground through the script's secularization mechanism. St. John Rivers, Mr. Rochester, and Mrs. Reed all suffer from failures of niceness: St. John Rivers acts like a jerk, Mr. Rochester neglects to mention that slight impediment to the matrimonial state, and Mrs. Reed both hates Jane and refuses to forgive her. In the novel, these behaviors are signs of far more serious spiritual ailments, all of them with potential consequences in the next world as well as this one; here, they are just unfortunate psychological quirks that inconvenience Jane to some extent or other. Moreover, while the script tries to indicate the parallel between Rivers and Rochester, it does so in terms of shared passion--without noting the dangerous failure to practice humility, let alone accede to God's will, that also links the two men. (We also lose the connection between Rivers and Brocklehurst, as the script remains determinedly vague about theology.) The novel's insistent attention to moral decision-making and its repercussions, in other words, has entirely gone by the wayside; as usual, we don't come away from the miniseries with any awareness that Bronte ends with St. John Rivers' incipient death in the missionary field, not with the Rochesters' domestic happiness. Without Bronte's interest in the distinction between "custom" and divine law, the plot actually loses much of its resonance. (Read more)
The Monomania Diaries focus on "canvas-like" moments of the episode:
To celebrate next week's launch of the Jane Eyre DVD in the UK (and if you are across the pond, this week's conclusion of the series in the US) here's a mini picspam of some of my favorite "canvas -like" moments in this hugely aesthetic production:

This shot of Grace Poole in the stairs reminded me of a Vermeer painting... (read more)
Finally Petrona (*) publishes this post about the production and classifies it as the "cultural event of 2006".
The production was adapted by Sandy Walsh [sic]; Ruth Wilson (who I am told was not very well known previously) played Jane and Toby Stephens took on the more difficult role of Mr Rochester. I was quite won over by his portrayal. I had never much liked Mr Rochester in my previous readings of the book, but now I'm older I found that although I didn't like him still up until "the" wedding scene, I became increasingly sympathetic to his dilemma and actions subsequently. Toby Stephens gave a sincere and committed performance as well as being suitably irascible and, yes, passionate.
Picture source: this post on Casebook No.23 blog

(*) As it is commented below (see comments), Petrona is from the UK.

Categories: ,

19 comments:

  1. I've seen alot of adaptations of Jane Eyre, but after watching the second half on PBS last night, I have to say this was my absolute favorite. Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens were perfection. It was simply a beautiful movie from both a script and a visual standpoint. And a big thank you to the writers for giving us a Jane Eyre in which there is actually sexual passion between the leads!! I adored this production and found myself extremely sad when the credits rolled- I didn't want it to end!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's great to hear that!

    I know that feeling of not wanting it to end! Fortunately you have the DVD out in the streets in the US and next week it will be released (with extras!) in the UK.

    So it ends... but it can be watched countless times ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for the link, much appreciated. However, I'm in the UK (London) not the US, just so you know.
    Best wishes
    Maxine (aka Petrona)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh dear, am I the only one who didn't like it...?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think so, Sylvia -- it got quite poor reviews when it first came out on TV in the UK last year. I think it has "matured" -- I've often noticed this syndrome where a movie gets poor reviews at cinema release and plaudits when it comes out on DVD, or vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maxine - thank you for your post and comment! It's our pleasure :)Sorry, though, for changing your location.

    Sylvia - as Maxine said the reviews haven't all been a bed of roses. The good ones are very enthusiastic and perhaps overshadow the lukewarm/downright negative ones. But they do exist, so don't feel lonely :)

    May I ask: was there anything in particular that you didn't like or was it the whole thing?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Where do I start? There's the casting--Toby Stephens is way too cute to play Rochester. The "updated" dialogue is a poor replacement for the original (they actually say "youngish"!). The imagery scenes seemed forced and amateurish (snowy owl, mad painting, both family portraits, etc.) and the CGI of the lightning hitting the tree looked out of place. It's like those pieces were added in after the fact to make it look "artistic"; the way it was done they came out seeming completely unrelated to the dialogue and action.

    The whole thing lacked flow and cohesion, probably because they tried to cram in every possible detail from the book (and some that were not in the book!). They would have done better by cutting some stuff out and making what remained work together.

    And the kissing. Waaay too much kissing. They completely miss the dynamic between Rochester and Jane during their engagement. In fact I think they miss both characters entirely. It seems they were so busy with the details they didn't see the bigger picture of who these two people were and why they fell in love. If they didn't do that, then it's complete failure.

    I'm glad some people like it, though. If it gets more people to read the book, I'm all for it!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hello Sylvia,

    Oh I see you certainly didn't like it. Thank you for elaborating. I have read reviews that said some of what you say so you see you're not alone at all. Only the people who like/love the series are so enthusiastic :P

    Yes, at the end of the day there's always the fact that these adaptations - better or worse - will always bring a batch of new readers to the book(s), which is always nice.

    What's your favourite adaptation then?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I haven't seen all the adaptations by any means but my favourite right now is the A&E version with Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton. I thought they nailed the characters. Hinds was magnificent, as he always is. They did have to leave out some major details (i.e. Uncle Eyre) but what remained was probably stronger for it. And I loved Gemma Jones as Mrs. Fairfax. She's always good.

    Bronteana calls the 1982 adaption "perfection" so I must check that out some time. What's your favourite adaptation?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oops, I think I mean the 1973 adaptation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, it's the 1973 version that Brontëana is a fan of.

    Me, if I really have to choose, then I'll go for one that wasn't adapted for the screen. It's Polly Teale's play Jane Eyre. Though it too leaves things out - such as Jane's heritance - I thought it did capture the passion, humour, feeling in the book as well as the full scope of the story. But if I must choose a screen version then I'm quite satisfied with the new one you dislike so much. I won't go as far as to say it's perfection though :P

    As for the 1997 version. Gemma Jones was great in it. That's the only good thing I can say about it, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It only seems fair to ask what you didn't like about the A&E version....?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, basically everything. I found to Ciaran Hinds to be awful as Rochester - not my idea of Rochester at all. And what seemed to me his constant shouting of Jaaaaaaaaaane! was unbearable. His over the top reactionsm, which I didn't find in the least credible. The scene where he chases Jane down the stairs and then the scene by the chestnut tree were actually laughable instead of dramatic and sad.

    Samatha Morton wasn't too bad but I found the script to be so bad that there was nothing she could do to make it better.

    As I said, Gemma Jones for me was the best thing about this adaptation, and I sorely regretted it whenever she wasn't on screen.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh dear! Well, to each her own!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Loved this production. Ruth Wilson's portrayal of Jane was slendid. Toby Stephens was magnificent as Mr. Rochester. The best one to play the part ever. I ordered the DVD today. Can't wait to get it so I can watch it over and over again. As far as Ciaran Hinds is concerned, he is a fine actor but he is no Mr. Rochester. He was horrible in that role. Toby rules.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Joy,

    Thank you for sharing your opinion! I hope that DVD reaches you soon. We got our copy a few days ago and it's hardly stopped playing since ;)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Christina,
    I am still waiting for my DVD. I am in Canada and it is not being released until Feb. 27 but I pre-ordered. Can't wait for my Ruth and Toby fix. lol

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cristina,
    Sorry I spelled your name wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You don't have much left to wait now. I hope you'll really enjoy it once you get it! :)

    ReplyDelete