Jane Eyre

I read reviews, with interest and some perplexity. I own this version and the one with  Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds , love them both, for different reasons. I hadn't read  the book  in years but just did, to refresh my memory. I had strong feelings about it. I bookmarked passages that I found especially powerful or meaningful, included below- just skip them if you're not interested. I watched both versions again, to compare them with the book.***SPOILERS FOLLOW BUT NOT OF THE ENDING*** This version with Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt is by far the closest to the novel. There are many scenes straight out of the book that are omitted in other versions, e.g., Jane's skill as an artist. Much of the dialogue, Charlotte's prose, is word for word intact in many scenes. As an aside though, something I've noted in general about adaptations of novels is that there isn't always a close correlation between cleaving to the narrative and dialogue of a novel, and the characterization (actors' affect, performances, context, etc), which highlights the influence the director, actors and others have (and thus can put a very different spin) on the finished product. I read partly in reaction to criticisms relating to such issues in negative reviews.In terms of characterization, I've long thought Ciaran Hinds was closer to Rochester as described in the book, e.g., age (39), appearance (dark, grim), having a big head, his wide girth, demeanor, being out of control emotionally, capricious, unreasonable, even dangerous (there's a scene in the book where he comes very close to doing her real harm). He's difficult, a BAD BOY, a type irresistible to some women, like catnip to a cat.William Hurt's Rochester, whom I also like very much, is quite different- more conventionally handsome, aloof, enigmatic, etc, intriguing in a different way (I’ve been a fan of Hurt’s for many years, e.g., in  The Doctor , Altered States , and  The Accidental Tourist , one of my all-time favorites- I admit I’m biased). Jane later meets St. John (pronounced "SIN-jin"), who is the polar opposite of Rochester, a fair Adonis, appearance-wise, but cold as a fish (except in his love of the Lord), and contrasts the two (more so in the book). He is very well-portrayed in this version by the marvelous Samuel West. One reviewer likened the Morton-Hinds version to Beauty and the Beast, and I got that vibe too (though I don’t find Ciaran Hinds beastly in the least).And while I'm at it, I'd forgotten how MARVELOUS this book is. It's incredible in its intelligence and arch feminism. Would someone tell me why in every film version I can recall it's Mr. Rochester who puts out the fire in his bedroom, while a frightened Jane stands by helplessly? In the novel it's JANE who puts out the fire, is unable to rouse Rochester (overcome by smoke) until AFTER she's extinguished the flames and saved his life. This version is no different, but even so, Charlotte Gainsbourg turns in a powerful, bravura performance as Jane.In comparing Charlotte Gainsbourg with Samantha Morton, at first I thought the latter a mite too personable, that she smiled too often, but in the novel Rochester mentions these aspects of her demeanor again and again. In re-reading the novel I realized I'd forgotten her sass, her secret amusements, her good sense, her strong opinions, and most of all her passion and deep desire, as expressed in the novel, and Morton captures those aspects very well. Indeed, Rochester observed early on "...you can laugh very merrily: believe me, you are not naturally austere, any more than I am naturally vicious." But Gainsbourg radiates more power, more self-possession- she’s a force to be reckoned with. (I've seen her in many films, particularly French ones, a very fine actress, in  Le Petit Amour , for example.) Bronte published Jane Eyre under a masculine-sounding nom de plume, but it didn't take long for the news to leak that it was penned by a woman. She was then criticized for being "coarse", a euphemism for passionate or lurid. As I recall this was the first book written in first person singular from a female protagonist's point of view, and readers were stunned by the desire and passion expressed by Jane Eyre, as well as the adult subject matter. A middle aged man, describing his affairs and mistresses in detail to a young woman in his employ? Unnerving, and yet- a very fine character study of two people, and the dynamic between them. Example:Rochester: "Is it better to drive a fellow-creature to despair than to transgress a mere human law, no man being injured by the breach? for you have neither relatives nor acquaintances whom you need fear to offend by living with me [in sin].”[Jane]: This was true: and while he spoke my very conscience and reason turned traitors against me, and charged me with crime in resisting him. They spoke almost as loud as Feeling: and that clamoured wildly. “Oh, comply!” it said. “Think of his misery; think of his danger—look at his state when left alone; remember his headlong nature; consider the recklessness following on despair—soothe him; save him; love him; tell him you love him and will be his. Who in the world cares for you? Or who will be injured by what you do?Later that night:I would have got past Mr. Rochester’s chamber without a pause; but my heart momentarily stopping its beat at that threshold, my foot was forced to stop also. No sleep was there: the inmate was walking restlessly from wall to wall; and again and again he sighed while I listened. There was a heaven—a temporary heaven—in this room for me, if I chose: I had but to go in and to say— “Mr. Rochester, I will love you and live with you through life till death,” and a fount of rapture would spring to my lips. I thought of this.Then:I skirted fields, and hedges, and lanes till after sunrise. I believe it was a lovely summer morning: I know my shoes, which I had put on when I left the house, were soon wet with dew. But I looked neither to rising sun, nor smiling sky, nor wakening nature. He who is taken out to pass through a fair scene to the scaffold, thinks not of the flowers that smile on his road, but of the block and axe-edge; of the disseverment of bone and vein; of the grave gaping at the end: and I thought of drear flight and homeless wandering—and oh! with agony I thought of what I left. I could not help it. I thought of him now—in his room—watching the sunrise; hoping I should soon come to say I would stay with him and be HIS. I longed to be his; I panted to return: it was not too late; I could yet spare him the bitter pang of bereavement. As yet my flight, I was sure, was undiscovered. I could go back and be his comforter—his pride; his redeemer from misery, perhaps from ruin. Oh, that fear of his self-abandonment—far worse than my abandonment—how it goaded me! It was a barbed arrow-head in my breast; it tore me when I tried to extract it; it sickened me when remembrance thrust it farther in. Birds began singing in brake and copse: birds were faithful to their mates; birds were emblems of love. What was I? In the midst of my pain of heart and frantic effort of principle, I abhorred myself. I had no solace from self-approbation: none even from self-respect. I had injured—wounded—left my master. I was hateful in my own eyes.(At the end I'll include another quote from this same section, shortly before Jane and Rochester part for the last time, in which he tells her of the effect she had on him at their first meeting.) What a romantic and wonderful book, and one that cries out to be a mini-series because so MUCH has been left out of film versions to date (those I've seen, anyway).One critical reviewer said that the Morton-Hinds version departs most significantly from the book. I compared word for word the crowning glory of the film for me, the ending, which I find extremely moving and thrilling in that version- brings me to tears and makes me want to cheer at the same time- and yes it does deviate, but again, I believe it is truest in spirit to the OVERALL narrative (which is passionate and dramatic). But I also like the ending of this version- which includes more actual dialogue from the book. Bronte is quite matter of fact at the end, so in the strictest sense the ending of this one is truer. In terms of being true to the end of a book, for me both Jane Eyres are vastly superior and in marked contrast to Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightley, in which the film struck me as utterly untrue to BOTH the spirit and marrative of the novel- re: heavy breathing, heaving bosoms, sweat, passion and desire on steroids, NOTHING like Jane Austen's sensibilities. Bronte, on the other hand, was nothing if not passionate and dramatic. Those who have loved another utterly will recognize themselves in these characters. And a secondary theme I love in the narrative is that of love as salvation, that saves both, that engenders "the better angels" of their natures (as Abraham Lincoln said).My own feeling on differing film versions of favorite novels is that each (of the good ones anyway) rounds out the overall experience, fleshes out the book and complements the others. Rarely does any one production capture all the nuances of a book- a different- deeper and broader- medium, duh. Mini-series tend to do a better job, of course. But even so, individual screenwriters, directors and actors bring their own foci and sensibilities to bear on the production. This has been my experience many times, e.g., with the book  North and South  by Bronte's friend Elizabeth Gaskell, both the splendid but low-budget  made-for-TV version from the 70s  with a young Patrick Stewart, which is truer to the events of the book (and for me Stewart IS the iconic Thornton), and the gorgeous, atmospheric  2004 film , which deviates substantially from the book but is inspired and inspiring nonetheless. Likewise, for me the  Morton-Hinds version  of Jane Eyre and this Gainsbourg-Hurt one complement each other very well, I love them both and watch them alternately.Here's one last excerpt from the book, from their first meeting, which suggests the spark of their personalities (both contrary!) and their instant attraction to each other (captured very well by Gainsbourg and Hurt):As Jane reports, she's walking along at twilight, and a man on horseback speeds by-"...only a traveller taking the short cut to Millcote. He passed, and I went on; a few steps, and I turned: a sliding sound and an exclamation of “What the deuce is to do now?” and a clattering tumble arrested my attention. Man and horse were down; they had slipped on the sheet of ice which glazed the causeway." She asks him if he's all right, he's rude and tells her to stand aside. She describes his appearance, behavior, and bad humor. He's clearly injured, she offers assistance several times, which he shuns dismissively, and she muses: "...if this stranger had smiled and been good-humoured to me when I addressed him; if he had put off my offer of assistance gaily and with thanks, I should have gone on my way and not felt any vocation to renew inquiries: but the frown, the roughness of the traveller, set me at my ease: I retained my station when he waved to me to go, and announced — “I cannot think of leaving you, sir, at so late an hour, in this solitary lane, till I see you are fit to mount your horse. ” He looked at me when I said this; he had hardly turned his eyes in my direction before."Mr. Rochester describes this encounter later in the book, before they part for the last time:"...let me come to the point. Last January, rid of all [my] mistresses—in a harsh, bitter frame of mind, the result of a useless, roving, lonely life—corroded with disappointment, sourly disposed against all men, and especially against all womankind (for I began to regard the notion of an intellectual, faithful, loving woman as a mere dream), recalled by business, I came back to England. I rode in sight of Thornfield Hall. Abhorred spot! I expected no peace — no pleasure there. On a stile in Hay Lane I saw a quiet little figure sitting by itself. I passed it as negligently as I did the willow opposite to it: I had no presentiment of what it would be to me; no inward warning that the arbitress of my life — my genius for good or evil — waited there in humble guise. I did not know it, even when, on the occasion of [the] accident, it came up and gravely offered me help. Childish and slender creature! It seemed as if a linnet had hopped onto my foot and proposed to bear me on its tiny wing. I was surly; but the thing would NOT go: it stood by me with strange perseverance, and looked and spoke with a sort of authority. I must be aided, and by that hand: and aided I was.When once I had pressed the frail shoulder, something new — a fresh sap and sense — stole into my frame. It was well I had learnt that this elf must return to me — that it belonged to my house down below — or I could not have felt it pass away from under my hand, and seen it vanish behind the dim hedge, without singular regret. I heard you come home that night, Jane, though probably you were not aware that I thought of you or watched for you. The next day I observed you — myself unseen — for half- an- hour , while you played with Adèle in the gallery. It was a snowy day, I recollect, and you could not go out of doors. I was in my room; the door was ajar: I could both listen and watch. Adèle claimed your outward attention for a while; yet I fancied your thoughts were elsewhere: but you were very patient with her, my little Jane; you talked to her and amused her a long time.When at last she left you, you lapsed at once into deep reverie: you betook yourself slowly to pace the gallery. Now and then, in passing a casement, you glanced out at the thick-falling snow; you listened to the sobbing wind, and again you paced gently on and dreamed. I think those day visions were not dark: there was a pleasurable illumination in your eye occasionally, a soft excitement in your aspect, which told of no bitter, bilious, hypochondriac brooding: your look revealed rather the sweet musings of youth when its spirit follows on willing wings the flight of Hope up and on to an ideal heaven. The voice of Mrs. Fairfax, speaking to a servant in the hall, wakened you: and how curiously you smiled to and at yourself, Janet ! There was much sense in your smile: it was very shrewd, and seemed to make light of your own abstraction. It seemed to say — ‘My fine visions are all very well, but I must not forget they are absolutely unreal. I have a rosy sky and a green flowery Eden in my brain; but without, I am perfectly aware, lies at my feet a rough tract to travel, and around me gather black tempests to encounter.You ran downstairs and demanded of Mrs. Fairfax some occupation: the weekly house accounts to make up, or something of that sort, I think it was. I was vexed with you for getting out of my sight. Impatiently I waited for evening, when I might summon you to my presence. [He sensed an] ...unusual... perfectly new character I suspected was yours: I desired to search it deeper and know it better. YOU. I was at once content and stimulated with what I saw: I liked what I had seen, and wished to see more. [And]... I wondered what you thought of me, or if you ever thought of me, and resolved to find it out...And find out he does! There's not a wasted word or scene in this film- it succinctly captures the novel's main themes, includes more of Bronte's wonderful prose, and the ending is very satisfying. HIGHLY recommended.

I now have six movie versions of the book and numerous publications of the book. This one is excellent.

Great classic beautifully preserved, arrived in great shape. We really enjoyed the movie. Vendor provided quick delivery.

One of our favorites

This is a lovely production. However it is largely told in flashback. So it helps to to be very familiar with the novel. I am currently showing this a class who are reading the book. However I would not recommend to teachers as the fragmented retelling is difficult for students to focus on.

Great

I love this version of Jane Eyre so I ordered this one to watch at least once week

I have wanted to collect videos of Jane Eyre with different actors. This was an interesting and charming addition to my collection. I really enjoyed Hurt's rather low-key and contemplative presentation of Rochester in this version. Also found it interesting that the fire happened just as Jane fled which meant Rochester could not pursue her.

Mega génial

William Hurt und Charlotte Cainsburg einfach klasse. Ich liebe diesen Film ❤️

Grande anzi film spettacolare e anche qui la mano di Zeffirelli, che sembra Mida, tutto ciò che tocca è oro.

Buenisima, el mejor pedido

J'ai pour habitude de ne jamais regarder un film dont j'ai lu le roman... notre univers intérieur "construit" les personnages entre les lignes de l'auteur, notre imaginaire dessine les visages des héros,idem pour leur voix, leurs attitudes.... Donc c'est toujours niet....Mais en ce qui concerne ce film, ma démarche fut toute autre, je voulais "voir" et "entendre" ces 2 acteurs en VO, Charlotte Gainsbourg dans la fragilité de sa jeunesse et William Hunt.Alors oui on peut jouer les exégèses et trouver les différences entre le roman et le film, mais déjà ici nous avons les dialogues en anglais, c'est déjà bien, en tout cas tellement mieux que bon nombre de doublages où les acteurs se retrouvent affublés d'une voix en décalage et qui rend le jeu peu crédible.Je conseille chaudement ce dvd pour: - la sensibilité de jeu de Charlotte Gainsbourg, plusieurs gros plans sur son visage nous font percevoir les déchirures intériorisées du personnage - la dualité très bien incarné par William Hunt, dans son rôle de sir Rochester,j'ai découvert la capacité de cet acteur à transmettre, jouer avec son visage, ses yeux, ses postures - La musique, qui accompagne merveilleusement ce film, par moment elle est presque aussi présente que le serait "un récitant" ou une voix offJe me suis procuré ce DVD import sur amazon il y a un peu plus d'un an .... après plusieurs visionnage de ce film je me suis enfin décidée, afin que d'autres passent un moment agréable en compagnie de grand acteur.