jback-5 Reviews

Jane Eyre (1996)

A glimpse of the novel

[3/10 · 15 January 2009]

This 1996 movie was the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever watched and when I did so I was appalled by it. So much of the novel had been left out and I considered William Hurt to be terribly miscast as Rochester. Since then I have watched all the other noteworthy adaptations of the novel, the three short versions of '44, '70 and '97 and the three mini series of '73, '83 and 2006, and I have noticed that there are worse adaptations and worse Rochesters.

This is without doubt the most exquisite Jane Eyre adaptation as far as cinematography is concerned. Director Franco Zerifferelli revels in beautiful long shots of snow falling from a winter sky, of lonely Rochester standing on a rock, and of Jane looking out of the window - but he is less good at telling a story and bringing characters to life. In addition, his script merely scratches the surface of the novel by leaving out many important scenes. As a consequence the film does not show the depth and complexity of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and sadly it does also not include the humorous side of their intercourse. There are a number of short conversations between Rochester and Jane, each of them beautifully staged, but the couple of sentences they exchange do not suffice to show the audience that they are drawn to each other. We know that they are supposed to fall in love, but we never see it actually happen. The scene in which Rochester wants to find out Jane's reaction to his dilemma by putting his case in hypothetical form before her after the wounded Mason has left the house is completely missing, and the farewell scene, the most important scene - the climax - of the novel is reduced to four sentences. Zerifferelli does not make the mistake other scriptwriters have made in substituting their own poor writing for Brontë's superb lines, neither are crucial scenes completely changed and rewritten, but he makes the less offensive but in the end similarly great mistake of simply leaving many important scenes out. What remains is just a glimpse of the novel, which does no justice to Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.

The cast is a mixed bag: While Fiona Shaw is an excellent Mrs Reed, Anna Paquin's young Jane is more an ill-mannered, pout Lolita than a lonely little girl, longing for love. The ever-reliable Joan Plowright makes a very likable, but far too shrewd Mrs Fairfaix, and one cannot help feeling that Billie Whitelaw is supposed to play the village witch instead of plain-looking, hard-working Grace Poole. Charlotte Gainsbourgh as the grown-up heroine, however, is physically a perfect choice for playing Jane Eyre. Looking every bit like 18, thin and frail, with irregular, strong features, she comes closest to my inner vision of Jane than any other actress in that role. And during the first 15 minutes of her screen time I was enchanted by her performance. Gainsbourgh manages well to let the audience guess at the inner fire and the strong will which are hidden behind the stoic mask. But unfortunately the script never allows her to expand the more passionate and lively side of Jane's character any further. As a result of leaving out so many scenes and shortening so much of the dialogues, Gainsbourgh's portrayal of Jane must necessarily remain incomplete and therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. This is a pity, as with a better script Charlotte Gainsbourgh might have been as good a Jane as Zelah Clarke in the '83 version.

But while it is still obvious that Gainsbourgh is trying to play Jane, there is no trace whatsoever of Rochester in the character that William Hurt portrays. Hurt, who has proved himself to be a fine actor in many good movies, must have been aware that he was physically and type-wise so miscast that he did not even attempt at playing the Rochester of the novel. His Rochester, besides being blond and blue-eyed, is a soft-spoken, well-mannered nobleman, shy and quiet, slightly queer and eccentric, but basically good-natured and mild. He is so far from being irascible, moody and grim that lines referring to these traits of his character sound absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, during many moments of the movie, Hurt's facial expression leaves one wondering if he is fighting against acute attacks of the sleeping sickness. Particularly in the proposal scene he grimaces like a patient rallying from a general anaesthetic and is hardly able to keep his eyes open. If you compare his Rochester to the strong-willed and charming protagonist of the novel, simply bursting with energy and temperament, it is no wonder that many viewers are disappointed in Hurt's performance. Still, he offends me less than the Rochesters in the '70, '97 and 2006 versions and I would in general rank this Jane Eyre higher than these three other ones. Hurt obviously had the wits to recognise that he could not be the Rochester of the novel and therefore did not try to do so, whereas George C. Scott, Ciaràn Hinds and Toby Stephens thought they could, but failed miserably, and I'd rather watch a character other than Rochester than a Rochester who is badly played. And I'd rather watch a Jane Eyre movie which leaves out many lines of the novel but does not invent new ones than a version which uses modernised dialogues which sound as if they could be uttered by a today's couple in a Starbucks café. Of course this Jane Eyre is a failure, but at least it is an inoffensive one, which is more than one can say of the '97 and 2006 adaptations. I would therefore not desist anyone from watching this adaptation: You will not find Jane Eyre, but at least you will find a beautifully made movie.

Jane Eyre (1970 TV Movie)

Love in an old people's home

[2/10 · 14 September 2008]

This TV production of 1970 starring Susannah York and George C. Scott is another proof of how difficult it is to adopt "Jane Eyre" to the screen, and how much can go wrong in doing so. It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence! But even if the editing were better, the film would not be. The script is bad, the portrayal of the characters is untrue to the novel and nearly all actors are miscast. As a consequence one does not have the feeling of watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel at all. The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.

This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood. While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation. What Helen has to suffer is bad enough as described in the novel, but here Miss Scatchard is portrayed as a kind of sadistic prison ward, who deliberately wants to drive Helen to a premature death. And this is about all which happens at Lowood. If you compare that to the deep impact the years spent in Lowood have on Jane in the novel, one can only state with regret that the movie does not even touch the surface of that particular episode in Jane's life. And this is the problem throughout this adaptation: It rushes from scene to scene, very often without transition, and nowhere comes even near the essence of the novel. The dialogues are an odd mixture of made-up lines and lines from the novel, very clumsily patched together, and the scenes between Jane and Rochester are so shortened that both share only 5 minutes together on screen before they fall in love, and the little conversation they have contains nothing of the brilliance, the intensity and also the humour of the conversations between Rochester and Jane in the novel. But the scriptwriter not only did Brontë's language injustice but in addition managed to ruin her moral set-up with just one sentence. When Rochester and Jane go to see Rochester's wife after the would-be wedding, Rochester says: "Yet I once loved her (his wife) as I love you now." The whole moral concept of the novel depends on the fact that Rochester is indeed an innocent victim of an amoral scheme and was trapped into marrying a mad woman whom he never loved, and that his effort to seek a true life partner is, if not sanctified by God's and man's law, yet understandable and forgivable! But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.

From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine. In addition, Ms York was in her thirties when the film was shot and looks it. Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts. I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre. To cast George C. Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible. Scott looks as if he were around 50 but acts in various scenes as if he were 70.

To compliment the "maturity" of the leading actors all passion, desire and despair seems to have been deliberately wrung out of the script. The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep. When Jane returns to him in the last scene, he is just as mildly pleased as a grandfather who has just been paid a visit in his old people's home by his favourite granddaughter. The only character who displays an appropriate amount of emotion is St. John, of all people. Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel. But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester. The only redeeming features of this very disappointing "Jane Eyre" are the locations and the score, and I would only recommend this production to those who want to watch and compare every single adaptation of "Jane Eyre".

Jane Eyre (1973)

Dominant Jane and Gentleman Rochester

[7/10 · 12 February 2008]

The '73 BBC production of "Jane Eyre" with Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston is a decent adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel 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 Brontë' 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 gypsy 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 novel – 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.

Jane Eyre (1997 TV Movie)

At least they got Pilot right!

[2/10 · 9 January 2008]

This 1997 TV production is called "Jane Eyre", but except for a similarity to the plot of the novel there is preciously little in this film to remind you that you are indeed watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's literary masterpiece. How they managed to get every single character of the novel wrong - except for Pilot, who is well cast - is a complete mystery to me, but they did. This is the more a pity because with Samantha Morton and Ciaràn Hinds they had two good actors, who even physically fit their roles well, but, alas, the greatest talent is of no avail when the concept of the characters is as wrong as in this adaptation. Samantha Morton - young, delicate and plain enough - looks like Jane Eyre, but does not play Jane Eyre. Her Jane is far too bold, even disrespectful at times, self-confident and self-satisfied, bossy and pert. Gone is the interesting duality of Jane's character in the novel, her outward shyness, guardedness and modesty on the one hand and her fire and passion on the other. Morton's Jane speaks her mind boldly right from the beginning and never stops doing so throughout the film. There is no subtlety in her performance, her Jane undergoes no change and no development. The same is sadly also true for the character of Mr. Rochester. Believe it or not, but they indeed managed to turn one of the most interesting and complex figures of English literature into a brute and a bully. Luckily Ciaràn Hinds possesses some charisma, but otherwise nothing links him to the eloquent and fascinating character of the novel. Not the slightest attempt was made to explore the depths of Rochester's character, his many contradicting facets, his moodiness, his inner struggle, his humour and his tenderness. The Rochester of the novel is admittedly insolent and harsh at times, but never the unrefined, snarling brute Ciaràn Hinds makes him. Yet Hinds is even worse at playing the loving Rochester, and the only feeling he manages to convey is lust.

Unfortunately the misrepresentation of the characters is not limited to the leading roles: Blanche, besides being blonde, is not in the least haughty enough, not to mention the fact that she is nice to Adèle, St. John is all smiles and kindness, and the role of Mrs. Fairfax has been unnecessarily puffed up, probably due to the fact that she is played by dear Gemma Jones. Yet some scenes less with Mrs. Fairfax fussing around and some scenes more between Jane and Rochester would have been very helpful to make the audience understand why the two latter fall in love in the first place.

As far as language is concerned this production is another victim of the delusion of some scriptwriters who either think that they can improve on Charlotte Brontë's brilliant language or that her 19th century English has to be simplified to become digestible for a modern audience. The result is that the dialogues are severely changed or replaced by the scriptwriter's own banal lines. In either case they have lost all the charm, sparkle and brilliance of the dialogues in the novel. Poor misguided scriptwriter Richard Hawley even deemed it necessary to make Rochester introduce one of his most famous lines - the line about the string that inextricably binds Jane and him together - with the words: "I know it may sound silly but...." No, Mr. Hawley, if somebody sounds silly here, it is definitely NOT Charlotte Brontë! Another capital error of judgement - and unfortunately also an insult to good taste - is the way they rewrote the farewell scene between Jane and Rochester after the aborted wedding, a scene, by the by, which in all the modern adaptations has received a particularly brutal treatment. Whereas in the latest Jane Eyre production of 2006 that scene was an outrage to Charlotte Brontë's Jane, the way the scene is handled in this adaptation is an outrage to Charlotte Brontë's Rochester. What? Rochester insulting Jane when she intends to leave him, bullying her, throwing her suitcase over the banister and telling her to go if she does not love him enough to stay? Absolutely ridiculous! It is hard to imagine what has gotten into the filmmakers to produce such rubbish as this.

This is the worst, but there are many others scenes which are similarly absurd and ludicrous: the first scene of Rochester galloping in slow motion through the mist before he falls into a brook, Grace Poole coming out of the lunatic's room to sniff at Mason's wounds like a wild beast, Rochester sitting on the top of an archway of Thornfield as if he were the court jester and Mason jumping on horseback over the church fence to prevent a marriage of which he has heard only heavens knows how.

Equally lamentable is the filmmakers' inability to represent the correct social behaviour of the 1850ies. Rochester and Jane are far too disrespectful to each other at first and later far too hot. Sentences like "I feel that your passions are aroused" are appropriate for "Sex in the City", but not for a costume drama, let alone Jane Eyre. Obviously the filmmakers decided not to bother at all - neither about being true to the novel, nor about portraying the novel's era accurately. The result is a sad failure - both as a film and an adaptation of Jane Eyre. The only fact with which the makers of this Jane Eyre can console themselves is that the BBC failed even worse in the subsequent production of Jane Eyre in 2006.

Jane Eyre (1983– )

Unsurpassed and Unsurpassable

[10/10 · 13 September 2007]

There are many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel "Jane Eyre", and taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations all suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render all the different episodes of the heroine's life.

There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 and 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of all Jane Eyre adaptations and a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid and trivial ones, and crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it all leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester and Jane of the novel and behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour and language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look and act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This "Jane Eyre" (as it dares to call itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Brontë.

The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester and Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex and convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, and the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality and staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totally at odds with the literary model, and Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Although a decent adaptation it simply fails to convey the passion and intensity of the novel and never really captivates the audience.

All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, tall and lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism and an air of self-assurance and authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim and stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders all the facets of Rochester's character. Of all the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them all: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness and abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude and deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Brontë's language is equally superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched and complicated thoughts ring absolutely true and natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.

Zelah Clarke delivers an equally excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved and guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling and an equally great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty and respectfulness on the one hand, and her fire and passion on the other, her seeming frailty and her indomitable sense of right and wrong. She and Dalton have wonderful chemistry and their scenes together are pure delight.

As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists and the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty and originality of Charlotte Brontë's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.

The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time and emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, and the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal and most heartrending scene when Jane and Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay and his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.

With even the smaller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script and two ideal leading actors this is the definitive and only true "Jane Eyre".

Jane Eyre (2006)

Simply not Jane Eyre

[1/10 · 18 July 2007]

Having recently re-read the Charlotte Brontë's novel for the 30th time I noticed with pleasure how many film adaptations of that timeless novel are now available on DVD and I undertook the enterprise of watching them all. The Masterpiece version of 2006 was the last one I had to watch and the numerous positive reviews of it had led to me to expect an extraordinarily good version of the novel. I was utterly disappointed!

Nothing of what has fascinated generations of readers since the novel was published in 1847 appears in this particular version. It is more a perversion of the novel than an adaptation of it, and to call that film "Jane Eyre" is close to impudence. Firstly, the filmmakers cut out many crucial scenes of the novel, but invented others which have no relation to the novel whatsoever. Secondly, and for admirers of the novel this in nearly unbearable, next to none of the novel's fantastic dialogues between Rochester and Jane have been retained in their original form - thereby cutting out the essence of the novel's timeless charm. These dialogues (or rather Rochester's monologues) are beautifully written, fresh, unusual, striking and highly fascinating, and to change them in a stupid attempt to modernize them is to undermine the novel's most beautiful element. But even if one put up with all this and sided with those who say that a film adaptation of novel does not necessarily have to follow the novel's plot and retain its lines, this film would still be a failure because the script writers or director displayed a complete and sad disregard for the etiquette and conventions of the time in which the novel is set. The mid 19th century's established code of behaviour, its sense of propriety, decorum, decency and modesty are completely violated. Toby Stephens' Rochester and Ruth Wilson's Jane are both young, sensual and sex-conscious people and behave as a modern couple would. As a consequence they have no resemblance whatever to the characters of the book. The film's constant emphasis on the sexual attraction between Rochester and Jane is a gross deviation from the novel, which depicts a love between soul-mates, a love that arises from affinity of character and spirit. Apparently the filmmakers considered the emphasis on the sexual element as an appropriate means of modernizing the novel and securing the interest of a younger and supposedly shallow audience in the story. The most striking example of that is the parting scene between Jane and Rochester after the aborted wedding. They both lie on the bed, kiss repeatedly and seem near to taking off their clothes. This is an even worse distortion of the novel's pivotal parting scene than in the Hinds/Morton version, in which he tells her to go if she does not love him enough to stay. In the heartbreaking scene in the novel Jane rejects all Rochester's caresses and steels herself against his attempts to convince her to stay. The question must be allowed why filmmakers still continue to shoot films called "Jane Eyre", when all they retain from the novel are some parts of the plot. Why do they on the one hand obstinately set their films in the same period as the novel, with great attention to costume and setting, when they are on the other hand unable to display not only the true spirit of the novel but also that of the period?

All these points of criticism make it hard to decide whether the actors do a good job or not. If they wanted to portray the Rochester and Jane of the novel it is an utter failure on their part or on the part of the director. Toby Stephens' Rochester in particular has no resemblance at all to the novel's main character. He does not possess Rochester's charisma and overpowering presence and also fails to portray Rochester's torture of soul, his struggle with his conscience, his moodiness and abruptness. His Rochester is simply a weak, sensual young man, nothing more. Ruth Wilson is a good actress, but the woman she plays is a bold, self-confident, modern female, but not Jane Eyre.

As a conclusion it must be said that when one takes liberties in adapting a famous novel for the screen, as one is perfectly free to do, one should at least have a feeling for the spirit of the period one portrays. There have been many beautiful adaptations of famous novels in the last years, which were true both to the literary models as well as to the period in which the novels play (e.g. Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Emma) and which have charmed the audiences without their having to be sexed up. The makers of the latest version of Jane Eyre unfortunately failed to recognize what is timeless in the novel and what is unchangeably bound to its time. The film is therefore an example of a senseless and insensitive attempt to modernize a classic novel.

The question then which of the other versions one prefers is of course largely a matter of taste. If, however, one is looking for truthfulness to the novel, you should turn to the BBC productions of 1973 and 1983. The 1973 is a nearly word-for word adaptation of the novel, but digresses from the novel in that Sorcha Cusack's Jane is a self-confident, robust and sophisticated young woman and does therefore not resemble the small, shy and elf-like Jane of the novel. And also Michael Jayston, although a good actor and a good Rochester, pales in comparison with Timothy Dalton, who portrays Rochester in the 1983 production, which is for me without question the ultimate version of Jane Eyre. This version follows the novel's plot scene for scene, retains the novel's wonderful lines and boasts of two leading actors who capture the essence of the character they played.