Thursday, August 26, 2010

Top 15 Literary Adaptations: #12

~No. 12 - Jane Eyre 2006~

Photobucket
Ruth Wilson as the titular heroine

Critics and journalists rant about the number of times Pride and Prejudice has been adapted for the screen, but there have been only two big screen adaptations ever made, and a scant handful of television adaptations - only two of which are available to buy today. Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, however, must surely be one of the most frequently adapted classics in the canon of English literature. It has been one of the most popular English novels since it was first published in 1847, and out of all the Bronte oeuvre, it is probably one of the easiest works to adapt for film - certainly compared with Emily Bronte's notoriously difficult Wuthering Heights. Most Bronte fans will agree that we're yet to see an even moderately successful adaptation of the virtually unfilmable Wuthering Heights. That doesn't stop film-makers from trying, though. . .

Photobucket

But getting back to Jane Eyre: according to IMDb, there have been 21 film and television adaptations - make that 22, with the Mia Wasikowska-Michael Fassbender version due to come out  in March next year. But as of now, the BBC's 2006 miniseries is the most recent attempt to bring Charlotte Bronte's classic to the screen.

[I am not even going to bother including a plot summary in this review. Everyone knows the basic plot of Jane Eyre, and if you don't. . . go and read the book!!]

Photobucket

This adaptation of Jane Eyre had a peculiarly polarising effect on the Bronte-ite community. Some lauded it as the new definitive adaptation of the book. Others called it a travesty. I can't plant myself firmly in either camp - I have very mixed feelings about JE06, and can never quite decide whether to love or hate it. At present I feel more inclined to dislike it, but I may waver over the course of this review.

Photobucket
Pam Ferris as Grace Poole

One of the chief disappointments of JE06 (yes, I know it sounds dorky, and sorry if the constant references to "JE06" get on your nerves, but it's quicker to type than, say, "this adaptation of Jane Eyre") was the script by Sandy Welch (beloved of period drama fans for her work on North & South, Our Mutual Friend, and Emma). Ms. Welch's screenplay for Our Mutual Friend 1998 was good. Very good. I think she did a phenomenal job adapting Dickens' sprawling, complex masterpiece. And though she took some liberties with Elizabeth Gaskell's text, her screenplay for North and South was also good. On the other hand, as far as I'm concerned, the less said about the script for Emma 2009, the better. . . ya'll know my thoughts on that adaptation! (LOL, why am I talking like a Texan. . . must be all of you wonderful American friends I've made friends with via the internet ;-)

Photobucket

Charlotte Bronte had an extraordinary imagination, and a keen appreciation of nature. She may be famous for her novels, but Charlotte had the soul of a poet. She was one of those rare authors - like L.M. Montgomery, perhaps - who wrote prose as though it were poetry.

All this to say: mess around with Charlotte Bronte's beautiful words at your peril! Don't try to improve upon what is already close to perfection! I don't know why it is, and I know it's inconsistent of me, but I can forgive minor alterations to, say, Dickens' or Gaskell's dialogue in a screen adaptation, but attempt a complete reworking of Austen's or Bronte's dialogue, substituting numerous modern words and phrases, and - well - I will generally feel inclined to throw an apoplectic fit or something.

Photobucket
Toby Stephens as Edward Fairfax Rochester

In short, I was mightily disappointed with the screenplay for JE06 - most of the lines were contemporised to within an inch of their lives. But further than that, I was just disappointed with the direction of much of the series, and with the way many of the scenes were handled. Some of the time it almost seemed like they were making this adaptation based on what the public perception of "Jane Eyre" is, not on the book itself. Of course they didn't really, but that's how it felt sometimes. . . They almost missed the point of Jane Eyre. They lost the power and the poetry in the midst of the passion and melodrama.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh. This adaptation does have its strong points. I will now attempt to cease bemoaning JE06's shortcomings for a time, and extol its virtues instead.

Photobucket

*Ruth Wilson as Jane Eyre. One vital element of this story that many JE adaptations fail to emphasise (or else make a joke of by casting relatively "old" actresses) is Jane's youth. She was only a teenager, for crying out loud! Jane's character is an extraordinary blend of youth and vulnerability with an indomitable moral strength and steadfastness. Ruth Wilson captures this more successfully than most other actresses in the role have done, giving a picture of a young girl, alone in the world, who shows tremendous courage, and wisdom beyond her years.

Photobucket

*Toby Stephens, though not my favourite Rochester, is also good. He may not truly look the part (a redhead with a cheeky grin as the dark, brooding Mr. Rochester?), but he does an adequate job portraying the complexities of Rochester's character. (Hehe, I can hear the Toby Stephens fans starting to fume at me now. . . "Only adequate?!")

He and Ruth Wilson had great chemistry together, too. (TS fans: "Only 'great chemistry'?! You say it so casually. . . try unbelievable, out-of-this-world, earth-shattering chemistry!!"). I can sympathise. . . I'm bit of a Rochester fangirl, too - a different Rochester, though. I think most of you know who I'm talking about. . . ;-)

Photobucket

One thing that may bother some viewers, however, is the extent to which the dialogue between Jane and Rochester has been contemporised. I'm not just talking about the words, but the way in which the actors deliver the lines. Some would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing - better to make the interaction between the two leads contemporary and relatable, than risk stiffness and insincerity in an attempt for period accuracy. But purists will find it hard to watch Jane and Rochester talking and interacting like a modern couple, rather than characters from the early 19th century.

Photobucket
Georgie Henley as the young Jane Eyre

*From a purely aesthetic perspective, this series is a treat. (Even though most of the scenes were not at all as I had imagined them to be from the book ,*grumbles to herself*.) This is a BBC big-budget costume drama and it's gorgeous to look at, right from the opening scene of young Jane walking across the sand dunes in her imagination, dressed in exotic costume. The score by Robert Lane is by turns haunting and sweepingly romantic.

*Georgie Henley is awesome.

Enough extolling virtues for now, here are some small niggles that bothered me:

Photobucket
Christina Cole as Blanche Ingram

*Yet another blond Blanche Ingram? Puhleese. . . and if they didn't make Imogen Poots' hair dark for Jane Eyre 2011, and we have another blond Blanche next year, I'm going to - I'm going to - I don't what I'm going to do, actually. Throw another apoplectic fit, perhaps.

*Ruth Wilson is too tall!! Jane Eyre is supposed to be small!!

*Rochester has ginger tendencies! (As mentioned above.)

*What in the world is up with the Rivers sisters being portrayed as silly, giggly girls instead of the mature, intelligent young women they are in the book? 

*St John isn't good-looking enough. Needs to get the Greek god thing happening a bit better.

*Why did they have to get rid of the library scene, and instead have Jane and Edward kissing - on a bed?! If you haven't seen this series, don't worry, it doesn't get any "worse" than kissing, but still - the real Jane would never in a million years have allowed this! In the book, after she finds out he's married, she doesn't let him touch her! 

Photobucket
Andrew Buchan as St. John Rivers

*JE06 does a good job bringing Jane and Rochester's romance to the screen, but it doesn't succeed so well in conveying Jane's development as a character whilst she's away from Rochester. Jane Eyre is first and foremost Jane's story - it's not just about the romance. Miss Temple - Jane's friend and mentor through her childhood and teen years - makes only a brief cameo appearance. And from memory - it has been a little while since I last watched this series - I felt that they could have given a completer, more accurate picture of St John Rivers, even in the limited screen time given to him. He's an important character - amongst other things, he is Mr. Rochester's foil. Edward Rochester is far, very far from being a perfect hero (indeed, there is a significant army of anti-Rochesterian readers out there), yet flawed though he may be, his warmth, generosity, and humanity contrast sharply with St John's coldness and self-righteousness. 

Photobucket

Summing up, it is the thought of what could have been that mars JE06 for me. The team behind this production had the budget, they had the creative vision (even if it didn't always totally align with my vision of the book), but in the end they came up with a flawed, somewhat hit-and-miss adaptation. It has its moments, but overall I was left feeling disappointed. On second thoughts, if I was so very disappointed, why on earth am I including it in my list of favourite literary adaptations? *Stifles frustrated groan*. I don't rightly know myself. . . Well, it is a powerful and entertaining Gothic drama in and of itself. And like I said near the beginning of this post, my feelings on this series tend to fluctuate a great deal. Sometimes I decide that I really do love it, other times (as now), I throw my hands up in despair and grumble that it is one of the most over-rated period dramas of recent years!  

Photobucket
Is it just me, or does this look like the exact same spot used for that scene in P&P05? (Scroll down to the very bottom of my blog.)

Bottom line is: watch it. Whether you end up loving it or hating it, (or else exist in a perpetually undecided state, like me), it is worth watching. Provided, of course, that you have read the book! If you haven't, please read the book first! Odds are, you aren't one of my younger siblings, so I can't force you to read the book first (unfortunately), but I still really really think it would be a good idea for you to read the book first.

And before I close this review, I should mention that there are a couple of scenes in this series that I fast-forward through. In any case, whether you fast-forward scenes or not, this series is really only appropriate for older viewers - teens and up. For a complete overview of any objectionable content, please read the Charity's Place review!

Edit: I've been struggling to verbalise this all through my review, but I'll try now. . .

All bookworms will testify to this - there are some books you read (especially when you're young) that leave a really deep impression on you. Sometimes you can't even figure out exactly what it is that makes you love x book so much. But somehow, it connected with something deep within you, and from that moment, that book will always be with you. Those are the books that you love and treasure always - those are the books that somehow become a part of you, and that mold and influence the person you become.

If a movie adaptation manages to capture a glimpse of that spark, that magic something that left such a deep impression on you when you read the book, then you know it's a good adaptation! It will probably be enjoyed by many (though not necessarily all) readers of the book, and it will hopefully induce many uninitiated moviegoers/TV viewers to check out the book.

This is ultimately the measure by which I judge film and TV versions of my favourite books - not by how faithful it is in letter to the book, or how long it is, or whether it was made on a large or a miniscule budget. . . 

And this is why I like the 1980 and 2005 versions of Pride and Prejudice better than the highly acclaimed 1995 series. It's also the reason why I don't love the 2006 version of Jane Eyre. But don't let that put you off watching it - it's a very well-made series, and is the second-best adaptation of Jane Eyre ever made, in my humble opinion. 

*Sighs*. . . What is it about us Janeites and Bronteites. . . we demand perfection in movie adaptations of our beloved P&Ps and JEs, and when those movie adaptations don't measure up to our impossible expectations, we spend countless hours criticising their faults on blogs, forums, etc. We're a cantankerous old bunch. . . I wonder how the rest of the world puts up with us? Dickens fans, for instance, are nowhere near as unreasonable as we are!

Must finish now.

Please share your thoughts on Jane Eyre 2006! Are you a fan, or a detractor - or are you caught in a state of perpetual indecision, like me? A Toby-Stephens-as-Rochester fangirl, or no? Any elements of this miniseries that you particularly loved - or hated?

~Most of the pictures in this post are from Fragilidad.

16 comments:

Melanie said...

Thank you for the review! I haven't watched this adaption and had wondered if it was any good. I think I might watch it eventually, but after I read the book (which I haven't done yet :-) )
I look forward to reading others' thoughts too! :-)

Anonymous said...

Just a note on the Blanche Ingram issue: this has always irritated me a little too, but from a visual standpoint, I think it's more effective to show her as a blonde, in contrast to Jane's darker hair. Also, many modern day viewers can relate to the stereotypically scheming blonde.
On the whole, even though I'm not sure JE06 is the best adaptation of the novel, it's my personal favourite, simply because it was what made me read the book in the first place :)
A very well written review, by the way. I totally understand what you meant by some books just touching you in a way you can't explain.

-Abby.

Alexandra said...

I've heard a ton about this but have never seen it...to be honest, I've never read Jane Eyre (GASP, I know)...what a wonderful, thorough, great review, though. I know that I'll probably end up seeing this someday, though. ;-) From the clips I saw, Toby Stephens was great. But like I said, I haven't read the book (know the plot like the back of my hand, though, of course) so I couldn't compare him to the book's version.

And yes, I agree about some books just touching you in a way!

I'm so glad to see this feature back up and going...and I'm waiting to read an actual Phantom film review! ;-) Did you ever decide to read the book? I re-read it over the weekend and it was interesting. ;-) I definately prefer the musical, but highly recommend it to phans...I'll be posting a review on Phantom week.

Elizabeth said...

I have really enjoyed this version. I agree about how the blond hair helps to contrast characters. I enjoyed reading your review. :)

~Lizzie

atchoo said...

I really enjoy this version. His interpretation of Mr Rochester really suits my imagination.

Hydra said...

I reviewed this movie on my blog, too. Personally, I really like this version. I totally agree that Blanche should be dark and exotic like the book, and that St. John Rivers was totally messed up (I had to stop myself from laughing the whole time - Jem Hearne from Cranford as St. John Rivers?!! Talk about opposites!), but I thought Jane was perfect - and Jane is the only character who really matters to me.

Originally, I thought they messed up Mr. Rochester, but after re-reading the book and re-watching the movie, I liked him a lot more. He's not as... dark (mysterious, bad, etc.) as I would like, and they completely lost him in the two most important scenes in the movie, but all-in-all I think they captured his bored and searching soul pretty well. Oh, but I hate the bedroom scene! Why did they have to put that in there?!

~Hydra
From Books to Movies and Back Again
(hydrabooksandmovies.blogspot.com)

Marian said...

As far as Austen, Dickens, and Gaskell go, and even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I'm not much of a purist. However, when it comes to Charlotte Bronte, I'm really picky about adaptations. ;)

The kissing/bedroom scenes ruin this movie for me. Not only do we have to fast-forward them, but by having to do so, it takes away from the romance story. I wasn't too impressed with Stephens's portrayal, and St John reminded me too much of Mr Collins. Wilson's acting was fine, but the script portrayed Jane as silly and weak, in my opinion...again, like you said, she would never have kissed Rochester like that. And I rather doubt that even Rochester in the book would have, either.

Besides that, it was quite good...nice costumes, cinematography, and music. But the '83 version just seems so much truer to the book, to me.

I think the reason Bronte fans tend to be picky, is that books like Jane Eyre and Agnes Grey represent heroines that the modern day world can't seem to understand. I mean, what author, these days, writes about characters who have high moral standards, like Jane? And fans just want her portrayal to be accurate, because she's such a unique character. :)

Edwardian Rose said...

Great to see the lit. adaptations going again! I think it's kind of weird that I've never seen this version of Jane Eyre. Truth is, I don't really like watching Jane Eyre on film. Can't really explain why, but anyway....I have heard some other negative views on this version, although everyone seems to agree that Ruth Wilson is an excellent Jane Eyre. And this review makes me curious! :)

The way you feel about this Jane Eyre is just about the same way I feel about PandP 2005. ;) Not capturing the spirit of the book and all that (imo). Anyway, I really enjoyed reading this review! :D

~Rachel S.

Rebekah said...

I saw this version a few times and I agree about the bed scenes. We skipped/closed our eyes on those ones. You're right, Jane in the book would NEVER have allowed such a thing!! She would have considered it adultery and a sin! (I love Jane in the book!)

I loved the cinematography, music and most of the acting in this one but... *sigh* I don't think anyone will ever make a true adaptation of the book... I think my favorite is actually the one with Timothy Dalton... maybe... :p

Just in friendly disagreement... I know that St. John is very reserved and rather cold but he's one of my favorite characters!! I'm probably the only person in the world who thinks that way but I do like him... He appears to be a true servant of the LORD and even Jane talks about what a wonderful man he is - just as a cousin/brother, not as a husband!

Alright... I'll stop before I completely hijack your blog. I am so glad to see you posting this series again - I loved reading it! :D


To the KING be all the glory!
Rebekah

Blog: http://donotgrowweary.com/blog/

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

Anonymous said...

Hi Elise, I've been watching your blog for some time now & I LOVE it.I have rather a strange confession to make, I’ve read the book & I didn’t enjoy at all (in fact I almost hated it) i would have been about 9 or 10 last time i read it now i think about it, i suppose i should re-read it
-Briana

The Editrix said...

Abby:

from a visual standpoint, I think it's more effective to show her as a blonde, in contrast to Jane's darker hair.

Yeah. . . I dunno, Blanche's hair is supposed to be very dark, whereas I imagined Jane's hair as being a lighter, "mousier" shade of brown. That would at least provide some contrast. I think part of the problem is, actresses cast as Jane Eyre usually tend to be too dark and too striking - rather than small and unremarkable in appearance. Ruth Wilson is a good example of this - she's strikingly beautiful, albeit in an unconventional way; rather than plain.

Also, many modern day viewers can relate to the stereotypically scheming blonde.

Yes, but that's part of what bothers me about Blonde Blanche, too! The perpetuation of the Mean Blonde Girl stereotype.

On the whole, even though I'm not sure JE06 is the best adaptation of the novel, it's my personal favourite, simply because it was what made me read the book in the first place :)

It was actually my first experience of JE, too - I hadn't read the book or seen any of the other movie versions. It spoilt the plot for me, which is partly why I urged my readers to read the book first!

Alexandra - you're right, I haven't gotten round to writing a complete review. . . I might have to do that, though, for your POTO week! Can't wait! :-) And I do intend to read the book sometime, too!

Hydra:

(I had to stop myself from laughing the whole time - Jem Hearne from Cranford as St. John Rivers?!! Talk about opposites!)

Exactly! What were they thinking!

Originally, I thought they messed up Mr. Rochester, but after re-reading the book and re-watching the movie, I liked him a lot more. He's not as... dark (mysterious, bad, etc.) as I would like, and they completely lost him in the two most important scenes in the movie, but all-in-all I think they captured his bored and searching soul pretty well.

Yes. . . Toby Stephens' Rochester grew on me, too. Like I said, not my favourite Rochester though, but his was lightyears ahead of Ciaran Hinds' and William Hurt's portrayals!

The Editrix said...

Marian:

The kissing/bedroom scenes ruin this movie for me. Not only do we have to fast-forward them, but by having to do so, it takes away from the romance story.

Agreed - it's because of those scenes (plus some of those flashback scenes involving Rochester's past) that I haven't bought the DVDs.

Besides that, it was quite good...nice costumes, cinematography, and music. But the '83 version just seems so much truer to the book, to me.

YES! :-D

I think the reason Bronte fans tend to be picky, is that books like Jane Eyre and Agnes Grey represent heroines that the modern day world can't seem to understand. I mean, what author, these days, writes about characters who have high moral standards, like Jane? And fans just want her portrayal to be accurate, because she's such a unique character. :)

So true! It's a bit the same with some of Austen's heroines - particularly Fanny Price. People today cant understand/can't accept these heroines for who they are. Film-makers, critics, academicians, all see things through feminist-tinted glasses - it distorts their vision terribly.

Rachel:

Great to see the lit. adaptations going again!

Thanks! :-)

Truth is, I don't really like watching Jane Eyre on film. Can't really explain why, but anyway....

Fair enough, I can understand that. This is one of only two half-decent adaptations of JE around, IMHO.

Rebekah - it was interesting reading your thoughts about St John. I agree in that he wasn't a bad person - but some of what he said seemed to indicate a distorted understanding of God and Christianity. I dunno, I'll have to go back and some of those passages in the book again.

Briana:

Hi Elise, I've been watching your blog for some time now & I LOVE it.I have rather a strange confession to make, I’ve read the book & I didn’t enjoy at all (in fact I almost hated it) i would have been about 9 or 10 last time i read it now i think about it, i suppose i should re-read it

Hey, that's quite okay! :-) I personally hate Wuthering Heights and sometimes have difficulty understanding how some readers love it and it's characters so much!

Thank you EVERYONE for your thoughts and input! :-)

Andrew said...

I don't think Jane Eyre works on screen. I enjoyed the book mostly because Charlotte Bronte's writing is so beautiful. I think Shirley is the only Charlotte Bronte book that would work well on TV even though it is arguably her worst book. I enjoyed the book though. Shirley herself is such an interesting, complex person that surely would make a good TV character. The romance and political circumstances would add the necessary weight.

The Editrix said...

That's interesting, Andrew. Makes me want to read Shirley! I have a copy sitting on my shelf, waiting to be read. . .

Sounds like more of a dark, gritty, North and South-type story. (?) As opposed to the gothic, sometimes fairytale-ish Jane Eyre.

And I've said this before, but I would LOVE to see an adaptation of Villette, too.

Andrew said...

From your note above I see I was not very obliging in my original comment. So let me try again.

G'day. :)

I found your blog through Google. I think I was trying to find out what new adaptations are in development. I really do like your blog and writing style.

I have not actually read North & South. I have only watched the mini series and while I enjoyed it the actress who played Margaret put me off reading the book. She annoyed me at times. I think I will get the book and read it soon though.

I have read Mary Barton, Ruth, Wives & Daughters, and a few of Elizabeth Gaskell's short stories. Lois the Witch is about 100 pages long and it is very good. You may cry near the end. Lois may even become your number one heroine. If ever there was someone to warrant the name it is her.

I would love to see an adaptation of Mary Barton. It is such a good story.

Shirley is not as gritty as North and South but it is more grounded i.e. it has a social and political context. You have to read about 100 pages before you meet Shirley. The book is uneven but I recommend reading it. There are 3 or 4 very interesting characters and a few sections of the book make any difficulties worth the effort.

You could be right about Villette. If they made it I would watch it. The Professor - I forget his name - would work well on screen. The primary supporting characters would also make interesting screen characters. The problem is that the interest in the heroine comes primarily from her internal dialogue. On the outside she is very restrained and it would be hard to make her an interesting screen character. Maybe I am wrong though.

Thanks again for your site.

Sarah and Andrew said...

I love this adaptation, it's my favorite despite the fact that Timothy Dalton isn't in it! ;-)
I think I love this adaptation the best because of the way it ends, I feel like there is a lot more joy in the ending than in any other adaptation. Although I am not at the end of my copy of Jane Eyre yet so I don't know if the book actually ends with them joyful and happy to be together; if I took the other film adaptations as any indication though I would think that the book ended with them saying "well we've come this far...might as well stay together." Mayhaps I am being too harsh...but that's kind of what it felt like to me with the other versions. So I will be interested in seeing how the actual book ends. :)