A dilemma!

Dear readers, the next installment due in my Literary Adaptations series is an adaptation of a very - very - long classic. I have never read it, but I feel like I ought to read it before I write my review of this movie adaptation. But then, it would take me a long time to read the book, so it would be a while before I'd be able to write the review. Which would put my Literary Adaptations series on hiatus for a while (again). 

Hellllp!! What should I do! I could just go ahead and write the darned blog post, but the perfectionist in me is rearing its provoking head, telling me I need to read the book first so that I can write I balanced, informed review of this adaptation! Aargh!!!

Top 15 Literary Adaptations: #12

~No. 12 - Jane Eyre 2006~

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. . .

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!!]

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.

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 ;-)

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.

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.

*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.

*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. . . ;-)

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.

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:

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! 

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. 

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!  

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.

Top 15 Literary Adaptations: #13

Well, well, well. After a six-month hiatus, I am finally getting back to my Top 15 (non-Austen, non-Dickens) Literary Adaptations series. One of the reasons for my procrastination here (boy, am I good at procrastinating - just ask anyone from my family!) has been indecision as to the order in which to put the movies in this series. Already, I've mucked things up - in hindsight, I should have put Pollyanna at #14 The Inheritance at #15, The Railway Children at #13. . . but maybe I should stop fumbling around and just get on with the review already! :P It's been long enough coming!

~No. 13 - Pollyanna~

Amanda Burton as Aunt Polly, Georgina Terry as Pollyanna

Shortly after finishing the wonderful 2000 adaptation of The Railway Children, the same director and production team set about making a screen version of another beloved children's classic - Eleanor H. Porter's Pollyanna. It first aired in the UK in early 2003, and about a year later in the US.

Writing plot summaries is boring, so this time I'm going to cheat and borrow the synopsis from the Masterpiece Theatre Pollyanna page:

Pollyanna Whittier goes to live with her wealthy but bitter aunt after the tragic death of her father. Pollyanna shares a game her father taught her -- the 'Glad Game' -- in which everyone can find a silver lining in even the darkest cloud, and her sunny nature, good humor and determination to look on the bright side of life prove to have an astonishing effect on those around her.

Pollyanna and Jimmy Bean (Ben Thornton)

With the help of her orphaned friend, Jimmy Bean, she casts her spell on the grumpiest townsfolk of Beldingsville -- including the cynical shut-in Mrs. Snow, the morose millionaire Mr. Pendleton and the enigmatic Dr. Chilton. And Pollyanna masterminds the romance between her Aunt's maid, Nancy, and the handyman, Tim. It is only Aunt Polly, who cannot bring herself to embrace Pollyanna's innocence and joy.

But all is not straightforward in Pollyanna's war against pessimism, since she must overcome a personal tragedy that threatens to banish "glad" from her vocabulary forever.

It's a delightful family film. If you love other children's classics such as Anne of Green Gables, The Railway Children, or Heidi, you'll enjoy this. Georgina Terry does very well as the young heroine, and all of the grown-up actors are good, too, especially Amanda Burton as Aunt Polly. Period drama lovers will spot several familiar faces - including Kenneth Cranham, David Bamber, and the always-lovely Pam Ferris. 

Mrs. Snow (Pam Ferris), right

It's so rare to come across a children's film like this these days - gentle, quiet, warm, something you'd be happy to watch over and over with children or younger siblings. My three littlest sisters love this - it's one of my two-year-old sister's favourite movies! :-) But it will keep older viewers entertained, too - it's a very well-made production, the acting is uniformly good, and the script is funny and engaging. A movie for viewers of all ages to enjoy.

It will also bring a sense of nostalgia to anyone who read the book as a little girl. I read Pollyanna so many years ago now that I unfortunately can't compare the book with the movie. By all accounts, however, this is one of more faithful versions of Pollyanna around (much moreso than the 1960s Hayley Mills version, for instance). Probably the only major change from the book is the change of setting - from New England in America, to the "real" England across the Atlantic.

I'm going to go a bit off-topic here so please bear with me: I think it's sad that the majority of young girls today seem to be missing out on so many of the classic girls books from the late-18th to early-19th centuries - books like Pollyanna, Anne of Green Gables, Little Women. . . in fact, most of the books listed here. Of course I don't expect that all little girls are going to be rabid bookworms like I was, but still. . . 

Nancy (Kate Ashfield)

I can think of two reasons for the current dearth of readers of these books: 1.) people (including young girls) just don't read as much as they used to, and 2.) classics like those mentioned above - detailing the lives of young heroines living in a much simpler, more innocent age - are deemed increasingly irrelevant to today's generation of preteen girls.

Little girls are being forced to grow up so quickly these days. 12 is the new 18 - that is, if being 18 is supposed to entail dressing in tight-fitting, skimpy clothes, and being overly concerned about clothes, personal appearance, and boys (I would argue that it doesn't). Through so many pressures and influences - encompassing the culture, the media, and their peers - little girls are being robbed of their girlhood. 

Girls like myself who have been homeschooled and raised in a protected, nourishing environment, usually manage to avoid being subjected to most of this (young ladies, we have so much for which to be thankful to our parents!). Ever noticed how most homeschoolers tend to be bookworms? :-) Partly thanks to the emphasis on good literature within most homeschool circles, a lot of homeschooled children develop an appreciation for good books from an early age.

Whoops, I didn't realise my little soliloquy had grown to over 3 paragraphs! What all of this boils down to is: I'm sad that a generation of girls are growing up without knowing any of the books that I knew and loved as a little girl. They'll be all the poorer for not having known Anne Shirley or Laura Ingalls or Pollyanna Whittier. That's not to say it's the girls' fault - I think most of the blame lies with their parents and others responsible for their education (and when I say education, I don't just mean "school").

And this was supposed to be a short, simple movie review, haha! Well, if you have any thoughts to share on this issue, please leave a comment.

Kenneth Cranham as Mr. Pendleton

Getting back to the proper subject of this post: you can watch Pollyanna on Youtube (just search for "Pollyanna Part 1"), but the audio is very poor quality. I'd encourage you to get it on DVD, especially if there are any little girls in your life with whom you could share it. :-)

More info:

Official Masterpiece Theatre page

IMDb page

Charity's Place review

Buy from Amazon US or Amazon UK (or try eBay! that's where I got my copy ;-)

My favourite literary adaptations: #14

~No. 14 - The Inheritance~

What would be your reaction if a new, complete Jane Austen novel - written when she was in her teens - were discovered? Well, that's what happened in 1988 - only the author in question was Louisa May Alcott, not Jane Austen. The book - The Inheritance, written when Alcott was just seventeen - was first published and hence made available to the public for the first time in 1997. In the same year, a TV movie adaptation was aired. The movie makes some pretty major changes (some might say improvements) from the book, but essentially it's still the same story and characters.

You know, I always find the plot synopsis part of a review rather boring (and often confusing) to read. Besides, it spoils the story. So in this series of reviews, I'll try to avoid writing about the plot, and just focus on the movie itself, and my thoughts on it.

The evil Ida Glenshaw (Brigid Brannagh). . . 

Technically, this isn't that great a movie. Period drama is something that the British do remarkably well - sadly, not so the Americans or us Aussies. The script isn't that great; some of the acting is good, while some of it is honestly pretty bad! The costumes and sets are nice, but not stunning.

Meredith Baxter and Tom Conti

And yet, it works. As I said, some of the acting (particularly from the actors playing the two "baddies") is sub-par, but the chemistry between the two leads is good, and Tom Conti's and Meredith Baxter's performances were genuinely good. The story may be predictable, but it's sweet, and besides, it's refreshing to find a family-friendly love story that isn't Austen or Gaskell. . . 

Thomas Gibson as the handsome hero. . . 

It's several degrees less brilliant than most BBC miniseries, but several degrees less cheesy than your average Hallmark movie. In other words, whatever its shortcomings may be, I would still heartily recommend The Inheritance to anyone looking for a clean, enjoyable romance. It's also a movie for all ages - my grandparents loved it, as did my younger brothers and sisters!

Agh! I couldn't find any HQ pics of the heroine! Here she is, on the far right.

My favourite literary adaptations: #15

Yes, the Austen adaptations series was so much fun, I just couldn't resist! So here, by popular demand, is the follow-up. I hope you're not all getting sick of the "Top 10" format. Maybe it's a bit gimmicky, but it seems to work well, providing a framework in which to feature a bunch of reviews.

In this series, I am going to be featuring my 15 favourite film adaptations of classic books and stories - some of them will be children's books (as here), others will be more grown-up classics - George Eliot, Elizabeth Gaskell. I will obviously not be including Jane Austen here, since I've just done a series on Austen, and I won't be including any Dickens, either. I'd like to save Dickens for a future post/s.

So, let's get started. 

~No. 15 - The Railway Children 2000~

Two generations of Bobbies - Jemima Rooper and Jenny Agutter

Not many people know about this TV movie, but let me assure you, it is a gem. The 1970 adaptation of Edith Nesbit's book is more popular and well known, but the 2000 BBC version is an excellent movie in its own right.

Peter (Jack Blumenau), Mother (Jenny Agutter), The Old Gentleman (Richard Attenborough), Phyllis (Clare Thomas), Bobbie (Jemima Rooper)

The story begins in Edwardian England, in a middle-class London house. Roberta (always called Bobbie), Peter, and Phyllis live with their mother and father, until one night their father is mysteriously taken away - their mother won't say why. Then it is discovered that they are poor - they must leave their luxurious London home to live in a run-down old house in the country. The children badly miss their father, and life in the country is different to say the least, but the children gladly take the opportunity to explore their surroundings. One of their favourite haunts is the railway station. 

Jim (JJ Feild) is rescued

The cast is excellent - Jenny Agutter, who played Roberta in the classic 1970 version, here plays the children's mother. Michael Kitchen, David Bamber, and Sophie Thompson all make memorable appearances. Jemima Rooper (Amanda Price from Lost in Austen) is luminous as the young heroine, Bobbie - and keep an eye out for JJ Feild (Henry Tilney!) in one of his earliest TV roles.

It isn't a loud or fast-paced film, but that is part of its charm. We're given time to take in the scenery, the period details, the trains, family relationships, various characters and incidents in the children's lives, etc.

It's a delightful, gentle tale, detailing the family's troubles and the children's various adventures, without being remotely gooey or sentimental. There's something magical about this story, and Jemima Rooper's Bobbie makes this adaptation truly a joy to watch. A perfect film to watch with family on a rainy Sunday afternoon. :-)