Jane Eyre
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.82 You Save: $8.12 (54%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.40 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Jane Eyre
Movie Review: Powerful, Unforgettable, A Low-Budget Masterpiece
Summary: 5 Stars
This BBC adaptation, over 25 years old now, is often scorned for its relatively low production values; "bad soap opera" has become the go-to put down for those thumbing their noses at humble, made-for-TV '83. The label is applied with casual disdain, with the smug confidence that everyone will agree. If all those bad soaps were even half as good, I'm very sorry now to have missed so much afternoon television. I fell hard for this version (superb and very faithful to the book) long ago, and still prefer it to any other; it inspired me to read "Jane Eyre" in earnest. Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke, both phenomenal, are Rochester and Jane--just as I envisioned them. They could have delivered their lines on a bare stage and have wowed me just the same. I'm enchanted, mesmerized, moved as if for the first time--no matter how many times I watch. For me, it's all about the performances; and the undiluted Brontė dialogue is a huge plus.
Much has been said of physical appearance in reviews here and elsewhere, some remarks none too flattering. A sampling: too handsome, too tall, too skinny / too plain, too short, too plump, too old--and I've seen worse. A different complaint, very common, is "no chemistry." I'm baffled when I come across comments like this: if these two had generated any more heat, conveyed any more repressed longing, my screen might incinerate--and me with it! I adore the way they look together, want them in each other's arms every moment they're not. I love Clarke's finely-drawn characterization, greatly admire her performance. I'm not alone; Clarke has been highly praised by a great many. She conducts herself in a manner befitting Jane's station, so much lower than that of her employer. She never forgets "...the wider ocean--wealth, caste, custom..." that lies between them. She makes me feel Jane's "acute distress...the vehemence of emotion...struggling for full sway." An equal number strongly disagree; she's also been roundly condemned for her representation, slapped with "unemotional" and "wooden" over and over. I feel that Jane's passionate love for Rochester--her grief at the prospect of leaving him--is laid bare during the proposal scene; Clarke absolutely convinces me, stirs me without histrionics. We're all very different, though; my "perfect Jane" and my "dream Rochester" most likely won't be yours. Watch clips--particularly those of scenes most important to you--then decide if a rental (or a purchase) might be worthwhile. Thankfully, there's a Rochester and a Jane for very nearly everyone now.
Clarke is plainly styled, yes--she is portraying the plainest of heroines, after all. But the simple updo and quaint dresses can't dim her glow: she's "a beauty in my eyes." I've read she had trained as a ballet dancer; this is evident in her excellent posture and graceful movements. I love the quiet dignity, the refined quality of her voice. She has AMAZING EYES--intelligent and soulful--and is capable of speaking with them alone. Watch her hands, too; they say so much--and both she and Dalton use breathing very effectively. Clarke's lovely face is incredibly mobile, registering a wide range of emotions equally well. She's a refined, self-possessed, perceptive and compassionate Jane--and an assertive, excitable, determined, warm, and tender one. And she's abundantly passionate--you have only to watch her closely... There is so much SINCERITY in her love for Rochester. You feel that she understands him, that his broken heart is in good hands--she's his angel. She's playful, too--his elf--and even possesses the "dimpled cheek." She is quite short, as she should be for the role. Brontė wrote, "--being so much lower of stature than he, I served both for his prop and guide." The sight of her--tucked under Dalton's chin, wrapped snugly in his arms--never fails to thrill me. She is absolutely adorable (and 18 enough for me) when still in her nightcap and robe, listening while her seductive master puts his "case" to her, tells her he has "found the being." I vividly recall her anxious face when, in asking Mr. Rochester for leave, she gathers the courage to inquire if he is shortly to be married. When he answers, "Yes; what then?" she looks fatally wounded, but struggles valiantly to regain her composure--heartwrenching! The devastation rocking her can be seen and felt when she bids him farewell "for the present," and the oh so sweet sexual tension reaches a new level of intensity: white hot! (Dalton's farewell "for the present," delivered so very meaningfully, and the desire he expresses for a warmer good-bye, leave me weak-kneed for hours...) And Clarke's teary confession of love under the chestnut tree is EXQUISITE. Clarke has NO EQUAL as Jane, and her performance will not be outdone.
I find Brontė's description of Rochester appealing, save for, "--his unusual breadth of chest, disproportionate almost to his length of limb." That adjective--disproportionate--disappointed somehow, even when I read it as a young person. Dalton's tall, lean, beautifully proportioned Rochester suits me perfectly--he's beyond splendid in the period garb. Yes, he's UNDENIABLY GORGEOUS, but so DARKLY, INTENSELY MASCULINE--"all energy, decision, will"--I can forgive his considerable male beauty: my gaze rests on his perfectly sculpted features with guiltless pleasure. Dalton is almost god-like as Rochester, a force to be reckoned with; he's ruined me for all the others. Readers of the book will remember Rochester makes a number of confessions in Chapter 27. He tells Jane he returned to England "...rid of all mistresses--in a harsh, bitter frame of mind...corroded with disappointment, sourly disposed against all men, and especially against all womankind..." He assures her "It was not [his] original intention to deceive..." and explains "[he] was an intellectual epicure, and wished to prolong the gratification of making...[her] acquaintance." Dalton gets Rochester exactly right--not an easy thing--and he plays his dangerous game expertly. A lesser woman might surrender without a struggle. But Jane presents something of a challenge, resolved as she is to obey him only in "all that is right," so Rochester must take extreme measures to excite her jealousy. Dalton is endlessly irresistible, heartstoppingly sexy, deliciously predatory--never more potently seductive than when testing, teasing and tempting Clarke's lonely little love starved Jane. Observe his eyes as they follow her every move--as she takes up a candle preparatory to playing a tune and, later, as she approaches shyly when asked to join him on the library sofa. He can be just as tender, too: he broke my heart as the vulnerable lover kneeling at her side--begging her to stay. Dalton understands the extraordinary affection Rochester feels for Jane, and utters all those wonderful endearments--"my pet lamb," "my pale little elf," "my fairy," etc.--with a naturalness and a depth of feeling I could not have imagined possible. And that incomparable voice!--very like a caress--I sometimes close my eyes in order to enjoy it alone. Dalton brings the tormented figure to life--in all his complexity--like no one else can ever even hope to: HE'S THAT GOOD. To watch his bitter and despairing but still hopeful Rochester fall for little Jane is to witness a rare magic that won't be repeated. The emotion he brings to the proposal scene--from start to finish--is ASTONISHING IN ITS POWER, and UNFORGETTABLE.
Thornfield has become almost a real place for me, and Rochester and Jane living, breathing lovers--thanks to this treasure.
Movie Review: Unsurpassed and Unsurpassable
Summary: 5 Stars
There are many adaptations of Charlotte Brontė'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 Brontė.
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 or 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 Brontė'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 Brontė'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".
Movie Review: Glorious. Perhaps Best Adaptation of a Novel I've Ever Seen.
Summary: 5 Stars
1983's "Jane Eyre," in spite of its technical flaws, brought the magic back to me of reading "Jane Eyre" for the first time.
I felt duty bound to watch the 1983 Timothy Dalton / Zelah Clarke adaptation of "Jane Eyre," because I'd just written an article about the 2006 BBC "Jane Eyre" for TheScreamOnline. So, I approached watching this the way I'd approach doing homework.
I was irritated at first. The lighting in this version is bad. Everyone / everything is washed out in a bright white klieg light that, in some scenes, casts shadows on the wall behind the characters.
And the sound is poorly recorded. I felt like I was listening to a high school play.
And the pancake make-up is way too heavy.
And the sets don't fully convey the Gothic mood of the novel. I just can't see Bronte's Rochester abiding such Martha Stewart domestic arrangements. Orson Welles' Rochester lived in cave-like gloom, very appropriate to the novel's Gothic mood.
And yet ... with all those objections ... not only is this the best "Jane Eyre" I've seen, it may be the best adaptation of any novel I've ever seen.
The critics of this production say it is too close to the book. For me, someone who valued the book and didn't need it to be any less "wordy" or any less "Christian" or any more sexed-up, this version's faithfulness to the novel Bronte actually wrote is its finest asset.
Bronte wrote a darn good book. There's a reason it has lasted 150 years plus, while other, slicker, sexier and easier texts, have disappeared.
As a long time "Jane Eyre" fan, I was prejudiced against Timothy Dalton as Rochester. Rochester is, famously, not handsome; Jane and Rochester are literature's famous ugly couple. And Timothy Dalton is nothing if not stunningly handsome.
But Dalton gives a mesmerizing performance as Rochester. He just blew me away. I've never seen anything like his utter devotion to the role, the text, the dialogue, and Rochester's love for Jane. Dalton brings the page's Rochester to quivering life on screen.
Rochester is meant to be a bit scary. Dalton is scary. Welles got the scary streak down, too, for example, when he shouts "Enough!" after Fontaine plays a short piano piece. But Dalton is scary more than once, here. You really can't tell if he's going to hurt Jane, or himself, in his desperation.
Rochester's imperiousness, his humor, his rage, his vulnerability: Dalton conveys all, sometimes seconds apart. It's stunning.
And here's the key thing -- the actor performing Rochester has to convey that he has spent over a decade of his life in utter despair, lonely, living with an ugly, life-destroying secret.
No other actor I've seen attempt this part conveys that black hole of despair as Timothy Dalton does. Current fan-favorite Toby Stephens doesn't even try. Dalton hits it out of the park. If I saw Timothy Dalton performing Rochester in a singles bar, i would say, "That guy is trouble. Don't even look at him." He's that radioactive with tamped down agony.
Zelah Clarke is not only, overall, the best Jane I've seen, she's one of the very few Janes whom producers were willing to cast as the book casts Jane. No, folks who know "Jane Eyre" only from the 2006 BBC version, Bronte did *not* describe a statuesque, robust Jane with finely arched eyebrows and pouty lips. Rather, Charlotte Bronte's Jane is, indeed, poor, plain, obscure, and little, and NOT pretty.
Zelah has a small mouth, close-set eyes, and a bit of a nose. She's truly "little." She is no fashion model. And she is the best Jane, the truest to the book.
Some described her a cold or boring. No, she's true to the book. Bronte's Jane is not a red hot mama, she's a sheltered, deprived teen whose inner passions come out only at key moments, as Zelah's do here. The book's Jane is someone you have to watch slowly, carefully, patiently, observantly, if you want to truly plumb her depths. You have to watch Zelah, here, to get to know who she really is.
I would have liked to have seen more fire in Zelah in one key scene, but that's one scene out of five hours in which she is, otherwise, very good.
In spite of its closeness to the text, this version, like every other version I've seen, shys away from fully explicating the overtly Christian themes in "Jane Eyre." Christianity is not incidental subtext in "Jane Eyre," it is central.
Helen Burns instructs Jane in Christianity, thus giving her a subversive, counter cultural way to read, and live, her apparently doomed, pinched life. It is Christianity, and a Christian God, who convinces poor, plain, obscure Jane of her equal worth, her need to live up to her ideals, and her rejection of a key marriage proposal. That isn't made fully clear here.
In any case, Charlotte Bronte wrote an excellent, complex, rich novel, and this adaptation of it, of all the ones I've seen, mines and honors the novel best of any adaptation I've seen, and that says a lot.
Other versions, that don't fully honor the book, end up being a chore to watch in many places. If you don't care about what Charlotte Bronte has to say about child abuse, or the hypocrisy of a culture built on looks and money, your adaptation of much of the book will be something people fast forward through to get to the kissing scenes between Jane and Rochester.
This version, like Bronte's novel, realizes that everything Bronte wrote -- about Jane's experiences at Lowood, and her relationship to St. John -- are part of what makes Jane's relationship to Rochester as explosive and unforgettable as it is.
Movie Review: A Fine Piece Of Costume Drama
Summary: 5 Stars
After wanting to see this 1983 BBC production for some time, I've finally gotten to see this at last. Having never actually read the book I wasn't sure what I would make of the production, which had been recommended to me because of me being a fan of Timothy Dalton, who plays the role of Mister Edward Rochester. What I got was a fine production to say the least. It has a fine cast, fine production values which help to tell this atmospheric romance/drama in a fine fashion.
The cast is fantastic to say the very least. Both Sian Pattenden (as the child) and Zelah Clarke (as the grown-up) both give fine performances in the title role of Jane Eyre, both are believable in their roles and come across as strong willed but all too human characters, which is especially true of Clarke as her relationship with her employer Mr. Rochester grows throughout the story. Speaking of Mr. Rochester, there is an absolutely brilliant performance by Timothy Dalton in the role. Dalton shows a huge range of emotions in the part and he shares some fine chemistry with Clarke and they really work well as a couple. There's also a fine supporting cast as well including Jean Harvey as Rochester's housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax, Damien Thomas as Rochester's mysterious friend Richard Mason, Judy Cornwell as Jane's aunt Mrs. Reed, Mary Tamm as Rochester's love interest Blanche Ingram plus Elaine Donnelly, Morag Hood and Andrew Bicknell as the Rivers family amongst others. Also of mention is the performance of Joolia Cappleman as Bertha who, while not often seen, has a considerable influence over the story and lends it much of its atmosphere and mystery. Together they make for a fine cast of actors and actresses.
There's also some fine production values as well. It was shot on both film (for exterior scenes) and videotape (for interiors) which some people have used against it as a way of calling this a cheap looking production. Nothing could be farther then the truth, which is that this was standard BBC policy at the time and virtually all of the programs made by the BBC (such as the original TV series of Doctor Who for one of many examples) were shot that way. Besides one shouldn't judge the production based on that, in my opinion anyway. Instead it should be judged based on the costumes and sets used. Both of those categories are successes as the BBC was more then capable on making fantastic period sets and costumes. Both the interiors and the exterior scenes are well shot and lit, which help to evoke both the moodiness of the story and the atmosphere of the period as well as seen in any of the scenes (interior or exterior) at Thornfield Hall for example. There's also some fine make-up work as well, especially in episode eleven which should be seen as not to spoil the story for anyone. There is also the music of composer Paul Reade who produced a fine piece of music for the titles sequences and the sporadic, but well made and used, pieces heard throughout the production as well. Once one looks past how the production was shot (which shouldn't really even be and issue), there are plenty of things in the costumes, set, make-up and music to admire about this production.
Last, but not least, is the script which was written by Alexander Baron from the novel by Charlotte Brontė. Having never read the novel, I am unable to judge how faithful the script is to the original novel though, from what I've read from other reviews, the script adheres to the novel rather faithfully. Judging it then from the point of view of the writing alone it is a well constructed story which goes from Jane as a girl to her becoming the governess for Rochester's ward and beyond. There is a steady build-up of tension once Jane arrives as a mysterious laughter can be heard along with unexplained occurrences and Jane's growing feelings for Rochester. Especially since it is told across eleven half-hour episodes which each ending, cliffhanger like, at a point that brings the viewer back to see what happens next (especially someone like me who hasn't read the novel). This may be down to the novel, I don't know, but even if it is there is much credit to be given to Baron for being able to bring it to this production.
All in all this 1983 BBC production of Jane Eyre is a fine example of BBC costume drama. Meaning that has some really fine performances from its large cast (especially Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton), fine costumes and sets and a well written script. It is a moving human drama that is nonetheless atmospheric and tense. While I can not judge this production to the novel it is based on, I feel confident in saying that this is a fine drama that will prove enjoyable to those who have or haven't read the novel.
Movie Review: Surprising
Summary: 5 Stars
I'd never have believed that anyone could make the long, flowery, ornate, 19th century language in Charlotte Bronte's novel sound natural in a modern-day production -- "my pet lamb" -- and "Jane, you strange, almost unearthly thing," etc. etc. or that I would find a James Bond actor believable as Rochester. Wrong on both counts. Timothy Dalton's performance here is really a tour de force. He's mercurial, explosive, intense, brooding, cunning, manipulative, self-pitying, insightful, mischievous, sexual, tender, loving, gentle, sometimes all at the same time or at least in the same five minute scene. He's the original "mad, bad, and dangerous to know," to use Caroline Lamb's words about her lover Byron. That is, of course, like catnip. You watch him on the screen and know he's very bad news and you also know you wouldn't be able to resist. I'm not quite sure how Zelah Clarke's Jane is able to resist. Too handsome and too young, yes, but the portrayal more than makes you forget that.
Clarke is an interesting Jane. There's a scene the morning after she accepts Mr. Rochester's proposal where she literally runs into his arms, absolutely beaming, that made me physically gasp. This is a Jane whose primary trait is her desire to be loved. She's not really meant to be mouselike or long-suffering or patiently enduring, though she's learned to put on a facade. When Rochester loves her, she loves him back innocently and wholeheartedly, which makes the scene after the big reveal about Rochester's mad wife in the attic all the more heartbreaking. Clarke's Jane resembles someone who's been kicked in the stomach, hurt too badly to cry or react or shout at Rochester like he's begging her to. Clarke plays all those subtleties expertly.
Like other reviewers, I did think she looked older than 18 or 19, but so do all of the other actresses who've played the part. On the other hand, I think Jane is supposed to be one of those ageless looking characters. She likely looked older when she was young and would have looked younger when she was old. Her life experiences would have provided her with a sense of self-possession that would have given her more maturity than a young debutante of the era. Clarke is physically very small, particularly next to Dalton, which is right for the character, but a bit more rounded out than the Jane of the book.
Comparing the recent screen versions of Jane Eyre, I've found something I like in most of them. The 1940s version with Orson Wells had the best young Adele in Margaret O'Brien. She's an adorable, enchanting little girl in that movie, as young as she should be according to the book. This movie also gets the Gothic air right, in part because it's black and white. On the other hand, Jane is too blonde and too composed, while Orsn Wells is too bombastic. The 1970s BBC version also uses all of the dialogue from the book, but I thought it was a bit more mannered than this 1983 version. The 1996 A&E version with Samantha Morton is shorter, very condensed, the language updated and the story cut to focus on Rochester and Jane. I preferred the ending scene in the A&E version when Jane returns to Rochester, over the 1983 version, which although true to the novel, seems to somehow diminish Rochester a bit, if not Jane. Morton's version of Jane doesn't drag out why she came back. She leaves Rochester in no doubt that he's still a man and she'd take him any way she could get him. I also thought the 2006 BBC version did a better job with those ending scenes than the 1983 version did, though some people object to its physicality. To paraphrase, as the 2006 version of Rochester says, "I don't want a nurse. I want a wife. You and I aren't platonic people, Jane." The 1990s big screen version with William Hurt is mopey and melancholy and makes you long to put Rochester and Jane out of their misery. If you're a Jane Eyre aficionado, you'll probably want all of the above and, as I do, mix and match the various actors from each movie until you have your perfect daydream cast. I think Timothy Dalton's Rochester is the current headliner. This is a very good version that is well worth the trouble of buying. I have just ordered it myself after renting it through Netflix.