Jane Eyre 1997: Robots, Mustaches and Rupert Penry-Jones!

So I finally got over my wariness of Ciarán Hinds' mustache and watched the 1997 A&E version of Jane Eyre starring Mr. Hinds as Rochester and Samantha Morton as Jane. I did enjoy it, for the most part, and I realize that not every version has the benefit of a good budget the way the 2006 miniseries undoubtedly did. Taking that into account I still get incredibly frustrated when they gloss over the last part of the story (the events that take place after Jane leaves Thornfield). I really don't care all that much about young orphan Jane and Mr. Brocklehurst, etc. I want to dive right in to the juicy Rochester parts! This was my biggest complaint, other than that I found myself pleasantly surprised by this version.

Samantha Morton is a fine actress, and she plays Jane very well, though at times I found her voice a little (no, very) Robotic. Her interpretation of Jane didn't seem to be terribly self-possessed or self-assured the way Jane is. At times it seems like she has "been trampled on". I wish she could have played her with a little more backbone, watching the proposal scene she seemed more terrified of Rochester than anything. That being said, she still was perfectly capable of the material, I just wish she had done a bit more with it. That, and the voice-overs were unnecessary and sometimes confusing.

The green frock coat and the top hat makes me want cereal for some reason...

On the other hand, Ciarán Hinds (who I also love) almost did a little too much with Edward Rochester. He was certainly the crankiest, surliest version of Rochester I've ever seen! Maybe it's the timbre of his voice that gives it that rough edge. Though, oddly enough he was nicer to Adele in this film. In any event, I really came to love this version of Rochester. Hinds played him with a passionate, wild and unapologetic desperation. He might be the closest an actor has come to Brontë's character. I love Toby Stephens and his portrayal will always be first place (unless Michael Fassbender knocks it out of the park) but he did seem to be a gentler and more sensual Rochester than the character from the book. And Hinds deftly handles the very changeable moods of Mr. Rochester. I think if not for his performance this would have been an ultimately forgettable movie.

 The Moor House part of the story, as I mentioned, was very much pared down. It's never mentioned that Jane is related to St. John and Diana (no Mary or Hannah is this one) but at one point they are calling each other "brother" and "sister" out of the blue. Huh? St. John was played by certified dreamboat Rupert Penry-Jones, who you might know as playing a very foxy (though slightly wooden) Captain Wentworth in the BBC's 2007 remake of Jane Austen's Persuasion. All I want to know is why is St. John Rivers suddenly so happy and bubbly? There was none of the religious fire and cold manipulation of the character in this portrayal. To me, it's one of the most important aspects of the story! St. John's "proposal" is bitterly, sharply different from Rochester's, who actually loves Jane.  Reading those scenes in the book, he seems to almost haunt Jane like a ghost in order to bend her to his will. If I could describe the character of St. John in a word, it would be "suffocating". Not so here. Here he's just a cute, affable guy who says "Hey! We both love God! Let's get married and go somewhere really hot!" Despite the cuteness of it's actor, this St. John Rivers did not answer for me.

 And what the hell is up with that hair?!?!

 I had some other minor issues, Gemma Jones is great but she seemed a little more abrupt than Mrs. Fairfax is usually portrayed, and Blance Ingram was kind of Fug. I also thought Thornfield Hall was more bright and cheerful than usual. I do have to applaud them for the great job they did with Bertha, from her mattress-lined room to how large she seemed (she was a large woman in the book).

If you are a Jane Eyre enthusiast like I am, it's certainly worth a watch, if only to laugh at the line "Mrs. Faifax got a letter. Sophie got a letter. Even Pilot got a letter!"

[Edit] Has anyone gotten a chance to read This yet? If you have, what did you think?

Hornfield Hall...get it? Get it?

As promised, I want to say a few words about this book. I discovered after reading it that this was yet another book that began it's life as Fanfic and ended up getting published as part of a trilogy. I had little hints here and there but for the most part it was written fairly well that it didn't bother me.

The part I feel like the writer got right was Rochester's self-loathing and internal struggle. Part of the appeal of this character has always been his dark, thoughtful, somewhat obsessive nature. And for the first part of the book it goes along swimmingly with the original text. Our hero is brooding, haunted by his past and despairing for his future. The first few chapters were so well written I was ready to sit down and call this one of the best books ever. I thought the fact that he was immediately attracted to Jane was a little bit of a break from the text, but was willing to go along with it. UNTIL...

**spoiler alert**

There is a superfluous scene in which he spies on Jane playing piano and writing a song about him, and they sort of make out by the fire. Call it "intense hugging". I was a bit taken aback and think I said "Okaaaaaay" before reading on. Then comes the night when she saves him from the fire. Rather than going back to her room like a good Victorian governess would, they MAKE OUT!  And the making out and "close calls" continue throughout the book. Don't get me wrong, they aren't quite as smutty as they could be, but at the same time...no! The great thing about Jane Eyre is that Jane does the right thing, the hard thing, in spite of her passionate nature. Our Jane would never be making out on a bearskin rug with her Employer if she happens to love him or not!

Then comes the confusing, and I think a tad unnecessary derivations from the time line and original plot of Jane Eyre.  When Mason shows up at the Thornfield house party, Jane is already gone to Gateshead Hall. Instead of finding St. John, Mary & Diana Rivers by providence, Jane is introduced to them through a lawyer. There are a lot of instances like this where I finally came to peace with the notion that this book was not for the Jane Eyre purist (or even the diehard fan).

I did enjoy Mr. Rochester's sensual side, his darkly romantic musings, and his heart-to-heart conversations with his good friend Eshton. I also was more interested in the book's take on Bertha, showing her and Edward as both being victims of their father's greed. The Squee noted that there was a definite nod to Wide Sargasso Sea in this book, and I agree as far as the portrayal of Bertha goes there was. Also shown in a different light is Blanche Ingram. Instead of being a puppet for Rochester to inspire Jealousy, she is a coldly calculating woman with a total absence of heart or conscience. And her Dad is super creepy. 

The book is peppered with descriptions of food, and at one point Rochester and Eshton are comparing women to food and one of them remarks "Now I'm Hungry". I had to laugh out loud at that.  They eat, smoke, and Drink (capital 'd' because that's how much they drink) in such excess I felt like I had a hangover just from reading about it.

Would I recommend this book? Sure, if you can look at it as an alternative story from the original. It's definitely sexy, and I probably will read the next 2 books because even a slightly different Rochester is still pretty hot.

That's what she said?

Am tired from a busy day of food, shopping and driving so this won't be a very long post. I did want to mention (and I will go in to further detail on this later - maybe tomorrow) that I just finished reading what I now realize is book one of a trilogy: Rochester: A Novel Inspired by Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre" by J. L. Niemann. It's not as heinous as a lot of the Darcy books I've read lately (the two 'Diaries' were really the best out of the bunch, I am currently compiling a list of the worst offenders) all I'm going to say for now is that he was actually living at Hornfield.

Oh an also...my future sister-in-law just started blogging her little heart out. She is hilarious and wry and all things delightful, see for yourself here.

Poor and Plain, Obscure and Little

I just finished re-watching the 2006 BBC version of Jane Eyre and was once again blown away by how perfectly it captures the book. And I would know, as a nerdy teenager I carried my battered, dog-eared copy everywhere. I read it and re-read it until I could dream at night about being in Thornfield Hall. If you have never read it, here is an excellent reader review that touches on Jane's Feminism and Rochester as the ultimate romantic hero. (He definitely had my vote!)

So, in honor of that, I briefly considered listing my favorite Edwards from Literature, but all I could come up with was Rochester, Ferrars, and (recluctantly) Cullen. Instead, I'd like to stick with Jane Eyre and list my top 5 favorite movie versions of Charlotte Bronte's classic. And before you comment, I have yet to see any of the versions from Mexico, Hong Kong, India, or the 1997 one with Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton. Not to say I won't get around to it.

5. 1996. Directed by Franco Zeffirelli.

Starring a practically unknown at the time Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane, a definitely phoning-it-in William Hurt as Rochester, and a teeny Anna Paquin as young Jane.

I liked it when it first came out (in my senior year of high school and at the peak of my Bronte-mania), in fact I had an enormous version of the movie poster on my wall. This movie would have been so much better if not for William Hurt. He dosen't have the edge or the fire that Rochester has. He's Blandy McBlanderson. And I know I'm just nitpicking here, but dammit...Rochester is not a blond guy. Gainsbourg is okay, but to be honest when I went back and rewatched some of the clips she comes off as dry as toast. I'm not saying it's not worth a watch, Elle McPherson makes a cameo as Blanche Ingram, though she spends her scenes looking confused as to what she is doing there. So was I! All in all it's a very decent effort, though it leaves out a lot of the book (which is usually my biggest complaint).




4. 1970. Directed by Delbert Mann.

I don't have much to say about this version other than I've seen it, sorta. I watched it when I was sick with Mono, Thrush, and a whole bunch of other disgusting stuff. I had a 104 degree fever at the time and can't remember anything about it other than the colors were really, really weird (though that was probably just the fever) and the music was very eerie. My future mother-in-law loves it though. I'm not sure if it's still her favorite since the BBC version, if not it's a definite second.

3.1983.. Directed by
Julian Amyes.

This is the one I refer to as "the one with Timothy Dalton". It's good, if a bit (really) sound-stagey. Dalton turns in a solid performance (even if at times he flourishes his words a bit too much. ACTING!). Zelah Clarke plays Jane so understated she's practically on mute through most of the film, with exception of the scene when Rochester proposes. It's been a while since I've seen this version, but I remember watching that scene and thinking "She's Fiesty! Where has she been this whole time?"

2.1944. Directed by Robert Stevenson.

This was the first film adaptation of the book I ever saw, and I guess it's stuck with me quite a bit over the years. Starring Orson Welles, Joan Fontaine (who I always adored), and a very young Elizabeth Taylor as the (spoiler!) doomed Helen Burns. Orson Welles, not surprisingly, was brilliant at capturing Rochester's restless, cynical, and somewhat obsessive side. I thought (and still believe) that Joan Fontaine was way too gorgeous to have ever played a character who is by and large known as plain, but her acting is up to the challenge and she plays the part well. The sets are stark and spooky, and the recreation of the Yorkshire Moors is something to see. This is a dark and beautiful version, even if it is a bit choppy and cut short in places.

1.2006. Directed by Susanna White.

I really can't stop singing the praises of this one. The music is beautiful, the sets are gorgeous, the costuming perfect, the acting superb.
I do have to say (and give credit to the director & actors) this version was quite a bit sexier than the very chaste book. Toby Stephens' Rochester practically smolders his way through the first half of the film. And Ruth Wilson has done the best job of any of her predecessors with Jane's independence, virtue and passion. Both actors are quite a bit hotter than the characters they are playing, but you will never hear me phrase that as a complaint. And MAJOR points for this being the only version that gets the Moor House part of the story right! St. John Rivers is as cool and hard-nosed as he was in the book, yet I found myself liking his character in the movie more than on the page. And I have to give props to the casting director for casting Claudia Coulter as Bertha Mason. If you have seen Wide Sargasso Sea*, (a prequel to Jane Eyre about young Edward Rochester's exploits in Jamaica) you will know that Coulter is almost a dead ringer for Karina Lombard, who plays the Bertha in Sea.

*I just looked up the IMdb page for Wide Sargasso Sea and saw that Rochester is played in that movie by Nathaniel Parker, who I had the hots for as the Dunstan Thorn, a.k.a. the Dad in Stardust. That explains it, I knew I'd seen him nekkid before.

In any case, I've added my favorite clips below. The first one is the scene that takes place after Jane saves Mr. Rochester from the fire that was set in his room. This scene makes me SWOON.