I am supposed to be reading the novel for English, but it is too hard to read, so I am reading the Cliff Notes and watching the movie because I am a big fan of Orson Welles, Is the movie very accurate to the novel? Because I cannot read the text.
shareWell, I suggest you try reading it again. The first part, where Jane is a child and before Rochester shows up, is very hard to get through, especially that first time around. I really think you aught to try and keep reading. It gets easier and much more interesting later on in the story. I also suggest reading it because the more 'difficult' books you read the less difficult they'll be and you won't have to go through the trouble of cliff notes and finding accurate movie adaptations.
As for what adaptations to watch, all the feature length films are going to be off here and there because of time constraints. I haven't seen the Orson Wells version in a while so I can't vouch for it, but it's not too bad. I recommend the 1983 BBC mini series version: http://imdb.com/title/tt0085037/ It has the length needed to portray most of the novel, which is something you'll need if you forgo reading it. It also has a lot of the original dialogue intact.
Either read the book or watch the version I've recommended. Most other versions cut out important parts of the later half of the book that you'll need to know about.
Well, I wouldn't say truly accurate. Sure, The beginning is the most accurate most of the dialoge and events, such as Jane Having to stand on a stool, Helen's death and the line "I must keep in good health and not die." However, I can anme several things that they left out which I had been looking forward to. Saint John and his sisters for one thing, a couple of things at the party such as the carades game, Mr. Rocester dressing up as a fortune teller and fooling all except Jane. All in all, it wasn't bad but I would like to see a few other versions.
shareSorry to be annoyingly correct but its not Saint John its St John. Pronounced Sin-jun.
its my weird and wonderful English language...
I quite liked this version. Orson Welles is a good Rochester, although a little too Orson in some places and not enough Rochester if you know what i mean. Joan Fontaine was ok, i like her but shes too pretty and weepy. Jane wasnt a weeper. I wish they'd included the Rivers family rather then the bizarre way of having old St John as a doctor...very strange...
. . .
They leave out the fortune telling scene!?!?
That's one of my favourite parts in the book :(
Good God, nothing gets my blood boiling like reading these insipid complaints when a Hollywood movie does not reproduce, word-for-word, an even more insipid novel.
Having had this arguement with Jane Austen heads who have nothing but complaints and insults for the 1940 version of "Pride and Prejudice," I'm out of energy.
All I will say is that THIS IS MOVIE. Is it NOT a documentary reproduction of the novel. It COULDN'T be. It was made by business men who had ONE vision: to make money. Period.
Enjoy it as movie, a seperate entity and concern yourselves NOT with the novel. If you want the novel, read the novel. Don't watch movies.
...an even more insipid novel
Or...if you would like more detail, watch the movie, then read the novel.
Or versa vice...
The omission of the St. John Rivers sequence is a major change from the novel. In the novel Rivers asks Jane to marry him and go missionarying with him; he is looking for a helpmate marriage and there is no mention of love. Now Jane has a choice to make: marry one man while loving another because a "sensible marriage" would be the rational choice in that era - or choose to return to the man she does love and stay with him, with or without marriage. She has a choice to make, and she makes it. It's a key point in the novel but the film omits this altogether. In the movie the choice appears to be run around in the rain, or go back to Rochester. Rivers is not even mentioned. It trivializes Jane's character, and it's always irritated me. Other than that, I think the film is a fine adaptation, especially the parts about Jane's childhood and her stay in Rochester's household.
shareCompletely agree, dizzhrt.
- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?
Regarding the leaving out of the Rivers family...
Any film adaptation will leave out something, of course. Others have mentioned that the fortune telling scene was also left out. But there are other omissions as well, such as Rochester's lengthy retelling of his history as well as his justifications pleaded to Jane.
But the question in a film adaptation is not merely whether there are omissions, but if they change the overall meaning and effect of the story. I for one do not think this particular version should be charged with changing too much the story's meaning and effect.
The film in any event not only leaves out parts, but changes the order of others. For example in leaving out the Rivers family, the film substitutes as an answerto "what did Jane do when she left Thornhill?" a sort of combination of of the lead into the encounter with the Rivers family with events that occurred much earlier in the book, that being Jane's return to her Aunt Reed's house and family. The book I think uses that visit to serve not only to compare Jane's feelings and views to her aunt's, but also to the way Jane's relations with her aunt's daughters compares to her relations to the Rivers'. A rather obvious example is the way Eliza Reed finds a religious vocation in a French nunnery, while St. John Rivers's vocation is to seek work as a missionary. But of course neither of these elements are retained in the film.
What is retained in the film, and I think rather artfully and successfully so with perhaps a small caveat, is that the Reed part of the story, and a reminder of Bessie's goodness and friendship with Jane, is nicely tied up. This tying up also serves to show how and where Jane landed, substituting for the Rivers encounter. And also how Jane hear's of Rochester's story and the destruction of Thornhill and all that went with that.
The small caveat I have is that the film essentially views Jane at the end as without family except for Rochester and their newborn. Not alone, to be sure, anymore, but something is arguably lost by the context provided by the Rivers.
But... even that caveat is a small one.
Perhaps the main criticism I have is one that would be viewed as not so significant by others. In the book, Rochester's involvement with Blanche Ingram ends following a process where Rochester's suspicions about the nature of his interest in him - based on money and "family background" - are confirmed. I think in a clever way that, following his explanation to Jane, is part of what encourages Jane to see his interest in her, and his ending the Blanche dalliance, as quite plausible and in line with Jane's own views of the matter. The film on the other hand basically attributes the end of the dalliance in a more clumsy fashion, and without reference to either Rochester's test of Blanche, and his explanation to Jane.
Putting that aside, however, the 1943 version is in my view a generally successful adaptation.
Good post.
I agree with this comment: the question in a film adaptation is not merely whether there are omissions, but if they change the overall meaning and effect of the story. I strongly believe that omitting the Rivers section of the book does change the overall meaning and effect of the story and, whatismore, dilutes Jane's character (as dzzhrt explains).
The Rivers part of the book isn't just there to fill up pages. I'm no literary scholar, but it exists for many reasons that I can perceive. Rivers is the foil of Rochester - his antithesis. Through him, we see the choice that Jane faces: principle or passion. Shmoop puts it this way:
The strange thing about St. John is that he might at first seem like an obsessive-compulsive, cold-blooded freak, but actually he is what Jane’s been trying to become: someone who makes relationship decisions based only on logic and practicality. Once Jane realizes that he’s the natural end point of that philosophy, she goes running back to her true love, Rochester, as fast as she can, Bertha or no Bertha.
and
St. John isn’t just Jane’s antagonist because he wants her to marry him and she’s not interested; he’s also an extreme version of what Jane has been trying to become – a dispassionate, rational person guided only by calm consideration of morality and ethics. Jane has to reject him and embrace her own passionate nature before she can marry Rochester.
Don't entirely agree with that analysis, but I go a long way with it.
What do we have in JE43? Jane goes running off to Gateshead Hall. Of all places. Remember in the book that she goes as far away from Rochester as funds will allow - even if that means she ends up in the middle of nowhere.
These changes are inevitable in a film of only 97 minutes. The latest film had two hours and that was still not long enough. So you end up with something that is superficial. That doesn't mean that it isn't enjoyable - it's terrificly entertaining. But it isn't really Jane Eyre in my opinion.
Have you seen any other versions, kenny? (My son-in-law's name!)
Who knows where the time goes?
Supergran,
Btw, do you know who wrote Who Knows Where the Time Goes? And did the original? Check it out. Sandy Denny, who btw was the only female singer to appear on a Led Zeppelin tune. But I digress....
I saw the 43 version on TCM a month ago, which no doubt was on in connection with the iteration now in the theaters. Which I have not seen, and from the reviews seems less than clear as something I should see. I have long been a fan of Welles's, but had never seen this version of JE. And then I realized I had not read the book, either, so I did.
Anyway, from the book, I am not sure I agree with the characterization that Jane was trying to become like the St. John character. During the Rivers period of the book if you will, Jane felt that her love for Rochester was in the past, and she did not really have hope of reuniting with him. But she knew that she was capable of loving, since she had. To be sure there was a kind of acceptance of a sort of the notion that she would not probably have another love, even would not seek such a love. But this was more I think because in her heart she still loved Rochester, and did not have the desire to love someone else when Rochester was still in her heart.
While I suppose we can say there is a rational element to that line of thinking, it is not necessarily what most would think of when they think of a rational and practical line of decision. A purely rational decision might be to say now that Rochester is gone, who else might be out there? I hope I am making myself clear.
And I don't think Jane is trying to become dispassionate. Part of the Rivers encounter is that Jane first wants and then gets (up to a point only at first; more so later) to experience belonging to a family that loves her. She is not dispassionate about the two sisters or even of her building friendship with Hanna (I htink her name was). When it comes to being a schoolteacher, she shows an ability to do that, and a caring for the children, while recognizing the practical aspects of the work suiting her at that time, but at the same time she chafes under the realization that she is not out in the larger world. And of course she remembers and dreams of Rochester.
Having dreams about a past love that is missed can lead, on occasion, to a wish that at least such dreams would not torment us, and perhaps some might be able to arrive at some kind of standoff with their romantic dreams through a hyper-rational process of decision. But I think Jane's thoughts and feelings in that regard do not go much beyond regret.
The morality and ethics parts are, in the book, strongly connected to religious considerations, and to the modern reader they perhaps are addressed in too overt a religious fashion. Jane in that regard does want to be a religious person, and within the bounds of her Anglican faith. But she also does not have the same kind of religious faith that St. John has.
I would certainly agree that St. John's faith is arrived at in what can only be seen as a hyper-rational process. But I don't think Jane ever shares his kind of approach to faith.
In keeping the nature of the process by which Jane moves from the Rivers portion of the story to her return to Rochester, it must be kept in mind how singularly significant are both the way in which Rochester cries out to her in what has to be called a spiritual and religious manner and means, and of coures the importance as a practical matter of Rochester's wife's death.
And no, I am not familiar with any other JE films.
Hi Kenny.
Indeed, I know that Who Knows Where the Time Goes? was written by the much-missed Sandy Denny. In fact, I shall be listening (and singing along) to the song when Fairport Convention come to my home town of Brighton in February. And I love Sandy's duet with Robert Plant on Led Zep 4 as they sing Battle of Evermore. Great Stuff! Are we a similar age? I'm 57.
You make some good points about Jane and St John. As I say, I don't completely go along with the Schmoop's analysis.
I love these passages in the book which show how disastrous marriage to St John would be for Jane:
Consent, then, to his demand is possible: but for one item--one dreadful item. It is--that he asks me to be his wife, and has no more of a husband's heart for me than that frowning giant of a rock, down which the stream is foaming in yonder gorge. He prizes me as a soldier would a good weapon; and that is all. Unmarried to him, this would never grieve me; but can I let him complete his calculations--coolly put into practice his plans--go through the wedding ceremony? Can I receive from him the bridal ring, endure all the forms of love (which I doubt not he would scrupulously observe) and know that the spirit was quite absent? Can I bear the consciousness that every endearment he bestows is a sacrifice made on principle? No: such a martyrdom would be monstrous. I will never undergo it. As his sister, I might accompany him--not as his wife.
...I looked at his features, beautiful in their harmony, but strangely formidable in their still severity; at his brow, commanding but not open; at his eyes, bright and deep and searching, but never soft; at his tall imposing figure; and fancied myself in idea HIS WIFE. Oh! it would never do! As his curate, his comrade, all would be right: I would cross oceans with him in that capacity; toil under Eastern suns, in Asian deserts with him in that office; admire and emulate his courage and devotion and vigour; accommodate quietly to his masterhood; smile undisturbed at his ineradicable ambition; discriminate the Christian from the man: profoundly esteem the one, and freely forgive the other. I should suffer often, no doubt, attached to him only in this capacity: my body would be under rather a stringent yoke, but my heart and mind would be free. I should still have my unblighted self to turn to: my natural unenslaved feelings with which to communicate in moments of loneliness. There would be recesses in my mind which would be only mine, to which he never came, and sentiments growing there fresh and sheltered which his austerity could never blight, nor his measured warrior-march trample down: but as his wife--at his side always, and always restrained, and always checked--forced to keep the fire of my nature continually low, to compel it to burn inwardly and never utter a cry, though the imprisoned flame consumed vital after vital--THIS would be unendurable.
...I felt how--if I were his wife, this good man, pure as the deep sunless source, could soon kill me, without drawing from my veins a single drop of blood, or receiving on his own crystal conscience the faintest stain of crime.
Sorry about the length of the quotes. I just love this book!
But don't we see how important the Rivers' section is in the book? It all adds to Jane's self-discovery, and her being able to see her relationship with Rochester more clearly. Aren't adaptations the poorer for leaving it out?
Do watch some of the other versions, particularly the made-for-TV ones. There are many of them! My personal favourite is the 2006 BBC miniseries.
Who knows where the time goes?
Supergran,
That's great you know the Sandy Denny version. Still gives me chills. Most Americans only know of Judy Collins's version. Enjoy seeing FP. Loved Liege and Leaf, btw. Happened to see Richard Thompson about two years ago. Great show.
Anyway, back to JE...
I hope I didn't imply that nothing was left out of JE 43 by not covering the Rivers section. But if a choice was made, what else that was left in could have been taken out? Offhand, I can't think of anything. So, the choice would have been to have lengthened it, which well might have made it a better film, but...
The post of mine that you responded to was my attempt to say that the number of changes made to the story that I mentioned, both small and larger than small, in my opinion did not change the overall story "too much". This is of course a relative assessment. I suppose what I intended to say was whether the net result of the adaptation retained "enough" of the story, again a relative assessment, that the meaning of the story is still there. I think so.
Part of the meaning of the story, I think, has to do with why the two main characters were attracted to each other. How they survived the challenges they faced. I know that is a rather simple way to put it, and there is the related way in which JE's romance had meaning in the larger context of her life. Of course. But on that simple level, in my opinion, the deletion of the whole Rivers family encounter did not really undermine the meaning of the story.
Consider another deletion - the way in which Jane hears of the fire at Thornfield and what it meant. As you know in the book that began with the spiritual, or perhaps more accurately supernatural, means by which Jane experienced Rochester calling for her. IN keeping with a generally more secular if you will approach in JE 43, this information was relayed to Jane in a much different manner.
The adapters I am certain knew they were taking a decidedly less overtly religious angle on Jane's experiences and story. And of course the deletion of the Rivers encounter very much was part of that difference. But putting aside my own comfort, or for others lack thereof, with the overtly religious approach of the book, did that change really undermine the overall adaptation?
I can see an argument made that it did. But for me, quite frankly it did not.
Well, again we are talking in relative terms here. Perhaps were I to now see the film after having read the book, I might be less comfortable with the adaptation. But having read it and thinking back to watching the film, I can't say the film went too far afield.
You mention for example some more recent serial adaptations. I assume you would acknowledge without argument what is obvious, that any adaptation of a full length 19th Century novel that is itself longer in time will have more opportunity to cover more of the contents of the original story. But that does not mean that winnowing the story down to a less than two hour film is, certainly not in all cases, against the rules as it were.
In any event I have enjoyed the discussion.
Things to take out:
Jane and Helen being punished by walking around in the rain.
The scene of Lowood trustees being convinced to offer Jane a teaching position and her turning it down so she could be a governess instead.
The auction of Mrs. Reed's things after her death.
Rochester's fight with Blanche.
That's all I can think of offhand, but it was a pretty short movie anyway; there could have been lots added (if the budget allowed). The Dr. Rivers scenes at the beginning didn't seem all that necessary either, especially as they seemed meant to replace the Rivers cousins near the end which were very important.
www.freerice.com
Good reply, jmhow!
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.