I've just watched this version and feel that there needs to be a better version. I want more drama. Jane Eyre in this version was way too cold than I imagined her while reading the book.
Is there a better version than this 1983 version?
Which of the "Jane Eyre" movies is the best?
the 1997 version with Samatha Morton and Ciaran Hinds is a very good version and the only one that made me cry, I own three versions of the story, and still think that one the best with the Tim Dalton one coming a close second, you may have not been keen on the Jane for that version, but Tim made a very passionate Rochester :)
shareI love the version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine. And the one playing on the BBC right now is very good so far. Both have a lot of passion, which I love.
shareI don't like the 1983 version at all, probably my least favourite of them all. My favourite is the 1973 version with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack and I'm fairly impressed so far with the Toby Stephens, Ruth Wilson version. And the Orson Welles version is pretty damn good as well!
shareOf all the versions that I have seen, the 1983 version is my favourite.
I disliked the Franco Zefirelli version and I didn't like Orson Welles one either, sorry.
I love Ruth Wilson in the latest BBC production but I think that Toby Stephens is completely wrong for the role of Mr. Rochester and I hate the dumbed down language. People simply didn't speak like that in those days! Ruins the whole pleasure, what a shame...
Thank you! They most definitely did not speak like that in those days. I saw the first 2 hours on Masterpiece Theater last night and was shouting at the screen and holding my head the whole time. Why, Sandy Welch, why??!!! It's a shame because I think it looks great and Ruth Wilson strongly resembles Charlotte Bronte, though I'm sure Jane would have had a more cultivated accent as a governess. I haven't made up my mind about Toby Stephens yet.
I thought the 1997 version was apalling. All those blatant sexual references were ridiculous. I thought Ciarin Hinds would have been perfect for the part if he hadn't been given such drivel to recite and if he were a bit younger. He certainly was ugly enough. The only thing I liked about the 1996 version is that Charlotte Gainsbourgh was suitably thin and plain, but too tall. William Hurt was far too over the top.
The 1983 version is my favorite, but then it would be since it is how I discovered Jane Eyre in the first place when I was 11. It follows the book perfectly. If they had used that script with Susanna White's direction this new one would have been amazing.
I absolutely love Timothy Dalton as Rochester, but the man is far too gorgeous for his own good. If he gave that performance after a few beatings from an ugly stick he would have been just right. (but I do agree with someone's comment about the scene in the morning after their engagement, sappy!) Zelah Clarke was just a little bit too stiff and a little bit too old. Did anyone believe she was 18? But she was definitely plain enough and since I grew up with her I am still very fond of her. And this is the only version I've seen that gets the St. John Rivers sequences right! He's actually my favorite character, he's so weird.
I have never seen the 1973 version. Is it available?
The George C. Scott one didn't really do it for me either way.
Hate Joan Fontaine as Jane. Love Orson Welles, love the look of the film. Hate the adaptation.
Stan-64.. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the dumbed down dialogue. I too was shouting at the screen! A real shame because it could have been so much better if it would have followed Bronte's words, which both 1973 and 1983 versions do. BTW. The 1973 version is now available on DVD and I strongly recommend it. The 1983 adaptation was my absolute favorite, but the more I see the 1973 version, it is becoming my favorite now. At least while I'm watching it! haha!
"Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." "Now Voyager"
I have to say that I am loving the current version on the BBC with Toby Stephans as Rochester. It's fabulous - but only half way through.
shareI agree, after a slightly wobbly start I think the Stephens, Wilson version is looking good, and I'm eagerly awaiting the 3rd episode.
So far, out of all the other adaptations I've seen, the 1973 one is by far my favourite, loved it way back then and still love it after all these years. It's got a wee spark of magic to it!
[deleted]
Best 1973 version
Worst 1983 version
Truth be told I've only seen two versions of Jane Eyre, and they would be this one, and the most recent film starring Mia Wasikowska. Yes I was much younger when I saw the 1983 version on vhs, but I consider it somewhat superior to the more recent effort. Dalton is a better Rochester than Fassbender in my view, although Mia acquits herself well. Was disappointed that Grace Poole hardly featured in the new movie, as one of my lasting memories of Jane Eyre, was her disembodied laughter, sent chills up my spine.
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici
By the power of truth I, while living, have conquered the universe
[deleted]
In my opinion,
The 1983 version IS the best version out there. I like the fact that they remained so true to the novel. As for Jane being so cold, I think that was deliberate. As a child, she was constantly reprimanded for her "passionate nature." Spending several years in a strictly religious girl's school, she learned to control or hide this side of her character.
Dalton/Clark Version followed very closely by the Stephens/Wilson version. Worst version ever is the William Hurt film. :o)
share[deleted]
Well, I have only seen the 2006 version and this 1983 version - I must say, I really love both for different reasons. I know what people mean when they say Ruth Wilson looks like a duck - she has a kind of sticky outy upper lip. But she's actually really similar to how I imagined Jane when reading the book. She isn't pretty but she's got something attractive about her.
Toby Stephens I thought WAS a good Rochester but Timothy Dalton was PERFECT, even if he was more attractive than Rochester was sposed to be.
If I had seen the other versions my views may be different. But I did really enjoy this and the new one.
Erik Von Detten
The 1983 version with Timothy Dalton is my favorite...none of the other adaptations I've seen come close. Most are hacked down to fit into the two-hour or so max running time audiences expect, and you just can't tell the story that fast, too much is left out. Plus, Timothy Dalton is the only Rochester I've seen that seems really tormented, and changeable...one minute he's sweet and kind, the next he's screaming..no one else seems to have the mercurial mood changes down the way he does.
Life's what happens while you're making other plans
I love love love this version...just watched some clips over on youtube again. The more I watch it the more I love it, even though the 2006 version remains my very most favorite, albeit for reasons different from the reasons that I love this version.
Timothy Dalton does do an incredible job as Rochester. I agree with you that he shows us how changeable Rochester can be. If you notice, his eyes sparkle when he is teasing Jane.
So much of the language from the book is used in this adaptation. When I reread passages I see Rochester as Timothy Dalton looks.
I love the proposal scene. He says, "Come hither, Jane." in that scene and I go around calling to my sons to "Come hither" and chuckle inside.
It depends on what you are looking for. The 1997 version is over the top, in my opinion, with Rochester being a misogynist and all-round jerk, but there's lots of panting and lines like 'I know your passions are aroused.' Some find it passionate and sexy, I find it irritating. My favourite is the 1973 version, but the new one is looking good so far.
***
Bronteana Bronte Studies Blog:
http://bronteana.blogspot.com
Okay
This is unfair, so we can't watch it in the U.S till January. GRRRR
Has anyone posted the shows online(like youtube for example)?
I'm watching them online. If you go to the imdb message board for the show there should still be some links available there.
***
Bronteana Bronte Studies Blog:
http://bronteana.blogspot.com
thank you
shareYou're very welcome.
***
Bronteana Bronte Studies Blog:
http://bronteana.blogspot.com
My opinion is:
the first best version is 1983 (excellent Jane and Rochester, I know that critics say that Timothy Dalton is too handsome, but I think that he impersonated Rochester's character best.
the second best version are 1973 and 2006
the worst: 1970 version
interesting: 1997 version (but Rochester was too much choleric)
boring: 1996 version (excellent Jane but inexpressive Rochester)
1944 version - too much Hollywood
Marci
I agree that 1983 is the best!!!
They have changed too much in 2006 version.. Added lines for Ashton.. Hallo, who is Ashton ?
And again gypsy scene.. shame on BBC and Sandy Walsh !!! She probably had bad marks in geography. Africa is a continent and India is a country !
Glad I am not the only one that likes the 1983 version. Most faithful to the words etc. Also the fact Tim Dalton was in it could be a factor!!
Agree about the gypsy scene.
I disagree about the 1983 version, it may be faithful to the novel but it lacks anything else in it's favourite and is my least favourite version. Tim Dalton is completely miscast! The 1973 version and even the 2006 version, with it's altered dialogue are far superior.
share1983 version is by far the greatest I've seen. It is very faithful to the novel and the actors are brilliant (those who say Mr. Dalton is miscast just don't know Mr. Rochester in my opinion. He is ten times better than Michael Jayston who I thought was one of the worst aspects of an excellent adaptation). The 1973 version is also excellent and those are truly the only two real adaptations of this novel but then again those films are 4-5 hours long instead of just 90 minutes. The others change the novel too much. I haven't seen the 2006 version.
The Welles version is very good although too many aspects are changed (e.g. when Jane hears the voice) but it remains the film with the best Lowood chapter. Peggy Ann Garner and Elizabeth Taylor are magnificent as Jane and Helen Burns. The 1997 film version is still probably the most faithful of the feature films. Morton is an excellent Jane there. George C. Scott's film was surprisingly good with him and York a very credible Jane but the Zeffirelli film is not good enough. No emotion in the entire film and late in the novel you can hardly hear the voice of Rochester. The only good aspect about it is the performance of Anna Paquin as a young Jane Eyre. If only they waited then years to film the rest of the film then they could have used Paquin as both the young and adult Jane Eyre.
Bottom line is that if you are going to watch a version it would be either 1973 or 1983 version, personally I would pick the 1983 (Tim Dalton and Zelah Clarke) if not for anything else that it has the most emotion, best actors in the roles and they actually use the Bronte dialogue throughout the film - something that is almost never done by some strange reason.
I think the 1983 version is the best and the only adaption that I own on DVD.
"Look after yourself,seeing that's what you're best at!"
'83 for dalton's ultimate hotness and total passion (especially when jane leaves). also the only one in my opinion who actually looks really maimed (made hotter with the messy black hair and scar, though). gypsy scene really stupid in this one. but i hated zelah clarke as jane. she is just so boring, not at all like the jane i imagined, who is scrawnier and more gothic-looking to suit the bronte novel.
'73 version is best for the teasing/intelligent relationship between jane and rochester. jayston does the witty-weird lines best where dalton always seemed kind of awkward in any of those teasing situations (ie right after they're engaged and they meet in the morning. ugh. only time dalton was really kind of bad.) rochester's maimed appearance at the end of the'73 one was stupid, though (you could clearly see the lump of his hand moving around inside his vest). sorcha cusack by FAR the best jane ive ever seen.
want passion and emotion, go '83
want intelligence, dialogue and great jane, go '73
I don't agree with the dialogue compliment of the 1973 version. They changed it far too much of the Bronte dialogue. Unlike the 1983 version which used the majority of Bronte's brilliant dialogue.
share[deleted]
I'm confused by your comments on the 1973 dialogue, because I always thought out of all the versions I've seen, including the 1983 one, that the 1973 one was the most faithful to the book.
shareI agree with you that the 1973 dialogue is more faithful to the original text.
As to the best version - well for me it is definately the 1973 adaptation. There were things I liked about the 1983 version, but I find the "73 performances from Jayston and Cusack far more compelling. Jayston, in particular, brings a warmth, depth and subtlety to Rochester that Dalton's portrayal lacks. It can't be easy for an actor to convey the original Bronte dialogue in a way meaningful to modern audiences (as the writers of the BBC 2006 version obviously thought!) but I think Jayston handles it beautifully.
So - for me, the best versions are: 1973 then 1983 then 2006. The best Rochesters are; Michael Jayston then Toby Stephens and Timothy Dalton. ( I normally like Ciaran Hinds but I'm afraid I found his Rochester totally unbelievable!)
Which is the "best" version???
Er...well, OBVIOUSLY that's a matter of opinion!!! ^_~
This one (1983 miniseries) IS my favorite dramatization of it so far...
but the book is even better, of course!!! ^_^
The new (Masterpiece Theatre) version definitely has "more drama"...but it's
not really my style of drama...a bit too "soap opera" for my taste...but some
people are praising it to the skies...whatever...to EACH his/her OWN!!! ^_^
Kit =^___^=
=^___^=
"I'm confused by your comments on the 1973 dialogue, because I always thought out of all the versions I've seen, including the 1983 one, that the 1973 one was the most faithful to the book"
I don't think so. The 1983 version is the most faithful version. There is hardly any changes made to the dialogue in the 1983 version unlike the 1973.
I have heard mixed reports of the 2006 version. If you think the 1983 version is the greatest (and the 1973 certainly very good as well) is it worth seeing. Some seem to think it is nothing like the novel? Is it worth buying?
I just saw the 2006 adaptation and I enjoyed it, but everyone has stated that it was unfaithful to the novel. It’s been some years since I read Jane Eyre and it does seem like alot of parts and dialogue were excluded from the film.
And the overall consensus (on several Jane Eyre boards) seems to be that the 1973 and 1983 versions are the best of all the adaptations. I've seen bits and pieces of both versions, so I don't recall much from them. So besides these two; which other versions are worth watching?
I it worth buying? Well I still prefer the 1973 then the '83 versions best but I will buy this when it's avaialable because I did enjoy it.
I am probably a bit of a purist when it comes to adaptations so I was irritated by the way this version cut the original dialogue about and by some of the changes made, BUT...if you can suspend disbelief and just enjoy, it is VERY good. It's beautifully filmed and I liked Toby Stephens And Ruth Wilson's performances but - be warned - the original dialogue tends to be much simplified and summarised. There are some changes, too, to the action - some of which are discussed in a thread on the '73 board (the seance and gypsy scene) - and whilst some people seem to like them they just jarred on me. My 15 yr old daughter, however, who isn't as familiar with the book as I am, loved this adaptation.
I would definitely say see this version but I'd be interested to hear what you thought of it.
( I should add that my comments are based on only one veiwing of the programme - when it aired on BBC last year)
I can understand why your daughter enjoyed the 2006 version. It's very easy to follow and the dialogue has been simplified. I can remember watching parts of the 1973 and 1983 versions as a teenager. And of course like most kids I couldn't sit through the whole film. I’ll be able to better comprehend and appreciate those versions now that I’m older. And it’s also been about 8 years since I read the novel, so I plan to re-read it as well.
share