I always thought of Jane as someone with quiet passion, someone in full control over themselves and their beliefs. When her passion is roused, its reaches high levels. Jane in this version was boring, bland and dead in her eyes.
Compared to Dalton, who was PERFECT Rochester, she fell short.
Dont feed the trolls!!
janet, i agree. this is my least favorite adaptation. you are right, timothy dalton was perfect as rochester, but in the wrong version. my problems with this one are that it lacked the moodiness the book demands, the sets were too brightly lit and small, and jane did lack that vigor we both expect. this came across as almost a high school drama class production.
if you haven't seen the version with ciaran hinds and samantha morton, it's got all the passion this one lacked. samantha morton was the perfect jane.
I agree three! And, whilst I liked him a lot, Timothy acted his socks off a little too much.
The 1997 version was certainly passionate. We're never left in any doubt of their growing love for each other (unlike the latest adaptation). However, it had it's faults. Rochester was never that angry, and Jane was a little too outspoken and defiant. Still, not a bad attempt.
My favourite Jane is Ruth Wilson.
- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?
To each his/her own!
1983 is my favorite, and 1997 is down towards the bottom. One scene from 1997 in particular irks me. Rochester says he is going to marry Blanche and Jane basically says she hopes they'll be happy. That certainly never happened in the book. Jane would never have said that.
Besides all that, I cannot abide Samantha Morton in anything. But I thought Zelah Clarke was so sweet. I just loved her in the scene when she finds out she's an heiress and the Riverses are her cousins. She is positively giddy and is just adorable.
http://currentscene.wordpress.com
Agree, Julie, I thought Zelah and her green eyes made a lovely Jane.
shareI thought Zelah Clarke was so sweet