MovieChat Forums > Wide Sargasso Sea (1993) Discussion > Prequel to Jane Eyre

Prequel to Jane Eyre

posted 19 years ago by Kathy-70
20 replies | jump to latest

I haven't seen Wide Sargasso Sea for several years but I remember that it was quite good and thought-provoking.

If anyone has read the book or seen the movie of Charlotte Bronte's gothic novel "Jane Eyre", I'm sure you are familiar with Edward Rochester as he appears in that story. A lonely middle-aged man (in England) who hires a tutor/nanny for his only daughter. Jane Eyre is the young English tutor and she assumes that Rochester is a widower, but she later learns that his wife is alive (hidden away and hopelessly insane).

Wide Sargasso Sea tells about Rochester's early years as he met and married his wife, and her sanity slowly dissolves. It could not have ended any other way and nor could it have ended happily. Otherwise this story could not be a prequel to the Bronte book which was written a century before it. The writers did a nice job of telling this story and tying up the loose ends, but still keeping the mystery to the end.

[–] bring_your_own_poison 18 years ago

Jean Rhys' point is that Antoinette did not loose her sanity at all. It was Rochester's cruel treatment of her which moved her towards anger and rashness, yes, but not madness. The act of burning down Rochester's house was not a loss of control, but rather Antoinette's attempt to regain it.

[–] newtownartist 17 years ago

You are very sensitive and insightful....I'm just wondering, to me, the movie wasn't exactly a prequel. I mean, the characters weren't neccesarily the exact same ones as in "Jane Eyre", but more like prototypes. Weren't there other Victorian novels with mad x-wives locked away somewhere? Maybe not, but it seems like there were.
Anyway, "Wide Sargasso Sea" turns "Jane Eyre" on its head, because you come to the story from a 180 degree different perspective after you've seen it.

That's one of the reasons I so loved the film. Not only was it fantastic completely on its own, but it also made the point (if you know "Jane Eyre") that perspective changes everything.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bring_your_own_poison 16 years ago

The changes Rhys made were an attempt to correct what she felt was wrongdoing on the part of Bronte - the portrayal of the 'mad woman in the attic'. She was aware of the supposed madness that many creole women suffered from when taken to England (she was a Creole heiress herself)and understood its cause far more than Bronte appeared to. She wanted to cast light on Jane Eyre's Bertha and portray her in a positive, feminist light.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bring_your_own_poison 16 years ago

Rhys' Rochester is an Everyman. He represents the destructive, oppressive male influence upon the free Creole women. There is no better way to demonstrate this than by denying him his name.

He is not a facsimile of Bronte's Rochester just as Antoinette differs from Bertha. To attempt to recreate these characters exactly would be pointless - they are instead a starting point for her own characters to grow from; a point of reference.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Clemencedane 13 years ago

To say "she understood its cause far more than Bronte appeared to" presumes that Rhys knew more about Bronte's characters than Bronte did. Rhys is projecting her own story and concerns onto an author from a previous century. She uses Jane Eyre as a stepping off point to create her own novel and explore the themes she wants to. That does not mean that she has in some sense taken over the true ownership of the actual Rochester and Bertha from Bronte. It is an intrepretation, even a fantasia on another author's composition.

[–] FetzerZinfandel 8 years ago

While I enjoyed both Jane Eyre AND Wide Sargasso Sea, how could Rhys "correct" "wrongdoing" of someone who wrote a novel long before she was born?
As the other poster says so eloquently, how would Rhys know more about Bronte's character than Bronte?

She created a DIFFERENT back story. One that she felt was more politically respectful. Is that wrong? No. Was Bronte wrong? No. Different times, different values.... but no, she didn't somehow "fix" Bronte.

I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself 

[–] qed77 10 years ago

Hi newtownartist:

Very insightful post

I would describe the book and this movie as more of a response to Jane Eyre rather than a its prequel.

R = f(B), where:
R = Reality, B = Belief

[–] selenaleong 16 years ago

this is an excellent summarization. "wide sargasso sea" is, in my opinion, a clash of racism/classism/misogyny and the inability of an uptight british man unable to appreciate a beautiful, sensual woman born in a world he cannot comprehend. as a result, he treats her poorly and she retaliates in the only way she knows how - by burning down the house (in "jane eyre") just as the slaves burned down the house in "wide sargasso sea." for bertha, it is her rebirth, her salvation, her rejuvenation and reclamation of power.

[–] jeffyoung1 11 years ago

I agree with you. I watched WIDE SARGASSO SEA when it first came out. I never understood their relationship. The young, handsome but penniless Englishman is at first happy with his new, beautiful, rich wife, although he intensely dislikes living on the hot, humid, isolated island, missing his beloved, milder weather England. Who could blame him there. But when he discovers his eldest brother is deceased, leaving the family wealth and lands to him, then his marriage is no longer his salvation. It is now an albatross because he wants to return to Englsnd. So inexplicably he grows cold and mean towards his wife, who responds by becoming emotionally distraught then unbalanced. His wife, who seemed a strong woman in the beginning really was a psychologically frail woman who hid behind a facade of creole woman passion and carefree attitude.

[–] SassMcG 16 years ago

I just saw this movie for the first time and I had no idea it was a "prequel" to Jane Eyre. That just fascinated me when I realized it was the SAME Edward Rochester. When I realized it was him and Jane Eyre was involved I couldn't help but feel really bad for Antoinette, even more so than I already did because I knew the story of Jane Eyre already. It really makes the story of Jane Eyre much more interesting and completely changes the perspective!

[–] reader304 16 years ago

I had to read both books for school and then compare them. There was a footnote in my copy of Wide Sargasso Sea that pointed out that Jane Eyre takes place in 1800-1820ish and says that 15 years have passed since the marriage in Jamaica. However, Wide Sargasso Sea starts in the 1840s. Jean Rhys moved it to have it take place during the tumultuous times following the freeing of slaves in the British Empire, and to have it line up more with her family's experiences as Creoles. So in that sense, it is not exactly a prequel.

But clearly the details of the stories,if not the dates, match up closely enough to show that Rhys intended it as a prequel to the general situation of Jane Eyre.

POTENTIAL SPOILERS BELOW

In "Jane Eyre" Rochester marries a woman named Bertha Antoinetta Mason, who has a crazy mother and a retarded brother who died, in the Caribbean, then takes her to England and locks her in the attic. In "Wide Sargasso Sea" a woman named Antoinette (with a retarded little brother who died) from the Caribbean marries an Englishman who insists on calling her Bertha, takes her to England, and locks her in the attic. Both stories end with her burning down the house, although in Jane Eyre details of where the fire starts are different. Even the names of the servants are the same (Wide Sargasso Sea's third chapter begins with a statement from Grace Poole, who references a Mrs. F. In Jane Eyre, Bertha's caretaker is Grace Poole and the housekeeper is Mrs. Fairfax.) Anyway that's all I know about it.

respectfully yours, reader304

[–] ejj1955 15 years ago

I just have a small note on the first post in this thread, which says that Jane Eyre was hired by Rochester as a governess for his daughter and that Jane assumes he is a widower. In fact, the child, Adele, is presented as his ward or adopted daughter; she is French. I think there's a hint that perhaps she's his illegitimate daughter, but this is never confirmed.

Jane does assume he's a bachelor, and an eligible one--he seems to be courting the elegant Blanche (whose last name I forget); Blanche and her mother are certainly eager to catch this wealthy man.

This is an interesting movie and I imagine the book is, too, but it doesn't, to my mind, have much to do with how one reads Jane Eyre, which stands on its own. It's merely one author's interpretation of what the back story might be and doesn't have any more validity than "Scarlett" does when reading "Gone with the Wind" (although I think it's much better than that so-called sequel). But ultimately it's up to each reader to decide whether Scarlett and Rhett ever got back together, and it's up to each reader to imagine what Bertha Mason Rochester's life might have been like before she was locked in the attic.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Aribelusa 15 years ago

It is offically called a prequel, but in a way that understates the books intention and skews Bronte’s novel, for Jane Eyre is about Jane’s own journey, and Rochester’s journey is a different story altogether.

From what I have read about Rhys' take on her book is that she wanted to reverse the awful treatment of the Creole character, Rochester's lunatic wife he keeps locked away for the good of everyone, in the novel Jane Eyre. Rhys' sentiments convey that the prior events of her life undermines and demoralizes Bertha, whose real name is Antoinette, so deeply, it would make any woman go awry.

When we meet Antoinette at the time Bronte unveils her, she is only a shell of herself, but from her own perspective as in WSS, she is really depressed detached and dejected, living on dreams, fantasies and the past; there is no madness only misery which she attributes to two people: Richard Mason and Edward Rochester. Who can blame her?

So YES, Wide Sargasso Sea makes one question perspective. WSS is Antoinette time to tell her side, which in the book; she actually says “there is always another side”. And almost 120 years in between 1847-1966, perspectives have really changed, however, many other unwarranted concepts from both era may have seem all too familiar [e.g. the existing distrust among people who are from different backgrounds].

[–] whitespirit26 14 years ago

Ejj, I agree with you except for the words about Scarlett; Scarlett WAS an official sequel, tied quite tightly with the original, and concluded the story perfectly. This film, if a prequel, is more of a what-if than anything else. I'd rather see it as a stand-alone, because when connected to Jane Eyre, both stories seem to react like matter and anti-matter together: one inevitably spins wildly out of control and harmony, and the two CANNOT work together. Comparing this with Scarlett's relation to Gone With the Wind is faulty in the extreme. Feminist perspective, my foot; I'm rather sick of femmies trying to take perfectly great and deep characters like Rochester and reduce them to your typical misogynistic, prejudiced, the-big-bad-white-man-oppressed-me and boohoo. Not original in the slightest. If I'm going to spend my time on this film, it sure as hell better offer me something better than that.

[–] themidnightstar 12 years ago

I remember being very disappointed in this movie by how silly and salacious dialogue and the sex scenes were and that put me off the book, perhaps wrongly. I first read Jane Eyre over 40 years ago and even then I had my doubts about Mr. Rochester. What kind of man tries, through emotional manipulation and bullying, to trick an innocent young woman he "loves" into marrying him illegally potentially ruining her life and the lives of their children? What kind of love is that? What kind of man is he really? The kind who might marry somebody and then lock her in the attic when she doesn't just suit him. I wonder if the more recent production of this story is less ridiculous.