Samantha Morton


She is a wonderful actress, but she was much too pretty to play Jane.

reply

Your absolutely right. :)

reply

Naw. I disagree. I think she was just plain enough. What did you expect? Hairy warts? C'mon.

What makes as monster and what makes a man?

reply

Not expecting hairy warts at all. Watch the version with Joan Fontaine playing Jane. Joan was made up plain, and in my opinion, far more believable as Jane as she was written in the book.

reply

Did you know that she went to my school. The West Bridgford School

reply

Did you get to meet her?

What makes as monster and what makes a man?

reply

She had on no makeup, no ornaments and her hair was pulled back severely. She made no attempt at embellishment and would have been considered (at the time of this story) quite a "plain" Jane indeed. Pardon the pun :) I thought the fire between Samantha and Ciaran was the most natural and intense I've seen on the screen in ages. I loved this movie and only wish it could have been much longer.

reply

I agree retroscope - they're the most passionate Jane and Rochie-Man (!). I think Ciaran has more intensity and passion than Samantha though.

reply

This is the only version of Jane Eyre that I've seen so far (and I haven't read the book). However, I thought that Samantha's acting technique was a little odd. She looked into space a lot, which made her look blind because she didn't look the other actor(s) in the face. I enjoyed the movie, but I thought that it was strange that she never looked Edward in the face. Maybe she wasn't supposed to, but in my opinion she should have. I think it would have made some of the scenes more convincing.

reply

I thought she was perfect as Jane. She's supposed to have an otherworldly, daydreamy feel to her, hence the looking into space I suppose. She captured the quaint, quiet, Quakerish side to Jane wonderfully. And I didn't think she was too pretty. But I only saw it once at Thanksgiving.... must watch again! :)

Can words go straight to the heart?...Can words be as direct as the scent of roses?

reply

I just went and looked at the actress' picture (for some reason I had the girl who played Molly in Wives and Daughters in my head) and I remembered again, yes, she was perfect in appearance as Jane. She had this austere beauty about her, peaceful plain look it felt like... even though her photo on here makes her look much prettier. It's the acting that affects the looks, not just the actual appearance of a person.

And for those who didn't like her in this version, maybe you just don't understand shy people? Although perhaps that's unfair to say if you love the book (and would hopefully have to understand Jane in there).... but I find that's often the case. Take the misunderstanding by many of Fanny in Mansfield Park (by Jane Austen), and not in the movie where they sexed her up, but the book.

Can words go straight to the heart?...Can words be as direct as the scent of roses?

reply

I completely agree. I kept thinking to myself she would play a blind person wonderfully. I wondered if she didn't dare look him in the eye because she was afraid to. Maybe she didn't think she would be strong enough to say no. I can't say as I blame her cuz Ciaran Hinds looking at me like that, holding my hand like that and it's over. Put a fork in me, I'm done. You don't come by passion like that every day. I consider myself to have quite a bit of self control when it comes to the menfolk, but there's no way I could say no him.

reply

I totally agree with your comments about Ciaran Hinds I think he is the most believable Rochester He is not ugly , neither is he handsome but in some scenes eg watching the sunset when he comes to stand by Jane(freeze the picture at this point and see what an amazing couple they look) he,s the sexiest thing on two legs and his voice is so gentle as he asks her to watch the sunset on the day of his wedding. I've read comments by others that there is no chemistry between Samantha and Ciaran. Have they been watching the same movie? They possitively sizzle together!

reply

I think the not looking others in the face serves several purposes. Back when the novel is set a governess would have been hired help and to look your employer in the face too directly might have been disrespectful. Also Jane is an orphan who has been through quite a lot in her young life. That would have an effect on her so that defrance towards authority figures would be something she would have had trained into her. So her self esteem would have taken some blows just from that. Children on the other hand are weaker beings than other adults who are in a position of authority over you. So she is emotionally damaged from her childhood and finds it hard to look other adults in the face as well as the fact that other adults have some power over her. Result she finds it hard to look directly at them.

reply

Most everybody who has played Jane is much too pretty to play Jane. Morton played Sophia in "Tom Jones" for the same producers (and some of the same actors and even furniture) around the same time, and in that she plays a beauty who is the love of Tom Jones' life and the object of lust of more than one guy along the way.

I thought Morton was absolutely perfect, particularly her age, and the age difference with Hinds.

There was one "plain" Jane that I heard of - the one opposite Timothy Dalton - but she was too old. Jane is a teen-ager.

The book is not consistent about Rochester's age. At one point he is described as "near forty". When the time period since he married Bertha is described, he might be younger. At any case, he's about 20 years older than Jane. I think he's definitely older than 35. Anyway, my favorite thing about this version is it's the only one that conveys the dynamic between Rochester and Jane as it is in the book.

reply

I have mixed feelings about this version. I have been reading the book since grade school and have read it many times. The first version that I watched was the multi-episode one with Timothy Dalton. Although Timothy was too handsome (LOL), that version was wonderful and so true to the book thanks to its length and the wonderful actress who played Jane perfectly.

This version is pretty good, for reducing the story to 1 hr. and 40 minutes. I loved Samantha Morton as Harriet in Emma, so I was looking forward to seeing her play Jane Eyre. I thought she was really good but that due to the shortness of the film, they did not portray her as smart and witty and interesting as they needed to (and as the long version does). I though Ciaran was pretty wonderful as Rochester up until the scene when he introduces his real wife, and then he just became too weird and disturbing after that. The scene where Jane leaves him was almost unbearably bad to me.

The part of the story containing Jane's cousins was over before I could blink, which I can understand from the time constraints but it didn't help my impression of the movie.

Other than that, I'd say it is a decent version. I gave it an 8/10. One more thing, their first kiss was just.....odd........LOL

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I actually liked that kiss. Very gentle and emotional

"She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock.
She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on
the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita. Light of my life,
fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lolita..."

reply

I thought the kissing was odd, but then I got to thinking that Jane is supposed to be "virginal" (is that a word?) and had no experience kissing, so that maybe that is why they played it so strange.

This is the first time I've watched this version of Jane Eyre. It was too short, but enjoyable. Morton and Hinds were very good. George C. Scott is still my favorite Mr. Rochester, but Ciaran was a close second. Waiting for the Timothy Dalton version so show up from Netflix, but can't see him as the gruff, "ulgy" Mr. R. Will have to wait and see how it plays out.

My favorite part of this version was when Jane returns from her Aunt's house and he is sitting up on the wall. The dialogue that follows was wonderful. His "pity me" attitude about not getting any letters was funny and touching.

reply

I'be seen three versions of Jane Eyre and read the book and the best Jane I've ever seen was Samantha. And the best Rochester happened to also be Cirian for me. William Hurt played him rather cold and aloof, and the one thing that Rochester is above all others is passionate, which draws "simple" Jane to him on the first place. He is everything her education drew her away from and that's why she is so intrigued.

The actress also made a wonderful job bringing herself down on her looks. She is naturally very interesting to look at, but she tried her damnest not to make herself pretty and it paid off. Besides, Jane is not supposed to be ugly, just not uncommonly pretty. And lets remember that since Jane Eyre is written in first person the POV is very biased. Jane was taught to think of herself as plain, so maybe she portrayed that without being overly plain in real life, and that's how Samantha made it look. I think she rocked. And her chemistry with Cirian made the rest of the film.

reply

I wacthed this version at school about 5 years ago and can remeber everyone saying she did something very starange with her mouth and teeth but cant remeber so.
I do think that she was a brilliant Jane and Cirian a good Rochester, but the new BBC production was AMAZING - apart form them lieing on a bed together unmarried I thought it was very accurate and just plain fantastic. and OMG was Toby Stephans fit as

reply

I found Samantha Morton perfect as Jane, much as I would have imagined her from the novel. Yes, the actress is attractive but she was done up quite severely here with no fancy embellishments and came across very well to me as plain. She conveyed Jane's emotions perfectly and, like others here, I appreciated the intense chemistry betwen this Jane and Ciaran Hind's Mr. Rochester!

reply

Agreed, that is the only fault I find with casting her as Jane.

my god its full of stars

reply