Am replying belatedly to this thread because I just discovered it. Have been catching up lately on all the "Jane Eyre"s I can find; and of those I've seen, the only two that I think really work dramatically, i.e. where both Jane and Rochester are credible and interesting, both individually and as a pair, are this and the latest BBC version; and the latter made it easier for itself by tweaking both characters quite a bit. (Note: I like Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds in a lot of things, but thought they were hopeless in these roles!--and an impossible match, to boot!) Watching this one a second time, I'm noticing two things: (1) Compared to the Zelah Clarke/Timothy Dalton version, which I just saw, the actors are all MUCH more interesting (i.e. better), ESPECIALLY the two leads--with the posible exception of the one playing St. John. The one in the Dalton version isn't very exciting, but the one here, or his director, comes down pretty hard on the character--even considering the character (though the actor bears a remarkable resemblance to portraits of Branwell, which may have been the idea). (2) The whole thing is played like Jane Austen!--Jane and Rochester could almost be Elizabeth and Darcy; and their dialogues, which are at the center of the drama, and sound as if they were more fully rendered here than in other adaptations, are their style of courtship, and are funny as often as they are distressing. So, while this adaptation works less well than some others as a Gothic mystery, it's the only one that succeeds as a (serious) comedy of manners--which isn't how I remember the book ; but since it plays successfully that way, I assume the basis for that reading must be there.
reply
share