MovieChat Forums > Jane Eyre (1973) Discussion > DVDTalk.com review

DVDTalk.com review

posted 18 years ago by sophie_amundsen
12 replies | jump to latest

You might want to take a look at this rather scathing review:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=22950

It raises some of the concerns we were talking about- the Reeds, young Jane, and the voice over. But I cannot comprehend the vague accusations of the acting being horrible. She mentions the 1983 version twice, and I'm sorry to say but a lot of people who love the newer version with a passion are having some knee-jerk reactions to this earlier version. I would hardly imagine telling someone to skip seeing any version, and this one least of all.

***
Bronteana Bronte Studies Blog:

http://bronteana.blogspot.com

[–] kenzie2 18 years ago

Just read the review and I'd like to know what planet she is on, has she been watching the same adaptation as us. I've read loads of reviews and comments and even people who prefer other versions admit that the 1973 one is pretty good and the acting excellent. She claims to have read the book, but I wonder if she has read anything more adventurous than Enid Blyton's Famous 5. I'm sorry, I know everyone is entitled to their views, but come on! All I can suggest is that she keeps taking the tablets!

[–] Dr. Cumin 18 years ago

This review just made me angry and then I came to my senses and laughed. It was that ridiculous. Look, I will readily admit to the miscasting of Young Jane and the definite inferiority of the first part to the rest of the miniseries. (Although I have mentioned before what a terrific Helen Burns we have in the 1973 adaptation). I thought the Gateshead cousins' acting was of course weaker than the Lowood scenes.
If she's going to bring up the 1983 version (And I've never read a review of Jane Eyre that didn't start comparing previous dramatizations), I would love to hear this critic, in the interest of full disclosure, admit to the dreadful Helen Burns of 1983. This isn't nitpicking as Helen is vital to Jane's character development.
What probably distresses me most is that this critic says to just "skip it" as if it has no merit whatsoever. She rather lost credibility with me when she just dismissed the acting as "dreadful." Jayston's Rochester is a model of subtle emotions and I'd love to know what this fan base has been moved by all these years then!?. Interesting that prior to this, I've never read any bad remarks about this version, even by those who prefer the 1983. I might have believed it more if she could have found something----anything nice to say.

Read Yolanda's terrific reply to that review on the same website. She articulated everything far better than I could ever hope to.

[–] sophie_amundsen 18 years ago

At least she does give credit to Geoffrey Whitehead, who did a splendid job as St.John... I agree that the voiceovers don't always complement the action (in the first episode especially), but I was struck by the natural quality of the acting exhibited by the rest of the cast (excluding the Reeds and Young Jane). It would take a lot more than a few awkward moments to warrant discarding a 4 hour production, but she doesn't site anything worthy of such an extreme reaction. There are two versions of JE which I find it difficult to sit through, but I have never told anyone not to see them. I found the 1997 version (with Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds) to be utterly horrendous and in some cases offensive but even that one had its merits and deserves to be seen.

I think Yolanda was right in making the extreme claim that the 1983 version is disasterous- if the 1973 version is a waste of time, then so must the 1983 version be which is at least as good as the 1973 version by most peoples' standards. It is also quite astonishing that fan support for the production succeeded in getting the 1973 version released after 30 years. If I read correctly, she accounts for this by suggesting that it is Charlotte's story shining through the mess. It makes her feel better, I guess, to think that thousands of people are that desperate for anything to do with Jane Eyre that they would fight so hard for so long. It really is a silly idea.

***
Bronteana Bronte Studies Blog:

http://bronteana.blogspot.com

[–] kenzie2 18 years ago

Is there any way other reviews can be added to the site as I think it would be nice to add a fair, positive review to the joke of a review which has been posted.

[–] sophie_amundsen 18 years ago

It doesn't look like it. Still, if people are curious about it they're sure to find us eventually. We make a lot of noise, I think!

***
Bronteana Bronte Studies Blog:

http://bronteana.blogspot.com

[–] lucy_snowe 18 years ago

Bah what a dreadful review. I wish people would appreciate both versions. They are different enough to both have a place in the canon, I think. To be fair, I suppose it is quite hard to change Rochester allegiance if you have nailed your colours to the post at an early age, and Jayston might be quite a shock after Dalton. For my part I always took against Dalton because he was so different from Orson Welles!

[–] sophie_amundsen 18 years ago

I like them both- I'm hoping that when the new series is available I'll have three BBC productions that I enjoy (the radio adaptation aside- even though it is excellent too). I just never felt satisfied with the 1983 version so much. But it is miles better than the others- in my opinion, only the 1973 version excepted.

***
Bronteana Bronte Studies Blog:

http://bronteana.blogspot.com

[–] aiu 18 years ago

Ha!Ha! It seems that words "over-theatrical" and "false" have different meanings for different persons. I personally dislike the '83 version for exactly the reasons this reviewer gave for '73 version. Moreover, I could not detect any bit of falsehood in Jayston's and Sorcha's performances. Maybe the reviewer just mixed the movies: what she/he says about '73 version applies to '83 version and viceversa :)

[–] kat63 18 years ago

It's a laughable review, agree I think she must have got her versions mixed up, either that or else she is just completely mad!!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kenzie2 18 years ago

I appreciate that you like the 1983 version better. But I find your comment about Sorcha being frumpy really weird, as this was my one and only gripe about Sorcha (who incidentally I think was exceptional), and that was that sometimes she looked too pretty for the part, especially in the wonderful After the fire scene. To me Zelah was incredibly frumpy because she looked much, much too old for the part, and therefore for me Zelah and Tim made a really strange couple.

I also just can't understand how the reviewer could say the acting was dreadful and to "skip it". Much as I infinitely prefer the 1973 version there are elements of the 1983 version that I think were okay and even though overall I don't think the acting or characterisation is anywhere near on a par to the 1973 version, I can still appreciate that the acting is of a fairly good standard.

I agree wholeheartedly with Yolanda's reply that the review was a "touch of sour grapes".

[–] sophie_amundsen 18 years ago

I have always thought that Sian Pattenden, and the actors playing the Reed cousins and Mrs. Reed (Bessy, Abbott, and Grace Poole as well) in the 1983 version were all excellent and would be difficult to surpass. Sadly the actors playing those parts in the 1973 version are awful, by any standard. They let down an otherwise marvellous production. However, the rest of the supporting cast in the 1983 version are completely forgettable and unremarkable. In contrast, Stephanie Beacham as Blanche is simply perfect- even physically, and Geoffrey Whitehead is the finest St.John to date- cold yet obviously highly ambitious. I was very impressed with the 1973 version's Helen as well. Even Adele was played in a far less theatrical way.

Timothy Dalton was my favourite actor in the role, but I was never satisfied completely with his performance. I was impatient with him because I could see that he was capable of more than he gave. He wastes a lot of screen time with meaningless stares. I was also annoyed by his constant smiling during scenes such as when he's telling Jane how miserable his life is: it looks rather like he is sharing a joke with her. He has moments of brilliance, but he isn't consistent. Jayton shows infinitely more sensitivity to the character's complexity even if he is less 'exciting.' At times, I feel as though in general Dalton might have been playing a character while Jayston is playing an individual.

I think the 1983 version is excellent as well, but I never felt any real enthusiasm for the production and it has some obvious faults that could be improved upon (and I hope will be with the new production). I certainly don't see how the reviewer is justified in taking two such excellent productions, saying one is good and the other not worth seeing.

***
Bronteana Bronte Studies Blog:

http://bronteana.blogspot.com