Answering Objections to the Bedroom Scene - Jane Eyre (2007) Discussion

[–] dreamwork15 15 years ago

Wow, what to say....they all think that people in the 19th century didn't have sex because it was forbidden to write about it.
I don't think they were so different from us when out of sight.

The bedroom scene was so sweet and passionate and natural. I didn't feel offended and I thought it was so natural, because they wanted each other so badly and couldn't be together. His desperation was so painful and there wasn't anything dirty in it. And since she wouldn't change her mind, he tempted her with passion that she never has tasted before.
They don't even french kissing.
But I loved that scene, every time he moans, I faint... HA HA

reply

[–] pmvk 14 years ago

Yes, indeed, some people seem to think that people in the 19th century didn't have sex.

IMO the intention of the bedroom scene was to find a visual language for what was going on with Jane before she left Rochester. I suppose the idea was to show that she did feel tempted, that she wasn't so far away from yielding, because, after all, she was passionately in love with the man. The fact that she left him doesn't mean that she didn't want to have sex with him unless they were married; on the contrary, she had to leave him because she knew that if she stayed, she wouldn't be able to resist him.

They found a visual language to show that Jane's feelings for Rochester were not merely friendship or a poor girl's gratitude for a rich man's kindness. It isn't gratitude in the beginning and it isn't pity in the end. It is all about being passionately in love.

Even in the book this scene is about seduction: Rochester carries Jane away, she hardly knows where, untils she feels "the reviving warmth of a fire", he "puts wine to her lips", he is "quite near", wants to kiss her and even thinks of "trying violence", he wants to make her stay by embracing and kissing her. The bedroom scene is full of this warm, seductive atmosphere with Rochester pressuring her to give in, Jane being in a rather passive role, feeling tempted and struggling to resist.

Besides, even if I had objections to the bedroom scene (which I don't have), I'd find it hard to dislike it because it is very sensual and it's a pleasure to watch.

reply

[–] whenim64 12 years ago

Nice comment. He could stick his boots under my bed anytime.

reply

[–] Unwanted_Birdtamer 15 years ago

The problem I have with it is not the passion or sexual aspect. It's that in the book, "I remembered caresses were now forbidden. I turned my face away and put his aside." She would not let him kiss her, other times he tried to put his head on her shoulder or hold her, and she would not let him. She knows that if he gets too close, she may falter, and she cannot risk that--she's far too damaged to stay. At the end of their discussion, he does try to tempt her with two kisses on the forehead and cheek and she frees herself "rapidly and completely" from his restraint. She gives him a very brief goodbye kiss on the cheek before going back into her room, but it's a very chaste, "you are lost to me forever" kind of kiss. It's the complete reversal of the scene in the bedroom, and that's what I don't care for.
Not only that, but in that scene, I see little of Jane's struggle with herself or despair at knowing she must leave; she doesn't seem to putting up any kind of resistance and almost seems to agree with Rochester that she should stay. So the next scene when she's leaving doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In the book, Jane's resolve and strength in this whole scene are absolutely amazing. Her heart is broken, the one person she has loved and trusted has betrayed her, she loves him still, it tears her apart to leave, but in order to go on, she has to. To stay with him in the way he wants would absolutely destroy her even further. She would betraying herself then, and no matter how shattered, she cannot do that. That's what's so amazing about Jane, no matter how neglected, abused, unloved she was, she knows her own worth and she cannot settle or compromise herself into a false position. To change that scene to one like the bedroom where she is very passive, letting him do what he will, no signs of internal struggle or resolve is, in my opinion, diminishing her character.

Come, we must press against the tide of naughtiness. Mind your step.

reply

[–] dreamwork15 15 years ago

Not only that, but in that scene, I see little of Jane's struggle with herself or despair at knowing she must leave; she doesn't seem to putting up any kind of resistance and almost seems to agree with Rochester that she should stay. So the next scene when she's leaving doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

What do you mean she doesn't struggle?
He tries to keep her by kissing her, and I think she needed a lot more resistance and will to leave him, it is much easier not to touch someone and leave, than to do it while 'feeling the very beat of someone's heart within one's breast.'-that is what he wanted to show to her.
They struggle with every kiss - he does to make her stay, and she to have the force to leave him. I think this way her decision to go was much more powerful, because she manages to win over the desire she feels for him. And she is very resolute from the beginning and keep saying - I must leave you.

Do you really mind so much their touching each other? Because apart from that, the plot is the same.
Another thing; I had a problem with this part in the book - the Rochester's talking and talking and talking...I don't think people behave like that in a real life, I found it more credible in the movie, so shoot me.

reply

[–] Unwanted_Birdtamer 15 years ago

I saw little struggle. Again, it's a complete reversal of the scene in the book where she won't and can't let him touch her. Plot may still be the same, but the scene is completely different, and since it's one of the most pivotal scenes in the entire book and goes against what Jane has resolved and what her character will allow and again, makes her rather passive, I mind.

Come, we must press against the tide of naughtiness. Mind your step.

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

he film's constant emphasis on the sexual attraction between Rochester and Jane is a gross deviation from the novel, which depicts a love between soul-mates, a love that arises from affinity of character and spirit.

For me, this is a complete misunderstanding of the original text which, you have to remember, outraged much of Victorian society and about which the publishers had severe reservations of their own.

Much of the novel and almost everything to do with the passionate natures of the two leads, is actually written in provocatively warm language. Watch out for it wherever there is a fire. It's not just between Rochester and Jane. There is a warm Sapphic edge to the scene in Miss Temple's room when Jane and Hester go there for crumpets. You don't even need to look for sexual overtones. It's there in Jane from the beginning. This is the passage after the argument with Mrs Reed before she goes to Lowood:

I was left there alone—winner of the field. It was the hardest battle I had fought, and the first victory I had gained: I stood awhile on the rug, where Mr. Brocklehurst had stood, and I enjoyed my conqueror’s solitude. First, I smiled to myself and felt elate; but this fierce pleasure subsided in me as fast as did the accelerated throb of my pulses. A child cannot quarrel with its elders, as I had done; cannot give its furious feelings uncontrolled play, as I had given mine, without experiencing afterwards the pang of remorse and the chill of reaction. A ridge of lighted heath, alive, glancing, devouring, would have been a meet emblem of my mind when I accused and menaced Mrs. Reed: the same ridge, black and blasted after the flames are dead, would have represented as meetly my subsequent condition, when half-an-hour’s silence and reflection had shown me the madness of my conduct, and the dreariness of my hated and hating position.

This is the Jane that Ruth and 06 delivers. The one we always knew was there. A girl, I would say, incapable of a platonic relationship based on spiritual affinities. The stretching of the narrative to deliver, in the bedroom, a true sense of what each is giving up is one of the biggest acheivemnents of the series. Jane and Rochester want each other in precisely the same way that all young lovers want each other.

You don't get many accelerated throbs in Jane Austen or Mrs Gaskell.

reply

[–] sparkle4513 15 years ago

I don't know where this reply is going to get posted, but I'm replying to Birdtamer's Mon Jul 20 2009 15:13:36 post.

GREAT comments, Birdtamer! I love your perspective on this. You have a better remeberance of the book than I do, so your critique is a better one. I love how you've pulled out her character throughout. That's perfect.

I just responded on my own post (over here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780362/board/nest/151917899?p=1) to this same question by granny ... so I'll post it here too. Keep in mind my recollection of the book is not as good as yours, clearly. lol.

Okay, here's my thoughts:

-------------------------------------

The bedroom scene ... again, it's difficult to critique because I loved too many things about the rest of the movie. Usually, in a classical adaptations, I get irked with too much physical interaction. Society was much stricter, and displays of affection were always kept well under wraps. I am inclined to be more lenient with this one for a few reasons. Firstly, Mr. Rochester's character. Charlotte Bronte wrote a character who had steamy love affairs while unmarried. This not only created a character who was very risque for the time period, but also a character NOT so much governed by the strictures of his society. This was a man who had spent much of his young life chasing skirts ... and getting in them. With Jane he is faced with the greatest contrast of his life: he had chased what was beautiful but wasn't worthwhile and found only heartache and pain, but with this plain, simple girl, totally unaffected and without wiles, he finds the love and oneness he had always been wanting. He clearly cares nothing for convention. This is displayed over and over. He didn't ONCE mention that Jane was 'only a governness.' He actually didn't seem to even notice the great disparity in their station at all. It was nothing to him. As we know, however, station was a GREAT disparity to the culture around him. This is one very stark example of the fact that he played by nobody's rules but his own. Secondly, he is a man of great passion. This was not your usual 'calm, cool, collected, intellectual' type man. This man was very emotional, very vibrant, and apt to go after what he wanted with reckless abandon. This he did with Jane. The fact that he did it while FULLY UNDERSTANDING HER is what has so enamored me of this story. These clues lead me to believe that while intimate scenes are not depicted in the book (I think there may have been an actual kiss or two, but the rest was hinted at), it is entirely reasonable to think that the real Mr. Rochester WOULD have, in fact, at least attempted them. A GREAT depiction of this is the scene in the carriage. PERFECT!! I loved that scene, because it was completely fabricated but perfectly depicted all three characters. He with eyes only for her, attempting to hold her hand ... nay, DEMANDING to hold her hand (quite like him). Her, primly refusing because they were in public and in the presence of a child. And Adelle blissfully clueless of everything but her own pretty world. That is exactly something that would have happened. So ... the sex scenes (which, by the way, there was no removal of clothes, although the obvious desire is there) ... the fact THAT they may have existed at some point is not enitrely far fetched, in my opinion.

Now, what MAY have taken that idea too far outside the box is the chronology of it. I had thought that Jane took off fairly immediately after the ruined wedding. Those scenes suggest that she stayed around awhile as he begged and pleaded. That ... is a bit far fetched, I think. (I will have to read the book again and see if there is room to interpret that time frame there.) That he would have begged and pleaded (and used every means at his disposal to do so) I have no doubt. That she WAS actually there to let him ... that I have a problem with.

-------------------------------------

My thoughts!

reply

[–] TheSqueee 14 years ago

She leaves the next day, I believe. Early in the morning, while everyone's asleep.

But other than that, I swoon at your words. Well spoken (okay, written)! And by golly, that man's... well, I think you summed it up nicely why I love him.

Bedroom scene - loved it at first, then as I got more into JE, I thought it clashed with the book. But you make me really undecided now!

^^ May contain ramblings of an easily over-excited fangirl # http://thesqueee.blogspot.com

reply

[–] sparkle4513 14 years ago

Why thank you very much, doctortrax!Mr. Rochester is one of my favorite male leads of any book. Perhaps the favorite, but favorites are always a tad difficult for me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Well Jane? Are you overwhelmed?"
~Mr Rochester
Jane Eyre 2006

reply

[–] TheSqueee 14 years ago

Aye, same here! :D

Don't think I ever had a definite favourite male lead before. Maybe Darcy. But since discovering Rochester, Darcy is just... not that interesting anymore. Funny that. :)

^^ May contain ramblings of an easily over-excited fangirl # http://thesqueee.blogspot.com

reply

[–] askmieke 12 years ago

I heard that the Bronte sisters thought Austen's characters rather insipid. So look what they gave us instead. That monster, Heathcliff and this rake who seeks redemption....Rochester.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Oh, good! Lively debate, as I'd hoped!
Interesting viewpoints.
My own position is that this scene works well in the context of this adaptation. I enjoy it, and believe that we do see Jane's inner struggle in the face of enormous temptation. Rochester tries it all, veering desperately from Plan A ("we are one, you and I"), through Plan B (sexual seduction) to Plan C (platonic co-habitation)! Jane does not succumb.
However, even a diehard JE06 lover such as myself has to concede that this scene is not as Bronte wrote it, and that Jane's resolve in the novel is unequivocal. As a twenty-first century Christian, I don't think I would trust myself to get in the potentially compromising situation that the nineteenth century Jane allows in JE06.
There are those who argue that Charlotte would have written Jane Eyre differently had she not had Victorian constraints placed upon her. As it was, the novel was shocking as Alfa has pointed out. So for that reason, and also for picking up the passionate undercurrents in the text, they feel justified in presenting a more sensual (sorry, probably not the best word) interpretation. Others, of course, will think that this is an unforgivably presumptuous liberty!

Anyway, I'm still in two minds. What do others think?

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] laura_vdb 15 years ago

I am not a reader, which wants to say I didn't read the story so I don't know if it's "Brontë" or not. Anyway, I was quite shocked though, seeing them laying so "sensual/sexual" on the bed, the shockeffect was 'cause of the time it plays in + the fact Jane is a virgin yet + they weren't married etc. I could see Rochester his point though, sexual seduction, he puts in the "big plans" just for not losing her. Which in the end doesn't work. Than again, the fact that Jane actually didn't go in on his actions, was very brave of her. I mean being so in love, having such band... And not just ignoring his actions but just leave totally. Very brave...

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

The film's constant emphasis on the sexual attraction between Rochester and Jane is a gross deviation from the novel, which depicts a love between soul-mates, a love that arises from affinity of character and spirit.

The more I read that (user's) comment, the more I disagree with it.
Our perverse society has separated sex from love (one-night stands?), but cannot two soul-mates also feel mutual sexual attraction? Affinity of character and spirit can also be extended to the physical, surely? Or is the sexual union too profane? Jane was principled, yes, but passionate as has already been pointed out. And she rejected a loveless marriage with St. John:-
"But as his wife - at his side always, and always restrained, and always checked - forced to keep the fire of my nature continually low, to compel it to burn inwardly and never utter a cry, though the imprisoned flame consumed vital after vital - THIS would be unendurable."
Lastly, Rochester was her soul-mate - a man of fire and passion, a KINDRED spirit.

So we can argue about the RIGHTNESS of changing Bronte's plotlines, but not with the way JE06 portrayed sexual attraction, imo.

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] 8tangerines 9 years ago

Jane also explicitly (I'm always shocked by how explicit, for 1847) rejects having sex without love, even within marriage, as "monstrous" and not, therefore, morally correct. Considering marriage to St. John: "can I let him complete his calculations--coolly put into practice his plans--go through the wedding ceremony? Can I receive from him the bridal ring, endure all the forms of love (which I doubt not he would scrupulously observe) and know that the spirit was quite absent? Can I bear the consciousness that every endearment he bestows is a sacrifice made on principle? No: such a martyrdom would be monstrous."

I think Charlotte is pretty clear about her thoughts on love and sexual passion, and their importance in marriage. More than importance: to marry without passion would desecrate the religious rite of marriage, whereas its presence sanctifies her marriage to Rochester.

reply

[–] supergran 9 years ago

Great post, 8tangerines, with which I wholeheartedly concur! Brilliant quote, too.

Many moons have waxed and waned since I started this thread. I long believed that the criticisms about the sexuality in JE06 were misplaced, but I was a little less sure of it's handling of chapter 27 (Jane leaving Rochester). I'm now very comfortably reconciled with it - even to the point where I believe it to be quite inspired.

The turning point came when I began to look at the flashback scenes as a fusion of Jane's rather traumatic memories of that evening, and her erotic dreams of Rochester that she has at Morton (chapter 32). Viewed this way, it's positively ingenious! It conveys all of Jane's longing and heartbreak, together with her inherent sensuality, and gives a real sense of the temptation that she faced and the strength of character needed to reject it.

What do YOU think?

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

reply

[–] wdw_68 15 years ago

It would have been their wedding night if things had gone through. She would have been dreaming of what would have been their time together. She is taking what she can, without any thought of going further than kissing, as they both know she is going to leave. This is what would likely see her through the rest of her life. It makes sense she would take what she can within constraints of that society, in the privacy of a bedroom, as they share one final moment.

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

It would have been their wedding night if things had gone through

When Edward asks if she definitely intends to leave him, Jane says 'I do'.

Whatever you think of the lack of original dialogue, you have to admit you don't often see anything that well written and performed.

reply

[–] dreamwork15 15 years ago

Remember that Jane left Rochester because of their sexual attraction.
If there weren't any, than she could have except his proposition to live in a whitewashed villa. Jane smiles bitterly after his saying: -we could live as brother and sister, I wouldn't touch you- because she knows none of them could keep that promise. And that would lead her inevitably in the life of sin.

Yes, they are soulmates, but also they want each other in every other way and their desire to belong to each other body and soul is striking even in the book, by Bronte's passionate language, use of words, metaphors...

...securing the interest of a younger and supposedly shallow audience in the story

Is there a insinuation that stupid/shallow people need some sex even in a period drama, and the higher minds above it can be happy even with the platonic love?!
Imo platonic love doesn't exist where there is a true love between a man and a woman, there is always sex involved.

That's why I didn't mind the bedroom scene, it was short (problem with the length -they cut out lot of scenes-deleted scenes on the dvd),
and showed all the despair and the desire and the struggle to leave/stay.

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Glad we agree about the sexual attraction, dreamwork!
You made two interesting points earlier about the bedroom scene. You spoke about 19th century authors being forbidden to write about sex. Then you said that showing the kisses on the bed ably demonstrated the enormous force of will needed for Jane to leave Rochester once she'd "tasted" physical intimacy (or words to that effect).
I imagine such thoughts guided Sandy Welch when she wrote this scene as she did. I don't think the sexual element was gratuitous, and I DO think we see Jane's resolve in the face of overwhelming temptation.
But I have sympathy with Unwanted Birdtamer's point that the Jane of the book was so resolute as not to allow Rochester to touch her at all. UB feels that Jane's character is passive and thereby diminished in JE06.
I've said this before, but I wish Jane hadn't said "We'll talk in the morning" and then slink off in the night leaving Edward hopeful. A small point, but it grates.

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] dreamwork15 15 years ago

Hi.
I understand why people object so much for the bedroom scene, I don't think I would've done it that way. I would've put more passion in the kisses in the proposal scene and at the end by the river and kept the after the wedding scene closer to the book.
But the miniseries was so well acted and passionate that I can't really object on the things I don't agree with.
I find it disturbing when people spit on this piece of art only because they are obsessed with the book, and have read it like a bible.
I watched several JE adaptations I haven't seen before this one, and honestly found them boring and lacking the only important thing - passion and chemistry!
Yes, they followed the plot precisely from the book, using the not "dumbed down" language, but.....just didn't win me. Somehow disappointed me.
I didn't feel Jane or Rochester alive in any other JE.
About "We'll talk in the morning", I don't really know if Rochester in the book realized that she is going to leave Thornfield, I think maybe not, because of his words before she leaves: "But Jane will give me her love: yes--nobly, generously."

"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it."

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

"We'll talk in the morning" and then slink off in the night leaving Edward hopeful. A small point, but it grates.

That 'strive to endure' deleted scene would have squashed all this debate I think. Omitting it was a bad decision.

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

...they followed the plot precisely from the book, using the not "dumbed down" language, but.....just didn't win me.

Gotta agree with you on that one, dreamwork.

That 'strive to endure' deleted scene would have squashed all this debate I think. Omitting it was a bad decision.

I've always thought so, alfa. But re-shot so it could "knit-in" seamlessly with the existing scene. Rochester's heartbreak in the deleted scene breaks MY heart. Has everyone else seen this scene? Dreamwork?

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] dreamwork15 15 years ago

Yeah, they deleted a lot of scenes, but I regret that one especially. Actually someone on youtube mixed two flashbacks scenes together with that deleted scene.
I thought it was a good idea.
I'm still confused about that scene; does it break my heart or makes my pressure high?! LOL

"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it."

reply

[–] sparkle4513 14 years ago

I was called back to this thread and just read this. What deleted scenes? Does anyone have links where I can see them??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Well Jane? Are you overwhelmed?"
~Mr Rochester
Jane Eyre 2006

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Hi sparkle!
Nice to have you back here. This board is MUCH too quiet.

The deleted scenes are here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwB75i42S0U&feature=related

The scene we refer to is the final one in which a much more resolute Jane makes it unequivocal to Rochester that she will leave him.
I've always thought that the spirit of this deleted scene should have been left in. Not exactly as it was shot, mind you - that would have been a bit incongruous. But re-shot to flow seamlessly into what was already in place.
What do you think, sparkle? I'd love your opinion (even though it's now just academic!)

"You don't understand, Osgood. I'm a MAN!"
"Well, nobody's perfect!"
Some Like It Hot.

reply

[–] sparkle4513 14 years ago

Thanks for the link, supergran!

Interesting scenes. The final one ... I'm processing. Man, I don't know. There's bits I like. Like when he asks what would he do, and she answers, "do as I do." That's fairly telling. Okay, hang on. If I transpose all of those lines to a different scene ... perhaps under the tree they first declared their love ... Jane standing stoic and away from him, and him pacing, imploring, and crying. If I transpose that scene to a different shot ... hm. Let me watch it again.

Yeah, I imagine that would have been a poignant scene. I'm not sure how they would have made that flow, but it would have been poignant. Does it more strongly state Jane's position? Hm. I don't know. As I'm seeing it in my head (under the tree and so forth) it does display her position quite strongly: that of loving intensely but refusing to abandon her position. There's also a bit more displayed emotion ... in the version in my head. :)

What is your opinion?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Well Jane? Are you overwhelmed?"
~Mr Rochester
Jane Eyre 2006

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Hi sparkle.
Glad you had a look at that scene. I can understand your uncertainty.
It certainly wouldn't have fitted in as it was shot (anymore than the scene where Jane shuts the door on Rochester).
You ask my opinion. Well, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record (lol), I've always felt uncomfortable with the ambiguity of "we'll talk in the morning". It was, well, cruel and cowardly of Jane to say that and then slink off at dawn.
I've now been fully persuaded (by fellow posters on this board) that the intimate scenes on the bed were a good addition. However, I would have liked Jane's intentions of leaving to have been stated more unequivocally. As it is, we were denied Rochester's "deep, strong sob".
Here's the passage from the book (yes, it's lengthy. Sorry!):

I was experiencing an ordeal: a hand of fiery iron grasped my vitals. Terrible moment: full of struggle, blackness, burning! Not a human being that ever lived could wish to be loved better than I was loved; and him who thus loved me I absolutely worshipped: and I must renounce love and idol. One drear word comprised my intolerable duty--"Depart!"
"Jane, you understand what I want of you? Just this promise--'I will be yours, Mr. Rochester.'"
"Mr. Rochester, I will NOT be yours."
Another long silence.
"Jane!" recommenced he, with a gentleness that broke me down with grief, and turned me stone-cold with ominous terror--for this still voice was the pant of a lion rising--"Jane, do you mean to go one way in the world, and to let me go another?"
"I do."
"Jane" (bending towards and embracing me), "do you mean it now?"
"I do."
"And now?" softly kissing my forehead and cheek.
"I do," extricating myself from restraint rapidly and completely.
"Oh, Jane, this is bitter! This--this is wicked. It would not be wicked to love me."
"It would to obey you."
A wild look raised his brows--crossed his features: he rose; but he forebore yet. I laid my hand on the back of a chair for support: I shook, I feared--but I resolved.
"One instant, Jane. Give one glance to my horrible life when you are gone. All happiness will be torn away with you. What then is left? For a wife I have but the maniac upstairs: as well might you refer me to some corpse in yonder churchyard. What shall I do, Jane? Where turn for a companion and for some hope?"
"Do as I do: trust in God and yourself. Believe in heaven. Hope to meet again there."
"Then you will not yield?"
"No."
"Then you condemn me to live wretched and to die accursed?" His voice rose.
"I advise you to live sinless, and I wish you to die tranquil."
"Then you snatch love and innocence from me? You fling me back on lust for a passion--vice for an occupation?"
"Mr. Rochester, I no more assign this fate to you than I grasp at it for myself. We were born to strive and endure--you as well as I: do so. You will forget me before I forget you."
"You make me a liar by such language: you sully my honour. I declared I could not change: you tell me to my face I shall change soon. And what a distortion in your judgment, what a perversity in your ideas, is proved by your conduct! Is it better to drive a fellow-creature to despair than to transgress a mere human law, no man being injured by the breach? for you have neither relatives nor acquaintances whom you need fear to offend by living with me?"
This was true: and while he spoke my very conscience and reason turned traitors against me, and charged me with crime in resisting him. They spoke almost as loud as Feeling: and that clamoured wildly. "Oh, comply!" it said. "Think of his misery; think of his danger--look at his state when left alone; remember his headlong nature; consider the recklessness following on despair--soothe him; save him; love him; tell him you love him and will be his. Who in the world cares for YOU? or who will be injured by what you do?"
Still indomitable was the reply--"I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad--as I am now. Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth? They have a worth--so I have always believed; and if I cannot believe it now, it is because I am insane--quite insane: with my veins running fire, and my heart beating faster than I can count its throbs. Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations, are all I have at this hour to stand by: there I plant my foot."
I did. Mr. Rochester, reading my countenance, saw I had done so. His fury was wrought to the highest: he must yield to it for a moment, whatever followed; he crossed the floor and seized my arm and grasped my waist. He seemed to devour me with his flaming glance: physically, I felt, at the moment, powerless as stubble exposed to the draught and glow of a furnace: mentally, I still possessed my soul, and with it the certainty of ultimate safety. The soul, fortunately, has an interpreter--often an unconscious, but still a truthful interpreter--in the eye. My eye rose to his; and while I looked in his fierce face I gave an involuntary sigh; his gripe was painful, and my over-taxed strength almost exhausted.
"Never," said he, as he ground his teeth, "never was anything at once so frail and so indomitable. A mere reed she feels in my hand!" (And he shook me with the force of his hold.) "I could bend her with my finger and thumb: and what good would it do if I bent, if I uptore, if I crushed her? Consider that eye: consider the resolute, wild, free thing looking out of it, defying me, with more than courage--with a stern triumph. Whatever I do with its cage, I cannot get at it--the savage, beautiful creature! If I tear, if I rend the slight prison, my outrage will only let the captive loose. Conqueror I might be of the house; but the inmate would escape to heaven before I could call myself possessor of its clay dwelling- place. And it is you, spirit--with will and energy, and virtue and purity--that I want: not alone your brittle frame. Of yourself you could come with soft flight and nestle against my heart, if you would: seized against your will, you will elude the grasp like an essence--you will vanish ere I inhale your fragrance. Oh! come, Jane, come!"
As he said this, he released me from his clutch, and only looked at me. The look was far worse to resist than the frantic strain: only an idiot, however, would have succumbed now. I had dared and baffled his fury; I must elude his sorrow: I retired to the door.
"You are going, Jane?"
"I am going, sir."
"You are leaving me?"
"Yes."
"You will not come? You will not be my comforter, my rescuer? My deep love, my wild woe, my frantic prayer, are all nothing to you?"
What unutterable pathos was in his voice! How hard it was to reiterate firmly, "I am going."
"Jane!"
"Mr. Rochester!"
"Withdraw, then,--I consent; but remember, you leave me here in anguish. Go up to your own room; think over all I have said, and, Jane, cast a glance on my sufferings--think of me."
He turned away; he threw himself on his face on the sofa. "Oh, Jane! my hope--my love--my life!" broke in anguish from his lips. Then came a deep, strong sob.
I had already gained the door; but, reader, I walked back--walked back as determinedly as I had retreated. I knelt down by him; I turned his face from the cushion to me; I kissed his cheek; I smoothed his hair with my hand.
"God bless you, my dear master!" I said. "God keep you from harm and wrong--direct you, solace you--reward you well for your past kindness to me."
"Little Jane's love would have been my best reward," he answered; "without it, my heart is broken. But Jane will give me her love: yes--nobly, generously."
Up the blood rushed to his face; forth flashed the fire from his eyes; erect he sprang; he held his arms out; but I evaded the embrace, and at once quitted the room.
"Farewell!" was the cry of my heart as I left him. Despair added, "Farewell for ever!"

--------

I still LOVE the 2006 version!

"You don't understand, Osgood. I'm a MAN!"
"Well, nobody's perfect!"
Some Like It Hot.

reply

[–] sparkle4513 14 years ago

AH! Charlotte's writing is almost unparalleled in terms of emotional intensity. My word! I was riveted to tears. How amazing and fantastic and heartbreaking.

I think most of what was missing from the deleted scene was the incredible level of pathos evident in the portion you quoted. It was far too calm. And I have to say that it taking place on a bed didn't work. If the dialogue was kept in, it should have been in a different setting. I suggested under the tree because of the double emotional impact of it. Something similar would have also sufficed. The entrance of Thornfield, even in her room as she's packing would have been better than prone on the bed. Although if she were packing, that would, in fact, lessen the emotional impact of it.

I have to completely agree with you on your frustration with "we'll talk in the morning." It is far too close to deception, which is certainly not at all in the spirit of the real Jane Eyre. She was always up front and honest, even when it meant considerable pain and torment. To deliberately deceive was entirely unlike her character.

Thanks for the fabulous thoughts as always! I've missed talking to you.

****************************************

"Well Jane? Are you overwhelmed?"
~Mr Rochester
Jane Eyre 2006

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

That passage was so moving, wasn't it?
I'm so glad you understand my ambivalence towards that scene in the mini.

I've loved all three of the Sandy Welch adaptations that I've seen, but I suppose it's impossible to agree 100% with all her writing decisions.
Another minor quibble I have is with North & South, when John Thornton beats the living daylights out of that furtive smoker, Stevens. This was a pure fabrication and was probably used as a plot device to enable Margaret to base her disdain of John on something more substantial than class snobbery.
Still doesn't sit with the Thornton of the book.

Anyway, I don't want to sound like an old moaning minnie! JE06 and N&S are there in my top five period dramas of all time.

"You don't understand, Osgood. I'm a MAN!"
"Well, nobody's perfect!"
Some Like It Hot.

reply

[–] sparkle4513 14 years ago

Amazingly, I haven't read North & South. Well. I read the ending. :) What I did read gave me enough of a glimpse of the characters and her writing style to agree with you without having read it. Although I have to say if they wanted emotional impact, they certainly got it. It worked on me. I am usually a stickler for adaptational accuracy as well, though.

Your last line made me smile. I tend to overly critique everything. Even if I love it I still critique away. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Well Jane? Are you overwhelmed?"
~Mr Rochester
Jane Eyre 2006

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

I would recommend you read North and South. Although it wasn't as enjoyable as watching the mini, funnily enough. I think it may have had something to do with the fact that the novel was initially serialised in a weekly magazine which interfered with story development, pace and fluidity.

Oh, sparkle, I'd love to get your input (if you don't mind) on a thread I started a few months ago on the subject of Bronte's depiction of Bertha's madness. You might find it interesting.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780362/board/thread/162628583

Thanks.

"You don't understand, Osgood. I'm a MAN!"
"Well, nobody's perfect!"
Some Like It Hot.

reply

[–] sparkle4513 14 years ago

Hey there. I'm sure you'll get the message, but I replied on your thread. You're such a great thread-starter-and-perptuator! I enjoy your conversation. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Well Jane? Are you overwhelmed?"
~Mr Rochester
Jane Eyre 2006

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

You're such a great thread-starter-and-perpetuator! I enjoy your conversation.

Why, thankyou sparkle.
I love talking/writing about Jane Eyre to anyone who will listen/read!
And this board has become so quiet of late that it is a shame. Anyway, thanks for replying to the other thread.

"You don't understand, Osgood. I'm a MAN!"
"Well, nobody's perfect!"
Some Like It Hot.

reply

[–] odoros 13 years ago

It would be great if they had put this scene...it's so more natural than the bedroom one...

reply

[–] jmhow 9 years ago

I knew we would get the quote sooner or later. I have only read this thread up to this point, so I don't know if this is mentioned later, but it seems clear that Rochester asked Jane to think over her decision and I believe the implication is clear that he hoped they would be able to talk more about it in the morning. Putting the words in Jane's mouth is not too big a jump for me to preserve the essence of their conversation. She only voiced what he was thinking. I'm sure she did do more thinking on the subject, and persevered in the decision that she had to leave before Rochester tried to persuade her more.

www.freerice.com

reply

[–] supergran 9 years ago

Hi jmhow. 

This is a l-o-o-o-o-o-n-g thread, isn't it? You'll need stamina to get to the end! Lol.

If you DO make it, you'll see that I substantially changed my mind about the leaving scene over the years, and now I'm completely won over.

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

reply

[–] fleurfairy 15 years ago

Lord. If there are objections to the bedroom scene in this, wait until you all see Charlotte's sister's Wuthering Heights with the gorgeous Tom Hardy. Very steamy.

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

Saw Charlotte Riley The Spanish Flu with Bill Paxton. God, she was good. So good I looked her up while I was watching to see why I'd never seen her before.

Really looking forward to WH now. Where has it been broadcast??

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Wasn't that good? In fact, BBC4 has shown some excellent historical medical dramas recently, ie. The Story of Pennicillin and repeats of Casualty 1907.
Wuthering Heights has already been shown in the US and Belgium, according to IMDb, and will be released here in December, I think.
I wish I could say I'm looking forward to it, but I never liked any of the characters in WH. I'll watch with an open mind, though.
(The great Bill PATTERSON, btw. )

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] laura_vdb 15 years ago

I can assure that it's been shown in Belgium, sadly enough I missed it, I only got recently in the whole english-literature-and-its-adaptions-world.

reply

[–] dreamwork15 15 years ago

I think it is Bill Paterson, not Paxton.
I'm very interested too see it.

I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

I have always called him Bill Paxton and I'm too old to change now.

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

The abysmally untalented Natalie Portman has been replaced by Gemma Arterton in the film version of Wuthering Heights, so now there's two Cathy's to look forward to.

reply

[–] fleurfairy 15 years ago

Alfa, it was broadcast here in the States in January. I think the UK gets it on ITV1 at the end of this month! So watch it. I'd like to hear your opinions. Personally, it has stayed with me for these many months. I thought the two leads were refreshingly modern.

Here is the promo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bn0mHM4Jo4

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

Liked it but it was very compressed and would have benefitted from another hour. Liked Riley and Hardy as the leads, don't think you can find better but it let itself down by never taking enough time to ground the scenes in the author's landscape and Andrew Oldham can't do period, period.

reply

[–] Crazy-_-Beautiful 15 years ago

Yes it needed more time. I would have loved to see Heathcliff deteriorate more, instead of him just suddenly killing himself. You never got the true feeling of his despair. I mean even a few more shots of him visiting her grave more than once would have sufficed

I don't understand how the US airing was 40 minutes shorter!

[Stephen] Fry doesn't have beer goggles. He has Madeira Pince-nez

reply

[–] dreamwork15 15 years ago

I just wanted to bring here something that Susanna White - the director - said in the DVD JE ep.4 commentary about this scene: "it is not put in there for the 21th century audience, it is there in the book, I mean, you do feel that there is a very physical passion between them."

"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it."

reply

[–] smslm 15 years ago

What objections?? Did someone made objections on THAT most erotic scene ever?!

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

They sure did, smslm! See my original post.
But good point, dreamwork. Obviously some aren't as receptive to the passionate vibes as Susannah.

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] smslm 15 years ago

Now I wanted to be more serious about this scene; it is that even if I liked it (how can you not like it?!) - I would like to see just once the separation scene from the book acted well.
They made too many Jane Eyres, but I saw not once that scene done well.
Anyway I thought Dalton's crying and yelling very unconvincing in that scene.
When he shouts and cries I felt almost embarrassed.
I hope they don't shoot me for saying this.

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

To understand you more fully, smslm, can you just tell me:
Was your only objection to the separation scene in JE83 that it was not acted well? Did you otherwise like it's literal approach?
What was your opinion of the same scene in JE06? Did you approve or disapprove of it's more essential style?

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] smslm 15 years ago

I had to re-watch the separation scene in '83 version again, on youtube, and I am still convinced that it is acted really bad. His crying is utterly unconvincing, I don't feel any kind of emotion during this scene. It is very theatrical. It is also very close to the book, literally, not emotionally, only in spoken words.
And I really don't believe that they love each other, there is absolutely no chemistry between the two of them.
The 2006 separation scene is quite the opposite. It is acted well, like the rest of the series, very heartbreaking and convincing. You can really see and feel their pain and misery. I don't disapprove that scene at all, but it is not the scene from the book. You know-the scene in the library, or was it his studio, when she wouldn't let him touch her because he hurt her.
As I said before I would like to see just once that scene from the book acted well, and I know Ruth and Toby would have done it perfectly. So in a way I regret that the writer changed it, even if I liked everything about this version.
They had plenty of room for making it sexual, but in that scene Bronte didn't see it that way. They surely could have make the proposal kiss more sensual, or the kiss at the end.
Anyway, I didn't have any problem with the sensual, or shall I say sexual style, because the book was very sexual and inappropriate for the Victorian era, but not in the separation scene.

reply

[–] dreamwork15 15 years ago

You may be right. But I think Sandy Welch deliberately changed that scene for a reason, in order to put the accent on the sexual attraction, to show us what are they giving up to.
The love between them is strong, but the sexual attraction is even stronger.
I think Bronte wrote about strong sexual attraction. The way she describes Rochester tells me that: athletic body, broad chest, dark, magnetic eyes...sexy.
I think she meant to emphasize that part of the book hidden between the lines, and found this scene the right spot for placing that part. Maybe she wanted to say that this is not just another Victorian novel of manners and society.

"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it."

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Thanks for the clarification, smslm.
No arguments from me about the beauty of the separation scene! Whether it is an acceptable departure from the book depends on your point of view.
There are those who will think it an unforgiveable presumption. They regard Bronte's text as sacrosanct and want to see it reproduced virtually line-for-line.
There are others who will say that Bronte did not write a screenplay. They want to see the essence of her story extracted and adapted creatively for the visual medium. Rather than see a facsimile of the text, they want to see characters brought to vibrant life. That is what Sandy Welch has done with Jane Eyre - and I love it!
Now, to be specific about the separation scene.
Dreamwork has said that the sex was always there "hidden between the lines", inferred but forbidden to write about directly. And it's a powerful argument.
My own position, as I've stated before, is that this scene works well in the context of this adaptation and the sexual element isn't gratuitous. But I regret that Jane's resolve has been watered-down. It's not that Jane didn't want Rochester to touch her, but she couldn't allow him to.

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] Regina_Giddens 15 years ago

I'm surprised there is so much objection to this. Sexual attraction is sexual attraction, it has existed in every age. People may not have explicitly talked about it, but unmarried couples in love would definitely have lain on top of each other kissing in any age - it's human nature. Especially in such an intense, passionate situation. Just because it was socially inappropriate to talk about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Also, I think the fact that it's so memorable to Jane, and upsets her so much shows that it wasn't something normal - exactly the opposite.

In and out of weeks and almost over a year to Where The Wild Things Are...

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

I disagree with the user comment which said that there was little sexual attraction between the two. I believe Jane was passionate and sensual. After all, Rochester was both those things and she regarded him as a kindred spirit. And she rejected a passionless marriage with Rivers. Sorry if I've quoted this before:

"But as his wife - at his side always, and always restrained, and always checked - forced to keep the fire of my nature continually low, to compel it to burn inwardly and never utter a cry, though the imprisoned flame consumed vital after vital - THIS would be unendurable."
-----

But Jane was also a strong and uncompromising person of principle, and one who possessed Christian values. I don't think she would have allowed Rochester to "have lain on top of her, kissing", and she didn't do so in the book.

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] dreamwork15 15 years ago

Oh, come on supergran, of course she would have!
She did nothing else but think about it.

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Hi, dreamwork! How've you been?
Now, I'm NOT saying I didn't enjoy this scene! Nor did Jane NOT want to lay down with Rochester. What girl wouldn't?! But the girl had principles!

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] dreamwork15 15 years ago

Yeah, her principles went out the window the minute he flattened her on that four poster bed!!!! Ha ha ha
I like to tease you supergran...

reply

[–] perorewen 15 years ago

This is an interresting discussion.
My opinion is that I disliked that particular scene. I'm not saying there wasn't sexual attraction between the two, I believe there was. BUT(!) Jane was to much of a moral person to permit themselves to behave like that after she heard about Bertha. She had a very strong sense of propriety, just look at the s cene where they're riding to town, and Rochester tries to hold her hand, and she completley refuses. That was before she heard about Bertha.
I always saw it as Jane changing during the wedding scene. For once she has found someone she can giver herself to completly, and he humiliates her just as much (if not more) than everyone else in her childhood. At this moment she has had no more reason to stay strong and away from him, because what he did there was right out humiliate her, completely. She might have gone to bed with Rochester before that, but not after.

**********
- Who's the lady with the log?
- We call her the Log Lady.

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

She might have gone to bed with Rochester before that, but not after.

She DID go to bed with Rochester after that! In fact, after discovering his change of situation, she wasted no time at all . . .

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Yes, alfa, but only AFTER "Reader, I married him."
Admittedly, she wasted no time in getting Rochester to the church!

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

You have to take Rochester and Jane at face value after the wedding. Jane doesn't feel humiliated, she feels distraught, thwarted, deprived and fatally wounded. Hurt in every possible way. But humiliated and resentful towards Rochester?

Nah?

reply

[–] asphodel_and_wormwood 15 years ago

I think you make a very good point. Up until the wedding scene, Rochester was among the very few people in Jane's life who she felt she could trust and the only person who saw her passionate nature as a virtue instead of a personality flaw. It's not about humiliation in my opinion but this trust that has been breached that really sends Jane over the edge. She knows that she can not trust him and as much as it hurts her more to admit it she knows that she has to face that fact and move on. Of course in the book this leads Rochester into doing everything in his power to appeal to the passionate side of Jane and in my opinion the bedroom scene in the 2006 version showed this desperation in a form that was effectively expressed in the few minutes time the filmmakers had to get down to the heart of the moment.

And the heart of that moment is: Yes,Jane would like to stay with Rochester because she loves him and would like to have lots of sex and babies but she can't compromise her morals. Yes, Mr. Rochester is not as strong as Jane and will therefore try to tempt Jane into staying (with the hope of having lots of sex and babies) but it will all be to no avail because BOTTOM LINE: Jane, in the end, does not sleep with Rochester in the book nor in the 2006 version and therefore does not compromise her morals.

I'm here because of Ashley.

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

Exactly. Although I think the word 'moral' causes a lot of unnecessary trouble. Victorian morality at the time would have been more outraged by a master marrying a governess than by a married man taking a servant as his live-in mistress.

She realises that Rochester and she are soulmates but that living with him is an absolute wrong, not merely wrong in the eyes of society. This series draws the distinction more carefully than any other by clearly depicting what Jane is giving up by the decision to leave and contrasting it to what she is prepared to do to palliate a disapproving society by including the month of abstinence and formal courtship.

reply

[–] asphodel_and_wormwood 15 years ago

She realises that Rochester and she are soulmates but that living with him is an absolute wrong, not merely wrong in the eyes of society.

But the reason that Jane sees it as an absolute wrong has to do with her religion which was heavily dictated by Victorian society, wasn't it? I mean it's not like present day where you can choose to follow your own code of ethics and morals. What she believed was the dogma that was followed by the majority of society at that time I should think. Also lets say for arguments sake that Jane wasn't religious, do you think based off her own moral compass and given her passionate nature, she would have refused to stay and have a relationship with Rochester?

I'm here because of Ashley.

reply

[–] sparkle4513 15 years ago

Hi folks.

a&w, I think your question pertains less toward the book, and more toward a question of, "What is morality as a whole." If your question is indeed pertaining to the book and the author's intent by what was portrayed, I think you would find it interesting to read the preface by the author, dated Dec 21, 1847. I will extract a portion of what she said:

-----------------------------------------------

Having thus acknowledged what I owe those who have aided and approved me, I turn to another class; a small one, so far as I know, but not, therefore, to be overlooked. I mean the timorous or carping few who doubt the tendency of such books as Jane Eyre: in whose eyes whatever is unusual is wrong; whose ears detect in each protest against bigotry--that parent of crime--an insult to piety, that regent of God on earth. I would suggest to such doubters certain obvious distinctions; I would remind them of certain simple truths.

Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last. To pluck the mask from the face of the Pharisee, is not to lift an impious hand to the Crown of Thorns.

These things and deeds are diametrically opposed; they are as distinct as is vice from virtue. Men too often confound them; they should not be confounded: appearance should not be mistaken for truth; narrow human doctrines, that they only tend to elate and magnify a few, should not be substituted for the world-redeeming creed of Christ. There is--I repeat it--a difference; and it is a good, and not a bad action to mark broadly and clearly the line of separation between them.

-----------------------------------------------

That Charlotte Bronte was emphatically making an expose of the difference between "conventionality and morality" cannot be doubted. There is enormous moral content to this book, and we with our 21st century understanding can only guess at the real impact of what she wrote. She wrote of a man whose moral compass had strayed wildly, but in matters of honor had done all that was required of him. She wrote of a girl whipped by religion, and yet steadfastly holding to the love of a God she knew was not only real, but not represented by the institutions she experienced.

I don't think there is any way to separate Charlotte Bronte from the faith that she displayed. For her it was not 'moral custom' which defined her characters' morality. In fact, she deliberately attacked the moral custom of her day with this story. Therefore to say that Jane's morality was simply an extension of "Victorian society" is to broadly misunderstand a huge part of what this book is about.

reply

[–] supergran 15 years ago

Thankyou for posting Charlotte's words, sparkle. I've never read them before, but they're very illuminating (in addition to being wise).
You articulate so well what I've always thought but find hard to express.
That Jane should still preserve a simple faith, after being surrounded by self-righteous "Pharisees", was remarkable.

"She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me"

reply

[–] alfa-16 15 years ago

She wrote of a girl whipped by religion, and yet steadfastly holding to the love of a God she knew was not only real, but not represented by the institutions she experienced.

Known, I think, as hitting the nail on the head.

reply

[–] asphodel_and_wormwood 15 years ago

Oh wow I'd never read the preface before so thank you sparkle! That definitely does resolve my issues with Jane's motivations.

they have only chaos to climb

reply

[–] sparkle4513 15 years ago

I'm so glad that helped you ladies! (Assuming a&w is a lady. haha. If you're not I apologize.) I loved the preface when I read it.

reply

[–] wenarskys 14 years ago

"I disagree with the user comment which said that there was little sexual attraction between the two. I believe Jane was passionate and sensual."

Oh absolutely! But Bronte would have been stoned had she written in depth about it! Consider even the small one sentence hints she gives us "I was too feverish to sleep" (after he took her hand and called her "my cherished preserver" after the fire scene.) Absolutely!

reply

[–] LadyJaneGrey 10 years ago

I know, right? Toby Stephens is smoking in that scene. Gave me the vapors.

reply

[–] brilliantholmes 15 years ago

I definitely haven't read all of the replies, so I apologize if this has been said before.

While I do have many objections to the bedroom scene, I feel like it'd be redundant to state any of them. (but I'm going to anyway :P) 1. It wasn't like that in the boooookkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2. It was a little confusing chronogically 3. It didn't make much sense that Jane would be in bed with Rochester (yes I know they weren't actually "in bed") right after she found out about Bertha

All that aside, I would like to say this:

When I saw the movie though, it kinda seemed to me like the scenes in the bedroom were sort of fantasies or dreams. Even though we know that they weren't, or at least that Jane and Rochester did have a similar conversation, I feel like the scenes may have been so intense because it was shown as Jane's memories rather than the present. It's as if the conversation has been filtered through her subcontious, and whether or not they actually were on a bed when it happened, Jane chose to remember it as a very intimate experience because she was realizing how much she loved Rochester.

reply

[–] sparkle4513 15 years ago

Very interesting thought, holmes! Definitely worth pondering. Not, in fact, entirely accurate, given that she references one of the conversations later with him ... but as far as filming goes, and even as far as her subconscious goes ... a very interesting thought!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Well Jane? Are you overwhelmed?"
~Mr Rochester
Jane Eyre 2006

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Bumpety-bump.

"Pray, do not use it ill. It fought at Waterloo".

reply

[–] wenarskys 14 years ago

My personal objection isn't to the bedroom scene itself, but rather what they omitted from the bedroom scene. The deleted bedroom scene, available on foreign DVD releases, I feel is crucial to this part of the plot, and I cannot imagine why they chose to throw it away in favor if Jane basically "lying" to Rochester and promising to talk to him in the morning about it and then skipping out. I really had issues with that - Jane's character was truth and I felt that was a very out of character thing to have her do.

As far as objections to the sexual content and "Jane would never have done that", I think it's okay to add a more realistic dimension to Jane without changing who she is, and that dimension would be that at this point in the plot, she's in shock and is heartbroken of course. And she knows inwardly this is "goodbye" which is why I think she allows herself to be in this situation at this point. She would never have played out that scene on the bed prior to her marriage - remember she didn't even want him holding her hand in the carriage and said that she wouldn't take supper with him until after they were married. She's allowing this bedroom scene to happen because her world was just shattered; she knows she's about to tear herself away from her soulmate and that it will do far more than cause them to both "bleed inwardly."
On that basis, I can buy the bedroom scene as it's played out on screen. I found it difficult to hear exactly what they were saying while he was essentially eating her face, but I did find that it added a different dimension to their parting and that it worked; I just feel that the deleted scene should have been left in an addition to this.

As a viewer, I found myself unsure why this Jane left (having read the book I knew her character and it was clear in the book and she explained it to him) and the fact that it was in flashbacks left an unfinished feeling to their parting initially.

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Wenarskys, I bumped this thread in the hope you'd respond.
Much of your post mirrors my own feelings about the "We'll talk in the morning" line. I can accept the sexual intimacy of the bedroom scene, within the context of THIS adaptation, because (as alfa put it so well):
"The stretching of the narrative to deliver, in the bedroom, A TRUE SENSE OF WHAT EACH IS GIVING UP is one of the biggest achievements of the series."
It took real strength on Jane's part to tear herself away from Rochester after that. But slinking off, leaving Rochester hopeful, was disingenuous and unworthy of Jane. I, too, wish they'd kept the deleted scene in somehow.

All that said, I LOVE this version and can't imagine how it could be bettered. The above point is the one thing I take issue with Sandy Welch on (that, and John Thornton beating up the furtive smoker in North & South!)

One more thing, in another post you spoke about the confusion created by the flashback scenes. Now, that's a device I thought was inspired! To my mind, it served to keep us thinking about Rochester during episode 4. But the juxtapositioning also assisted us in clearly seeing the differences between him and Rivers.

Keep your comments coming. This board needs waking up!

"Pray, do not use it ill. It fought at Waterloo".

reply

[–] wenarskys 14 years ago

I love this version too much to let that one part of it ruin for me (the sneaking out moreso than the passionate physical scene.) To me, that is what was out of character, not so much the physical stuff.

I'm just finding it totally amazing that they are making another JE not barely four years later...it seems that they are going to have a hard time topping this one. :) I feel already prejudiced against it, which isn't fair, but I guess it's just hard to see anybody follow Ruth Wilson as Jane.

reply