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

[–] lylee 14 years ago

I've only watched Part 1 so far, so I haven't yet seen this infamous scene, but I can tell you this: when I read the book for the first time as a kid, pre-puberty, I barely knew what sex was but I KNEW this scene (Jane's parting ways with Rochester) = sex. Not as in they were having sex that wasn't being described, but that there was SO much pent-up desire, as well as love, between them that it was almost overwhelming. It's an incredibly sexy scene - even if Jane barely allows Rochester to touch her in it, it feels like more is happening.

By the same token, I can understand why people might object to filming too much physical contact (I'll have to see it to judge for myself), but for me the most important aspect of this scene is conveying the agony of two people who want each other so badly but can't consummate it. As long as that's preserved, I probably won't much care how much making out or whatever is shown.

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Hi lylee.
DO get back when you've watched the scene. Would love to get your comments!
Agree completely about the sexiness of that part in the book.

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

reply

[–] lylee 14 years ago

Ok, I watched it...and all I can say is if it had been me in that scene, as filmed, I would *not* have had Jane's willpower. :-P

And for precisely that reason, it works. Nine out of ten girls in that situation - poor, no family, desperately loved and in love - would have succumbed. Jane was the tenth.

reply

[–] wenarskys 14 years ago

My objection isn't to the scenes themselves, it's to what was left out. The deleted scene should have remained intact. As it is, I had to rewind it three times to hear what on earth was being said between all the heavy breathing. It was awkward because it wasn't understandable on first view. The first two times I thought she actually said that she COULDN'T leave him...so it was confusing. I really missed the "I will judge myself; Trust in God and in yourself". Those were in the deleted scenes and had they remained intact, I think the parting scene would have worked quite well.

reply

[–] alfa-16 14 years ago

The deleted bedroom scene doesn't work as a flashback during the Rivers episode.

The other two work brilliantly, keeping the focus where it needs to be and stopping the whole thing feeling like a stuck-on interlude. No one skips the Rivers scenes in this version.

They viscerally illustrate the source of Jane's grief and underline what she has given up for her new life and why. The deleted scene, were it introduced before the flashbacks would hugely reduce the impact and the intimacy of the two included scenes. If it were introduced afterwards, it would bear directly on Jane's dilemma with Rivers when the purpose of the flashbacks is to focus attention back on Rochester.

This kind of decision making is one of the adaptation's great strengths.

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Ok, I watched it...and all I can say is if it had been me in that scene, as filmed, I would *not* have had Jane's willpower. :-P

And for precisely that reason, it works. Nine out of ten girls in that situation - poor, no family, desperately loved and in love - would have succumbed. Jane was the tenth.

That's a very good point, lylee, and one that a number of people have commented on. It's a very persuasive argument that I've come to appreciate more and more. (That's the great thing about these forums - being exposed to different ways of looking at things.)

I agree, alfa, that the deleted scene, as it was filmed, wouldn't have fitted in. I still stand by my feeling that Jane should have made her intention to leave Thornfield unambiguous. Obviously, it's something Sandy Welch must have toyed with herself, hence the deleted scene. With her skills, she could have created something that flowed.
Talking about deleted scenes, what do you think about the one that has Jane in her wedding dress running away from Rochester and shutting the door on him? Very dramatic. But I'm glad they opted for the more serene finish. Agree?

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

reply

[–] wenarskys 14 years ago

The scene where he chases her and she shuts him out: I don't know that it would have added anything to the film, but it did show the crazy side to Rochester. Remember in the book where he says something like "If I have to resort to violence.." or some such thing.

I am still not convinced though that the deleted lines from the bedroom scene would not have flowed with the rest of it. I took issue with the fact that Jane "ran away" from him after assuring him that they would talk in the morning, instead of having that scene in. Jane was always truthful with Rochester; I felt that was out of character and it left him "hanging" in a sense, for a year.

reply

[–] romina_p 14 years ago

Since the "leaving Mr. Rochester hanging scene" seems to be one of the few negative aspects of the mini, I decided to go back to the book and see if Bronte wrote something which inspired Sandy W. to do this, so here it goes, if anybody cares to read it:

“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!”

As far as I understand, Jane seems to be absolutely resolute in leaving Mr. R., however she lacks the courage to literally say 'Good-bye'. In fact, she goes back to him the moment he starts sobbing, which could be interpreted as giving him a bit of hope, that she wouldn't leave him in the morning. He does expect to see her, and she knows this as she later on passes in front of his door and thinks:
"He would send for me in the morning; I should be gone."

Isn't this sort of like leaving him hanging? And isn't this what Sandy W. depicted in the mini? The only difference is that she put in the "We'll talk in the morning" business. But we all have to consider that in the book, Jane ran away from Rochester while they were in the living room and went to her own room. In the series they were already in her room, so what else could she have told him to actually get him out of there convincingly? What else could have kept him from just waiting out the morning in her room? I think the explanation given by the screenwriter was pretty accurate, esp. since Jane did leave Rochester expecting to see her in the morning, a.k.a. hanging...

reply

[–] wenarskys 14 years ago

Yes, true. It can be interpreted that way on second reading. :)

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

I tend to think that's a mighty big dollop of wishful thinking on the part of Rochester there, Romina. Good reasoning, though.
I wish I could discuss this scene with Sandy herself. Sandy, do you ever look in on IMDb?
Romina, your little extract sent me to the novel to read the rest of the chapter. What pain and desolation Jane went through as she left Thornfield.

"I skirted fields, and hedges, and lanes, till after sunrise. I believe it was a lovely summer morning: I know my shoes, which I had put on when I left the house, were soon wet with dew. But I looked neither to rising sun, nor smiling sky, nor wakening nature. He who is taken out to pass through a fair scene to the scaffold, thinks not of the flowers that smile on his road, but of the block and axe-edge; of the disseverment of bone and vein; of the grave gaping at the end: and I thought of drear flight and homeless wandering—and, oh! with agony I thought of what I left. I could not help it. I thought of him now—in his room—watching the sunrise; hoping I should soon come to say I would stay with him, and be his. I longed to be his; I panted to return: it was not too late; I could yet spare him the bitter pang of bereavement. As yet my flight, I was sure, was undiscovered. I could go back and be his comforter—his pride; his redeemer from misery; perhaps from ruin. Oh, that fear of his self-abandonment—far worse than my abandonment—how it goaded me! It was a barbed arrow-head in my breast; it tore me when I tried to extract it; it sickened me when remembrance thrust it farther in. Birds began singing in brake and copse: birds were faithful to their mates; birds were emblems of love. What was I? In the midst of my pain of heart and frantic effort of principle, I abhorred myself. I had no solace from self-approbation: none even from self-respect. I had injured—wounded—left my master. I was hateful in my own eyes. Still I could not turn, nor retrace one step. God must have led me on. As to my own will or conscience, impassioned grief had trampled one and stifled the other. I was weeping wildly as I walked along my solitary way: fast, fast I went like one delirious. A weakness, beginning inwardly, extending to the limbs, seized me, and I fell: I lay on the ground some minutes pressing my face to the wet turf. I had some fear—or hope—that here I should die: but I was soon up; crawling forward on my hands and knees, and then again raised to my feet—as eager and as determined as ever to reach the road."

I'm so indebted to this adaptation.
It inspired me to return to a novel that barely registered with me as a child, but I can now deeply appreciate as a woman.

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

reply

[–] wenarskys 14 years ago

Off topic from the 2006 one, but did anyone find this scene in the 1996 one APPALLING? I felt as if she were leaving for the grocery store or something...... :o/

reply

[–] romina_p 14 years ago

Well... IMO Charlotte G. had no facial expression during the whole film, so it would definitely seem as if she were going to the grocery store! LOL! I know many people say it was part of her "talent" and portrayal of Jane to hide her emotions, but I just thought she had no inner emotion at all in regards to anything, so she obviously couldn't show any. ;)

reply

[–] wenarskys 14 years ago

but I just thought she had no inner emotion at all in regards to anything, so she obviously couldn't show any. ;) "

I know some people loved here in that film and thought her to be "the" Jane Eyre. But I found myself irritated throughout the whole thing. She didn't seem so much unemotional, but seemed to have this hidden anger or something? I didn't feel that was right for JE at all. Zelah Clarke has been criticized for being unemotional, but at least there was some softness there. I didn't get that at all from the 1996 version.
Also, rereading the proposal scene - Jane says something about the emotions she had buried finally broke forth and that's when she sort of unleashes on him and I found that to be a turning point. That was JE's coming of age, and all that came after it. I never felt that happened with Gainsbourg.

I DID get that feeling from the 1997 version. I've only see some scenes on Youtube, but I have ordered the DVD which should arrive any day, because I enjoyed Samantha Morton - I loved her ending scene "I will NOT leave you." "You are not your wounds" (Yeah, I know, not in the book, but I still liked it. :) I thought she did well. :)

reply

[–] romina_p 14 years ago

I wrote this a while back in one of the threads in JE96, concerning which one was "our favorite version." It says something similar to what u mentioned, so I thought you'd like to read it ;)

The best version in my opinion is the BBC 2006 version. When one watches the movie, you are completely immersed into their world due not only to the main actors' chemistry (which is fantasic), but to the screenplay, direction, location, costume design, everything!
The 1996 version's biggest problem is that to me the actress is not a convincing Jane... In the novel, Jane in the beginning was a withdrawn person when she went to Thornfield Hall because she was used to being mistreated by everyone. When she actually felt welcomed and loved, her real personality surfaced and became funny and sassy, but most of all showed her strong personality. There is a part in the book when Jane returns to Gateshead Hall to visit her aunt and her two cousins are indifferent and sarcastic to her, well she mentions how a year ago if she had been treated thus, she would have "quit Gateshead the very next morning; now it was disclosed to me all at once that that would be a very foolish plan."
And it was all due to her new-found security, self-assurance; and Wilson shows this transition masterfully all through the mini.

In the 1996 version, Charlotte G. plays Jane the same way throughout, there is no transition, she's just an expressionless girl who once tried to show her real emotions (in the garden scene) and it seemed to be completely unrealistic-forced even. Her real agony is never felt because you never truly identify with her in the first half of the film. It's partly the screenwriter's or the director's fault for having ommitted key scenes, but what can you really expect from a 2 hour version? However, Charlotter G. could have played her facial emotions better, but she didn't, so to me this version is poorly miscast and the 2006 version is superior by far!

reply

[–] romina_p 14 years ago

Supergran,
I'm so glad that the extract was a vehicle to the book, the best source for remembering why we love this story so much in the first place! I have a similar experience in regards to reading Jane Eyre for the first time; I guess I was about 11 and I didn't really "get it", if you know what I mean. My analysis of the story was of how 'an ugly girl loved an ugly man so much that she even returned to him after his being disfigured, blind, and with only one hand.' I considered the story quite depressing. However, a few years later I picked it up again and experienced something completely different... I understood it. Then, I started searching for the adaptations and came across the 1996 version, but I wasn't impressed at all. Then came the 2006 version, and I was stunned with the passion it depicted. I re-read the story once again just to compare it to the mini, and I felt and envisioned the explosive scenes even more. I guess you could say that this version also helped me to further appreciate Bronte's words, imagination, but most of all feeling - something most authors aren't capable of transmitting to their readers.

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Jane Eyre isn't a child's book, Romina, and yet that is when most of us first read it.
You're so much younger than me - I was fifty when this adaptation came out, so had to wait all those years before fully appreciating this powerful story.
I've just started re-reading it and, this time, I'm going to savour it. Any illusions I may entertain of my (supposed) writing prowess, dissolve into the ether when I read sentences like this:

"Superstition was with me at that moment; but it was not yet her hour for complete victory: my blood was still warm; the mood of the revolted slave was still bracing me with its bitter vigour; I had to stem a rapid rush of retrospective thought before I quailed to the dismal present." (chapter 2)

Aye me!

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

reply

[–] romina_p 14 years ago

Yes, hard to believe that a person who wrote with such passion was so shy around people... at least according to Gaskell. When I read about the "parrellilisms" (is that even a word?) between Jane Eyre's and Charlotte Bronte's life , I understood where she got her ideas from, from her real life experiences!

reply

[–] alfa-16 14 years ago

Talking about deleted scenes, what do you think about the one that has Jane in her wedding dress running away from Rochester and shutting the door on him? Very dramatic. But I'm glad they opted for the more serene finish. Agree?

Yes. I thought the fighting either side of the door looked a bit hackneyed. I think you realise what an impression the dropping blossom scene made when you do the walk yourself at Haddon Hall.

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

I think you realise what an impression the dropping blossom scene made when you do the walk yourself at Haddon Hall.

I'll have to take myself off up to Derbyshire one of these days and walk over that fanciful rose-petal carpet.
The new Jane Eyre film is also being shot at Haddon Hall.

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

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Bump.

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

reply

[–] KatharineFanatic 14 years ago

I was a bit surprised by it at first, but I think it was a brilliant idea, since it illustrates just how much Jane is giving up. She withstands an incredible temptation because of her moral values -- and the audience needs to understand that. How else to do it, and make them connect, unless you show them, and make part of them WANT her to stay with Edward? *I* wanted her to stay, and I'm totally on board with morality! It was a controversial decision, but in the end, I like it.

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Good argument, Katherine. And it's one that many people have made and that I'm growing in appreciation of.

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

reply

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

I definately agree with the second comment ".....Jane would never, ever have rolled around in bed with mr. rochester with his wife just above them in the attic. it changes everything about her character and just proves that again, all modern audiences are looking for is sexed up trite cr*p...." Very much true, all people wanna see is sex, sex, and more sex which is understanding so do I but if all I wanted was to see sex on screen I would have become a porn addict. There is more passionate saticfaction without it going all the way, I saw all the versions of Jane Eyre and all of them were just as sensual without the bedroom scenes and floor rolling stuff.

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

...without it going all the way

Well, I must have missed that bit, red rackham! Is it a deleted scene? Can I see it on youtube?
There, and I was thinking of letting my granddaughter watch it! I'd better think twice. Thanks for the tip.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

You mean the scene where Jane and Eward talk and she tells him that she is leaving him but he asked her to live with him as his wife and all that...in bed or how about the part where they are back together and they are rolling on the ground kissing?

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Forgive my earlier facetiousness, red rackham, but all this talk about sex, pornography and "going all the way" has me wondering if we've been watching the same film?
If you think there was too much physical intimacy, then fine. I can understand your feelings. But hyberbole doesn't help.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

There is this one that I was talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-5owa_DD7o&feature=related

Literally this Edward was trying sexual persuasions to coerce, sexy it maybe and I am enjoying it but that is not like an actual Jane Eyre story.

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Just to make it clickable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-5owa_DD7o

Rochester DID use sexual persuasion to coerce. This is from Chaper 27:

"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 don't mean to sound flippant. It can't be denied that Sandy Welch has taken great liberties with this scene, and I've had problems with it myself.
2006 is my favourite period drama of all time. So, in order to enjoy it fully, I've had to reconcile myself to this scene. Two things have helped me:-

Firstly, and I know it's obvious, but this is an adaptation. Novels are novels, and films are films. Two totally different mediums. And transferring all the thoughts, dialogue and action from a 500-plus page book to 4 hours screen-time is impossible. A film cannot be a transcription of a novel.
Speaking of dialogue, not all the speech in a novel works well on screen. It can be quite stylised and not truly realistic or believable. It looks good on paper but not on the screen. (I know that's a sacreligous thing to say about Charlotte Bronte, but she wrote novels and not screenplays!)
So, a screenwriter has to capture the essence or spirit of a story and then, basically, re-write it as a screenplay. Now that involves a certain amount of interpretation. How faithful to be to the source material? What to leave in and what to take out? What is the true essence of the story?
I love Sandy Welch's work. I trust her judgement. So I've tried to understand why she has made certain changes. I can't speak to her personally, so this brings me to the second thing that has assisted me: this board.

I've been helped to see a different side of things by the contributors to this thread. And there have been some great responses! Take the time to read them.
Here are some of them:

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. Jane and Rochester want each other in precisely the same way that all young lovers want each other. (alfa)

In the book we can get into Jane's head and know what she's feeling, but in a movie you have to rely on scenes and acting to drive home what the characters are going through. And in that scene we see just how painful it is for Jane to have to leave Rochester, and just how desperate Rochester is to keep Jane with him.
It's not dirty or anything, all they are doing is kissing and lightly touching each other, it's sweet and beautiful and lets us know how much they love each other. (weber4278)

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. (asphodel and wormwood)

Ok, I watched it...and all I can say is if it had been me in that scene, as filmed, I would *not* have had Jane's willpower.
And for precisely that reason, it works. Nine out of ten girls in that situation - poor, no family, desperately loved and in love - would have succumbed. Jane was the tenth. (lylee)

I was a bit surprised by it at first, but I think it was a brilliant idea, since it illustrates just how much Jane is giving up. She withstands an incredible temptation because of her moral values -- and the audience needs to understand that. How else to do it, and make them connect, unless you show them, and make part of them WANT her to stay with Edward? *I* wanted her to stay, and I'm totally on board with morality! It was a controversial decision, but in the end, I like it. (Katherine Fanatic)

So, and sorry it's taken so long(!), I've come round to their way of thinking. I'm not totally happy - I would have liked the deleted scene kept in. But nothing's 100% perfect!

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

I believe that scene you described from the book was used in the 1983 adaptation of Jane Eyre. Which is why that adaptation is my favorite.

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Fair enough.
You can't win 'em all.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wickedialogue 14 years ago

2006 with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens? Can't imagine why it would not be there. Click on supergran's post above and watch it on youtube.

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

I think Mercedes is referring to the user comments that I quoted in my very first post:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780362/board/thread/143239706

These, together with red rackham's recent comments, make 2006 sound like a porno movie! So don't worry Mercedes - you've been watching the same scene as the rest of us, but some people have so exaggerated the sexual content as to make it sound unrecognisable!

PS. Just in case of any confusion, this post of mine was pure sarcasm:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780362/board/thread/143239706?d=168351708 &p=4#168351708
Naughty, I know.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Glad the mystery is solved.
Please let us know your opinion of the bedroom scene when you have seen it in context.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wickedialogue 14 years ago

I loved this adaptation and long ago forgave any liberties taken in the telling of the story. I am sure modern audiences had their "no way" moment when they realized (if unfamiliar with the book) that Jane was going to leave Rochester in spite of her willingness to marry him before his secret was out. In today's moral climate, such a sacrifice would be almost unheard of. But Jane's values were very much part of the story itself. She got her man in the end, and stayed true to herself. Not a bad lesson.

reply

[–] coquiero 14 years ago

I believe that scene you described from the book was used in the 1983 adaptation of Jane Eyre. Which is why that adaptation is my favorite.

True, it was used, and I was sad it was not used in '06, but its spirit was very much there.

And that scene, in my opinion, didn't work in the '83 version because Zelah Clarke was a very wooden actor who looks like she is disgusted by Rochster's obvious physical ploy instead of turned on and wanting to succumb but fighting her very intense feelings.

Now, those feelings, though with different dialogue, came through with flying colors in the '06 version. In my opinion!!

Happiness is not a potato... -Charlotte Bronte

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Great contributions.

Thanks for letting us hear your opinions, Mercedes. You seem to concur with the majority opinion here.

Wicked, that's a good point about the necessity of taking the prevailing attitudes of a modern audience into account, especially an audience that has not read the book. There are those who would say that that is dumbing-down and modernising, but it is also about making a story accessible and one that people can relate to.

Coquiero, my husband just bought me the '73 and '83 DVDs for our anniversary. (I was hoping for a diamond ring, but maybe next year! )
I must say it, I LOVED the dialogue of the parting scene as it was done in the 83. Well, MOST of the dialogue worked, but not all. And Timothy Dalton was terrific, going from one desperate ploy to another in his bid to keep Jane. I agree about Zelah's largely wooden performance, though.
Back to 06, I'd love to have heard Toby say a little more of Bronte's wonderful intense dialogue. We were denied that because of the "we'll talk in the morning" line (we get glimpses of "what might have been" in the deleted scene). Anyway, you lot must be getting fed-up with me constantly repeating that so I'll shut up! But just to agree with your sentiments that the spirit and feelings of the scene as Bronte wrote it came through in 06.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] coquiero 14 years ago

A prediction: in the new film version coming out in March, I would put money down that we'll see Rochester whisper into Jane's ear, "Jane! Will you hear reason? Because if you won't, I'll try violence."

There have been all kinds of hints that the screenwriter and director wanted to take the film in a darker direction than others. This is the darkest moment for Rochester's character, and without Jane's patient, firm "handling" of Edward at this moment, we might have had a very different ending to that chapter.

I've always wanted to see someone play that scene; it's a terrific one. I suppose that screenwriters think it will be a turn off to audiences, that they want to keep Rochester as a romantic hero, but how juicy would that be? Jane, veering back and forth between terror and sympathy and longing, Rochester nearly losing control.

I tell you, sometimes I think I need to write a new adaptation myself!! Because the world doesn't have enough adaptations of Jane Eyre out there. :)

Happiness is not a potato... -Charlotte Bronte

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Coquiero, I know I've been concentrating on Jane throughout most of this thread, and her (as I saw it) lack of clear resoluteness. But, having watched JE83, I'm realising that we missed out on seeing that other one of Rochester's desperate stratagems. I wrote elsewhere that, in 06, he goes from Plan A (the appeal to the heart - "we are one, you and I"), through Plan B (sexual seduction) to Plan C (the suggestion of platonic co-habitation). But, of course, there was Plan D in the book - the recourse to physical force.
Now, I'm not a lover of violence. But it would have been great if we'd had a bit of this:

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quite why Sandy Welch decided to keep Rochester so subdued, I don't know. Maybe she thought it would be a turn-off as you say.
It'll be interesting to see how the new version tackles this scene. I can't wait!

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] wickedialogue 14 years ago

Anyone who introduces the violent side of Rochester as suggested is treading a very thin line with viewers. It is one thing to read those words, it is quite another to see it enacted on the screen. No one wants to think of Rochester as an abuser, which is the risk here. He is desperate because of circumstances not because he is a flawed character.

reply

[–] pmvk 14 years ago

I agree. These dark, violent thoughts of Rochester belong to the elements of the novel that are dated. Nowadays these thoughts are with reason considered inappropiate for a "romantic hero". Girls of our times are taught to leave men who intimidate them with violence and abuse. Jane still loves Rochester and finally comes back to him. That would be a bad role model.

Yet it is by far not as bad to read it as it would probably come across on the screen. Rochester feels helpless, as he realizes that all his physical strength won't help him. He understands that what he wants can only be given to him voluntarily, it can by no means be forced to happen. He would destroy what he is longing for.

"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."

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Well, maybe not go quite as far as described in the book. It would have been rather appealing to at least have seen him get his dander up (if you'll pardon the expression!)

I know I agreed with wicked yesterday about the need to connect with a modern audience, but maybe it's not necessary to go too far in the "political correctness" department. I think we could all identify with anger borne of frustration without thinking the protagonist a brute!

I don't want anyone to think I didn't enjoy this scene as it was done in 2006! It's just that the scene as written by Charlotte Bronte is rather wonderful too.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] wickedialogue 14 years ago

No need for political correctness from me. I am just concerned that there will be gratuitous violence to draw an audience. Someone also said there might be a stronger emphasis on the gothic which also runs the risk of being overplayed.

reply

[–] coquiero 14 years ago

The writer/director/actors would have to be brilliant to pull it off, but I think it could be done without descending into brutality. It's exactly the quote about the bird in the cage that I think could be boiled down in the scene--he wouldn't be able to say them because it probably would water down a very intense scene.

It would have to be similar to what JE '06 did with the "...you would leave me, Jane?" scene. They took the dialogue which was wonderful and moving in the novel, boiled it down and turned it into action (kissing! gasp! touching! Somebody get the smelling salts!), still keeping the essence of their dialogue perfectly intact.

Rochester is a hugely flawed character who comes to redemption through his love of Jane. The greater the flaws, the greater the satisfaction of the reader/viewer at seeing him redeemed. I think that movie-goers are sophisticated enough to grasp that Rochester is desperate here and close to losing his grip.

But he doesn't! He reminds himself what is truly important, Jane's spirit, her soul, because in essence Rochester is a cerebral character--he would have been a great clinician. :) So he reasons his own way through his crisis of passion, and Jane sees it all. She sees him pull himself back from that precipice, and she she loves him all the more for it.

That's drama of the highest order! Someone brave and brilliant could pull it off, I'm sure of it. But no one has ever tried.

I don't support my argument with the text like supergran does (I'm too lazy!!!) ; I'm assuming that we've all read the book enough that you know the text I'm talking about? If not, I'll go back and pull out the words.

Anyway, I'm used to people not agreeing with me about JE, and I can see that this scene could be disastrous in the hands of the wrong writer/director/actors. But still I can dream, right??!!

Happiness is not a potato... -Charlotte Bronte

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Heaven forbid that any violence should be gratuitous, wicked. But I don't believe that the book contains any real brutality. In fact, when you watch Timothy Dalton enact the scene in '83, you don't think "what savagery".
Unfortunately, what you DO think is that Dalton's performance in that scene is at times overly theatrical, even a tad embarrassing. Bless him!
That's why I love your suggestion, coquiero - that of extracting the "essence" of the original dialogue and boiling it down (in culinary parlance, is that called a jus?) Sandy Welch is good at getting to the "nub" of the matter. She obviously had good reasons for leaving it out, but she would have handled it well if she'd chosen to.
I love what you say here, coquiero:

Rochester is a hugely flawed character who comes to redemption through his love of Jane. The greater the flaws, the greater the satisfaction of the reader/viewer at seeing him redeemed. I think that movie-goers are sophisticated enough to grasp that Rochester is desperate here and close to losing his grip.

But he doesn't! He reminds himself what is truly important, Jane's spirit, her soul, because in essence Rochester is a cerebral character--he would have been a great clinician. :) So he reasons his own way through his crisis of passion, and Jane sees it all. She sees him pull himself back from that precipice, and she she loves him all the more for it.

Any good at screenplays?

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] jinx_malone 14 years ago

thanks for quoting me in the objections above. those objections still stand.

clearly, what you're about is not debate, but a fluffy bunny lovefest for this version of the story. so have it, but don't be silly enough to call it a debate. you want opinions that match your own. go write some fanfic to shake it all out of your system. oh wait--this version was fanfic.

see what i did there?

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] wickedialogue 14 years ago

see what i did there?

Sure did. And it brings you no credit, clearly.

reply

[–] jinx_malone 14 years ago

did you think i was expecting any? spare me the pearl-clutching.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

As the originator of this thread, I'd like to thank you for providing, albeit unwittingly, a catalyst for our discussion. Discussion, not a formal debate (nor a "fluffy bunny lovefest"). And, apart from a little tongue-in-cheek sarcasm (which I regret) in response to an OTT post, none of the hostility displayed here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085037/board/thread/160392175?d=171392665 &p=1#171392665

From whence comes the ire, jinx malone?

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] jinx_malone 14 years ago

asking a troll to remain where they're surrounded by people who think like them isn't ire. it's a simple request. you see, i don't spend any time on this board, because you and i have no common ground for 'discussion'. i stay where i can talk with like-minded folks--which is not often on the breeding ground of ignorance that is IMDB.

every person who's brought up a reason why jane should not act as she does has been dismissed out of hand, which tells me again that you don't care about discussion unless it suits your tastes. which is fine. just don't go around acting high-minded about it and offering to foster friendly fireside chats.

hopefully bothering to look up my other posts was amusing for you. goodbye.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] wickedialogue 14 years ago

Goodbye.

Promise?

reply

[–] supergran 14 years ago

Well, I was going to answer that (a) calling the poster on JE83 a troll was a bit misplaced and (b) I don't remember anyone's views being dismissed out of hand on this board. But seems like I'm too late.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] asphodel_and_wormwood 14 years ago

asking a troll to remain where they're surrounded by people who think like them isn't ire. it's a simple request. you see, i don't spend any time on this board, because you and i have no common ground for 'discussion'. i stay where i can talk with like-minded folks--which is not often on the breeding ground of ignorance that is IMDB.

every person who's brought up a reason why jane should not act as she does has been dismissed out of hand, which tells me again that you don't care about discussion unless it suits your tastes. which is fine. just don't go around acting high-minded about it and offering to foster friendly fireside chats.

hopefully bothering to look up my other posts was amusing for you. goodbye.

Really, could you be anymore arrogant? I'm sorry that IMDB doesn't provide you with the stimulating discussion that you are so used to. Perhaps next time you could spare the small minded people your useless...I mean thought provoking diatribes because clearly they can not comprehend that an adaptation can only be translated to screen by following the original material verbatim. Otherwise said adaptation is complete and utter *beep* and the collaborative creative effort that was put into making the film was all for naught and can not be appreciated because obviously it's just glorified fanfiction. *rolls eyes*

they have only chaos to climb

reply

[–] wickedialogue 14 years ago

One wonders why a poster with those sentiments wanders on these boards to begin with. I HATE THIS MOVIE (MINI, SHOW, ADAPTATION)! usually doesn't stimulate much discussion because the viewpoint is more dogma than anything else.

reply

[–] asphodel_and_wormwood 14 years ago

Honestly I have no problem with the posters sentiments. Naturally, contrasting opinions can only foster debate and discussion. However, it was the way they decided to convey them -- in such a self-congratulating and condescending manner that rubbed me wrong. I mean it was obvious from the first post that they were just looking for a fight. Who does that? Seriously.

they have only chaos to climb

reply

[–] wickedialogue 14 years ago

I don't know. Very angry people - and probably over a whole lot more than an adaptation of Jane Eyre.

reply

[–] Exiled180 13 years ago

So I read through a majority of the posts in this thread prior to actually seeing the final part of the series. I must say that the result was quite a letdown. I was prepared for some all-out bedroom scene, but to me it just seemed like a kissing scene interspersed with dialogue. Don't get me wrong, because it was quite a passionate scene, but I certainly don't think it was inappropriate content for the time period or for the situation. Perhaps this exaggeration comes from the fact that they're lying on a bed? I have no idea... It just didn't bother me at all.

That being said, I certainly wouldn't object to such a scene in the film. How are we supposed to know what people in this time period did behind closed doors? Just because they didn't talk about it, or write about it in the literature, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Perhaps Bronte intended for something like this to happen, but couldn't get this published because of the strict moral codes of the time.

I thought Jane displayed great strength to walk away from Rochester at that point. She appeared at points to want to give in to temptation, as Rochester is doing everything he can to make her stay. I think that this scene is an effective way to visually show Jane's dilemma, and just how difficult it was for her to finally decide to leave.

reply

[–] Unwanted_Birdtamer 13 years ago

Well, yes people have kind of a warped view of how moral the Victorians were. The Victorians had a warped view of themselves, and prided themselves on being morally superior to the wild Regency age, while ignoring that the Victorian illegitimacy birthrate was much higher than the Regency had been. So of course lots more went on behind closed doors then we think. The issue is the scene is played the complete opposite of how it's written in the book; Jane lets Rochester kiss her once on the cheek, and other than that, she will not let him touch her and tries to forces him away every time he tries. I don't buy that Bronte would have written it differently if not for censors. She didn't have a problem pushing boundaries, and there were more shocking books out there. It was that Jane the way Bronte had written her, could not have stayed and made out with Rochester knowing he was married. She would have loathed herself for it, and if she had allowed Rochester to kiss her, she knew she was likely to cave and stay with him; and staying as his mistress would have been the worst thing she could have done to herself. She would have loathed herself for it and it would have destroyed her slowly.

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

reply

[–] Exiled180 13 years ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. I wasn't really taking into consideration what Jane would or wouldn't do in such a situation. I was mostly focusing on Victorian society morals rather than Jane's morals, which was kind of pointless now that I think about it...

But when you've got two actors with as much chemistry as these two have, why wouldn't you want to include this?
Even though the scene wasn't true to the book (that point is well established now), I think it emphasizes how difficult Jane's decision to leave Rochester was. There's just so much passion in that scene, and I think that I think a lot of people wouldn't be as strong-willed as Jane in this situation. Anyway, thats my guess as to why the scene was written.

reply

[–] hilaryjrp 13 years ago

In response to Exiled180--

I believe the scene *was* true to the book, for the reasons you said--it telegraphed better than any dialogue, soliloquoy, or running shot could Jane's 1) tortured ambiguity about leaving a situation/man her higher self must leave; and 2) ability to act ethically rather than passionately when a conflict between ethics and passion demand it.

Personally? The scene is what every reader infers, I believe very strongly. If you read the dialogue of *only* the two male protagonists, they come off both so outrageous and unreal as to defy any semblance to reality. Jane06 is poetry on film.

reply

[–] supergran 13 years ago

I was about to bump this thread, but this is even better - fresh posts!

I agree with you, Exiled, that the complaints about the sexuality of the bedroom scene have been somewhat exaggerated. I've heard descriptions like "dry humping". Yuk!

I also sympathise with your view, UB, that "if [Jane] had allowed Rochester to kiss her, she knew she was likely to cave and stay with him". That is certainly true, and how I (as a christian) would have dealt with this overwhelmingly tempting situation.

But I also feel that Sandy Welch was arguably justified in using dramatic licence to demonstrate to a modern audience in a visual medium the dilemma that Jane faced as outlined by Exiled and Hilary (and so well expressed by you both!)

I've previously mentioned Sandy Welch's other adaptation, North and South. In this, the heroine Margaret Hale takes a dislike to mill-owner John Thornton based on little more than class prejudice and snobbery. I found this passage in a review:

Near the beginning of the first episode, screenwriter Sandy Welch felt it was necessary to give Margaret a more compelling reason to dislike Thornton—her snobbery about his profession would not resonate well with contemporary audiences, it was feared. So, a scene was added where Thornton does something that really (really!) makes a bad impression.

The "something" was to have Thornton beat up a mill employee for smoking and endangering the lives of fellow workers. A totally made up scene, but one that gives Margaret a more substantial and understandable reason (to a modern audience) for disliking Thornton.

There are those who criticize this change to N&S. I've done so myself, admittedly. But it illustrates the problems faced when adapting an old novel to the screen in the twenty-first century.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] hilaryjrp 13 years ago

"But I also feel that Sandy Welch was arguably justified in using dramatic licence to demonstrate to a modern audience in a visual medium the dilemma that Jane faced..."

Until the day arrives when a film adaptation has the pivotal rejection scene between Jane and St. John at a relaxed, by-the-numbers pace, I will not pay to see any new version for the above reason. "Jane Eyre" has been done to death, but I feel as if Bronte's patently obvious intention for this novel to be a love triangle has *never* been given its due.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

Sure, she was tempted to stay with Rochester, but in the book, she wouldn't even let him touch her after Bertha was discovered.

I've read this several times now, and yet it isn't true.

—"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.

So obviously he did touch and kiss her, and even if finally she extricated herself from restraint, she didn't immediately shy away from his touch and physically avoid him. Why? IMO this leaves room for the interpretation that she was tempted, even if she managed to resist.

BTW, thank you, alfa, for your comment on the line "I do". I didn't realize the ambiguity of these words when I first read the book.

reply

[–] supergran 13 years ago

@pmvk.

Hi.

Agreed.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Chapter 27 is done in the new film, aren't you?

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] supergran 13 years ago

@Roses

Not so off-topic with the North and South comparison. Nineteenth century readers would have understood Margaret's prejudice. But viewers in the twenty-first century would just consider Margaret a "snot" (lol). Sandy Welch's beating scene is a bow to a modern audience and a way to get them connected.
Similarly with Jane Eyre (also Sandy Welch). Victorian readers would understand instantly why Jane Eyre would run away from Rochester, not allowing herself to be overwhelmed by temptation. But today's viewers may not feel the same. They may conclude that Jane is cold and may not even truly love Rochester. And, of course, we have Jane's thoughts to read in the book. Not so on film. So Sandy Welch is trying to convey Jane's dilemma as effectively as she can to a modern audience.
What do others think?

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

Nineteenth century readers would have understood Margaret's prejudice. But viewers in the twenty-first century would just consider Margaret a "snot" (lol). Sany Welch's beating scene is a bow to a modern audience and a way to get them connected.

I agree with you, didn't like Margaret very much in the book either. On the other hand I really wonder whether I had forgiven the John Thornton of the miniseries for this outburst of brutality if it hadn't been Richard Armitage who portrayed him. To think about that makes me feel a little bit uncomfortable.

However, the beating scene created an incredible lot of suspense. Their first meeting could hardly have happened under worse circumstances.

Similarly with Jane Eyre (also Sandy Welch). Victorian readers would understand instantly why Jane Eyre would run away from Rochester, not allowing herself to be overwhelmed by temptation. But today's viewers may not feel the same. They may conclude that Jane is cold and may not even truly love Rochester.

Brilliant point, I wholeheartedly agree. I am curious to see how they handled it in the 2011 film, since many people seem to be enthusiastic about this scene especially. I just wonder if they manage to communicate to a modern audience that Jane isn't just a calculating prude who doesn't really love Rochester.

reply

[–] supergran 13 years ago

QUICK reply, pmvk.

I'm just going out, but I'll reply later.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

I had just run up my notebook and immediately hit the reply- button.

reply

[–] supergran 13 years ago

The beating scene in North and South was discussed in this thread over on the N&S board:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417349/board/thread/169632104?p=1

I was critical of the scene until the girls over there eloquently defended it. Now I'm more or less won over, but I think kicking the employee when he was on the floor was a kick too far!

Can't wait to see the new film. When do you think you'll be able to see it, pmvk?

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

The beating scene in North and South was discussed in this thread over on the N&S board:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417349/board/thread/169632104?p=1

Yes, I caught a glimpse of this thread over there, but I shied away from delving into it.

but I think kicking the employee when he was on the floor was a kick too far!

I definitely agree.

Can't wait to see the new film. When do you think you'll be able to see it, pmvk?

I still don't know. Have you by chance seen a release date for Spain anywhere? Anyway it seems as if I shared your fate of having to wait til September or longer. If that is possible, I'm even more unfortunate than you. If it comes to this island at all (not sure about that, I centre my hopes on a certain arthouse cinema in Las Palmas), I will have to watch a Spanish dubbed version, while what I want to see is the original. Well, there will be a DVD one day ... I'm glad that I am a rather patient person (except for when I try to play chess).

reply

[–] supergran 13 years ago

@Hilary

...a film adaptation has the pivotal rejection scene between Jane and St. John at a relaxed, by-the-numbers pace...

It just ain't gonna happen, neither in a film or a mini-series. I think 2006 took a fair stab at it (along with '73 and '83), but I would love to have seen Andrew Buchan use the rather sinister coercion that St John does in the book to get Jane to marry him.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] hilaryjrp 13 years ago

@Supergran--

Indeed. Buchan is so cute--and I think the closest to St. John's personality that any portrayal has come. The character *has* to have some charm, or else Jane wouldn't have stuck around...and Buchan is good-looking! Good-looking people are fun to look at! It would be great if I and the rest of the world were good-looking, but the fact that that hain't true isn't going to make me go sour grapes on the BEST adaptation that also happened to have the BEST looking cast.

For anyone interested in why the rejection scene is so important-- Ladies (cover your virginal ears), St. John IS sexy to Christians. Extremely so.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

There's a gorgeous scene of him making a fire- but that's beside the point.

I bet it isn't. The reviving warmth of a fire is an important element of this scene. It seems as if in the film they kept the "literal" image, whereas in the miniseries they chose to illustrate what it actually symbolizes/means. IMO the two approaches are legitimate, it's just that the latter is less likely to be misunderstood.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

Have you already seen the new movie?

Are you mocking me?

No, as I wrote in my reply to supergran, I haven't been able to see it yet, I'm European. We will have to wait for many more months. The way films are released at different times in different countries seems extremely dated to me, given that we have forums like imdb with users from all over the planet and with half of them being incapable of giving an opinion, because they haven't been able to see the film yet. Sometimes I think that the way this world is organized (whether it's about arts or politics) is ridiculously dated in so many respects, and we have outgrown it.

I read that you praised Mia Wasikowska's performance for her subtlety. I must admit that I haven't seen her in anything so far, just in the trailer and a few clips of "Jane Eyre", but I'm a bit sceptical about her. When I read that people praise her immobile neck and profile, I feel tempted to ask whether we speak about acting here or about projection. Sounds like great directing and cinematography, but is this really about acting? I have to shut up though, I haven't seen the film yet.

For me as an observer from a distance it's fascinating to see that parts of the audience swoon about the amazing chemistry between Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, whereas others complain that there is no chemistry whatsoever. Either their acting is indeed extremely subtle or - again - big part of the chemistry is mere projection. Maybe the female audience just takes for granted that Mia Wasikowska is in love with Michael Fassbender's Rochester, because - who wouldn't?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

I guess there will always be high fences between the admirers of one version or another.

If you indulge in a bit too much schadenfreude over us poor deprived europeans, we'll start talking about The Crimson Petal and the White currently being broadcast on the BBC. You won't be getting that in the US for a bit . . .

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

I respect your opinion, Roses (like everybody else's who isn't condescending and disrespectful towards others). It's just that for me it's not an important question whether Jane would have allowed Rochester to be on her bed or not - as long as it was obvious that they didn't make love (which would indeed have spoilt the intention of the book ).

What's important for me is that this adaptation managed to communicate to the audience that Jane is not a cold girl that is only after Rochester's money or social position, but that she is passionately in love with him and that it is a tremendous sacrifice for her to leave him and to resist the temptation of just letting go.

IMO the reviving warmth of a fire symbolizes what's going on in Jane's heart and body in this moment. And the fact that Charlotte Brontë made her express her determination to leave him with the words "I do" (three times) is highly ambiguous, given that these lines usually express the consent to marry. There are different interpretations, but I think that it shows Jane's deeply ambivalent feelings in this moment - part of her is craving for physical intimacy with Rochester and just wants to consent.

I just couldn't stand the character if she didn't feel tempted.

reply

[–] dbh850 13 years ago

I love this discussion - I was SHOCKED when I saw that scene! There is NO WAY Jane would have ever, EVER done this! The rules for decent sexual behavior were strict and Jane was definitely an observer of those rules. She was utterly chaste and had very high moral standards. AND she had a lot of self-respect. That's what is so wonderful about the character... she was abused and unloved in the first part of childhood - and developed a completely understandable defiance. She moderated her passionate nature and worked hard at Lowood - and became "quite a lady" in the words of Bessie. She would never, ever, ever do that. I was disgusted when they put that in there. Trying to appease 14 year olds, I guess...

You know what they say... no one with missing teeth wears an Armani suit.

reply

[–] supergran 13 years ago

Hi dbh.

What can I say? We're all entitled to our views and to express them. And, to a certain extent, I understand your sense of shock.

I hope you've had a chance to read through the posts in this thread, There have been some really good points made which have enabled me to see things from another perspective. But if you still feel the same, c'est la vie!

Edited for a postscript: I'm considerably older than 14. More than forty years older.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] dbh850 13 years ago

Hi, Supergran! Ha ha! You are so witty - love it! I did read some of the posts and I always feel I learn something! I'm really glad you started this thread.

:-)

You know what they say... no one with missing teeth wears an Armani suit.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

Edited for a postscript: I'm considerably older than 14. More than forty years older. []

Unfortunately in your case the four decades apparently haven't sufficed to turn you from a teen that wants to be appeased into a decent lady that is shocked about a kiss as befits her.

Sorry to be so blunt, but what can you expect from a teen?

reply

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

The key to understanding why Sandy Welch went for a passionate bedroom scene lies in three other scenes and one defect in the book.

First, the Brocklehurst scene. To those who think Jane was a stickler for the rules, I refer you the extraordinary behaviour of the young Jane in defying her present and future guardian and presenting them both with a clear statement of her own rules and interpretation of her situation. The only rules Jane follows after this point are her own. As supergrsn pointed out, she doesn't actually defy holy writ, but at the age of 8(?) she has realised that her interpretation is a valid as anyone else's and a whole lot less selfish and a whole lot less narrow.

Second, though this is bypassed in the mini, Jane discovers she is a passionate, physical person at Lowood with Mis Templeman and Helen. Have a look at the scene in Miss Templeman's room. There's a fire, again, and. there's and edgy sapphic intimacy to the writing which is quite incompatible with religion or piety.

Third, The novel already has a sensational bedroom scene, fire again, nightdresses (possibly not in Rochester's case) and real shared intimacy.

As pmvk points out, Jane was looking forward to her wedding night and truly distraught (after a monte of abstinence) at being forced to sacrifice it. Jane is not a prude or a religious stickler, she wants Rochester to make love to her but it will do an injustice to another human being and she won't do that.

The defect is that the novel falls flat during the Rivers episode when Jane and Rochester are apart.

So I think it was a great idea to graphically show the extent of Jane's sacrifice in flashback durig teh Rivers episode especially as it heightens the parallels between the offer she gets from Rivers and the offer she received from Rochester.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

Thank you for this brilliant post, alfa! I agree with every word.

When I'll reread the book, I will pay special attention to the sapphic intimacy at Lowood, I didn't grasp it when I read it, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

Thank you as well for reminding us that the novel does have a hot bedroom scene anyway.

Another important point of your post is how much sense it made that the miniseries showed the "separation scene" as a flashback during the Rivers' episode.

Sandy Welch knows indeed very well what she is doing and it is an annoying lack of respect if people try to ridicule her and belittle her achievements.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Exiled180 13 years ago

I agree that fires certainly do make for great sexy, passionate scenes. This link could be due to the fire-ice motif and imagery of the book. Jane is often described as having fire-like qualities, and Rochester does as well, to some extent. Things that oppose Jane or try to extinguish her vitality, like St John and Mrs Reed, or Moor House and Lowood, have ice-like qualities. Fire is a metaphor for Jane's passion and spirit, so its fitting that a warm fire brings the two together with passion and intimacy. I didn't see the '06 version do this so well, but the new '11 version did an amazing job with this. Most of the film was very dark, and set near a fire or candle. These scenes were very passionate and did not need the assistance of a bedroom scene to convey how much they love each other.

So since I last posted here, I've now seen the 1943, 1996, and 2011 (for the second time) versions of the film. I think I like the 2006 version the best simply because it shows that Jane and Rochester have not just a spiritual passion, but a physical passion as well, and that is what I think gives the pair the best chemistry of any version. I think that this version is the only version that I was actually convinced Jane was in love with Rochester (just as the book managed to convey so well). '43 and '96 did the worst job of this, '11 came pretty close. Again, as I and several others have pointed out, its very difficult to convey love through a strictly visual medium such as film (especially to today's audience). The audience does not have Jane's narrative style to convey in words just how much she loves Rochester, so we need something else to show us. The book simply didn't need a 'bedroom scene' to convey to the audience just how much Jane was struggling with her decision to leave Rochester, but the film does need something else otherwise it comes up a little flat (like '43 and '96).

Also I think the scene further exaggerates just how difficult Jane's decision to leave was. I think it takes more strength to be kissing Rochester and then leave, than to just resist him altogether. Which is why I admire '06 Jane more than I do in the book and other films. I guess I just don't agree with Jane's morals about resisting Rochester as she does so adamantly in the book. I can see why (she wouldnt respect herself), but I just don't agree with her here.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

@Roses:

I didn't mean to say that the actual bedroom scene of the book (and the miniseries) is less erotic than the additional one of the miniseries. On the contrary, I wholeheartedly agree that what creates most sexual tension is what is not frankly shown, what bubbles beneath the surface and is unconsciously or unintentionally revealed.

But, as has been pointed out, it's a misunderstanding to believe that the additional bedroom scene was included in order to show something "sexy" or to satisfy the sexual needs of pubertarians (after all you can easily get hotter stuff for this purpose than a "Jane Eyre" adaptation ). Its function is to show the state of mind and body in which Jane takes the decision to leave Rochester ("on fire"). I share Exiled's feelings – for me this is a most important aspect to be able to like or even admire Jane for the sacrifice she is prepared to make in order to stay true to herself. Otherwise some people could get the utterly wrong impression that Jane is an unfeeling, frigid and calculating girl that runs away because now she can't marry Rochester and become a noble woman any more (as some people, who seem to care very much about pedigree, misread the book).

@ Exiled:

Jane is often described as having fire-like qualities, and Rochester does as well, to some extent.

That's precisely how I understand the line when Jane is called Rochester's likeness – an aspect that has often been ignored in previous adaptations of the book. Even if they appear to be very different on the surface, their true natures are very much alike – determined, passionate and sensual. It is one of the numerous qualities of Rochester (flawed as he may be) that he is intuitive enough to see who Jane really is and not to be blinded by her school girl's appearance. He understands her determined and at the same time tender & caring character instantly when they first meet:

"I cannot think of leaving you, sir, at so late an hour, in this solitary lane, till I see you are fit to mount your horse."

He looked at me when I said this; he had hardly turned his eyes in my direction before.

reply

[–] supergran 13 years ago

That's precisely how I understand the line when Jane is called Rochester's likeness – an aspect that has often been ignored in previous adaptations of the book. Even if they appear to be very different on the surface, their true natures are very much alike – determined, passionate and sensual.

Pmvk - that is exactly how I feel! People who imagine Jane to be some kind of prim prude are completely missing the point.
In the book, she extricates herself from Rochester's hold because she can't trust herself not to go further.

(I'm just going out, but will PM you later, pmvk)

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

In the book, she extricates herself from Rochester's hold because she can't trust herself not to go further.

Precisely!! I knew that we are kindred souls, supergran.

I'm convinced that she is always more afraid of herself than of anything Rochester could do to her (the latter is more of a thrill than a threat to her, because she knows that she is strong enough to cope).

reply

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

I have posted before at length about Bronte's prose which has a much hotter pulse than most other Victorian novels at the time and was partly responsible for the sensational reaction to the novel from the Victorian reading public. Jane constantly uses the warmest, strongest, most passionate language to describe her feelings. You'll find hundreds of verbs that Jane Austen never uses. Nothing about the novel was typical when it appeared.

So the bedroom scene was sensational at the time, however tame and polite it seems now and Jane, who seems the acme of propriety to a lot of modern readers, looked like an unprincipled adventuress to many of her early readers who would have been more shocked at the idea of a governess marrying her master than at a master taking a servant as a mistress.

06 bridged this gap in sensibilities very well with just a little stretch here and there. An especially effective one is Jane kissing the hand Rochester held when they shook hands after the fire after returning to her room. The bedroom flashbacks are just the biggest stretch.

As pmvk says, there's nothing really shown and yet it is shockingly sensuous. One thread described it as 'throat porn'. But that is all it is.

Interesting that it produced the same reaction as the original in many readers.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

Thank you for your interesting comment on Charlotte Brontë's prose (which seems to be pretty controversial down to the present day, given some polemic comments I've come across). I'm curious enough now to finally read the whole book in English, which shamefully I haven't done yet. I read parts of it in English and parts in German (a surprisingly bad German translation that is freely available at gutenberg.spiegel.de). I got the impression that for me it's easier to read and understand Jane Austen (whom I read in English and whom I have come to hold in very high esteem) than Charlotte Brontë, as far as the language is concerned.

and Jane, who seems the acme of propriety to a lot of modern readers, looked like an unprincipled adventuress to many of her early readers who would have been more shocked at the idea of a governess marrying her master than at a master taking a servant as a mistress.

I definitely agree with the first part – more shocked at the idea of a governess marrying her master: In my opinion that's one of the things that make Rochester an unusual character who is appealing to women until today: The relationship between Jane and him had little or nothing of the (to be expected!) condescension towards a young woman that is socially inferior. I can't detect neither the usual foolish pride of place nor a sense of superiority due to his sex in him. (But maybe I missed something and will change my opinion when I re-read it.) So far it would never occur to me to call this of all male characters the caricature of an "uber alpha male", at least not in this sense.

As far as the second part is concerned – less shocked at the idea of a master taking a servant as a mistress: From the male perspective you are absolutely right. After all for centuries there had been a phenomenon like the ius primae noctis in Europe. Society would easily have forgiven him, but not her I assume. At least German literature is full of texts about what happened to (middle-class) girls and women who forgot themselves for a short moment and were doomed.

One thread described it as 'throat porn'. But that is all it is.

Now I'm glad that I can hide behind my deficient vocabulary in English (or pretend to) so that I'm not obliged to blush in order to fulfill my duties as a chaste and decent lady.
Anyway for me this term sounds like an alternative ending that uptight old Europe was deprived of.

Interesting that it produced the same reaction as the original in many readers.

I wonder where the outrage actually comes from. It can impossibly have been the sexually explicit content of the scene itself, since there was none. Is it mainly indignation about liberties Sandy Welch took with the original plot in order to focus more on the psychology of the female character than on period appropriate plot details; or is it that some people are outraged when 19th century literature is "tainted" with something that remotely reminds of a sexual activity? I've got the impression that for some people the Victorian Age is an idealized era before the Fall of Man, a dreamworld to which they escape in order to avoid the explicit sexuality of our society (when I watch TV commercials late at night I can understand them).

Partly this chaste idealized view of the 19th century seems to be based on the wrong assumption that there was no sex whatsoever back then or that it must have been a better era for women. For my liking, I would not want to change with women back then, neither at daytime nor at nighttime.

reply

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

The core of the problem, I think, is not Charlotte Bronte's fault.

In the 1920's and 30's Gainsborogh Films, with Hollywood right behind, invented the 'period costume' drama and all its tropes and cliche's, the stiff upper lip, the ramrod straight back in the tightly laced corset, the crisp high-pitched BBC accents and the fanciful moral rectitude. Even the Dickens adaptations suffered until David Lean showed everyone how to do Dickens on screen.

I think the pattern of objection to what Jane might or might not do is built on the film genre.

Because there really are only two things of which she is not capable in the book. Wilfully hurting another human being is one. And indulging in a loveless or platonic relationship even if it is supporting important missionary work.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

Because there really are only two things of which she is not capable in the book. Wilfully hurting another human being is one. And indulging in a loveless or platonic relationship even if it is supporting important missionary work.

I agree that Jane wouldn't wilfully hurt another human being, because the quintessence of this characer as I perceive her is that she is defiant and tender at the same time (perfectly condensed in the determined sentence: "I cannot think of leaving you, sir, at so late an hour, in this solitary lane, till I see you are fit to mount your horse.") Wilfully hurting people is incompatible with the latter quality and her humanity.

But in fact the principled decision she takes does hurt people: She hurts Rochester and herself. One of the things I liked about the 2006 adaptation is that it managed to communicate to the audience (precisely by the controversial bedroom scene shown as flashbacks) that she is not a stiff & principled cold sadist, but that by leaving him she had hurt herself quite as much as him. I don't remember if previous adaptations (Zelah Clarke, Charlotte Gainsbourg?) managed to show that, and I'm curious about how the 2011 film communicates this aspect. Apparently there is a dream-sequence that has the same function as the bedroom scene in 2006.

reply

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

Although you could argue that she has no choice about hurting herself and she isn't 'wilfully' hurting Rochester. He's being given another chance to keep on the straight and narrow. To strive to endure what fate has delivered on to his plate.

Whichever line you follow, you get the dilemma in 06, dramatic, whole and undiluted with only a few liberties taken. You hardly get a sniff of it in most other adaptations.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

I can't raise objections, since, as it happens, there is no arguing with your point of view.

reply

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

reply

[–] ThatDoesntMatter 13 years ago

"In the 1920's and 30's Gainsborogh Films, with Hollywood right behind, invented the 'period costume' drama and all its tropes and cliche's, the stiff upper lip, the ramrod straight back in the tightly laced corset, the crisp high-pitched BBC accents and the fanciful moral rectitude. Even the Dickens adaptations suffered until David Lean showed everyone how to do Dickens on screen.

I think the pattern of objection to what Jane might or might not do is built on the film genre."

Well put! American puritanism (sometimes I wonder how they survived and multiplied - probably because of the bigotry...lol).

As if they hadn't been alive back then - which is all in the books, but was rarely put on film until 150 years later...thank goodness I have my head movies! Every adaptation just adds to it, or I'll just ignore it!

I like the bedroom scene, I think it's actually sweeter than in the book, but I don't mind. Yes, yes, she does not let him kiss her etc., but Ruth and Toby do it so nicely, who could possible object??;-)

And I agree with the poster about the deleted scene, which lacks Jane's pain and despair, though R.'s is brilliantly executed!

reply

[–] LookinGood 13 years ago

"As pmvk says, there's nothing really shown and yet it is shockingly sensuous. One thread described it as 'throat porn'. But that is all it is.
Interesting that it produced the same reaction as the original in many readers."

Great observation! I wonder whether the producers wanted to elicit this kind of response. Probably not, but they got it all the same.
--
"Nobody ever said the IMDB was polite company." MichaelD on the Luther (2003) board.

reply

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

I think it was intentional. From the first scene they moved the jreader out of the tradtional comfort zone. Emma 09 pulled the same trick.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dbh850 13 years ago

Supergran, you are SPOT-ON!! My opinion, anyway. That bit about how Jane doesn't trust HERSELF with Rochester... THAT is a GREAT point!

I read Elizabeth Rigby's SCATHING review of the book - Rigby was a prominent book critic at that time. She felt the book was immoral. Jane was too passionate and the book would excite emotions in women that they had no right to feel. She felt the book was un-Christian. Amazing review... and perfectly supports what you say here. Jane was in danger of behaving in an unchaste manner - as you said so beautifully, she was distrustful of herself. I think the people who see her as a prim prude have absolutely no understanding of how things were at that time. And I don't see much of that kind of criticism here. I think there are an awful lot of posters here who understand the book AND the times. Kind of feels like being in a classroom!

:-)

You know what they say... no one with missing teeth wears an Armani suit.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] supergran 13 years ago

I think we do see a range of methods employed by Toby's Rochester, but it's subtle.

He starts off by appealing to Jane's heart. He says that they are one, like twins who HAVE to be together. Then he tries seduction. Finally, he suggests platonic co-habitation. The only thing missing was the recourse to physical force, which was discussed a couple of pages back on this thread.

Did you ever see the deleted scene, Roses?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB0z-OzFqqs
In this scene, Jane makes her decision to leave unequivocal. We see Rochester's heartbreak, and it breaks OUR hearts. I wish there had been some way that the spirit of this deleted scene (or the scene as shot) had been left in. As it is, I dislike the way Jane says "We'll talk in the morning."

I love the scene as written in the book and would love to see it done really well. I can't wait to see how it is handled in the new film. But 2006 is my favourite period drama EVER. In order to enjoy it as a whole piece and not find the bedroom scene irritatingly incongruous, I have had to come to terms with it and develop an appreciation for it. To that end, I've been helped by the posters on this board.

Btw, in rewatching the bedroom scene, I love the part when Rochester brings up the villa in France. He asks Jane to go and live with him there. Ruth then turns her back on him and makes a little gesture of rejection with her hands. Does anyone else notice that? Then, when he starts talking about living together chastely as brother and sister, Ruth softens. She smiles, takes his hand and kisses it, as if knowing that the very notion is absurd but loving him all the more for suggesting it. Wonderful writing and acting. I know it's not the book, but brilliant anyway.

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

Wonderful writing and acting. I know it's not the book, but brilliant anyway.

That's what I adore about Sandy Welch's adaptations. She seems to have an insight into human psychology and an ability to transform this into convincing and compelling images on the screen that seek comparison.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

Well, I'm glad we can agree on the bedroom fire's level of sexiness! :-)

I am sure that we agree on many more things.

When that whole "after the failed wedding" part begins, Jane won't let Rochester touch her, except for when he carries her into the library

I suppose it depends on how you want to interpret it. If you want to, you can easily interpret the fact that she is completely passive and lets herself being carried away by him (she hardly knows where) as a metaphor of a sexually aroused woman that is about to let go and let the man take control of the situation.

When he tries to hold and kiss her, she refuses.

When we speak about literature, the most important thing is not what is said, but how it is said. The truth is revealed by the way we speak, not by the things we (pretend to) say.

When Rochester touches Jane, she first doesn't move and later extricates herself from restraint. But the key element of this scene (which I probably would have overlooked) is that like the bride at a wedding she says repeatedly "I do" in order to confirm that she will leave him. I wonder if Charlotte Brontë wanted us to hear Jane say these words in a grimly determined or rather in a tender, hesitating, torn manner. The fact that Jane says "I do ... I do ... I do" tells us that even though her intellect makes her say that she is grimly determined to leave him, her soul and her body are actually longing to "be his wife", which in this situation means to make love with him. That's what I meant when I spoke of ambivalence.

What I really want to see in any JE adaptation is Rochester's range of methods he employs to attempt to keep Jane. I felt the 06 version focused too much on the seduction card. I wanted to see some rage, some tears.

This is one of the best arguments I have read of the opponents of the '06 bedroom scene. It's a legitimate POV. I'm looking forward to how this scene is handled in the new film, since I have read many positive comments about it.

reply

[–] supergran 13 years ago

Your final point there, pmvk - I think by Jane allowing R to believe that she'll still be there the next day, we're denied the full range of his emotions. I would have loved to see Toby handle that. Even the deleted scene, as sad as it is, doesn't convey his torment.
I know they were going for less theatricality in 2006, and the corresponding scene in 1983 could be viewed as OTT. But I'd like to have seen it attempted.

(I will PM you later, I promise! Easter holidays and I'm looking after the grandkids!)

If you can't be a good example -- then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

reply

[–] pmvk 13 years ago

(I will PM you later, I promise! Easter holidays and I'm looking after the grandkids!)

Don't feel obliged to! My motive to contact you was not to get a reply, but to follow the Spanish concept of cariño (I don't know if there is a proper English translation, I'm sure there is not a German one ) that I have come to appreciate since I've been living in Spain. (Besides I often forget to answer E-Mails myself, so I'm not in the least resentful in this sense. )

I hope you have a great time with your grandkids! Happy easter to all of you!

BTW: Happy birthday to Charlotte Brontë! Early in the morning I was looking up her horoscope for mere curiosity and I realized that she was born on 21st of April.

reply

[–] pmvk 12 years ago

bump

reply