MovieChat Forums > Jane Eyre (2007) Discussion > Answering Objections to the Bedroom Scen...

Answering Objections to the Bedroom Scene

posted 15 years ago by supergran
257 replies | jump to latest

A similar thread existed on this board before IMDb, in their infinite wisdom, consigned it to the Black Hole! Anyway, as we have a few new contributors, I thought we could revive this discussion.
I was looking through some of the user comments, and selected some of the following criticisms of JE06. They all object to the bedroom scene after the aborted wedding. What do you think of these comments (aside from the fact that they exaggerate, in my opinion, any sexual activity)?

...The script writers or director displayed a complete and sad disregard for the etiquette and conventions of the time in which the novel is set. The mid 19th century's established code of behaviour, its sense of propriety, decorum, decency and modesty are completely violated. Toby Stephens' Rochester and Ruth Wilson's Jane are both young, sensual and sex-conscious people and behave as a modern couple would. As a consequence they have no resemblance whatever to the characters of the book. 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. Apparently the filmmakers considered the emphasis on the sexual element as an appropriate means of modernizing the novel and securing the interest of a younger and supposedly shallow audience in the story. The most striking example of that is the parting scene between Jane and Rochester after the aborted wedding. They both lie on the bed, kiss repeatedly and seem near to taking off their clothes....

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

.....The biggest disappointment of all was the lack of a big confrontation scene after Bertha's identity is revealed and Jane has to decide whether to stay with Rochester and live in sin with him, or whether to depart and start a new life. Unbelievably they show what should have been this scene in flashback once Jane is at St. John River's home, and Jane and Rochester are on the floor (on the FLOOR???) smooching and smacking, making out, something little Quakerish Jane Eyre would never have done. There was no anger, no recriminations......

Discuss, please!

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

[–] wupperelfe 13 years ago

If men and women during the "prude" Regency / Victorian era had not enjoyed sex, I wonder why men would have gone to such lengths as to keep mistresses?? Marriages were arranged, wifes and young virgins clearly had to follow a certain etiquette but there were young widows who didn't wish to get married again and so they became mistresses (often enough the lack of money was an additional reason). While the debutantes tended to swoon at the mere thought of engaging in sex, I believe that older girls (from 19, 20 on) felt their sexual awakening just like we do nowadays; it might not have been something to discuss openly with friends or (God beware!) mothers but even then, a sneaky gal could, for example, send out her trusted maid to purchase all kinds of books! Just think of Catherine from "Northanger Abbey " - clearly fantasizing, that one!!

So, let's imagine you had more than those 2 or 3 phaeton rides in the park and a cotillion or a stroll around the room ;-) with your beloved ... if you had months filled with talk, sharing of your innermost feelings and thoughts and you trusted him, wouldn't you agree that - if the Gentleman once had started with the seduction - the Lady would follow his lead without shame? This is not the arranged marriage for heirs where sexual intercourse was simply functional but trust blooming into love and passion. I agree that in 9 out of 10 cases, this would only take place after the actual marriage or when it was perfectly clear that there would be one (the exception being somewhat like Isabella Thorpe from "Northanger Abbey" ... if you lost your virginity and the marriage plans were just a deception, there would most likely not have been any more chance for you to find a so-called eligible male ... exceptions could have been possible if you had the dowry for it and if a rake in need of both a wife and money was available ;-)

If passion wasn't possible - where does all the historical literature about that kind of intense love come from?

If you need an actual example - read about Lord Byron (who had e.g. at least one "bastard" child, with the teen sister(!) of Mary Shelley!). He was not only a womanizer but consumed men just as lustily (that little fact could cost you your life back then and still, it did not keep people from doing it!), married women (Caroline Lamb) were no exception. So, despite the moral code back then, people did indulge ... and if your parents hadn't, you would not be reading this ;-)

[–] niclun74 13 years ago

I haven't read through the entire thread. But as to the quoted objections: Jane Eyre is not a novel endorsing Victorian convention. Neither Jane, nor Rochester, are served well by the conventions of the time. And they are going to end up living far outside of it (Ferndean Manor being quite remote). I have to wonder how Victorian conventions would have borne a dependent being engaged to the master of the house and continuing to live under the same roof with the master without any kind of chaperone who wasn't a dependent. Granted the engagement wouldn't have happened inside of convention, but I'm sure in its eventuality someone would have something to say about the living arrangements. Jane is a passionate woman, and Rochester "can't live without" companionship. They aren't getting married so they can have more conversation time.

The perception that Jane is a prim, proper Victorian heroine seems to be one of the reasons the scene was written as it was. Sandy Welch, et al. wanted Ruth Wilson's Jane to be a sexual Jane, which I think is true to the book. I just think this scene is the wrong place to make that statement.

[–] supergran 13 years ago

Bump. Don't want to see this falling off the first page.

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

I wish I'd thought to do that with '100 reasons why this is the best adaptation' thread.

[–] supergran 13 years ago

We live and, hopefully, learn alfa.

Anything to stop you resurrecting it? I'm sure we can drum up a few of the 100 reasons between us!

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

[–] gracelander 13 years ago

Supergran, that sounds like a wonderful idea.
I would definitely take part in that thread.

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

I'll scratch my head and see if I can remember the top 10. There were 40 or 50 contributors to that thread back then.

[–] romina_p 13 years ago

I don't know, maybe I should object to the bedroom scene since it actually doesn't follow Bronte's writing much, but how can I when I enjoy it too much? ;)

It was so greatly carried out, Toby and Ruth were exquisite, their chemistry jumped off the screen to the extent that it was shocking to see them so intimate... like peeking at a couple's private moment.

Although it was probably done unintentionally, the screen-writer basically created the same shock value in a 21st century audience who was expecting pleading from a respectable distance, that Bronte created with her book in a 19th century audience, as was already mentioned previously. Just for that the scene certainly deserves merit.

Plus, as you already said supergran, you can observe the different 'strategies' Rochester carried out to convince Jane, although they weren't very marked.

Hmmm... I suppose I have no real objections to the scene since it goes so well with THIS adaptation. It it were part of some other (like 2011, 1997, 1996, 1983, 1970) where the chemistry between the actors was basically null, it wouldn't have fit at all, but since Toby and Ruth oozed chemistry from the first moment they saw each other, this scene was just the logical next step. It's as if we were expecting it, or maybe that´s just me!

I'm a woman, I can be as contrary as I choose!

[–] ullak 12 years ago

Although it was probably done unintentionally, the screen-writer basically created the same shock value in a 21st century audience who was expecting pleading from a respectable distance, that Bronte created with her book in a 19th century audience, as was already mentioned previously. Just for that the scene certainly deserves merit.

I agree with that.

This scene is lifted directly from the book. As in the adaptation, Jane is with the Rivers and she wakes up full of physical longing for her Mr Rochester:

I still again and again met Mr. Rochester, always at some exciting crisis; and then the sense of being in his arms, hearing his voice, meeting his eye, touching his hand and cheek, loving him, being loved by him—the hope of passing a lifetime at his side, would be renewed, with all its first force and fire. Then I awoke. Then I recalled where I was, and how situated. Then I rose up on my curtainless bed, trembling and quivering; and then the still, dark night witnessed the convulsion of despair, and heard the burst of passion.

The sense of being in his arms, hearing his voice, touching him, being loved - then back to reality. This description is quite as intimate as what we got on the screen. The fact that she does not mention lying on the bed is a mere trifle.

In the 90. I saw the adaptation with William Hurt. I do not remember much of it, but I know I did not like Mr Rochester one bit and I couldn't fathom what Jane saw in him. (This was before I read the book, in fact it put me off reading it for a long time). This adaptation manages to explain it so much better.

[–] supergran 12 years ago

Great posts, romina and ullak.

Ullak (welcome), that is a brilliant quote from chapter 32. It sort of crystallises what I've been feeling for some time - that the bedroom flashback scenes have a dreamlike, wishful, quality about them. So they have a more subjective style than if they had been inserted in the drama in the more linear, chronological way. And, of course, the juxtaposing of Rochester with St John makes an effective contrast between the former's "fire" and the latter's "ice" - the flashbacks heighten the contrast.

This is all conjecture, of course - we don't have any explanation from Sandy Welch herself. But that passage you quoted gives me "permission" for my thoughts! Lol.

- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?

[–] ullak 12 years ago

Hi Supergran. I know what you mean. Shown this way, the scene is less real, as we know this is how she remembers it.

I don’t feel there is as much juxtaposing between fire and ice in this adaptation as in the book. I’ll grant you fire and a wet blanket though. St John is too bland, and he is not given time to exert much pressure on Jane. Whereas in the book, part of me dreaded lest she should accept him, even though I already knew the outcome of the whole story.

[–] supergran 12 years ago

I tend to agree with you about the portrayal of St John. Andrew Buchan (one of my favourite young actors) is too nice here. I, too, would like to have seen more of his attempts to pressurise Jane - in particular the scene where he puts his hand on her head just before she hears Rochester's call. Very powerful scene. I wonder why Sandy shied away from it?

On the other hand, I applaud 2006 for showing a more human St John. It would be too easy to depict him as some sort of caricature.

- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?

[–] ullak 12 years ago

Possibly to make space for some more kissing ;)

[–] romina_p 12 years ago

The sense of being in his arms, hearing his voice, touching him, being loved - then back to reality. This description is quite as intimate as what we got on the screen. The fact that she does not mention lying on the bed is a mere trifle.

Actually, maybe a reason that Sandy Welch decided to film this scene as a flashback is so that it has a tinge of ambiguity, leaving the viewer the possibility of interpreting it only as a 'dream' and not as reality and so as not to go against Bronte's original intent (whatever that may be).

The first time I saw it, I 'didn't see it coming' and was sort of shocked and didn't really understand if that was what happened or if Jane was imagining things. Only when she started to sob did I interpret it as a memory, not as wishful thinking, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Come to think of it, JE11 also has a flashback in which they smooch big time, so perhaps they borrowed the concept from this version.

I'm a woman, I can be as contrary as I choose!

[–] supergran 12 years ago

I wouldn't go so far as to call the flashback a dream. I think that would be audacious of me. I agree with you that it's probably a memory, but one that is personalised and idealised as memories often are. Heck, I don't really know what I mean! But I feel that the scene would have been different had it been placed more chronologically in the proceedings.

Does that make sense?

- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?

[–] romina_p 12 years ago

Yes, I understand Supergran. Often, people remember things they only like or remember them in a better way than it really happened. We tend to do this esp. with people who are no longer with us, it's as if we ignore the 'bad' part of their personalities and remember only the positive and miss that.
Perhaps this is a bit of what Jane did in that sequence, she 'embellished' some of her interaction with Mr. R. I know I definitely would have! ;)

I'm a woman, I can be as contrary as I choose!

[–] alfa-16 12 years ago

I think it's a deliberate flashback but I think Susanna will be delighted with the idea that it could be interpreted as a dream .

But I'm sure the reason they did it was to avoid the hiatus after the separation, the weakest pert of the boo, becoming the weakest part of the film.

Even 83 purists skip the unrelieved boredom of Rivers scenes. Here, because of the flashbacks they fit extremely well contrasting Jane's dilemma.

[–] romina_p 12 years ago

But I'm sure the reason they did it was to avoid the hiatus after the separation, the weakest pert of the boo, becoming the weakest part of the film.

Hi ALfa! We've missed you, glad you're back!

Why do you think the separation (or her life with the Rivers) is the weakest part of the book?

I'm a woman, I can be as contrary as I choose!

[–] alfa-16 12 years ago

The book goes flat after she leaves Thornfield. You know she's going back. There's a lot of dry exposition to endure before she makes it.

[–] supergran 12 years ago

I used to feel that way about the Rivers' episode, but I rather like that part of the book now. St John is a fascinating character, and meeting him is such a pivotal moment in Jane's development. I enjoy the "journey". I do, however, agree that the placing of the flashbacks is an inspired decision.

Just to clarify, I'm still of the opinion that the flashbacks are memories and not dreams. But we're seeing them from Jane's perspective which may, or may not, be "embellished" (to use romina's word). Someone on the Literature Network Forum pointed to the golden glow in Jane's room which wasn't usually present. This person also drew attention to Jane's other two, rather distorted, flashbacks - when she's running up the stairs with petals falling from her bouquet, and when the Bible and wedding ring fall from the preacher's hand in the church. Of course, both these flashbacks occur when Jane is delirious and/or recovering from amnesia. But it's still an interesting viewpoint.

I don't want to go too far with my thoughts. I rather like the "tinge of ambiguity" that romina also points out. If I think too much about it then PUFF! - the magic is gone, the lovely dreamlike quality that pervades the whole scene. But I will say this, that I'm sure that Sandy Welch took her cue for the delicious intimacy of this scene from Jane's lovely dream in chapter 32.

- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?

[–] alfa-16 12 years ago

Distance lending enchantment.

Rather clever of you both to put your finger(s) on it. Now you come to mention it, the whole autobiographical enterprise is subtly touched with this effect. Tricky thing to reproduce in an adaptation.

[–] supergran 12 years ago

Rather clever of you both to put your finger(s) on it

To be fair, the idea was first proposed on here by brilliantholmes:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780362/board/thread/143239706?d=154078235 &p=3#154078235
I just didn't appreciate the theory at the time.

You know, the more I watch/discuss this adaptation, the more I realise what a wonderful work of art it is. Scenes that the book purists dismiss out of hand are actually very clever and insightful - far more so than just reproducing the book scenes by rote.

- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?

[–] supergran 12 years ago

bump.

- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?

[–] supergran 12 years ago

bump

- What kind of sycophant are you?
- What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?

[–] askmieke 12 years ago

I always found the visual adaptations that were truer to the book - 1973 & 1983 a little awkward after the wedding scene. Jane opens the door of her room to almost trip over Rochester who catches a swooning Jane. To have Rochester carry her down the stairs and into the library, seemed unnatural to me.

So...to imagine him carrying Jane to her bed, just a few steps away from where she swooned into his arms or tripped into his arms, seems more natural, even if Bronte was prudently and purposely NOT writing it that way in her novel.

Even in this adaptation, she was steeling her resolve to leave him…just trying to figure out how. With each plea he digressed from apology to excuses to making her feel guilty to promising a platonic relationship. That fortified her resolve and helped me see how hard and sad it was to leave him. Not because of temptation, but because of the realization that it may have only been lust, or did he not know the difference?

Rochester himself admits only after she returns that he was wrong to have tried to marry her or take her to his villa. He would have spoiled what was pure in her.

[–] supergran 12 years ago

Hi askmieke. Is it you from youtube? Glad you came over!

I agree that it would be more natural for Rochester to carry Jane just over the threshold to her bed. Though just imagine the scandal among 19th century readers!

I think that Jane is completely aware of how much Rochester loves her. But she harbours certain reservations after Rochester tells her about his mistresses:

"It was a grovelling fashion of existence: I should never like to return to it. Hiring a mistress is the next worse thing to buying a slave: both are often by nature, and always by position, inferior: and to live familiarly with inferiors is degrading. I now hate the recollection of the time I passed with Celine, Giacinta, and Clara."

"I felt the truth of these words; and I drew from them the certain inference, that if I were so far to forget myself and all the teaching that had ever been instilled into me, as--under any pretext--with any justification--through any temptation--to become the successor of these poor girls, he would one day regard me with the same feeling which now in his mind desecrated their memory. I did not give utterance to this conviction: it was enough to feel it. I impressed it on my heart, that it might remain there to serve me as aid in the time of trial."

The "aid in the time of trial" is desperately needed, because Jane's struggle with temptation is acute:

"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!"

Just an observation: when I read chapter 24, I was struck by how much Jane is feeling uneasy about losing her identity and independence. She likens herself to a doll and a slave, and Rochester to a sultan and her idol. Marriage to him then would have been disastrous, even without a Bertha Rochester in the picture.

Who knows where the time goes?

[–] askmieke-506-111071 12 years ago

I just yesterday finished reading it again.... and the story is pieced together so well. \you're right about his speech about mistresses helping her resolve to leave. Also, he had become an idol to her....

She needed the experience with St.\John; he needed the total giving over to God.\

I just love this story, can you tell?

[–] supergran 12 years ago

I just love this story, can you tell?

Lol. And ditto!

Who knows where the time goes?

[–] supergran 11 years ago

bump

Who knows where the time goes?

[–] deabalo 11 years ago

I have no objections over the bedroom scene, if anything it helped me. It gave me a visual that I needed to put it together. Even with the kissing it satisfied my craving to see these two on the passion that was there. So far Toby Stephens is my favorite Mr. Rochester and Michael Fassbender comes a close 2nd. Anyone of them can lay me on a bed :)

"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams." -Willy Wonka

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

Whether it was faithful to the book or not, I don't enjoy watching it and have edited it from the movie file I watch. The very unappealing slurpy smooching was bad enough, I would have deleted it for that alone...blech. But it is doubly distressing to hear him...after offering illegal and immoral marriage to her, try to convince her by "giving his word" and saying "he would not tempt her into a life of sin." Criminy, he's already done that. His behavior was more troubling than the Mr Rs who rant, rave and threaten. At least there it is raw, angry and desperate emotion. With this version, it is very dangerous and devious deception, tainted with treachery.

my god its full of stars

[–] supergran 11 years ago

Thought-provoking post, rizdek.

What can I say? You hated those scenes so much, you deleted them! But you raise some good points. As you know, I had trouble reconciling myself to the way that chapter 27 was depicted in this version. I now see these scenes as having a kind of surreality about them, being flashback memories. And don't forget that, in the book, Rochester tries everything to get Jane to stay. He reasons, threatens violence, and makes an attempt at seduction. But I'm not entirely happy with Rochester's proposition (in this adaptation) of living together as brother and sister in France. This seems to be a corruption of what it says here in the book:

Jane: "I must leave Adele and Thornfield. I must part with you for my whole life: I must begin a new existence among strange faces and strange scenes."

Rochester: "Of course: I told you you should. I pass over the madness about parting from me. You mean you must become a part of me. As to the new existence, it is all right: you shall yet be my wife: I am not married. You shall be Mrs. Rochester--both virtually and nominally. I shall keep only to you so long as you and I live. You shall go to a place I have in the south of France: a whitewashed villa on the shores of the Mediterranean. There you shall live a happy, and guarded, and most innocent life. Never fear that I wish to lure you into error--to make you my mistress."

So when he talks about an "innocent life", Rochester isn't suggesting a celibate relationship. He has absolutely convinced himself that he is not married. He tells Jane that "to tell me that I had already a wife is empty mockery". So he deludes himself into thinking that Jane will be happy to live with him in a (presumably) normal sexual relationship, providing they exchange a mutual "pledge of fidelity".

Sandy Welch has changed the meaning of Rochester's words. I'd love to speak with her to find out the reasons why!

I've read enough of your posts to know that you don't have a very high opinion of Rochester, rizdek! Quite understandable, of course. But to only see Rochester as a scoundrel and Jane as a victim, will skew the way you look at their attachment (forgive me if that sounds patronising - not my intention). I'll try to reply to your post on the 2011 board (the loathing Rochester thread) soon.

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

Yes, I often edit my video files for my own entertainment and to avoid scenes I don't like. Why let the film makers have all the fun?

For example, while I have watched the opening scenes in each version, I rarely watch the parts showing poor little Jane abused as a little child at her aunts house. It's hard for me to envision a toddler, thrust into the home of hateful abusive folks where she actually seems to be almost in danger for her life. So I edit out/skip those parts and kind of start at Lowood. That's bad enough, but at least it is collective abuse/austerity, not directed AT Jane. But that's a topic for another thread.

As to my gripping about Mr R, it's pretty much only in my posts here that this comes through. I watch my JE films/series, apply a bit of suspended disbelief and enjoy them quite well. IOW, I don't sit there judgmental of Mr R. the whole time. I enjoy the acting, dialogue and scenery/settings. I enjoy the variety of ways folks have portrayed Jane and Mr R in the various adaptations and what each actor brings to the story. Each is interesting in its own way. As for the overall story with regard to Mr R, I see it in general as a story of him paying a price for his deeds and gaining a form of redemption.

my god its full of stars

[–] supergran 11 years ago

Bump.

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

[–] nannyfan 11 years ago

What can I say that hasn't been said before on this wordy board? Maybe that the flashback scenes give me goosebumps (in a good way) and that I find them tasteful and really well done.
I'm convinced that Charlotte Brontë had her ultimate dream guy in mind when she created Rochester and although she describes him as ugly she makes it obvious that Jane is attracted to him not only emotionally but physically as well. First they were friends, then they become lovers and have children - the perfect relationship.
I'm sure she would have liked those scenes.

Jane: "Wherever you are is my home - is my true home."

[–] eless2010 11 years ago

I'm sorry, but I have no objections against the bedroom scene :)

... However, I did not really see it this way when watching the movie for the first time. I do love the way it is in the book (as a book) and I had seen it shown in films as it is told in the book, several times; and, as a conservative, I was taken aback a bit... However, since the first watch I’ve reread the book a few more times and I've seen this and other movies many times. The more times I read the book, the better I've learned to like the 2006 way of telling the story, and this scene is one of the best parts. It is so much closer to the spirit of the book than all the other visualisations – and I still love the book.

IMO, after the no-wedding, the focus of the book shifts into making us (and Jane) sympathetic towards the unlucky, wretched Rochester. In the book this is done in his multipage monologue. Beautiful and poetic as it is, it does not translate well into film; so many have tried, but none succeeded in preserving the feeling. In the 2006 version, this huge monolith of information (Rochester's explanations) is cleverly cut into smaller chunks, to be fed to us (and Jane) gradually. It starts by Bertha’s story (told in the third floor, where she cannot escape, but pity only), it continues by apologies (behind the door, as she undresses in total desolation) and it ends with him next to her, in the bedroom scene. And, it is only here he finally tries to utilize the sexual bond acknowledged by both in order to make her stay – and even here he respects her will. Moreover, this last, most hurting part of the process is told only in flashbacks, as if it was too fragile for a real time scene. Which it well may have been. All this gives us (and Jane) enough time & space to adapt to this new, not-so-strong Rochester - and we keep loving that doomed but honest scoundrel. We (and Jane) even judge his intentions honest, never mind how bad they seemed before If this is what Bronte was aiming at (and that is what I think she had in mind), then this script works really, really well.

Weather the bedroom scene really happened the way she remembers it, I do not know; neither do I think that this knowledge is important. However, it is clear that something like that could have happened. Furthermore, according to the book she woke up crying after wet dreams of Mr Rochester most every night during the next winter; and this happened in spite of her winning both confidence and general respect thanks to her daytime activities. So, the bedroom flashbacks serve to tell two stories in one; and both stories are very much according to the book.

Without the strong sexual bond, Jane would have had no need to flee from Thornfield. As soul mates only, they could have helped and supported each other independent of Bertha and all that, for years if necessary. In the book Jane knew that Rochester would not have forced him into sex; they had their month of restriction, and both seemed to take that well enough. Yet in the book Jane also knew that she would not have had the power to resist him in the long run. So, she flew for herself – and was nearly killed for that.

[–] supergran 11 years ago

Eless:

(I'll be back later.)

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

[–] supergran 11 years ago

OK, I'm staying up late to reply to your fabulous post, eless.

I started this thread way back in 2009 because the leaving scene was a bit of a stumbling block for me (and for others too, I think). I adored 2006, and wanted to reconcile myself to this scene in order that my enjoyment could be total. So I enlisted the help of others here to "win me over".

I'm happy to say that I'm more than reconciled now (while still loving the scene from the book).

You make some excellent points, eless. How true that Rochester's discourse from Chapter 27 has here been split into three separate "chunks" and spread out - beginning in Bertha's cell, continuing outside Jane's door, and culminating in the flashback scenes (the most intense of all). I love your comment about how this structure maximises our sympathy for Rochester.

the bedroom flashbacks serve to tell two stories in one; and both stories are very much according to the book.

That's just how I feel. The melding of two events into one is so clever!

Your final paragraph is spot on! We have to SEE that strong sexual bond that Jane has with Rochester. It HAS to be demonstrated. And we need to see exactly what Jane is strong enough to finally leave behind.

I've bookmarked a recent review of JE06 and it makes this interesting point:

The novel was incredibly sexual for its time. Rochester talks to Jane openly on the subject, admitting that he married Bertha to sleep with her and telling her about the mistresses he has had since he moved his wife to Thornfield. There is a fair amount of touching and kissing between Jane and Rochester, which would have been shocking to an early Victorian audience.

This production maintains that stance, ramping up the scenes so that a modern audience gets the idea.

http://www.douxreviews.com/2013/09/jane-eyre.html

It's a good point about having to correspondingly ramp up the sexuality in order to have that same "shock" value. So many people today have the misconception that Jane Eyre is just some prim and proper Victorian governess. Lol! And that's not dumbing down - that's conveying the spirit of the book, as you say. I think it's very brave of Sandy Welch to have made those changes - in the face of strong opposition from some quarters!

Keep 'em coming, eless!

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

[–] eless2010 11 years ago

Thank you for the thumbs up, Supergran, I've learned a lot from your discussions here. We (you, me and Sandy Welsh) seem to read our JE same way

[–] supergran 10 years ago

Thanks, eless.

Bumping yet again.

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.

[–] Tomatish 10 years ago

I didn't understand people's objection to the scene before reading the book. Now that I read the book I do, and I agree. I understand why Sandy Welch added it. It shows how conflicted Jane was, how much she wanted to stay and how difficult it was for her to resist that. However, I would have preferred for her to stick to the book on this one.

[–] eless2010 10 years ago

I fell for the Jane Eyre 2006 suddenly last June, watched it almost day and night during the holiday season, collected all Jane Eyre movies/series available, watched them all, read the book few more times... and it did not help. This is the best Jane Eyre film that has ever been made, for me.

After a pause for some months I re-watched this film yesterday. And I still regard this film (and this scene) being so true to the characters introduced by the book. All the other dramatizations that I've seen tell a story of a strange, non-brontean couple, who had no reason to fall for each other, no reason to keep on loving each other after Bertha is revealed, no reason to run away like a fool and almost get killed for it (well, at least that was Jane only) and absolutely no reason whatsoever for returning to each other after he was honorably freed of his burden (Bertha) and she had gained both family (the Rivers) and means for independent life (inheritance).

Maybe someone sometimes manages to make it even better. As it is all other films are lightyears away from the book itself, and this remains the only one that reflects the spirit of Jane Eyre by Charlotte B.
IMHO anyways :)

[–] nannyfan 10 years ago

Amen!

Jane: "Wherever you are is my home - is my true home."

[–] tps1400 10 years ago

This thread is very interesting, so many thought provoking opinions. I haven’t read them all, I will keep reading. In the meanwhile, here is my view of the bedroom scene:

I don’t mind modernisation, for example I didn’t mind the modern ending of North and South 2004. Also, I agree with other posters that the book contains a lot of sexual references, and definitely these two had a sexual and passionate thing going, they were not just platonic soul-mates. However, introducing sex in this scene is all wrong for me: this scene should not present any sexual content as it is quite the opposite really: it is about how to resist physical contact. It is a battle of minds, this is one of the most powerful and dramatic scenes of the whole book (if not the MOST dramatic). I love it to bits and know it almost by heart. I think that the film didn’t capture not even half of the powerful moment:

- It was reduced to a couple of one-minute flashbacks. This seems such a lost opportunity, as the source material is all there and it’s all powerful.

- There is so much tension, drama, heart-ache, resolute, despair, so many emotions in the original dialogue from the book. Turning the dialogue and the characters’ actions and reactions to a few moments of rolling on a bed (or maybe on the floor? not sure) and kissing just cheapens the whole thing.

- Rochester’s impatient and powerful personality is shown fully in this chapter in the book, when he threatens several times to physically force her. Jane’s biggest preoccupation is to manage to restrain him (although she is not afraid as she knows that he loves her too much to do anything). But still, it is a battle of minds, and she really employs all her intelligence to calm him down without hurting him too much. All this is missing from the film, and the only thing we see is her enjoying his touch and breathing heavily!

- I cannot understand 80% of what they are saying really. From what little I understood, the dialogue is taken from the book, however it doesn’t fit the visual: Jane says “I will leave you” (at the beginning I thought she said “I won’t leave you”) and immediately after she continues snogging him. She shouldn't be kissing back, this just does not agree with the character of Jane Eyre.

- Missing is Rochester’s heart-ache and tears, his anger, his moments of pleading and begging, his marching around the room in a furious and desperate state. Provided that the two actors were quite good, I can imagine that they would be able to deliver all these emotions without sounding melodramatic or staged or unnatural. On the contrary we just got them lying on each other and whispering quietly a few lines. What a missed opportunity really, how much greater this scene could have been!