MovieChat Forums > Jane Eyre (2007) Discussion > Redefining Mr Rochester for JE06

Redefining Mr Rochester for JE06

posted 8 years ago by birds_14
2 replies | jump to latest

(A couple of weeks ago I skimmed through a discussion over at the JE83 board. Having never watched all of JE83 myself I'm in no position to judge but, from what I gleaned, that adaptation was considered very close to the novel, and people over there were very passionate about keeping all of the story and much of the language from the book intact. Which gave me the idea to put some thoughts about Mr Rochester up here for discussion...)

I must admit that remaining close to the letters of the book is not what I look for in an adaptation, and certainly not in this case. Personally, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the Bronte sisters' way of writing. I find their impassioned style bordering on the hysterical a little 'problematic', and--basically--while I do like 'Jane Eyre', I rather like the novel despite myself.

Ultimately, the thing that troubles me most with the original story is that I can't quite see the attraction of Mr Rochester in the book.

With Jane being the narrator I have of course to believe her that the man inspires such a deep love. But I can never see it for myself. Rochester in the novel is such an eccentric, impulsive, contradictory, theatrical character that I always feel that, by way of making him as exciting as may be, Charlotte Bronte 'overegged the pudding'.

So, I very much like that Sandy Welch toned down Mr Rochester a bit in JE06 by giving him an interest in natural sciences rather than in the performing arts, and by adding a male friend (never trust a guy who doesn't have any friends!). And while they kept the mood swings I like that he's more restrained in his outbursts. He alienates at times but without making us fear for his sanity.

I can see Rochester's appeal in this adaptation (and by this I don't mean his physical attraction--even though TS is more handsome than Mr Rochester is supposed to be), and I appreciate this because it helps me get drawn into the story... Call me shallow, but I'd rather have a modernised version that engages me emotionally than a literary accurate version I'd feel nothing more about than historical interest.

[–] supergran 7 years ago

I love this post, birds! 

So many points to respond to!

I've read (and participated in) that discussion on the 1983 board. I agree that capturing the spirit of a book, rather than just sticking to the letter, is the important thing. The most faithful adaptations can end up being the most plodding. Mind you, that's not because I dislike Brontë's prose. Far from it. But novels aren't screenplays. (It's interesting to note that when Brontë submitted her first novel, The Professor, for publication, it was rejected for not being exciting enough - a "fault" she tried to correct in writing Jane Eyre.) 

I understand your problems with Rochester. You're not alone - he has many critics! And it's obviously been a challenge for those working on the many adaptations - they all seem to concentrate on the different aspects of his personality and end up making each incarnation quite unique and separate from another.

As far as Sandy Welch's vision and Toby Stephens' portrayal is concerned, well, I've loved the naturalness of it. I know there are those who think it is Rochester-lite, but, like you, I think it's important to "engage emotionally" with a main character.

Welch speaks extensively on the C19 website about her decision to write Rochester the way that she did. She finds him an enormously sympathetic character. Then she writes:

On the question of making Rochester more ‘ordinary’ , that’s more complex…the idea was to make him more human than he has often appeared when dramatised, in the sense that he is shown to posses universally recognisable virtues…his dialogue is as natural as possible to fit in with Bronte’s intention, which is to portray a relationship between Jane and Rochester that is uniquely easy, natural and ‘equal’ …however , Rochester is a larger than life character and it obviously wouldn’t do the story much good to strip him of all his mystique and allure….! So Susanna and I had to hope we would find an actor who would be able to go from one complex emotion to another and needless to say we are both delighted with Toby’s performance. He was extremely anxious that he shouldn’t stride around like a ‘pantomime ‘character and he and Ruth, with Susanna’s great skill, chart a very delicate path through the many long and complicated scenes.

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

[–] birds_14 7 years ago

Awww, thanks supergran. I'm so glad you replied.  Such a shame about what happened to this board just recently  ... so many good discussions lost.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand...

I strongly suspect that if Jane wasn't the narrator in the novel, Mr Rochester wouldn't 'work' for anyone as a human character--or at least not as the romantic figure we'd like to make him out. But even so, I'd be hard pushed to feel as sympathetic about him as Sandy Welch did (and kudos to her for doing so).

If you look at what Rochester actually says in the novel, how he acts and how he appears--idle, vain, bitter, egocentric and with a tempestuous temperament--there's little enough to fall for imo. But then, maybe his disposition was considered differently in the 19th century?--and fitted quite well with some kind of ideal of a 'romantic villain' at the time? Only, as a 21st century woman I'd run a mile if I encountered a man like him...

Some things in classic literature just don't work any more in modern times, either because public opinion has changed too much, or because the story was never designed for a different medium. As you say, supergran, 'Jane Eyre' was written as a novel. It is not a play, let alone a TV screenplay. Both of the latter media allow the audience to experience a story in a different way and through other means than a novel.

And as for changes in opinion.... Take Shakespeare's 'The Taming of the Shrew' as an example; I don't think anyone in their right frame of mind would either perform or watch it as a straightforward comedy these days--and enjoy it. If you were to tackle the play now, you'd either do it ironically, critically, or wholly modernised (as done in the BBC's ShakespeaRE-told series in 2005).

Try as we might, we cannot walk a mile in the shoes of a person of the past, be it 16th century or Victorian, and so we can only assume how exactly such a person felt, or what he/she really thought when expressing him/herself in a particular way... we do not have the same points of reference as those people did.

Some things that were common then are 'no-go areas' these days... Take domestic violence... Or what about the fact that in 19th century England a married woman virtually didn't exist as a legal person? Not only wasn't she allowed to vote, she wasn't allowed to own property, didn't have any legal claims on her own underage children--and she couldn't get a divorce, for whatever reasons. This was the reality, even in a love match... and then there was the matter of 'marriages of convenience' at the time.

And so I think we happily gloss over many things in the past anyway, even in adaptations 'true to the source material' because we simply don't understand / 'get' all the implication of the era, or they would be way too uncomfortable or alien to go into for modern sensibilities. It's more a sin of omission though...

Anyway, in the end the only real criterion is whether or not the resulting adaptation tells a good story, independent of how close, or how far away from the source material it may be. I, for one, love experiments...

The novel will always be there, after all, and no amount of (possibly) failed adaptations should be able to spoil it for the true book lovers out there. 