Jane...Jane... The Many Film Adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte is one of the great literary masterpieces of all time. From a troubled yet humbled childhood, Jane grows into a strong willed, independent, woman who falls in love with her troubled yet passionately loving employer, Mr. Edward Rochester. It's a captivating story of choosing your path to your destiny.
There have been many (and I do mean many) film adaptations of this literary classic. Each has its own translation of the book and its own essence. If you've never read or seen the story of Jane Eyre, here is the order of which I feel you should view the adaptations especially for those who rather view the film than read the book. However knowing the actual story prior helps in making a relation to the different film adaptations.
Jane Eyre (1943) starring Orson Welles & Joan Fontaine
The first film I ever saw of Jane Eyre was the 1943 version with brilliant actors Orson Welles (Citizen Kane) and Joan Fontaine (Rebecca). This is before I read the book as well and for what it was, it helped to have a gist of the story in mind.
Joan Fontaine is one of the best "Jane"s in what I like to call the Jane Eyre franchise. The amount of emotion, the pure innocence of the character is on point. Welles' Rochester may be dramatic due to the intense music but you learn to love the mysterious, hardened man. You can see the difference in demeanor when he is with Jane as opposed to those of his own station. He captures Rochester's "cruelness" if you will. The mind games he plays with Jane and yes even with Blanche. As wrong as those actions may be, you can't help but love him as much as Jane.
Jane is independent but Rochester is her weakness. I suggest starting your journey with Jane with this version. It will capture your heart in more ways than one and intrigue you to learn more about the delicate flower that softened a rock.
Jane Eyre (1983) starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke
Timothy Dalton is a well respected actor and when you see him as the great Rochester, you'll know why. His eyes can be intense with rage or soft with love and care. His take on Jane's great love is magnificent. Zelah's Jane is filled with vulnerability. It's not a side, I feel we are used to seeing from Jane. The turning point in the story is always when Rochester confesses his love for Jane. I feel that Clarke's portrayal of this change in Jane is more childish in the sense that she needs a protector. The way she flocks to Rochester after they're engagement reminds me of a young girl running to a father. The only thing I feel is missing is that there is a lack of chemistry between Clarke and Dalton. Ironically their individual performances of Rochester and Jane are quite good but the chemistry together, not as believable. Despite lack of chemistry, this is one of the better adaptations. It's a little long as I feel this BBC version touches upon just about every aspect of Bronte's masterpiece.
Jane Eyre (1997) starring Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds
Forgive my harshness but I never thought there would be a remotely bad adaptation of this story but I found my first one. Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds are excellent actors in their own right but this re-telling left me less than satisfied. Morton's Jane is not as strong willed as Clarke or Fontaine's portrayal. On the same line of disappointment, Hinds' Rochester is a wee bit over the t; extreme anger where there should be none and a heightened dramatic that makes me feel I'm watching an amateur high school play. The chemistry between Hinds and Morton is just not there. I feel more of an obligation to attempt to like this coupling than a natural, "yes I like this coupling." Certainly not my favorite portrayal. I especially don't like how the story is rushed. It was more "let's get to this point" feel than let's tell the story of this passionate romance.
Jane Eyre (1970) starring Susannah York and George C. Scott
Again lack of chemistry. I did not believe the friendship, relationship between Jane and Rochester in this film. I feel the portrayals were very stiff. At first I thought my mind was going bonkers over the different versions I'd seen thus far but I find something lacking in this version and it's not just the chemistry.
Jane Eyre (1950) starring Charleton Heston and Mary Sinclair
This is a made for television adaptation but it was dreadful to watch. It was like watching a play in a rundown theater. The set had one main set which was Rochester's supposed study or what we recognize as a living room. Sinclair's Jane was too soft and over the top dramatic. She was also quite creepy staring into his study from outside with Adele by her side.
The most pathetic scene in the whole production is threat to Rochester's life when the "monster in the house" sets his bed ablaze but here it is not a bed; it is a chair *gasp* (Oh my! Not a chair!) Now this is a big scene in the story because it's a turning point for Jane and Edward's friendship. I feel this is a time where their friendship begins to cross that border into love. The way Edward embraces Jane's hand in his, it shows that he feels a closeness to her more than before. It's also not feasible for the fire to begin on the chair and not burn Rochester. The bed is different because the drapes burned first giving Jane ample time to save him. While I like Charleton Heston, I just didn't care for his Rochester. I didn't feel intimidated by him and I feel that Rochester is to be somewhat intimidating at least in the beginning.
Jane Eyre (1996) starring William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg
Let's get the bad taste in our mouth and move on to a very quaint adaptation starring William Hurt as Rochester and Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane. I must make the comment that the poster portrays much more passion than the actual movie however a good adaptation nonetheless. Gainsbourg's Jane reminds me of Fontaine's Jane; very innocent, pure yet independent. Hurt's Rochester is charming more than anything. Their first encounter grips your heart as Hurt's portrayal has Rochester teasing Jane from the beginning. At first Rochester is curious about Jane but he is very much in control of himself. In this version you are let into more of the friendship bond between Jane and Edward; something that is absent from other adaptations. While the creators of this film slightly played around with the characters and story, there was still flow. It worked pleasantly. I would rank this #3 in my favorite renditions of the story.
Jane Eyre (1934) starring Colin Clive and Virginia Bruce
By this point you should be very familiar with the story to survive this horrible disaster. Jane is our heroine of the story. Despite chemistry, no chemistry, broken story, etc., you still love Jane. You feel for Jane and the horrors she has lived through. Your heart still breaks when you see her stand in silence as it is revealed her great love is already married. It's like Alanis Morrisette sang in "Ironic," "It's like meeting the man of your dreams then meeting his beautiful wife;" though it's more like his crazy wife. You pine for Edward and Jane to reunite and live happily ever after but in here you will find yourself pining for the end of the film.
Bruce has not gotten in touch with the character of Jane at all. Instead of standing firm in independence, Jane comes off as cocky, self absorbed, and snobby. You don't like Jane and you think, "what the hell does he see in her?" Secondly Adele is extremely annoying with her whiny cry and inability to be graceful as she is portrayed in later films. Clive's Rochester looks more like a love sick puppy from the moment he meets Jane however given her negative personality you think, "where's the attraction? I don't get it." Definitely one to save to the end if you're looking to compare.
Jane Eyre (2011) starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender
The latest adaptation (though I dare say we need not anymore adaptations) to date. Mia Wasikowska is more well known for play Alice in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland films while Michael Fassbender is best known as Magneto in Marvel's X-Men films. Both bring extraordinary talent to these roles. Wasikowska and Fassbender are able to portray these characters as the independent spirits that they are, burdened by their own troubles, yet as young lovers as well. I do like the passion that is illustrated because it shows the dedication Jane and Edward have for each other; the thirst for each other. This is one of my favorite adaptations as well. I'd put it immediately after the 1996 version with William Hurt. However this is not according to my ranking of least liked to loved but this is up there. It will help you forget that disastrous 1934 version.
Jane Eyre (2006) starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens
Ah...save the best for last. This four episode miniseries adaptation is without a doubt my number one favorite adaptation. Stephens' Rochester is tortured beyond compare. You can see it; you can feel it. Wilson's Jane is delicate, strong, wise, and though ignorant of love, falls so deep and true. Wilson truly brings about the charm and the right level of vulnerability to this beloved character.
Jane is the light in Rochester's darkness and once he has her, he tries to hold on to her so fiercely despite Jane's free spirit and determination to choose her destiny. Of all the adaptations, this by far is the one that tugs at the heart strings the most. I really feel for both of them. I end on this one because this is the version I highly recommend. I've watched this version 3 times already and it is brilliant! Performances are on point and the chemistry between Wilson and Stephens is on fire! (No pun intended.)
Going through all these films was definitely an education but it reconnected me with my love of film and reviewing. Thank you for taking the time to read this and if you prefer one film over another please share your suggestions in the comments. God bless!
There have been many (and I do mean many) film adaptations of this literary classic. Each has its own translation of the book and its own essence. If you've never read or seen the story of Jane Eyre, here is the order of which I feel you should view the adaptations especially for those who rather view the film than read the book. However knowing the actual story prior helps in making a relation to the different film adaptations.
The first film I ever saw of Jane Eyre was the 1943 version with brilliant actors Orson Welles (Citizen Kane) and Joan Fontaine (Rebecca). This is before I read the book as well and for what it was, it helped to have a gist of the story in mind.
Joan Fontaine is one of the best "Jane"s in what I like to call the Jane Eyre franchise. The amount of emotion, the pure innocence of the character is on point. Welles' Rochester may be dramatic due to the intense music but you learn to love the mysterious, hardened man. You can see the difference in demeanor when he is with Jane as opposed to those of his own station. He captures Rochester's "cruelness" if you will. The mind games he plays with Jane and yes even with Blanche. As wrong as those actions may be, you can't help but love him as much as Jane.
Jane is independent but Rochester is her weakness. I suggest starting your journey with Jane with this version. It will capture your heart in more ways than one and intrigue you to learn more about the delicate flower that softened a rock.
Timothy Dalton is a well respected actor and when you see him as the great Rochester, you'll know why. His eyes can be intense with rage or soft with love and care. His take on Jane's great love is magnificent. Zelah's Jane is filled with vulnerability. It's not a side, I feel we are used to seeing from Jane. The turning point in the story is always when Rochester confesses his love for Jane. I feel that Clarke's portrayal of this change in Jane is more childish in the sense that she needs a protector. The way she flocks to Rochester after they're engagement reminds me of a young girl running to a father. The only thing I feel is missing is that there is a lack of chemistry between Clarke and Dalton. Ironically their individual performances of Rochester and Jane are quite good but the chemistry together, not as believable. Despite lack of chemistry, this is one of the better adaptations. It's a little long as I feel this BBC version touches upon just about every aspect of Bronte's masterpiece.
Forgive my harshness but I never thought there would be a remotely bad adaptation of this story but I found my first one. Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds are excellent actors in their own right but this re-telling left me less than satisfied. Morton's Jane is not as strong willed as Clarke or Fontaine's portrayal. On the same line of disappointment, Hinds' Rochester is a wee bit over the t; extreme anger where there should be none and a heightened dramatic that makes me feel I'm watching an amateur high school play. The chemistry between Hinds and Morton is just not there. I feel more of an obligation to attempt to like this coupling than a natural, "yes I like this coupling." Certainly not my favorite portrayal. I especially don't like how the story is rushed. It was more "let's get to this point" feel than let's tell the story of this passionate romance.
Again lack of chemistry. I did not believe the friendship, relationship between Jane and Rochester in this film. I feel the portrayals were very stiff. At first I thought my mind was going bonkers over the different versions I'd seen thus far but I find something lacking in this version and it's not just the chemistry.
This is a made for television adaptation but it was dreadful to watch. It was like watching a play in a rundown theater. The set had one main set which was Rochester's supposed study or what we recognize as a living room. Sinclair's Jane was too soft and over the top dramatic. She was also quite creepy staring into his study from outside with Adele by her side.
The most pathetic scene in the whole production is threat to Rochester's life when the "monster in the house" sets his bed ablaze but here it is not a bed; it is a chair *gasp* (Oh my! Not a chair!) Now this is a big scene in the story because it's a turning point for Jane and Edward's friendship. I feel this is a time where their friendship begins to cross that border into love. The way Edward embraces Jane's hand in his, it shows that he feels a closeness to her more than before. It's also not feasible for the fire to begin on the chair and not burn Rochester. The bed is different because the drapes burned first giving Jane ample time to save him. While I like Charleton Heston, I just didn't care for his Rochester. I didn't feel intimidated by him and I feel that Rochester is to be somewhat intimidating at least in the beginning.
Let's get the bad taste in our mouth and move on to a very quaint adaptation starring William Hurt as Rochester and Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane. I must make the comment that the poster portrays much more passion than the actual movie however a good adaptation nonetheless. Gainsbourg's Jane reminds me of Fontaine's Jane; very innocent, pure yet independent. Hurt's Rochester is charming more than anything. Their first encounter grips your heart as Hurt's portrayal has Rochester teasing Jane from the beginning. At first Rochester is curious about Jane but he is very much in control of himself. In this version you are let into more of the friendship bond between Jane and Edward; something that is absent from other adaptations. While the creators of this film slightly played around with the characters and story, there was still flow. It worked pleasantly. I would rank this #3 in my favorite renditions of the story.
By this point you should be very familiar with the story to survive this horrible disaster. Jane is our heroine of the story. Despite chemistry, no chemistry, broken story, etc., you still love Jane. You feel for Jane and the horrors she has lived through. Your heart still breaks when you see her stand in silence as it is revealed her great love is already married. It's like Alanis Morrisette sang in "Ironic," "It's like meeting the man of your dreams then meeting his beautiful wife;" though it's more like his crazy wife. You pine for Edward and Jane to reunite and live happily ever after but in here you will find yourself pining for the end of the film.
Bruce has not gotten in touch with the character of Jane at all. Instead of standing firm in independence, Jane comes off as cocky, self absorbed, and snobby. You don't like Jane and you think, "what the hell does he see in her?" Secondly Adele is extremely annoying with her whiny cry and inability to be graceful as she is portrayed in later films. Clive's Rochester looks more like a love sick puppy from the moment he meets Jane however given her negative personality you think, "where's the attraction? I don't get it." Definitely one to save to the end if you're looking to compare.
The latest adaptation (though I dare say we need not anymore adaptations) to date. Mia Wasikowska is more well known for play Alice in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland films while Michael Fassbender is best known as Magneto in Marvel's X-Men films. Both bring extraordinary talent to these roles. Wasikowska and Fassbender are able to portray these characters as the independent spirits that they are, burdened by their own troubles, yet as young lovers as well. I do like the passion that is illustrated because it shows the dedication Jane and Edward have for each other; the thirst for each other. This is one of my favorite adaptations as well. I'd put it immediately after the 1996 version with William Hurt. However this is not according to my ranking of least liked to loved but this is up there. It will help you forget that disastrous 1934 version.
Ah...save the best for last. This four episode miniseries adaptation is without a doubt my number one favorite adaptation. Stephens' Rochester is tortured beyond compare. You can see it; you can feel it. Wilson's Jane is delicate, strong, wise, and though ignorant of love, falls so deep and true. Wilson truly brings about the charm and the right level of vulnerability to this beloved character.
Jane is the light in Rochester's darkness and once he has her, he tries to hold on to her so fiercely despite Jane's free spirit and determination to choose her destiny. Of all the adaptations, this by far is the one that tugs at the heart strings the most. I really feel for both of them. I end on this one because this is the version I highly recommend. I've watched this version 3 times already and it is brilliant! Performances are on point and the chemistry between Wilson and Stephens is on fire! (No pun intended.)
Going through all these films was definitely an education but it reconnected me with my love of film and reviewing. Thank you for taking the time to read this and if you prefer one film over another please share your suggestions in the comments. God bless!
Comments
Post a Comment