name lastname
It's nowhere even near the book, the woman who wrote the screenplay read too many cheesy romantic novels, so she invented the whole story, the dialogue and presented it to us as "Jane Eyre", to attract viewers. The series start with some red cloth, waved at our faces for many minutes, are we in communist China? Then, some girl, sitting in a desert, fiddling with sand. What desert, what sand? There is no desert and no sand in "Jane Eyre". The, some silly scene with some painter, which is not in the book also. Due to the desert and the painter, the scenes from childhood were cut off, and one can hardly understand what ailed the girl - she was closed in some room where she stared at the portrait, and it seemed to be her main grudge (no illness, no breakdown). The next second, "Jane" opens her eyes, and she is in a luxurious bed, attended by a doctor. In the book, the aunt called an apothecary to save money on a doctor's visit. In fact, the doctor promises to return again, meaning the evil aunts pays for two expensive visits, that's how evil she is. When Jane tells the aunt how she feels, instead of being indignant at the aunt's lies, she sounds like a prim teacher, telling the older woman what to do and how to behave. One can barely stand not to slap the brat and tell her not to order others around. In Lowood, everything is skipped through, scenes look more like flashbacks. Jane's friend Mary sounds borderline imbecilic, instead of the smartest girl in the school. She also looks extremely righteous and self-satisfied. Thornton Hall does not look as a house of a wealthy aristocratic gentleman, but like some Gothic ruins, to enter which you must crawl almost on all fours into some dilapidated gate (surely a rich man could have paid to fix it). Inside, it's all ruins, too, in which a couple of rooms were cleared and some furniture was installed. Aunt's Reed's house is a real gentlemanly house, and she was nowhere near Mr Rochester in riches. Adele is portrayed like a cretin girl, interested only in clothes, jewels and presents. Mr Rochester is a self-satisfied creep, who knows that he has a pretty face but is constantly fishing for compliments. He is also constantly mentioning his 20K, in case the pretty face was not enough. Original Mr Rochester never mentioned the exact sum of his fortune, no gentleman ever would. Mr Rochester in series is also giggling all the time, like he is deranged, plays with Ouija board (the "real" one was an educated man and would have never stooped to such rubbish), and bullies and humiliates other people playing on their superstitions. But, he found his match in Jane Eyre. In a book, Jane was an educated woman and she was extremely modern, had a career, hobbies, dreams. In these series, she can't even educate Adele properly, who continues to wiggle and giggle. She, too, is fishing for the compliments all the time, playing the victim card ("I was not fed for eight years", "yes, sir, they didn't feed me", "yes, but remember, sir, I told you how they never fed me"). "Real" Jane had too much taste and tact to talk like this. She disclosed some of the abuse that went in the school when asked directly, but never went around with "woe to me, everyone was bad to me" look, permanently plastered to her face. The real Jane never shared a full story about her inheritance with Mr Rochester, the Jane in the series brags about it, to show off and to fish for compliment on her "generosity". She was judgmental, never did much but sketched something, left Adele entirely to her French bonne, and was preoccupied with the one thing only - how to attract a man. The actress is not plain at all either, though the blotched lip injections did disfigured her face, giving her lips a lop-sided look, with the upper lip constantly hovering over the lower one. Her female cousins, instead of being educated well bred women, talked at once and screeched like magpies, also giggled all the time God knows why, and could outgiggle Mr Rochester himself on a good day. The whole thing was turned into a cheap cheesy pseudoromantic farce. Poor author must be turning in her grave. I could never understood why people blotched books so. If the writer of the screenplay thought she was better than Bronte, she should have written her own screenplay, call it "An imbecilic governess captures a rich man" and produce it as a mini series, which, of course, no one would have wanted to watch. Instead, piggy riding on a great name, we are forced to watch complete and utter rubbish, which has absolutely nothing to do with the book.
misctidsandbits
Modernization of old films and books doesn't usually work. Here, it failed in spades. It is especially unsuccessful to actually downgrade a merited classic with supposedly more updated mores and styles. Bronte's "Jane Eyre" is not broken and does not require a fix.From start to finish, from casting to execution, this is a rotten stinker. I personally consider the two leads to be unattractive. Wilson, repulses instead of attracts. She is larger than Stephens, awkward and appears over-nourished, instead of the half-starved girl of the book. Indeed, this Rochester is the one who appears undernourished. Besides, he needed the makeup to cover that gravely, pock marked face. Hers was not appropriate, though she needed help. Yuk to both, I think especially her. Their "love" scenes are actually revolting.All other cast members miss it by a mile, including the scruffy mange of a dog! The changes and adjustments (compromises) in the script and demeanor of especially the lead characters fails utterly. The depth and deliberation of the time and the true Bronte characters were obviously not valued and likely not comprehended by those responsible for this atrocity.Any other version is superior. This one hits the skids and turns the stomach along the way.
Sonya Troncoso
"Jane Eyre" was published in 1847. Almost two hundred years and countless television and film adaptations later, people are still talking about Jane Eyre. Why? Because author Charlotte Bronte knocked it out of the park with an unconventional heroine and an enormously interesting and complex Mr. Rochester. The story still stands up today! I have seen many excellent adaptations including A & E's 1997 version with wonderful Ciaran Hinds and the amazing Samantha Morton. Fans of "Jane Eyre" all have their favorite adaptations. But this 2006 "Jane Eyre" four part BBC miniseries is quite simply a masterpiece! Aside from the beautiful cinematography, lovely period costumes, "Masterpiece Theatre: Jane Eyre" has assembled an incredibly good cast, including Tara Fitzgerald as the heartless Mrs. Reed. But it is actress Ruth Wilson who is absolutely perfect as Jane. Her subtle performance down to her facial expressions and underlying restraint kidnaps the viewer's sensibilities, until you suffer and pine right along with her. Coupled with handsome Toby Stephens who gives a dark, interesting,and probably the sexiest Mr. Rochester portrayal I've ever seen, this "Jane Eyre" version is worth the entire four hours!! it's so good, I thought I had gone back in time. The only scene I questioned was between Jane and Mr. Rochester the night before she decides to leave Thornhill. Both appear in rather intimate embraces. But as repressed passionate characters who are truly in love with each other, it's not a stretch to accept Jane in Mr. Rochester's room or that his holding her tightly for dear life is an act of desperation, sensing he is going to lose her. Of course, there are several fantastic scenes, like the proposal. The scene photographed as a long shot looks like a gorgeous countryside postcard as the two main characters run from the rain. Jane and Mr. Rochester sitting by the pond after she returns to Thornhill is especially fun and flirtatious. They have not seen or heard from each other in a very long time. Their conversation initially brief and impersonal becomes charged as Jane teases Mr. Rochester and incites him in a jealous outburst. The viewer knows Jane and Mr. Rochester still love each other deeply and is rewarded. I highly recommend "Masterpiece Theatre: Jane Eyre." It is a classic book and this adaptation is a masterpiece!
TheLittleSongbird
Seeing as Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte is one of my favourite novels, I was eager to see as many adaptations as I could. And I really liked this 2006 version. It is I agree not the best adaptation, and it is not the most faithful, I do prefer the 1973 and 1983 adaptations, that were given a longer durations to develop the themes and the characters and they went at a more leisurely pace which was beneficial for the atmosphere I feel.However this adaptation, although some may disagree, is vastly superior to the dull Zeffirelli film and the too short, rushed and underdeveloped 1997 adaptation. Is this perfect? No. There were a few scenes that I didn't like so much. One was the seance between the rich people, which was lame and unnecessary. Two was the gypsy scene which is much more enjoyable in the book. And finally the scene on the stairs, which was ruined by trite dialogue.I also felt that although Andrew Buchan was good as he always is, very commanding as always, St John was too likable and too sympathetic here. The parts with Jane as a child were rushed in a sense as well, but compensated by the wonderful production values and the very believable acting from Georgie Henley, the girl playing young Jane.On the other hand, this is a beautiful-looking adaptation. Of the TV series adaptations, I think this 2006 one is the best photographed, and the costumes and scenery are equally striking. Thornfield has the essential Gothic haunting quality to it, which I appreciated. The music is never over-bearing or low key, instead it is hypnotic and authentic.The writing may lack the poetic prose of the book, there are some stilted and trite moments, but the adaptation does try hard condensing a very difficult book to adapt to screen. The results are not perfect by all means but considering what happened with the 1997 adaptation it could've fared far worse. The story is well paced and compelling especially the final episode which is unforgettable in every sense, with some suspenseful and beautiful moments throughout to make up for the few not-needed and not-so-enjoyable ones and an effort to convey the attitudes and conflicts of the times.Acting is great. Toby Stephens is perhaps the most handsome of all Rochesters, decide for yourself whether that's a bad thing or not, but he shows Rochester's characteristics perfectly. He is gruff, boisterous, charismatic and cynical yet also world-weary, subtle, nuanced and tender. Ruth Wilson is also perfect. She is delicate and plain, but her Jane is so poised and controlled it is easy to relate to her. I much enjoyed the support cast, especially Tara Fitzgerald, Lorraine Ashbourne, Pam Ferris and Francessca Annis. Adele is less annoying than she can be, and Christine Cole's Blanche is suitably haughty.Overall, a much better than expected if imperfect adaptation. I don't think it is definitive or the best adaptation, but it is a valiant one and worth seeing for the wonderful production values and superb cast. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox
