I cant quite put a finger on it, but for some reason I just don't like jayston and cusack as Rochester and Jane. I think their acting is a little stiff, with cusack being almost mousy at some points and downright overblown at others, and jays ton just rubbing me the wrong way as mr. Rochester. Jane eyre, unlike other classics like pride and prejudice, doesn't seem to yet have the definitive adaptation everyone can agree is the best, and for me at least, this one is most certainly not it.
@robertW2471 - That's preposterous! Even today, Michael Jayston himself has nothing but praise for Sorcha Cusack's acting as 'Jane'! In an interview he gave to the 'Bronteana' website some years ago he remembered: "Sorcha was only 23 and I was 37. People said there was an electrifying chemistry between us, which was true." And to Sorcha herself he told while this mini-serial was being produced: "After this you’ll be huge."
@mendoncacorreia So, and what is your opinion? You just cited Jayston statement from an interview as if it were to any value for our own perception. Her expressions seem forced and her attempt to show despair and anger sounds unnatural and stage-like. I had the same problem with the "proposal scene" in the 1983 version. My first comment might be to harsh and I'm sorry if I offended you in any way but I didn't feel any real emotion from her in this scene. Sorry about my insufficient English
@robertW2471 - I wholeheartedly support Jayston's view of Sorcha's acting. Check the following excerpts from "Jane Eyre": - chapter XVI (Jane about Rochester and she): "(...) I knew the pleasure of vexing and soothing him by turns (...)"; - and chapter XXVII (Rochester to/about Jane): "(...) You entered the room (...)". In these two passages of her novel, Brontë gave us a crystal-clear synthesis of how she imagined Jane; and, to this day, the only actress who displayed it on screen was Cusack.
I have seen all the adaptions of ´Jane Eyre´. And this ist the best movie adaption from all of them. This one is very passionat with great actors and the interpretation of the novel is really close to the story of the book. It seems like that just the British people understand actually the spirit of the story and the realionships in that time to have the ability for transforming the great novel of Charlotte Bronte in his naturally touch.
I love how Michael Jayston says "I love you"! It's the only proposal scene I've seen of all the Jane Eyre movies where I really believe him when he says it.
Poor Jane is torn between what she wants and what she can have -- and keep her mind and soul. I grew up with the '83 version. But this one hits the ball out of the ballpark!
my favorite is the 2006 version so for me Ruth wilson is the only Jane and no man can do mr. Rochester better then Toby stephens! And the music in that version is so beatiful!
This is so wonderfully faithful to the book! Love it! And he reminds me of Christopher Plummer. Can't lose there! This scene is full of so much irony and foreshadowing. Charlotte Bronte was a genius!
I don't know why, but the 2006 version seemed less stiff than this one, especially this Mr. Rochester. Stephens really has the fiery temperament of Mr. Rochester. This one seems a bit cold.
@mendoncacorreia Did I say that it was mentioned in the novel? If you read carefully, you'll see that Mr. Rochester is associated with Fire (example: in their early conversations, she is summoned by the fireside where he sits), because he is passionate, which is why Jane prefers him over St John, who is as cold as a stone. This is an important feature of his character, he is impulsive and emotional and this is what Jane likes best. And this is what I meant by "fiery temperament".
@JacobGrimmFollower - Emotional? Yes. Passionate? Occasionally. Impulsive? No. After his marriage to Bertha Mason, the 'wild boy indulged from childhood upwards' (ch. XX) became a 'curious, designing mind' (ch. XXIV). He never acts under first impulses; everything he does is carefully planned: that's why he takes such pains to make Jane believe he wishes to marry Miss Ingram (ibid.). Rochester is not an impulsive but a shrewd, calculating man: he is not Toby Stephens but Michael Jayston.
@mendoncacorreia He is impulsive in showing his emotions after he marries Jane, you can see in the book that he is no more restrained. He isn't reserved like St John, who is hard to decipher and who makes Jane feel uncomfortable. Jane says she prefers people who make blunders under spontaneity over those who carefully survey their words and actions. Mr. Rochester is part of the former rather than the later. I'm sorry you misinterpreted my meaning in your hurry to defend Jayston.
@JacobGrimmFollower - I don't quite follow you here. You say he's impulsive "after he marries Jane"? Are you by any chance referring to something you read in the last chapter of the novel? And what may that be?
@mendoncacorreia In showing his emotions yes. Oh, oups I meant during and after the proposal and even afterwards, he was more open with his feelings. And let's not forget that impulsive can take a lot of meanings.
@JacobGrimmFollower - Until Jane claims her rank as his equal in the 'proposal' scene, Rochester doesn't show his feelings for her. He almost does it in the 'fire' and the 'party' scenes; but he is so equivocal that Jane can't be sure about it in the first and doesn't acknowledge it in the second.
I agree Rochester lets his feelings flow when he gets sure she's in love with him in the 'proposal' scene and afterwards. But even then, he's also scheming - namely because his wife is still living...
@mendoncacorreia And whether Mr. Rochester is a shrewd man is debatable, since he confesses it to Jane, it seems he is not entirely condemnable. It will always stay a matter of personal opinion. I think Stephens does the job best, and you think Jayston is better and let's respect each other's choice.
@JacobGrimmFollower - I'm sorry, it's not a mere matter of opinion. When you wrote "Stephens really has the fiery temperament of Mr. Rochester," you clearly meant his Rochester is more faithful to the novel than Jayston's, and that isn't so.
I don't want to start a war because of "Jane Eyre": paraphrasing Hitchcock, "it's only a novel." But I'd like to understand why there's people talking about things such as Rochester's "fiery temperament", because I don't find them anywhere in the novel.
@mendoncacorreia But this is where you are wrong. Everyone interpret things differently. If you don't see it, it might be because your interest in the novel lies in other passages.I studied Jane Eyre in school and we used lots of resources and notes. Everyone of them emphasized Mr. Rochester's association with Fire, and passion. I can hardly believe that these scholars pulled that out of their heads. And again, I explained what I meant by fiery temperament before.
@JacobGrimmFollower - I don't understand you! First, you say 'everyone' interprets things differently; then, you say 'everyone' emphasizes Rochester's association with fire: that's a contradiction in terms!
I've been reading and studying the novel since my youth. I don't know which scholars have you studied in your day; but if they were the kind of those who have been teaching that "Jane Eyre" is a 'gothic' novel and the likes, I'm very sorry but you have learned nonsense.
@mendoncacorreia I said, everyone in the notes and resources we have studied in school, please don't misunderstand me. I refer only to the documents I have received in school. And I studied Jane Eyre just last year, in grade 12, so I don't think we're talking about what you're referring to, although you calling it nonsense is very harsh.
@mendoncacorreia But you know what, I guess I'll just say that you are right to end this debate. You're obviously not going to be any more favorable to Stephens than I am favorable to Jayston. I think that it is hard to be objective when it comes to novels and any form of art. So, there I have said it, Jayston is better. I hope it makes your day and I shall no longer reply to anything, because I have seen your absolute truth.Replying, then, is evidently unnecessary.
@JacobGrimmFollower - It doesn't make my day because I'd really like to understand you and those who think like you; but if you don't want to exchange furthers with me about this, what can I do?
One final word, if you don't mind. You shouldn't scorn those who search for absolute truth. Charlotte Brontë was one of them, you know? To begin with, she believed in God, His Love, His Law and His Mercy: so do I, and many like me. If there were no absolute truths, there were no truths whatsoever...
@mendoncacorreia I don't seem to understand why Jane Eyre fans have such heated debates about Rochester. I think that he's almost incapable of being perfectly acted out in a movie. Mr. Rochester has so many different aspects to him and each movie captures those aspects differently. Not to mention it's impossible to come to a full decision on which actor (if any) is "truer" to rochester when everyone has a different idea of who Rochester even is. I PERSONALLY like Stephens better.
@socertiger13 - Believe it or not, it has never been my intention to launch heated debates about this: my intention has always been to get a better knowledge of "Jane Eyre". For that purpose, I must understand those who don't see it the way I do: if I'm wrong, I will simply drop what I think about it.
You can display a fairly close portrait of Rochester on screen: Michael Jayston's is the closest I have watched thus far. Is it possible to get closer than he did? That is the question...
@mendoncacorreia I like Stephens for what I (personally) see in Rochester. Stephens seems to capture the experienced, yet also the boyish side of Rochester that none of the actors seemed to accomplish to me. All the others were close to the age of Rochester, but acted as if they were twenty years older than that. Stephens captures the passion that Rochester has, which I consider to be his most important characteristic. But then again, it is all a matter of opinion.
@socertiger13 - I'd like to know what is it in "Jane Eyre" that leads you to think that Rochester has a 'boyish side': I don't find it anywhere in the novel.
I'd also like to know what do you mean by "passion": to most people nowadays it means 'erotism' or 'sexuality'. Invariably, they become very surprised when they acknowledge how Jayston behaved with Cusack on set: how he looked at and talked to and touched and kissed her. Do you know how many times they kiss each other in this mini-serial?
@mendoncacorreia: I understand and commend you on wanting to the improve the minds of those who read Jane Eyre. But every reader may not find the same meaning within the text that you find. Rochester is never directly characterized as having a 'boyish side.' You are right about that. I guess what I meant is that after reading Jane Eyre multiple times I came to feel that Rochester himself matured throughout the novel. I think that at times, his decision making and his change of temperament
@mendoncacorreia remind me of a teenager. Being a teenager myself, I think I see some of the same traits in Rochester that I see in the boys I walk in the hall with everyday. As for Rochester's passion, I misworded that I think. What I meant to say is his, intensity. I like to imagine that Rochester was a man of extremes. Whatever emotion he happens to be experiencing (whether love, happiness, or sorrow, etc.) he always seems to express it to the fullest extent. But once again, this is just my
@socertiger13 - You see some of the traits in Rochester that you see in the boys you walk in the hall with everyday? That's very interesting! It's not far removed, I think, from what I wrote here a couple of years ago:
"As they are depicted by Brontë, Jane and Rochester are 'ordinary' characters living an 'extraordinary' situation [...].
"One of the reasons why the novel remains so popular is that the 'ordinary' reader not only 'admires' but 'identifies' him/herself with the characters."
@mendoncacorreia EXACTLY. Bronte makes the novel so relateable. Of course I'm not saying that Rochester himself acts like a teenager but there are certain moments in the story when I kind of see some childlike aspects in him. For example, it seems like he contradicts himself in order to make what he's doing seem more acceptable. It's the kind of approach that teenagers take when we know we're doing something wrong and try reason it out.
@socertiger13 Socertiger, are you truly a teenager? If you are, then you are extraodinary in today's age of teens. I hope you are considering a writing career. If your insights here are any indication of talent then I think you are quite gifted. All the best as you move forward in life.
@iluvdesmond ha ha I assure you that I am most deffinitely a teenager. I'm only in 10th grade! :) I know I kind of stray off the path of "normal" teens but I have an intense passion for reading and writing. I'm looking to major in english literature and minor in journalism when I get to college. Thank you so much! I love to discuss literature.
@mendoncacorreia opinion. I think every reader shapes characters in a way that makes them feel more relateable. I don't mean to say that the actual text should be blown to the wind. I just think that stories such as Jane Eyre leave plenty of room for the imagination. With the story being told from Jane's perspective, Rochester can easily be interpreted in many ways because we have no real insight into HIS nature or thoughts except for what Jane gives us. Get where I'm coming from?
@mendoncacorreia And I did mean that Rochester for me (big emphasis on ME) was played better by Stephens. You say that it isn't so, as if you hold absolute truth. It is a matter of opinions, even if you don't wish to recognize it. If you don't find them, it doesn't mean they are not there. Everyone looks at things differently. It's not hard to accept.
@JacobGrimmFollower - I'm not sure what you mean when you say "big emphasis on ME". Which Rochester is more faithful to the novel, Stephens' or Jayston's? That's a question one can give an objective answer... I'm getting the (perhaps erroneous) notion that you're talking about this as if it was primarily a matter of taste for you. That being the case, I have nothing against it: accordingly with the old advice, I never argue about tastes and colours.
@Jennytheshipper - The voiceovers are necessary indeed, as demonstrated by me in the 'IMDb' website, board "Jane Eyre" (1973), subject "About the (ab)use of voiceovers in 'Jane Eyre 1973'."
Not bad, and very true to the book, but she doesn't look eighteen! And where's the passion? I prefer the 2006 version - the emotions come through much more clearly. Pretty good, though - they look like they're dancing a weird hornpipe at the end!
@MadameChristie - With just the camera, you cannot show thoughts and reasonings like those in 2:28, 5:17 and 6:29. As for myself, I don't understand why should we lose a real chance to fully enjoy Charlotte Brontë's beautiful prose when it is given to us without any significant damage to what we can see on screen. If you compare it with all the other screen versions of the novel, the acting and the pace of "Jane Eyre 1973" are simply superb!
@mendoncacorreia We shouldn't need to hear the thoughts verbally, especially in this scene. It should be enough to see it in her face, in her emotional expression, in the lines she speaks to Rochester. Instead of "I thought he mocked me" she could've just asked "do you mock me?" which is what is usually done, I think...I haven't see this version in full yet, so I'll have t do that. Right now I unabashedly favour the 2006 miniseries, if only because I'm a hopeless romantic
@MadameChristie - You cannot express "I thought he mocked me" through body language: you have to use words for that. Jane couldn't ask Rochester "Do you mock me?" on screen among other things because she didn't ask him that in the novel.
@mendoncacorreia So what if it wasn't in the novel? Word for word faithfulness is okay, but it gets a bit stale for me. Not that I like versions that totally ignore the source material (most of the Morton version and the editing of the Scott version make me cringe). I like that the writers of the 2006 version gave themselves room to breathe. It's mostly faithful, and the "differences" aren't too bad and some are even quite interesting. I don't really mind not getting the prose verbatim...
@MadameChristie - [1/2] You're stepping on dangerous ground here: you forget that "Jane Eyre" is a literary masterpiece. Hitchcock, of all directors, didn't touch literary masterpieces because he didn't want to mishandle them: that's why he didn't make "Crime and Punishment".
@MadameChristie - [2/2] Robin Chapman, who did the adaptation for "Jane Eyre" (1973), once said that "usually when people dramatize 'Jane Eyre' they take away the narrative voice-over of Jane herself and this turns the book on its head." With all due respect, "Jane Eyre" (2006) is just another of the many proofs that he was right.
@mendoncacorreia You forgot Hitchcock's Rebecca, which is considered one of the best adaptations of the novel, I believe. I don't know, but I find the 2006 version the most enjoyable even if it's not the most accurate (and it isn't, that I know). I respect your opinions (I hope this is still an enjoyable discussion - I don't want it to be adverserial ^_^). I think I agree that the 2006 version did turn the novel on it's head...but I like most of what they did *shrug*.
@MadameChristie - It is an extremely enjoyable discussion! I wish the discussions I've been having here were all like this!
No, I didn't forget "Rebecca" - and "Topaz". According to Sir Alfred himself, "Rebecca" wasn't really a 'Hitchcock picture': it was just a 'novelette' - and "Topaz" was a complete flop...
@mendoncacorreia I'm glad you're enjoying this as much as I am :D I take it you're a big fanof thye 82/83 version with Dalton? It's probably the most prose=perfect version I've seen, easilymy #2 version behind the 2006 movie...
@MadameChristie - A big fan of "Jane Eyre" (1983)? Perish the thought!!! I'm a fan of "Jane Eyre" (1973)! Did you check the playlist I have here of that mini-series?
@MadameChristie - As a 'word for word adaptation', Alexander Baron's script for "Jane Eyre" (1983) was not at all as good as Robin Chapman's for "Jane Eyre" (1973). As 'Rochester', Timothy Dalton was a complete miscast: the novel being a sort of an echo of "The Beauty and the Beast", he was too handsome for the role.
@mendoncacorreia Pt1. Ah...but do unnattractive men and women ever become accomplished actors? It's not something you really think about, but when you try to name an actor who is not at least pleasing to the eyes, it gets quite difficult. Besides Margaret Hamilton from the Wizard of Oz film, there isn't really anyone not pretty or handsome who has become successful.
@mendoncacorreia I'm only vaguely familiar with most of these. Others I don't know at all XD Claude Raines wasn't bad looking, just really short :P Charles Laughton...that name...he was in a Les Mis adaptation, no? I think I saw him as...Valjean? If he's the one I think he is, than he isn't bad looking either. Anyway the modern day film industry seems infinitely (and unfortunately) better looking...
@MadameChristie - Charles Laughton was, v.g., 'Dr. Moreau' in "Island of the Lost Souls" (1932), 'Captain William Bligh' in "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1935), 'Sir William Robarts' in "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957)... Charles Vanel was, v.g., 'Inspector Javert' in "Les Misérables" (1934), 'Jo' in "Le Salaire de la peur" (1953), 'Alfred Fichet' in "Les Diaboliques" (1955)... But, alas!, you're right about modern day film industry!...
@mendoncacorreia Pt2. Charlotte Gainsbourg was a remarkably unattractive Jane, but I put that down to Victorian period dress being super unflattering on her. Otherwise she's not bad looking in a sort of "wispy, pale thing" way...
@mendoncacorreia Part2: Have you seen the Broadway musical? A lot of the music uses the prose verbatim for lyrics. Some of it it was quite nice put to music...
@MadameChristie - No, I haven't; but so I've been told by some friends of mine. I gather that's another argument in favour of being as faithful as possible to the novel: Brontë's prose is truly beautiful...
@mendoncacorreia I'm semi hypocritical like that I guess XD The music really is lovely, and prose musicalized quite well, at least to my liking. Rochester was undoubtebly too good looking, but his voice more than makes up for any flaws he may have...well most anyway...
I'm not a fan of Jane's voiceovers, and I've always felt this Rochester is a little lacking, but overall I think this is a pretty good adaptation. I like how close it stays to the book.
"Jane Eyre" is a largely autobiographical novel - and, of all the actresses who performed 'Jane' on screen, Sorcha Cusack is the only one who resembles Charlotte Brontë as portrayed by George Richmond in the very famous drawing he made of her in 1850...
That was my critique of his performance, too. But it works this way: Mr. Rochester is speaking quickly so that he forces Jane to respond without thinking. He elicits a confession he can turn around and use.
I totally agree with you, this is my favourite version of JE! I cannot explain why but i think that the actors are great and that Sorcha is actually Jane Eyre! The chemistry between those two is great, and Jayston is the perfect Rochester full of passion. He is not as handsome as Dalton, but he is very charming. I also believe that is version is great for another reason:its simplicity.
Horses for courses I guess. :-) I like Ruth Wilson v. much but she was given little chance to show the 'real' Jane IMHO in the 2006. She got more and more docile as it went on. I was just watching the 1983 after a long gap - there's lots of things good about it but Dalton and Clarke seem unbalanced somehow. The chemistry in this one is of a different sort. The more you watch it the more the spark grows.
That's very interesting: "The more you watch it the more the spark grows"!...
I have been noticing that more than a few people who have watched "Jane Eyre (1973)" after other adaptations of the novel (namely after 1983 and 2006) have been growing more and more fond of it.
In your case, could you explain why? I'm a big fan of this particular adaptation and my curiosity has benn picqued by that phenomenon.
Well, I suppose the more you watch it the more you become aware of the subtle ways in which Cusack and Jayston manifest the growing attraction - little looks and movements. I have to admit tho I loved this adaptation from the moment I saw it, even tho my expectations were sky-high from reading various reviews. I can't say exactly why it works so well for me, and 1983/2006 fall so short of my desires...
I think this version has had a lot of thought go into it, if not a lot of money. :-) (In this regard it is the opposite of 2006.) You can see this from the clever way the different conversations are staged, how the characters move and change positions like chessmen. In 1983 IIRC the characters tend to sit and talk, and the dynamic is rather static.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Good Lord, what an horrible adaptation! Most true to the book, i think is Timothy's Dalton Rochester, and most true to Jane's character is Ruth Wilson in 2006 adaptation. And I agree, that version of 2006 is way too much adapted for nowadays - but still, 2006 is my favorit. Because there was such a chemistry between Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson. And in this adaptanion I only see plain dialogs but noe chemistry.
Yes, I must totally agree with you, unfortunatelly this version have declamated unnaturally dialogs and no attraction to Rochester and Jane. I´m enjoying version 2006 , but this version have his magis too.
i feared my comment should be disliked by some people, and you have all right to say your opinion too. no, i haven't seen all of JE73 but i have seen the 83,96 and 06 version, and i like the 06 version best. That is because Jane and Rochester have a wonderful chemestry and everything they say is said in a natural way.
in this version it feels like they don't mean what they say and they don't have that chemestry like in the 06 verison.
I understand your point as I experienced something similar when I first saw this adaptation. After watching it over and over again to find out what was so special about it (having read lots of positive comments in different fora) I grew to like it. Especially when I saw it in full and not only the few clips available on YT. The acting is very subtle and one needs to pay careful attention to the way the actors use their eyes and voices.
men för mig handlar allt om att det ska vara intressant och levande i filmer så då kanske den här versionen inte passar mig lika mycket. okej den första kommentaren kanske var lite för starkt, sorry (du är väldigt bra på engelska förresten!)
No offense, but I thought the 06 was VERY poor. :P Nothing wrong with the actors I guess, and some of it was OK but I thought it was a clumsy and somewhat graceless attempt to "modernize" the story. Almost none of the great dialogue from the novel was there, the plot was watered down, and they basically did everything short of having Jane and Rochester actually sleep together. Ick. The 1983 with Dalton is my favorite but I understand this ones' the closest to the book
no, not the whole book, only from the proposal til the end, so I can understand what you mean when you say that this version is more faithful to the book. Ok, you don't like the 06 version, but just because of that I don't get all angry because of you opinion, like you have been with mine. let's face people see things differently and we values other things in movies. I do agree that the 06 version has some scenes that is not in the book but what i do like is that they have the right atmosphere.
Did I seem "angry?" Didn't mean to, sorry. Text is not an accurate conveyor of emotion.. ;-)
"Atmosphere" is a somewhat subjective thing.... I think the best way to convey the atmosphere of a book is to be as faithful to it as possible. Being familiar with the entire book, I don't feel that the '06 version was faithful to the original story AT ALL. So I don't like it. That's all. However, I will grant you that this 73 version could maybe have done with a BIT more emotion in spots.... ;-P
Have you seen the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke? That's my favorite JE miniseries, Dalton is the greatest Rochester I've ever seen..
As far as shorter films, the 1996 one with Ciaran Hinds I thought was excellent too in many ways and IMO much much better than the 06, but again, no offense! :P
yes, i have seen the 83 version since i was 9 or something, 'cause my older sister loved period dramas:) i like the 83 version too, both zelah and dalton is wonderful actors and he is a perfect rochester indeed, almost handsome but yet not hehe:) and it is more faithful to the book. the thing is that it is faithful to the book AND has emotions, therefore it is a better version than 73. Sorry to call you "angry", i see you have more respect than the other person who commented my first comment:)
I'll just say again, that Bronte had some truly wonderful thoughts and dialogue in the book, stuff that really makes you stop and think; and watching the 1973 one again reminds of how much of it is lost- even in the 83 version! forget the more recent ones! I feel the '06 one in particular stripped away all the intellectual interest and left mostly unbuttoned hormonal "feelings...."
.....comparatively, it gives you very little insight into the deep minds and hearts of the characters, what makes them tick, how they reason on and justify their conduct. Some people have called it a "chick flick" adaptation and, at risk of offending you again :P I tend to agree with them... :-|
Well, I guess you are right about the 06 version considering the insight of their characters and their deep conversations which is not shown in the 06 version. I have never thought of it before, and it is a very good opinion and observation you have made on it, very impressing:) I guess the 06 version's just a very good movie, but not a good adaption of the novel.
Not having the time to follow this forum thoroughly, I have not come around to reply to your comment until now. In what way do you feel I was lacking in respect?
Sorry, it was wrong for me to say that. I guess I thougt that you showed more that you didn't at all agreed with me and thought I was too hard (which i was) compared to the other person "ShawDAMAN" who reasoned more. It was wrong for me so say that, you have all the rights to say your opinion.
'Respect' is an interesting word and I believe the interpretation varies between people. I strive to show courtesy to people, which I hope was the case here. Respect is, for me, a deeper feeling and respect can only be earned. Earned in this forum by intelligent comments and well expressed points of view, either showing eagerness to learn, extensive knowledge or a great sense of humour.
Well, everyone if of course entitled to having their own opinion, hejmedlitetH08. Please elaborate. This might come out as an interesting discussion. What is 'dreadful'? Acting? Sets? Dialogue? Looks?
And how many adaptations have you seen or heard which you compare to this one? Have you seen all of JE73?
BTW: Do you not like Charlotte Brontë's novel either? This dialogue includes large portions of the original text.
I do like the novel, and that this version relates very much to the novel, and i do like what they say but it is their acting i don't like, it's not convicing. maybe it's just the 70's way to act, i don't know, but i don't like it anyway.
I don't want you to be angry but this is just an opinion, and i respect yours
I am not angry at all, it is a delight to see another Swede comment here :-) but for the sake of other readers, I reply in English and hope YOU do not mind. I truly appreciate other opinions, especially if they are written in a versatile manner. (To be frank: Your first comment was a bit harsh.)
jasså så du är svensk också:) . det gör inget om du skriver på engelska men nu har vi lixom sagt det viktigaste så då är det ju inte lika viktigt för de andra att veta resten haha. nämen det är intressant att du inte gillade versionen först men försökte hitta det magiska i den.
That's a great idea! I have just been listening with my eyes closed. Particularly I've discovered the way S says 'Mr Rochester' is really cute. And listening to to Mr Jayston in the post-wedding scene is amazing, the emotions change every second.
Also, I have only just realised, listening to the scenes with my earbuds in more than multiplies the pleasure! It makes it easier esp to hear the subtle changes in Sorcha's performance.
I have a recommendation for you, bifar99: Download the soundtrack of JE73 YT-videos to an mp3 player (if you cannot rip it from the DVD, that is). This adaptation works nicely as a radio drama. When one's eyes are not occupied with the screen, the subtleties in the dialogue get clearer. And, speaking for myself, I was so astonished that Sorcha sounds much younger than she looks.
I love this version! it's a hard scene to play, it runs the gamut somewhat, but they do it v. well and all the good bits from the book are in there. Specially the cord of communion bit.
No, she wasn't - at least according to the script. Clearly, screen writer Robin Chapman, while keeping himself very close to the novel, discarded everything that could seem too melodramatic to audiences, like Jane's convulsive sobbing and Rochester's (ineffable) 'nightingale singing in the wood'...
Michael Jayston - "I landed the role of Rochester as a result of a practical joke. My then wife, Heather, sent a funny letter to the director, Joan Craft, saying, Its about time Michael played Rochester, and we used to think that I got the part as a result [...] Professionally, playing Rochester didnt do me much good. I never played a romantic part on TV after that. I was baffled because when it was shown on TV, I received the biggest fan mail Ive ever had." (Source: 'Bronteana' website).
No, he doesn't look like Bronte's description. However, Mother always said, "Beware of men who make you laugh." ;-) He'd qualify! He has a lot of lines to remember and he does quite well, under the circumstances.
In my humble opinion, Michael Jayston may not fully match Charlotte Brontë's physical portrait of Edward Rochester; but he fully matches the psychological portrait she did of him, namely in chapter XIV of the novel.
Weighing both the physical and the psychological aspects of the character, I think Jayston, of all the actors who ever performed Rochester on screen, is the one who got closer to what Brontë had in mind when she wrote "Jane Eyre".
For that matter, none of the actresses who have performed Jane on screen were and/or looked 18 - not even Samantha Morton, who was barely over 20 when "Jane Eyre (1996)" was produced.
What is more, in the novel Jane is not supposed to look exactly like an 18-years-old girl. Even a man-of-the-world like Rochester finds her age "a point difficult to fix where the features and countenance are so much at variance" (chapter XIII).
I see and understand your thought, babajaga39, but all his other qualities make up for it. (My favourite Rochester when it comes to physical apperance is Patrick Macnee, JE57). And I also think the costumes can be blamed to some extent. MJ look more broadchested in the black coat he wears in other scenes. Do you not agree?
I believe the costumes are largely to blame. At least one coat that Michael wears is far too fitted in the shoulder region; he looks as if he's struggled to get into it. I've seen him in a clip (in which he's shirtless) and he's broader of chest and shoulder than he appears here. It's too bad; I've come across similar remarks with regard to Jayston's shoulders. I, for one, don't require the "unusual breadth of chest, disproportionate almost to his length of limb," that Brontë refers to.
Is it Sorcha Cusack's physical apperance you refer to when you write "a bit old"? Because if we are talking about actual age, she was not older than many other Janes, more the opposite.
Have you seen all episodes of this mini-series? If that is the case: how do you find the expression(s) in Sorcha Cusack's eyes and her way of delivering the lines in the different scenes? And, most important, her interplay with Michael Jayston - What do you think of that?
And what does [s]he think of the fact that, of all the actresses who ever played Jane Eyre on screen, Sorcha Cusack is the one who vaguely resembles Charlotte Brontë?...
(Needless to say, had 'Supraman2468' read what we both have been writing about this same matter here, [s]he wouldn't have made this comment at all...).
I agree, she does "looks" older than other actors that have portrayed her, so s/he can be forgiven for thinking that she is. She really doesn't seem that youthful, which is nothing against her. I guess don't feel this version of Jane Eyre at all, really.
Perhaps we define 'youthful' in different ways. I mainly see to Sorcha Cusacks eyes which - most of the time - have a very unsophicated and inexperienced expression. Her voice is youthful too. I agree, though, that the way she wrinkles her forehead make her look not so 18-ish sometimes. But that is soon forgotten once one get into her way of portraying Jane.
In the novel, Jane is not supposed to look exactly like an 18-years-old girl: check what Rochester says about her age in chapter XIII.
Back in the 1970s, all TV viewers (including me...) thought that Sorcha looked somewhat over 20 and Michael somewhat under 40. What is more, we all thought that they fitted their characters very, very well: that was was one of the several reasons why "Jane Eyre (1973)" got so deeply rooted in our imaginary...
I don't know why so many people get caught up on how old the actors are. I imagine that someone 18 living 150 years ago looked similar to someone 30 today. I love this adaptation, mostly b/c I love how Rochester/Jayston seems so charmed by her. I also love how ladylike Sorcha is.
I don't like this version much anyway, but I keep getting distracted by their rather unflattering outfits. D:
0amelia0 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
0amelia0 3 weeks ago
I cant quite put a finger on it, but for some reason I just don't like jayston and cusack as Rochester and Jane. I think their acting is a little stiff, with cusack being almost mousy at some points and downright overblown at others, and jays ton just rubbing me the wrong way as mr. Rochester. Jane eyre, unlike other classics like pride and prejudice, doesn't seem to yet have the definitive adaptation everyone can agree is the best, and for me at least, this one is most certainly not it.
peaceout3859 6 months ago
I can
peaceout3859 6 months ago
I love almost every Mr Rochester...Timothy Dalton, Toby Stephens, Michael Jayston & even Michael Fassbender
wincipoet 6 months ago
verry nice
tigergirljamie7 8 months ago
I'm sorry but she can't act!
She diminishes the talent and effort of Michael Jayston in this scene.
robertW2471 8 months ago
@robertW2471 - That's preposterous! Even today, Michael Jayston himself has nothing but praise for Sorcha Cusack's acting as 'Jane'! In an interview he gave to the 'Bronteana' website some years ago he remembered: "Sorcha was only 23 and I was 37. People said there was an electrifying chemistry between us, which was true." And to Sorcha herself he told while this mini-serial was being produced: "After this you’ll be huge."
mendoncacorreia 8 months ago in playlist Jane Eyre (BBC 1973) 2
@mendoncacorreia So, and what is your opinion? You just cited Jayston statement from an interview as if it were to any value for our own perception. Her expressions seem forced and her attempt to show despair and anger sounds unnatural and stage-like. I had the same problem with the "proposal scene" in the 1983 version. My first comment might be to harsh and I'm sorry if I offended you in any way but I didn't feel any real emotion from her in this scene. Sorry about my insufficient English
robertW2471 8 months ago
@robertW2471 - I wholeheartedly support Jayston's view of Sorcha's acting. Check the following excerpts from "Jane Eyre": - chapter XVI (Jane about Rochester and she): "(...) I knew the pleasure of vexing and soothing him by turns (...)"; - and chapter XXVII (Rochester to/about Jane): "(...) You entered the room (...)". In these two passages of her novel, Brontë gave us a crystal-clear synthesis of how she imagined Jane; and, to this day, the only actress who displayed it on screen was Cusack.
mendoncacorreia 8 months ago
I have seen all the adaptions of ´Jane Eyre´. And this ist the best movie adaption from all of them. This one is very passionat with great actors and the interpretation of the novel is really close to the story of the book. It seems like that just the British people understand actually the spirit of the story and the realionships in that time to have the ability for transforming the great novel of Charlotte Bronte in his naturally touch.
Nevilen1 10 months ago 4
I love how Michael Jayston says "I love you"! It's the only proposal scene I've seen of all the Jane Eyre movies where I really believe him when he says it.
2426kell 11 months ago 15
After seeing almost every version this one is my absolute favorite.
BillieJoesGirl06 1 year ago 7
Poor Jane is torn between what she wants and what she can have -- and keep her mind and soul. I grew up with the '83 version. But this one hits the ball out of the ballpark!
annwags 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
Famisht 1 year ago
my favorite is the 2006 version so for me Ruth wilson is the only Jane and no man can do mr. Rochester better then Toby stephens! And the music in that version is so beatiful!
Joannazzzx 1 year ago 2
This is so wonderfully faithful to the book! Love it! And he reminds me of Christopher Plummer. Can't lose there! This scene is full of so much irony and foreshadowing. Charlotte Bronte was a genius!
musicalmeg19 1 year ago 4
this is great, is there a chance that you can upload the complete show? ive only found clips and i d like to watch the whole thing :)
greets k
koppsr 1 year ago
Comment removed
socertiger13 1 year ago
I don't know why, but the 2006 version seemed less stiff than this one, especially this Mr. Rochester. Stephens really has the fiery temperament of Mr. Rochester. This one seems a bit cold.
JacobGrimmFollower 1 year ago
@JacobGrimmFollower - Nowhere in the novel is Mr. Rochester said to have a "fiery temperament".
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia Did I say that it was mentioned in the novel? If you read carefully, you'll see that Mr. Rochester is associated with Fire (example: in their early conversations, she is summoned by the fireside where he sits), because he is passionate, which is why Jane prefers him over St John, who is as cold as a stone. This is an important feature of his character, he is impulsive and emotional and this is what Jane likes best. And this is what I meant by "fiery temperament".
JacobGrimmFollower 1 year ago
@JacobGrimmFollower - Emotional? Yes. Passionate? Occasionally. Impulsive? No. After his marriage to Bertha Mason, the 'wild boy indulged from childhood upwards' (ch. XX) became a 'curious, designing mind' (ch. XXIV). He never acts under first impulses; everything he does is carefully planned: that's why he takes such pains to make Jane believe he wishes to marry Miss Ingram (ibid.). Rochester is not an impulsive but a shrewd, calculating man: he is not Toby Stephens but Michael Jayston.
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia He is impulsive in showing his emotions after he marries Jane, you can see in the book that he is no more restrained. He isn't reserved like St John, who is hard to decipher and who makes Jane feel uncomfortable. Jane says she prefers people who make blunders under spontaneity over those who carefully survey their words and actions. Mr. Rochester is part of the former rather than the later. I'm sorry you misinterpreted my meaning in your hurry to defend Jayston.
JacobGrimmFollower 1 year ago
@JacobGrimmFollower - I don't quite follow you here. You say he's impulsive "after he marries Jane"? Are you by any chance referring to something you read in the last chapter of the novel? And what may that be?
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia In showing his emotions yes. Oh, oups I meant during and after the proposal and even afterwards, he was more open with his feelings. And let's not forget that impulsive can take a lot of meanings.
JacobGrimmFollower 1 year ago
@JacobGrimmFollower - Until Jane claims her rank as his equal in the 'proposal' scene, Rochester doesn't show his feelings for her. He almost does it in the 'fire' and the 'party' scenes; but he is so equivocal that Jane can't be sure about it in the first and doesn't acknowledge it in the second.
I agree Rochester lets his feelings flow when he gets sure she's in love with him in the 'proposal' scene and afterwards. But even then, he's also scheming - namely because his wife is still living...
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia And whether Mr. Rochester is a shrewd man is debatable, since he confesses it to Jane, it seems he is not entirely condemnable. It will always stay a matter of personal opinion. I think Stephens does the job best, and you think Jayston is better and let's respect each other's choice.
JacobGrimmFollower 1 year ago
@JacobGrimmFollower - I'm sorry, it's not a mere matter of opinion. When you wrote "Stephens really has the fiery temperament of Mr. Rochester," you clearly meant his Rochester is more faithful to the novel than Jayston's, and that isn't so.
I don't want to start a war because of "Jane Eyre": paraphrasing Hitchcock, "it's only a novel." But I'd like to understand why there's people talking about things such as Rochester's "fiery temperament", because I don't find them anywhere in the novel.
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia But this is where you are wrong. Everyone interpret things differently. If you don't see it, it might be because your interest in the novel lies in other passages.I studied Jane Eyre in school and we used lots of resources and notes. Everyone of them emphasized Mr. Rochester's association with Fire, and passion. I can hardly believe that these scholars pulled that out of their heads. And again, I explained what I meant by fiery temperament before.
JacobGrimmFollower 1 year ago
@JacobGrimmFollower - I don't understand you! First, you say 'everyone' interprets things differently; then, you say 'everyone' emphasizes Rochester's association with fire: that's a contradiction in terms!
I've been reading and studying the novel since my youth. I don't know which scholars have you studied in your day; but if they were the kind of those who have been teaching that "Jane Eyre" is a 'gothic' novel and the likes, I'm very sorry but you have learned nonsense.
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia I said, everyone in the notes and resources we have studied in school, please don't misunderstand me. I refer only to the documents I have received in school. And I studied Jane Eyre just last year, in grade 12, so I don't think we're talking about what you're referring to, although you calling it nonsense is very harsh.
JacobGrimmFollower 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia But you know what, I guess I'll just say that you are right to end this debate. You're obviously not going to be any more favorable to Stephens than I am favorable to Jayston. I think that it is hard to be objective when it comes to novels and any form of art. So, there I have said it, Jayston is better. I hope it makes your day and I shall no longer reply to anything, because I have seen your absolute truth.Replying, then, is evidently unnecessary.
JacobGrimmFollower 1 year ago
@JacobGrimmFollower - It doesn't make my day because I'd really like to understand you and those who think like you; but if you don't want to exchange furthers with me about this, what can I do?
One final word, if you don't mind. You shouldn't scorn those who search for absolute truth. Charlotte Brontë was one of them, you know? To begin with, she believed in God, His Love, His Law and His Mercy: so do I, and many like me. If there were no absolute truths, there were no truths whatsoever...
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia I don't seem to understand why Jane Eyre fans have such heated debates about Rochester. I think that he's almost incapable of being perfectly acted out in a movie. Mr. Rochester has so many different aspects to him and each movie captures those aspects differently. Not to mention it's impossible to come to a full decision on which actor (if any) is "truer" to rochester when everyone has a different idea of who Rochester even is. I PERSONALLY like Stephens better.
socertiger13 1 year ago
@socertiger13 - Believe it or not, it has never been my intention to launch heated debates about this: my intention has always been to get a better knowledge of "Jane Eyre". For that purpose, I must understand those who don't see it the way I do: if I'm wrong, I will simply drop what I think about it.
You can display a fairly close portrait of Rochester on screen: Michael Jayston's is the closest I have watched thus far. Is it possible to get closer than he did? That is the question...
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia I like Stephens for what I (personally) see in Rochester. Stephens seems to capture the experienced, yet also the boyish side of Rochester that none of the actors seemed to accomplish to me. All the others were close to the age of Rochester, but acted as if they were twenty years older than that. Stephens captures the passion that Rochester has, which I consider to be his most important characteristic. But then again, it is all a matter of opinion.
socertiger13 1 year ago
@socertiger13 - I'd like to know what is it in "Jane Eyre" that leads you to think that Rochester has a 'boyish side': I don't find it anywhere in the novel.
I'd also like to know what do you mean by "passion": to most people nowadays it means 'erotism' or 'sexuality'. Invariably, they become very surprised when they acknowledge how Jayston behaved with Cusack on set: how he looked at and talked to and touched and kissed her. Do you know how many times they kiss each other in this mini-serial?
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia: I understand and commend you on wanting to the improve the minds of those who read Jane Eyre. But every reader may not find the same meaning within the text that you find. Rochester is never directly characterized as having a 'boyish side.' You are right about that. I guess what I meant is that after reading Jane Eyre multiple times I came to feel that Rochester himself matured throughout the novel. I think that at times, his decision making and his change of temperament
socertiger13 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia remind me of a teenager. Being a teenager myself, I think I see some of the same traits in Rochester that I see in the boys I walk in the hall with everyday. As for Rochester's passion, I misworded that I think. What I meant to say is his, intensity. I like to imagine that Rochester was a man of extremes. Whatever emotion he happens to be experiencing (whether love, happiness, or sorrow, etc.) he always seems to express it to the fullest extent. But once again, this is just my
socertiger13 1 year ago
@socertiger13 - You see some of the traits in Rochester that you see in the boys you walk in the hall with everyday? That's very interesting! It's not far removed, I think, from what I wrote here a couple of years ago:
"As they are depicted by Brontë, Jane and Rochester are 'ordinary' characters living an 'extraordinary' situation [...].
"One of the reasons why the novel remains so popular is that the 'ordinary' reader not only 'admires' but 'identifies' him/herself with the characters."
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia EXACTLY. Bronte makes the novel so relateable. Of course I'm not saying that Rochester himself acts like a teenager but there are certain moments in the story when I kind of see some childlike aspects in him. For example, it seems like he contradicts himself in order to make what he's doing seem more acceptable. It's the kind of approach that teenagers take when we know we're doing something wrong and try reason it out.
socertiger13 1 year ago
@socertiger13 Socertiger, are you truly a teenager? If you are, then you are extraodinary in today's age of teens. I hope you are considering a writing career. If your insights here are any indication of talent then I think you are quite gifted. All the best as you move forward in life.
iluvdesmond 1 year ago 3
@iluvdesmond ha ha I assure you that I am most deffinitely a teenager. I'm only in 10th grade! :) I know I kind of stray off the path of "normal" teens but I have an intense passion for reading and writing. I'm looking to major in english literature and minor in journalism when I get to college. Thank you so much! I love to discuss literature.
socertiger13 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia opinion. I think every reader shapes characters in a way that makes them feel more relateable. I don't mean to say that the actual text should be blown to the wind. I just think that stories such as Jane Eyre leave plenty of room for the imagination. With the story being told from Jane's perspective, Rochester can easily be interpreted in many ways because we have no real insight into HIS nature or thoughts except for what Jane gives us. Get where I'm coming from?
socertiger13 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia And I did mean that Rochester for me (big emphasis on ME) was played better by Stephens. You say that it isn't so, as if you hold absolute truth. It is a matter of opinions, even if you don't wish to recognize it. If you don't find them, it doesn't mean they are not there. Everyone looks at things differently. It's not hard to accept.
JacobGrimmFollower 1 year ago
@JacobGrimmFollower - I'm not sure what you mean when you say "big emphasis on ME". Which Rochester is more faithful to the novel, Stephens' or Jayston's? That's a question one can give an objective answer... I'm getting the (perhaps erroneous) notion that you're talking about this as if it was primarily a matter of taste for you. That being the case, I have nothing against it: accordingly with the old advice, I never argue about tastes and colours.
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
This version is the best ever and the second one is the 2006 one
MarsGaiden 1 year ago 4
I hate the voice over. It's so unnecessary. But yeah, it follows the book faithfully.
Jennytheshipper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jennytheshipper - The voiceovers are necessary indeed, as demonstrated by me in the 'IMDb' website, board "Jane Eyre" (1973), subject "About the (ab)use of voiceovers in 'Jane Eyre 1973'."
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
I <3 this
sorcha13 1 year ago
Their dialogue is very faithful to the book! I feel as if I'm reading the book with pictures!
lenamafalda 1 year ago 3
Not bad, and very true to the book, but she doesn't look eighteen! And where's the passion? I prefer the 2006 version - the emotions come through much more clearly. Pretty good, though - they look like they're dancing a weird hornpipe at the end!
Goodyfan17 1 year ago 2
@Goodyfan17 right on dude!!! i couldnt have said it better myself!
dolicris25 1 year ago
I like the 1996 and 2006 version much better....
yanks4602 1 year ago
@yanks4602 me too
sorcha13 1 year ago
Oh my god, I HATE the voice over. So annoying!
maud375 1 year ago
@maud375
But it makes this adaptation perfect to use as a radio drama! Truly Obsessed JE fans can download it to an mp3-player and enjoy JE73 anywhere. [grin]
domramalaja 1 year ago 2
Acting good...narration...not so much...
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - Why 'narration not so much good'? It's Brontë verbatim...
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
Comment removed
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia It feels very clunky to me. I don't think this scene really needs any kind of narration
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - With just the camera, you cannot show thoughts and reasonings like those in 2:28, 5:17 and 6:29. As for myself, I don't understand why should we lose a real chance to fully enjoy Charlotte Brontë's beautiful prose when it is given to us without any significant damage to what we can see on screen. If you compare it with all the other screen versions of the novel, the acting and the pace of "Jane Eyre 1973" are simply superb!
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia We shouldn't need to hear the thoughts verbally, especially in this scene. It should be enough to see it in her face, in her emotional expression, in the lines she speaks to Rochester. Instead of "I thought he mocked me" she could've just asked "do you mock me?" which is what is usually done, I think...I haven't see this version in full yet, so I'll have t do that. Right now I unabashedly favour the 2006 miniseries, if only because I'm a hopeless romantic
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - You cannot express "I thought he mocked me" through body language: you have to use words for that. Jane couldn't ask Rochester "Do you mock me?" on screen among other things because she didn't ask him that in the novel.
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia So what if it wasn't in the novel? Word for word faithfulness is okay, but it gets a bit stale for me. Not that I like versions that totally ignore the source material (most of the Morton version and the editing of the Scott version make me cringe). I like that the writers of the 2006 version gave themselves room to breathe. It's mostly faithful, and the "differences" aren't too bad and some are even quite interesting. I don't really mind not getting the prose verbatim...
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - [1/2] You're stepping on dangerous ground here: you forget that "Jane Eyre" is a literary masterpiece. Hitchcock, of all directors, didn't touch literary masterpieces because he didn't want to mishandle them: that's why he didn't make "Crime and Punishment".
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - [2/2] Robin Chapman, who did the adaptation for "Jane Eyre" (1973), once said that "usually when people dramatize 'Jane Eyre' they take away the narrative voice-over of Jane herself and this turns the book on its head." With all due respect, "Jane Eyre" (2006) is just another of the many proofs that he was right.
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia You forgot Hitchcock's Rebecca, which is considered one of the best adaptations of the novel, I believe. I don't know, but I find the 2006 version the most enjoyable even if it's not the most accurate (and it isn't, that I know). I respect your opinions (I hope this is still an enjoyable discussion - I don't want it to be adverserial ^_^). I think I agree that the 2006 version did turn the novel on it's head...but I like most of what they did *shrug*.
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - It is an extremely enjoyable discussion! I wish the discussions I've been having here were all like this!
No, I didn't forget "Rebecca" - and "Topaz". According to Sir Alfred himself, "Rebecca" wasn't really a 'Hitchcock picture': it was just a 'novelette' - and "Topaz" was a complete flop...
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia I'm glad you're enjoying this as much as I am :D I take it you're a big fanof thye 82/83 version with Dalton? It's probably the most prose=perfect version I've seen, easilymy #2 version behind the 2006 movie...
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - A big fan of "Jane Eyre" (1983)? Perish the thought!!! I'm a fan of "Jane Eyre" (1973)! Did you check the playlist I have here of that mini-series?
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia lol I thought you would be as it's basically a word for word adaptation...and Dalton's a very good Rochester...
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - As a 'word for word adaptation', Alexander Baron's script for "Jane Eyre" (1983) was not at all as good as Robin Chapman's for "Jane Eyre" (1973). As 'Rochester', Timothy Dalton was a complete miscast: the novel being a sort of an echo of "The Beauty and the Beast", he was too handsome for the role.
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia Pt1. Ah...but do unnattractive men and women ever become accomplished actors? It's not something you really think about, but when you try to name an actor who is not at least pleasing to the eyes, it gets quite difficult. Besides Margaret Hamilton from the Wizard of Oz film, there isn't really anyone not pretty or handsome who has become successful.
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - Oh, but there is! Here are just a few I remember very well:
(1) Unattractive great actors: Charles Laughton, Charles Vanel, Claude Rains, Lino Ventura, Trevor Howard...
(2) Unattractive great actresses: Anna Magnani, Flora Robson, Linda Hunt, Margaret Rutherford, Thelma Ritter...
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia I'm only vaguely familiar with most of these. Others I don't know at all XD Claude Raines wasn't bad looking, just really short :P Charles Laughton...that name...he was in a Les Mis adaptation, no? I think I saw him as...Valjean? If he's the one I think he is, than he isn't bad looking either. Anyway the modern day film industry seems infinitely (and unfortunately) better looking...
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - Charles Laughton was, v.g., 'Dr. Moreau' in "Island of the Lost Souls" (1932), 'Captain William Bligh' in "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1935), 'Sir William Robarts' in "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957)... Charles Vanel was, v.g., 'Inspector Javert' in "Les Misérables" (1934), 'Jo' in "Le Salaire de la peur" (1953), 'Alfred Fichet' in "Les Diaboliques" (1955)... But, alas!, you're right about modern day film industry!...
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia Yeah, Laughton was the paunchy Javert...I'm glad we finally agree on something :P
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - You're right. Charles Laughton played 'Inspector Javert' in the 1935 American adaptation of "Les Misérables"!... [:D]
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia totally laughably wrong for the role, but yes, yes was a rather weeny Javert...
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia EDIT: Nevermind. Laughton was the paunchy Javert in the 1935 version. You win that one XD
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia Pt2. Charlotte Gainsbourg was a remarkably unattractive Jane, but I put that down to Victorian period dress being super unflattering on her. Otherwise she's not bad looking in a sort of "wispy, pale thing" way...
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia Part2: Have you seen the Broadway musical? A lot of the music uses the prose verbatim for lyrics. Some of it it was quite nice put to music...
MadameChristie 1 year ago
@MadameChristie - No, I haven't; but so I've been told by some friends of mine. I gather that's another argument in favour of being as faithful as possible to the novel: Brontë's prose is truly beautiful...
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
@mendoncacorreia I'm semi hypocritical like that I guess XD The music really is lovely, and prose musicalized quite well, at least to my liking. Rochester was undoubtebly too good looking, but his voice more than makes up for any flaws he may have...well most anyway...
MadameChristie 1 year ago
Comment removed
mendoncacorreia 1 year ago
awful Jane... she just don't do her... but rochester pretty awsome in this version
Ambitionxxx 1 year ago
Great adapation, true to the book!
Visually I may prefer the 2006, but this seems to be superb!
LeefDamariel 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And im just not feeling the passion
toothbrush55 2 years ago
The means they use are very subtle. If you bother to watch the whole adaptation a couple of times, you might discover the passion.
domramalaja 2 years ago 7
The passion is most definitely there; I both see and feel it. But for some, the sparks will always remain invisible.
ludieludes 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Her dress is so ugly.
toothbrush55 2 years ago
That was my first impression too. It would be interesting to learn what model the dressmaker used. Especially for the collar.
A couple of the bonnets' model was on exhibition at V&A museum this spring, original 1830s.
domramalaja 2 years ago 4
I'm not a fan of Jane's voiceovers, and I've always felt this Rochester is a little lacking, but overall I think this is a pretty good adaptation. I like how close it stays to the book.
IloveSirLancelot 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
jane is very ugly!
nathasierra 2 years ago
"Jane Eyre" is a largely autobiographical novel - and, of all the actresses who performed 'Jane' on screen, Sorcha Cusack is the only one who resembles Charlotte Brontë as portrayed by George Richmond in the very famous drawing he made of her in 1850...
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago
And I would add that she's "sunny-faced," with "rosy lips...satin-smooth hazel hair," and "radiant" eyes. Sorcha is a beautiful Jane : )
ludieludes 2 years ago 4
WOW, he's fast.
GerunKnarlson 2 years ago
That was my critique of his performance, too. But it works this way: Mr. Rochester is speaking quickly so that he forces Jane to respond without thinking. He elicits a confession he can turn around and use.
Michael is very good at rapid-fire speaking. :)
annwags 2 years ago 5
I totally agree with you, this is my favourite version of JE! I cannot explain why but i think that the actors are great and that Sorcha is actually Jane Eyre! The chemistry between those two is great, and Jayston is the perfect Rochester full of passion. He is not as handsome as Dalton, but he is very charming. I also believe that is version is great for another reason:its simplicity.
katiats 2 years ago 16
And obv, this version has Sorcha :-))))))
bifar99 2 years ago 3
Horses for courses I guess. :-) I like Ruth Wilson v. much but she was given little chance to show the 'real' Jane IMHO in the 2006. She got more and more docile as it went on. I was just watching the 1983 after a long gap - there's lots of things good about it but Dalton and Clarke seem unbalanced somehow. The chemistry in this one is of a different sort. The more you watch it the more the spark grows.
bifar99 2 years ago 3
That's very interesting: "The more you watch it the more the spark grows"!...
I have been noticing that more than a few people who have watched "Jane Eyre (1973)" after other adaptations of the novel (namely after 1983 and 2006) have been growing more and more fond of it.
In your case, could you explain why? I'm a big fan of this particular adaptation and my curiosity has benn picqued by that phenomenon.
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago
Well, I suppose the more you watch it the more you become aware of the subtle ways in which Cusack and Jayston manifest the growing attraction - little looks and movements. I have to admit tho I loved this adaptation from the moment I saw it, even tho my expectations were sky-high from reading various reviews. I can't say exactly why it works so well for me, and 1983/2006 fall so short of my desires...
bifar99 2 years ago 6
I think this version has had a lot of thought go into it, if not a lot of money. :-) (In this regard it is the opposite of 2006.) You can see this from the clever way the different conversations are staged, how the characters move and change positions like chessmen. In 1983 IIRC the characters tend to sit and talk, and the dynamic is rather static.
bifar99 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good Lord, what an horrible adaptation! Most true to the book, i think is Timothy's Dalton Rochester, and most true to Jane's character is Ruth Wilson in 2006 adaptation. And I agree, that version of 2006 is way too much adapted for nowadays - but still, 2006 is my favorit. Because there was such a chemistry between Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson. And in this adaptanion I only see plain dialogs but noe chemistry.
CikiTuzas 2 years ago
Yes, I must totally agree with you, unfortunatelly this version have declamated unnaturally dialogs and no attraction to Rochester and Jane. I´m enjoying version 2006 , but this version have his magis too.
2231984 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh. dear. god. no wonder i never read the book if it's this bad. Gimme the 2006 version anyday
PrimusPilus12 2 years ago
Personally, I found this scene quite good, particularly Rochester's subtle expressions.
ShawDAMAN 2 years ago 4
i feared my comment should be disliked by some people, and you have all right to say your opinion too. no, i haven't seen all of JE73 but i have seen the 83,96 and 06 version, and i like the 06 version best. That is because Jane and Rochester have a wonderful chemestry and everything they say is said in a natural way.
in this version it feels like they don't mean what they say and they don't have that chemestry like in the 06 verison.
hejmedlitetH08 2 years ago
I understand your point as I experienced something similar when I first saw this adaptation. After watching it over and over again to find out what was so special about it (having read lots of positive comments in different fora) I grew to like it. Especially when I saw it in full and not only the few clips available on YT. The acting is very subtle and one needs to pay careful attention to the way the actors use their eyes and voices.
domramalaja 2 years ago
men för mig handlar allt om att det ska vara intressant och levande i filmer så då kanske den här versionen inte passar mig lika mycket. okej den första kommentaren kanske var lite för starkt, sorry (du är väldigt bra på engelska förresten!)
hejmedlitetH08 2 years ago
You I imagine have read the book?
ShawDAMAN 2 years ago
I see now that you have ^_^
No offense, but I thought the 06 was VERY poor. :P Nothing wrong with the actors I guess, and some of it was OK but I thought it was a clumsy and somewhat graceless attempt to "modernize" the story. Almost none of the great dialogue from the novel was there, the plot was watered down, and they basically did everything short of having Jane and Rochester actually sleep together. Ick. The 1983 with Dalton is my favorite but I understand this ones' the closest to the book
ShawDAMAN 2 years ago 9
no, not the whole book, only from the proposal til the end, so I can understand what you mean when you say that this version is more faithful to the book. Ok, you don't like the 06 version, but just because of that I don't get all angry because of you opinion, like you have been with mine. let's face people see things differently and we values other things in movies. I do agree that the 06 version has some scenes that is not in the book but what i do like is that they have the right atmosphere.
hejmedlitetH08 2 years ago
Did I seem "angry?" Didn't mean to, sorry. Text is not an accurate conveyor of emotion.. ;-)
"Atmosphere" is a somewhat subjective thing.... I think the best way to convey the atmosphere of a book is to be as faithful to it as possible. Being familiar with the entire book, I don't feel that the '06 version was faithful to the original story AT ALL. So I don't like it. That's all. However, I will grant you that this 73 version could maybe have done with a BIT more emotion in spots.... ;-P
ShawDAMAN 2 years ago 2
Have you seen the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke? That's my favorite JE miniseries, Dalton is the greatest Rochester I've ever seen..
As far as shorter films, the 1996 one with Ciaran Hinds I thought was excellent too in many ways and IMO much much better than the 06, but again, no offense! :P
ShawDAMAN 2 years ago 3
yes, i have seen the 83 version since i was 9 or something, 'cause my older sister loved period dramas:) i like the 83 version too, both zelah and dalton is wonderful actors and he is a perfect rochester indeed, almost handsome but yet not hehe:) and it is more faithful to the book. the thing is that it is faithful to the book AND has emotions, therefore it is a better version than 73. Sorry to call you "angry", i see you have more respect than the other person who commented my first comment:)
hejmedlitetH08 2 years ago
That's OK =)
I'll just say again, that Bronte had some truly wonderful thoughts and dialogue in the book, stuff that really makes you stop and think; and watching the 1973 one again reminds of how much of it is lost- even in the 83 version! forget the more recent ones! I feel the '06 one in particular stripped away all the intellectual interest and left mostly unbuttoned hormonal "feelings...."
ShawDAMAN 2 years ago 4
.....comparatively, it gives you very little insight into the deep minds and hearts of the characters, what makes them tick, how they reason on and justify their conduct. Some people have called it a "chick flick" adaptation and, at risk of offending you again :P I tend to agree with them... :-|
Anyways I'm glad you like the 83 version :D
ShawDAMAN 2 years ago 4
Well, I guess you are right about the 06 version considering the insight of their characters and their deep conversations which is not shown in the 06 version. I have never thought of it before, and it is a very good opinion and observation you have made on it, very impressing:) I guess the 06 version's just a very good movie, but not a good adaption of the novel.
hejmedlitetH08 2 years ago
hejmedlitetH08,
Not having the time to follow this forum thoroughly, I have not come around to reply to your comment until now. In what way do you feel I was lacking in respect?
domramalaja 2 years ago
Sorry, it was wrong for me to say that. I guess I thougt that you showed more that you didn't at all agreed with me and thought I was too hard (which i was) compared to the other person "ShawDAMAN" who reasoned more. It was wrong for me so say that, you have all the rights to say your opinion.
hejmedlitetH08 2 years ago
Apology accepted, hejmedlitetH08
'Respect' is an interesting word and I believe the interpretation varies between people. I strive to show courtesy to people, which I hope was the case here. Respect is, for me, a deeper feeling and respect can only be earned. Earned in this forum by intelligent comments and well expressed points of view, either showing eagerness to learn, extensive knowledge or a great sense of humour.
domramalaja 2 years ago
this make me sick...so dreadfully done! this must be the worst version of the proposal scene ever.....
hejmedlitetH08 2 years ago
Well, everyone if of course entitled to having their own opinion, hejmedlitetH08. Please elaborate. This might come out as an interesting discussion. What is 'dreadful'? Acting? Sets? Dialogue? Looks?
And how many adaptations have you seen or heard which you compare to this one? Have you seen all of JE73?
BTW: Do you not like Charlotte Brontë's novel either? This dialogue includes large portions of the original text.
domramalaja 2 years ago
I do like the novel, and that this version relates very much to the novel, and i do like what they say but it is their acting i don't like, it's not convicing. maybe it's just the 70's way to act, i don't know, but i don't like it anyway.
I don't want you to be angry but this is just an opinion, and i respect yours
hejmedlitetH08 2 years ago
I am not angry at all, it is a delight to see another Swede comment here :-) but for the sake of other readers, I reply in English and hope YOU do not mind. I truly appreciate other opinions, especially if they are written in a versatile manner. (To be frank: Your first comment was a bit harsh.)
domramalaja 2 years ago
jasså så du är svensk också:) . det gör inget om du skriver på engelska men nu har vi lixom sagt det viktigaste så då är det ju inte lika viktigt för de andra att veta resten haha. nämen det är intressant att du inte gillade versionen först men försökte hitta det magiska i den.
hejmedlitetH08 2 years ago
That's a great idea! I have just been listening with my eyes closed. Particularly I've discovered the way S says 'Mr Rochester' is really cute. And listening to to Mr Jayston in the post-wedding scene is amazing, the emotions change every second.
bifar99 2 years ago 3
Also, I have only just realised, listening to the scenes with my earbuds in more than multiplies the pleasure! It makes it easier esp to hear the subtle changes in Sorcha's performance.
bifar99 2 years ago 2
I have a recommendation for you, bifar99: Download the soundtrack of JE73 YT-videos to an mp3 player (if you cannot rip it from the DVD, that is). This adaptation works nicely as a radio drama. When one's eyes are not occupied with the screen, the subtleties in the dialogue get clearer. And, speaking for myself, I was so astonished that Sorcha sounds much younger than she looks.
(Nice to "see" another fan of JE73 here, BTW.)
domramalaja 2 years ago
I love this version! it's a hard scene to play, it runs the gamut somewhat, but they do it v. well and all the good bits from the book are in there. Specially the cord of communion bit.
bifar99 2 years ago 4
Tell it Jane! Yay! Wow, Jane is fantastic here! She truly is an equal to Rochester;)
2hopskipjump2 2 years ago 11
Cusack has such a dainty little chin and nose---makes her fit very well Rochester's description of her as "elvish."
And she does look up at him at times with a "searching, yet generous and faithful look."
Wasn't Jane supposed to be a little more upset here, though? The book describes that she was weeping.
enigmaticallyso 2 years ago 6
No, she wasn't - at least according to the script. Clearly, screen writer Robin Chapman, while keeping himself very close to the novel, discarded everything that could seem too melodramatic to audiences, like Jane's convulsive sobbing and Rochester's (ineffable) 'nightingale singing in the wood'...
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago
LOL it's the Valeyard from Doctor Who!
JoelandtheBots 2 years ago
Michael Jayston - "I landed the role of Rochester as a result of a practical joke. My then wife, Heather, sent a funny letter to the director, Joan Craft, saying, Its about time Michael played Rochester, and we used to think that I got the part as a result [...] Professionally, playing Rochester didnt do me much good. I never played a romantic part on TV after that. I was baffled because when it was shown on TV, I received the biggest fan mail Ive ever had." (Source: 'Bronteana' website).
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago
I love this version. It's one my my favs. Sorcha Cusak made the best Jane after Zelah Clarke and Ruth Wilson.
periodmoviesfan 2 years ago
No, he doesn't look like Bronte's description. However, Mother always said, "Beware of men who make you laugh." ;-) He'd qualify! He has a lot of lines to remember and he does quite well, under the circumstances.
annwags 2 years ago 2
In my humble opinion, Michael Jayston may not fully match Charlotte Brontë's physical portrait of Edward Rochester; but he fully matches the psychological portrait she did of him, namely in chapter XIV of the novel.
Weighing both the physical and the psychological aspects of the character, I think Jayston, of all the actors who ever performed Rochester on screen, is the one who got closer to what Brontë had in mind when she wrote "Jane Eyre".
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago 4
I like the 2006 Jane Eyre better.
I can't really picture him as Rochester after seeing Toby Stephens!
BarbieGirlz001 2 years ago
the only thing is that shes not 18, doesnt look it
chapatuwi 2 years ago
For that matter, none of the actresses who have performed Jane on screen were and/or looked 18 - not even Samantha Morton, who was barely over 20 when "Jane Eyre (1996)" was produced.
What is more, in the novel Jane is not supposed to look exactly like an 18-years-old girl. Even a man-of-the-world like Rochester finds her age "a point difficult to fix where the features and countenance are so much at variance" (chapter XIII).
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago 2
i love this guy! the only problem that he is not really broadshouldered for this role. but he is great really!
babajaga39 2 years ago 5
I see and understand your thought, babajaga39, but all his other qualities make up for it. (My favourite Rochester when it comes to physical apperance is Patrick Macnee, JE57). And I also think the costumes can be blamed to some extent. MJ look more broadchested in the black coat he wears in other scenes. Do you not agree?
domramalaja 2 years ago 3
Yes, not that I saw all of the movie, I can see it! He is a rela great and fine Mr. ROchester, with the heart and soul of it.
babajaga39 2 years ago 2
I believe the costumes are largely to blame. At least one coat that Michael wears is far too fitted in the shoulder region; he looks as if he's struggled to get into it. I've seen him in a clip (in which he's shirtless) and he's broader of chest and shoulder than he appears here. It's too bad; I've come across similar remarks with regard to Jayston's shoulders. I, for one, don't require the "unusual breadth of chest, disproportionate almost to his length of limb," that Brontë refers to.
ludieludes 2 years ago
This is one of my favorite versions.. But then, I like different things about each..
jla9180 2 years ago 3
i think she's a bit old to be playing jane eyre, tbh
Supraman2468 2 years ago
Supraman2468,
Is it Sorcha Cusack's physical apperance you refer to when you write "a bit old"? Because if we are talking about actual age, she was not older than many other Janes, more the opposite.
Have you seen all episodes of this mini-series? If that is the case: how do you find the expression(s) in Sorcha Cusack's eyes and her way of delivering the lines in the different scenes? And, most important, her interplay with Michael Jayston - What do you think of that?
domramalaja 2 years ago
And what does [s]he think of the fact that, of all the actresses who ever played Jane Eyre on screen, Sorcha Cusack is the one who vaguely resembles Charlotte Brontë?...
(Needless to say, had 'Supraman2468' read what we both have been writing about this same matter here, [s]he wouldn't have made this comment at all...).
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago
I agree, she does "looks" older than other actors that have portrayed her, so s/he can be forgiven for thinking that she is. She really doesn't seem that youthful, which is nothing against her. I guess don't feel this version of Jane Eyre at all, really.
leochickibabe143 2 years ago
Perhaps we define 'youthful' in different ways. I mainly see to Sorcha Cusacks eyes which - most of the time - have a very unsophicated and inexperienced expression. Her voice is youthful too. I agree, though, that the way she wrinkles her forehead make her look not so 18-ish sometimes. But that is soon forgotten once one get into her way of portraying Jane.
Have you seen the whole adaptation,
leochickibabe143?
domramalaja 2 years ago
Comment removed
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago
In the novel, Jane is not supposed to look exactly like an 18-years-old girl: check what Rochester says about her age in chapter XIII.
Back in the 1970s, all TV viewers (including me...) thought that Sorcha looked somewhat over 20 and Michael somewhat under 40. What is more, we all thought that they fitted their characters very, very well: that was was one of the several reasons why "Jane Eyre (1973)" got so deeply rooted in our imaginary...
mendoncacorreia 2 years ago 2
I don't know why so many people get caught up on how old the actors are. I imagine that someone 18 living 150 years ago looked similar to someone 30 today. I love this adaptation, mostly b/c I love how Rochester/Jayston seems so charmed by her. I also love how ladylike Sorcha is.
flcleoiam 2 years ago 5
Sorcha cusack was only 23 when she played the role and I don't think she looks that old.
periodmoviesfan 2 years ago 3
this rochester is the best besides toby stephens.
babajaga39 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can't relate to this Jane Eyre at all, he as Rochester??
acmedressform 3 years ago