I will start by saying BEST ROCHESTER EVER. Cirian Hinds rules this version of JANE EYRE. He is commanding and rude, used to having his own way. He is attractive by force of personality, but not by physical charms. He is also shown to be selfish, and that is an essential element of his character. It takes the combination of script, Director and actor to make the role really become the character described in the book, and Cirian Hinds is it. He IS Bronte's Rochester. (We also find that when the mystery woman is revealed, that she too is one of the best castings of this role in any version. She is painfully sad in her reality.) I wish I could say the same for Samantha Morton, a fine, talented actress, who has the strange non traditional beauty to look this role wonderfully, but is not the Jane of the book (inside, where it matters, as she keeps telling us). The major problem is that this Jane is not at all in awe of this world or Rochester. Worse yet, she is sexually aware and even knowing, confident of herself. It is really an odd juxtaposition that she seems so sensual and cocky with Rochester. It makes this performance fascinating to watch, probably more appealing to modern girls, but definitely not the Jane of the book.
This version is more modern in the interpretation of women, and their place in society. While Bronte did mine the theme of mutual respect, it had a different meaning in that society. Visually, we often see overviews of the house as it functions, a Jane's-eye view with an appreciation of her "sisters." But this house is not the desolate house of the book. There is little Gothic isolation here. A prime example and oddity of this production is Gemma Jones as Mrs. Fairfax. She yells, she orders, she pushes people around. All correct for the head of a large household, but not the Mrs. Fairfax of the book who is much more congenial and benign. In the book you wonder how she could run the house, being so lackadaisical, but Jones' Fairfax could command a regiment.
Worst of this production is the casting of Rochester's fiancée. She is entirely too modern in every respect, with the television "lollipop" body, big head, tiny body, and a face definitely not beautiful like a doll. She is pretty like a cheerleader or tanned girl's hockey team player. The book is very specific about the description of this character. Young Vivian Leigh would be the ideal Blanche Ingram. Dark hair, light eyes, striking, doll like, and will a will of iron. This actress gives a very good modern performance, we even like her a bit, but again, simply not like the book.
Adele also is not doll like, and older than one envisions from the book, but I do like this Adele. The benefit of choosing a slightly older girl is this much better performance. Watching many versions of JANE ERYE, I find that the casting of the fiancée and Adele tell us a tremendous amount about the tastes of the times in which the version was made. So, we have a very modern take on this story, an updated version told through modern eyes. It stands very well in that light, but this is called "Charlotte Bronte's JANE EYRE, " and THAT it is definitely not.
In the book, Rochester has perhaps the most romantic declaration of love ever. This film, more than any other, had the perfect location and moment to use those exact lines. Instead, they opted to echo the lines used in the 1944 version. What a loss. I have not yet seen any version to use his line, and it is a declaration that would indeed echo across time and miles. This version does manage to squeeze in a scene or two of the second half of the story usually cut from the shorter films.
What this version does have, aside from Mr. Hinds, is gorgeous locations, indoor and outdoor, fantastic crystal clear cinematography, and magnificent use of color. The saturated blues through the first half of the film are luminous and beautiful, and augment the beautiful eyes of both young Jane, and Ms. Morton. She really is a beautiful Jane, and this is a beautiful cinematic color version. If you have not read the book, and you're under 30, this is the version for you. (But stretch yourself and see the 1944 version, too.)
This version is more modern in the interpretation of women, and their place in society. While Bronte did mine the theme of mutual respect, it had a different meaning in that society. Visually, we often see overviews of the house as it functions, a Jane's-eye view with an appreciation of her "sisters." But this house is not the desolate house of the book. There is little Gothic isolation here. A prime example and oddity of this production is Gemma Jones as Mrs. Fairfax. She yells, she orders, she pushes people around. All correct for the head of a large household, but not the Mrs. Fairfax of the book who is much more congenial and benign. In the book you wonder how she could run the house, being so lackadaisical, but Jones' Fairfax could command a regiment.
Worst of this production is the casting of Rochester's fiancée. She is entirely too modern in every respect, with the television "lollipop" body, big head, tiny body, and a face definitely not beautiful like a doll. She is pretty like a cheerleader or tanned girl's hockey team player. The book is very specific about the description of this character. Young Vivian Leigh would be the ideal Blanche Ingram. Dark hair, light eyes, striking, doll like, and will a will of iron. This actress gives a very good modern performance, we even like her a bit, but again, simply not like the book.
Adele also is not doll like, and older than one envisions from the book, but I do like this Adele. The benefit of choosing a slightly older girl is this much better performance. Watching many versions of JANE ERYE, I find that the casting of the fiancée and Adele tell us a tremendous amount about the tastes of the times in which the version was made. So, we have a very modern take on this story, an updated version told through modern eyes. It stands very well in that light, but this is called "Charlotte Bronte's JANE EYRE, " and THAT it is definitely not.
In the book, Rochester has perhaps the most romantic declaration of love ever. This film, more than any other, had the perfect location and moment to use those exact lines. Instead, they opted to echo the lines used in the 1944 version. What a loss. I have not yet seen any version to use his line, and it is a declaration that would indeed echo across time and miles. This version does manage to squeeze in a scene or two of the second half of the story usually cut from the shorter films.
What this version does have, aside from Mr. Hinds, is gorgeous locations, indoor and outdoor, fantastic crystal clear cinematography, and magnificent use of color. The saturated blues through the first half of the film are luminous and beautiful, and augment the beautiful eyes of both young Jane, and Ms. Morton. She really is a beautiful Jane, and this is a beautiful cinematic color version. If you have not read the book, and you're under 30, this is the version for you. (But stretch yourself and see the 1944 version, too.)