The Brontes are a challenging case. Austin before them had worked with complex structures, multidimensional ironies and somewhat delicate insights. But there was a countervailing tradition in literature that was character-oriented. Bulwer-Lytton began in this tradition and enfolded occult structures of the world. Dickens would later innovate by taking the character notion and animate droves of them, creating a world that way.
But before that we had these three sisters, working exclusively on individuals. There are only two humans in this story: all else aren't people in the same sense: they're conditions only, conditions that affect and constrain these two lives that bind to each other. And why not? They're the only humans.
Reading such a thing comes easily enough. But dramatizing it presents challenges. It is primarily an internal dialog that the title character has about her situation. The book isn't centered on that situation narratively, but on her observation of it, and on her soulmate.
What to do? The producers of this have chosen to present it as if it were a filmed stage play of the era. That means that you have a combination of expository speech where things are "explained" to one another, or explained to one's self as if in a mental diary. So for each measure of witty repartee between our lovers, we get a bit of a smile from Jane, then some voice over to let us know that the often-noted smile "means something."
I found the stagy style distracting, limiting and even boring at all times except when the two were actually going at each other. In that case, each character was acting a part modeled after stage presence anyway. So it made sense for the actors to present it to us as stage actors would: well-spoken phrases, paced with good spaces between all the bits, and dramatic pauses that come not from natural interaction but from the unnatural interaction to an acknowledged audience.
And Jane IS plain. But the production values are as well, and with no internal appeal.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
But before that we had these three sisters, working exclusively on individuals. There are only two humans in this story: all else aren't people in the same sense: they're conditions only, conditions that affect and constrain these two lives that bind to each other. And why not? They're the only humans.
Reading such a thing comes easily enough. But dramatizing it presents challenges. It is primarily an internal dialog that the title character has about her situation. The book isn't centered on that situation narratively, but on her observation of it, and on her soulmate.
What to do? The producers of this have chosen to present it as if it were a filmed stage play of the era. That means that you have a combination of expository speech where things are "explained" to one another, or explained to one's self as if in a mental diary. So for each measure of witty repartee between our lovers, we get a bit of a smile from Jane, then some voice over to let us know that the often-noted smile "means something."
I found the stagy style distracting, limiting and even boring at all times except when the two were actually going at each other. In that case, each character was acting a part modeled after stage presence anyway. So it made sense for the actors to present it to us as stage actors would: well-spoken phrases, paced with good spaces between all the bits, and dramatic pauses that come not from natural interaction but from the unnatural interaction to an acknowledged audience.
And Jane IS plain. But the production values are as well, and with no internal appeal.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.