Change Your Image
puck-f
Reviews
Jane Eyre (1943)
Brontë Told in Shadow and Light
It's hard to review a 97 minute movie based on a 400 page, densely threaded novel. There simply isn't enough time to hit all the key points in the story. But what they did here was commendable, if incomplete.
Of the four big budget productions I've seen ('44, '96, '97, '06), this one comes closest to capturing the story's dark tone. This is largely due to George Barne's magnificent black and white photography and lighting, producing sharp contrasts of shadow and light. I think this works in concert with the book's themes. JANE EYRE is as much a story of contrast and conflict, as it is about likeness and profound union. Apart from the child-abuse, dark secrets and near bigamous marriage, the heroine is at odds philosophically with nearly every other major character in the story. In one corner are the dogmatic Helen Burns and St. John Rivers, in another the cruel, hypocritical Mrs. Reed and Mr. Brocklehurst, in a third, the man she loves, the rule-bending, ethically bankrupt Edward Rochester with much society and little connection... and in the fourth, by herself, Jane.
It's also a story of bold challenge, which, (at least to some) places the protagonist squarely on the dark side of "Gods" law when she questions Burns, about the very existence of afterlife, and River's about sanctity of living for the it. Like most versions, these are omitted, but the films style goes a long way to at least suggest the tale has a dark underbelly. We do see the child abuse, and of course the attempted "feigned union" with the"defrauded wretch", we just never get a complete picture of all she's rejecting in favor of the wretch.
Like most short adaptations, there's no St. John Rivers. He exists in name only as a kindly doctor. Consequently there's no contrasting philosophy between this character who lives for the hereafter and boasts of his mastery of impulse control, and Edward Rochester who lives for the now, and is notable for his lack of it.
The studio sets, which include hand painted skies as backdrops, also lend weight to the tale which is rooted in abstract ideas. Though I suspect people accustomed to location shots and heavy CGI may balk.
The script is necessarily shaved. The dialog, which is a mix of excerpted Brontë and invention, is well crafted and tonally consistent. If they lacked the author's brilliance, at least they did no harm. Unlike '06, which was not simply modernized, but flat out bad; and ranged from prosaic to shamefully expository, and often laughable. The '97 was similarly afflicted.
Jane's childhood is handled remarkably well considering time constraints. Peggy Ann Garner as young Jane is wonderfully spunky, willful and sympathetic. And Bessie (Sara Allgood), is played with just the right balance of sternness and warmth. Otherwise they manage to convey the severity of Lowood Institution fairly effectively.
Both Welles and Fontaine have both given better performances, Here their characters are more suggested than dramatically realized. Still Welles does possess a commanding presence and menace necessary to play Edward Rochester, which is heightened by dramatic lighting. This also aids Fontaine, (albeit to a lesser extent), whose delivery, like Welles', is often self-conscious. She tends to be more mouse-like, than understated, and lacks the inner acuity, curiosity and intense study of her master of the novel -- and there are no explosive clashes to offset her demeanor. But since the best story teller here is the visuals, it is strong camera work and editing, that carry her through Jane's concerns, longing and pain... and even her admonishment of her master.
Having seen many adaptations of JANE EYRE this past year, it was interesting to note that Welles and Fontaine were in good company, finding these roles elusive. I found many a strong actor stumbling their way through performances. A quick summary.
ROCHESTERS: * William Hurt ('96) Singularly-Internally-Wounded Rochester; * Ciaran Hinds ('97) Maniacal-Rochester; * Toby Stevens ('06) I'm-Not-Really-Rochester, Rochester. "Hey I'm not half as bad as Brontë made me out to be."
JANES: * Charlotte Gainsbourg ('96) Sweet-Mouse-Like Jane II; * Samantha Morton ('97) Bossy-Jane; * Ruth Wilson ('06) Extremely-Sympathetic-Jane. In my opinion the best of the four, but incomplete; likely a victim of a *very* weak script.
What Welles/ Fontaine have in their favor is a contrasting resonance, which keeps the dynamic of the story intact. Something some later adaptations lack. However while we might imagine this Rochester threatening Jane with violence when she tells him she's leaving, it might be a bit tougher to imagine this Jane, summoning enough strength, through emotional exhaustion, to calm him when he threatens her and is about to "... plunge headlong into wild license," But technically we don't need to. The scene, as in most versions, is omitted. Here it's basically condensed into one last... "we'd be hurting no one Jane," and she softly blesses him for his kindness and leaves. The shot is atmospheric and affecting. It doesn't convey his savage, twisted state, or how depleted she is, or the excruciating struggle she's just endured, or the courage it took to endure it (but few versions do), but we do at least feel some stakes in this one, if not intensely.
Me, I think the miniseries format is the only way to do justice to this novel. But apart from the flawed but mostly wonderful Clarke/Dalton '83 -- which I think overall has the richest characterizations and script, but is as wanting of visual artistry as this one is dependent on it -- there's nothing that really works for me. I'm hoping HBO will tackle this material someday. Who better to do language, long threaded narratives, complex themes, ambiguous characters, or characters with surprising contrasts?
If you don't mind a broad suggestion of the story, rather than a fully articulated version, you might find this one worth a look. If only for the shadow and light of it.
Jane Eyre (1973)
Admirable, But Not Realized
I have to give this production extra points for effort. It certainly wasn't the lame chick flick that BBC 2006 was. They did stick close to the novel and the adaptation does have it's charm... but it lacks power, nuance and maybe even emotional truth.
Before you invest money, I urge you to view some of the 1973 scenes, currently on you-tube. Everyone has a different idea of what good is and -- poor production values aside -- I fear some will find these performances either off point with the story, or too intellectualized by today's standards.
I'm not opposed to narration; Jane has few enough lines and Brontë's words are visceral, stunning and instructive about her heroine. But the voice overs *here,* take place during scenes with a lot of dialog. Since the actors can as easily fill in subtext, the running commentary is pointless. The only place I've seen the device used effectively is in comedies, like SCRUBS, where the split-hair-timing of the juxtaposed VO and dialog actually helps *create* the humor. However *here,* it is not used to *any* dramatic effect whatsoever.
Jayston is probably the stronger of the two and he IS endearing (especially when singing at the piano), but lacks the edge and imposing presence of the Rochester in the novel. Cusack also has her moments, but she plays nearly every scene with arched eyebrows (for reasons I cannot begin to fathom) which gives her the appearance of wearing a mask. And barely seems able to conceal a condescending smirk, which alternates with a gape-eyed stare. Neither of which pass for Jane's keen intelligence and curiosity, nor her lack of world experience. She HAS since acknowledged she didn't really have a handle on the role, though I know ardent fans will disagree. Although the 1973 and 2006 BBC adaptations are very different -- the former tried to remain faithful to the novel, while the latter couldn't get far enough away from it -- I found both suffered from a lack of character contrast and dynamic.
I would like to tip my cap to Geoffrey Whitehead, who for me turned in an extremely gratifying performance as St. John Rivers. He was understated and energetic -- as connected to the material as his character was distant from the lives he missioned to save. Rigid, frigid and shocking in his presumption of what was best for others. Ambitious and frighteningly blinded by the authority afforded him by his collar. I felt it all from Whitehead. It was without a doubt the performance that engaged me most consistently. Despite the intrusive narration.
This adaptation does include the problematic gypsy segment. However, Jayston who has some wonderful subtle moments in other scenes, rides the surface of what little of Brontë's words are used here, instead of delivering them with full intention. In any case it wouldn't have landed since in this version, Jane guesses immediately. Cusack signifies this with a jig-is-up grin, almost straight out of the gate, instead of becoming vulnerable to and absorbed by the words, (if for no other reason, than the sharp insight they carry.) And absorbing us along with her. For me the meaning of the segment was lost. This exemplifies a problem I had throughout this adaptation; the scene is there, but not the intention.
Understandably this scene has only been attempted once as written. Probably because it's tough to pull off, since the audience invariably "knows." The key is both actors have to play it straight from their respective point of views. When done with full commitment, no feigned (and invariably funny) gypsy voice will prevent the words from being heard. And if Jane becomes fully involved, after her initial resistance (which helps put us in her corner and provides a dramatic pass, into *her* shifting reality) we'll follow her. Done right the scene allows for a bizarre but fascinating mix humor and intended poignancy.
Otherwise the writers failed to cut passages in ways that make Brontë's dialog playable (and the '83 adaptation demonstrates that *much* of it is *very* playable). So part of the problem may lie there. *I do think the more dynamic '83, which presumably had the lowest budget per hour, is richer and more realized. It's equally faithful and a lot less self conscious, at least to this viewer. True they took some risks, but with few exceptions, most of them paid off.
*If you need great production values, neither version will work for you.
The Office (2005)
Mostly For Carell- Wilson Fans and Shippers
They've taken the premise but haven't taken it seriously. I'm not saying it's a bad show, but I suspect it's confusing for people who haven't seen the original. And bland for many who have.
For starters, the American David and Gareth facsimiles are about a subtle as 'a bag of hammers.' I realize both actors have their respective followings (which as far as I can tell, is the ONLY reason they're there), and I won't deny they have some good moments -- they are after all talented actors... but they're as wrong as you can get for this material. Not only do you still feel like they're "acting," but they both tend to over-punctuate lines, reinforcing the sense that your watching a scripted show.
Which is a 180º from where it should be.
The BBC original felt so much like a documentary that it was hard to believe it was scripted. That was a large part of our involvement. It was the unbelievably spontaneous spoken words, followed by the unselfconscious delivery of inner dialog, which allowed us to plunge deeper and illuminate *these* characters. When they try to do the same here, it feels forced. And since NONE of the leads land that style particularly well, this by necessity becomes a lot more plot dependent.
Basically they've kept the "banality of the office" idea, but took out the surprises and unflinching lens that allowed us to peer like voyeurs into inhabitant's secrets, with a minimum of commentary. In this one, we don't feel nearly as intrusive. To be fair the show does offer some fine moments of sentimental drama, but they are not unique ones and it often takes too much exposition to get there. The quick cut-aways after a moment is captured, feels more like a trick than essential story telling.
I wonder if one of the reasons the US version hasn't taken off (beyond hype), is because people who haven't seen the original, think the documentary part is just a gimmick they tacked on. They'd never guess how integral or insanely well played it was.
Oddly the further out to the periphery you go, the closer the actors come to nailing the natural feel of the original. In other words some of the actors who are NOT playing leads seemed to have gotten it right.
Only in America.
The Dawn/Tim facsimiles also suffer in comparison. For example, we have no idea why NewDawn (Pam) had such an assy boyfriend to begin with. She seems well adjusted and way too thoughtful. They took out the complexity and texture from the character and basically missed the point.
In the original, Dawn was an unabashed mind-f*ck. Her coy facade barely masking her crippling insecurities and ravaged self image, which fueled some ugly games. V2's Pam is predictably drawn -- pleasant, politically correct and nowhere near as interesting a mix of conflicts and conflicting qualities (though of all the *leads,* I think Fischer's acting style is best suited to this).
Tim was also a lot less by-rote than his alter Jim. Tim was a sweet, bright, witty guy, with a healthy dose of mischief. A self professed underachiever, admirable in his honesty about his own short comings, which included looking like the Fisher Price boy. On the one hand, he was affable and capable, easily engendering the trust of his employers, while on the other, never really fitting in with the good-old-boys nor wanting to. In v2, he's basically just 1st cousin to a traditional leading man. In both his appearance and the resonance of his performance. He's an affectionate enough character, but we've seen him before. On television.
Thus these two characters become more about a will-they-or-won't-they plot line, than about the inner demons that create their struggle and the unique particulars that define them. The part that made us care deeply begin with. In the BBC original will-they-or-won't-they was almost secondary.
I'm glad Gervais is earning off of this, but still... it doesn't seem right. They certainly could have hit closer to the mark if they felt compelled to do it. As it stands they changed what DID NOT NEED to be changed and removed much of what made it special. And possibly shot themselves in the ass in the process.
Jane Eyre (1983)
Gutsy And On The Mark
I watched the recent 2006 Masterpiece Theatre adaptation of Jane Eyre, with a nagging certainty, this wasn't the dark, complex tale I remembered from childhood. So I revisited the book, which confirmed my suspicions. Over the next few months people started buzzing about a 1983 adaptation which, among other things, was more faithful to the novel.
I obtained a copy and as promised, it was more faithful to the novel . . . among other things.
One of the most defining elements in Charlotte Brontë's story telling, is her language. Her words not only tell us of feelings and events, but through sharp, deliberate dialog, also keenly shape her characters and by corollary, their relationships. For this, only two adaptations are notable. Both BBC productions.
- 1973 (275 min) The plot and language here is faithful to the novel. But personally, I found the performances, too intellectualized to capture the passion and subtleties in the story. It's also rather wordy. Like the '83, the '73 has comparatively low production values -- video interiors, film exteriors, bad lighting, unimaginative camera work. I realize for some folks, that's the deal breaker. But if it's not, read on, because the similarities end there.
- 1983 The more emotionally charged '83 adaptation (which clocks in at 5 hrs.18 min.), staring Zelah Clark and Timothy Dalton, not only beats out '73, but in my opinion, trumps all the others by deftly balancing all the story's components the best.
Here Jane's bleak childhood is given it's weight. From her marginalized upbringing with her hateful aunt, to her perilous life at Lowood Institution -- where beatings, humiliation, unfounded accusations and a relentless barrage of damning judgment, were administered on the regular. Sean Pattenden as young Jane plays the more feisty, rebellious side of Jane's nature, than the sympathetic one, but she does a fine job. Robert James as the sadistic Mr. Brocklehust is sensational. And this may be the first time, Helen Burns is portrayed as more than just a abused, saintly martyr. This Burns is also distant and alarmingly passive, which casts shadows on her rabid dogmatism. Fully fleshing both these characters, allows the controversial "Evangelism" thread, enough presence, to smoothly carry over to her year at Moorhouse. A thread that's usually obscured at best.
Zelah Clarke as adult Jane is restrained, curious, appropriately guarded and willful. Each time I view her performance I'm struck by how profoundly she listens. And how subtly responsive she is. Watch her look of shock and disgust as Rochester nearly hurls the portfolio of art work at her, almost knocking down, then blames her for keeping Adele up too late. Initially some of this might be missed due to the shock of her costar's thunder.
What can I say about Timothy Dalton that hasn't already been said? How about this... He is the Tony Soprano of Edward Rochesters. Most times you can't tell if he's going to kill her, f*ck her, or shake her hand. Which works spectacularly well. Rochester is after all, about attraction/repulsion. He's the ultimate forbidden fruit. He smells of danger. Sure close ups reveal an unfairly handsome man, but that's okay, because Dalton manages to capture Rochester's conflicting nature, with energy to spare... balancing his magnetism, desperation, warmth, wit, playfulness, against his imposing stature, manipulation, sarcasm, brazen sexuality, ethical elasticity, and of course his taste for outrageous debauchery -- like a master juggler. And apologizes for none of it.
And he's sometimes flat out bratty. When *his* Rochester explains to Mrs Fairfax (Jean Harvey), that Jane bewitched his horse, HE MEANS IT! Which gives Harvey, (who's terrific), a wonderful fall-off-your-chair-in-disbelief moment, when she stammers out, "s-sirrr!?."
Clarke and Dalton are never better than during the first crucial interviews. When Rochester explains to Jane that, "{he's} a commonplace sinner, hackneyed in all the petty dissipations of the rich and worthless."... we don't doubt it. His transitions are flawless. Watch him turn away -- as Rochester conceals from Jane, he's been studying her -- than slip into a trance, seemingly fixed on some distant point imperceptible to us, uttering what sounds like nonsense. Lines that might easily land with a thud, move unselfconsciously over the man's tongue. Here Edward also plays the corrective teacher, when he tells her, with certainty, "{repentance} is not the cure..." for what ails him.
It's probably the first time Jane's heard anyone say those words and it's a VERY IMPORTANT LINE. Through it all, Clarke 's Jane grapples intensely, turning her enigmatic boss's words over in her head. And from here this relationship is off to a running start, developing from the point from which Brontë intended. It is also here, we first appreciate the power of the author's language and an artist's ability to translate it. There are many, many fine moments in this production.
Another honorable mention goes to Andrew Bicknell, who hits a home run as St. John Rivers. He embodies the icy, remote man, whose kind acts are more motivated by securing his box seat in the kingdom of heaven, than his full capacity to feel on earth. "You are ... forgive the word . . . impassioned," he warns Jane, with the hesitancy of telling someone they have a boil on their chin.
I could quibble that this or that, might have been tweaked (The occasional scoring is bad and it runs in half hour segments which is annoying. One scene tips into melodrama and another needed to be re-blocked). But with 90% plus of remarkable drama, at likely the lowest budget per hour... "quibble" don't amount to a hill of beans. And you know the director Julien Aymes deserves a lion's share of the credit for that. And Alexander Baron who scribed the dramatization, also did a bang up job.
This predates the internet, by decades, yet it still has the most reviews. And doesn't even provide metaphors like Eshton's twins. Imagine.