35 reviews
Dominant Jane and Gentleman Rochester
Very fine
This is a very good adaptation of Charlotte Brontes timeless classic. Even though it doesn't really work as a movie, because the dialog in the book is reproduced more or less verbatim, which is great to read but different when you watch. However, it doesn't really have any movie pretensions, so I will not judge it as a movie.
This is a very fine production and I like it very much. The dialog is kept very clean (by which I mean not mutilated or modernized) and all of the humour that Rochester and Jane share is kept in, which is something that most other adaptations tend to lose somehow. The production values aren't great, but I did not mind that too much. However, the difference in picture quality between indoor and outdoor scenes is noticeable. A couple of things however are not so good. Jane narrates the story throughout, which I usually think is very helpful for people who are unfamiliar with the book. However, Janes running commentary during scenes where she speaks is distracting at times and not really helpful at all. It's not necessary to narrate "I smiled" while you can see her smiling on screen. Also, I found it quite weird that – since Jane is supposed to be tiny – Michael Jayston who plays Rochester is just an inch or so taller than Sorcha Cusack who plays Jane I just could not get used to that, it bothered me every time they had a scene together. Also the makeup department went rather heavy on the eyeliner. With Ms Cusack it doesn't matter so much, but on Michael Jayston it just looks ridiculous.
Michael Jayston is a brilliant Rochester. The age is right and he can work wonders with his face to express emotions. I also like Sorcha Cusack, she is suitably plain, though the acting she does is limited (however, that might be due to the running commentary). Some reviewers have commented that the actors lack chemistry and I can see what they mean. It's very subtle but I thought there was some, just enough to support the story nicely. Another thing that was wrong though was St. John Rivers. He is supposed to be 30 in the book, however the actor looks at least 45 but he is brilliantly pious and unlikeable, just as he should be. Everything else however is just right and very true to the novel which I always approve of. All in all, I enjoyed this version very much and will watch it again but I will give slight deductions for the distracting commentary and the eyeliner
This is a very fine production and I like it very much. The dialog is kept very clean (by which I mean not mutilated or modernized) and all of the humour that Rochester and Jane share is kept in, which is something that most other adaptations tend to lose somehow. The production values aren't great, but I did not mind that too much. However, the difference in picture quality between indoor and outdoor scenes is noticeable. A couple of things however are not so good. Jane narrates the story throughout, which I usually think is very helpful for people who are unfamiliar with the book. However, Janes running commentary during scenes where she speaks is distracting at times and not really helpful at all. It's not necessary to narrate "I smiled" while you can see her smiling on screen. Also, I found it quite weird that – since Jane is supposed to be tiny – Michael Jayston who plays Rochester is just an inch or so taller than Sorcha Cusack who plays Jane I just could not get used to that, it bothered me every time they had a scene together. Also the makeup department went rather heavy on the eyeliner. With Ms Cusack it doesn't matter so much, but on Michael Jayston it just looks ridiculous.
Michael Jayston is a brilliant Rochester. The age is right and he can work wonders with his face to express emotions. I also like Sorcha Cusack, she is suitably plain, though the acting she does is limited (however, that might be due to the running commentary). Some reviewers have commented that the actors lack chemistry and I can see what they mean. It's very subtle but I thought there was some, just enough to support the story nicely. Another thing that was wrong though was St. John Rivers. He is supposed to be 30 in the book, however the actor looks at least 45 but he is brilliantly pious and unlikeable, just as he should be. Everything else however is just right and very true to the novel which I always approve of. All in all, I enjoyed this version very much and will watch it again but I will give slight deductions for the distracting commentary and the eyeliner
- psychoameise
- May 7, 2012
- Permalink
Accurate, yet somehow passionless
I love Jane Eyre. I've read the book at least 11 times over the past 35 years, and read it continually as a teenager, and I want to LOVE every production I see of it. I want ALL of them to be my favorites.
Sadly, I found this production of Jane Eyre to be particularly disappointing (but not nearly as disappointing as Virginia Bruce's completely bizarre version from the 30s).
While this interpretation tells the story in a straightforward manner, and it uses much of the dialogues from the book practically verbatim, I found the direction was off rhythm and the passion of and between the two main characters never materializes. I saw very little internal conflict. I felt neither suffering nor joy from either Jane or Edward. No passion, no pull, no attraction, despite the welcome voice-overs which revealed Jane's inner thoughts.
Again, the story is dealt with very directly, although key transitional scenes are left off and/or covered in the aforementioned voice-overs (i.e., Jane's fleeing Thornfield in the wee morning hours). Those are the kind of liberties that often must be taken for expediency and/or the sake of the overall production; you win some, you lose some. However, a minimum requirement for any production of Jane Eyre is the passionate attraction that pulls these two characters closer and closer to each other.
Sorcha Cusack's interpretation of Jane is rather bland; she is too stoic and impassive and somewhat inexpressive. In the 30s & 40s another famous Jane Eyre, Joan Fontaine, was dubbed the "Wooden Woman", I would here, sadly, christen Cusack the same. Jane is passionate character and is called such many times in the book, not meaning rash or wreckless or over-sexed, but passionate. I saw none of that passion from Ms. Cusack. This I think is the fault of the director's vision. Why do we never see Jane upset about Rochester's supposed relationship with Blanche? She never considers for a moment Rochester's proposition after the lunatic bride is revealed - although she clearly struggles with this in the book. Why was none of this conflict shown...these conflicts are where the agony and ache of this story is found.
Jayston's Rochester is also somewhat one-note. He bellows and blusters, and he never shuts up! Granted, Rochester does like to hear himself talk in the book, as well. But for some reason, he doesn't sound so bombastic in the written word. What he says sinks in, there are colors to his stories, you see/feel his conflict, his distress, his stubborn arrogance. Jayston's Rochester just seems self-centered, egocentric (and not to mention long-winded).
Finally, there really was no chemistry between the two actors/characters at all. And chemistry is what Jane Eyre is all about.
Jane Eyre the novel is particularly wordy (critics complained of this 150 years ago), and some of the dialogue is awkward and unrealistic. For example during the first proposal in the garden, Rochester says: "I sometimes have a queer feeling with regard to you--especially when you are near me, as now: it is as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame. And if that boisterous Channel, and two hundred miles or so of land come broad between us, I am afraid that cord of communion will be snapt; and then I've a nervous notion I should take to bleeding inwardly."
Now, really... Reading that sentence is one thing (even then, it's a bit much, really). Hearing/watching it in a movie...well...I took to bleeding inwardly! These are the kind of sentences that need judicious editing so that the actual meaning of the sentiment doesn't get lost in the words. I realize now that there is a real art to adapting screenplays from other sources. More is not necessarily always better.
All this being written (speaking of wordiness), I would still recommend that true Janians view this version. I recommend all versions, frankly. None are awful (except that Virginia Bruce version); all have something different to offer. This one, I would say, offers the dialogue lifted directly from the source. So if you MUST hear ALL the words spoken aloud, you will be satisfied.
However, if you're looking for the passion of it, I can't help but suggest the 2006 version with Stephens and Wilson. It's terribly revisionist, but there's no denying the passion/chemistry between the two characters. Stephens is more approachable, less bombastic, more human and multidimensional. The screenplay is inconsistent, but the FLAVOR is there. Other good versions, Dalton's BBC version from the 80s, and of course Welles/Fontaine from the 40s (just the juicy bits).
As I can never get enough of any Jane Eyre, good or bad, I must recommend this one. I don't think it's definitive as it lacks true passion (a score would have helped here, but only as a cover-up), but as far as Jane Eyre is concerned, on can never have too much of a good thing. All productions of Jane Eyre are like my children, I love them all, but I like some more than others. This is like the practical, eldest daughter, dutiful, prim and correct. Stephens/Wilson is like the wildchild daughter, good hearted but free-spirited.
Sadly, I found this production of Jane Eyre to be particularly disappointing (but not nearly as disappointing as Virginia Bruce's completely bizarre version from the 30s).
While this interpretation tells the story in a straightforward manner, and it uses much of the dialogues from the book practically verbatim, I found the direction was off rhythm and the passion of and between the two main characters never materializes. I saw very little internal conflict. I felt neither suffering nor joy from either Jane or Edward. No passion, no pull, no attraction, despite the welcome voice-overs which revealed Jane's inner thoughts.
Again, the story is dealt with very directly, although key transitional scenes are left off and/or covered in the aforementioned voice-overs (i.e., Jane's fleeing Thornfield in the wee morning hours). Those are the kind of liberties that often must be taken for expediency and/or the sake of the overall production; you win some, you lose some. However, a minimum requirement for any production of Jane Eyre is the passionate attraction that pulls these two characters closer and closer to each other.
Sorcha Cusack's interpretation of Jane is rather bland; she is too stoic and impassive and somewhat inexpressive. In the 30s & 40s another famous Jane Eyre, Joan Fontaine, was dubbed the "Wooden Woman", I would here, sadly, christen Cusack the same. Jane is passionate character and is called such many times in the book, not meaning rash or wreckless or over-sexed, but passionate. I saw none of that passion from Ms. Cusack. This I think is the fault of the director's vision. Why do we never see Jane upset about Rochester's supposed relationship with Blanche? She never considers for a moment Rochester's proposition after the lunatic bride is revealed - although she clearly struggles with this in the book. Why was none of this conflict shown...these conflicts are where the agony and ache of this story is found.
Jayston's Rochester is also somewhat one-note. He bellows and blusters, and he never shuts up! Granted, Rochester does like to hear himself talk in the book, as well. But for some reason, he doesn't sound so bombastic in the written word. What he says sinks in, there are colors to his stories, you see/feel his conflict, his distress, his stubborn arrogance. Jayston's Rochester just seems self-centered, egocentric (and not to mention long-winded).
Finally, there really was no chemistry between the two actors/characters at all. And chemistry is what Jane Eyre is all about.
Jane Eyre the novel is particularly wordy (critics complained of this 150 years ago), and some of the dialogue is awkward and unrealistic. For example during the first proposal in the garden, Rochester says: "I sometimes have a queer feeling with regard to you--especially when you are near me, as now: it is as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame. And if that boisterous Channel, and two hundred miles or so of land come broad between us, I am afraid that cord of communion will be snapt; and then I've a nervous notion I should take to bleeding inwardly."
Now, really... Reading that sentence is one thing (even then, it's a bit much, really). Hearing/watching it in a movie...well...I took to bleeding inwardly! These are the kind of sentences that need judicious editing so that the actual meaning of the sentiment doesn't get lost in the words. I realize now that there is a real art to adapting screenplays from other sources. More is not necessarily always better.
All this being written (speaking of wordiness), I would still recommend that true Janians view this version. I recommend all versions, frankly. None are awful (except that Virginia Bruce version); all have something different to offer. This one, I would say, offers the dialogue lifted directly from the source. So if you MUST hear ALL the words spoken aloud, you will be satisfied.
However, if you're looking for the passion of it, I can't help but suggest the 2006 version with Stephens and Wilson. It's terribly revisionist, but there's no denying the passion/chemistry between the two characters. Stephens is more approachable, less bombastic, more human and multidimensional. The screenplay is inconsistent, but the FLAVOR is there. Other good versions, Dalton's BBC version from the 80s, and of course Welles/Fontaine from the 40s (just the juicy bits).
As I can never get enough of any Jane Eyre, good or bad, I must recommend this one. I don't think it's definitive as it lacks true passion (a score would have helped here, but only as a cover-up), but as far as Jane Eyre is concerned, on can never have too much of a good thing. All productions of Jane Eyre are like my children, I love them all, but I like some more than others. This is like the practical, eldest daughter, dutiful, prim and correct. Stephens/Wilson is like the wildchild daughter, good hearted but free-spirited.
- niborskaya
- May 16, 2007
- Permalink
The best version of Jane Eyre ever!
I have seen many versions of Jane Eyre, and this version is at the top of my list. When I get the urge for some terrific acting and a bit of romance, I pop in the videotape and sit back to enjoy. Michael Jayston gives an incredible performance as Mr. Rochester, just amazing. Sorcha Cusack and the rest of the cast turn in equally good performances, but I felt that Jayston was the best Rochester I have ever seen! It is a lengthly production, but the length is needed to tell the story--other productions, 2 hour movies, have not been able to do nearly as good a job. But again, Michael Jayston's masterful performance is the best part of this already first-rate production!
Absolutely the best adaptation of the novel
No other film version of "Jane Eyre" can touch this one for fidelity to the book and excellence of performance. Michael Jayston is the perfect Mr. Rochester - he looks the part, attractive yet not too pretty, and able to convince us of his hidden good qualities under a rough and abrasive exterior. Sorcha Cusack is wonderful as Jane - exactly what Charlotte Bronte set out to create, a plain, retiring heroine whose personality blazes through and captivates us. This version gives us the ENTIRE story, from Jane's deprived childhood and years at Lowood School to her life at Thornfield with Mr. Rochester. It even treats seriously the interlude with her cousins, St. John Rivers and his sisters, something film versions of the novel usually try to minimize or alter completely. Paradoxically, this actually works and makes sense, although it is an interruption in the more interesting Jane-Rochester story. The dialogue and narration are often taken directly from the novel, with just some abbreviation. I wish this version would appear on video - it is FAR superior to any of the others made for TV or the big screen. If you see it being broadcast (it turns up on Canadian TV sometimes) don't miss it.
An inspiration; very genial, very soothing
I'm bursting with repletion: I don't care if they never make another version or if they make a hundred versions of "Jane Eyre." I'll watch this one for the rest of my life. I got my very own copy of it in the mail today. I'm glad I hadn't been aware of its existence until two months ago. I don't think I would have survived without it for 35 years. It is the only version that truly respects the genius in Charlotte Bronte's writing, and doesn't presume to improve or interpret it.
Other reviewers have already used the very words I wanted to use to describe this brilliant dramatization. Michael Jayston is the only actor who seems to have taken the trouble to read the book and all its finer points: his portrayal displays all the moods and traits in just the right tone and force of feeling. Sorcha Cusack is adorable and dignified; the language of her eyes is easily interpreted by Jayston's Rochester. All the other actors are also perfect impersonations. If only we could give them a charm or a philter to make them look young again - we would make them re-film the complete dialogues.
Admittedly, I didn't at first take to this version. The script is faithful to the book (as I soon found by re-reading all the scenes), but I deemed the acting too theatrical, the outdoor sets too one-dimensional; and Michael Jayston's looks were not to my taste. On second viewing I found that the acting matched exactly Charlotte Bronte's narrative. The third viewing proved that a loving eye is all the charm needed to endear Rochester's looks to me. (I have now copied a picture of Jayston's Rochester as a computer background, and I look out for his appearance in re-runs of "Darling Buds of May" and "Foyle's War.")
Most importantly, this is the effect the superb interpretation of this version had on me: it re-transformed me from India-rubber back to flesh. Over the years of my mid-life crisis I ceased to believe in any form of love. Humanity, to me, seemed one mass of bad, hard-hearted individuals. JE 73 has opened new meaning and deepened my understanding of what Charlotte Bronte had really wanted to say in her novel. I had always considered her book to be my manifesto since teenage years - now it has become a revelation to me, has opened the doors of the soul's cell.
Other reviewers have already used the very words I wanted to use to describe this brilliant dramatization. Michael Jayston is the only actor who seems to have taken the trouble to read the book and all its finer points: his portrayal displays all the moods and traits in just the right tone and force of feeling. Sorcha Cusack is adorable and dignified; the language of her eyes is easily interpreted by Jayston's Rochester. All the other actors are also perfect impersonations. If only we could give them a charm or a philter to make them look young again - we would make them re-film the complete dialogues.
Admittedly, I didn't at first take to this version. The script is faithful to the book (as I soon found by re-reading all the scenes), but I deemed the acting too theatrical, the outdoor sets too one-dimensional; and Michael Jayston's looks were not to my taste. On second viewing I found that the acting matched exactly Charlotte Bronte's narrative. The third viewing proved that a loving eye is all the charm needed to endear Rochester's looks to me. (I have now copied a picture of Jayston's Rochester as a computer background, and I look out for his appearance in re-runs of "Darling Buds of May" and "Foyle's War.")
Most importantly, this is the effect the superb interpretation of this version had on me: it re-transformed me from India-rubber back to flesh. Over the years of my mid-life crisis I ceased to believe in any form of love. Humanity, to me, seemed one mass of bad, hard-hearted individuals. JE 73 has opened new meaning and deepened my understanding of what Charlotte Bronte had really wanted to say in her novel. I had always considered her book to be my manifesto since teenage years - now it has become a revelation to me, has opened the doors of the soul's cell.
- Fleederhus
- Dec 9, 2008
- Permalink
Faithful but Slightly Lacklustre
Jayston's Rochester is magical
- pinguin_polar
- Jun 15, 2006
- Permalink
Cusack and Jayston are the finest.
This is probably the best treatment of Jane Eyre I've seen. A novel this rich does not adapt well to a two hour film, and this five hour production allows for a more than adequate treatment of the depth and scope of Bronte's work. The narration by Jane herself is a unique approach that I found very interesting and added to the depth of not only Jane herself but also to the other characters about whom she continually muses. Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston are excellently paired and are, in my opinion, the finest Jane and Rochester I've seen, both in terms of characterization and looks. Finally a Jane and Rochester who aren't too beautiful!
- galadriel1
- Nov 10, 1999
- Permalink
Jane Eyre BBC mini series 1973 the definitive version
I was delighted to read the positive reviews of this wonderful adaptation of Jane Eyre. I agree wholeheartedly with all the comments listed. I remember watching this series on BBC 2 in the early 1970s and was absolutely captivated. It brought the novel to life in the most magical way. At that time I was studying Jane Eyre as a text for 'O' level English Literature and it made studying the novel a real pleasure. I have never seen a better Mr Rochester or Jane Eyre and the sexual chemistry between Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack was electrifying to watch. I have not seen this series since that original broadcast and to the best of my knowledge it was never repeated. It was pre video recorders in our household so we have no copy of it. I would dearly love to view it again and have tried in vain to obtain a copy. The BBC have released later and in my opinion inferior versions but apparently have no plans to release this one. It is testimony to the power of those wonderful performances of more than 30 years ago that I can still remember how superb they were. Here's hoping that the BBC have a change of heart.
- ritabannon
- Jul 28, 2005
- Permalink
I... Had a Very Hard Time Reaching the Ending.
Good gravy, if I had to sit through one more second of this criminal adaptation I might be prone to do something bad.
Okay, so let's review. This version of Jane Eyre has been praised to the skies by some fans who call themselves "purists," not all, but for many it's the faithful adaption that quotes the lines from the book word for word, as if it was a script. But Jane Eyre is not script, it's a lively vibrant beautiful story of a girl who became a real woman so inwardly that no "accomplished" lady of the time could hold a candle too. I admire Jane for all her beautiful traits and beliefs and how well she stays true to her own character under all the tribulations without smelling of smoke. Yet, she's not devoid of emotion, feeling – everything a human possess, a heart which had never experienced romantic love until she met Edward – utter heartbreak and finally fulfillment of life because of love. Now, having said that, this is why the 1973 and 1983 adaptations fall so short for reasons I don't want to forgive.
Why translate Jane Eyre to screen at all if you don't take advantage of the visual storytelling? The way these two adaptations play out, they read from the book, verbatim as if what was meant for pages would work just as well as dialogue. And with zero body language and crude color palettes for every scene to-boot. It's a shame. It turns an exciting, riveting title into a bland and boring story that frankly isn't worth telling if you're going to strip it of all the passion, emotion and human aspects of Jane and Edward.
Sorcha had such little facial range, and no body language to indicate emotions. Rochester, like Jane, came off as a long-winded, boring intellectual because all he did was talk, and without passion. I could not feel ANY passion; likewise I could not feel any anguish! This is why such exactness in an effort to stay-true-to-the-book becomes a wasted effort. Visual adaptions NEED artistic leeway, to capture the essences of the story. If done this way, new scenes can be added because you have a feel for how the characters would behave, regardless of the scenario.
At first I tolerated this version but by the end I was angry. I felt nothing but boredom. I believe I even prefer the long drawn 1983 one to this. My reason for that is at least in 1983 I did like the characters of Jane and Edward enough to finish. Zelah and Timothy showed a bit more emotion, albeit not quite Jane and Edward for me but at least they had chemistry and were even adorable at times. I disliked Jaystons Rochester so much. He was wrong for the part. He did not have the masterful presence and mysterious persona.
For the life of me I cannot like this adaption. It may be some fan's favorite but it's lack of depth and human feeling makes it unrealistic and un-relatable. I need to feel these characters are human to be able to sympathize!
So that being all said, I do want to make one point, since leaving nothing positive on a review isn't cool. What I wrote is my opinion of one film that I was reviewing for a project, this does not mean that what I stated, you as a viewer, will feel the same. Perhaps many good qualities are to be unearthed in this adaption? I just know that personally I already have a favorite and don't need to make this the new one.
Okay, so let's review. This version of Jane Eyre has been praised to the skies by some fans who call themselves "purists," not all, but for many it's the faithful adaption that quotes the lines from the book word for word, as if it was a script. But Jane Eyre is not script, it's a lively vibrant beautiful story of a girl who became a real woman so inwardly that no "accomplished" lady of the time could hold a candle too. I admire Jane for all her beautiful traits and beliefs and how well she stays true to her own character under all the tribulations without smelling of smoke. Yet, she's not devoid of emotion, feeling – everything a human possess, a heart which had never experienced romantic love until she met Edward – utter heartbreak and finally fulfillment of life because of love. Now, having said that, this is why the 1973 and 1983 adaptations fall so short for reasons I don't want to forgive.
Why translate Jane Eyre to screen at all if you don't take advantage of the visual storytelling? The way these two adaptations play out, they read from the book, verbatim as if what was meant for pages would work just as well as dialogue. And with zero body language and crude color palettes for every scene to-boot. It's a shame. It turns an exciting, riveting title into a bland and boring story that frankly isn't worth telling if you're going to strip it of all the passion, emotion and human aspects of Jane and Edward.
Sorcha had such little facial range, and no body language to indicate emotions. Rochester, like Jane, came off as a long-winded, boring intellectual because all he did was talk, and without passion. I could not feel ANY passion; likewise I could not feel any anguish! This is why such exactness in an effort to stay-true-to-the-book becomes a wasted effort. Visual adaptions NEED artistic leeway, to capture the essences of the story. If done this way, new scenes can be added because you have a feel for how the characters would behave, regardless of the scenario.
At first I tolerated this version but by the end I was angry. I felt nothing but boredom. I believe I even prefer the long drawn 1983 one to this. My reason for that is at least in 1983 I did like the characters of Jane and Edward enough to finish. Zelah and Timothy showed a bit more emotion, albeit not quite Jane and Edward for me but at least they had chemistry and were even adorable at times. I disliked Jaystons Rochester so much. He was wrong for the part. He did not have the masterful presence and mysterious persona.
For the life of me I cannot like this adaption. It may be some fan's favorite but it's lack of depth and human feeling makes it unrealistic and un-relatable. I need to feel these characters are human to be able to sympathize!
So that being all said, I do want to make one point, since leaving nothing positive on a review isn't cool. What I wrote is my opinion of one film that I was reviewing for a project, this does not mean that what I stated, you as a viewer, will feel the same. Perhaps many good qualities are to be unearthed in this adaption? I just know that personally I already have a favorite and don't need to make this the new one.
the one and only
This BBC TV miniseries version is, without a doubt, the best screen adaptation of the timeless novel. The storyline is as close to the book as could be expected, without major omissions. The language is carefully preserved, and when spoken by the excellent actors Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston, the book does come alive. What a tribute to Charlotte Bronte! Why, oh why, has it still not been released on video?!
Without doubt the best ever adaptation of Jane Eyre.
I first saw this mini series back in 1973 when it was broadcast on the BBC and thought it was wonderful. I immediately read the book and couldn't believe how true to the book the adaptation was. Also what I loved about it was it wasn't a glitzy Hollywood version, it completely captured the atmosphere of the book. All the cast gave brilliant performances. Sorcha Cusack was a perfect Jane but Michael Jayston's performance was just astounding. He managed to portray all the complexities of the character with a touch of dry wit, and the chemistry between Rochester and Jane is just amazing. I'm afraid the 1983 Dalton version just doesn't do anything for me. Dalton is an excellent actor but once you've read the book he doesn't really fit the part the way Michael Jayston does. It is fantastic that the powers that be have come to their senses and decided to re-release it after all these years. It is an exceptional adaptation. Don't miss it!
Loved this adaptation
Have to say I liked the 1983 version until I saw this one. Wow! Where has it been hiding all these years. Michael Jayston is amazing as Rochester. His acting is superb and he is wonderfully witty in the part. Most actors who have portrayed Rochester have managed to portray some aspects of the character well, but somehow Jayston manages to get everything right. Sorcha Cusack is excellent as Jane, a really moving performance. Rochester and Jane just look right together in this adaptation, you can really believe in the characters. My only quibble with this adaptation is that it is not long enough, I could have done with a lot more of the same. My recommendation is make sure that you don't miss this 1973 version, it's a joy to watch.
- tomassina-1
- Aug 14, 2006
- Permalink
Jane Eyre (1973) - the perfect version
Director: Joan Craft
Stars: Sorcha Cusack, Michael Jayston
Jane Eyre is a great love story of a couple who meet and soon feel an attraction for each other. However this attraction evokes conflict in each. This conflict is resolved by suppressing (concealing) their love for one another. Jane's suppression is passive-submissive, but Rochester's initial suppression is to treat Jane somewhat coldly in maintaining distance, as a master to his servant. Rochester later warms to Jane, but still in a reserved manner. Increasingly intrigued by Jane, Rochester intelligently probes her to reveal her personality, in a cat and mouse manner, but she responds in intellectual kind while maintaining her station in a subordinate (but sometimes mildly impudent) manner.
However, subtle indications are shown in their growing relationship where mutual, but concealed, love is hinted - Jane shows jealousy of Rochester's female friend and devoted service to his wishes in loving Rochester, while Rochester shows his captivation with Jane's independent and intelligent opinions, her devotion to her moral principles, and her lack of greed and lack of self-centeredness. Rochester is not put off by Jane's plain appearance, and Jane does not find Rochester particularly attractive (even though he is) - both are of like mind in judging beauty by personality qualities rather than by physical attributes. However, they still conceal their growing love from each other.
Their love grows, but remains concealed, again because each is in conflict over loving the other. Jane is in conflict because she realizes she is just a "plain Jane" and a mere servant (although born into a good family) who is below the social status of Rochester who would be a prize catch for any lady of high social standing. Rochester is in conflict, not because of Jane's servant status, which is irrelevant to him, but because of his concealed secret that he must never reveal. So each falls deeper in love while fighting hard to mask any display of their love for one another.
Simmering conflicts eventually boil over in seeking resolution. This occurs as the turning point in their relationship.
The climatic end occurs much later, in the movie's resolution.
Some versions handle some of the above key elements better than other versions, but most are lacking to some degree in portraying most of these elements. This 1973 version handles all the above key elements superbly, in a comprehensive and psychologically valid manner. As a result one is afforded the opportunity to understand the complicated dynamics of the love relationship that Bronte so well delineated in her book. The narrative of Jane's voice at times, expressing her innermost thoughts, is frequently employed in this 1973 version, and does much to enrich our understanding of the dynamics at play.
Cusack's Jane is not as stoic and Victorian as in the other versions (except for Samantha Morton's Jane in the 1997 version which is a more emotionally expressive Jane as is Cusack's Jane). However, like Morton in 1997, Cusack in 1973 remains as a self-disciplined, moral and rational Jane. Jayston's Rochester in this 1973 version is brilliantly performed, demonstrating subtlety of intellect and expression but with deep passion. Dalton's 1983 Rochester was likewise brilliant but more passionate and not as subtle as Jayston's 1973 Rochester. Where the 1983 version presents Rochester and Jane as opposites (that attract) in many ways, this 1973 versions shows Rochester and Jane as more alike intellectually and emotionally, as kindred spirits. However, Jayston's Rochester is more natural and involving, as is Cusack's Jane, than in any other version.
Jayston and Cusack superbly portray all the key elements essential to making he story work as a great love story. From early on Jayston's Rochester is intrigued by Cusack's Jane and soon comes to engage in some intellectual sparring in a battle of wits with her, laced with humor. This is beautifully depicted in this 1973 version, whereby kindred spirits unify in a growing love - two personalities meant for one another find their home. Jayston's subtle non-verbal expressions are priceless in making his Rochester so superbly portrayed.
Additionally this is the most coherent and complete version of Jane Eyre. All key events are shown in a form that is completely developed - no summary presentation here. No version is totally faithful to the book - all versions either modify or omit events depicted in the book. This is only a problem where the essence of the book is degraded. It is no problem in this 1973 version.
However this 1973 version is more cerebral in containing complex dialog that elucidates Bronte's concepts. Unlike other versions, there is no "dumbing down" here. Simplifying the dialog would make for wider audience appeal, but would degrade the story. This 1973 version is not so degraded.
I have seen all film versions since 1972 as well as the 1943 version. For me this 1973 version is what I have been searching for that does justice to the book. Much credit for the superiority of the 1973 version is in Joan Craft's perfect direction.
I would encourage the viewer to see as many versions as they can. It is a tribute to a great work that so many versions have been made.
Stars: Sorcha Cusack, Michael Jayston
Jane Eyre is a great love story of a couple who meet and soon feel an attraction for each other. However this attraction evokes conflict in each. This conflict is resolved by suppressing (concealing) their love for one another. Jane's suppression is passive-submissive, but Rochester's initial suppression is to treat Jane somewhat coldly in maintaining distance, as a master to his servant. Rochester later warms to Jane, but still in a reserved manner. Increasingly intrigued by Jane, Rochester intelligently probes her to reveal her personality, in a cat and mouse manner, but she responds in intellectual kind while maintaining her station in a subordinate (but sometimes mildly impudent) manner.
However, subtle indications are shown in their growing relationship where mutual, but concealed, love is hinted - Jane shows jealousy of Rochester's female friend and devoted service to his wishes in loving Rochester, while Rochester shows his captivation with Jane's independent and intelligent opinions, her devotion to her moral principles, and her lack of greed and lack of self-centeredness. Rochester is not put off by Jane's plain appearance, and Jane does not find Rochester particularly attractive (even though he is) - both are of like mind in judging beauty by personality qualities rather than by physical attributes. However, they still conceal their growing love from each other.
Their love grows, but remains concealed, again because each is in conflict over loving the other. Jane is in conflict because she realizes she is just a "plain Jane" and a mere servant (although born into a good family) who is below the social status of Rochester who would be a prize catch for any lady of high social standing. Rochester is in conflict, not because of Jane's servant status, which is irrelevant to him, but because of his concealed secret that he must never reveal. So each falls deeper in love while fighting hard to mask any display of their love for one another.
Simmering conflicts eventually boil over in seeking resolution. This occurs as the turning point in their relationship.
The climatic end occurs much later, in the movie's resolution.
Some versions handle some of the above key elements better than other versions, but most are lacking to some degree in portraying most of these elements. This 1973 version handles all the above key elements superbly, in a comprehensive and psychologically valid manner. As a result one is afforded the opportunity to understand the complicated dynamics of the love relationship that Bronte so well delineated in her book. The narrative of Jane's voice at times, expressing her innermost thoughts, is frequently employed in this 1973 version, and does much to enrich our understanding of the dynamics at play.
Cusack's Jane is not as stoic and Victorian as in the other versions (except for Samantha Morton's Jane in the 1997 version which is a more emotionally expressive Jane as is Cusack's Jane). However, like Morton in 1997, Cusack in 1973 remains as a self-disciplined, moral and rational Jane. Jayston's Rochester in this 1973 version is brilliantly performed, demonstrating subtlety of intellect and expression but with deep passion. Dalton's 1983 Rochester was likewise brilliant but more passionate and not as subtle as Jayston's 1973 Rochester. Where the 1983 version presents Rochester and Jane as opposites (that attract) in many ways, this 1973 versions shows Rochester and Jane as more alike intellectually and emotionally, as kindred spirits. However, Jayston's Rochester is more natural and involving, as is Cusack's Jane, than in any other version.
Jayston and Cusack superbly portray all the key elements essential to making he story work as a great love story. From early on Jayston's Rochester is intrigued by Cusack's Jane and soon comes to engage in some intellectual sparring in a battle of wits with her, laced with humor. This is beautifully depicted in this 1973 version, whereby kindred spirits unify in a growing love - two personalities meant for one another find their home. Jayston's subtle non-verbal expressions are priceless in making his Rochester so superbly portrayed.
Additionally this is the most coherent and complete version of Jane Eyre. All key events are shown in a form that is completely developed - no summary presentation here. No version is totally faithful to the book - all versions either modify or omit events depicted in the book. This is only a problem where the essence of the book is degraded. It is no problem in this 1973 version.
However this 1973 version is more cerebral in containing complex dialog that elucidates Bronte's concepts. Unlike other versions, there is no "dumbing down" here. Simplifying the dialog would make for wider audience appeal, but would degrade the story. This 1973 version is not so degraded.
I have seen all film versions since 1972 as well as the 1943 version. For me this 1973 version is what I have been searching for that does justice to the book. Much credit for the superiority of the 1973 version is in Joan Craft's perfect direction.
I would encourage the viewer to see as many versions as they can. It is a tribute to a great work that so many versions have been made.
- drarthurwells
- Dec 15, 2011
- Permalink
The best Jane Eyre
The book has been a favourite since before my GCSEs five years ago. I have seen a fair few versions, ranging from disappointing( Franco Zeffirelli's) to good(George C.Scott's). I do have to agree wholeheartedly that this 1973 Jane Eyre is the best, both as an adaptation and on its own merits. It is a very faithful adaptation, even with some abbreviations and an older Jane, but the dialogue is almost word-for-word and every bit as moving and intelligent and the story is still timeless, engaging and I think with passion. I have always loved period drama adaptations not just for the characters and stories but also the period detail. Here the period detail is suitably sumptuous, with some beautiful costumes and locations, skillful photography and an evocative atmosphere. The music has a soothing and stirring feel to it. Michael Jayston couldn't have been a more perfect Rochester, attractive yet still with roughness and edge. Sorcha Cusack gives a more shrewd and sophisticated depiction of Jane, but it is a nonetheless interesting and effective one. The two work wonderfully together, there is definitely chemistry between them. All in all, a wonderful adaptation and the best Jane Eyre. 10/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Jan 25, 2012
- Permalink
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.
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.
Thorough production of the classic novel.
Why, when mentions are made of productions of 'Jane Eyre', is this production never mentioned? I saw it when I was 11 years old, and fell desperately in love with Rochester (Michael Jayston). I then read the novel, my first ever classic novel. One thing led to another, and ten years later there I was with a degree in English literature. This production sparked an interest that never died. For years I have been hoping it would be released on video, and now at last I am the proud owner of a DVD copy. Yes, it has dated, the production values are those of the 1970's. But the performances are compelling, luring the viewer into the world of passion and suppression. The script is very faithful to the novel, the most faithful I have seen, with plenty of time for the childhood scenes so necessary to explain the adult Jane, and the relationship with St John Rivers fully explored. I was always amazed that Sorcha Cusack (Jane) seemed to disappear from the screen for many years, she is very talented and makes a sympathetic Jane. As for Michael Jayston, words fail me... I am still in love with him!!!
- jill_rooney
- Oct 13, 2006
- Permalink
The best screen adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's immortal novel!
- dr_mendoncacorreia
- Jun 13, 2008
- Permalink
What a wonderful adaptation
I first read Jane Eyre the novel many years ago and have since watched various adaptations of it but never really found one that I thought captured the essence of the book and portrayed the characters as I imagined them. That was until I was lucky enough to see the 1973 version. This one is perfect, exactly what I had been looking for. The 2 main characters are wonderful, Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack simply are Rochester and Jane. They bring the novel alive and every scene they are in sizzles! There is so much to enjoy in every scene, you never tire of watching it. This is far, far superior to the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton, it goes to show that newer versions are not always better. It's simply a classic!
I loved this version
I watched this when they first showed the series on TV. At the time I was studying Jane Eyre for O Level English literature exam.
This became a favourite book of mine for all time and I have read it many times since.
I loved this series. The characters were just as I imagine and they followed the original text very closely. Knowing it well, I was able to quote sections along with the actors.
I always remember enjoying this production and would love to own it on Video or DVD. I have not enjoyed another production of Jane Eyre as much as this.
This became a favourite book of mine for all time and I have read it many times since.
I loved this series. The characters were just as I imagine and they followed the original text very closely. Knowing it well, I was able to quote sections along with the actors.
I always remember enjoying this production and would love to own it on Video or DVD. I have not enjoyed another production of Jane Eyre as much as this.
- chrisandali
- Mar 29, 2006
- Permalink
Sexy, witty, subtle and moving adaptation
What can I say that hasn't already been said? Michael Jayston is a god. Sorcha Cusack the first Jane I can imagine Rochester falling in love with. Both are at once fascinating and very human and their chemistry is extraordinary.
Even minor characters such as Adele, Helen Burns and Mr Briggs are spot on - showing the care that was taken over this production. The direction manages to make Jane and Rochester's lengthy tete-a-tetes interesting - more than it ever did in the 1983 version - and the production values, for the time, are pretty good (a lovely touch - the wisps of smoke Rochester passes through after the fire).
I've watched it over five times now and each time find something new in it to like. Only the novel itself has done this to me. Highly recommended.
Even minor characters such as Adele, Helen Burns and Mr Briggs are spot on - showing the care that was taken over this production. The direction manages to make Jane and Rochester's lengthy tete-a-tetes interesting - more than it ever did in the 1983 version - and the production values, for the time, are pretty good (a lovely touch - the wisps of smoke Rochester passes through after the fire).
I've watched it over five times now and each time find something new in it to like. Only the novel itself has done this to me. Highly recommended.
- lucy_snowe
- Jul 20, 2006
- Permalink
The best TV adaptation of the book
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte is one of my all time favorite books in all the English Literature. It was a required reading in my college in Taiwan where I grew up. I have read the book at least 10 times and have memorized many of the written conversations between Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. When I saw the TV series by Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston, I was immediately impressed how true the entire series was to the book, even the conversations were taken directly from the book. The performance of both Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester by Ms Cusack and Mr Jayston was astounding. I have seen several versions of Jane Eyre over the years, including the one by Timothy Dalton, but none was nearly as good as this one. I believe if the series was done in the U S it would have won a number of Emmy Awards, certainly Michael Jayston would have won the best actor in the drama role . It was the best adaptation of the book I've ever watched.
Best Rochester ever!
I'm a huge fan of Jane Eyre and just recently found out there is 1973's version (I thought I've seen them all). Where did it hide all this time!? Lol There is no doubt, Michael Jayston is the best Rochester ever! His physical appearance is believable as true Rochester - NOT handsome (like supposed to be and also old enough to be Jane's father), witty, stern-featured, abrupt, not so flirty as Stephens' Rochester (2006) or not so hateful as Hinds's Rochester (1997). But Jane is questionable here... When I first watched it I was annoyed by her constantly rising eye brows and the same tone speaking. Later I re-watched it and it didn't struck me as at first time, but I still feel smth is not quite right about her performance in my opinion, smth is missing...or on the contrary...(anyway, anything can't be perfect). But as two leading actors they seem very well suited! Their chemistry, passion is powerful!!! Also there are best Mason, St.John and Blanche in this adaption. How I like that Mason's look in the church, when he was afraid of Rochester! And this St.John's cold-cold look when he speaks...("cold as an iceberg" is for sure). Blanche's obvious arrogance over Jane...just wow! I don't understand why this version isn't so well-known, IT IS A BRILLIANT MASTER PIECE!!!
- brunettesnn
- Mar 17, 2015
- Permalink
The Stage
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.