For anyone who has not read it Jane Eyre is a wonderful book, it nicely falls between the turmoil of Wuthering Heights and the smoothness of Pride and Prejudice, and should be on the reading list of every enthusiastic young (maybe albeit female) reader.
Like all great books it has tempted adaptations. To date I have seen three of them. The first the B&W Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine version, the most recent Franco Zeffirelli film with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsborough as the leads, and this adaptation. And to my great surprise it is this version that I feel, despite its shortcomings in depth of acting and production compared to the other two, does the greater justice to the book.
It is a crucial point that is all too often over looked by filmmakers, but it is very hard to fit a five hundred of so page novel into a two hour film. In fact the only way it can be done is a) through cutting large areas of the script or b) diluting the story line. Most often than not the producers choose a mixture of the two and the film is ruined, because it is neither a film in its own right, or an acted out version of a novel. There are certain examples, may be most notably the new Pride and Prejudice film were the book is used as a template and a film built around it. In this case the film was still recognisable as the book, maybe not all that loyal to it, but it did not matter because it was a quality film in its own right. The two film versions previously mentioned of Jane Eyre did not achieve this. They both failed and fell into the familiar trap of landing themselves into that in between place.
This version did not though. Mainly because it had more time, it was allowed to portray the book more fully. Crucially it is the only version that truly puts across the strength in feelings that exist in the relationship between Jane and Rochester, which is described so beautifully within the book.
Its also has superior leads. Now I not claiming (by any stretch of the imagination) that Timothy Dalton is a better actor that than Orson Welles (or even William Hurt), far from it in fact. But the simple fact of the matter is that Orson Wells' Rochester is far too harsh, he does no portray the feeling that Charlotte Bronte gave him, and he does not resemble his description in the book. Timothy Dalton does the opposite; he gets far more closer to the Rochester within the novel, and looks more the part. As for the Janes well this is far more simple for me. Joan Fontaine is simply to pretty to be a convincing Jane, and Charlotte Gainsborough too French, seriously which ever casting director or producer came up with the idea of casting her should be shot for crimes against English literature! In short Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke may not be the most accomplished actors, but simply by following the description within the book they give the performances needed to portray the couple effectively.
For sure this version has many faults though. In today's modern light the 80s TV filming looks out of place in some cases. The locations are nothing out of the ordinary and the support cast are not as impressive as in Franco Zeffirelli version. The script is not too close to the novel in some places, but perhaps that is not such a flaw, because in the end this product is watchable.
In fact it is more than that it is enjoyable, because somehow, it manages to capture the essence of Charlotte Bronte's exquisite novel better than I have seen any other production do. For sure it has not aged all that well, but underneath the principles shine through.
Like all great books it has tempted adaptations. To date I have seen three of them. The first the B&W Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine version, the most recent Franco Zeffirelli film with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsborough as the leads, and this adaptation. And to my great surprise it is this version that I feel, despite its shortcomings in depth of acting and production compared to the other two, does the greater justice to the book.
It is a crucial point that is all too often over looked by filmmakers, but it is very hard to fit a five hundred of so page novel into a two hour film. In fact the only way it can be done is a) through cutting large areas of the script or b) diluting the story line. Most often than not the producers choose a mixture of the two and the film is ruined, because it is neither a film in its own right, or an acted out version of a novel. There are certain examples, may be most notably the new Pride and Prejudice film were the book is used as a template and a film built around it. In this case the film was still recognisable as the book, maybe not all that loyal to it, but it did not matter because it was a quality film in its own right. The two film versions previously mentioned of Jane Eyre did not achieve this. They both failed and fell into the familiar trap of landing themselves into that in between place.
This version did not though. Mainly because it had more time, it was allowed to portray the book more fully. Crucially it is the only version that truly puts across the strength in feelings that exist in the relationship between Jane and Rochester, which is described so beautifully within the book.
Its also has superior leads. Now I not claiming (by any stretch of the imagination) that Timothy Dalton is a better actor that than Orson Welles (or even William Hurt), far from it in fact. But the simple fact of the matter is that Orson Wells' Rochester is far too harsh, he does no portray the feeling that Charlotte Bronte gave him, and he does not resemble his description in the book. Timothy Dalton does the opposite; he gets far more closer to the Rochester within the novel, and looks more the part. As for the Janes well this is far more simple for me. Joan Fontaine is simply to pretty to be a convincing Jane, and Charlotte Gainsborough too French, seriously which ever casting director or producer came up with the idea of casting her should be shot for crimes against English literature! In short Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke may not be the most accomplished actors, but simply by following the description within the book they give the performances needed to portray the couple effectively.
For sure this version has many faults though. In today's modern light the 80s TV filming looks out of place in some cases. The locations are nothing out of the ordinary and the support cast are not as impressive as in Franco Zeffirelli version. The script is not too close to the novel in some places, but perhaps that is not such a flaw, because in the end this product is watchable.
In fact it is more than that it is enjoyable, because somehow, it manages to capture the essence of Charlotte Bronte's exquisite novel better than I have seen any other production do. For sure it has not aged all that well, but underneath the principles shine through.