Jane Eyre

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.