Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime

Jane Eyre

edited October 2006 in - Reading

Comments

  • Is anybody following the latest TV version of Jane Eyre? I think I have seen all the others and obviously read the book a couple of times so I decided not to bother.... have I missed anything good?
  • I missed the first episode last Sunday, so watched the repeat this afternoon. Worth watching.
  • I last watchd this with my late wife so it would be too painful to watch again but I hope you all enjoy this classic.
  • Crazy Horse, so sorry this brings back painful thoughts. Hope you are getting by okay.
  • Thinking of you CH
  • Sorry to hear that CH.

    Summernight, I watched the first ten or fifteen minutes of the first episode and found the acting unbearably wooden. Very much amateur dramatics standard. The story leapt from one scene to the next in a rather unsettling manner too.
  • "Wide Sargasso Sea" is coming up on TV I believe. Jean Rhys is one of those writers I return to, almost painful to read, especially something like "After Leaving Mr McKenzie".
  • Who's in the new version of Jane Eyre? I like William Hurt as Mr Rochester, in the film version from a few incarnations ago.
  • Toby Stephens is Rochester. I think they have made him too good looking, but we can assume the post fire transformation will be a work of art by the BBC make up department.
  • According to one TV critic, the whole thing seems to have been filmed in semi-darkness, so you can hardly see what's going on. Taking authenticity (candles, no electricity etc) a bit too far?
  • Well, that would have been what it was like. It would not have had a gas supply- you would have needed to be in a city or large town, so there still would have been a heavy dependence on candles.
    The Victorians were into darker colours, and old houses would have had a lot of wood panelling. Original windows in some parts of the house could be quite small allowing limited light in.
    To that degree I feel it has been well set.
  • Kangaroo, I liked the film version with William Hurt too. Anna Paquin was excellent as the young Jane, and it showed more of her time at the school which is quite important.
  • I too felt that they skimmed over her time at Lowood which underpins the person she has become.  They should have made more of her friendship with Helen Burns.  Also, I've watched the first two episodes, and I don't recall Mr Rochester being quite so flirty with Jane!  The last time I read this was in 1995 so it was a while ago...
  • I liked the film version with Gerard Dapardieu as Mr Rochester very much. I'm not so keen on TV adaptations as I have difficulty following the story over a period of too many weeks. Didn't enjoy Bleak House for that reason and I haven't seen Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth yet!
  • Anna was good, wasn't she? Sallyannie? Are you serious? Oh my god. You're in for a treat!
  • I'm with Sallyannie; hardly ever enjoy the many-parted tv dramatisations of the great novels. I watched Pride & Prejudice on a rerun because everyone raved about it and was decidedly underwhelmed. Lots of hammy acting, esp the wildly overrated Alison Steadman. Firth is sort of dishy, but that's not enough to carry several hours of gogglebox...
  • I have the Colin Firth version on video, and I've watched the repeats when ever they're on. You must must must watch it. You'll be drooling for days after!
  • I read the book when I was 13 and went to see the classic black & white version at the cinema with the school. I can't remember who played Rochester but the film was faithful to the book i.e. Rochester was much older than Eyre and wasn't good looking. i.e Jane was plain. I cannot understand why the subsequent versions have become confused with Wuthering Hights
  • I also liked Hurt as Mr. Rochester, he had a rough charm and I loved his low, 'suffered' voice.
  • The classic GPW mentions was probably the 1944 version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine.
  • Have just seen the last part. Disapointing in many respects. So, they blinded Rochester but only gave him a little blistering to the face and a bandaged hand. Left him looking too handsome considering the fire.
    Was nice to have the happy ever after scene at the end though. I suppose that represented the Reader, I married him.
    Whole production was a disapointment.
  • All your comments make me doubly glad that I gave up after 15 minutes of the first episode and never went back for more!
  • Don't bother watching the prequel on BBC1, Sunday 22/10/05. It captures nothing of Jane Eyre! If we really need to know about Rochester's history then it should be left in the hands of an experienced novelist - maybe even a panel! This cheap, poorly written piece of prime-time TV is an insult to Charlotte Bronte
  • I watched the Wide Sargasso Sea when it was on a few weeks ago on one of the digital channels.
    I was dissapointed, much of the story dragged and it seemed to be a poor excuse for a number of sex scenes between Rochester and his wife.  The episode with the servant was quite constrained in comparison.
    Incosistency in both WSS and Jane Eyre was: where was Grace Poole when the first Mrs R managed to get out and set fire to the Hall. Both productions seemed to forget her in that final bit. Had someone forgotten to lock the door? Had she knocked Grace out?
Sign In or Register to comment.