Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I thouroughly enjoyed this production on PBS. As I was poking around on Amazon to see what others thought, I noticed a few negative reviews. These negative reviews, it seems to me, can be grouped generally under one heading: So-and-so in the movie wasn't true to so-and-so in the book. So this weekend, after seeing the production for the second time, I reread the book (I had read it in high school, but not at the level of attention it deserved). So as I read, I kept in mind the question: Is this movie version true to the book? So here are my observations: First, Wilson and Stephens do, generally speaking, seem to match the physical descriptions of Jane and Rochester. Rochester, if memory serves, is most often described as broad-chested, with a large forehead, and stern mouth (among other things). It seemed to me that Toby Stephens fit this description within reason. Ruth Wilson also seemed to fit well as Jane. So when I was reading the book, I never had a red flag go up--in other words, at no time reading the book did I feel as though either Toby Stephens or Ruth Wilson made a counterfeit Rochester or Jane. Some reviewers said that Stephens wasn't brooding enough. However, if you read the book, especially during Jane's first few months at Thornfield, you find Rochester to be moody, yet never missing an opportunity to keep Jane off balance, playing devil's advocate with her, and generally enjoying a good verbal sparring match that includes, yes, a spirit of playfulness. And so in this respect, I thought that Stephens captured this element of Rochester's character with great skill. You could really see that although Rochester's sprits are lifted by Jane's presence, he soon remembers the chains that bind him. So to me, Stephens successfully captured the complexity and depth of Rochester's character. Other reviewers complained about the dialogue being dumbed down. However, as I read the book, it struck me that in some very important scenes (e.g. when Eliza gives Georgiana a verbal clobbering) the dialogue seems to match the text of the book almost verbatim. Still others complained of Jane's relationship with God as not being prominent enough in this production. As I read the book, I noticed references to God more toward the end (more after her encounter with St. John). At the end of the book, Jane's thoughts dwell more on the spiritual, but it seemed to me that for most of the book, allusions to Providence and such were present, but not exactly what I would describe as being in the forefront. So I loved this production. The only improvement I would have asked for is this: that the events from after the failed wedding to Jane's travels to Moor House should have perhaps been rendered in chronological order. That having been said however, I must admit that having the post-wedding scenes between Rochester and Jane as flashbacks made for some quite powerful viewing. Also, this struck me as being true to the book because in the book Jane is constantly thinking of Rochester while at Moor House. In a text format, as author Bronte could say that Jane is thinking of Rochester while other action is taking place, but how do you depict that on screen? So after thinking about it a little, I began to see the wisdom in doing things that way because it kept the movie from straying too far from home while showing Jane's continued devotion to Rochester. A nice way to adapt that part of the story to the visual medium--although I didn't like it at first. The areas in which I did notice the production deviating from the book was in the locations of things. For instance, in the book, when Jane hears Rochester calling her, she's in the drawing room with St. John, but in the movie she's outside. Also, in the book when she finds out about what happened to Rochester, she's at an inn, but in the movie, Jane is outside in a field adjacent to Thornfield Hall. So there were a few differences there. Bronte's writing is so rich and loaded with emotion. Consider for a moment the depth of the writing when Bronte describes Jane's inner struggles (e.g. when she is on her way out of Thornfied Hall after the failed wedding). The folks who make movies have to figure out ways to bring this to life in a visual medium. That's a challenge, to say the least. The person writing the screenplay, I suppose, has to deal with that more than anybody. So to me, this production was really well done. They did a wonderful job of bringing this story to life from a literary format (text) to a visual format. Addendum: Some folks have complained that Jane would not have kissed Rochester after the failed wedding. So I went back and looked at the book again, and it's true--in the book, Jane resists Rochester's physical affections on moral grounds, noting that he is, after all, married. So in the movie, when Jane is at Moor House and has the flashbacks to the scenes from after the failed wedding (where there is much smooching), I agree that those scenes aren't exactly true to the book. After watching many clips of the other movie versions of Jane Eyre, I must say that no other version comes close to this one as far as the expressiveness of the actors. The acting in this movie is of the highest caliber. Wilson, for instance, has been nominated for a BAFTA and a Golden Globe, and deservedly so.