Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Reading the numerous positive reviews of the 2006 television production of "Jane Eyre" one could be led to expect the definitive version of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel. It is not. In fact, of all the six noteworthy adaptations which have been made of the novel since the Welles/Fontaine movie in 1944 this is by far the worst. And all the positive reviews must have been written by people who either do not know the novel, do not appreciate it or for whom a lavish production with stunning settings and two attractive leading actors is enough to send them into ecstasies. Admirers of the novel, however, and lovers of good period movies must cringe at this "Jane Eyre" (as they dare to call it). Although the length of this adaptation would allow for great faithfulness to the novel, many of the novel's most crucial scenes are either deleted, severely changed or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. The same goes for the language: The novel has become immortal for the unsurpassed beauty and originality of the dialogues between Rochester and Jane. In the 2006 version however, nearly all the novel's beautiful lines have been substituted with trite and stupid ones. And if this were not already bad enough, also the characters are portrayed in a way as to make you wonder if anybody of the cast and crew ever cared to read the novel. Whosever fault it may be, the actors', the scriptwriter's or the director's - but the fact is that Toby Stephens' Rochester and Ruth Wilson's Jane have nothing in common with the novel's main characters. Toby Stephens in particular does not resemble at all the charismatic, masterful, imperious, moody and irresistible Rochester of the novel. Where are Rochester's torment, his regrets about his past, his struggle with his conscience, and where is his wit? Played by Toby Stephens, the attractive, complex and three-dimensional character of the novel has become a one-dimensional weakling. Ruth Wilson tries her best, but neither does she physically fit the part of the small and elfin-like Jane, nor does the bold, self-confident and outspoken young female she portrays render the true character of the novel's shy and guarded heroine. Furthermore, instead of showing the subtle gradual development of the special relationship between the main characters - a love born out of the affinity of souls - the filmmakers just emphasize the sexual attraction between Rochester and Jane, thereby reducing one of the most complex and interesting love relationships in English literature to high school movie level. Apparently the filmmakers considered the emphasis on the sexual element as an appropriate means of modernizing the novel and securing the interest of a younger and supposedly shallow audience in the story. And this is exactly the main offence of this production: Of course every director is perfectly free to adopt a novel according to his or her own notion, to change the plot, change the dialogues, change the characters and to call that film "Jane Eyre" - but to set that movie in the period of the 1850ies and to completely disregard that period's language and behaviour, etiquette and sense of decency is just plain bad movie making. This Jane Eyre is a silly soap opera in the disguise of a period movie in which the actors talk and behave as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. The most striking example of that is the scene after the aborted wedding - the novel's pivotal scene in which Jane won't allow even the slightest attempt of Rochester's caressing her. Considering what they did to the rest of the novel it should come as no surprise that this scene is completely butchered in the 2006 production. Rochester lies on top of Jane, they kiss repeatedly and seem both near to taking off their clothes. Not only is this an outrage to Charlotte Brontë, it is also a complete misrepresentation of how people would behave in the middle of the 19th century. There have been many beautiful adaptations of famous novels in the last decade, which were true both to the literary models as well as to the period in which the novels play and which have charmed the audience without their having to be sexed up. The makers of the latest version of Jane Eyre unfortunately failed to recognize what is timeless in the novel and what is unchangeably bound to its time. This TV production is therefore a striking example of a senseless and totally superfluous attempt to modernize a classic novel. As a period drama it is a complete failure - as an adaptation of Jane Eyre it is a slap in the face of its author. If you simply want a better Jane Eyre you can take any of the other productions - if you want the definitive Jane Eyre there is only one to watch: the '83 BBC mini series with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton. This Jane Eyre is in every respect the very opposite of the 2006 series. It has a brilliant script, the dialogues are straight from the novel and the plot is followed with the greatest possible accuracy. Moreover, it has two leading actors who truly capture the essence of the characters they portray. Timothy Dalton in particular is a revelation as Rochester. Like no other actor before him or after him he renders all the different facets of Rochester's character and does so to perfection. Zelah Clarke is equally excellent in the role of Jane in that she portrays exactly the Jane of the novel and does not try to make her bolder, more modern and more feminist than described by Charlotte Brontë. The interplay between Clarke and Dalton is wonderful and they render all the passion and intensity of the novel without their having to fall back on the means of modern eroticism and without once digressing from the literary model. This superb production is and will remain the only true, the definitive "Jane Eyre".