Molland's Community

I just saw the first part, and I am enjoying it.  I do have one question, however.  I haven't read the book recently and I don't have my copy handy, but I could swear that Rochester himself was the gypsy in the book.  Or am I not remembering correctly?

Anyway, the fact that Toby Stephens is playing Rochester makes me feel VERY old, but I think he's excellent.  He's so much better than Ciaran Hinds or William Hurt that they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same conversation.  Ruth Wilson is, IMO, also very good as Jane.  She's very understated (which I really like because that's how I've always pictured Jane), but the two of them definitely have chemistry -- something that Hinds/Morton and Hurt/Gainsbourg never did. 

As per usual, however, I have a problem with Adele.  She doesn't sound French, so if she actually is, she's trying way too hard to make her accent very thick.  It really sounds unnatural to me.  But I do like pretty much everyone else in this production -- Francesca Annis played Lady Ingram and I didn't even recognize her!

I liked part one, too, and agree that Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens are doing a great job with their characters.  Makes me want to dust off the novel and give it a re-read.

You are right, Rochester dresses up as the gypsy in the book.  I guess they didn't do that here thinking it would have been blatantly obvious to the guests and that Jane would have to be a real idiot for not seeing it.  I know movie magic could make Tobey Stephens dressing in drag work, but they probably wouldn't have such tools and techniques back then ;-)  I was okay with the change as I never really liked the idea of that scene in the book anyway.  But that's just me. 

I am definitely enjoying this adaptation.  Ruth Wilson is a delightful Jane and I like Tobey Stephens as Mr. Rochester more than I thought I would.  His sly smiles and glances make him very appealing but he still has that gruff appearance.  I love how he just slumps in his chair. 

Looking forward to Part II!

An attorney here in our office studied American lit, but never read much British lit.  I've known her just under a year, and I've already gotten her to read P&P and P.  She Tivo'd Jane Eyre, and I bought her a B&N edition of the book and left it on her desk when I came in this morning.  She didn't watch it because she was riveted to the football game (I had it on the radio, and paused JE when the game got exciting).

I recently read this last spring in a book study and practically dissected the book. So I remember most of everything and I was SO glad they did the gypsy scene even though it wasn't done exactly to the book.

I'm nit picky about when things take place though, and I could have sworn the gypsy scene was at night, and Miss Ingram wasn't nearly disconcerted enough when she came back from seeing the gypsy as she was in the book. I don't really like who they got for Miss Ingram either. It's odd though, because Grace Poole was played by one of the women from Rosemary and Thyme, and there was the mother from Wives and daughters, the girl from Narnia, and then a few people who had been in Miss Marple episodes. It makes me wonder who they'll have for St. John......

And Mr. Brocklehurst was played by Richard McCabe (Captain Benwick from P2).

The actress playing Adele put me in mind of Margaret O'Brien, a childstar who was always too mannered IMO, and who, coincidentally, played Adele in the Orson Welles version.  I wouldn't be surprised if this Adele studied MO's performance to prepare.

I was glad that they got a genuinely pretty actress to play Blanche Ingram [Christina Cole from HEX].  Too often Blanche is played by someone who is not.  I thiought Cole was fine.  She's cool without being too openly snippy.

St. John is to be played by Andrew Buchan, an actor I'm not familiar with.  Here's his filmography.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2217601/

I was glad they didn't put Toby in drag for the gypsy scene.  That just never works.  But they kept the scene which is good.

I was surprised to see Tara Fitzgerald as Mrs. Reed.  She and Toby Stephens costarred in the Anne Bronte adaptation, THE TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL.

I was glad to see Pam Ferris as Grace Poole.  She's an actress I've grown quite fond of in recent years [see also CHILDREN OF MEN, OUR MUTUAL FRIEND and who can forget Miss Trunchbull in MATILDA?]

This new adaptation made we want to read the book again too, or at least reread Jasper Fforde's THE EYRE AFFAIR.  ;)  So far I"m enjoying it a lot, though the scene that had all the traditionalists up in arms hasn't occurred yet.  I think I caught a glimpse of it in the coming attractions for next week.

I fell asleep for half an hour in the middle of it.  :-\

It's a good adaptation, I guess, it's just not that exciting.

I was hoping to see lots of comments today on this! I missed Part 1 but caught Part 2.   I was really disappointed in this version for several reasons.
(1) The flashbacks were confusing to me, particularly what apparently happened after the wedding was cancelled. Took me awhile to understand it was a flashback and not that Jane had already returned to Rochester.
(2) The film direction got way too artsy fartsy, with all the drawn out looking, touching, kissing closeups.
(3) Rochester didn't seem disagreeable enough throughout the film for a convincing plot point of Jane loving him in spite of his behavior. 
(4) St.John was lame.  He came off as being downright rude instead of shy, as Jane kept saying he was.  I much preferred Samuel West for that role.
(5) The actress playing Jane was irritating.  I just could not warm up to her or feel much sympathy for her plight.
(6) The "crazy" wife in the attic was far too beautiful and alluring at the climax.  Still looked like she did in the flashbacks to their first meeting in the Caribbean. You wouldn't think the rector and her brother would have been much put off by seeing her.  I felt her wild outburst was justified at being locked up all those years -- I would have been mad as hell, too!
(7) Other than being blind, Rochester did not show much disfigurement after the fire -- not at all repulsive, and still had full head of curls.  I much preferred the version with Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds -- it really showed love overcoming adversity and overlooking faults.
This version included storyline new to me about Jane opening the school in St.John's village.  I have not ever read the book (for shame, I know!).  Was this version truer to the book than the others have been? 

I liked this version.  And I have read the book several times.  In fact, I've just started a re-read. 

I disliked the Hinds/Morton version.  Samantha Morton cried way too much.  Jane was made of sterner stuff.  And Hinds's Rochester just yelled.  That's not acting, IMO.

In this version, I really felt the passion between the 2 of them.  I thought the chemistry was palpable.  For the first time, I could see what these 2 saw in each other. 

Lots of JE "proficients" don't like this version very much -- they prefer either the Timothy Dalton one from 1983 (which I really love) and the Michael Jayston version (1973, and just now available in DVD for region 1), which I just bought but have not yet watched.  Both, of course, suffer from poor production values but both are far more faithful to the text than Hinds/Morton, Stephens/Wilson, Hurt/Gainsbourg or Scott/York.

But I do recommend reading the book.  It's outstanding.

Having viewed the second part, I can say now that I liked it. It was passionate but not melodramatic, and made the story quite human. Also nice shots of the Yorkshire countryside, always a good thing.

I *hated* the Hinds/Morton version.  No chemistry between the two leads, Morton was way too passive, Hinds was way too angry.  Even the Zeffirelli version was better and William Hurt has to be the most insane piece of casting for Rochester on the books.

But anyway.  The new version I liked quite a bit.  Yes, they ditched most of the Lowood sequence.  Yes, the snogging on the bed scene was way out of character for Jane.  Whatever.  Like Julie, I thought the chemistry was palpable.  Toby Stephens is certainly better looking than the Rochester of the book, but I didn't mind.  He gave you a sense of ER's warmer side that you don't often see in the adaptations.  And I liked Ruth Wilson.  Her emotions were always just beneath the surface ready to burst out.

I agree that the flashback structure in part 2 was needlessly confusing.  When Jane woke up on the moors, at first I thought she was dreaming again.  The scene even had that weird overstaturated color pallette like one of the earlier dream sequences.  But all was revealed eventually, even if it was awkwardly done.

Regarding St. John, he is a cold, emotionless robot.  I remember the first time I read the book thinking, "No Jane!  Don't marry him!  You'll be unhappy for the rest of your life!"  His treatment of Rosamond was perhaps a bit harsher than neccessary, but I don't think it's out of character for the way he was written.  He was actually more likeable in this adaptation than in the book, I think.  I remember him as a religious zealot -- ambitious, but with little in the way of feelings.  Pity the poor natives who wind up with him as their missionary.

I think that was the whole dichotomy between St. John and Rochester--St. John was this godly man, but committed the ultimate sin (in Bronte's mind) of keeping his passions bottled up. (Remember what she said about Jane Austen!) Rochester had his moral failings, but when he loved, he gave his heart wholly. Jane picked the latter, because she was like Rochester--she could not live without that love. That's why I liked the chemistry and the passion between the leads. (And the smooching. Smooching is a good thing.)

One other thing I liked in this version that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere was the scene at the Reed house with the two grown Reed daughters.  I don't remember if this was from the book or not, but the interplay between the spoiled, selfish Reed daughter and the severe, plain Reed daughter was hilarious.  It was like watching Lydia and Mary Bennet go at it, only much nastier than Mary or Lydia would ever be.

One thing I have to say is that the man who played St John was cute.   :-*

He was so familiar, but I couldn't place him.  His only other credit on IMDb that I've seen is a tv movie [2-parter?] called IF I HAD YOU with Sarah Parish and Paul McGann.  This must be where I know him from but I can't for the life of me remember what part he played in it.  Anybody else remember?  It was one of BBC-America's "Crimes of Passion" series.

Paul McGann?????  :-*

Yeah, Paul McGann.  Wasn't he the one in those sailing movies ... big boats with guys in yooniforms ... jumped off a cliff???  I'm sure the High Priestess knows for sure.

Yeah, I've heard of it. ;)

Paul McGann was actually in two separate "Crimes of Passion" series and a suspect in both of them, IIRC.  The other one was LIE WITH ME starring Eve Best as a rape victim who can't remember anything and Andrew Lincoln as a burnt out cop who's too involved in the case.  The Sarah Parish one involved a murder and another burnt out cop [Sarah Parish this time].  McGann was a sleazy cheating husband in both of them.  Interesting bit of trivia about McGann: he was originally cast as Richard Sharpe but broke his leg a few days before cameras rolled and had to be replaced [with Sean Bean].  I wonder how the series would have been with McGann.  One day I"m going to have to actually watch that Catherine Zeta-Jones CATHERINE THE GREAT miniseries, which features three of the four McGann brothers.  If you compare the McGanns to the Baldwins, I guess Paul would have to be Alec.  ;)

Let's just hope that Paul doesn't have the same weight and anger-management issues that Alec does.

Joe, Mark, Paul and Stephen McGann are all in "The Hanging Gale" about the Irish potato famine of the 1840's.  Great story, but heart-wrenching.  No wonder the Irish emigrated in droves. Netflix has Episodes 1&2, but I don't know how many more there might have been.  I was left wanting to see more!

Julie, like you, I think you'd have to go far to beat the Timothy Dalton JE, and we have similar tastes in some things, so perhaps you could tell me which you thought was better? I'll probably see it anyway, but I wonder if you can compare them?

I haven't seen the Dalton version in a while, so I'm going to have to go from memory on this.

I liked Dalton because it, like P&P1, is very close to the book.  They kept the gypsy scene as Bronte wrote it, kept the inheritance, and the fact that the Riverses are her cousins.  The Hinds/Morton version left all of that out.  This new version is, IMO, rather well done.  I liked Ruth Wilson a lot.  I thought she showed the facade of reserve but with turbulent emotions underneath that Jane Eyre has in the book.  And I liked Toby Stephens a lot.  The gypsy scene is there, but it's done differently from the book and, I actually think the way this version does it is better than other versions because it's more believable on screen this way than taking it directly from the book.  Yes, I'm rambling, but it's really hard to describe.

There is real chemistry between the actors in this version.  It's the first time I've been able to see what each one of the characters sees in the other. 

But then, I've never seen the 1973 version, but I will report back after I've seen it.  This one is, apparently, the best one of all (except, of course, for the production values).  I am looking forward to it.

I see that a new version of Wuthering Heights might be in the works.

I've never been able to get past the first couple of chapters.  Maybe an adaptation will convince me to read the whole thing.