Last Sunday, I reviewed my favorite adaptation of Jane Eyre starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton. This Sunday, I am ready to discuss the 2006 adaptation of Jane Eyre starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. This was the first time I've seen this adaptation since discovering the other one. And it had been a good two years since I'd seen this adaptation, so I was more than happy to reacquaint myself with this film!!!
So, you already know that this one isn't my favorite, favorite, favorite Jane Eyre. But I thought I would share specifically what I liked and didn't like about this adaptation.
I loved Georgie Henley as the young Jane Eyre. I just LOVED her! This adaptation hardly spends time on Jane's childhood, but for what we do see in those short minutes it was love. Granted, I will always see her as Lucy (from The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe), and so that does bias me a little in her favor. But I thought they included just enough of her childhood to flavor the movie.
I loved Christina Cole as Blanche Ingram. Out of all the Jane Eyre adaptations I've ever seen--four or five at this point?--she is the BEST Blanche I've ever seen. The scenes with Blanche and the other house guests worked so incredibly well. Viewers know that Mr. Rochester is just using Blanche to make Jane Eyre jealous, that he is manipulating both women. But we also get a sense that Blanche is using him as well, that she sees him purely as status and wealth. And so it's easy to excuse Mr. Rochester perhaps. Still, he's technically in the wrong.
There were a few scenes that I liked (a little) better in this adaptation. For example, when Jane Eyre "saves" Mr. Rochester when his bed curtains are on fire. The aftermath of that fire when they're talking and he holds her hand. It is in the 1983 adaptation too, of course. But in this movie, viewers see Jane Eyre go back to bed. And the emotion she conveys actually reminds me a bit of "
I Could Have Danced All Night" from My Fair Lady. Viewers catch a glimpse of Jane Eyre's love for Mr. Rochester, and how she holds him dear, and how she is treasuring up his touch of her hand. It could be viewed as silly, I suppose, but I think it's heartfelt too.
Adele. The scene where we first meet Adele was nicely done. I liked meeting her in this way, with her singing and "performing" in French. The subtitles translating the song were quite effective. They conveyed to the viewers part of Adele's tragic background. And I think we do catch glimpses of her neediness, her desperation for love and acceptance and family. True, she may appear a brat, a horribly spoiled brat, but, I think there is something more that could be there. But this isn't Adele's story, and, it's easy to forget about her completely.
Her cousins. Well, in this adaptation St. John Rivers does not come across as a horrible-horrible-horrible man. For better or worse depending on how you read Bronte's novel! And his sisters do have a young, vibrant feel about them in this adaptation. In the 1983 adaptation, they appear much older, much more settled, content with what little they have and not expecting life to offer them any entertainment or thrills.
I do think this adaptation does a better job with ambiance, capturing the gothic elements of the novel, and the movie is more sophisticated and polished in terms of sets, scenery, costumes, soundtrack, etc.
But. This movie does take liberties with the story and the characters. Mr. Rochester's scenes with Jane Eyre aren't necessarily going to be from the book, or true to the book, or true to the spirit of the book. In some scenes, yes, they are similar enough that it works...especially if it's been a few years since you've last read the book. The fuzzier your memory is, the better. And some scenes do feel like they could be authentic enough to the book because they get the characterization right. But. In other scenes, well, liberties were taken.
There were two scenes that bothered me in this adaptation, the two scenes with the most liberties taken. One scene was the "after wedding" scene, but, really it is the after-the-non-wedding scene. It is very sensual, too sensual in my opinion. Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester on a bed kissing and caressing while he tries to make excuses for his having kept his mad-wife a secret AND trying to convince Jane that he wouldn't try to tempt her if only she would consent to travel with him and go far away, they could live as brother-and-sister. I didn't buy that argument for a second, if, he truly respected her and wanted to be completely honorable he wouldn't have her on a bed right then and there trying to use his kisses to convince her to stay. This scene is completely wrong for a couple of reasons. One, it is NOT true to the book, not true to the characters, not true to Charlotte Bronte. You'd never find the scene written out like that in Charlotte Bronte's novel. The novel uses words, charismatic words spoken by a passionate Mr. Rochester, to try to convince Jane to stay, to try to help her understand. Read the scene from the book and it is SO MUCH BETTER. The second scene that bothers me is the near-ending where Jane and Mr. Rochester agree to marry and live happily ever after. The book is SO MUCH BETTER. And the changes they made just didn't sit well with me.
So what did I think of Toby Stephens as Mr. Rochester? Well, I thought he did a good job in some parts, in some ways, in some scenes. Some of his scenes worked better than others. But. He did a good job. He was likable. He was charismatic. He was passionate. You could tell *why* Jane Eyre would be drawn to him. And the film does a good job in building their relationship. But he isn't Timothy Dalton. And he's not completely true to the book, true to the spirit of the book.
I did like Ruth Wilson as Jane Eyre. I thought she did a good job in her role as Jane. But I'm not sure I like her better than Zelah Clarke. But she's definitely one of the reasons why this adaptation works so well and has so many fans.
Watch Jane Eyre
- If you love Jane Eyre
- If you love period dramas
- If you love historical romances
- If you love good drama
ETA: Other Jane Eyre (movie) reviews
Coming soon:
1996
1997
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
So what did I love about this one? I loved that it was true to the book. Now, I've read here and there that this movie is flawed because the subplots are supposedly more interesting than the main story line, that there is something wrong with this movie because viewers care more for the minor characters than the major ones. I disagree. Here's why. This would only be a problem or a flaw IF the movie gave more screen time to the minor characters (Nora Rowley, Hugh Stanbury, Aunt Jemima Stanbury, Dorothy Stanbury, Brooke Burgess, Reverend Gibson, Camilla French, Arabella French, Mr. Glascock, etc.) than Anthony Trollope devotes to these same characters in his novel. If you've read the book, you KNOW that Anthony Trollope spends a great deal of time with these characters. In particular, he gives GREAT attention to both Dorothy Stanbury and Nora Rowley.
These two young women receive equal attention to Emily Trevelyan. The successful romances of Nora and Hugh and Brooke and Dorothy provide contrast to the unhealthy deteriorating romance of Louis Trevelyan and Emily. Viewers see--briefly see--the romance between the "main characters" of Emily and Louis. But except for the first few minutes and the last few minutes--these two are anything but happy and together. The obstacles for this couple all occur after the wedding, after the honeymoon, after the birth of their son. In fact, he's a toddler when the problems begin. Essentially, I see Emily and Louis as one story line, true, but not necessarily the "main" story line. The other story lines receive equal time and attention in the novel, and, it is only fair that they receive the same amount on screen. I don't think Trollope thought in terms of "major" characters and "minor" characters. Not the way we do. I think there is enough depth and substance in his characters that even so-called "minor" characters feel real and interesting.
Thoughts on the Sub-plots. The sub-plots of He Knew He Was Right provide balance and contrast. Without these storylines, He Knew He Was Right would be EXTREMELY dark and depressing.
The second adaptation I watched was Our Mutual Friend (1998). Our Mutual Friend is my favorite, favorite, favorite Dickens. I just LOVE the book so much. In fact, if I was tempted to reread Dickens, Our Mutual Friend would be the one I'd most want to indulge in. I just love, love, love Lizzie and Bella and John and Eugene and Mr. and Mrs. Boffin. So I was very, very happy to watch this film. It stars Keeley Hawes as Lizzie Hexam, Paul McGann as Eugene Wrayburn, Anna Friel as Bella Wilfer, and Steven Mackintosh as John Rokesmith. (I recognized "Bella" from A Midsummer's Night Dream and Pushing Daisies. I recognized "Lizzie" from Wives and Daughters and Under the Greenwood Tree. I recognized "John" from The Muppet Christmas Carol.) So was this film giddy-making? Yes and no. It was giddy making except for when it wasn't. The romantic stories following the two couples could be pure giddy-making at times. I just LOVE, LOVE, LOVE both couples (Lizzie and Eugene; Bella and John). But there were many dark elements in this one. Some very dark, very creepy, very unpleasant elements in this one. For example, Silas Wegg (played by Kenneth Cranham) and Mr. Venus (played by Timothy Spall, whom I recognized from Oliver Twist and Enchanted) were faithful to the book (as far as I can recall) but not exactly thrilling. I do think David Morrissey did a fantastic job of being Bradley Headstone!!! Generally speaking, I think this was a wonderful, wonderful production. Thought it was really well done, thought the portrayals were just about perfect. And I loved so many scenes in this movie!!! 
What can I say about this adaptation of Jane Eyre? Susannah York did NOT make a convincing Jane Eyre. While this couple managed to still have a twelve year age difference, it wasn't because she was so young, quite the reverse. She was over thirty and trying to play a young woman of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty. It did NOT work well. In my opinion. She was not convincing in her role as a young, plain governess. And I had a hard time believing in the romance of this couple. George C. Scott, likewise, did not make a convincing Mr. Rochester. In fact, none of the actors--at least the human ones--were quite believable in their roles in this movie. (The horses and Pilot did okay for the most part.) Now, some did better than others. I won't lie. Not everyone was equally horrible. And part of the trouble could have been the script. (The Rivers family are not her cousins, she doesn't receive an inheritance, etc. Also the Reed family does not appear at all.) 
The book is by Elizabeth Gaskell. And she is one of my favorite Victorian writers. The only film adaptation I've seen was done by the BBC in 2004/2005. (According to Wikipedia, it aired in November and December 2004, and was released on DVD in spring 2005.) It stars Richard Armitage and Daniela Denby-Ashe as Mr. John Thornton and Miss Margaret Hale. And it is OH-SO-MAGICAL. But. It's one of those films that I have to keep separate from the book it's based on. Because as wonderful as the movie is in many, many, many ways. It is NOT the book. It doesn't come close to the book. Not really. And the way the characters are depicted does differ. Some changes are small but significant. Some changes are quite obvious, others not so much. But here's what makes this one a success, I think, the changes work in the film's favor. If that makes sense. As a movie it just works really, really well. Everything is just magical. The setting. The costumes. The music, oh the music, I could gush on and on and on about how perfectly-perfectly-perfect the score of this film is. It is MAGICAL. The dialogue. The romance. The drama. Everything is just so well done. And the ending is just about the best ending to a movie that I've ever, ever, ever, ever seen. It goes beyond giddy-making. It takes giddy to a whole other level!!! So any faults I find in the movie--as I'm watching it, small things really about how it differs from the book--are completely erased by the ending. 