Watching Dickens

 In June I was able to watch two movies adapted from Dickens' novels.

The first movie I watched was Pickwick Papers. I watched the BBC miniseries done in 1985. It stars Nigel Stock as Mr. Pickwick, Clive Swift as Mr. Tupman, Alan Parnaby as Mr. Snodgrass, Jeremy Nicholas as Mr. Winkle, Phil Daniels as Sam Weller, and Patrick Malahide as Mr. Jingle. To name a few. What can I say about this one? Well, the watching experience matches the reading experience. In other words, I was equally bored and amused. For example, some of the adventures of the Pickwick Club bored me in the book, and they likewise bored me in the dramatization. Not all of the adventures are boring, mind you, some are quite funny--very funny. But don't expect each episode of the miniseries to be oh-so-thrilling or laugh out loud funny. What I found was that the miniseries could be just as charming and delightful as the book. A great example would be the characterization of Sam Weller and Mr. Pickwick. Sam Weller is one of the BEST characters in Pickwick Papers. Once he's introduced into the narrative, it's like a brand new book, a much better book! Same with the drama!!! I don't think it would be an easy role to play either! But Phil Daniels does a WONDERFUL job with it!!! I also think Patrick Malahide made an excellent Mr. Jingle. Here is a character that made me want to boo, hiss every time he made an appearance; he was a true villain. Yet. By the end when he's had a transformation thanks to the mercy of Mr. Pickwick, I am able to believe it. Which really, really surprised me. Any actor that can pull off villainy and repentance must be good, right?

I definitely am glad I made time to watch The Pickwick Papers. There were things that I noticed for the first time in the drama. For example, when I was reading the book, I was so caught up in loving Sam Weller that I neglected the characterization of Mr. Pickwick, I didn't realize how much he changes throughout the novel (and the drama). I was so busy laughing with Sam Weller that I missed the heart and soul of a great man, Mr. Pickwick. It is something that I probably would have caught if I had revisited the novel too--but I'm glad I don't have to wait that long. (While I do plan on rereading Dickens, I hope to read every novel at least once before I start indulging in rereads.)

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!!!

Watch Pickwick Papers

• If you're a fan of Charles Dickens
• If you are a fan of his first novel, The Pickwick Papers
• If you're curious to see how Mr. Pickwick, Sam Weller, etc. are portrayed on film
• If you enjoy Dickens' humor and are patient

Watch Our Mutual Friend

• If you're a fan of Charles Dickens
• If you are a fan of the novel, Our Mutual Friend
• If you enjoy romance, drama, and suspense (this one has quite a few dead bodies)
• If you enjoy period dramas

© 2012 Becky Laney of Becky's Book Reviews

Jane in the Seventies

Today I'll be sharing my thoughts on TWO adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, both adaptations are from the 1970s, but they are so DIFFERENT from one another. One I'd definitely recommend, the other, well, not so much.

I'll start with the one I wouldn't really recommend, the 1970 adaptation starring George C. Scott and Susannah York. The only thing that *may* save this one from being the worst Jane Eyre ever it is my recent discovery of the 1949 TV episode adaptation of Jane Eyre starring Charlton Heston and Mary Sinclair. And then there is always the 1934 adaptation with Colin Clive and Virginia Bruce. So it would not be an easy automatic decision.

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.)

I believe there are some issues with some DVD productions being extremely low quality--in terms of picture quality, sound quality, etc. And I do believe that played a role in why I found this one so painful to watch. But only partly. Because better sound quality wouldn't necessarily have made me appreciate the score to this film any better. I found it very intrusive. It just didn't feel like it was written for this movie. 

The second adaptation I will be discussing is the BBC adaptation of 1973. This adaptation is shorter than the 1983 adaptation starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. But. It is faithful--quite faithful--to the book. A few might even say more faithful. Then again a few might say it wasn't as faithful as it might first appear to be. (For example, this one does have Mr. Rochester dressing up as a gypsy and telling fortunes! However, this Jane is not fooled for even half a second. Before she even goes to see the gypsy, before she even hears him speak, she claims to have known it was Mr. Rochester all along. He's not able to really talk with her in disguise at all. The scene is not as vulnerable perhaps. So on the one hand, Jane's "cleverness" is maintained and she never loses control, but, is that a good thing? Is this interpretation the best one? Here's the 1983 one for comparison.)

Is this adaptation for every viewer? Probably not. It is just over four hours in length. For viewers unfamiliar with other BBC adaptations from the 1970s and 1980s, the production quality may seem low. It doesn't necessarily feel like a proper movie. It doesn't have this grand, sophisticated, polished feel to it. The sets, the scenery, the costumes, the landscapes, the filming isn't as grand. Don't be surprised to find reviews calling it boring and unwatchable. It's all a matter of taste and preference. For viewers who are READERS, for viewers who LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the novel, Jane Eyre. For viewers who passionately care for Bronte's novel and hold Bronte's words in high esteem, it doesn't really get any better than this. (Same with the 1983.) I read a review of the 2011 movie that said it [the 2011 movie] was better because it didn't try to read the book to viewers. And it made me smile a little. It's all a matter of taste. Faithfulness--particularly faithfulness in dialogue between Jane and Edward--is SO VERY VERY VERY important to me. And this one has it, for the most part.

I will say that this adaptation was heavy in narration. And that sometimes the narration was intrusive. The narrator stating what was so clearly obvious to one and all. In a few scenes, this bothered me a lot. I kept thinking it would be near-perfect if the narrator would quiet down and let me watch in peace. But. For the most part. I did like this adaptation.

It stars Sorcha Cusack as Jane Eyre and Michael Jayston as Edward Rochester. While I didn't love, love, love Cusack as Jane Eyre (I liked her well enough but didn't quite love her), I absolutely LOVED, LOVED, LOVED Michael Jayston as Mr. Rochester. With each episode, I came to love him more. And by the time he proposed, well, I was extremely giddy to say the least.

This adaptation got many things right. I loved the romance of this one. They make a very good couple. And while this Jane smiled a little too much, I loved the twinkle in Rochesters eyes.

First Conversation, part one, part two
Second Conversation, part one, part two
Third Conversation
Guests at Thornfield
The Proposal
Conversation After The Proposal (Next Day)
Mr. Rochester as Gypsy
Meeting Mr. Rochester
Fire Scene
After the Big Reveal

© 2012 Becky Laney of Becky's Book Reviews

Watching Jane Eyre (2011)

Do I have thoughts and opinions on the newest adaptation of Jane Eyre? Of course, I do!!! But they have calmed down a little since my first viewing of the film last fall.  My first impression was that it was a horrible adaptation. It felt like they shuffled the pages of the script and didn't care to sort them out properly again. I just didn't understand why anyone would want to play around with the timeline and pacing. Why start the movie with Jane Eyre on the run? Why put viewers on the same page with the Rivers family? Why start there?! If you've never read Jane Eyre--never seen a movie version--it could prove VERY confusing to say the least. And I can only guess that it would influence one's impression of Mr. Rochester when we do finally meet him. Knowing from the start that this love story ends badly--with tears, angst, desperation, she's RUNNING away, etc.

Would this movie make any sense at all if you'd never read Jane? Is there enough of a story there for viewers to piece together the proper story? I can never answer that because I've read Jane Eyre and I've seen Jane Eyre countless times. I didn't necessarily find it confusing--in terms of story--more puzzling in terms of WHY did they choose to interpret it this way? The two are not the same, I know!!! The story does feel rushed, in a way, especially if you're more accustomed to a longer adaptation (2006, 1983, 1973). But it doesn't feel AS rushed as it used to feel to me since I've seen other adaptations that were comparable in length (1944, 1996, 1997, 1970). And compared to the hour-long adaptations I've seen (1934, 1949) this one was so much better.

My first impression of Michael Fassbender in the role of Mr. Rochester was not favorable. Seeing it again, I've softened a little. At first, I thought he got so little time on screen that it would be absolutely impossible to like him--or love him--for his character, personality, charisma, whatever you want to call it. But. Now that I've seen some other (shorter) Jane Eyre adaptations, I realize that it's not so horrible after all. Other adaptations--longer adaptations--give you MORE to love, perhaps. They may add different dimensions to the character of Mr. Rochester--for better or worse--and have their own way of interpreting Mr. Rochester, bringing him to life from the pages of a novel. But I think he does try. One reason why I had such a strong dislike for this portrayal was in how he chose to "react" to Jane's resolution to leave. His anger, his violence, his temper was SO out of control, so over the top. But having seen the 1997 film starring Ciaran Hinds, I have a different perspective. His rage doesn't seem as over-the-top to me because Hinds performance was even worse. Granted, I still don't "like" this scene; it still makes me uncomfortable. But I've seen worse now.

My first impression of Mia Wasikowska in the role of Jane Eyre was not the best either. I didn't dislike her by any means. The problem was that she didn't leave much of an impression at all--either good or bad. She just left me indifferent. How do I feel now? Well, I can say with absolute confidence that she is so much better (or better suited) in the role than Susannah York, Mary Sinclair, and Virginia Bruce. She at least feels like she belongs to this story. And while she may not have amazed me with her performance, she does a good job. Nothing in her portrayal of Jane is unbelievable or out of character. Nothing she adds to the role offends in any way.

© 2012 Becky Laney of Becky's Book Reviews

Watching Other Janes

Today I thought I would share with you my thoughts on early adaptations of Jane Eyre. The 1934 adaptation starring Colin Clive and Virginia Bruce, and the 1944 adaptation starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine.

The 1934 adaptation is almost comical. I'm not sure comedy was the intent, but this adaptation is only an hour and five minutes!!!! If you found some of the newer adaptations rushed (2011, 1996, 1997, etc.) then you may not believe how condensed it can be. There is also something awkward about this adaptation. Virginia Bruce is just not convincing as Jane Eyre. Not in any way. (And I really wish her clothes had fit her. The costumes just do not hang right on her, they just don't fit. OR else they were trying really hard to make them as unflattering to her as possible.) I could talk about all the hundreds of details that just weren't right about this edition, or you could watch for yourself.  But despite all that, I do consider it worth watching...if you're a big Jane Eyre fan! OR if you just want a GOOD laugh!!!!

Jane Eyre meets Mr. Rochester *before* she even meets Mrs. Fairfax or Adele
Jane (in a frilly dress) has her first conversation with Mr. Rochester and sings 
Naughty Adele in a Tree
Jane Puts Out the Fire All On Her Own
Adele being absolutely ridiculous in front of the guests but charming too
Mr. Rochester tricks Jane leading to the...  Proposal
Now this certainly wasn't in the book....OR...this Bertha doesn't quite look crazy

I recently rewatched the 1944 adaptation of Jane Eyre starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine. I watched it at the first of the year and liked it, this time I may even have loved it. I think I appreciated Orson Welles' Mr. Rochester even more than before. One thing I've come to appreciate are the scenes between Jane and Edward. Particularly the oh-so-crucial scene between them after the big reveal. Orson Welles got this just right. He wasn't absurdly violent, he wasn't abusive; his heart ache and pain was transparent. He was full of sorrow and regret. Anyway, I thought this adaptation was great in the romance department. Passion, romance, drama, this movie has it in abundance. And this adaptation even features Jane as a child, even takes time to have her become good friends with Helen. True this one doesn't have her cousins or her inheritance. No St. John Rivers to propose marriage giving Jane Eyre an alternative. But. It does have John Sutton as "Dr. Rivers" the man responsible for saving the young Jane from her misery. Is it melodramatic? Yes. Is it entertaining? Yes!!! Is it worth watching?! Definitely!!!

I also appreciate this adaptation because of the childhood scenes we get with Jane, Helen, Mr. Brocklehurst, Mrs. Reed, and Dr. Rivers. I really enjoyed Agnes Moorehead as Mrs. Reed--she was wonderful! And Henry Daniell as Mr. Brocklehurst, well, he's so brilliant at being evil!!! (Helen is played with Elizabeth Taylor, and she is quite angelic.)

Jane Eyre meets Mr. Rochester
The Oh-so-dramatic proposal 
The Happy Ending

I also watched a television adaption from 1949 starring Mary Sinclair as Jane Eyre and Charlton Heston as Edward Rochester. This may just be the worst Jane Eyre ever. It just doesn't work on any level. It's not entertaining; it's not believable as a drama, horror, or comedy. It takes an incredible amount of liberties with the book. There's not one character that is believable or likable in this production. Was it the acting? Was it the script-writing? I'm not sure. But I do think it's sad that the two commercials for Westinghouse products--the first for an electric range with not one but two ovens, and an electric sheet so you don't have to sleep with twelve pounds of blankets to stay warm--are more interesting than the drama itself.

Part one, part two, part three, part four.

© 2012 Becky Laney of Becky's Book Reviews

Watching David Copperfield

I recently watched the 1935 adaptation of David Copperfield. And from the start, I knew it was going to be very interesting! I must say I just LOVED the introduction of Aunt Betsey played by Edna May Oliver. It was such a comical scene. Just a delight. And it's surprisingly faithful to the book, I think!

The book is so very, very, LONG and complex. The movie is much simpler, more direct. Which isn't a bad thing. It eliminates many, many things, it's true. And this does effect the characterization. But. I felt it was just one interpretation of events.

In the novel, readers sometimes see things that the young David can't see, can't understand. Readers pick up on things--some small clues, some very, very big clues--about the people in David's life. The movie portrays them exactly as David imagines--or first imagines--them to be.

Dickens' characters were very human, very complex. Many characters had strengths and weaknesses. They weren't all good; they weren't all bad. They had flaws and quirks. In the movie, the characters tended to be less complex. We didn't see their strengths and weaknesses. There just wasn't time to get to know them.

This adaptation just isn't as good as the book. It can't really replace the book...at all. It has its enjoyable moments though!


© 2012 Becky Laney of Becky's Book Reviews