MovieChat Forums > Jane Eyre (1996) Discussion > One of the worst adaptations

One of the worst adaptations

posted 20 years ago by sweet_fanny_adams
17 replies | jump to latest

Unbelievably bad casting and script. William Hurst acted like a spoilt brat and disclosed all his feelings too quickly (he wasn't brooding or mysterious enough). Charlotte Gainsbourg had as much emotion as a glass of water (she also resembles - in the nicest possible way - the actress who plays the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz. I don't mean she's ugly, she just resembles her). Elle McPhearson (sorry don't know how to spell it) playing Blanche Ingram?! Pah!
Funnily enough, Bertha Rochester (who's supposed to be quite ugly) is actually pretty - she looks like Siobhan Fahey from Bananarama fame!

Everything is disclosed too quickly in this adaptation. The book is fantastic (it stayed with me for years!). I think the best adaptation so far is the 1997 ITV version starring Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds. Samantha's not so good, but Ciaran is great!

[–] peachblush 19 years ago

This is a great post! It made me laugh a lot :)
But you are so right.

[–] sweet_fanny_adams 19 years ago

Thanks mate!

[–] J_Kwan 19 years ago

I loved it, specially Hurt and Gainsbourg's performances. That's my opinion anyway:)

[–] MollyJones6 19 years ago

I agree with you're entire post. And in my opinion Hurst and Gainsburg didn't have any chemistry. If I hadn't read the book I would'nt believe them to be in love.

[–] sweet_fanny_adams 19 years ago

Ta mate. Yeah, there was absolutely no chemistry between them. This adaptation wouldn't have made me want to read the book at all.

"I told you I was ill"
(epitaph on Spike Milligan's gravestone)

[–] Darthette 19 years ago

It was a a depressing enough adaption. Hurt was quite handsome though. The chemistry wasn't too obvious i admit. I havent seen any other versions, so i cant complain.

"Aren't you a little short for a Stormtrooper?"

[–] Omniscient_Desire 19 years ago

As this was the first version of Jane Eyre that I had the pleasure of viewing, it will always hold a place in my heart. Of course, once I read the book, I became even more enamored with the whole theme. However bad the adaptation might be, I have to disagree with a number of things you say within the post:

Firstly, I thought Charlotte Gainsbourg did a wonderful job. Though she is not quite as passionate as I would imagine Jane to be, physically I felt she fit the description rather well, and she had some wonderfully moving moments as well.

Secondly, I actually felt the chemistry between them was remarkably better than some versions I have seen. Though I personally find Timothy Dalton to be the best Rochester (though Hurt isn't too bad), he had NO chemistry with his Jane (can't think of her name at the present moment).

Thirdly, Bertha Rochester, if you remember from Edward's description of her before she went mad, was indeed attractive. It wasn't until she went stark-raving-mad that she is described as being unattractive. So, I don't think it was her general appearance, but rather her insanity that distorts her appearance.

Anywho, I will agree with you that Ciaran was wonderful. Speaking of all these Rochesters, if Hinds, Dalton, and Hurt are considered unattractive (which Rochester is supposed to be), I want to know what an attractive guy looks like. Also, where I can find me a man as ugly as Hinds, Dalton (especially Dalton), or Hurt.

[–] whitelilacs07 19 years ago

I thought Samantha Morton was wonderful as Jane. She portrayed the quiet side to her in a very nice way. I saw this one first and then the Hinds/Morton one and liked the second one much better. I didn't think this one for my first Jane Eyre was bad, just that it didn't stick with me. And my mom found it very dark and depressing. William Hurt indeed! I'll have to see the Hinds one again now!

Can words go straight to the heart?...Can words be as direct as the scent of roses?

[–] Haifis 19 years ago

Bertha Rochester was attractive before she was locked up all those years by her husband.

[–] alter-ego-2 18 years ago

I read the book (a while ago now) and it is very good... if a little confusing as it is written in first person (the first person being Jane Eyre) and being male... well... it doesn't completely absorb me as I am unable to see myself as Jane. A technical issue in what is otherwise an amazing book though I hardly need say that.
I have seen a number of adaptations on film. This one is by far the best, the music, the scenes, the colour (the age of the older adaptations does show). The actors are all well chosen with the possible exception of Rochester, because William Hurt in appearence doesn't fit the description of Rochester. Timothy Dalton makes the best Rochester (like his James Bond he is the truest to the book). Charlotte Gainsbourg makes a brilliant Jane, her accent and appearence are closest to the book, not to mention her age. Anna Paquin's young Jane is a little brattish, though well acted for a young actor.
What I would change is the writers and directors. The alterations/ommissions of characters and teh latter events of the book are the only real complaint I have... a big complaint, but as just a film it is very well done.
My only other complaint (not really a complaint, I can't complain about it) Charlotte is a little on the beautiful side for Bronte's Jane. But then I have seen people comment the opposite (don't know what they're smoking) that Charlotte is too plain??? Maybe it is just a matter of opinion.

To summarise, same music, locations, Gainsbourg, Dalton, generally good other actors, longer script that follows the original, better direction to ensure that the right characters are drawn out of the actors who all seem talented enough to deliver them.
This film could have been as good as the 2000 Les Miserables with Depardieu and Malkovich (and incidentally Gainsbourg as well), it had all the right ingredients, just misused by the directors and script writers.
Last thing of note, Dalton was too young for Rochester in the BBC one, but he is probably the perfect age now...

[–] dr_gee79 18 years ago

nan. the worst adaptation is A&E 1997? in my opinion

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mechanicalsockmonkey 18 years ago

I really think this all depends on your image of Rochester. For me, Hurt is bang on as what I imagined him to be.

Also, I agree with the "WTF?" on Blanche, but that doesn't ruin the movie for me.

[–] yaweh_yireh 16 years ago

I have to agree that I found this version to be a huge disappointment. I mean, I have most of this book memorized because I've read it more times than I could even begin to count. I love the plot madly, every moment of it. But in this version, I found myself actually getting bored. Then I felt terrible for getting bored by Jane Eyre so I tried to look for its good qualities. I found none.

The only part that I even remotely liked was the beginning. I found Anna's portrayal as Young Jane to be just as passionate and endearing as any other young actress I've seen (although Georgie Henley from the 2006 version is still my favorite) and I thought overall that the earlier scenes were the best written and performed of the entire movie.

As for Gainsbourg, although she did possess certain qualities of Jane, I think she focused too much on the 'plain'. You couldn't tell that she held all of her inner passion, or her convictions, or her opinions. They just didn't come through her completely subdued performance. Also, she looked a tad too young for my taste. I realize that Jane is very young, but I always pictured her looking more like a woman than a girl.

Hurt I hated. Every moment he was on screen. He looked so bored with everything. Occasionally I think that is a quality that Rochester should have, but constantly? I think not. I saw no passion, no sarcasm, no immature playfulness, nothing. Ever. All the Edward's I've seen have perfectly encompassed some part of the immense character's personality. Hurt had nothing however. He seemed completely flat the whole time. I've read comments about Gainsbourg having no personality, but she looks like a regular Bertha compared to Hurt.

But worst of all, I never once believed that Jane and Edward so much as had a crush on each other. They started declaring their love for each other and I found myself asking 'Really? I don't believe you.' The scrip they had was so beautiful and true to the book, but their performances wasted it! They both looked so bored around each other. I couldn't stand the romantic scenes, which was torture for me, since I find those scenes so beautiful in the book and other adaptations.

Overall, it was the biggest disappointment I've ever encountered in a movie. I would really like that two hours of my life back. It wasn't worth it one bit. If you're going to spend two hours with Jane Eyre, just read some of the book instead.

[–] e_spanou 16 years ago

I agree with everything you write except Georgie Henley. I didn't like her at
all. Too weak and puppy like, simply standing these to be abused and trying to
win our sympathy by looking cute. I don't like her acting neither when she was
protesting (too whiney).

Jane is an enraged abused child that gets out of control and is totally
determined to resist further abuse, even if it cost her her life:

"I resisted all the way: a new thing for me, and a circumstance which
greatly strengthened the bad opinion Bessie and Miss Abbot were disposed
to entertain of me. The fact is, I was a trifle beside myself; or rather
_out_ of myself, as the French would say: I was conscious that a moment's
mutiny had already rendered me liable to strange penalties, and, like any
other rebel slave, I felt resolved, in my desperation, to go all lengths."

Anna Paquin is far more close to this image and the way she casts that
murderous look at her cousin is again more like the book:

"John thrust his tongue in his cheek whenever he saw me, and once attempted
chastisement; but as I instantly turned against him, roused by the same
sentiment of deep ire and desperate revolt which had stirred my corruption
before, he thought it better to desist, and ran from me tittering execrations,
and vowing I had burst his nose."

"I can be on my guard against my enemies but God deliver me from my friends"
- Charlotte Bronte

[–] cinesylph 11 years ago

I was really disappointed by this version as well, but I blame the direction primarily. I actually feel that Zeffirelli must not have understood the novel, characterizations or setting very well. (Perhaps he has too much of an Italian sensibility to fully appreciate inclement English melodrama? I know, I know, he has done Shakespeare well, but it did occur to me as I watched the 15th wide shot of sunny, colorful English countryside!) He may well be a great director of opera, but I felt his "staging" of JE was largely wrong. Much too bright and saturated, and what about "the shadows being as important as the light"? I hardly saw any shadows, and JE thrives in its figurative and literal shadows! The "after-the-bedroom-fire" scene was so lit up that it almost hurt (and not in a good way). The lack of passion from William Hurt (the second-biggest flaw of this version) just couldn't be ignored in any way.
There were a few (greater and lesser) choices that I did appreciate in this version -- Gainsbourg as Jane (I am in that camp), the attention given Miss Temple at Lowood (and Amanda Root's portrayal of her) and the evening garden setting for the proposal scene (which is so effective in the novel). But, for the most part, this version was quite a let-down.