most like the book?


i have to read the book for my lit class and then watch the movie to go along with it...

so i was wondering which one is the most like the book?
thanks!

reply

That depends on what you mean when you say "like" (Is it when the movie's dialogue contains lots of lines from the novel?) and if you include TV mini-series in the word "movie".

To get an overview of what adaptations are "out there", I recommend you to explore the site "The Enthusiast's Guide to Jane Eyre Adaptations" (http://eyreguide.bravehost.com/).

If you are interested in versions very close to the novel's text (and if you have the time) I would say watch either (or both) of the BBC minis from 1973 and 1983. The scriptwriters and directors of these two adaptations had very different takes on the leading couple's characters. That is, they chose to emphasise on different aspects of the characters.
I saw 1983 first and liked it, but after seeing 1973 I did read much more depth, humour and wit into Charlotte Brontë's text. You should be aware of though, that these two versions were produced with less money than most of the others made from 1970 and onwards. But if you can ignore that and just enjoy brilliant acting, chose any of them.

Good luck!
/E 8-)

reply

1996 is fairly close to the book. Sorry I have to disagree with the other poster, if you get the one from 1973, you may not get through it. Personally I thought it was awful and very expensive considering - the style of acting is very out dated. I doubt you'll find it humorous, even if that's what they intended. Paint drying basically. The one done in 1983 is a big improvement, it's not perfect but more than watchable and the acting is much better.

But I think the 1996 is professionally shot and the acting is good but it's abbreviated. Edited to say that 2006 has beautiful sets and a very good actress playing Jane, but Rochester imo is weak and it deviates a lot from the novel.

Everything has some fans (some more than others) and it can be confusing, maybe you should read the reviews for a more objective sense of things first, and make up your mind from that.

reply

"1996 is fairly close to the book." - clifden

Hm, you must have a dirfferent book than I, then...or you understand "fairly" in a different way...
This film wildly warps the story into something alien - it's not abbreviated, it's mutilated!

I've watched BBC 1973, 1983 and 2006, parts of 1997, parts of 1934 and 1944 and this in its entirety (though why I stayed till the end I don't know...).

For this one, it would be easier to list where they DID stay true to the book - some dialogue, yes (mostly Rochester's), but St John at Gateshead??? Hello??? Mr Brocklehurst like a constant fixture at Lowood? Hello??? Miss Temple NOT the headmistress??? Hello??? No gypsy scene, no bantering, no desperation scene, no Moor House, no Diana, NO COUSINS!!! And that's just for starters...

Don't mind me, though, I abhor this film, especially CG.

reply

Why do you have to "watch the movie to go along with it"? Are you supposed to write a paper comparing the novel to whichever screen adaptation you watched? If that's the case, you might not want to watch the one that "is the most like the book" because then you won't have very much comparative analysis to do.

If your assignment requires to you compare the novel to a screen adaptation, then I'd personally recommend http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116684/ (1996) directed by Franco Zeffirelli. This is absolutely not the "most like the book" and in fact I call it "Franco Zeffirelli's Jane Eyre" rather than "Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre."

Actually, Zeffirelli's adaptation is really quite a good movie. The problem is that it's not at all faithful to the novel. One particular example is that the childhood episodes at Lowood differ very substantially from the novel, with a near-fetishistic hair-cutting scene in which Jane and Helen submit to having their long hair cut by Mr. Brocklehurst. In fact, "submit" really isn't the word, since the two girls exhibit such a defiant attitude as they both bend at the waist to let their long hair stream down in front of their bodies. The whole scene is derived very loosely from a brief conversation in the novel between Mr. Brocklehurst and Miss Temple regarding the hair of other (older) girls, and it gives a defiant character to Jane and Helen that just doesn't fit the novel (especially so in the case of Helen).

Thus, if what you're supposed to do is write a comparative study of novel and screen adaptation, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116684/ would really work nicely, and you could focus on the difference in Zeffirelli's treatment of Jane and Helen at Lowood as a precise case study.

On the other hand, if you really are looking for the adaptation that is the "most like the book" then I'd recommend http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207892/, the 1973 miniseries starring Sorcha Cusack (and with an absolutely perfect performance by Tina Heath as Helen). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207892/ is a fairly lengthy miniseries, but it's well worth the effort.

In any case, though, I strongly recommend that you read the novel first or you'll have some trouble with any kind of comparative study that you try to do.



Conventionality is not morality.

reply

The 1996 version is the best adaptation in my opinion.

The Devine Genealogy Goddess!

reply

The one most like the book I'd say is 1983 (Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke).

If you're looking for the one most enjoyable to watch, I'd say 2006 (Toby Stephens/Ruth Wilson). :)


^^ May contain ramblings of an easily over-excited fangirl # http://thesqueee.blogspot.com

reply