Jane Eyre

This is a very good adaptation of Charlotte Brontes timeless classic. Even though it doesn't really work as a movie, because the dialog in the book is reproduced more or less verbatim, which is great to read but different when you watch. However, it doesn't really have any movie pretensions, so I will not judge it as a movie.

This is a very fine production and I like it very much. The dialog is kept very clean (by which I mean not mutilated or modernized) and all of the humour that Rochester and Jane share is kept in, which is something that most other adaptations tend to lose somehow. The production values aren't great, but I did not mind that too much. However, the difference in picture quality between indoor and outdoor scenes is noticeable. A couple of things however are not so good. Jane narrates the story throughout, which I usually think is very helpful for people who are unfamiliar with the book. However, Janes running commentary during scenes where she speaks is distracting at times and not really helpful at all. It's not necessary to narrate "I smiled" while you can see her smiling on screen. Also, I found it quite weird that – since Jane is supposed to be tiny – Michael Jayston who plays Rochester is just an inch or so taller than Sorcha Cusack who plays Jane… I just could not get used to that, it bothered me every time they had a scene together. Also the makeup department went rather heavy on the eyeliner. With Ms Cusack it doesn't matter so much, but on Michael Jayston it just looks ridiculous.

Michael Jayston is a brilliant Rochester. The age is right and he can work wonders with his face to express emotions. I also like Sorcha Cusack, she is suitably plain, though the acting she does is limited (however, that might be due to the running commentary). Some reviewers have commented that the actors lack chemistry and I can see what they mean. It's very subtle but I thought there was some, just enough to support the story nicely. Another thing that was wrong though was St. John Rivers. He is supposed to be 30 in the book, however the actor looks at least 45… but he is brilliantly pious and unlikeable, just as he should be. Everything else however is just right and very true to the novel which I always approve of. All in all, I enjoyed this version very much and will watch it again but I will give slight deductions for the distracting commentary and the eyeliner

Have to say I liked the 1983 version until I saw this one. Wow! Where has it been hiding all these years. Michael Jayston is amazing as Rochester. His acting is superb and he is wonderfully witty in the part. Most actors who have portrayed Rochester have managed to portray some aspects of the character well, but somehow Jayston manages to get everything right. Sorcha Cusack is excellent as Jane, a really moving performance. Rochester and Jane just look right together in this adaptation, you can really believe in the characters. My only quibble with this adaptation is that it is not long enough, I could have done with a lot more of the same. My recommendation is make sure that you don't miss this 1973 version, it's a joy to watch.

No other film version of "Jane Eyre" can touch this one for fidelity to the book and excellence of performance. Michael Jayston is the perfect Mr. Rochester - he looks the part, attractive yet not too pretty, and able to convince us of his hidden good qualities under a rough and abrasive exterior. Sorcha Cusack is wonderful as Jane - exactly what Charlotte Bronte set out to create, a plain, retiring heroine whose personality blazes through and captivates us. This version gives us the ENTIRE story, from Jane's deprived childhood and years at Lowood School to her life at Thornfield with Mr. Rochester. It even treats seriously the interlude with her cousins, St. John Rivers and his sisters, something film versions of the novel usually try to minimize or alter completely. Paradoxically, this actually works and makes sense, although it is an interruption in the more interesting Jane-Rochester story. The dialogue and narration are often taken directly from the novel, with just some abbreviation. I wish this version would appear on video - it is FAR superior to any of the others made for TV or the big screen. If you see it being broadcast (it turns up on Canadian TV sometimes) don't miss it.

I have to give this production extra points for effort. It certainly wasn't the lame chick flick that BBC 2006 was. They did stick close to the novel and the adaptation does have it's charm... but it lacks power, nuance and maybe even emotional truth.

Before you invest money, I urge you to view some of the 1973 scenes, currently on you-tube. Everyone has a different idea of what good is and -- poor production values aside -- I fear some will find these performances either off point with the story, or too intellectualized by today's standards.

I'm not opposed to narration; Jane has few enough lines and Brontë's words are visceral, stunning and instructive about her heroine. But the voice overs *here,* take place during scenes with a lot of dialog. Since the actors can as easily fill in subtext, the running commentary is pointless. The only place I've seen the device used effectively is in comedies, like SCRUBS, where the split-hair-timing of the juxtaposed VO and dialog actually helps *create* the humor. However *here,* it is not used to *any* dramatic effect whatsoever.

Jayston is probably the stronger of the two and he IS endearing (especially when singing at the piano), but lacks the edge and imposing presence of the Rochester in the novel. Cusack also has her moments, but she plays nearly every scene with arched eyebrows (for reasons I cannot begin to fathom) which gives her the appearance of wearing a mask. And barely seems able to conceal a condescending smirk, which alternates with a gape-eyed stare. Neither of which pass for Jane's keen intelligence and curiosity, nor her lack of world experience. She HAS since acknowledged she didn't really have a handle on the role, though I know ardent fans will disagree. Although the 1973 and 2006 BBC adaptations are very different -- the former tried to remain faithful to the novel, while the latter couldn't get far enough away from it -- I found both suffered from a lack of character contrast and dynamic.

I would like to tip my cap to Geoffrey Whitehead, who for me turned in an extremely gratifying performance as St. John Rivers. He was understated and energetic -- as connected to the material as his character was distant from the lives he missioned to save. Rigid, frigid and shocking in his presumption of what was best for others. Ambitious and frighteningly blinded by the authority afforded him by his collar. I felt it all from Whitehead. It was without a doubt the performance that engaged me most consistently. Despite the intrusive narration.

This adaptation does include the problematic gypsy segment. However, Jayston who has some wonderful subtle moments in other scenes, rides the surface of what little of Brontë's words are used here, instead of delivering them with full intention. In any case it wouldn't have landed since in this version, Jane guesses immediately. Cusack signifies this with a jig-is-up grin, almost straight out of the gate, instead of becoming vulnerable to and absorbed by the words, (if for no other reason, than the sharp insight they carry.) And absorbing us along with her. For me the meaning of the segment was lost. This exemplifies a problem I had throughout this adaptation; the scene is there, but not the intention.

Understandably this scene has only been attempted once as written. Probably because it's tough to pull off, since the audience invariably "knows." The key is both actors have to play it straight from their respective point of views. When done with full commitment, no feigned (and invariably funny) gypsy voice will prevent the words from being heard. And if Jane becomes fully involved, after her initial resistance (which helps put us in her corner and provides a dramatic pass, into *her* shifting reality) we'll follow her. Done right the scene allows for a bizarre but fascinating mix humor and intended poignancy.

Otherwise the writers failed to cut passages in ways that make Brontë's dialog playable (and the '83 adaptation demonstrates that *much* of it is *very* playable). So part of the problem may lie there. *I do think the more dynamic '83, which presumably had the lowest budget per hour, is richer and more realized. It's equally faithful and a lot less self conscious, at least to this viewer. True they took some risks, but with few exceptions, most of them paid off.

*If you need great production values, neither version will work for you.

I'm bursting with repletion: I don't care if they never make another version or if they make a hundred versions of "Jane Eyre." I'll watch this one for the rest of my life. I got my very own copy of it in the mail today. I'm glad I hadn't been aware of its existence until two months ago. I don't think I would have survived without it for 35 years. It is the only version that truly respects the genius in Charlotte Bronte's writing, and doesn't presume to improve or interpret it.

Other reviewers have already used the very words I wanted to use to describe this brilliant dramatization. Michael Jayston is the only actor who seems to have taken the trouble to read the book and all its finer points: his portrayal displays all the moods and traits in just the right tone and force of feeling. Sorcha Cusack is adorable and dignified; the language of her eyes is easily interpreted by Jayston's Rochester. All the other actors are also perfect impersonations. If only we could give them a charm or a philter to make them look young again - we would make them re-film the complete dialogues.

Admittedly, I didn't at first take to this version. The script is faithful to the book (as I soon found by re-reading all the scenes), but I deemed the acting too theatrical, the outdoor sets too one-dimensional; and Michael Jayston's looks were not to my taste. On second viewing I found that the acting matched exactly Charlotte Bronte's narrative. The third viewing proved that a loving eye is all the charm needed to endear Rochester's looks to me. (I have now copied a picture of Jayston's Rochester as a computer background, and I look out for his appearance in re-runs of "Darling Buds of May" and "Foyle's War.")

Most importantly, this is the effect the superb interpretation of this version had on me: it re-transformed me from India-rubber back to flesh. Over the years of my mid-life crisis I ceased to believe in any form of love. Humanity, to me, seemed one mass of bad, hard-hearted individuals. JE 73 has opened new meaning and deepened my understanding of what Charlotte Bronte had really wanted to say in her novel. I had always considered her book to be my manifesto since teenage years - now it has become a revelation to me, has opened the doors of the soul's cell.