Jane Eyre

Many reviewers loved this version; many hated it. And that is exactly as it should be. There are many possible interpretations of good literature, just as every person's character has many different facets. Versions of Shakespeare's plays have been enacted for hundreds of years and still every version represents something different about humankind, especially if there is innovation in the production, script or acting.

I first read Jane Eyre when I was about 8, nearly 60 years ago. It was the first book I ever cried over and it's fair to say that was part of my emotional development. I have read it many times and seen many filmed versions since - and I still love it, simply because it is fresh every time as different aspects reveal themselves - either because they are in the book or because the book resonates differently with me as I change.

So please open your mind when you watch this - and other - versions of the Bronte books. In my view it is not perfect, but few productions ever are. Even so, it was interesting, enjoyable and a joy to watch.

I usually like Samantha Morton, but her blankness didn't serve her well as Jane Eyre. She seemed too passive as well. Hinds just overwhelmed her (and maybe that was their point because the character does do that in the book ...at first).

I really thought they lacked any kind of sexual energy however and Hinds was generally too gruff and wild. Of course I've just seen him in Rome. He's an amazing actor and able to play "big" very well. But when you play a romantic lead, it's the little details that count. He came off more as a bully than a man desperate to find love and redemption.

Of course, any performance is better than William Hurt's! Shudder. Rochester should never, ever be played by a fair-haired man. Unless Daniel Craig decides to play him. Against Keira Knightly! Just teasing.

The latest A&E production of Jane Eyre was short but satisfying. While it might have benefited from being longer, they managed to tell the basic story and retain the emotional impact. Unless you're an unforgiving purist, the cuts shouldn't detract from your appreciation of the movie. And if you are an unforgiving purist (there is nothing wrong with that), go find a copy of the Timothy Dalton '83 adaptation.

The biggest point of contention seems to be the performance styles. Peoples' takes on the way Mr. Rochester should be played tend to vary. I've seen the productions with William Hurt and George C. Scott criticized for having a Rochester who was so restrained he might as well have been the heroine in a Jane Austin novel. These people felt Rochester should be played passionately and with fire. After all, he's a manipulative would-be bigamist. Then there are people who feel Hinds was too wild in his portrayal of Rochester and a more restrained, subtle approach was warranted.

If you want a restrained, subtle Rochester, don't watch this version or the Timothy Dalton BBC production from '83. Go for the William Hurt or George C. Scott adaptations of Jane Eyre. If you're like me and you'd prefer a wilder Rochester, you'll probably enjoy both the '97 A&E and '83 BBC productions.

This is a superb adaptation of the novel -- the leads couldn't be better cast, or better acted. Jane, who is intelligent, introspective and highly-principled, yet shy and insecure, and Mr. Rochester, who is emotionally-distant, secretive, and conflicted. Both are lonely, but they do serendipitously meet and fall in love.

Samantha Morton is the first Jane who looks, acts and speaks like the Jane I know from the novel. And Ciaran Hinds, with his awkward, gruff demeanor and off-putting behavior is perfect. The excellent production values enhance the emotion and direction of the plot. If you are as passionate about British literature as I am, this film will thrill you. Even as I write this, I am re-experiencing the very intense emotion of the scene when Jane is about to leave Rochester's estate. It is a very moving scene and I have never forgotten it.

This is the real thing.

I am an unforgiving purist and my favourite version of Jane Eyre has to be the BBC version with Timothy Dalton playing Rochester as an attractive, witty, sensitive, firm and fascinating man. Edward Rochester is one of fiction's greatest romantic heroes and Ciaran Hinds played him as a selfish bully to whom I had difficulty believing Jane would have been attracted. There wasn't enough time to show the development of their friendship, so Jane's love appeared unconvincing. In fact, I felt that taken at face value, this Jane would only have loved this Rochester because she had no previous experience with men and was pushed into it. The truth of their relationship as written in the novel is completely different: that of mutual respect and understanding, as two solitary people often misunderstood by others but who become soul mates. This is what draws me to the book and why I often feel dissatisfied with adaptations. The development of Jane Eyre as a person is its most important theme - she has a deprived and abused childhood and only by finding Thornfield and its inhabitants is she allowed to blossom. One important thing missing here was Jane's financial independence at the end, which emphasises her real status and voluntary return to Rochester. I also didn't like the re-writing of almost all the dialogue, because Charlotte Bronte's original text is wonderful and more evocative. I don't believe it is possible to do justice to this unique story in any adaptation of this length - only a multi-part mini series can give enough time to fill in all the important details. I look forward to the latest BBC version with Toby Stephens as Rochester!

Above all, read the book!