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.

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.

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!

I think that Samantha Morton's Jane Eyre in Robert Young's 1997 TV adaptation of the great novel, could've been the best screen Jane ever. Morton was 20 years old and the closest in age to the young orphaned governess, childlike in the appearance but strong willed, serene yet very intelligent with acute sense of right or wrong. Two years prior to her Oscar nominated role as a mute girl in Woody Allen's "Sweet and Lowdown", Morton proved that she could say a lot by the mere look at her face, by her impressive and speaking eyes alone. It is sad that the film took too many liberties with the book and not only in omitting many important plot lines in order to fit in its 108 minutes length, but with too many changes to the very nature of the novel's two main characters and their relationship. Jane in the scenes with her employer is sometimes too demanding and not as tactful as she is in the book. The changes are especially obvious in Mr. Edward Rochester as he was played by Ciaran Hinds. Hinds is a talented, intense actor but I can't agree or like his reading and interpreting of Mr. Rochester's character. Some his scenes in the film made me cringe. Mr. Edward Rochester of the novel was not yelling or rather barking brute - it was difficult for me to believe that Jane Eyre would come to love so much. I also was unpleasantly surprised with Mr. Rochester openly displaying his affection for Adele. This manifestation was against the logic of his character.

This movie is a watered-down and anemic portrayal of the novel, Jane Eyre.

Ironically, I read "Jane Eyre" because I caught PART of this movie on A&E one morning & thought that it looked good. I'm really glad that I didn't stay to watch the whole movie. If I did, I may never have read the book.

I finished the book today, and enjoyed it completely. I ran around all day looking for this movie, hoping to see a powerful and moving enactment of the beautiful, slightly supernatural tale. I am really glad I was able to rent it. If I'd bought it, I would be quite irritated right now.

I think that most of the problems with this movie lay in the writing. It seems to me that the screenwriter(s) sacrificed the best parts of the book in order to make the movie less than two hours. All of the things that I looked forward to seeing were gone or changed.

For the most part, I think the acting was good. But what was up with those kissing scenes? Jane looked pretty uncomfortable. Why didn't the director orchestrate the scene so that we did not have to see the actual 'kissing?' Clearly, the actors were not as passionate about each other as the characters were, but did we really have to see that?