In This Section
|
« Masterpiece Theatre
January 28, 2007: Jane Eyre, Part 2
I want to be Jane Eyre when I grow up, and the remarkable strength of character she shows in this second half of the miniseries is why.
After a childhood of abuse and 10 years of absence, Jane's called to the deathbed of her wicked Aunt Reed. A lesser novelist may have granted Aunt Reed a deathbed conversion to kindness, but not our harshly realistic Charlotte: The old witch is still as mean as ever. But Jane's reaction to Aunt Reed's hate-spew is one of kindness and forgiveness. Without acting the least bit victimized, she holds Aunt Reed's hand and tells her that she'll love her no matter how she's treated by her. It's astounding, easily the most affecting moment in the film. Three cheers for Jane — heck, make it 10.
This is one of the reasons Charlotte Brontë's story is so far ahead of its time: She was a proto-child psychologist, a writer who looked at how children develop into healthy adults (or unhealthy adults, as the case may be), and how human dignity and resilience in the face of childhood trauma and isolation can play a big role in healthy growth. The parlor scene in the first half of the miniseries — in which Rochester's party guests debate the nature vs. nurture/good blood vs. bad blood/kindness as a tool for bringing out the good in people is a prime example of this. (I don't remember this conversation from the book. Was this added in for the movie, anyone?) A lot of you have posted comments mentioning that the miniseries skipped a huge chunk of Jane's formative years at school, which included more junk for her to endure but also featured the beneficial friendships of Helen and Jane's teacher. I agree that this is one of the film's flaws — we missed out on a lot of the formative things that make Jane Jane. I imagine the filmmakers did it to speed things along to the bodice-ripping Rochester story line, and also to negotiate room for the even split between Parts 1 and 2, which takes place as Jane is called away from Thornfield to see Aunt Reed. A perfect spot for an intermission, but unfortunately, it probably meant that her school years got some heavy editing.
Another aspect of the film that people have posted comments about has been the film's gray-tone color scheme. It is a mostly washed-out gray-and-blue scale, but there are a couple of carefully chosen exceptions to that: Jane's red kerchief, which she puts on the night after she saves Rochester's life, and the long red scarf that Bertha Rochester hangs out of her upstairs window. The red tones represent the passionate, lusty, even bestial side of mankind: Jane wears it when she's feeling flirty, and Bertha wears it as a symbol of her wild, untamed, passionate side. In the book this juxtaposition takes on a nationalistic aspect. For Rochester, Jane is a representation of the calm, reasoned, gray beauty of England, while Lady Rochester is the wild, maddening, angry but insatiably sexual aspect of the Tropics. Lady Rochester is in this way an utterly gothic character, but Brontë's national prejudice is also directed against the Gallic: Rochester continually mocks little French Adèle, who is portrayed as a flighty, frivolous strumpet-in-the-making. Charlotte Brontë sure loves her countrywomen.
Of course, in the first half of the story, Jane is a bit too English — she's all practicality and austerity. A lot of her story with Rochester is her education in emotion — how to feel it and express it. Rochester can help her with that from his years of lustful training (thanks in great part to Bertha), and it all peaks for her in her big confessional scene with him, when she cries and asks if he thinks she can't feel just because she's plain. Plain Jane or no, how sexy was that interchange?! I nearly fainted dead, just like a Victorian aunt. By the way, Toby Stephens: too handsome to play Rochester? A redhead seems a strange choice, although Stephens' stout and stocky frame is perfect casting.
Speaking of Bertha Rochester, I was struck by how pretty she was. In the book, she's described as an absolute beast, utterly savage. Here she seemed rather daft, weirdly coquettish, certainly with a vicious temper but relatively well-kept considering her living quarters. What did you guys think, was this alteration a feminist modernization of a pretty controversially sexual character? If you're as fascinated by Rochester's wife as I am, I'd suggest reading Wide Sargasso Sea, by Jean Rhys. It tells the tale of the couple's pre-England years of marriage, all from Bertha's point of view.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2007 10:33 PM
|
I loved this novel from when I first read it as a little English girl. As an adult I have come to appreciate it even more. Ruth Wilson as Jane Eyre is superb and the witty repartee and the underlying sexual tension between Jane and Rochester is breathtaking. I think that the dark and grayish tones with the flashes of color are appropriate and enhance the atmosphere. I avidly watch Masterpiece Theatre and this version is thoroughly enjoyable.
What really stood out is the passion between the two leads and the way that they consider each other their equal, disregarding their social and economic backgrounds. Toby Stephens, although too handsome as Rochester as Ruth Wilson is too pretty to be considered plain, effectively show the struggle to fight against the love he did not feel he deserves. A love that is in direct opposition to what he once coveted. The role of Bertha Mason is given a modern twist and is slightly sexed up in keeping with this adaptation. Although not in keeping with the book it shows how Rochester could be seduced and bewitched, succumbing to passion of the body rather than the mind which he later finds with Jane.
Part one did miss out on a lot of the background of Jane Eyre and her school girl years, but understood for time purposes. I agree that the best scene is when Jane breaks down and professes her love and Rochester confesses his. Makes me want to take long walks and roll around the countryside.
|
|
Jan 29, 2007 3:57 AM
|
|
Thanks for the great blog. I was one who questioned the washed out color scheme in this production, but I now think you must be right, and I accept your explanation. However, wouldn't it have made sense to add more color in the concluding scenes? After all, passion triumphs. In fact, those were among my favorite moments in the film. Jane and Edward banter wittily, and it's clear that they're going to live "happily ever after." Truly, a superior treatment of the book.
|
|
Jan 29, 2007 9:47 AM
|
|
I loved this remake. I agree that Toby Stephens is probably too handsome to play Mr. Rochester, but he is such a wonderful actor that I am happy he was cast in the part. The chemistry between the two leads was fantastic. I have looked up Toby Stephens to see what other movies and TV shows he has done so I could see them. As far as the color scheme, I appreciate your explanation of it. I liked the color scheme and felt it worked.
|
|
Jan 29, 2007 1:32 PM
|
|
This adaptation of Jane Eyre is my new Pride and Prejudice. I have traded in Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy for Toby Stephens' Rochester. I really feel that only the length of a television miniseries can do justice to classic novels without sacrificing key story elements. This is the only version I've seen that really got the way that Jane and Rochester speak to each other, the only one that colored in the nuance where other versions have made them more somber and formal than they really are. I'm not at all sorry that the Lowood portion of the tale was the most edited. The important parts of Jane are those that Lowood attempted to beat out of her and the best portions of the story are when she is with Rochester, who recognizes the red underside of the grey bird's wings and the passionate nature that has been suppressed. Great casting, great acting, beautiful filming-- I haven't been this pleased with a literary adaptation in a long time. I want to be Jane Eyre when I grow up too.
|
|
Jan 29, 2007 2:20 PM
|
As someone who has adored the novel and is rather loyal to the Joan Fontaine/Orson Welles film version, I was prepared to dislike this adaptation (as I have some of previous ones) when I started watching Part 1. However, it immediately won me over, and I spent a week anxiously awaiting the conclusion; I wasn't disappointed.
Though Jane's childhood isn't given the full treatment, all in all it's a fantastic version that I think did justice to the novel. I agree that Toby Stephens is too handsome as Rochester (making all the comments about his being "ugly" somewhat improbable), but he's utterly magnetic and the sexiest Rochester I've seen thus far. Furthermore, the chemistry between him and Ruth Wilson's Jane – whew! I think I swooned about half a dozen times during their passionate love scenes. I also agree that this adaptation captured something in the interaction between Jane and Rochester, a touch of playfulness and humor that previous versions lacked. This is definitely up there with the BBC Pride & Prejudice as one of my favorite literary adaptations.
|
|
Jan 29, 2007 3:02 PM
|
I agree with many of the other posters here, that this adaptation of Jane Eyre far surpasses any other I have seen.
As an occasional fan of Victorian literature, I have always felt that Charlotte Bronte's novel about a plain girl rising above her upbringing had more in common with Jane Austen than her grave sister, Emily.
This was the first adaptation that captured the spirit of Jane and cracking facade of Rochester. Surely, the actress was not plain and Toby Stephens was not ugly (Gatsby-sigh), but I certainly will not complain about that.
There's nothing better than a Sunday night with a great Masterpiece Theatre film.
|
|
Jan 29, 2007 4:26 PM
|
Wow! What a production! Part 2 was even better than part 1! This is by far the sexiest version that I have ever seen - not that I am objecting. Like others said, the chemistry between these two actors fairly leapt off the screen and fits the two emotional and passionate characters that Charlotte Bronte described in her novel.
Michelle, to answer your questions, there was no good blood-bad blood conversation in the book but the haughty and cold Lady Ingram would have expressed such sentiments. I agree that while Toby Stephens was probably too good looking, his stocky build did correspond with the book's description of Edward Rochester. When watching last night, I was also struck by Bertha's appearance and wondered if the casting director was inspired by "Wide Sargasso Sea" (good book but the 1993 film was disappointing). If you think about it, if Bertha was very beautiful, her appearance probably would not have changed so much that she would be monstrous-looking but to the Victorian mind, insanity was animalistic and so that is how a mad woman would be portrayed in Miss Bronte's book.
Kathy3390, if you get BBC America, check out Toby Stephens in "The Best Man", in which he plays a very different role from Edward Rochester. It was broadcast for a second time last week and I think that it will be shown next month again because BBCA usually shows something around three times.
BTW, I just checked for anyone who is interested, the DVD will be available on Amazon.com by 2/20/07.
|
|
Jan 29, 2007 7:58 PM
|
Michelle, it's interesting that you mentioned Wide Sargasso Sea, the BBC aired a new version of the story to coincide with the airing of Jane Eyre. I've read mixed reviews about it.
Now as for Jane Eyre, I definitely liked the last two installments the best. I thought the acting was excellent, the moores looked especially depressing, just how I pictured it when I read the book, poor Jane walking around in a daze with no money and no one in the world.
I had my doubts about Toby Stephens, but he won me over. I surprised myself over how much I liked this version.
As for Bertha, to answer your question of 'was this alteration a feminist modernization of a pretty controversially sexual character', I don't think so. I had the same thought, but I think they were trying to explain to you why Rochester fell in love with her, she was beautiful and had an air around her. Perhaps also, you've got a mad woman locked in the attic of your house, who happens to be your wife, that's horrible, but if she's shown like she's kept well and comfortable, well it's more forgiving, even though she stabbed her brother and set things on fire. Back when the book was written, well everyone thought the mad looked and acted like that, now a days people are better educated, one would hope anyway. I definitely think it was to show the audience that Rochester was taking good care of her, to make him look less like an s.o.b. about it, because after all he could of put her in an insane asylum.
|
|
Jan 30, 2007 5:54 AM
|
|
Blueeyed Sara: Thanks. I do get BBCAmerica and I will look up The Best Man in the schedule and make sure to see it. I just watched Toby Stephens in "The Queen's Sister" and enjoyed it. Kathy
|
|
Jan 30, 2007 11:36 AM
|
|
|
