- You finish the book and want to start it over from the beginning
- You decide to write your own novel emulating it
- You actually sit down and write 45,000 words of aforementioned novel in a month
- And last, but not least, you track down every film version made that you can get your hands on, which in this case, is SIX.
Now, a film version of Jane Eyre can only be as good as it's two main characters, Jane and Rochester, and let me tell you, only one or two of these film Janes have gotten it right. I mean, I get it - Jane Eyre is supposed to be this extremely passionate woman, but who has trained herself to appear subdued appropriate and stoic to her station. And Rochester has to come off as appropriately bastardly and ugly, but still intriguing and with an inner goodness.
In order of Heather Decreed Awesomeness:
This version is perfection, no one else even comes close. The emotional revolution in Jane is awesome to watch, and Rochester is appropriatly dark, tortured, and sexy:
Masterpiece Theatre BBC 2006 Version (4 hours), Ruth Wilson, Toby Stephens
This was the last version I saw, and I really didn't think it would blow my socks off, frankly, because it was made in 1944. But when I realized that Rochester was played by none other than Orson Welles, and the screenplay adapted by Aldous Huxley, I knew I had to see it. And damn if Welles wasn't maybe the best, sexiest Rochester of the whole damn bunch. And Joan Fontaine was really good as Jane. Pretty awesome.
1944 Version, Orson Welles, Joan Fontaine (2 hours)
Now, here's the thing with this version, the only modern mainstream film version: I don't like William Hurt, and I thought I would hate him as a romantic lead. But damn if I wasn't completely wrong. He's still young enough when this version was made (1992), and he really captures the sarcasticly inviting side of Rochester. Jane, however, could have been played by a board and it would have come across about the same kind of emotional development as Charlotte Gainsburg did with this role. I mean, her face just doesn't move, and we have the problem that most of the rest of the Jane's in film do - we just don't see anything in her, especially nothing that would make the fiery Rochester even bother to be interested by her. The actresses don't manage to put off that vibe of a subdued passionate spirit - they just seem subdued.
1992 Version, William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsburg (2 hours)
The next version was a BBC 1973 version, and the sets felt like it was a play, but I was surprised by how fun the Rochester was, and Jane wasn't terrible, though she was annoying as hell by the end, and pretty dull.
1973 BBC Version (6 hours)
This version should have been higher, indeed, when I ordered it off Ebay because I thought I'd want to own it, I certainly had high hopes for it. I mean, Samantha Morton! And Ciaran Hinds, I mean, I've seen him in other stuff, and he's a good actor. But he should never, never, NEVER be a romantic lead. Or at least not in a role which he yells a lot, like he does here, because he has this screetching high pitched voice that could peel paint, it is so damn annoying. I don't even see how Jane can stand to be in the same room with him, much less want to make out with him. Plus, he has this really bad mustache. I mean, I get that Rochester is supposed to be ugly, but that ugly, and old, and with screechy tenor voice? Too much. Samantha Morton was good as Jane, in fact, better than both the two above, but it doesn't even matter with screechy yelling ugly guy.
1997 A&E Version, Samantha Morton, Ciaran Hinds (2 hours)
Now, I was a child of the 80's, and my dad loved James Bond - i.e., I saw a lot of the Timothy Dalton era Bond movies, and I loved every one of them. So I was prepared to like this version. But it was absolutely atrocious - the absolute worst. I don't know if it is just because the Jane is SO bad. I mean, really, really, REALLY bad. So I don't know if it's just that it would not be possible to ever have chemistry with a Jane that badly played, but Dalton comes off as pretty over-played and absolutely unbelievable (and not in a good way). I sat through all 6 excruciating hours of this, hoping it would get better. It never did.
1983 Version, Timothy Dalton, Zelah Clarke (6 hours)