(no subject)
It probably has not escaped your notice that I have been watching a ton of Lost lately. In the midst of this I also happened to check out the 1983 adaptation of Jane Eyre from the library. I've had it on request for ages and it finally came through a few weeks ago... so I picked it up, got distracted by Lost, meant to watch it, didn't have a chance, got my "friendly due date" reminder yesterday, was all set to renew it online and then just watch it later in the week -- AND GUESS WHAT? "NO RENEWALS AVAILABLE ON THIS ITEM." Just dandy. Like I said, I had been waiting FOREVER to watch this mini and I hated to take it back unviewed, so... yes. I just watched the whole thing. All 311 minutes. Oh, Timothy Dalton, why do you do this to me?
Not gonna lie, I love the everloving heck out of Timothy Dalton and will watch basically anything he is in (in fact this is one of my stated life goals), and Jane Eyre also happens to be my favorite book ever (or it was the last time I read it, which was sadly like five years ago or something, back when I was still literate), so. Yes. I lusted after this adaptation mightily. And...? Hm. I am uncertain as to how I feel about it. There were a lot of things I liked about it, but... is it just me, or is this possibly the most un-romantic adaptation of the book ever? Not just in the sexytimes sense, but in the "romanticism"/mystery/a hint of supernatural sense. I don't know if I necessarily mean this as a criticism, because it certainly made for a unique and unexpected viewing experience, and definitely made me look at the story in a much different way. It seems quite stripped down from Jane's POV -- all of her internal narration is so inquisitive and impassioned, and yet she keeps her exterior very guarded (that is -- I think she's an expressive person in the book, but always in a very thoughtful and considered as opposed to an off-the-cuff way), so it seems like all of the events in this series are just very -- unfiltered, I suppose, is the word I'm looking for? All of the Gateshead stuff -- when you read the book, you're like UGH JOHN SERIOUSLY YOU'RE SUCH A DICKFACE and then AHHHHHHH SERIOUSLY THERE IS A FUCKING GHOST IN HERE, WHAT THE HELL, but in the mini it comes across more like... yeah, her cousins are pretty bratty, but this is just normal kid stuff and all of her, "It's not fair! Nobody loves me!" accusations are fairly standard pre-pubescent angst. I thought wee Jane was EXCELLENT, but it was just like... a disconnect between what you could see the character feeling, and then how the validity of that feeling was presented to the audience? That completely carried over into the Jane/Rochester romance, too. For the first time ever I found myself understanding why so many people hate his character, ha. That is to say -- I've always understood why people thought he did a lot of shitty things because, uh, he did, but I never saw that as negating the relationship he has with Jane. What I've always cherished about the Brontes' novels is that there is no self-insert romance in them. You don't want the heroine to get the guy because oh, he is so dreamysigh, and I am totally fantasizing about hooking up with him (YES I AM LOOKING AT YOU, "LOST IN AUSTEN"). Heathcliff is a sick, crazy bastard, but so is Cathy and they're the only two people who ever truly get one another. Edward is a debauched middle-aged spoiled man-boy who prides himself on epic self-pity, while Jane is years ahead of him in emotional maturity and yet put constantly off-balance in her search for home and family, and they each help the other break down a lot of that baggage and understand that hardships do not have to be borne alone -- and, again, they're kind of the only two who "get" each other. MY FAVORITE KIND OF SHIP, RIGHT THERE -- when, go figure, it's actually about the characters involved, regardless of how favorable they might otherwise seem to romantic fantasies, or because we just need any hero and any heroine to be slapped together.
ANYWAY. Where was I going with this? Right. So, yes, in the book I've always gotten a strong sense of why Jane falls in love with him -- they have adorable flirty chats, she punches a hole in his annoying posturing, he gives solid experience to her theories on human nature. It's mutual! In this series, though, it did come across as more manipulated -- possibly because Rochester has more of an outwardly forceful personality, and we miss out on all of Jane's internal commentary (look, I'm no fan of voiceover, but it can be useful!), so there isn't that immediate sense of her being the stronger person in the situation. This mini really highlights the physical difference, too -- ZELAH IS SO TINY, OMG -- and there's all this extra emphasis on dude, seriously, SHE'S ONLY 18 and is really getting taken advantage of -- so basically the way Mrs. Fairfax sees the relationship, I guess? Again, very much detached. I'm not sure if it was necessarily an issue of chemistry -- the Jane/Edward physical scenes, though sparse, are quite powerful -- but it did seem to skip over much of the foreplay and cut straight to the "YOU WILL BE MY WIFE!!!" I think they worked best for me in the last episode which, again, was an interesting change of events. Back in my wow-did-I-really-used-to-be-scholarly? days, I'd read plenty of critical articles about how Rochester had to go through the fire because Jane couldn't be with him until she achieved superiority in the moral and physical, which... I never quite got before, but was very present here.
So? Yeah? It was weird -- like, a much different perspective from what I've had on the book, a perspective I've heard many times and never quite felt myself -- and yet suddenly that perspective was perfectly explicated in this mini. So I don't quite know if that makes me like it or not; it still feels a half-step different from "my" Jane Eyre, and yet is so closely rooted in the text that I'm like, wait, was I just missing this the whole time? But I think that romanticism element is such an essential part of the novel, not just in the way of "Jane is naive in the ways of love and reads too many adventure novels" a la Northanger Abbey or something, but as a legitimate life view, where cheesy soul-mate-y notions really do exist, and there is a string betwixt their ribcages, and they do hear each other calling out across the moors and other such nonsense. Jane as a character does walk a fine line between rationalism and romanticism, and I think the adaptation leans a bit too much to one side.
Now that I have that shippy ramble out of the way...
-SERIOUSLY, THOUGH, BOTH JANES WERE SO GREAT. The different tone I'm talking about came from the way it was presented, not from the character acting itself, and I thought both child- and grown-up-Jane were so so so perfect to the novel. LOVE.
-NEES MOAR HELEN BURNS. I mean, what? Isn't that the transition point from "strike back at the wicked" child!Jane to "forgive Aunt Reed freely" adult!Jane? Harumph.
-OH THANK CHRIST, FINALLY AN ADAPTATION IN WHICH ROCHESTER DRESSES UP AS THE GYPSY. YES YES YES YES YES THIS IS LITERALLY ONE OF MY MOST FAVORITE SCENES FROM THE BOOK. A+++++++
-Oh man, St. John! Usually he gets so downplayed, but the benefit of a tortuous 11-episode adaptation is that he gets his full screentime! YES he was perrrrfect. Oh my god, the scene where he basically seduces Jane by reading from the Bible (Revelation, too, her favorite book! I completely forgot about that until just now) -- amaaaaaaaazing. His crazy kinky emotional repression was so spot on. Sorry, Samuel West, but you have been replaced as my favorite St. John.
-This made me really really really want to rewatch the Ruth Wilson/Toby Stephens version (I thought it was a bit confusing in places, but ZOMG SO SO SO GORGEOUS); and now after trolling the IMDb boards, I kind of want to rewatch the William Hurt one, too, even though I remember not liking it much. And then I just want to watch ALL OF THEM EVER because, you know, why not? I'll go ahead and put it to a vote:
Do you have a favorite Jane Eyre adaptation that I should add to my immediate MUST BE WATCHED list? (Knowing you all, I'm sure Toby Stephens is probably going to win, ha. DON'T WORRY, GUYS, ALREADY ON THE LIST.) Also, all of hulamoth's postings are now prompting me to check out Ivanhoe (never seen/read any of it! I'm so inexperienced!). And... and... hmm, what other minis do I have next to watch? Go ahead, rec away. (Or, if you're feeling truly adventuresome, you could also rec some actual books in case I somehow magically remember how to read -- but I'm facing a mass of airplane travel next month and will most certainly need something to keep me amused.)
Not gonna lie, I love the everloving heck out of Timothy Dalton and will watch basically anything he is in (in fact this is one of my stated life goals), and Jane Eyre also happens to be my favorite book ever (or it was the last time I read it, which was sadly like five years ago or something, back when I was still literate), so. Yes. I lusted after this adaptation mightily. And...? Hm. I am uncertain as to how I feel about it. There were a lot of things I liked about it, but... is it just me, or is this possibly the most un-romantic adaptation of the book ever? Not just in the sexytimes sense, but in the "romanticism"/mystery/a hint of supernatural sense. I don't know if I necessarily mean this as a criticism, because it certainly made for a unique and unexpected viewing experience, and definitely made me look at the story in a much different way. It seems quite stripped down from Jane's POV -- all of her internal narration is so inquisitive and impassioned, and yet she keeps her exterior very guarded (that is -- I think she's an expressive person in the book, but always in a very thoughtful and considered as opposed to an off-the-cuff way), so it seems like all of the events in this series are just very -- unfiltered, I suppose, is the word I'm looking for? All of the Gateshead stuff -- when you read the book, you're like UGH JOHN SERIOUSLY YOU'RE SUCH A DICKFACE and then AHHHHHHH SERIOUSLY THERE IS A FUCKING GHOST IN HERE, WHAT THE HELL, but in the mini it comes across more like... yeah, her cousins are pretty bratty, but this is just normal kid stuff and all of her, "It's not fair! Nobody loves me!" accusations are fairly standard pre-pubescent angst. I thought wee Jane was EXCELLENT, but it was just like... a disconnect between what you could see the character feeling, and then how the validity of that feeling was presented to the audience? That completely carried over into the Jane/Rochester romance, too. For the first time ever I found myself understanding why so many people hate his character, ha. That is to say -- I've always understood why people thought he did a lot of shitty things because, uh, he did, but I never saw that as negating the relationship he has with Jane. What I've always cherished about the Brontes' novels is that there is no self-insert romance in them. You don't want the heroine to get the guy because oh, he is so dreamysigh, and I am totally fantasizing about hooking up with him (YES I AM LOOKING AT YOU, "LOST IN AUSTEN"). Heathcliff is a sick, crazy bastard, but so is Cathy and they're the only two people who ever truly get one another. Edward is a debauched middle-aged spoiled man-boy who prides himself on epic self-pity, while Jane is years ahead of him in emotional maturity and yet put constantly off-balance in her search for home and family, and they each help the other break down a lot of that baggage and understand that hardships do not have to be borne alone -- and, again, they're kind of the only two who "get" each other. MY FAVORITE KIND OF SHIP, RIGHT THERE -- when, go figure, it's actually about the characters involved, regardless of how favorable they might otherwise seem to romantic fantasies, or because we just need any hero and any heroine to be slapped together.
ANYWAY. Where was I going with this? Right. So, yes, in the book I've always gotten a strong sense of why Jane falls in love with him -- they have adorable flirty chats, she punches a hole in his annoying posturing, he gives solid experience to her theories on human nature. It's mutual! In this series, though, it did come across as more manipulated -- possibly because Rochester has more of an outwardly forceful personality, and we miss out on all of Jane's internal commentary (look, I'm no fan of voiceover, but it can be useful!), so there isn't that immediate sense of her being the stronger person in the situation. This mini really highlights the physical difference, too -- ZELAH IS SO TINY, OMG -- and there's all this extra emphasis on dude, seriously, SHE'S ONLY 18 and is really getting taken advantage of -- so basically the way Mrs. Fairfax sees the relationship, I guess? Again, very much detached. I'm not sure if it was necessarily an issue of chemistry -- the Jane/Edward physical scenes, though sparse, are quite powerful -- but it did seem to skip over much of the foreplay and cut straight to the "YOU WILL BE MY WIFE!!!" I think they worked best for me in the last episode which, again, was an interesting change of events. Back in my wow-did-I-really-used-to-be-scholarly? days, I'd read plenty of critical articles about how Rochester had to go through the fire because Jane couldn't be with him until she achieved superiority in the moral and physical, which... I never quite got before, but was very present here.
So? Yeah? It was weird -- like, a much different perspective from what I've had on the book, a perspective I've heard many times and never quite felt myself -- and yet suddenly that perspective was perfectly explicated in this mini. So I don't quite know if that makes me like it or not; it still feels a half-step different from "my" Jane Eyre, and yet is so closely rooted in the text that I'm like, wait, was I just missing this the whole time? But I think that romanticism element is such an essential part of the novel, not just in the way of "Jane is naive in the ways of love and reads too many adventure novels" a la Northanger Abbey or something, but as a legitimate life view, where cheesy soul-mate-y notions really do exist, and there is a string betwixt their ribcages, and they do hear each other calling out across the moors and other such nonsense. Jane as a character does walk a fine line between rationalism and romanticism, and I think the adaptation leans a bit too much to one side.
Now that I have that shippy ramble out of the way...
-SERIOUSLY, THOUGH, BOTH JANES WERE SO GREAT. The different tone I'm talking about came from the way it was presented, not from the character acting itself, and I thought both child- and grown-up-Jane were so so so perfect to the novel. LOVE.
-NEES MOAR HELEN BURNS. I mean, what? Isn't that the transition point from "strike back at the wicked" child!Jane to "forgive Aunt Reed freely" adult!Jane? Harumph.
-OH THANK CHRIST, FINALLY AN ADAPTATION IN WHICH ROCHESTER DRESSES UP AS THE GYPSY. YES YES YES YES YES THIS IS LITERALLY ONE OF MY MOST FAVORITE SCENES FROM THE BOOK. A+++++++
-Oh man, St. John! Usually he gets so downplayed, but the benefit of a tortuous 11-episode adaptation is that he gets his full screentime! YES he was perrrrfect. Oh my god, the scene where he basically seduces Jane by reading from the Bible (Revelation, too, her favorite book! I completely forgot about that until just now) -- amaaaaaaaazing. His crazy kinky emotional repression was so spot on. Sorry, Samuel West, but you have been replaced as my favorite St. John.
-This made me really really really want to rewatch the Ruth Wilson/Toby Stephens version (I thought it was a bit confusing in places, but ZOMG SO SO SO GORGEOUS); and now after trolling the IMDb boards, I kind of want to rewatch the William Hurt one, too, even though I remember not liking it much. And then I just want to watch ALL OF THEM EVER because, you know, why not? I'll go ahead and put it to a vote:
Do you have a favorite Jane Eyre adaptation that I should add to my immediate MUST BE WATCHED list? (Knowing you all, I'm sure Toby Stephens is probably going to win, ha. DON'T WORRY, GUYS, ALREADY ON THE LIST.) Also, all of hulamoth's postings are now prompting me to check out Ivanhoe (never seen/read any of it! I'm so inexperienced!). And... and... hmm, what other minis do I have next to watch? Go ahead, rec away. (Or, if you're feeling truly adventuresome, you could also rec some actual books in case I somehow magically remember how to read -- but I'm facing a mass of airplane travel next month and will most certainly need something to keep me amused.)