Jane Eyre (2006)

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

A Disappointing Continuation

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

I've known Jane Eyre for more than 40 years. I loved the book as a teen and kept on rereading it every now and then, until career and kids overtook the time IRL. Only this year I found it again, as films. Fascinated with the 2006 version, I watched all major adaptations in few months – and read the book again, several times. I have never before liked a film adaptation of a favorite book. This time I loved both. The situation was so exceptional that I started collecting film versions in order to understand, why and how this could be.IMHO, of all the adaptations that I've seen by now (including the 1944, 1973, 1983 and 2011 versions) the 2006 miniseries is by far closest to the Bronte's original Jane Eyre. Like the book, this version does give credible reasons for the folding of the story. Also, it shows how Jane matures from a socially isolated, passionate girl into an independent and self-respecting woman without losing her innate nature. This must have been shockingly modern in 1840's.I love Bronte's text, which it is used directly in some adaptations. However, faithful conversations lose their charm, if screenplay does not confirm it; or, even worse, if the ongoing story makes no sense. So, why would Rochester reluctantly ask help in Hay Lane, if he did not need it? Why would he be interested in a girl that shows no interest (he can't hear her thoughts)? And why would Jane even consider another bullying man in her life? Stuff like this is in many other adaptations.This version does not have the conversations as such. Instead, this adaptation faithfully presents the ideas baked in the original conversations and in Jane's mind. Thus the story presented in the book propagates throughout the film logically and inevitably like stacked dominoes. As Susanna Welsh said in an interview, it is all in the book, even the birds. And the passion. The illusion holds from the beginning to the lovely end.As for the looks, how does the book describe the main characters?Rochester, 37, was a man not tall but broad, past youth but not yet middle aged. He had an athletic body with trim waist and very broad shoulders, and a face of a bandit rather than a Victorian cherub, with intense eyes, "shaggy mane" and thick eyebrows as a bonus. In spite of his Gothic secret and quick moods, he was well liked in society, with an aura of energy that "lit up the room" and made people forget his bandit looks. Victorian Bronte would not call this sexual energy, but what else could it be, really? All this goes well with the Toby Stephens. However of all the actors that I have seen in this role, only he could become the complex Rochester with the awesome spread of feelings from anger, contempt, sarcasm and grief all the way to humor, affection, pity, love and heart-melting utter happiness.Adult Jane Eyre,18, was first described as young, small, plain and socially inexperienced. Then her looks improved hand in hand with her growing self-esteem. Although young, she had earned her living even before Thornfield. And as for the character: while Bronte's describes Rochester energetic, Jane was described as the passionate one. So, Jane had displayed her feelings already as a child, as unwanted as this must have been. She continued showing her feelings also in Thornfield, in spite of the Lowood breeding. She made a public scene only once, in utter stress, but the firebird is hiding inside all the time. Ruth Wilson is just lovely here. She seems to totally lose her own identity. With her fantastic eyes, facial expressions and body language she becomes the deeply feeling Jane with "that look" so well understood by a soul mate.

I did enjoy this version, but having read the book, I was left feeling 'insulted' on Bronte's behalf, and a potentially excellent mini-series was marred. Why? Well, we are used to watching things on the screen that are greatly changed from reality, and one learns to overlook the offending details - otherwise nothing would be enjoyable; and there is nothing wrong with a little poetic license. However, when something claims to be an adaptation of a classic work, one would hope that it would retain the core elements of that work.. I tried not to dwell too much on the omission of huge chunks of the book which depicts Jane's 'pre-Rochester' life. I even tried not to feel too indignant at Jane's lack of 'plain-ness': I feel that Ruth Wilson is more attractive than Bronte intended Jane to be.. However, when we meet Mr Rochester, and he is considerably more attractive than depicted in the book, I began to feel that the makers of this adaptation didn't see where Bronte was coming from at all.. It wasn't about physical attraction. Lord knows we see enough of that everywhere. It was about the connection of their 'inner selves', a meeting of minds and souls! When this Mr Rochester asks Jane if she can make him more handsome, it just sounds silly! What I object to mostly however, is the scenes following the wedding prior to Jane leaving. This was just so not how it was written. It does not fit with the book/Jane/Bronte at all. It's just plain wrong! They also watered down Edward's injuries at the end, as if Jane couldn't have loved him the way he was; then failed to inform us of the improvement in his condition.I'm a sucker for a good romance, so I still enjoyed it, and had I not read the book first I would have scored it 9. However, a few marks must be lost for the disregard shown to Ms Bronte's work.I'll watch the 1973 then 83 versions next. I only wish I'd read this stuff years ago!

I normally don't take the trouble to write reviews for films but I make an exception for this since Jane Eyre is, after all, my favourite book.There is a lot to say about this particular adaptation with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens - I'll start by listing the strengths.Firstly, I believe that this version is the most enjoyable for those who have never read Jane Eyre or do not possess too much attention to detail (in this case a plus). It also contains the strongest bond/spark between the two main characters portrayed, which in my opinion other versions have not done too well with. It is truly a romance and probably one of the best ever made.In terms of weaknesses, the biggest weakness for me is the script. Having read the book at least 10 times, I felt that the language was often butchered. Sentences were semi-modernised or summarised to be more easily understood by a less intelligent audience, as were the costumes. More importantly, the adapted script fails to portray Jane's strength of character and her integrity. You see her passion but you don't see her internal struggle or her success at avoiding temptation and remaining true to her beliefs.The actors were quite good and I think they did a great job, but due to limitations in the script, they did not portray the true characters of the book. Mr Rochester is less intimidating and less bitter while Jane is more expressive and less conservative. As a whole, I found this a little hard to watch, despite enjoying the exaggerated romance at times. If you're an avid fan of the book and care about accuracy, I would recommend the 1983 BBC adaptation with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. If you have already seen another adaptation then I haven't much to say because I strongly believe that the first one you see will always be your favourite. For all others, I would recommend this version, which appears to be the most popular and would be extremely enjoyable for those less obsessed or less pedantic than myself.

This version of Jane Eyre, is closest to the original yet felt most contemporary in spirit. You can see the passion flow between Jane and Mr. Rochester, everything feels so natural and realistic. While every other version seems to mistake restrain with dispassionate, this is the version you can really feel the character's effort and struggle suppressing their emotion. I have found in many version the character seem like emotionless classical statues, this version they seem to be your flash and blood neighbour.At first glance, the actress Ruth Wilson might not be one first choice to play Jane Eyre, some review at the time even said she had "the wrong lip", but once you finishing watching this series, I think you would find that her version of Jane Eyre might be the closest to what Charlotte Bronte had envision. While all the other actress play innocent and restrain very well, such as Charlotte Gainbourg or Mia Wasikowska but their version lack tenacity, which might be one of the vital reason why Jane Eyre never bow down at tough time. Samantha Morton's version come close with tenacity but seems to lack passion, Ruth Wilson's Jane is the only one that has the tenacity that make her survive her tough childhood and the passion to love so deeply.While some might say Toby Stephens, is too good looking to be Mr. Rochester, but at the end of the day this is a TV series and not a documentary. Toby manage the hard task to make Mr. Rochester harsh but charming, difficult but redeemable. Ruth and Toby make the perfect Jane and Edward on screen.Everyone so perfectly cast here, and the acting is superb, including the little Jane Eyre, St. John and the Rivers sisters, even Pilot the dog looks the part, except Blanche Ingram's hair ought to be black. There are so many memory scenes, their first meeting, the electrifying proposal scene, the 2nd proposal scenes in the end just to mention a few. If you like Jane Eyre, there's no reason not to check it out.