I just finished watching "Jane Eyre" for the second time (the "Zelah Clarke version"), then followed it up by watching the "Samantha Morton version." By far, the first is much closer to the original writing than the second. Hands down, a great production.
After reading many of the commentaries about the characters, I would like to add my opinion on the casting of Jane and Rochester. Some have said that Zelah was too old to portray Jane. I disagree. When looking through archives and portrayals of young people from that era of history, most already looked "old." And remember, Jane had been in a "charity home" for many years -- hard life, poor food, strict discipline and sickness all make one age quickly. I recall seeing photos of young underground mine workers from the turn of the 20th century; their bodies were "young," but their faces were grave and "old." I think Zelah was a perfect choice. As for Jane's assessment of Rochester as "not handsome," again, from the standpoint of that day and from her view as a Christian woman, he would indeed be "not handsome." Christian beliefs would call her to view him in that light. His face certainly was not a "mirror reflecting the light of the Lord"! By his own admission, he rather looked like a "Vulcan." And, at that time, he had not allowed any to see that he did have a softer interior than his face and demeanor would imply. I must admit that the "Samantha Morton version" with her "softer" Rochester made me more sympathetic to his cause; however, Dalton's stern Rochester is definitely more like the typical, arrogant English landowner of that day. Anyone who knows Yorkshire as I do will agree that this is a tough climate that yields tough people.
Well, all said, I would recommend this to anyone who loves films that stick as close to the original story as possible. I, too, enjoyed the dialogue, in its archaic form. It has a music and poetry not present in today's spoken tongue.
After reading many of the commentaries about the characters, I would like to add my opinion on the casting of Jane and Rochester. Some have said that Zelah was too old to portray Jane. I disagree. When looking through archives and portrayals of young people from that era of history, most already looked "old." And remember, Jane had been in a "charity home" for many years -- hard life, poor food, strict discipline and sickness all make one age quickly. I recall seeing photos of young underground mine workers from the turn of the 20th century; their bodies were "young," but their faces were grave and "old." I think Zelah was a perfect choice. As for Jane's assessment of Rochester as "not handsome," again, from the standpoint of that day and from her view as a Christian woman, he would indeed be "not handsome." Christian beliefs would call her to view him in that light. His face certainly was not a "mirror reflecting the light of the Lord"! By his own admission, he rather looked like a "Vulcan." And, at that time, he had not allowed any to see that he did have a softer interior than his face and demeanor would imply. I must admit that the "Samantha Morton version" with her "softer" Rochester made me more sympathetic to his cause; however, Dalton's stern Rochester is definitely more like the typical, arrogant English landowner of that day. Anyone who knows Yorkshire as I do will agree that this is a tough climate that yields tough people.
Well, all said, I would recommend this to anyone who loves films that stick as close to the original story as possible. I, too, enjoyed the dialogue, in its archaic form. It has a music and poetry not present in today's spoken tongue.
Tell Your Friends