Dalton Jane Eyre

Sorry, I`m not really sure what Virtual View means, but here`s my two cents: Jane Eyre is a favourite book with me, so I don`t think I will ever see one adaptation that, while being faithful to the book, has its vibrancy and drama. Even so, I liked the Dalton adaptation. Tim D. was quite a very good Rochester, very moving, full of life, Zelah Clarke was not the definite Jane, but it`s a difficult, I think. She wasn`t "plain", but she had a nice soft voice and some sparkle. Her acting seemed somewhat forced at times. Tim chewed a bit on his dialogue sometimes and went too far on the acting, but he was all emotion and THAT I liked. The rest of the characters were played very mechanically and without interest and that�s a shame, cause St John and Helen ,e.g., are great characters.

I have always had a fondness for this version of Jane Eyre, (IMO)definitely superior to the Orson Welles movie and the recent William Hurt film. Much more faithful to the book. I can't wait to see the Ciarian Hinds version! Zelah Clarke was entrancing as Jane, she looked/sounded the way I had always imagined. And as for Tim Dalton-he was a great, dark, brooding Rochester, maybe not the definitive one(can't wait to see CH), but a compelling one! The scene I remmember most vividly is when Bertha catches the bed on fire and Jane saves Rochester. Tim Dalton/Rochester looked like he wasn't going to let her go! Also, the scene(just after the secret is revealed) when Jane comes out of her room and falls into Rochester's arms. He was waiting for her to come out, wanted her "tears on his breast..."

I remember seeing this adaptation at least 8 years ago. I must say I still like it as well. It could have been a pre-obsessionn to my P&P2 obsession, if I'd had a VCR at the time to tape it. I liked both main characters. Timothy Dalton at times seemed cruel and heartless, but that was really how Rochester was written, playing games with the people he loved. He has a certain quality about him, one that would make many women fall in love I think. I especially liked the scene garden at night where they end up confessing their love. He looks truly like a man in love, wishing to express himself. They could have played up the repartee between them, as there were only a couple of scenes where ou could tell they were becoming friends.

I also liked Zelah Clarke. She really showed the understated qualities of Jane. She is pretty, but in an understated way. She is so tiny too. I confess I still cried when she hears him calling her name, then goes to fin blind and crippled. Their reconcilliation had me in tears again. His make-up when he was scarred left a lot to be desired (you could still see the eye he lost moving under the partial make-up. But that was probably the quality of the time when it was made). Overall, I would give it two thumbs up. And TD has some very CF qualities. I can't wait for the CH Jane Eyre. I just watched Emma3 yesterday, and rewound to the commercial for JE, just so I could see CH.

I also have enjoyed this version for many years. Like Andrea one of my favorite scenes is in the garden when they confess their love. Timothy Dalton Does overact on occasion. I squirm during the scene when Jane tells him she is leaving.The whole production, though is very nice and I think the best Jane Eyre available. What is a virtual viewing? I can't find an expanation anywhere.

I always like William Hurt since the Big Chill and do like his version of JE. TD version wasn't as good as Orson Welles. For me it is a toss-up between Welles and Hurt.I enjoyed these much more,it must be the way they were filmed and directed that really draws you in.TD version didn't do that for me.

What is a virtual viewing? I can't find an expanation anywhere Virtual Viewing is what we're doing here. We view a video virtually together and then discuss it.

Jane Eyre is a story which requires more than two hours to be told in anything close to it's original form. The problem with both the Orson Welles version and the more recent Zeffirelli film is that the length necessitates cutting and collapsing large parts of the story. This has always detracted from these films for me. The version being discussed here is long enough to encompass most of the story, including the sojourne with the Rivers which is given short shrift in the other versions. I think it ma es it a much more interesting story and gives an added piquancy to the eventual reunion. As has been mentioned, there is some tendancy to chew the scenery, but it is not a grave fault. The characters of Jane and Rochester and of St. John Rivers and his sisters are well defined and seem quite faithful. Of all the adaptations available, this is my favorite because it is the most faithful to the story and to the characters. I have a favorable recollection of another with George C. Scott and Suzannah York which, I think, also had this in its favor. It is, however, not generally available and it has been a very long time since I have seen it.

I believe virtual view is when we all watch it together and then disciss it here. I don't need to watch it, I have it memorized. I disagree with Andrea in regards to their repartee (note: the scene where she asks for time off and he gives her part of her salary and when he plays the gypsy). I think they handeled the intitial "need to be gregarous" scene well. She is the right combination of shy, intelligent and assertive. I love the scene in the bedroom where he doesn't want her to go. She is rightfully afraid (due to inexperience and laws of propriety), but he confesses an awful lot there. I sometimes find myself talking to the sc een as if I were Jane and I say more agressive things to him, but that just shows I have watched it too much - I cannot, will not change the novel. I had wished that when Jane fell in love she would turn a little pretty. I liked that Zelah was tiny and full of spark and spirit, but I wanted her hair loose of something. I didn't care that Timothy overacted -- I chock it up to passion; which is what made this so wonderful to me. When he says "what will I do when you are gone", it kills me. Once of my favor te phrases in all of literature is Jane's speech in the garden. Would it be that we could all think of such wonderful and meaningful phrases at crucial points in our lives: Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am souless and heartless? You think wrong! - I have as much soul as you - and full as much heart! And if God had gifted me ("blessed me" in the movie) with some beauty , and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you.....it is my spirit that addresses your spirit; just as if both had passed through the grave, and we stood at God's feet, equal - as we are! To wax that poetically off the cuff: sigh. I miss some of the engagement stuff from the novel. I feel like it shows his desire for Jane and her being in love (and frightened by what's in that room). I am very interested in seeing CH as Rochester as I loved him as Wentworth. Talk about a tease; we have to wait until September. I did not care for the other versions of JE as I felt like I was watching the Cliff Notes. I am hoping the A&E one is long like this one. I am still waiting for my Edward.

I borrowed this out about two years ago and haven't seen it since, so this might be a bit vague. I really liked it and watched it several times - espeicially the part where she's leaving (sob). I though TD was great in what must be a really difficult part. Rochester is a character that I find really hard to believe in - he's so horrible to Jane almost up until the moment he says he loves her - how could you do that to someone you love? To try and act, believably, as a boor one minute and a romantic h ro the next must be really difficult. TD ran rings around William Hurt who was just completely wrong. And it does need the extra time to make the stuff with the Rivers make sense. Even in this version it was significantly truncated from the book. St John is such a slimy character - those poor Indians. I did think the ending was a bit abrupt. And the makeup for TD was dismal. Looking forward to the next one.

I have got no idea why all my text is in italics. What did I do?

Please ignore 11. Italics have gone.

Dina, I just wish there were more of those scenes, so you could really see the relationship being built. Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am souless and heartless? You think wrong! - I have as much soul as you - and full as much heart! And if God had gifted me ("blessed me" in the movie) with some beauty , and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you.....it is my spirit that addresses your spirit; just as if both had passed through the grave, and we stood at God's feet, equal - as we are! This quote had me in tears (OK, I get emotional). It shows how much she feels, and how much she feels she's been oppressed.

I had not seen this version in 8-10 years, before I ever read Mansfield Park, I think. But the way Jane is played in this adaptation makes me think of Fanny Price -- the not quite a member of the family part, the shyness, fringes of gentility class position. But Jane has more fire, doesn't she? Fanny is kind of a poor man's Jane.

Gosh Amy, you're playing with fire. The avenging HC may not like that suggestion ;-)

Kate, somehow, I posted my response to his in Matters of the Heart: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Topic 214 of 221 [austen]: Matters of the heart: Why we read P&P Response 42 of 44: Amy (Amy) * Mon, Mar 10, 1997 (05:48) * 2 lines I don't know, Kate. Let's see. He likes Miss Eyre a lot too.

I have been enjoying Jane Eyre since far before I had ever heard of Jane Austen. Although their styles are very different, I love them both. Check out the following link to HC's Jane Austen page for Charlotte Bronte's unflattering view of Austen, however: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/janeart.html#charlottebronte My first exposure to an adaptation of JE was the George C. Scott version in the early 70's, and I still really like his best, although I may have romanticized it somewhat over the years. I thought both Sian Pattenden, the young Jane, and Zelah Clarke, the more mature version, did a good job in this adaptation. I have always been drawn to Jane's spunk, and the fact that she is calm and quiescent until unjustly accused or asked to do something she knows is wrong. Then WATCH OUT! As Rochester puts it, Never has anyone been so frail and yet so indomitable! As the young Jane, I have always loved her comment to Mr. Brocklehurst about not going to hell: "I must keep in good health and not die!" No one else has mentioned this, so I'll take the plunge: although I really like TD's performance here (he has the speech and mannerisms down well), the lines dealing with his looks fall flat because he is so good-looking. When he says, You examine me, Miss Eyre. Do you find me handsome? and she answers, No, sir., it does give one pause. In a later scene, he is saying that he wishes his own "externals" more closely matched those of Blanche's, and Jane says it would take magic. At the end when she finds him at Ferndean, he asks if he is hideous, and she says, Yes, sir. You always were, sir. And then he compares himself unfavorably to St. John as ...a black Vulcan. All very disconcerting when you're looking at a very handsome man as these words are spoken! However, he does get Rochester down, IMO. I have always really liked the scene where she must go to her aunt, and he gives her some of her wages: You owe me five, sir. Come back for that, then! and then she says she will advertise for a position, and he says, You shall walk up the pyramids of Egypt! I also love when she comes back, and says to him in her honest way, I am strangely glad to be back again. Wherever you are is my home, my only home. The look on his face is priceless. Rochester does play games with Jane and almost torments her. I think he knows how honest she is, and that she will tell only the truth, so he wants her to confess her feelings before he has to expose his own. In the garden, however, he pushes her to the limit. Her anguish upon finding she may have to take a position in Ireland rends my heart: It is so far away -- from England, from Thornfield -- and from you, sir! ... I see the necessity of departure and it is like looking on the necessity of deat ! I will not quote the rest, as others have already done so, but this is a very powerful scene, played well here. I thought the other characters were well-cast, and I got a kick out of Blanche. Her You should hear Mama on the subject of governesses. reminded me of I am a scourge on puppies. That same air of superiority and intolerance. I thought St. John was as stiff and righteous as I would expect him to be, but the sisters were not quite as I pictured them -- not sure why. I like the fact that this version gets this part of the story in. I have often wondered on the morality of Rochester. What he is doing is very wrong, of course, and disrespectful of Jane in the extreme, but he truly is between a rock and a hard place. I don't believe a person can escape responsibility for their life, but my heart goes out to a man duped into a marriage with a woman who can never be his wife. To have that betrayal come, in part, from his own family would make it even harder to bear. And then, finally, to ...find the goodness you have sought for 20 years. and be unable to grasp that happiness must be cruel indeed. I'd have to say I like this adaptation the best of those available, but for 100% satisfaction, I'll go back to my book!

I have been enjoying Jane Eyre since far before I had ever heard of Jane Austen. Although their styles are very different, I love them both. Check out the following link to HC's Jane Austen page for Charlotte Bronte's unflattering view of Austen, however: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/janeart.html#charlottebronte My first exposure to an adaptation of JE was the George C. Scott version in the early 70's, and I still really like his best, although I may have romanticized it somewhat over the years. I thought both Sian Pattenden, the young Jane, and Zelah Clarke, the more mature version, did a good job in this adaptation. I have always been drawn to Jane's spunk, and the fact that she is calm and quiescent until unjustly accused or asked to do something she knows is wrong. Then WATCH OUT! As Rochester puts it, Never has anyone been so frail and yet so indomitable! As the young Jane, I have always loved her comment to Mr. Brocklehurst about not going to hell: "I must keep in good health and not die!" No one else has mentioned this, so I'll take the plunge: although I really like TD's performance here (he has the speech and mannerisms down well), the lines dealing with his looks fall flat because he is so good-looking. When he says, You examine me, Miss Eyre. Do you find me handsome? and she answers, No, sir., it does give one pause. In a later scene, he is saying that he wishes his own "externals" more closely matched those of Blanche's, and Jane says it would take magic. At the end when she finds him at Ferndean, he asks if he is hideous, and she says, Yes, sir. You always were, sir. And then he compares himself unfavorably to St. John as ...a black Vulcan. All very disconcerting when you're looking at a very handsome man as these words are spoken! However, he does get Rochester down, IMO. I have always really liked the scene where she must go to her aunt, and he gives her some of her wages: You owe me five, sir. Come back for that, then! and then she says she will advertise for a position, and he says, You shall walk up the pyramids of Egypt! I also love when she comes back, and says to him in her honest way, I am strangely glad to be back again. Wherever you are is my home, my only home. The look on his face is priceless. Rochester does play games with Jane and almost torments her. I think he knows how honest she is, and that she will tell only the truth, so he wants her to confess her feelings before he has to expose his own. In the garden, however, he pushes her to the limit. Her anguish upon finding she may have to take a position in Ireland rends my heart: It is so far away -- from England, from Thornfield -- and from you, sir! ... I see the necessity of departure and it is like looking on the necessity of deat ! I will not quote the rest, as others have already done so, but this is a very powerful scene, played well here. I thought the other characters were well-cast, and I got a kick out of Blanche. Her You should hear Mama on the subject of governesses. reminded me of I am a scourge on puppies. That same air of superiority and intolerance. I thought St. John was as stiff and righteous as I would expect him to be, but the sisters were not quite as I pictured them -- not sure why. I like the fact that this version gets this part of the story in. I have often wondered on the morality of Rochester. What he is doing is very wrong, of course, and disrespectful of Jane in the extreme, but he truly is between a rock and a hard place. I don't believe a person can escape responsibility for their life, but my heart goes out to a man duped into a marriage with a woman who can never be his wife. To have that betrayal come, in part, from his own family would make it even harder to bear. And then, finally, to ...find the goodness you have sought for 20 years. and be unable to grasp that happiness must be cruel indeed. I'd have to say I like this adaptation the best of those available, but for 100% satisfaction, I'll go back to my book!

Susan, I mentally shake hands with you for that response. BTW, he does tell her that he was a coward for not appealing to her the proper way , though when he asked her to away to _____ (I am drawing a blank here). She was offended. He was pretty clueless there in regards to her morals, maybe he was still deceiving himself. He mentions the hitch in Jane's character. I think the reason he plays these games is because he is passionate. The only reason he gives for the whole Blanche business was he wanted to arrouse her jelousy. Which was a burning shame. He could have wooed another way, but it wouldn't have been as much fun for us!

Rochester's morality, now there is a topic. It is hard to be kind to him, thinking with 1990's minds, on his behavior towards Jane. Most women these days wouldn't put up with the kind of treatment he gave out, although I am sure we would find parallels in todays society that are just as dishonest and cruel. Was he a man of desperation? I think so. Desperately in love with his governess, who is mentally his equal, and desperate to hide his hideous past. Is it only natural he would try to give in to his desperation for Jane, a chance at happiness? Human nature, I think goes towards happiness. He is constrained by the laws of society to remain married to his insane wife, a predicament which would mean he would never truly be happy. So he tries to sneak in another marriage, which would have appeared legal. He did promise to tell Jane his secrets after they had been married "a year and a day". I think trust would be a big issue. After all, everything important Jane knew about him turned out to be a lie. It was passion that brought her back. I don't know many people who would go through the shame of what she endured to go back to the cause of the shame.

One of my favourite lines is something like (out of my memory) " I have been with my aunt, who is dead" " a very Janeian reply"

He did promise to tell Jane his secrets after they had been married "a year and a day". Don't you think that would be a huge red flag? Someone as smart as Jane should have picked up on that. I watched this a month ago after almost a year of not seeing it. I seriously have seen it enough to talk along with them (I've owned the video since '89), but what I picked up on this time was the love. So many lines I won't put them here (Susan already put a few in). But that whole scene where she needs water and in the library and then when she leaves St.John and when she goes to him "she's all here, her heart too" His misery so bad that he calls out for her (I can't believe Bronte didn't ave her cut him off and tell him what she heard) ouch! I am so glad there is a place I can place all my sappy-ness on the line and not be judged badly for it. Can you be a feminist and a hopless romantic at the same time?

Can you be a feminist and a hopless romantic at the same time? Absolutely. Maybe we should have a thread on this?

Susan, thank you for your wonderful response. It mirrors much of my own. And now, a confession; this version of Jane Eyre was my first addiction. I had it bad; multiple viewings, sneaking in at all hours of the night to catch a few favored, savored scenes (the garden one is best); coercing others to view and become addicted with me, etc. You all obviously know the symptoms. How I kicked the habit I cannot say, but I was clean for years before P&P2! I haven't watched it again for this discussion; I'm afraid of an overdose, or one of those horrible reactions from two non-compatable drugs being taken at the same time.

afraid of an overdose, or one of those horrible reactions from two non-compatable drugs being taken at the same time. LOL Mari...Your comments and all the others have me tearing my hair and .......my hands in despair.I have tried to get my hands on this version, but am beginning to doubt it's being available in Sweden. I would like to see it, being an old admirer of the novel and having seen Welles and Hurt. The former very melodramatic from what i recall( though I've always been fascinated by Ors n) and Hurt not quite answering my picture of Rochester, though that Jane, was rather good.

I agree with all the above posts re: this version of JE. I finished watching it again last night and really like it. I've always liked Orson Welles as Rochester, but the movie cut out the whole St. John bit so lacked a lot of the book. I might have seen the George C. Scott version - seem to remember something vaguely, but can't really remember anything about it. I like this version - Zelah Clarke makes a very good Jane, and Dalton is good, although, as someone has mentioned, too handsome and too thin. One other unavoidable fault is that his mouth seems to fall naturally into a half smile, even when he isn't smiling, which makes some of the words and looks really incompatible. I thought St. John good--hard, slimy, greedy, and generally a nasty piece of work. I've always considered JE to be a "feminist" book--Jane sticks to her guns to maintain what is right even though another path might have been the easier one. She won't give in to Rochester and go away with him, nor will she marry St. John without love. The more I think about it the better I like this Dalton version - they included all the necessary points of the book!

Most of what�s been said mirrored my feelings exactly, so I won`t repeat much of it again, but I wondered if anyone felt anything the day after Rochester`s proposal, when, in the morning, Jane jumps happily into his arms and he holds her so closely. I think then I forgave him for all his strange manipulations of Jane�s feelings. It`s hard to stay angry. Tim Dalton plays it so well. It breaks my heart to see her leave, after all they have been through, but I understand her. I also liked a scene when they kiss and Jane`s hair is covering her face, making them both laugh. It`s so joyous...But there`s always this growing tension in the air, you know that that happiness won�t last long. It�s quite heart-breaking. I was a bit tough on Zelah Clarke earlier. I remember the first time I saw this version, I loved her. The next few times made me a little less enthusiastic about her acting. I guess I grew more demanding... I love Dalton everytime Tim is actually very Colin Firtiish, like someone said. :-) I don`t know if I`ll get to see Ciaran Hinds, but I get the feeling that he will be the definite Rochester, in all the nuances and depth of the character.

Poor Ciaran. He is going to have a lot of expectations to live up to. Anybody know when the new version begins in England? I thought it was any day now.

Luisa-I loved that scene when she runs into his arms. I agree-you do forgive him for playing with her feelings. He is so tender, ardent. I also liked the way he carried her downstairs, after the wedding debacle. And-yes Poor Ciarian. But, he is a wonderful actor. The more I see his Captain Wentworth, the more I am impressed. I am really looking forward to this new JE. From the promo, it seems to be heavy on passion. On a related note, I am just curious how many people have also seen Timothy Dalton in Wuthering Heights. To my knowledge, he's the only actor to have played both Rochester and Heathcliff. IMO, the 1970 Wuthering Heights is nowhere near as "pretty" as the Olivier/Oberon version, or even faithful to the book, but again(just as in JE) Timothy Dalton's performance stays with you. Even with the bad haircut, he captures the wild, untamed, dark, passionate gypsy spirit of Heathcliff. I remember most particularl the scene when Cathy returns a lady and he smears her face with dirt. This is soon followed by a passionate scene in the garden. I thought he was brilliant during Cathy's death scene too. Too bad the actress playing Cathy wasn't up to the challenge.

I think part of our addiction to things like this version of Jane Eyre and P&P2 is that we are constantly exposing ourselves to something of the highest quality. Much better than Baywatch or the like.

] Gosh Amy, you're playing with fire. The avenging HC may not like that suggestion ;-)

I found a coincidental thing in checking out the credits for the various JE adaptations. Jack Pulman ('70 Scott version) wrote a screenplay called "The Best of Enemies in 1961. Hugh Whitemore ('96 Hurt version) wrote one called "The Best of Friends" in 1994.

Amy -- love the graphic, except that the expression is a little, um, fierce.... Yes Fanny Price and Jane Eyre have some things in common, but it's true that Jane Eyre has a little more fire and spirit than Fanny -- I don't mind anybody pointing it out (unless they mean to imply by it that Fanny is somehow less worthy...)

Okay, I fixed him up a little. A little more determination and less snarl.

Nice belly roll just before bed.

Amy, he does look rather Grinch-y

The Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton version of " Jane Eyre" was shown over here on Sunday. When I get a little free time, I'll post a review ...

How long, Bernie? Please don't say 2 hours.

Well I have had some major computer problems so I was unable to post yesterday. I did not get to see Jane Eyre over the weekend. But I loved it so much that I remember all of it. My favorite scene had to be when Jane finds out about Bertha and she is in her room getting ready to leavy and she walks out of the room and oops she falls right into Rochester's arms. That was taken right from the book and I totally loved it in there too. I thought T. Dalton's portrayal was right on the mark. I did just rec ntly re-see the W. Hurt version and he did nothing for me. Even the girl who played Jane was horrible. Also, in the book one of the most exciting scenes was the one when the old gypsy comes to the house. I was so happy they included it in the TD version, but it was left out of the WH version. I thought it was very important to the whole relationship of JE and ER. I could go on and on but won't.

one of the most exciting scenes was the one when the old gypsy comes to the house. I was so happy they included it in the TD version Laura, ITA. I have always loved this scene, too.

LauraMM - Please, please, do go on and on, for what do we live, but to make analysis for our neighbours, and editorialize to them in our turn?

I'm new to this so bear with me. I have not read every response so I may have missed something -- but I have seen no mention of a version of Jane Eyre that stars Michael Jayston as Rochester and Sinead Cusack as Jane. I have this version on tape so presumably I taped it off the TV some years ago and presumably it is a BBC version. It is one of my personal favorites. Has this one been forgotten?

I absolutely love this version! I first saw it on A7E several years ago. I purchased the video last summer and was pleased to find scenes missing from the A&E version. I have too many favorite scenes to mention all of them, but I love it after the fire when Rochester will not let Jane go. He seems to pull her toward him everytime he tells her she can go. I have watched my tape over and over.I did not know people got addicted to things like this until I found the P&P board. It is nice to know I am in suc good company. I think Timothy Dalton would have made a fine Darcy. However, Linda sees him more as Mr. Knightly. I just like to see him anytime I can. Has anyone seen him in The King's Mistress(Whore)? He wore quite a few wigs in that one.

Jacque, I have never heard of the version you mentioned. I would love to see it. I have seen the Orson Welles and William Hurt versions, but not the George C. Scott one.

Never heard of Jayston/Cusack. Was it good? Was it only 2 hours? Watching Cliff notes again.

Since no one seems to have heard of the Jayston/Cusack version, I am beginning to wonder if I dreamed it. (It does not appear in the movie database either). I will try to dig it out of the "archives" in the next couple of days and see if I can get more info from the credits. I don't remember how long it was -- will check that too. I am certain that I taped it from television -- it was not a "bought" video.

Since no one seems to have heard of the Jayston/Cusack version, I am beginning to wonder if I dreamed it. (It does not appear in the movie database either). I will try to dig it out of the "archives" in the next couple of days and see if I can get more info from the credits. I don't remember how long it was -- will check that too. I am certain that I taped it from television -- it was not a "bought" video.

Picture time :

I have to agree with a number of people, its was hard to imagine TD as unattractive, which is why I liked George C Scott. It has been ages, but with this Regency fever, it may be rereleased. I thought TD made much better James Bond than, oh shoot, whathisname? Jane Eyre was my first "Romantic" movie/novel in 8th grade maybe. I always skip over the Mrs Reed and Lowood parts, they made me angry and so sad.

I still skip them. Nice photo Johanne. Bernie!! Where's the review!?!?!?

Jacques, your version could lost or not on tape. We've heard of a mystery P&P, too from the 60s that we think might even have been a live broadcast.

I only saw two versions of JE: Orson Welles and TD one. TD is by far my favorite. I actually saw the TD version in Russia, in Russian translation (it did not lose anything) I remember I was in second grade, and they were showing it on TV, one time in the morning, and one in the evening. I got to see it both times, since our teacher, who was I think a big fan, turned on the TV, if we finished the work on time, which we all did. Then I'd get home, and bliss! I'd watch it again. I remember ome parents thinki g it is not completely appropriate, with all the passion later :-) (it was 1986). I love the book and probably reread it 50 times, and the TD version for me reflect it completely (I read the book before seeing JE). I like the OW version, but Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles are too goodlooking, besides I miss all the wonderful repartee and dialog (or maybe I think too much of TD version). My absolutely favorite scene would have to be a toss-up between after the fire scene, and the scene where Jane leaves Rochester-it's one of the most emotional scenes I have ever seen! When I was younger, I thought she should have stayed, but now I think she did the right thing (besides, there wouldn't be a novel f she didn't) I like the actress who plays Mrs Reed. She apears so hard and stony you want to hit her. And Mr Brocklhurst's face reminds me of witch-trials. And I feel sorry for anyone getting into permanent company with that atctor's St. John. I think Zelah Clark is the perfect Jane "plain and little" but you could see why she would attract Rochester. And Dalton is the definite Rochester for me. (Almost tempts me to become a governess!) But I am looking forward to the new version, even though I do't think it will replace the TD version in my heart.

Johanne - *sigh* Anne - whathisname = Roger Moore

or whatshisname could be Pierce Brosnan...

Great pic-Johanne! Thanks.

Brosnan, Pierce Brosnan Thanks Kate

I'm new here, and will shortly introduce myself in topic for newcomers. meanwhile I can't wait to join you. About the comparison betweem JE and Fanny Price, I think their main similarity is their INTEGRITY - both hold on to their principles, no matter how humble their position in the world is. To Dina (#22), the reason why Jane didn't tell Rochester that she heard him calling her name is stated in the book: She didnt want to burden him, in his fragile state of mind, with unnatural or ESP experiences (I'm paraphrasing). I have seen only the Hart movie and the Dalton series. I agree that it's unfair to compare a 90 min picture with a 4 hr series, of course the first is at a disadvantage. But, there were few scenes in which the movie was more faithful to the book. The first encounter, when he falls of his horse, in the TD version she stood in the way and startled the horse and really seemed to cause the falldown, as he later jestingly accused her. And the scene was shorter. Whereas in the movie and in the book she sits on bench, watches him pass her and then he slides on ice and falls. Than he asks her to bring the horse to him, she fails and there's the sentence on Muhammed coming to the mountain or vice versa, and then she aids him mount his horse. I like William Hart, I think he showed both his cynnicism and suffering, and wans't so bad. Tim was good also, but sometimes I felt he talked too much, that being so faithful to the book wasnt always for the better. I agree that Clark is tiny, but she is also very feminine, whereas Ginsberg is more boyish, therefore more adapte to the description of Jane as almost a child. I thought her neck would break whenever she looked up at him.

Very entertaining analysis, An(n)at(?). I agree with your comparison of Jane and Fanny. Welcome!

I beg your pardon, Annat, but are you from Israel? Your name sounds Hebrew, I am israelian, as you can tell by my weird name, and so is Adi. Welcome!

Thanks Susan and Ayelet. My name is Anat, and the reason its spelled with two n's is that I did something wrong when logging in the first time, and Anat wouldn't get through but was taken or occupied, so I had to cheat the computer. Ayelet, I meant to ask you the same question, only I didn't know whether you live in Israel or are from Israeli descent. I live in Yehud and work at the Open University. Where are you from? I meant to enter topic 175 for newcomers and make a proper intro, but couldn't do it. 'm very glad I found the Austen conference and its interesting participants. Its the first time I participate in any chat. Ayelet, do you chat live too? There is the time difference of course. See you all later.

I am glad you could get in here somewhere, Anat. After I got your mail, I archived the introductions topic and made a new, shorter one. That could solved your problem with the reponse window not coming up. Ayelet is kind of our pet. I've advised her not to go into chat during US evening hours, but hope I have not scared her off from it altogehter. The hours are hard to get used to at first, with our international crowd, but I've finally internalized the times of day for my friends in Australia. What do you do at the Open University?

Hi Amy, at the OU I am a course editor. This requires some explanation. In the OU students learn by correspondence, this is called distance education, They don't go to lectures but receive the course material at home. So every course has to be prepared - either written, or combined of articles published in an anthology, And figures, maps, pictures, questions and answers are combined in the material, so its pleasant and self instructive. As an editor I receive the manuscript prepared by experts in the sub ect matter, and try to study it as a student. I do deductive, linguistic, stylistic and any other kind of editting I think is needed. Sometimes I rewrite, omit or add material, it depends on my knowledge in the area. I've been doing it for twnety years and its a priviledge to get education on all kinds of subjects and be paid forit! Istarted with disciplines close to what I studied at the university - psychology & education, but moved on to biology, history, communication, political science and other areas. Since what I studied is no longer updated, and I learned other topics unofficially during the years, it can be done. I couldn't edit in mathematics or chemistry, but anything I can comprehend, I can work on. Sometimes its even better not to know too much, then I can point to missing information. There are about twenty editors at t e OU, We are also responsible for publishing - we work with graphic artists, proofreaders etc, - its a teamwork. I never edited anything in literature, since most editors come from the area of literature and language, there a more comptent people than me in that area. I think, Amy, you didnt bargain for such a long answer - I'm such a blabberer.

Amy: No, you haven't, but I'm so confused with the time zones that I gave it up, I'll try to come to chat when I'll figure out the excat difference though. Anat: I live in Be'er Ya'akov, a SMALL town near Rehovot, Tel-Aviv, Nes Ziona and Rishon-Le-Zion. If you wonder why Amy called me "Pet" I'll explain it: I'm 11 and 3/4 years old, I ahave watched P&P2 at least 40 times and I love it, I also try to read the book, in English, bits by bits, sometimes I can't understand a whole paragraph, but mostly it's OK, and I manage, the only other JA I read was NA, I was bored one holiday day and I found it's penguin edition on our JA bookshelf.

We'll try to find a time zone converter and a good schedule for you, Ayelet. Anat, your job sounds fascinating. Thank you for going into detail. I have a friend at Indiana University who works in publications for the School of Continuing Education and they have just started to move courses onto the web!

I have been away for several days and will be away for more -- but just to get back to you on the mysterious production of Jane Eyre that I have on tape. I was able to dig it out and read the credits but no time for more than that just now. The production was shown on Masterpiece Theatre and starred Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack. It was dramatized by Robin Chapman. It is approximately 3 1/2 hours long and it begins with Jane's departure from Lowood. It summarizes her life before that in a few sen ences. I do not know at this point who produced it, since I didn't always record the credits in an effort to save tape. Will try to find some more info. So --- has anyone else out there seen this version? How does Michael Jayston stack up?

Jacque -- I've never even heard of this version. As time permits, please share details!

Ladies and gentleman before I begin my review I must defend myself (think Darcy saying "Forgive me, forgive me" to Col. Fitzwilliam in P&P2). I enjoyed this adaptation though I have not read the book. Unfortunately I had a big chip on my shoulder regarding this film. After reading Persuasion, P&P and S&S, I read Bronte's criticism of JA; I never forgave the woman. CB should have been able to enjoy someone else's view of romance and passion. Thus when I was watching this I kept comparing these charact rs to JA characters and it just doesn't work. CB and JA are like apples and oranges. CB is like Marinanne Dashwood with ghosts and dreams. (Please forgive me CB fans I am not trying to offend.) Perhaps if I get around to reading the novel, things will become clearer but from what I remember of the little Bronte I did read, she and I didn't click. I'm glad Susan mentioned how ridiculous it was whenever someone referred to Mr. Rochester's looks; I kept thinking in what world would this man not be good looking. I can understand his love for Jane but the deception didn't sit well with me. People do so many bad things in the name of love. And then all the suffering. Isn't life difficult enough without having a tormented love relationship? It's almost as if love isn't love without suffering. On the positive sided, I really enjoyed Jane's character. I was so happy when she leaped on that brat of a cousin who hit her. She stuck with her principles and wouldn't marry someone she didn't love. Wasn't the character who played Mrs. Reed the same woman who played Mrs. Musgrove in Persuasion2?

]love isn't love without suffering. At the point where Charlotte wrote this, that was pretty much her personal experience. Her mother and two of her sisters had died, and the man she had been in love with (the professor in Brussels) was married. So it's understandable that for her love is closely related to suffering.

I must defend CB! CB wrote the way she thought to be right, with a lot of feelings, that's how life was for her, now try to imagine yourself in her place: You hear there's a very popular novelist, called JA, you read one or two of her books and discover, that there is no deep feelings in it (In CB's meaning), and everybody are polite and "proper" ladies and gentlemen, it seems wrong, totally wrong! Life isn't so, nobody can be nice and polite all the time, there are poor in this world, sisters here fight! So why does that JA have hide it? The world won't stop being so, and the books would only be drier, who can read a book where nobody in madly in love or d eply in depair? Nobody, it's not a book, it's a sermon! Shall I go on, or have you caught it?

...from what I remember of the little Bronte I did read, she and I didn't click. I hope you try again, Karen -- I really love this book, and I love JA as well, even if they are not alike. Try to forgive CB and enjoy her very different style.

Hi everbody - I'm new here, and so glad I found you. I'm absolutely, hopelessly addicted to JE and P&P2. I watch each at least once a week. I used to think I was beyond hope, but now having read all 71 messages am feeling much better about myself. So many of you said it so wonderfully that there's not much for me to add. TD is Rochester for me, but I'm also looking foward to the new version. One of my favorite scenes is one on the stairs, after Jane leaves the gathering. The way they look at each other, nd leave so much unsaid, gives great promise for what's to come.

Glad you did find us, Sandy.

Kate and Susan thanks for the information on CB and the encouragement to try her again. Can't make any promises now with the current workload. Ayelet, I understand CB had an opinion which differed from JA but I still find her comments rude. Reading exposes us to the lives of other people and not everyone has the same life experiences as we do. Austen didn't show perfect families (the Elliots were quite a piece of work) and showed heartbreak (Marianne Dashwood). If you can't agree or don't click with omeone style of writing, don't read the author. I mean I could list reasons why I find fault with CB and then attack her personally and then pretend to justify it all in the name of my free speech and passion. However, I believe I would be being petty and insulting others here on this BB whom I respect. You can disagree and be polite.

Karen: You can disagree and be polite Hear, hear Karen! That's what I love about this place......and I might even try to reread CB as well; my first experiences were less than pleasant, but it may have been due to circumstances (a dunderhead of a prof) rather than content.

I think your comment was insightful for someone who is 11 3/4 years old, Ayelet! Have you read some Bronte? I think I was just finishing up the Little House books when I was your age. I doubt you have them there, but maybe.

I am finding that getting to know an author first (some background on what their was like) will tell you what to expect from their novels.

Dina, I read Jane Eyre (In Hebrew, though) and the first three Little House books. Karen, just one word before we close this disagreement: I understand how you feel about CB and JA, but think, each has her way of showing dislike to some kind of books, so it was CB's rude remarks, but it was just as well JA's NA, which was not much more forgiving. So you see, CB burns with hate to JA, that's her way, to burn from every feeling, JA's way is more delicate and agreeable, to write a satir.

I should like to return to the topic of Mr. Rochester's morality in deceiving Jane Eyre and I wish to expand it. There are three primary males in Jane Eyre's life - perhaps more in the story, but I confess I have only seen the recent (dreadful) version and the BBC/Timothy Dalton version. These are Brocklehurst, St. John, and Mr. Rochester. Only the latter is shown to us in a favorable light. While his deception is still implicitly condemned, it is condemned compassionately, lovingly. Wrong it is, and it carries with it pain and suffering and Jane cannot participate in it. Her integrity will not permit it. Indeed, it is in his sinful deception of her that Jane begins to realize the depths of her love for him. In open confrontation of one's own failures, one can begin to be truly trusted. On the other hand, it is the very righteousness of St. John and Brocklehurst which are their primary faults. Brocklehurst's righteousness is shown to be hypocritical, based on an ability to display a presumed superiority to others. He finds it necessary always to point out other's failures as publicly as possible while denying he himself has any failures, both to the public and to himself. He may have begun believing it necessary if he were to properly represent a perfect God but has come to believe he is in fact as perfect as God. St. John's is a righteousness of mission, of purpose, but his mission is so all-consuming that it becomes synonymous with himself. And so his desire for the inheritance, then his desire for Jane later are not really a desire to give of himself - either to "heathens" or to Jane but a selfish insistence that all serve him and his "God-ordained" purpose. Nothing chilled me more in the movie than when he tells Jane that turning down his proposal is not merely a rejection of him, but a rejection of God. T e worst tyrants are those who believe firmly that God agrees with them. Compared to such righteousness, Mr. Rochester's open unrighteousness is indeed welcome honesty.