Hello to all! I'm new in this conference and, indeed, to the whole concept of the Spring, so please let me know if I'm doing something wrong or inappropriate. I came here from the Republic of Pemberley, as did a number of you, I understand. I was invited to participate in this conference by Amy2 (thanks AMY!), after she read a number of posts I put up on the Virtview board in RoP. I thought I'd start by some copy & paste action, so that you can see what my comments were about. I'll be happy to discuss the subject of the Jane Eyre adapations further (still one to watch! Can't put my hands on the TD version.) Apart from Jane Eyre, I've been a long standing fan of Wuthering Heights, which I read countless times. I'll start another topic on that later. For now, Jane Eyre. (one last thing: most of what is pasted below was in answer to other posts which I haven't reproduced unless necessary for understanding.) --- ON A&E JANE EYRE: The biggest flaw in that adaptation (to me) is that it was reduced too much to the love story, pushing aside other considerations (the moral issues, the mystic dimension and even the money/social standing issues.) However, and I'll run the risk to displease all the people that made comments on CH's performance, and even SM's: I enjoyed this version very well. I didn't think CH was over the top at all. I have watched this version several times by now, and let me tell you that, just as in Persuasion, he grows on you (on me!) eerily (not as much as in Persuasion, though.) He put many subtleties that go by unnoticed at the first viewing. Watch again with an eye for his use of the hands, the whole body movement, the eye (that little flare when Jane assures him she "didn't send a letter to Pilot;" the straight looks during the "stimulating" conversations in the drawing-room reproduce very well the impression of Rochester's fine dark eyes, amongst other things.) And FYI: CH has a light and lovely accent in French! ;-D SM was very adequately plain (though she is rather pretty in real life, I seem to remember,) discreet, yet gently becoming stronger and stronger; I thought she showed rather well the change in Jane, from (almost) convinced that she is evil and without a soul, to "being worth more than all this." Indeed, I would say her performance was the best in the show. I did enjoy Mrs Fairfax (Gemma Jones) also...Very humane and touching performance. To me, the biggest problems with this adaptation lie in the script itself, not in the acting. In fact, I would even say that the actors did a great job with what was given to them (a rather oversimplified story, with the love story as main object.) One scene where the script's interpretation bugged me (and drove me right to the nearest bookstore to see how it was put in the book); it is the "You observe me... You find me handsome, Miss Eyre?" scene. When I first viewed it, I thought it to be out of place, almost vaudevillesque in the way Rochester is so OBVIOUSLY playing a seduction game on Jane. But when I read the scene, I saw that it was the same thing (the dialog is quite close,) except that the adaptation focused on the "flirtation" aspect of i , instead of the round of "seizing up each other's character and establishing a power relationship" it is. Another script pb: why did they have Rochester say "I see" or "look at me" to everything Jane said? Also some scenes could have been included without making the movie longer, IMO: like the lightening striking the oak tree at the end of the proposal scene (yeah, corny, I know...) or Jane coming into some money after her aunt's death. And some lines were suppressed that I would have appreciated (in the proposal scene, and the 'Jane comes back' scene). And the romantic in me would have enjoyed the "Jane/Rochester spirits meeting before JE returns to Thornfield" scene (though there was the "voices" calling ach other scene.) Cuts I liked: the cuts in the young Jane storyline, and the St John one. Those 2 parts were well cut, IMO. Long enough to understand, and short enough to not make it boring. At any rate, I've watched this version with increasing pleasure. I don't think it is a definitive one by any means, but it certainly is a very watchable one. ---- In response to: ] But, again, it [JE's A&E version] was a poor script only in comparison to the original novel. As a stand alone movie, in my opinion it is worthy of award nominations. I don't know if I would go that far. I think the script has flaws in some aspects (not so much in relation to the book--as a matter fact, I don't think it has many flaws at all in comparison with the book...IMO, the cuts were well done, and the story was perfectly understandable and recognizable). But here and there, I find incoherences, more exactly errors in the tone and a lack of smoothness to show the psychological progression. The most obvious one is that the love story is treated a bit too much like a modern one. Too much familiarity between Mr. R and JE. In a number of scenes, they talk like an old couple (the dialog sometimes has a feeling of screwball comedy to it! Hardly appropriate here.) I don't mind it too much because it humanizes the story and Rochester, who is a very tough character to size up without making him overly bad and dark. But it made for some strange happenings, like the scene of "You examine me...You find me handsome, Miss Eyre?". In that scene, Rochester isn't the one who is directing the conversation, JE is. She dominates it too much, and he lets that happen too much. He is too vulnerable, too much in a position to be judged by her. That does happen in the book some, but in the A&E version, it felt like he was fishing for her approval, not getting it, and being powerless about it. It didn't fit with the image of the Master of Thornfield that I have, when I think of Rochester. I mean, he does ask for Jane's opinion a lot in the bo k, and that shows he is beginning to care for her. But he shouldn't loose his dominant position in the conversation. It's too much of a stretch to believe that a man of his character and social position would allow such an obvious weakness to taint his image as Master of Thornfield. Also, you don't always see clearly the progression of Rochester's thoughts (I do consider him to be the most difficult character to adapt, in opposition with Jane's, who as the narrator, tells us of her thoughts. For Rochester, we don't know for sure what he thinks: he is a complex man, with many facets...All the more hard to adapt, since a lot is left to the interpretation of the reader. The lack of precision in the definition of Rochester'character, IMO, accounts for the very different interpretations o him that the various actors performed in all the JE adaptations.) To get back to my main point (and I did have one ;-D ), the reason why the progression of his thoughts is a tat blurry at times in this A&E version is that MR. R.'s side of the dialog is too defensive, too bland (at the beggining). In the scene I was talking about above, he reacts to Jane's statements SEVERAL times by uttering an "I see" or empty comments like "Really, how interesting"... I know one might repeat oneself in real life without anyone paying attention to it. But this is a MOVIE. You need dive sity in the dialog, unless you're trying to prove a point. The only point they could have wanted to prove by having him say several times "I see", would be that he is already too emotionnally involved with Jane to think straight, so he comes up with banal, defensive answers. An interpretation which, once again, I think, doesn't fit the psychological profile of Rochester. I don't know if I'm being clear on this subject, but if nothing else convinces you (not that I MUST convince you at all cost), the fact that I, as a viewer, reacted negatively to this approach in the dialog should show that SOMETHING is not logical here. To the credit of the A&E adapatation, I liked the dialog better towards the end. I think it showed very well the feelings Rochester and Jane have for each other. Again, I don't think the script is that great then either, but at least it doesn't get in the way of the psychology of the movie/characters. And the actors did a terrific job of making it come alive. I love the last scene: Jane's return, Rochester's pride hurt, his sense of being worthless, her stubburnness, his crying (very convincing to me), he consoling (equally well done). Definitely one of the best moments. Maybe a piece of advice, if I may: to understand better what I'm trying to express about the deficiencies of the dialog, watch the Orson Welles version. Particularly in the first 2/3rds of the movie. The dialog is flawless, and awesomely interpreted (if you can get past the OW mumbling, that is!)...It bears no comparison with the other adaptations, which are all inferior in various degrees, both in their fidelity to the book and in the logic/psychology behind the characters. ---- Another response: If you read my other posts, you must know pretty well what I think of the script by now. I wouldn't call it "atrocious", but lacking talent and insight, yes, certainly. And I do agree that SM and CH did a great job with the little they had to stand on. Their interaction was great, probably the best of the versions I've seen so far. I really felt I was looking at a couple-to-be. That side of this adaptation was lovely to watch. Also, to ponder our dissapointment in the script, one must consider a few brilliant moments. Here are a couple: "As a governess, Miss Eyre, I thought you might explain to me the concept of the 28-day week..." "No doubt Pilot had a letter" "I'll get married in this if you continue!" ---- ] I, too, have not read the book yet and your above comment only inspires me more in a romantic manner to understand the depths of Rochester's love for Jane. Oh, do read it, by all means. It is wonderful. I've been leafing through it since I saw the A&E version. What I do is I watch the adaptation (one part at a time,) and then get back to the book to see the differences. It's very informative. Up to now, I think the adaptation was quite faithful to the story content, even down to the sentences sometimes. The only problem is the quality of the "adaptation's dialog," which sums up (or eliminates) too much the ideas presented and makes it a bit difficult to foll w if you don't know the story already, I think. One fantastic scene in the book is Rochester's explanation of his conduct, after the aborted wedding and before Jane leaves. It is awesome and explains a lot. A must read. ] Rochester holding Jane's hand after the fire in his room: realising here was the woman he could not live without, just genuinely grateful, or attempting to seduce her? I think it is a bit of it all: she DID save his life and it would be only normal that he would be grateful for that. But also, her saving him is a sort of confirmation of a feeling he has had for a while: that Jane was "there to do him good, to be his guardian angel." Which would bring him to the other conclusion that, inevitably, this woman has to become his somehow, and despite the terrible secret he is hiding. Now did he want to seduce her? It is a difficult question to answer, because I don't think Rochester himself knows. I think at that point he is toying with destiny, trying his luck without really trying, happens what will. He just escaped death. His emotions are running high: he owes his life to this young woman to whom he has become attached. He now knows he is not just fond of her. He loves her, a lot more than he thought. Her saving him is almost a sign (of Providence, of God, of the Devil?) showing at long last where lies the path to follow. I think he reads a sign into this fire lit by his crazy wife that brings closer to him young, tender Jane. But at the same time, he knows nothing can be done. He is married. There is no way out of that situation. And yet, this statu quo is unbearable. It is nighttime; life and hope have just been given to him again, and Jane is there, in her nightgown, her hair down, a bit scared, so close he can touch her. I think he gets dizzy. He wants her. He now knows he must have her, but can't marry her. Wouldn't making her his mistress attach her to him forever? No, it's disgraceful. But she is so lovely, and palpitating right there. Her hand in his, in the light of the candle that almost was the instrument of his death. I think he desires her, and can't help himself, more than he is being deceitful and acting by design. He sort of leaves things up to her to decide. She will choose their destiny. She decides to run away, as she understands what's happening here is a lot more than "shaking hands as friends". Note he does not run after her, or try to force her to stay once she's decided to leave. This is what I read in the book, and in even more so in the way CH played it: as Jane is leaving, he leans back in the chair, brushing his forehead with a trembling hand, swallowing hard in anxiety, in dread of what he almost did to her, to them. And then he gathers his cloak around his body, as he closes his eyes on the vertigo of emotions he just went through and the overwhelming understanding of the depth of his love for Jane. Oooooh...chills! --- In response to more comments about Jane's reaction, this time. As for Jane, I imagine she is running away quite overpowered by what is happening. She probably isn't very sure as to what to make of it, except for the fact she is deeply attracted to him, more so than she cared to admit up till then. The image of her restless night, her poor tormented face in the bleak light of dawn; her evident physical discomfort; her pallor, her eyes closing, anxiously swallowing the unfamiliar nectar of desire...Well, I think in the Era of psychoanalysis (and probably before that! ; D) we have a pretty good idea as to what is going on in her mind AND body! Actually, I was quite surprised to see such an obviously sexual scene...It seemed a bit overdone to me, but at the same time, since this version tried to "modernize" a lot of the story, I find it a perfectly believable interpretation. Clearly, this would not have been shown in, say, the Orson Welles version (unthinkable! Too prudish a version. It would have been deemed absolutely indecent!) But nowadays, viewers accept a more "realistic" interpretation without thinking "heresy" or "blasphemy" (Then again, I might be presuming too much here.) ---- Hope these comments spark some interest and lead you to more discussion. Happy to have found Brontes' soulmates! Martine