The definitive Eyre

Is there any significance in the fact that, after calling your post The definitive Eyre, you go on to name two actors who each played Rochester?! Poor Jane, always overshadowed by an OTT leading man! Lol.

Do you mean definitive/favourite cinematic versions of Jane Eyre? Of those readily available (and worthy of serious consideration), there have only been three movies released in cinemas (1943, 1996 & 2011). There have been a few two-hour TV movies ('70 and '97 are ones you can still buy), and numerous TV serialised versions (notably '73, '83 and 2006). Much to choose from and each meritorious in it's way. I'm constantly amazed at how, in each incarnation, the actors emphasize different facets of the two main characters!

I'm not sure if any of them are definitive. Even the esteemed 1943 movie leaves out chunks of the book, and contains enough ham to make a substantial sandwich! This film (2011) makes a valiant attempt at fitting in all the book but, nonetheless, it feels very rushed (and I hate it's emphasis on doom, gloom and misery).

My favourite versions, although you need the time to watch them, are the serialised adaptations. They may not have the big budgets, but they do the book justice in covering the many plotlines and themes. So, in the end, you have a more satisfying experience! (My personal favourite is the 2006 mini.)



Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.

I thought I'd let Supergran have the first whack at the "definitive" question - there's a lot she says that I'm in agreement with. The definition of "definitive" is that it's something that's basically the final statement on some matter, where there no longer is any room for argument or adjustment in the subject at hand - in other words, it's the final, complete expression. Looking at "Jane Eyre" I don't personally feel there is any one version that is absolutely final (and I hope there never will be). Since there is so much to the book, so many angles, perspectives and insights, besides all the lengthy, nuts and bolts of the narrative, I think that "Jane Eyre" is a work that can be approached many different ways, focusing on different aspects - much like Shakespeare, where his greatest works have received countless interpretations over the centuries, and still inspire new versions (Michael Fassbender has filmed a new Macbeth that will be released next year). I've enjoyed the Orson Welles, Joan Fontaine "Jane" since I was a child, although it very much has a time stamp on it stylistically - it's extremely melodramatic, with a Rochester that practically crushes Jane with his glowering and overwrought posturing, but still I enjoy it for what it is, it's beautiful. It's true that in order to cover as much of the details of the story as possible, it requires more time than what is available in a two hour film, so from that point a mini-series, such as the 2006 one, can cover more narrative ground. But for me, the highly cinematic approach to "Jane" taken in this 2011 feature film, with it's focus on keeping true to the original poetic language, combined with naturalistic acting, is what rings my bell. I see this film as having a different "voice" (but one I experience in the book), and possessing different strengths than other versions I've seen - I think it will not appear dated for a long time to come, I don't see a time stamp on it, like I do with many other versions. But that is me and my taste. I'm really interested to see what the next version of "Jane Eyre" looks like, and I'm sure there will be one. Hopefully, it will capture some other aspect of the story and shine some new light on the classic. What makes a classic is that it's a work that stands up over time and can be applied and interpreted in different eras, as seen by the spirit of that age. Jane Eyre is a classic.

I love the Timothy Dalton version. It is emotionally wrenching and quite true to the novel. Dalton is perhaps too handsome as Rochester, but he masters the imperious attitude, the pride, and the tortured soul. The actress who plays Jane is just plain enough to be perfect, and she exemplifies the strength that I always imagined Jane embodying. That being said, the 2011 movie was excellent. I thought I wouldn't like the reordered storytelling in the beginning, but they make this work and Mia is very good as Jane, if not a bit too attractive. Michael Fassbender is also very good as Rochester and I thought he did tortured very well. My only real gripe with the film was the abrupt ending. I don't really like they way they handled that. Nonetheless, very worthwhile and it pulled me immediately.