Adaptations

Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte                        

How stunning is this??? The passion!!! The sincerity!!! The grovelling!!! His head is really huge.

After watching (almost) all of the Jane Eyre adaptations, I have come to the conclusion that the 2011 version with Mia and Michael is the absolute best (when it comes to the films) (and dare I say, my favourite film of all time). They embody the characters perfectly and when I reread the novel their faces are in my head. The score is beautiful, the scenery is beautiful, their expressions and the way they act together is beautiful, it's stunning. 

ON THE CONTRARY, I'm watching the 2006 mini-series now...Uh. I'm not a fan of the way they've taken creative liberties with the script, it's so unlike the novel to the point where I'm sure that Rochester would never really say what he says...And that's what bothers me! I prefer adaptations to be faithful to the original source. It's an interpretation of course, but the beautiful dialogue and actions between Rochester and Jane is the essence of the entire novel, you can't go and mess with that.

...But Stephens' Rochester here is just so gross. Textually, Rochester is a piece of crap most of the times, but it's the early 19th century, it's not like he completely lacks class. Stephens' R is gross. There, that's my critique. 

But really -- just because Rochester is a byronic character does not mean he has to lack class!!! Michael's Rochester is still ""elegant"" (loosely) and somewhat respectful (???) -- even in the beginning horse scene with Mia where he accuses her of witch-craft! Here in the 2006 version, when Rochester meets Jane for the first time and she ""bewitches"" his horse, he literally screams "LEAVE ME ALONE, WITCH." ???? Huh??? There is no way the real Rochester would say that! "You bewitched my horse" is a cheeky, half-serious-mostly-joking phrase, but straight-up calling the girl a witch is rude as hell, and not true-to-text! AND HE KEEPS CALLING HER "WITCH" IN PLACE OF ALL THE OTHER PET-NAMES BOOK ROCHESTER GIVES HER!!! WITCH IS NOT THE SAME AS "fairy" or "imp," come on! Early 19th-century rules of chivalry would mean Rochester would never just up and say those things to a girl he's never met!!! I don't know,  it just feels weird to pick and choose which Victorian and which modern aspects to combine. I think the audience is able to comprehend Charlotte's language, anyone can read it, there's no reason to dumb it down. Her language is specifically what makes the novel so beautiful.

"I saw it in your eyes: their expression, your smile -- was so lovely" (Okay???)

VS.

"I saw it in your eyes when I first beheld you: their expression and smile did not strike delight to my very inmost heart so for nothing." (Gorgeous!!!) (The original text)

Oh, but the 1997 adaptation with Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton was interesting! Ciaran's Rochester was kinda freaky. Which is also kinda accurate. He definitely doesn't try to be too handsome, which is the case for other Rochesters. BUT the 1983 one with Timothy Dalton is fantastic, and the best tv-series adaptation!!! Purely because it stays true to (almost) EVERYTHING!!! It doesn't cut or change things (except somehow decentralizes Jane's feminism, how lame) it's what Charlotte would've wanted ☺ Anyways. I've been hyper-fixating on this novel, it's my favourite ever, ever, ever. Which is good because I needed something to keep me occupied this winter :-] And Jane Eyre is super wintery-themed.

Also, what the heck. The 2011 version is somehow the only version that actually maintains the feminist aspects of the novel instead of cutting it out entirely. 

Okay, g'bye :-)