You mention the word 'nit picking'. Here is a nit pick from the BBC 2006 version....with Ruth Wilson. When Jane/Rochester/Adelle are in the carriage to go 'shopping', Jane (Ruth Wilson) has on a white plain but lovely dress. However, earlier in the movie when Mrs. Fairfax tells Jane that Rochester wants too meet her and Jane must change, Mrs. Fairfax goes to Jane's closet to look for a nicer dress. Jane has none. So Mrs. Fairfax pulls out a grey dress with white lace cuffs and says "This one will have to do". Well why didn't Jane put on this white dress (of course only seen ONCE in the carriage on the way to shopping). Yes,white dress would have been nice to wear more than that one time. Where did it suddenly appear from?!
Haha, good question! It was probably a mistake and they didn't notice the contradiction. Filmmakers often want to put Jane in lighter dresses for the engagement section, but it's risky to introduce anything too new and too fine, lest viewers wonder why she never pulled it out before. It's possible, I suppose, that Jane got herself a new dress for this period, as she'd be spending more time with Rochester and going about with him like this, but that seems less likely, considering her firm rejection of the finery he wants to lavish on her and her insistence on continuing on as they were before.
I don't hate this version, I really love the beautiful cinematography, the soundtrack is also melodious, childhood scenes of Jane are good. I think I really liked Charlotte Gainsborough, I thought physically she really looked like novel's Jane Eyre, plain and 18 years old even though Charlotte was 25 something at the time of filming. I think Adele and Mrs Fairfax in this version are my favorite along with the 1983. But William hurt is definitely not my favourite Rochester. I don't hate him, atleast he is not shouting, but still he feels totally miscast. I think Charlotte Gainsborough and Timothy Dalton would had made better pairing as Jane and Rochester
Hi, I love your videos! I don't usually rant in the comments but I feel I must defend William Hurt. I have many issues with this film (most of which you've pointed out) but I'll always have a soft spot for it because everything looks exactly like how I pictured it in my head. Zeffirelli ditches the gothic element in favour of the rich, earthy feel of the book. The Hurt/Gainsbourg pairing is my favourite because it's the only one which, to me, doesn't seem in some way cartoonish - and she is the right age. But if you watch Hurt's subtle acting more carefully, it's actually brilliant (not to mention, his English accent is flawless). It's a more thoughtful interpretation of Rochester but not inauthentic: he's not blustery and bombastic, but is a man with visible inner anguish. Of all the Rochesters, I feel his pain, and you really do get the sense that Jane is his last chance. In my opinion it's in fact Gainsbourg and not Hurt who is wooden, and in their scenes together he makes her acting look better than it is. My major problem with this adaptation is the final 20 minutes, because it totally leaves out the last 3rd of the novel with the Rivers family. Maybe it was felt that a mainstream modern audience wouldn't find it that interesting. The 2006 version was let down by a ridiculous script, and I believe that if the 1996 film had had the 1983 screenplay, it would be perfect.
Hi! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this movie! I really like hearing what you have to say about it. I don't know if you've seen any of my more recent Jane Eyre videos, but I've been (slowly!) doing a scene-by-scene comparison of all the adaptations and have been surprised to find that some of my impressions of certain versions are changing, 1996 included. I think looking at it in a detailed, piecemeal way like this is allowing me to see its good points more clearly. It looks fantastic, but beyond that, there are things about the script and the performances that I've come to like that I hadn't noticed or appreciated before. I don't think it will ever be a favorite for me (as a whole adaptation of JE, it still leaves something to be desired), but I'm more favorably disposed toward it than I was a few years ago when I filmed this video. Again, thanks for commenting! It's always a pleasure to hear someone's thoughts on anything Jane Eyre-related. :)
This was my first introduction to Jane Eyre. Your review is lucid. Director Franco Zeffirelli shows untypical restraint by sparse dialogue; the emotion bubbles below the surface. Franco Zeffirelli has in other movies has been accused of over- the- top emotionalism: i.e. his "The Champ" has the saddest tear jerker scene in cinematic history . Charlotte Gainsbourg has a serene stoicism and breaks your heart when she smiles. She dominates, not Rochester. The music score by Capponi and Vlad add a mysterious "je ne sais quais" which enchants and had audiences staying in their seats during he closing credits listening to the score. Your review is "piquant" !
I really like this version, though it is not my favorite. It is so darn beautiful: the score, the scenery, the colors. And , there was an economy in the dialog that got things across well. Loved all that. I saw this in an art movie house and the someone wasn't watching the projector because the film started to melt right before she leaves to go see her aunt. Someone yelled out "It's Grace Pool! " We had to come back to see the whole movie! Maybe that's why I have a fondness for it. :)
I watched this Jane Eyre adaptation last week. I have seen clips of all the different Jane Eyre adaptations on youtube, but the Jane Eyre 1996 one was the first film adaptation I have seen in full. I actually specifically choice to see this one first because it came out the year I was born, so it just felt perfectly fitting. Although there were a few things I liked about this adaptation, there were many more things I didn't care for. The movie felt way too rushed especially the ending. I can not pinpoint when exactly Jane and Mr. Rochester fell in love. Their scenes before the proposal were way too short. There was no gypsy scene. I am like you in that way. I enjoy watching the different gypsy scenes on youtube. The ripping of the wedding veil and Jane's nightmares would have been interesting to see, but they left that out. As someone who delights in having long beautiful hair, the hair cutting scene was very painful to watch, but I guess that was sort of the point. William Hurt as Mr. Rochester was kind of boring, but I guess there have been worst Mr. Rochesters. I did like Josephine Serre in the role of Adele. The music was good and the scenery was nice. Charlotte Gainsbourg did well as Jane Eyre though not my favorite. Overall I give it a C - since it left a lot to be desired. I plan to watch the 1997 version tonight. I hope to like it a bit better than this one although from what I have seen on youtube so far Ciaran Hind's blustery Mr. Rochester does make me cringe a little. I know this a long post, but I am just glad I was able to find someone who likes talking about Jane Eyre as much as I do.
Thanks for commenting! All thoughts on Jane Eyre are welcome, whether short or long. :) If you thought this movie felt rushed, you'd probably enjoy one of the miniseries adaptations more, as they take more time to flesh out the story and include scenes from the book that aren't exactly crucial to the plot but that the fans really like. I have found that this version improves in some respects over time, especially if you consider it on a scene-by-scene basis as I've been doing lately, and it is very appealing to look at. I hope you enjoy the 1997 one, although... well, it has its flaws too. I'm curious what you'll think of it, so feel free to share your thoughts again!
This version of Jane Eyre is okayish, but not one of my favorites. It's not awful, and there are some nice moments. They do a reasonably good job with it, but with most movie versions, too much is cut. Not some of my favorite Janes or Rochesters either. The movie is entertaining enough, and they do at least try to keep with the spirit of the novel. I think that Charlotte Gainsborough is a better Jane than William Hurt is a Rochester. William Hurt seems to lack Rochester's passion and humor. He is not repugnant -- Ciaran Hinds Rochester actually borders on the repugnant -- the 1997 version really rubs me the wrong way, but it has some nice moments too. I guess if I have to put up with less worthy Rochesters, I'll err on taking a bland Rochester over a repulsive one.
This I think was the first intro to Jane Eyre i ever had because I saw it on tv when i was young but the only thing I remember about it is finding it boring and looking back, I am so sad about it because I love William Hurt in so many things that he is in but he was a very forgettable Rochester :( I need to watch all of the 80s and 90s versions of Jane Eyre because most of them have always looked boring to me so i want to see if that is right or just my prejudice.
I'm not sure that Franco Zeffirelli's reputation was enhanced by directing "Jane Eyre", 1996, but he is probably a genuine Bronte fan with a colorful vision for the story. The singular portrayal of Edward Fairfax Rochester by actor William Hurt was notable and entertaining sustaining his reputation as a surprising and dedicated actor. The portrayal of Jane Eyre was charming in a way that befits a young woman of profound character borne from the vicissitudes of a tragic upbringing. Ultimately Jane does not stir the passion and love of yours truly because she has stuck the dramatic needle in the sour and dreary range. She fails to come alive and charm the story with her rapturous transformation.
I remember what a huge disappointment this movie was when I saw it upon its release in 1996. Have rewatched it during the Jane Eyre Marathon my sister and I have been doing lately. My opinion, upon rewatching this version:
@@Weiselberry Oops, I was copying from my spreadsheet and maybe didn't cut/paste correctly?: "Good. I hated this when I saw it in the theater when it was first released. It greatly suffered in comparison to the Timothy Dalton version I'd watched so often. Wm Hurt is blonde and too old to play Rochester, but CG was an excellent Jane (though she seemed far too tall) Upon the third viewing, I found Hurt to be a dull, kindly Rochester and CG to be an equally bland Jane." (BTW, I have just spent my entire day off binge-watching your scene adaptation comparisons... just finished the Wedding Scene. These are all fantastic, and so impressed with how much time you must have devoted to this project!)
@@joylederman4501 It's interesting how your perception of the way the characters were portrayed changed over time and with repeated viewings. I've experienced the same thing, though never to the extent that this one becomes a favorite adaptation. Haha, thank you! I'm so glad that you're enjoying them!
Admittedly there are some nice moments in this version. I like the moment when Jane looks in the mirror and calls herself a fool. A nice little touch, which is not in the book, is when Jane dumps the water from the flowers on the fire, and cuts herself with the thorns, and Rochester is concerned that Jane hurt herself to save him.
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
![ILLSLICK X YOUNGOHM - We're The same [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yUJNkobYR0E/mqdefault.jpg)
You mention the word 'nit picking'. Here is a nit pick from the BBC 2006 version....with Ruth Wilson. When Jane/Rochester/Adelle are in the carriage to go 'shopping', Jane (Ruth Wilson) has on a white plain but lovely dress. However, earlier in the movie when Mrs. Fairfax tells Jane that Rochester wants too meet her and Jane must change, Mrs. Fairfax goes to Jane's closet to look for a nicer dress. Jane has none. So Mrs. Fairfax pulls out a grey dress with white lace cuffs and says "This one will have to do". Well why didn't Jane put on this white dress (of course only seen ONCE in the carriage on the way to shopping). Yes,white dress would have been nice to wear more than that one time. Where did it suddenly appear from?!
Haha, good question! It was probably a mistake and they didn't notice the contradiction. Filmmakers often want to put Jane in lighter dresses for the engagement section, but it's risky to introduce anything too new and too fine, lest viewers wonder why she never pulled it out before. It's possible, I suppose, that Jane got herself a new dress for this period, as she'd be spending more time with Rochester and going about with him like this, but that seems less likely, considering her firm rejection of the finery he wants to lavish on her and her insistence on continuing on as they were before.
A goof?
I don't hate this version, I really love the beautiful cinematography, the soundtrack is also melodious, childhood scenes of Jane are good. I think I really liked Charlotte Gainsborough, I thought physically she really looked like novel's Jane Eyre, plain and 18 years old even though Charlotte was 25 something at the time of filming. I think Adele and Mrs Fairfax in this version are my favorite along with the 1983. But William hurt is definitely not my favourite Rochester. I don't hate him, atleast he is not shouting, but still he feels totally miscast. I think Charlotte Gainsborough and Timothy Dalton would had made better pairing as Jane and Rochester
Hi, I love your videos! I don't usually rant in the comments but I feel I must defend William Hurt. I have many issues with this film (most of which you've pointed out) but I'll always have a soft spot for it because everything looks exactly like how I pictured it in my head. Zeffirelli ditches the gothic element in favour of the rich, earthy feel of the book.
The Hurt/Gainsbourg pairing is my favourite because it's the only one which, to me, doesn't seem in some way cartoonish - and she is the right age. But if you watch Hurt's subtle acting more carefully, it's actually brilliant (not to mention, his English accent is flawless). It's a more thoughtful interpretation of Rochester but not inauthentic: he's not blustery and bombastic, but is a man with visible inner anguish. Of all the Rochesters, I feel his pain, and you really do get the sense that Jane is his last chance. In my opinion it's in fact Gainsbourg and not Hurt who is wooden, and in their scenes together he makes her acting look better than it is.
My major problem with this adaptation is the final 20 minutes, because it totally leaves out the last 3rd of the novel with the Rivers family. Maybe it was felt that a mainstream modern audience wouldn't find it that interesting.
The 2006 version was let down by a ridiculous script, and I believe that if the 1996 film had had the 1983 screenplay, it would be perfect.
Hi! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this movie! I really like hearing what you have to say about it. I don't know if you've seen any of my more recent Jane Eyre videos, but I've been (slowly!) doing a scene-by-scene comparison of all the adaptations and have been surprised to find that some of my impressions of certain versions are changing, 1996 included. I think looking at it in a detailed, piecemeal way like this is allowing me to see its good points more clearly. It looks fantastic, but beyond that, there are things about the script and the performances that I've come to like that I hadn't noticed or appreciated before. I don't think it will ever be a favorite for me (as a whole adaptation of JE, it still leaves something to be desired), but I'm more favorably disposed toward it than I was a few years ago when I filmed this video. Again, thanks for commenting! It's always a pleasure to hear someone's thoughts on anything Jane Eyre-related. :)
That's an interesting observation. You've inspired me to give this version another watch.
This was my first introduction to Jane Eyre. Your review is lucid. Director Franco Zeffirelli shows untypical restraint by sparse dialogue; the emotion bubbles below the surface. Franco Zeffirelli has in other movies has been accused of over- the- top emotionalism: i.e. his "The Champ" has the saddest tear jerker scene in cinematic history . Charlotte Gainsbourg has a serene stoicism and breaks your heart when she smiles. She dominates, not Rochester. The music score by Capponi and Vlad add a mysterious "je ne sais quais" which enchants and had audiences staying in their seats during he closing credits listening to the score. Your review is "piquant" !
I really like this version, though it is not my favorite. It is so darn beautiful: the score, the scenery, the colors. And , there was an economy in the dialog that got things across well. Loved all that. I saw this in an art movie house and the someone wasn't watching the projector because the film started to melt right before she leaves to go see her aunt. Someone yelled out "It's Grace Pool! " We had to come back to see the whole movie! Maybe that's why I have a fondness for it. :)
I agree, it's absolutely a gorgeous film. Ha, that sounds hilarious! :)
I watched this Jane Eyre adaptation last week. I have seen clips of all the different Jane Eyre adaptations on youtube, but the Jane Eyre 1996 one was the first film adaptation I have seen in full. I actually specifically choice to see this one first because it came out the year I was born, so it just felt perfectly fitting. Although there were a few things I liked about this adaptation, there were many more things I didn't care for. The movie felt way too rushed especially the ending. I can not pinpoint when exactly Jane and Mr. Rochester fell in love. Their scenes before the proposal were way too short. There was no gypsy scene. I am like you in that way. I enjoy watching the different gypsy scenes on youtube. The ripping of the wedding veil and Jane's nightmares would have been interesting to see, but they left that out. As someone who delights in having long beautiful hair, the hair cutting scene was very painful to watch, but I guess that was sort of the point. William Hurt as Mr. Rochester was kind of boring, but I guess there have been worst Mr. Rochesters. I did like Josephine Serre in the role of Adele. The music was good and the scenery was nice. Charlotte Gainsbourg did well as Jane Eyre though not my favorite. Overall I give it a C - since it left a lot to be desired. I plan to watch the 1997 version tonight. I hope to like it a bit better than this one although from what I have seen on youtube so far Ciaran Hind's blustery Mr. Rochester does make me cringe a little. I know this a long post, but I am just glad I was able to find someone who likes talking about Jane Eyre as much as I do.
Thanks for commenting! All thoughts on Jane Eyre are welcome, whether short or long. :) If you thought this movie felt rushed, you'd probably enjoy one of the miniseries adaptations more, as they take more time to flesh out the story and include scenes from the book that aren't exactly crucial to the plot but that the fans really like. I have found that this version improves in some respects over time, especially if you consider it on a scene-by-scene basis as I've been doing lately, and it is very appealing to look at. I hope you enjoy the 1997 one, although... well, it has its flaws too. I'm curious what you'll think of it, so feel free to share your thoughts again!
My initial approach to Jane Eyre was through the "Oxford Bookworms" audio book, read by Clare West. I think your comments on this movie is very fare.
This version of Jane Eyre is okayish, but not one of my favorites. It's not awful, and there are some nice moments. They do a reasonably good job with it, but with most movie versions, too much is cut. Not some of my favorite Janes or Rochesters either. The movie is entertaining enough, and they do at least try to keep with the spirit of the novel. I think that Charlotte Gainsborough is a better Jane than William Hurt is a Rochester. William Hurt seems to lack Rochester's passion and humor. He is not repugnant -- Ciaran Hinds Rochester actually borders on the repugnant -- the 1997 version really rubs me the wrong way, but it has some nice moments too. I guess if I have to put up with less worthy Rochesters, I'll err on taking a bland Rochester over a repulsive one.
This I think was the first intro to Jane Eyre i ever had because I saw it on tv when i was young but the only thing I remember about it is finding it boring and looking back, I am so sad about it because I love William Hurt in so many things that he is in but he was a very forgettable Rochester :( I need to watch all of the 80s and 90s versions of Jane Eyre because most of them have always looked boring to me so i want to see if that is right or just my prejudice.
I'm not sure that Franco Zeffirelli's reputation was enhanced by directing "Jane Eyre", 1996, but he is probably a genuine Bronte fan with a colorful vision for the story. The singular portrayal of Edward Fairfax Rochester by actor William Hurt was notable and entertaining sustaining his reputation as a surprising and dedicated actor. The portrayal of Jane Eyre was charming in a way that befits a young woman of profound character borne from the vicissitudes of a tragic upbringing. Ultimately Jane does not stir the passion and love of yours truly because she has stuck the dramatic needle in the sour and dreary range. She fails to come alive and charm the story with her rapturous transformation.
I remember what a huge disappointment this movie was when I saw it upon its release in 1996. Have rewatched it during the Jane Eyre Marathon my sister and I have been doing lately. My opinion, upon rewatching this version:
Whoops, I think something happened to the rest of your comment!
@@Weiselberry Oops, I was copying from my spreadsheet and maybe didn't cut/paste correctly?: "Good. I hated this when I saw it in the theater when it was first released. It greatly suffered in comparison to the Timothy Dalton version I'd watched so often. Wm Hurt is blonde and too old to play Rochester, but CG was an excellent Jane (though she seemed far too tall) Upon the third viewing, I found Hurt to be a dull, kindly Rochester and CG to be an equally bland Jane." (BTW, I have just spent my entire day off binge-watching your scene adaptation comparisons... just finished the Wedding Scene. These are all fantastic, and so impressed with how much time you must have devoted to this project!)
@@joylederman4501 It's interesting how your perception of the way the characters were portrayed changed over time and with repeated viewings. I've experienced the same thing, though never to the extent that this one becomes a favorite adaptation. Haha, thank you! I'm so glad that you're enjoying them!
I agree I cannot see child Jane in this movie grow up to be adult Jane the personality drastically changes.
I think gave a lovely review, thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I just streamed it. It's nice, but it's not Jane Eyre.
William Hurt is too bland to be Rochester. Charlotte Gainsborough acts like her dental retainer is bothering her.
Admittedly there are some nice moments in this version. I like the moment when Jane looks in the mirror and calls herself a fool. A nice little touch, which is not in the book, is when Jane dumps the water from the flowers on the fire, and cuts herself with the thorns, and Rochester is concerned that Jane hurt herself to save him.