Your criticisms about the childhood scenes are completely valid - little or no Bessie, Helen Burns, Miss Temple. Clunky references to twins and the supernatural. Etc. And yet.......I LOVE this version! To me, it captures the essence of Jane Eyre, epitomised by the ending when a confident and dominant Jane rolls on top of her man. Yes, I know it isn't in the book! But, then again, it most definitely is! Then there is the infamous post-(aborted)wedding scene. I was shocked by this on first viewing. I, too, felt this was an attempt to "spice things up". Then I read the spicy and erotic dreams that Jane has in chapter 32 when she is in her cottage. How she would then awaken "on her curtainless bed, trembling and quivering; and then the still, dark night witnessed the convulsion of despair, and heard the burst of passion". This is what we see in Jane Eyre 2006! Remember that we don't see the scenes in chronological sequence in the series. We see them as flashbacks of memory while Jane is in despair. A clever fusion of distorted memories and the dreams of ch. 32. When viewed like that, it is positively inspired! And an ingenious way to convey Jane's longing and the strength needed to give up her lover. Ruth Wilson was a phenomenal Jane in my not so humble opinion. So, although it's not perfect, we will never see anything of this calibre again. 10/10.
oh my goodness, I've been missing your reviews of each JE version till now. Duh. It is so nice seeing other people like this JE stuff. You are always entertaining. Anyways, Ruth Wilson is my favorite Jane and she and Toby were very good together. What really bothered me about this version is the Ouija board, the telepathic twin theme and showing Bertha in the act of adultery. All were very unnecessary to the story. What I really felt was implausible was the horizontal "stay with me " scene. Really, if you had Jane's moral dilemma and Toby's Rochester making out with you on the bed HOW could you resist that? I guess you could take it as a fantasy sequence but in my fantasy sequence I'd be staying! I liked that the Reed cousins are in this one and also the Rivers family. And I liked the cheesy ending. I wish more film people would think "happy marriage" was cinematic and go past "Reader, I married him." . They have a marriage for real, he sees her blue dress and necklace, they have kids. I like that this series ended joyfully, alluding to some of this.
Thank you! I feel exactly the same as you. I've never cared for those artistic choices either; odd how such a faithful adaptation in some ways also has so many gratuitous extra scenes thrown in. And yes, haha, she has to be a very determined woman to force herself out of there. I love that they give us the opportunity to see them married and content and building a family too. I think it's essential to take that extra last step, as the book did, just to solidify (if anyone had any doubts) that Jane and Rochester were going to be happy together.
A lot of weird directorial choices, too. Showing Jane acting like a schoolgirl long before she's supposed to have developed any feelings. These very quick, dramatic closeups that belong in Mission: Impossible. It was almost camp.
I love this version, but I also found the makeout-on-the-bed scene (while shmexy) to be wildly untrue to Jane's character. In the book, she wouldn't even let Rochester kiss her after learning of Bertha. I also felt that in some scenes, certain things were said outright which were supposed to be subtext. Still enjoyed it tho. 🤷♀️
I am another book fanatic, and always judge adaptations by faithfulness to the book. I really like the casting of this one, but had a lot of the same objections you had. 1983 seemed the closest to the book (and I ordered it) until I discovered 1973 which is even better. On the other hand, I really like Ruth Wilson as Jane. Toby Stephens is one of the Rochesters who is far too handsome.
This adaptation is why I know Jane Eyre. (In Portugal, Jane Eyre is not a widely popular book.) I started watching it on television one night and I got hooked. I remember when I watched the scene when Jane's leaving for Gateshead and she sees Rochester and smiles and then Blanche shows up, it hit me like a bucket of cold water. I felt physically cold! I watched it again on TV before I read the book. I pretty much agree with your review. Before I read the book, I didn't understood why Jane was happy to see Bessie. Her childhood is very rushed. The bed scene would never happen. She doesn't even let him hold her hand when she thought they would marry, now this? I've read different opinions on IMDb's forum, but I feel the same as you on this. Before I read the book I even asked myself if they had sex after that scene. :o There's not a perfect version, but this is my favourite. It has some of the most beautiful scenes from the book done properly and Ruth and Toby have an amazing chemistry. :)
And it bothers me that people could be confused that way. Jane Eyre isn't a "did they, or didn't they?" story! But despite that, yes, this version remains a favorite for me too.
Jane Eyre is a novel not a trivia game. Its greatness is not the sum of its fictional anecdotes but the appeal to the heart and mind by art and witchcraft of unknown origin. If I want to hold the hand of the current Jane Eyre and kiss her cheek despite myself before the ending credits roll, then the current actress has crossed the threshold and accomplished a milestone. I will hold that version close to my heart. Samantha Morton did this to me and so did Ruth Wilson: the other Janes, not so much.
I fell in love with this version. For me, when I reread the novel it is this couple I see. My younger sister (who is not a period drama fan) loves this version for the humor. As for the bed scene, I agree that it is not in the book but I see it, it is a desperate Rochester trying everything he can to keep her with him. He does tell his story with Bertha just after they have been in the room witnessing her madness. I love this despair when he says to the others " Do you wonder why I wanted her? Why I risked the warth of God to get her?". In conclusion, in order for me to love an adaptation, I understand and love changes made as long as they stay coherent and faithful to the book.
Ok JW, I’ll admit it: there is life after the ‘83 adaption. As much as I enjoyed this 2006 version, the ‘83 one is for me still the Gold Standard. Having said that, there were a few things 2006 did better, chief among them is how they handled the progression of Jane and Edward’s relationship - better paced and more emotionally believable. And I actually prefer how this 2006 one ends with the family portrait. That got me right in The Feels I’ll admit. The best thing about both mini series versions though is the amount of time devoted to the story. Kudos to all who have crammed the story into 2ish hours, but that doesn’t really do it justice in my opinion. Would be like making a 90 min movie out of Tolstoy’s War & Peace. I think from here on out I’ll eschew whatever shorter versions I haven’t gotten to and read the book...seeing the ‘83 cast in my minds eye as I do 😁
Oh, I absolutely agree: the miniseries is the way to go. The feature-length films try their best (and results vary), but when I try to pick a favorite version of each individual scene, one of the three miniseries adaptations almost always wins because those are the ones that have the time to cover more of the original dialogue and flesh out the relationship and story. I'm all about the dialogue. By all means, though, read the book! :)
Regarding this scene in bed, I think it is a questioning of the puritanism necessary at the time the work was written. In the book Rochester waits for Jane for hours in front of the bedroom door and when she finally comes out, she stumbles upon him who takes her in his arms and takes her to the office, which is on the floor below. I believe that the screenwriter does not believe in this story, when taking into account Rochester's personality, and that way it would be more believable for him to take her into the room that was right there. And it's worth remembering that in the conversation that takes place in the book, there's a moment when she insists so much that she's going to leave him that he threatens to either hurt her or seduce her by force. but he holds back because she starts to cry. As they say, adaptation and a little poetic license.
Delightful ! I've just come across your channel, so I think it's going to keep me engrossed for some months to come. I love the 2006 version and Ruth Wilson is outstanding - it vies with the 1973 version as my favourite. I don't think Jayne Eyre can be done justice in 2-hour cinematic adaptations : I recently watched the 1996 Zeffirelli attempt and thought it was a travesty - though maybe I'll give it another chance some day. Thank you for what you are (and have been) doing for Jane Eyre fans.
Thank you, and welcome! I tend to agree, as for the most part I prefer the miniseries versions over the films. But I do find that the shorter ones have their merits as well, and with closer scrutiny I appreciate what they did manage to accomplish in a limited time frame. Not every choice works out well, but there are some clever and intriguing interpretations of scenes even in the most far-off adaptations.
I like this version, despite it being relatively unfaithful. Because they flesh out the central relationship so well, which many other recent adaptations (looking at you 2011) don't. But there's so much extraneous stuff that's not needed and the bed fumbling scene is just so very very wrong. But I like it. Toby and Ruth just do it for me, they work.
"Jane Eyre", 2006, is a fabulous adaptation of the enduring story by Charlotte Bronte, and as it is a four-hour mini-series (made for TV), it has the luxury of elaborating on the nearly full plot of the classic novel, but the real strength of this version is the acting talent and acting presence of Ruth Wilson who was cast to play Jane Eyre herself. For instance, the extra time devoted to the childhood "red room" incident is not improved, clarified or uplifted compared to the compact but excellent 1997 version of the same. This version, as with the 1997 version, is best judged by its whole and not by any inspection of anecdotes or particulars. This version could be improved with some of the smooth editing lavished on the 1997 version. The petting scenes abed at Thornfield Hall are inappropriate to the time and the character of Jane Eyre, but they do not sink the endeavor any more than flaws in the others were fatal. Toby Stephens is an effective, if errant, Mr. Rochester, and his chemistry with Ruth Wilson is very fortunate. This Rochester is a pander to those in the audience who are susceptible to the Prince Charming cliche. He is more charming than the other Mr. Rochesters before him. In the end, he is a fine foil for the enchanting Ruth Wilson and her choice interpretation. The greatest measure for me in my exploration of the various interpretations is the degree to which I fall in love with the lead character, Jane Eyre. I do fall in love with Jane Eyre in 1997 with Samantha Morton and again with Ruth Wilson in 2006. I highly recommend this adaptation, but I still prefer the 1997 version.
I've seen all adaptations of Jane Eyre starting with the 1943 version through the 2011 movie. Even though the 2006 miniseries adaptation doesn't always follow the book it is my very favorite version. While the bedroom scene was hot, it was not something Jane Eyre would have ever done. The chemistry between Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson is really what makes the series, it was off the charts wonderful.
Let's stick to the facts... Toby Stephens is the HOTTEST Mr. Rochester of all times... there can be no disagreement. Oh yes, and Ruth Wilson is a wonderful Jane... the best IMO. Yes, some of it is a bit rushed, condensed and "over-sexed" but considering how dryly chaste many of the other versions are, it's 2006 all the way!
Do you own most or all versions of JE? I agree with most of your views on this one, the reason I got into this one was because at the time I was a Georgie Henley fan and I found out she was in this version, well now I prefer my personal favorite 1943 version. My Mom loved and still loves the 1997 version and I actually enjoyed that one too but this version, ummm. Lets just say that I am embarrassed to watch this one with my dad. However my Mom ended up loving this version (she loves the romance in her films)
The only one I personally own is 1973, but as a family we own 1943, 1983, 1996, 1997, and 2006. (I gave most of those to my mom as Christmas presents.) I understand what you mean. When it was airing on PBS, my parents, sister, and I watched it together and we were like, "Wow! This is different." We generally rewatch it when my dad's not around. Not that he minds. The only JE he likes is 1943.
haha, my Dad also liked the 2006 version. He didn't care for the 1997 version and he never saw any others. I personally own the 1934 version, 1943, and 2006. My Mom owns the 1997 version but she wants to buy the 2006 version for herself.
Finally, my sister and I just watched the 2006 version of Jane Eyre. I'd only seen it once, when it was originally broadcast. I was APPALLED with the adaptation at the time. The only thing that stuck with me for the past 16 years was Jane & Rochester rolling around on the bed together. This was a BBC production, the same folks who brought us the wonderful 1973 and 1983 versions. I assumed they would consider Jane Eyre to be an English Classic and would treat it as canon. Instead, we have a very Twenty-first Century Jane. I'm no prude, but I expect Jane Eyre to behave as Jane Eyre! So, I went into this evening's viewing with low expectations. But I figured I owed it a second viewing since so many people consider Toby Stephens to be the definitive Rochester. These were a few plot points that I found extremely annoying: 1) Adele was MUCH too old. She is supposed to be younger than 8 yrs old. This girl looked to be at least 12 or 13, almost pre-pubescent. 2) When Rochester was describing how Adele came into his care, he shows her being left as an infant. Then how is it that Adele is singing bawdy songs and being flirtatious? Those habits were supposed to be a result of her early years spent with her mother, entertaining gentlemen. 3) Again, the wrong sort of dog. In the book, Pilot is described as a Landseer Newfoundland. In this version, he was portrayed by a Scottish Deerhound. (What can I say, I'm a dog lover. The only version that had the right Pilot was 1997, with a large black & white shaggy dog in the 1983) 4) Why was St John not BLONDE???? How friggin' hard would it have been to either find a blonde actor or a blonde wig? St John's appearance was crucial to the story, contrasting him from Rochester. Of course, this Rochester wasn't broad-shouldered and dark either. 5) Nice to see the gypsy scene, but why wasn't the gypsy played by Rochester??? 6) I really disliked Thornfield's interior....the long stone hallways, the narrow spiral staircase to get to Mason (how did they carry him out of that room?). I did appreciate how much of the original dialogue was used, I hadn't remembered that from my earlier viewing. Of course it wasn't always used in the "right" order in the story, but at least they tucked some of Bronte's words in amongst the modern terminology. I really liked this version of Bertha!...she is still beautiful, but mad as a March Hare. I liked that they included the Rosamund character, she is so often left out. I liked that this version does reveal the Rivers to be Jane's "half-cousins" (I never could understand how Jane was completely unaware of her fathers TWO siblings). I appreciated some of the added Jane/Rochester exchanges as it did allow for an understanding of how they could have been attracted to one another. All in all, this Jane Eyre felt like it was meant to focus on the Romance, while ignoring many of the deeper issues explored in the book. I will watch it again soon and make notes (I didn't want to do so while watching with my sister), perhaps on a third viewing I'll appreciate it even more. As of right now, the 1973 and 1983 remain tie for Best Jane Eyre Adaptation IMO. Toby Stephens is far from the "Best Rochester".
The BBC isn't quite the same as it used to be, unfortunately. This was a harbinger of things to come, and taking extreme liberties with the text to spice things up is practically the norm now (and not just with BBC adaptations). It's not a trend I'm particularly fond of, though I do love this version despite certain scenes and choices. I went into more detail about those issues in my adaptation comparison series, where I found that if you scrutinize the scenes with book in hand, the adaptation doesn't fare so well... Ha, you bring up a lot of good points, including a couple I hadn't thought of before, like how Adele would know those songs if she was a baby when Rochester took her in. And how *did* they get Mason out of there?
Since this version is four hours long it took me two nights to watch it. It was no surprise to me that I ended up loving the full version as I have always loved watching the TH-cam clips. Ruth Wilson is Jane Eyre to me. She looks just as I would imagine Jane to look in the book. Toby Stephens is my favorite Mr. Rochester by far. He is the perfect combination of brooding and flirtatious. Interestingly enough Toby Stephens played the love interest of Tara Fitzgerald (the actress who plays Mrs. Reed) in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. Did you know that? Have you seen that movie before? Back to Jane Eyre, I really liked Georgie Henley as young Jane, but that might be because I loved watching her as Lucy in The Chronicles of Narnia series. For that reason I wish we could have seen a little more of Jane's childhood.I also really enjoyed the scene after the fire in Mr. Rochester's bedroom where he put the blanket around her and holds her hand. I especially loved how she kissed the hand that he held once she got back to her room; and the music in that scene was both haunting and beautiful. I don't know how many times I have rewatched that scene in TH-cam. Because this was a four hour mini-series and not a two hour movie, Jane and Mr. Rochester 's relationship was much better developed and you could actually see them gradually fall in love. I loved that this version has the gypsy scene. Even though it does not unfold in the same way as in the book, I think it worked out really well for the series. Now having given a list of things I loved about this version, there were a couple of things that bothered me. I did not care for the bedroom scene where Jane tells Mr. Rochester she must leave him. You are correct when you say that Jane in the book would never have allowed Mr. Rochester to touch and kiss her like that when she just found out that he had a wife still living. This scene was extremely awkward to watch and I was watching it by myself. I can't imagine how much awkward it would have been to watch it with one of my parents or even my sisters. The second thing I didn't like might seem a little nitpicky. I thought that the very end where they are all sitting around to have their portrait painted was a little corny. I can't believe I am about to compliment the 1997 version, but I would have rather have had them take a page out of their book and have the series close with Jane and Mr. Rochester walking along the water with their children and a voiceover from Jane. Despite those two minor complaints, I still give this version a solid A. Next up I am going to see if I can track down the full versions of 1973 and 1983 on TH-cam since my library doesn't have them.
Woohoo, I'm glad you enjoyed this one! Yes, I love watching this Jane and this Rochester interact with each other. Their relationship is so much fun, something that several other versions fail to capture. Yes, I have seen The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, and I think about that every time I rewatch this one. :) Ha, I'm not sure I ever thought of the final scene as corny, but it does have kind of a '90s rom-com feel to it (I guess because the last shot reminds me of the 1996 Emma); and need they have included quite so many people? It's like a Wizard of Oz moment: "And you were there! And you were there!" It is nice, though, to see everyone smiling and happy, and Jane can curl her hair now too. :) Oh boy, can't wait to hear more of your thoughts! I think they are both on TH-cam, but let me know if there's a version you're not able to find.
Hi Kayla! So happy that you loved my favourite version! Have a look at my comments below (3 years ago now), to see my take on the bedroom scene. Please let me know your thoughts. ;-)
Once again, I really like Rochester's portrayal but not so much Jane's: 1983 and 2006 are my fave miniseries, but I found Zelah somewhat bland and Ruth too modern. In both versions it was hard to believe in the 20 yr age gap. I wish Timothy or Toby could have acted with Samantha or Charlotte (1997/6). Overall, the best couple was the 1973 one.
Ha, I understand what you mean. I can't help enjoying this version more than several others, but when you compare it side by side with the book, there are quite a few things that don't match.
I can't remember if I've seen this one. I want to say yes... But maybe I'm thinking of the Timothy Dalton one... Damn, he was good as Rochester... His version of Wuthering Heights is awful though. That movie's practically a Greek tragedy...But getting back to Jane Eyre, I'd say most of the adaptations (that I've seen anyway) are really well done. I think I've seen 4 versions, and the only one I didn't like was the 2011 one with Mia Whatsohername
Only 4?! Just kidding. :) I've seen 3 versions of Wuthering Heights and they all drove me crazy. I like the book well enough (read it a few times), but watching people act that crazy, even if just for a couple hours, isn't fun to me. (Sorry to all the Wuthering Heights fans out there!)
I adore Wuthering Heights, but it just does not lend itself well to the silver screen. And it doesn't help matters that most of the movies don't even cover the second half of the novel, so people think Heathcliff is this tragic lover, when in reality he is a manipulative and vindictive monster surrounded by equally vindictive creatures. The Ralph Fiennes version dared to cover the whole book, and that was.. oof. No. In case you haven't seen it, I won't spoil the awful casting decision, and just say that it has a wonderful soundtrack :D
That's one of the things that's always bothered me, the fact that there's so much emphasis put on the love story that people minimize or gloss over or just plain forget the awful things that Heathcliff forces people to do. I tend to think of him more as a villain than a hero, which I suspect is an unpopular opinion among WH fans (one reason why I won't do a series of WH reviews). I think I find the stuff that happens with the younger generation of characters more interesting, maybe because they're not as wild and intense, and Hareton and Cathy actually end up being likeable, which is more than I can say for most of the other characters. This makes it sound like I don't like the book, but I do! It's a complicated relationship. :/ I saw a few parts of the Ralph Fiennes version in high school, and since I never felt the urge to rush out and rent it, I guess I wasn't crazy about it either.
I love Wuthering Heights, especially the Timothy Dalton version. I was 15 when I saw it at the movies. I hadn't yet read the book and only had a vague idea about it. When it ended, I burst into tears and didn't stop balling until my dad picked up me and my friends and got us home 15-20 minutes later. I was still gasping and trying to catch my breath when I entered my house and freaked out my mom. She wondered what was wrong! In other words, it made a huge impression on me, to this day. I was disappointed with the book, when it kept on through another generation. But I did like the Ralph Fiennes version, too, just not as much. I guess I like the bad boys, but only in this case.... Also, I liked both of their respective soundtracks.
LOL, I always just put the bed scene to the fact the guy playing Rochester would never have been able to carry the actress playing Jane down the staircase. I think she was the biggest actress to play small stature Jane. I think she was supposed to be like 5'2" or something like that.
IIRC in one of the deleted scenes of 2006 version, Mr. Rochester chased Jane through the latter's room. Jane slammed the door in her room and locked it while Mr. Rochester is begging to Jane to talk to him. Like you said, its would be difficult for Mr. Rochester to carry Jane there because they nearly have average height so that scene was created to compensate.
@@maineclayton2419 I didn't like that scene. Jane wasn't the running type. She said what she thought. Plus the bed scene was not in her nature. I read it was more of a fantasy for Jane to think of what could have been.
@@janelle144 Yeah, some said that scene was based on Jane's dream in Chapter 32. Considering that Jane in that version tend to have imaginative thoughts to escape from her problems temporarily, the scene felt ambiguous whether it actually happened or part of Jane's imagination. IMO, while that scene was justified it was still felt poorly executed.
I couldn't even finish this one. It was so wrong. Once they introduced the Ouija, I was out. The Stephens portrayal of Rochester may be the among the better ones, but the rest of it just doesn't work for me, at all. Especially Wilson. It was closer to daytime television than 19th century literature. I thought '83 was far superior. Now I'm moving on to the '73 version. I have higher hopes.
@@sageantone7291 The actress playing Jane Eyre in 1973 version ( Sorcha Cusack) was however 23 years old. But yes she looks very much older than her age and always has that constant smirk and raised eyebrow expression on her face.
This version is the worst. The main characters don' arouse any emotions but irritation. I can' imagine Toby as a strong master of two estates. He looks like an aged student. Looking at him, I did't feel the great tragedy that had spoiled his best years. I don' pity neither him nor his Jane. They haven't show their love. I saw only some kind of flirting. And they both behaved like a long-ago married couple, especilly in the episode with Eshton leaving Thornfieldhall after the party. I realize that all was because of the script. The novel is long enough, and there was no need to introduce new characters and alter the dialogues. I dare say Charlote Bronte had done well. That's why her novel is loved and read even now.
Don’t love this version. Too much acting - not real chemistry BETWEEN the actors. Besides, Too dark and the Jane representation is cold and the lips are disturbing.
Your criticisms about the childhood scenes are completely valid - little or no Bessie, Helen Burns, Miss Temple. Clunky references to twins and the supernatural. Etc. And yet.......I LOVE this version! To me, it captures the essence of Jane Eyre, epitomised by the ending when a confident and dominant Jane rolls on top of her man. Yes, I know it isn't in the book! But, then again, it most definitely is! Then there is the infamous post-(aborted)wedding scene. I was shocked by this on first viewing. I, too, felt this was an attempt to "spice things up". Then I read the spicy and erotic dreams that Jane has in chapter 32 when she is in her cottage. How she would then awaken "on her curtainless bed, trembling and quivering; and then the still, dark night witnessed the convulsion of despair, and heard the burst of passion". This is what we see in Jane Eyre 2006! Remember that we don't see the scenes in chronological sequence in the series. We see them as flashbacks of memory while Jane is in despair. A clever fusion of distorted memories and the dreams of ch. 32. When viewed like that, it is positively inspired! And an ingenious way to convey Jane's longing and the strength needed to give up her lover. Ruth Wilson was a phenomenal Jane in my not so humble opinion. So, although it's not perfect, we will never see anything of this calibre again. 10/10.
oh my goodness, I've been missing your reviews of each JE version till now. Duh. It is so nice seeing other people like this JE stuff. You are always entertaining. Anyways, Ruth Wilson is my favorite Jane and she and Toby were very good together. What really bothered me about this version is the Ouija board, the telepathic twin theme and showing Bertha in the act of adultery. All were very unnecessary to the story. What I really felt was implausible was the horizontal "stay with me " scene. Really, if you had Jane's moral dilemma and Toby's Rochester making out with you on the bed HOW could you resist that? I guess you could take it as a fantasy sequence but in my fantasy sequence I'd be staying!
I liked that the Reed cousins are in this one and also the Rivers family. And I liked the cheesy ending. I wish more film people would think "happy marriage" was cinematic and go past "Reader, I married him." . They have a marriage for real, he sees her blue dress and necklace, they have kids. I like that this series ended joyfully, alluding to some of this.
Thank you! I feel exactly the same as you. I've never cared for those artistic choices either; odd how such a faithful adaptation in some ways also has so many gratuitous extra scenes thrown in. And yes, haha, she has to be a very determined woman to force herself out of there. I love that they give us the opportunity to see them married and content and building a family too. I think it's essential to take that extra last step, as the book did, just to solidify (if anyone had any doubts) that Jane and Rochester were going to be happy together.
A lot of weird directorial choices, too. Showing Jane acting like a schoolgirl long before she's supposed to have developed any feelings. These very quick, dramatic closeups that belong in Mission: Impossible. It was almost camp.
I love this version, but I also found the makeout-on-the-bed scene (while shmexy) to be wildly untrue to Jane's character. In the book, she wouldn't even let Rochester kiss her after learning of Bertha.
I also felt that in some scenes, certain things were said outright which were supposed to be subtext. Still enjoyed it tho. 🤷♀️
I am another book fanatic, and always judge adaptations by faithfulness to the book. I really like the casting of this one, but had a lot of the same objections you had. 1983 seemed the closest to the book (and I ordered it) until I discovered 1973 which is even better. On the other hand, I really like Ruth Wilson as Jane. Toby Stephens is one of the Rochesters who is far too handsome.
This adaptation is why I know Jane Eyre. (In Portugal, Jane Eyre is not a widely popular book.)
I started watching it on television one night and I got hooked. I remember when I watched the scene when Jane's leaving for Gateshead and she sees Rochester and smiles and then Blanche shows up, it hit me like a bucket of cold water. I felt physically cold! I watched it again on TV before I read the book.
I pretty much agree with your review. Before I read the book, I didn't understood why Jane was happy to see Bessie. Her childhood is very rushed. The bed scene would never happen. She doesn't even let him hold her hand when she thought they would marry, now this? I've read different opinions on IMDb's forum, but I feel the same as you on this. Before I read the book I even asked myself if they had sex after that scene. :o
There's not a perfect version, but this is my favourite. It has some of the most beautiful scenes from the book done properly and Ruth and Toby have an amazing chemistry. :)
And it bothers me that people could be confused that way. Jane Eyre isn't a "did they, or didn't they?" story! But despite that, yes, this version remains a favorite for me too.
Jane Eyre is a novel not a trivia game. Its greatness is not the sum of its fictional anecdotes but the appeal to the heart and mind by art and witchcraft of unknown origin. If I want to hold the hand of the current Jane Eyre and kiss her cheek despite myself before the ending credits roll, then the current actress has crossed the threshold and accomplished a milestone. I will hold that version close to my heart. Samantha Morton did this to me and so did Ruth Wilson: the other Janes, not so much.
I fell in love with this version. For me, when I reread the novel it is this couple I see. My younger sister (who is not a period drama fan) loves this version for the humor. As for the bed scene, I agree that it is not in the book but I see it, it is a desperate Rochester trying everything he can to keep her with him. He does tell his story with Bertha just after they have been in the room witnessing her madness. I love this despair when he says to the others " Do you wonder why I wanted her? Why I risked the warth of God to get her?". In conclusion, in order for me to love an adaptation, I understand and love changes made as long as they stay coherent and faithful to the book.
Ok JW, I’ll admit it: there is life after the ‘83 adaption. As much as I enjoyed this 2006 version, the ‘83 one is for me still the Gold Standard. Having said that, there were a few things 2006 did better, chief among them is how they handled the progression of Jane and Edward’s relationship - better paced and more emotionally believable. And I actually prefer how this 2006 one ends with the family portrait. That got me right in The Feels I’ll admit. The best thing about both mini series versions though is the amount of time devoted to the story. Kudos to all who have crammed the story into 2ish hours, but that doesn’t really do it justice in my opinion. Would be like making a 90 min movie out of Tolstoy’s War & Peace. I think from here on out I’ll eschew whatever shorter versions I haven’t gotten to and read the book...seeing the ‘83 cast in my minds eye as I do 😁
Oh, I absolutely agree: the miniseries is the way to go. The feature-length films try their best (and results vary), but when I try to pick a favorite version of each individual scene, one of the three miniseries adaptations almost always wins because those are the ones that have the time to cover more of the original dialogue and flesh out the relationship and story. I'm all about the dialogue. By all means, though, read the book! :)
My favourite version is with Timothy Dalton :)(1983). I watch it again, again,.....
Regarding this scene in bed, I think it is a questioning of the puritanism necessary at the time the work was written. In the book Rochester waits for Jane for hours in front of the bedroom door and when she finally comes out, she stumbles upon him who takes her in his arms and takes her to the office, which is on the floor below. I believe that the screenwriter does not believe in this story, when taking into account Rochester's personality, and that way it would be more believable for him to take her into the room that was right there. And it's worth remembering that in the conversation that takes place in the book, there's a moment when she insists so much that she's going to leave him that he threatens to either hurt her or seduce her by force. but he holds back because she starts to cry. As they say, adaptation and a little poetic license.
Delightful ! I've just come across your channel, so I think it's going to keep me engrossed for some months to come. I love the 2006 version and Ruth Wilson is outstanding - it vies with the 1973 version as my favourite. I don't think Jayne Eyre can be done justice in 2-hour cinematic adaptations : I recently watched the 1996 Zeffirelli attempt and thought it was a travesty - though maybe I'll give it another chance some day. Thank you for what you are (and have been) doing for Jane Eyre fans.
Thank you, and welcome! I tend to agree, as for the most part I prefer the miniseries versions over the films. But I do find that the shorter ones have their merits as well, and with closer scrutiny I appreciate what they did manage to accomplish in a limited time frame. Not every choice works out well, but there are some clever and intriguing interpretations of scenes even in the most far-off adaptations.
I like this version, despite it being relatively unfaithful. Because they flesh out the central relationship so well, which many other recent adaptations (looking at you 2011) don't. But there's so much extraneous stuff that's not needed and the bed fumbling scene is just so very very wrong. But I like it. Toby and Ruth just do it for me, they work.
I know it's not perfext, but it's my favourite : wonderful acting, the spirit of the book was respected if not the text :)
My favourite version ❤
"Jane Eyre", 2006, is a fabulous adaptation of the enduring story by Charlotte Bronte, and as it is a four-hour mini-series (made for TV), it has the luxury of elaborating on the nearly full plot of the classic novel, but the real strength of this version is the acting talent and acting presence of Ruth Wilson who was cast to play Jane Eyre herself. For instance, the extra time devoted to the childhood "red room" incident is not improved, clarified or uplifted compared to the compact but excellent 1997 version of the same. This version, as with the 1997 version, is best judged by its whole and not by any inspection of anecdotes or particulars. This version could be improved with some of the smooth editing lavished on the 1997 version. The petting scenes abed at Thornfield Hall are inappropriate to the time and the character of Jane Eyre, but they do not sink the endeavor any more than flaws in the others were fatal.
Toby Stephens is an effective, if errant, Mr. Rochester, and his chemistry with Ruth Wilson is very fortunate. This Rochester is a pander to those in the audience who are susceptible to the Prince Charming cliche. He is more charming than the other Mr. Rochesters before him. In the end, he is a fine foil for the enchanting Ruth Wilson and her choice interpretation. The greatest measure for me in my exploration of the various interpretations is the degree to which I fall in love with the lead character, Jane Eyre. I do fall in love with Jane Eyre in 1997 with Samantha Morton and again with Ruth Wilson in 2006. I highly recommend this adaptation, but I still prefer the 1997 version.
I've seen all adaptations of Jane Eyre starting with the 1943 version through the 2011 movie. Even though the 2006 miniseries adaptation doesn't always follow the book it is my very favorite version. While the bedroom scene was hot, it was not something Jane Eyre would have ever done. The chemistry between Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson is really what makes the series, it was off the charts wonderful.
Let's stick to the facts... Toby Stephens is the HOTTEST Mr. Rochester of all times... there can be no disagreement. Oh yes, and Ruth Wilson is a wonderful Jane... the best IMO. Yes, some of it is a bit rushed, condensed and "over-sexed" but considering how dryly chaste many of the other versions are, it's 2006 all the way!
Cute review
Do you own most or all versions of JE? I agree with most of your views on this one, the reason I got into this one was because at the time I was a Georgie Henley fan and I found out she was in this version, well now I prefer my personal favorite 1943 version. My Mom loved and still loves the 1997 version and I actually enjoyed that one too but this version, ummm. Lets just say that I am embarrassed to watch this one with my dad. However my Mom ended up loving this version (she loves the romance in her films)
The only one I personally own is 1973, but as a family we own 1943, 1983, 1996, 1997, and 2006. (I gave most of those to my mom as Christmas presents.) I understand what you mean. When it was airing on PBS, my parents, sister, and I watched it together and we were like, "Wow! This is different." We generally rewatch it when my dad's not around. Not that he minds. The only JE he likes is 1943.
haha, my Dad also liked the 2006 version. He didn't care for the 1997 version and he never saw any others. I personally own the 1934 version, 1943, and 2006. My Mom owns the 1997 version but she wants to buy the 2006 version for herself.
Finally, my sister and I just watched the 2006 version of Jane Eyre. I'd only seen it once, when it was originally broadcast. I was APPALLED with the adaptation at the time. The only thing that stuck with me for the past 16 years was Jane & Rochester rolling around on the bed together. This was a BBC production, the same folks who brought us the wonderful 1973 and 1983 versions. I assumed they would consider Jane Eyre to be an English Classic and would treat it as canon. Instead, we have a very Twenty-first Century Jane. I'm no prude, but I expect Jane Eyre to behave as Jane Eyre! So, I went into this evening's viewing with low expectations. But I figured I owed it a second viewing since so many people consider Toby Stephens to be the definitive Rochester. These were a few plot points that I found extremely annoying:
1) Adele was MUCH too old. She is supposed to be younger than 8 yrs old. This girl looked to be at least 12 or 13, almost pre-pubescent.
2) When Rochester was describing how Adele came into his care, he shows her being left as an infant. Then how is it that Adele is singing bawdy songs and being flirtatious? Those habits were supposed to be a result of her early years spent with her mother, entertaining gentlemen.
3) Again, the wrong sort of dog. In the book, Pilot is described as a Landseer Newfoundland. In this version, he was portrayed by a Scottish Deerhound. (What can I say, I'm a dog lover. The only version that had the right Pilot was 1997, with a large black & white shaggy dog in the 1983)
4) Why was St John not BLONDE???? How friggin' hard would it have been to either find a blonde actor or a blonde wig? St John's appearance was crucial to the story, contrasting him from Rochester. Of course, this Rochester wasn't broad-shouldered and dark either.
5) Nice to see the gypsy scene, but why wasn't the gypsy played by Rochester???
6) I really disliked Thornfield's interior....the long stone hallways, the narrow spiral staircase to get to Mason (how did they carry him out of that room?).
I did appreciate how much of the original dialogue was used, I hadn't remembered that from my earlier viewing. Of course it wasn't always used in the "right" order in the story, but at least they tucked some of Bronte's words in amongst the modern terminology. I really liked this version of Bertha!...she is still beautiful, but mad as a March Hare. I liked that they included the Rosamund character, she is so often left out. I liked that this version does reveal the Rivers to be Jane's "half-cousins" (I never could understand how Jane was completely unaware of her fathers TWO siblings). I appreciated some of the added Jane/Rochester exchanges as it did allow for an understanding of how they could have been attracted to one another. All in all, this Jane Eyre felt like it was meant to focus on the Romance, while ignoring many of the deeper issues explored in the book. I will watch it again soon and make notes (I didn't want to do so while watching with my sister), perhaps on a third viewing I'll appreciate it even more. As of right now, the 1973 and 1983 remain tie for Best Jane Eyre Adaptation IMO. Toby Stephens is far from the "Best Rochester".
The BBC isn't quite the same as it used to be, unfortunately. This was a harbinger of things to come, and taking extreme liberties with the text to spice things up is practically the norm now (and not just with BBC adaptations). It's not a trend I'm particularly fond of, though I do love this version despite certain scenes and choices. I went into more detail about those issues in my adaptation comparison series, where I found that if you scrutinize the scenes with book in hand, the adaptation doesn't fare so well...
Ha, you bring up a lot of good points, including a couple I hadn't thought of before, like how Adele would know those songs if she was a baby when Rochester took her in. And how *did* they get Mason out of there?
Why do people feel the need to apologize for not being tawdry, and conflate it with prudishness?
Since this version is four hours long it took me two nights to watch it. It was no surprise to me that I ended up loving the full version as I have always loved watching the TH-cam clips. Ruth Wilson is Jane Eyre to me. She looks just as I would imagine Jane to look in the book. Toby Stephens is my favorite Mr. Rochester by far. He is the perfect combination of brooding and flirtatious. Interestingly enough Toby Stephens played the love interest of Tara Fitzgerald (the actress who plays Mrs. Reed) in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. Did you know that? Have you seen that movie before? Back to Jane Eyre, I really liked Georgie Henley as young Jane, but that might be because I loved watching her as Lucy in The Chronicles of Narnia series. For that reason I wish we could have seen a little more of Jane's childhood.I also really enjoyed the scene after the fire in Mr. Rochester's bedroom where he put the blanket around her and holds her hand. I especially loved how she kissed the hand that he held once she got back to her room; and the music in that scene was both haunting and beautiful. I don't know how many times I have rewatched that scene in TH-cam. Because this was a four hour mini-series and not a two hour movie, Jane and Mr. Rochester 's relationship was much better developed and you could actually see them gradually fall in love. I loved that this version has the gypsy scene. Even though it does not unfold in the same way as in the book, I think it worked out really well for the series. Now having given a list of things I loved about this version, there were a couple of things that bothered me. I did not care for the bedroom scene where Jane tells Mr. Rochester she must leave him. You are correct when you say that Jane in the book would never have allowed Mr. Rochester to touch and kiss her like that when she just found out that he had a wife still living. This scene was extremely awkward to watch and I was watching it by myself. I can't imagine how much awkward it would have been to watch it with one of my parents or even my sisters. The second thing I didn't like might seem a little nitpicky. I thought that the very end where they are all sitting around to have their portrait painted was a little corny. I can't believe I am about to compliment the 1997 version, but I would have rather have had them take a page out of their book and have the series close with Jane and Mr. Rochester walking along the water with their children and a voiceover from Jane. Despite those two minor complaints, I still give this version a solid A. Next up I am going to see if I can track down the full versions of 1973 and 1983 on TH-cam since my library doesn't have them.
Woohoo, I'm glad you enjoyed this one! Yes, I love watching this Jane and this Rochester interact with each other. Their relationship is so much fun, something that several other versions fail to capture. Yes, I have seen The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, and I think about that every time I rewatch this one. :) Ha, I'm not sure I ever thought of the final scene as corny, but it does have kind of a '90s rom-com feel to it (I guess because the last shot reminds me of the 1996 Emma); and need they have included quite so many people? It's like a Wizard of Oz moment: "And you were there! And you were there!" It is nice, though, to see everyone smiling and happy, and Jane can curl her hair now too. :) Oh boy, can't wait to hear more of your thoughts! I think they are both on TH-cam, but let me know if there's a version you're not able to find.
Hi Kayla! So happy that you loved my favourite version! Have a look at my comments below (3 years ago now), to see my take on the bedroom scene. Please let me know your thoughts. ;-)
Once again, I really like Rochester's portrayal but not so much Jane's: 1983 and 2006 are my fave miniseries, but I found Zelah somewhat bland and Ruth too modern. In both versions it was hard to believe in the 20 yr age gap. I wish Timothy or Toby could have acted with Samantha or Charlotte (1997/6). Overall, the best couple was the 1973 one.
i think this version is so, so bad. the dialogue is changed so much that the characters themselves are changed. i really dislike it intensely, haha.
Ha, I understand what you mean. I can't help enjoying this version more than several others, but when you compare it side by side with the book, there are quite a few things that don't match.
I can't remember if I've seen this one. I want to say yes... But maybe I'm thinking of the Timothy Dalton one... Damn, he was good as Rochester... His version of Wuthering Heights is awful though. That movie's practically a Greek tragedy...But getting back to Jane Eyre, I'd say most of the adaptations (that I've seen anyway) are really well done. I think I've seen 4 versions, and the only one I didn't like was the 2011 one with Mia Whatsohername
Only 4?! Just kidding. :) I've seen 3 versions of Wuthering Heights and they all drove me crazy. I like the book well enough (read it a few times), but watching people act that crazy, even if just for a couple hours, isn't fun to me. (Sorry to all the Wuthering Heights fans out there!)
I adore Wuthering Heights, but it just does not lend itself well to the silver screen. And it doesn't help matters that most of the movies don't even cover the second half of the novel, so people think Heathcliff is this tragic lover, when in reality he is a manipulative and vindictive monster surrounded by equally vindictive creatures. The Ralph Fiennes version dared to cover the whole book, and that was.. oof. No. In case you haven't seen it, I won't spoil the awful casting decision, and just say that it has a wonderful soundtrack :D
That's one of the things that's always bothered me, the fact that there's so much emphasis put on the love story that people minimize or gloss over or just plain forget the awful things that Heathcliff forces people to do. I tend to think of him more as a villain than a hero, which I suspect is an unpopular opinion among WH fans (one reason why I won't do a series of WH reviews). I think I find the stuff that happens with the younger generation of characters more interesting, maybe because they're not as wild and intense, and Hareton and Cathy actually end up being likeable, which is more than I can say for most of the other characters. This makes it sound like I don't like the book, but I do! It's a complicated relationship. :/ I saw a few parts of the Ralph Fiennes version in high school, and since I never felt the urge to rush out and rent it, I guess I wasn't crazy about it either.
I love Wuthering Heights, especially the Timothy Dalton version. I was 15 when I saw it at the movies. I hadn't yet read the book and only had a vague idea about it. When it ended, I burst into tears and didn't stop balling until my dad picked up me and my friends and got us home 15-20 minutes later. I was still gasping and trying to catch my breath when I entered my house and freaked out my mom. She wondered what was wrong! In other words, it made a huge impression on me, to this day. I was disappointed with the book, when it kept on through another generation. But I did like the Ralph Fiennes version, too, just not as much. I guess I like the bad boys, but only in this case.... Also, I liked both of their respective soundtracks.
LOL, I always just put the bed scene to the fact the guy playing Rochester would never have been able to carry the actress playing Jane down the staircase. I think she was the biggest actress to play small stature Jane. I think she was supposed to be like 5'2" or something like that.
IIRC in one of the deleted scenes of 2006 version, Mr. Rochester chased Jane through the latter's room. Jane slammed the door in her room and locked it while Mr. Rochester is begging to Jane to talk to him. Like you said, its would be difficult for Mr. Rochester to carry Jane there because they nearly have average height so that scene was created to compensate.
@@maineclayton2419 I didn't like that scene. Jane wasn't the running type. She said what she thought. Plus the bed scene was not in her nature. I read it was more of a fantasy for Jane to think of what could have been.
@@janelle144 Yeah, some said that scene was based on Jane's dream in Chapter 32. Considering that Jane in that version tend to have imaginative thoughts to escape from her problems temporarily, the scene felt ambiguous whether it actually happened or part of Jane's imagination. IMO, while that scene was justified it was still felt poorly executed.
I couldn't even finish this one. It was so wrong. Once they introduced the Ouija, I was out. The Stephens portrayal of Rochester may be the among the better ones, but the rest of it just doesn't work for me, at all. Especially Wilson. It was closer to daytime television than 19th century literature. I thought '83 was far superior. Now I'm moving on to the '73 version. I have higher hopes.
UPDATE: I changed my mind and decided to finish the 2006 version. Now I'm wary of 1973, because Jane looks like she's 40.
@@sageantone7291 The actress playing Jane Eyre in 1973 version ( Sorcha Cusack) was however 23 years old. But yes she looks very much older than her age and always has that constant smirk and raised eyebrow expression on her face.
YOU--are too cute!
This version is the worst. The main characters don' arouse any emotions but irritation. I can' imagine Toby as a strong master of two estates. He looks like an aged student. Looking at him, I did't feel the great tragedy that had spoiled his best years. I don' pity neither him nor his Jane. They haven't show their love. I saw only some kind of flirting. And they both behaved like a long-ago married couple, especilly in the episode with Eshton leaving Thornfieldhall after the party. I realize that all was because of the script. The novel is long enough, and there was no need to introduce new characters and alter the dialogues. I dare say Charlote Bronte had done well. That's why her novel is loved and read even now.
Bertha a woman with perfect hair a mad woman. Not at all convincing in 2006
Don’t love this version. Too much acting - not real chemistry BETWEEN the actors. Besides, Too dark and the Jane representation is cold and the lips are disturbing.