Thoughs on Jane Eyre
Jan. 24th, 2007 06:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zouzounakiFinally got around to writing down a few thoughts about part one, which I recorded from PBS this past Sunday and...
It's not the worst-by a long shot-but the most disappointing of the Jane Eyre adaptations I've seen. I know I was expecting too much, and it's almost a problem that Toby Stephens is so fantastic, because I think the production lets him down. I actually think that Ruth Wilson has no chemistry with him--a very large problem in a romance story--and I was amazed in some scenes that he's giving the performance that he is when he's not getting that same level back; it's not an exchange, IMO.
This adaptation reverts a lot to telling instead of showing; the dialogue bombards us with the fact that Jane is withdrawn, she's thinking and/or feeling this or that, but very little evidence is shown for any of it. You're right, she is far too open, but on the other hand, possesses only shyness and not the sense of self-possession she learned in her latter years as a student at Lowood--I'm always sad this part of the story's continually given the chop because it doesn't the simplified idea that producers and writers want to put across, that, yes, it was miserable, the part they always emphasize and then cut away after Helen dies. But she also learned that sense of self-reliance, that she's gone through a bit of self-discovery, and has that strong, empathetic connection with the world around her.
Why on earth you'd go about hiring someone like Georgie Henley and then not using her is beyond me!
We're told over and again that she's a magical creature, surely she must have bewitched him with her magic because did they mention she was magical? And yet, I see very little of that in her, the character as is written or the performance. This Jane wears her heart on her sleeve, the hesitation, and the self-possession, just doesn't exist in this adaptation. The scene with the gypsy, while I'm delighted by its inclusion and not so much so the changes, seems strange at how laid back it is. Angry--okay, now over it and chuckle indulgently.
There are some definite pluses, chief among them Toby Stephens--and he definitely makes it worth watching--and minuses. I just don't know why I keep expecting more from each new production when I know that they'll either cover the exact same ground as a previous one or go off into a direction that I don't really see as established in the book.
Peace, Ghani
It's not the worst-by a long shot-but the most disappointing of the Jane Eyre adaptations I've seen. I know I was expecting too much, and it's almost a problem that Toby Stephens is so fantastic, because I think the production lets him down. I actually think that Ruth Wilson has no chemistry with him--a very large problem in a romance story--and I was amazed in some scenes that he's giving the performance that he is when he's not getting that same level back; it's not an exchange, IMO.
This adaptation reverts a lot to telling instead of showing; the dialogue bombards us with the fact that Jane is withdrawn, she's thinking and/or feeling this or that, but very little evidence is shown for any of it. You're right, she is far too open, but on the other hand, possesses only shyness and not the sense of self-possession she learned in her latter years as a student at Lowood--I'm always sad this part of the story's continually given the chop because it doesn't the simplified idea that producers and writers want to put across, that, yes, it was miserable, the part they always emphasize and then cut away after Helen dies. But she also learned that sense of self-reliance, that she's gone through a bit of self-discovery, and has that strong, empathetic connection with the world around her.
Why on earth you'd go about hiring someone like Georgie Henley and then not using her is beyond me!
We're told over and again that she's a magical creature, surely she must have bewitched him with her magic because did they mention she was magical? And yet, I see very little of that in her, the character as is written or the performance. This Jane wears her heart on her sleeve, the hesitation, and the self-possession, just doesn't exist in this adaptation. The scene with the gypsy, while I'm delighted by its inclusion and not so much so the changes, seems strange at how laid back it is. Angry--okay, now over it and chuckle indulgently.
There are some definite pluses, chief among them Toby Stephens--and he definitely makes it worth watching--and minuses. I just don't know why I keep expecting more from each new production when I know that they'll either cover the exact same ground as a previous one or go off into a direction that I don't really see as established in the book.
Peace, Ghani
