The people who wrote this miniseries clearly read the Cliff's Notes instead of the book. I've read "Jane Eyre" half a dozen times; I turned this movie off maybe halfway through. I spent most of the time marveling at how the producers skipped over classic lines and moments from the book to invent dialogue.
They glossed over Jane's early days -- her childhood and time at school -- and then rewrote the love story. The way Jane meets Rochester is wrong. His feelings about his French ward and the story behind her are wrong. The interactions among characters are wrong.
See, what the filmmakers forgot is that the characters in this book have a strong sense of propriety. They are formal. Ranks mattered, and people behaved accordingly -- the passionate yet meek Jane and the moody yet tractable Mr. Rochester never forget their stations, and that influences their interactions. Samantha Morton's Jane is outrageously insubordinate and demanding from the moment she formally meets Rochester. It's simply out of character. Ciaran Hinds plays a decent Mr. Rochester, but he lays on the Grade-A jerk too heavily. Rochester isn't mean to Jane even if he is a bit gruff. Even the minor characters don't look the part. The best casting is Gemma Jones as kindly Mrs. Fairfax; she does a great job.
I've always believed that film adaptations of books should honor the originals and follow them as closely as possible. You shouldn't take the characters and alter them to fit your audience, you shouldn't invent parts just to suit your needs, and you shouldn't cut parts for the same reason. This book has endured for more than a hundred years; it clearly has something going for it. Why mess with that? If you have read "Jane Eyre," this movie is extremely disappointing. If you haven't read the book, it's not much better. The filmmakers get to the love story as quickly as possible, but Morton and Hinds lack chemistry, and their scenes of passion are actually quite funny.
Give this one a miss.
They glossed over Jane's early days -- her childhood and time at school -- and then rewrote the love story. The way Jane meets Rochester is wrong. His feelings about his French ward and the story behind her are wrong. The interactions among characters are wrong.
See, what the filmmakers forgot is that the characters in this book have a strong sense of propriety. They are formal. Ranks mattered, and people behaved accordingly -- the passionate yet meek Jane and the moody yet tractable Mr. Rochester never forget their stations, and that influences their interactions. Samantha Morton's Jane is outrageously insubordinate and demanding from the moment she formally meets Rochester. It's simply out of character. Ciaran Hinds plays a decent Mr. Rochester, but he lays on the Grade-A jerk too heavily. Rochester isn't mean to Jane even if he is a bit gruff. Even the minor characters don't look the part. The best casting is Gemma Jones as kindly Mrs. Fairfax; she does a great job.
I've always believed that film adaptations of books should honor the originals and follow them as closely as possible. You shouldn't take the characters and alter them to fit your audience, you shouldn't invent parts just to suit your needs, and you shouldn't cut parts for the same reason. This book has endured for more than a hundred years; it clearly has something going for it. Why mess with that? If you have read "Jane Eyre," this movie is extremely disappointing. If you haven't read the book, it's not much better. The filmmakers get to the love story as quickly as possible, but Morton and Hinds lack chemistry, and their scenes of passion are actually quite funny.
Give this one a miss.