Jane Eyre - From Silent Films to the Present

I'm unaware of any classic novel that can claim as many film, TV, stage or radio adaptations as that of Jane Eyre. Published in 1847, the story remains intriguing to readers and theater patrons even after more than 150 years. My research indicates the first film adaptation in America was a silent produced in 1910 followed by more than one adaptation over the next ten years. Unfortunately the availability of these old silent films is unknown (silentera.com).

Beginning with the first talking version in 1934, this story has undergone many different interpretations, some excellent while a few unfortunately missed the point of the book entirely. Several sources indicate more than 20 film and TV adaptations are credited to Bronte's incredible novel, both in and out of the US. In recent years it has even found its way onto the stage as a musical. I've had the opportunity to see a stage production and enjoyed every minute! With this years film release of yet another adaptation, it is apparent the story of Jane Eyre will be around for many years to come.

NOTE: There are many comprehensive lists of Jane Eyre productions on the internet including hubpages.com and eyreguide.bravehost.com.

Jane Eyre - 1997

Disappointing! Although this adaptation follows the book as closely as any of the other big screen versions, it is the performances that are really its downfall. On the plus side, both Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton had the perfect "look" for their roles, both in age and appearance. Unfortunately, their portrayal of these famous characters fell far short of the mark. Rochester comes across as a big bully, actually yelling most of his lines, while Jane is completely missing the shy vulnerability interlaced with strength that so defined her character. Consequently, both characters are pretty unappealing. And if you aren't at least partially connected emotionally with Rochester and Jane, the film itself is also pretty unappealing.  **

Jane Eyre - 2006

Spectacular film! Exceptional Adaptation! Wonderful script! Beautiful cinematography! Superb acting! This is one of my all time favorite books and certainly my favorite movie adaptation of this book. This is Charlotte Bronte’s classic story of a poor governess who falls in love with her arrogant employer. Unfortunately, unknown to anyone, he is already married. When filming a book like Jane Eyre often so much has to be left out that the book is practically unrecognizable. Not so with this version. The length allows them to include a great deal that is usually cut. The two main actors, Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, do an incredible job in their roles. While Stephens is the perfect mix of arrogant but handsome employer, Wilson portrays the perfect mix of the passion and vulnerability of Jane. They have wonderful chemistry on screen. Although there are several changes to the story, this one is definitely more true to the spirit of the book than many of its predecessors. Just be sure to set aside enough time to watch it straight through!  *****

Jane Eyre - 1983

Excellent BBC miniseries based on Charlotte Bronte’s well known novel. This is certainly a very faithful version of this romantic story with a well written script. In fact, the dialogue is frequently almost verbatim from the book. With the added length of a miniseries, this series was also able to include many of the scenes and characters cut from other versions of this story; a definite plus! Exceptional performances from both the main and  supporting cast, especially those of Timothy Dalton as the brooding Rochester and Zelah Clarke as the quiet and vulnerable Jane (although Dalton was perhaps too handsome for the role). :-)  The costuming was well done and in keeping with the era of time the novel took place, but the inside sets at Thornfield seemed a little overly decorated and were somewhat distracting. Regardless of any weaknesses, this is definitely one of the best versions available.    ****

Jane Eyre - 1949

Interesting CBS Studio One TV adaptation of this classic novel. At much less than an hour, it should come as no surprise to find this version extremely abbreviated. Eliminating her childhood completely, the film begins as Jane (Mary Sinclair) leaves Lowood School for Thornfield where she meets the mysterious Rochester (Charlton Heston). Their relationship has little time to develop in this shortened adaptation but the performances of Sinclair and Heston hint at the potential that existed if this had been a full-length film. The film is also completely missing the period Jane spent with her cousins after fleeing from Thornfield but it surprisingly manages to breech the gap to bring Jane and Rochester back together again. The filming is unfortunately shaky at best but to be expected for a TV film in the 40's. The sets and costumes are reminiscent of an old stage production but also in keeping with the era this was made. Although there is little time to become emotionally connected to the characters, this is still a wonderful part of the cinematic history of this story and worth at least one viewing.  **

Although not available on dvd, this Studio One adaptation can be viewed through internet archives of classic TV, complete with Westinghouse commercials! :-)

Jane Eyre - 1996

So-so adaptation of this classic novel. With a great deal of the novel eliminated or changed, much of the emotional impact of this story is almost non-existant. Although shortened, Jane’s early life is fairly well told. Unfortunately, this is such an important part of the plot that you are not left with a great deal of understanding into her character. Her life at Thornfield Hall is also abbreviated although what is left is smoothly told. The final part of the story after Jane flees from Mr. Rochester is simply butchered. Only the barest outline of the original novel remains and what is left is so changed and happens so quickly that the impact of this story is completely lost. The performances are Ok with a strong portrayal of the young Jane (Anna Paquin) but a weak and fairly emotionless portrayal when she is grown (Charlotte Gainsbourg). The brooding Mr. Rochester (William Hurt) seems almost dull and fairly emotionless, but in all fairness, the cuts in the story do not allow the character to fully develop. Worth watching but definitely not the best version.  **

Jane Eyre - 1973

Faithful adaptation of this classic novel. This is surprisingly one of the better adaptations done by BBC during this era. The acting is fairly good, especially from Cusack (Jane) and Jayston (Rochester), although Cusack appears a little old for the part of Jane. The script is detailed and develops each phase of Jane’s life which allows the viewer to identify with her many struggles: despair, hope, passion and joy. As with other BBC films during this time, it does have its weaknesses. The story moves too slowly and the costumes LOOK like costumes. The filming has poor lighting and is quite choppy which can be distracting. And Jane definitely needed help with her hair – the 70’s meets the 1800’s! (sigh) Still, with few adaptations even attempting to take on the details of this novel, this is one to see at least once.   ***

Jane Eyre - 1944

Mildly disappointing version of this classic story! This early B&W definitely had both its strengths and its weaknesses. Wonderful performances from Joan Fontaine as the adult Jane and Peggy Ann Garner as the young Jane. As Rochester, however, Orson Welles came across as too stiff and angry. In the novel he is written as a troubled and frustrated man but capable of passion, love and even humor. None of this came across in this version. The script had numerous flaws. Jane’s early life was somewhat rewritten and abbreviated. Since her adult life was a product of her childhood, these story additions and cuts made it necessary to have read the novel in order to understand Jane’s personal struggles. Her life at Thornfield Hall was fairly well written although abridged, but after she fled Thornfield the story was so completely altered that this vital third of her life is butchered almost beyond recognition. When Jane and Rochester are finally reunited, the impact of their time apart is completely lost. The B&W filming is excellent but the cave-like atmosphere of Thornfield seemed more suited to the brooding nature of “Wuthering Heights” than of “Jane Eyre”. In spite of the secrets and intrigue at Thornfield, running through the entire novel is an undercurrent of passion, hope and love. Not so during this film. Even the conclusion leaves the viewer with a darker feeling rather than the joy that is felt in the novel. Even with its weaknesses, if you are a fan of this story this is definitely one to see.   ***

Jane Eyre - 1934

This film is the first talking adaptation of this classic novel. At only an hour, it would be impossible to show a very detailed version of this story. Jane’s early life is compressed into 2 or 3 scenes and the rest of her life doesn’t fare much better. This isn’t unusual, though, considering the era this was filmed. Hollywood approached movies differently in the 30's and it is evident in this film. Only the barest outline of the actual story has been kept. The acting is only so-so but the main complaint comes from character changes rather than the acting itself. Rochester is a far cry from the brooding character in the book and Jane has very little personality at all. The print I watched was also in poor condition but considering its age of 75+ years it is not surprising. Even so, as one of the many cinematic versions of this well loved novel, it is worth your time.  **