Jane Eyre is a classic piece of literature written in 1847 by Charlotte Bronte. Over the years it has been made into many film adaptions, too many in my opinion. My favourite has to be the 2006 BBC adaptation, even though people feel that the 1983 version starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton is closer to the book I find the acting too wooden and feel that the script follows the book over religiously.

In the beginning of the film I feel that Jane’s childhood is slightly rushed although not like the 1996 William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsberg version which in my opinion is awful as an adaption and skims through the story in a ridiculous 1hr40 minutes. I feel that for any version of this novel to stand a chance of being decent it should be around 4 hours long which this series is.

The series was criticised somewhat as it was thought that Toby Stephens was too attractive to play Mr Rochester as in the novel the character is described as ” with his broad and jetty eyebrows; his square forehead, made squarer by the horizontal sweep of his black hair. I recognised his decisive nose, more remarkable for character than beauty; his full nostrils, denoting, I thought, choler; his grim mouth, chin, and jaw—yes, all three were very grim, and no mistake. His shape, now divested of cloak, I perceived harmonised in squareness with his physiognomy” (chapter 13)… not attractive. However, I think he is a fantastic actor and does have a slightly rugged look unlike Timothy Dalton in the 1983 version who is too clean-cut looking for the role as well as having an unusual accent as he is clearly trying to hide his Welsh accent.

The Cast

Ruth Wilson stars as the wise heroine Jane Eyre in this version and was 24 years old  newly graduated from acting school. I got a bit of a surprise when I first saw her picture as she has unusual features however this doesn’t particularly matter as Jane is not meant to be pretty. Her acting is fantastic and full of emotion. People felt that this 2006 version was the most controversial as there is more of a spark between Ruth Wilson (Jane) and Toby Stephens (Mr Rochester) than in any other film made.

Toby Stephens who plays Mr Rochester is the son of acting legend Dame Maggie Smith and had taken roles previously in many tv series and James Bond film “Die another day”  His career began in theatre as he worked for the Royal Shakespeare company making him a thespian actor. There is something very charming about him as an actor making him my favorite ever Rochester.

I find the young Jane slightly annoying as the young Jane, I feel in places she over acts however, she must have done something right as now she is a respectable actress starring in “The Chronicles of Narnia” Other famous faces are amongst the cast including the well-known Pam Ferris (Grace Poole) and Tara Fitzgerald (Mrs Reed)

Christina Cole ( Blanche Ingram) is amazing and does a perfect “ice queen”  portrayal of the haughty and spoilt Blanche who only wishes to marry Rochester for his vast riches. She is beautiful yet incredibly selfish and belittles Jane stating in a conversation how awful she thinks governesses are which is meant purposefully for Jane to overhear. I love the scene where Rochester confronts Ingram when she enters his smoking room with the statement “what do you really want Blanche?” which belittles Blanche and puts her in her place.

The Plot…A brief overview

The story begins with Jane as a young orphan approximately age 10. She is orphaned and lives with her Aunt Reed at Gateshead who resents her because when her husband was dying he asked to see Jane rather than his old children on his death-bed. Jane is treated unfairly and isolated from the family abusing her physically and emotionally. Mrs Reed dotes on her spoilt children John, Eliza and Georgiana who have also been turned against Jane and she is treated as an outcast/ servant.

Things worsen and Jane is sent away to boarding school…Mr Brocklehurst’s institution. He has a heart of stone and the girls are treated appallingly, many don’t survive due to the terrible living conditions and spread of disease. Jane is humiliated in front of her class immediately and branded as a liar. One shows her kindness, Helen Burns who becomes a true friend however tragedy strikes soon after.

Jane as a young woman progresses as a teacher continuing to work at Lowood but applies for a governess post at Thornfield Hall in Yorkshire. After being accepted she is assigned to look after  Adele the young French ward of the Master of the house Mr Rochester. Adele is fairly spoilt but kind and under Jane’s supervision she flourishes as a student, after a few months Jane feels at home. After a strange beginning between the two characters she finds a friend in Mr Rochester, their relationship blossoms through the odd occurrences at Thornfield Hall , she is later to discover he has a haunting secret which has the potential to ruin both of their futures.

Why watch the 2006 version over the many others?

I adore the natural chemistry between Rochester and Jane which comes over as very natural even though there is a 13 year age gap between the actors.  There are some interesting changes which had never been done before in any other version. It shows more detail to Rochester’s past going back in time showing him . I feel the 2006 version is very different to others as it goes more into depth showing “flashbacks” of Rochester as a young man meeting the charming yet cruel mother of his ward Adele, Celine Varens a mistress of his whilst he was in Paris and other previous events in his life.

The scene under the tree where Jane opens her heart and confesses her love for Mr Rochester is breathtaking. The first time I watched it I was nearly moved to tears. The scenery is also lovely filmed in  Derbyshire and the Peak District and is complimented by a pretty music score in the background.

I have viewed 3 other versions of Jane Eyre. The 1983 version starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton is true to the book but as said before, I dislike the acting style and the cinematography is quite typical of the 1970’s/1980’s…done in a ‘play style’ similar to the popular series Upstairs Downstairs and the ending is very abrupt. The 1996 version starring William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg is in my opinion awful…and as said before far to short in length. I felt that it skimmed through the whole story without any depth or time for relationships to grow between the characters. William Hurt was far too old to play Mr Rochester at the age of 46 when the actors chosen are normally in their mid 30’s. The ending is ridiculous, it seems that Rochester is blind one minute and his sight is returned the next. The acting is poor, I find Charlotte Gainsbourg to be a very weak actress and I didn’t feel that there was any chemistry between her and William Hurt. The 1997 Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds version is quite good although it does miss some important parts out such as when Jane returns to visit her dying Aunt  however the ending is beautiful.

I was annoyed to find that there was a 2011 film version to be released this year as my favourite version was only made 5 years ago I think it was far too soon to make another and at only 2 hours and 30 minutes long too short to portray the story and characters properly. It stars Mia Wasikowska who played Alice in Wonderland and Michael Fassbender , receiving very mixed reviews. Due to its originality Jane Eyre 2006 will always be my favourite.


8 thoughts on “Jane Eyre 2006…A review

  1. Because your description of her life before she meets Mr Rochester is not how I remember it and I studied that book for a year.

  2. wonderful publish, very informative. I’m wondering why the other experts of this sector do not notice this. You must continue your writing. I am confident, you’ve a great readers’ base already!

  3. I have just finished reading Jane Eyre for the umpteeth time, the first time at aged 18 in 1963 and this time at 67 years. I have watched 9 versions , either as full length film or tv mini series. The first version I saw was aired April 1963 and starred Richard Leech as Rochester and Ann Bell as Jane. This was a BBc mini series in black and white. This was also the definitive Jane Eyre and has yet to be beaten, although at my age my memory could be in cloud cuckoo land !! It appears that the BBc have mislaid 2 episodes of this so it is likely to be repeated ! Richard Leech was 41 at the time of filming and Ann Bell 23 so the 18 year age gap was correct.
    Miss Sophebowns:I really enjoyed your review of Jane Eyre, I couldn’t quite get to where Laura was coming from re garding her remark re Jane’s earlier life prior to her meeting Mr R.
    Having said all that I think the 2006 mini series with Toby and Ruth brilliant, I liked the humour that coursed through, quite a change from previous versions.
    And the bed scene………………. wow!!

    1. Hello !
      I have also read Jane Eyre many a time. It has to be one of my favourite books! I have to say that I have never seen the 1963 version. Only 1983, 1996 <-(AWFUL), 1997 and 2006. I shall have to look out for it. I loved the 2006 version. I have to admit that Toby Stephens made me swoon slightly as Mr Rochester. That version was the most original I feel and the natural chemistry between Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens was brilliant. Even though the 1983 film is the truest being almost (if not completely) word for word the 2006 film will probably remain my favourite!
      Thank you for your comments!
      I love hearing others opinions 🙂

      1. Hi and thank you for the reply. I am totally unused to these forums, and hardly know how to get along. Here is a 1963 photo from the BBC archives of Richard Leech and Ann Bell, this is actually how I have thought of him over all these years—49 years. I made a silly error in my reply/comment to you last night , I meant that this version would not be aired because of the loss of 2 episodes. I have just (this minute) finished watching the 1973 version with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack. It’s ok, but their clothing strikes me as strange, he wears late regency and she, Victorian.

        Also in the last scene ,when he shows her his maimed and amputated hand (well he has it under his coat, a bit like Napoleon ) you can actually see the movement and outline of a non.existent hand. Oh well nothing is perfect !! Yours Pat

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s