Tumgik
#jane eyre 1997
thatscarletflycatcher · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
SAMANTHA MORTON as JANE EYRE in JANE EYRE (1997)
This was the climax. A pang of exquisite suffering—a throe of true despair—rent and heaved my heart. Worn out, indeed, I was; not another step could I stir.
476 notes · View notes
burningvelvet · 3 months
Text
Quickly and poorly reviewing and ranking adaptations of Jane Eyre (1996, 1997, 2006, 2011) by their pros and cons:
1996 pros:
Best fire scene, easily. It actually gave me that excited feeling that good cinema gives a person. Much of the cinematic art was enjoyable altogether, including the costumes.
This film probably has ond of the best Bertha's in my opinion. She's truly sympathetic, beautiful, and fierce. probably tied for my favorite Bertha actress with 2006. She and Poole are given little time in the story, however.
Most adaptations shit on St. John. Here, that isn't the case. What little time he has is spent in making him much more appealing than I've ever seen him, both physically and characteristically. I like this, because many forget that Jane did love him in her way, and he is supposed to be attractive and nice despite his zealotism.
1996 has the best Adèle, which is amazing for me as a big Adèle fan. There is more focus on her and her relationships with Jane/Rochester. I particularly love the scene where J draws R and Adèle tries to play cupid a little, and when Adèle is offended when the ladies insult Jane.
Best Lowood plot by far. This is the first time I've been able to stand the Young Jane scenes, and little time was devoted to her early life with the Reeds, just enough to let us know she was abused. I like this choice. The young actresses playing Jane and Helen were the best and most rebelious I've seen yet. Their hair cutting scene brought tears to my eyes, which rarely ever happens for me.
Good Blanche plotline. I absolutely love the cinematography/aesthetic & set design.
1996 cons:
the actors are individually endearing in some ways (the scene of Jane and the mirror is particularly touching, as is their reunion). However, The biggest downside to this adaptation is that the chemistry between Jane and Rochester was lacking in my opinion. this is particularly notable in their meeting scene and first proposal scene.
William Hurt is a fantastic actor, and he's likeable, but he's not my favorite Rochester ever. He's alright. On a rewatch I could see myself warming to him more.
I love Charlotte Gainsbourg more for her music than her acting. Granted, she was young here like Jane is supposed to be, so I do not blame her. Visually, aside from her height, I can absolutely see her as Jane. As the film went on I warmed to her acting style; Jane Eyre is a hard role to perform due to her inwardness. I don't think she was horrible, but Anna Paquin (of later True Blood fame) as Young Jane Eyre somewhat outshined Gainsbourg.
I was disappointed in Adèle being sent away to school before the disaster and her not coming back in the end (why couldn't they have had her running with Pilot in the landscape shot!!!).
1997 pros:
Maybe the most accurate Jane and Rochester. I wasn't expecting to like him at all but he blew me away. excellent chemistry between the actors. The dancing scene was very captivating, as was the scene with him jumping from the walkway, their outdoor talks, him chasing her down the stairs — really, I was impressed, because I thought I'd hate this film. Like in the novel and in 96, both actors are a bit conventionally unattractive (well, compared to 11 and to some extent 06) - and like them, the characters grow on you.
BEST ST. JOHN (although 2006 has the best Rivers sisters) - St. John is described as being nice though serious, and looking like a statue of a Greek God with all the coldness AND beauty - and this movie is the only one who relatively understood that assignment (96 came close emphasizing his niceness). Most adaptations adapt his coldness but not his conventional Eurocentric good looks, which not only symbolize his colonizer attribute but also his appeal to Jane and the others. It's also important to have a conventionally handsome actor play St. John just as it's important to have a conventionally less attractive Jane Eyre because one theme of the novel is the critique of Victorian physiognomy & beauty; Jane/Rochester being unconventionally attractive is a contrast to Bertha, St. John, Blanche, Georgiana being attractive, so I think this element is not inconsequential. The difficult part is that beauty is highly subjective, so relying on conventional standards is key, as is the reminder that Victorian standards were a bit different from our own.
good Lowood plotline, good Gateshead plotline, fantastic Adèle with lots of adorableness & miraculous though OOC bonding between her and Rochester, fantastic costuming (though I don't know about accuracy), good Blanche plotline overall. Probably my favorite Bertha plotline for being sufficiently creepy.
1997 cons:
this isn't really a con for me but many people may dislike 97 Rochester for being passionate to the point of coming off crazy, and physical domineering as when he grabs Jane when she tries to leave — however, this does kind of fit for canonical Rochester & I don't mind it since he's supposed to be that way, but this is still arguably a con nevertheless. he does come off as too forward but i get they were trying to capture the whole overpassionate thing. it does come off as a little more toxic than other depictions perhaps!
I have very few complaints overall. I don't think the chemistry is as appealing as 2006, but it is accurate. I wish there was more Adèle, but you can't have everything.
The posters are bad and make the actors look worse than they are which subsequently turns people away. I think 1996 was marketed a bit better but that 2006 also suffers from bad poster syndrome which had an effect on me also. Presentation is important; marketing and advertising are also important in cinema. The aesthetic isn't as good as 1996 although I don't think the visuals are bad overall.
Jane is a little dissociative seeming, which can be off-putting for myself and other viewers I assume, but to be fair she is described as being like a weird little elf creature in the book, and the actress plays this very well, actually looking quite ill when Rochester asks if she is.
2006 pros:
Best chemistry between Jane/Rochester by far and for this reason will always be my favorite because it actually made me fall in love with Rochester in the end though I didn't like his portrayal at all at first (that's power! — and my love for this Rochester should arguably be a con for the sake of my sanity and pride). best Rochester imo and a fantastic Jane. I love love love the way they did the Rochester storytime flashbacks and fleshed out his character as a result.
Best and most enjoyable Blanche Ingram plotline by far (although no one likes the lack of Rochester-in-drag, the party scenes & insertion of the twin flame theory was delightful).
some of the best dialogue, fantastic Adèle plotline, good Bertha plotline, best Pilot, best Rosamond, good costuming, good sets/locations (the fairytale ambience of Jane walking outside before meeting Rochester! Rochester's weird study!), I like the extra focus placed on themes such as nature/genetics/science, religion, travel, sexuality, etc.
2006 cons:
I dislike the way they did the Lowood and Gateshead plots, and although the Rivers sisters were good, I resent their St. John plotline for the most part. I disliked the lack of mystery surrounding Bertha; I think they made it way too obvious & not creepy enough, especially in showing her perspective from the window and giving her lines (one line, calling Jane a whore in Spanish) which no other adaptation does. I was sorely bored before and after Thornfield and only really revived when she got back to Ferndean (although Jane's flashbacks and some of the St. John plotline [the references to love, reminding us of her inner thoughts of Rochester] kept me alive). I suppose there were prices to pay for the excellence of the Jane and Rochester moments. - in comparison these seem like small prices, but still!
2011 pros:
deciding to go with a non-linear structure was a fantastic choice though I was skeptical of it at first, good St. John plotline for the most part & which they put emphasis on, really fantastic Jane with a lot of good fierce moments & lines, maybe the best Gateshead plotline including Mrs. Reed & the Red Room scene (although the lack of red was disappointing, and the lack of explanation for the chimney monster is conflicting – was it all in her head?), good young Jane, one of the best Richard Masons, star-studded cast, good dialogue, maybe the best costuming, Aesthetic™️
2011 cons:
least favorite adele (not insulting the child actress, this is the fault of the writers/directors)
— this is where i call security to protect me from an onslaught of jane eyre 2011 fans here on tumblr. alright, maybe i should watch it again — but i was expecting a lot more. particularly from michael fassbender as mr. rochester. probably my least favorite rochester by far & the least sympathetic. this rochester captures the dark and dangerous part of him but imo not so much the higher feelings that define him. the lack of humour & lack of unrepressed passion/drama/rage is noticeable - rochester isn't supposed to be quiet; as toby stephens (2006) said in an interview, rochester never shuts up in the book, he's really too eccentric to even be adapted accurately; he has to be toned down to be realistic, but here he's muted too far. - i felt like mia was carrying all of their scenes on her back & that the chemistry really rested on her primarily.
Cinematography-wise, there are some gems in the stills (famous hand holding gif), but I dislike the overall muted palette of the film; many will think this suits the tone and in some ways I agree, however, I will always prefer color and dislike the epidemic of desaturation we've seen so often in 21st century cinema. For this reason, 96, 97, 06 all triumph against 2011 aesthetically for me personally, although I still recognize some of the artistry of 2011, it is not my preference.
My overall ranking: 2006 (primarily for Jane/Rochester), 1997 (excellent overall), 1996 (good but flawed), 2011 (I tried but overall did not enjoy it).
40 notes · View notes
theboarsbride · 5 months
Text
This wasn't great but this is my brand of Trash™️ so I loved it...😔💕
Tumblr media
90% of this movie is literally just Rochester yelling and being a stupid dude bro but that's ok because boys'll be boys, y'know?😩
34 notes · View notes
adobongsiopao · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Samantha Morton was just 19 when she made 'Jane Eyre' - the same age as Bronte's heroine. "That's never happened before," says Morton, pointing out that previous actresses who played Jane were in their mid- to late-20s.
"I just think nowadays, we have so many younger actresses who directors can trust," she says. "I felt very good about that."
Morton first read the book a few years ago in preparation for auditioning for the Zefferelli film. Though the audition never came to fruition, she fell madly in love with Bronte's novel and felt a real connection to Jane.
"I really admire people in the world who are honest and good," the actress explains. "I love this person. Charlotte wrote it in such a way that was so personal. At times it was like you were inside Jane and going through [her life] with her. I felt so connected to her. Not that it was personal to me, but I thought I was on this journey with her."
Source: Los Angeles Times October 19, 1997
Well, that was interesting. It's good to know that Morton enjoyed the role as Jane in later "Jane Eyre" adaptation. Can you imagine what if she succeeded the audition in 1996 version and paired with William Hurt?
23 notes · View notes
cursemewithyourkiss · 7 months
Text
In my opinion Jane Eyre (2011) really isn't that much better than either the 1996 or the 1997 version, but it's done in just such a way that it tricks people into thinking it's more accurate to the book, especially the acting of the leads, even though it's not
18 notes · View notes
Text
not even going to be apologetic for it anymore.
I unashamedly love the 1997 Ciaran Hinds/Samantha Morton adaptation of Jane Eyre.
Is he a good Rochester? Not particularly. Is it faithful to the book? Also no. Do I fucking love it? Absolutely.
15 notes · View notes
ravenkings · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
what people really need to understand about jane eyre is that both jane and rochester are Freaks
82 notes · View notes
emjoyy · 3 months
Text
thinking about them
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
2 notes · View notes
personaltheft · 2 years
Text
a boxing match of the goofiest decisions made by the style department of various jane eyre adaptations: on one side we have 1997 rochester's mustache and on the other we have 2006 rochester's red n yellow fit who winning
25 notes · View notes
buddyhollyscurls · 2 years
Text
Sigh. Here I was tempted to see the 97 version of Jane eyre for Ciaran Hinds but through investigating here I found that in that version Rochester is uncharacteristically violent with Jane?? Is it terribly bad??
12 notes · View notes
Text
When will people understand that I, Blanche Ingram, am not in fact blonde?!
5 notes · View notes
Note
I’m so glad that you’d seen Linnet Moss’s analyses. Yes, there’s a STRONG Ciaran Hinds bias. For that reason, I take all the chemistry rankings with a grain of salt. LOL. If you can look past that, it’s very interesting reading. I agree that 1997 Rochester’s extreme anger counterbalances his vulnerability.
Poor Jane Eyre 1997, is clowned on more than it deserves (I laugh at the raeviews video, but several of the criticisms are unfair -what they call shaky cam is just gas distortion from the candles, what they call filmed night for day is meant to be dawn, not night, and the way they filmed and edited that conversation, with the sun slowly raising and lighting their faces is A LOT of careful work, for example)... and I have zero moral authority to blame her because I do the same with 1996 XD
So I'm happy that someone is out there defending the good things of 1997. It's a good thing. Some day my review of that movie will leave my drafts. Someday... XD
3 notes · View notes
burningvelvet · 3 months
Text
rewatching jane eyre 1997 because i love it a million times more than i ever thought i would. was considering doing a review/comparison post for all the adaptations i've seen so far, but i also don't want to due to some of my unpopular opinions lol
17 notes · View notes
Text
Low key want Edward to bend me over that billiards table 👀😮‍💨
He got me kicking my feet and twirling my hair 😳
4 notes · View notes
adobongsiopao · 7 months
Text
I think Jane Eyre herself is actually pretty on her own. Her level of beauty is not high compare to Blanche Ingram and even pre-married Bertha Mason, but there's something unique about her that made Mr. Rochester fall in love with her. The reason why she thinks she's plain is because she has low self-confidence and self-esteem due to she was told that she's not pretty by some when she was a child.
So I guess many adaptations have somewhat accurate casting of Jane.
13 notes · View notes
cursemewithyourkiss · 7 months
Text
Jane Eyre (1997): the battle of the Wentworths
3 notes · View notes