"JANE EYRE" (1983) Review
As long as I can remember, both the Hollywood and British film industries have trotted out Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, "Jane Eyre" in order to make a movie or television adaptation of it. Looking back, I realize that I have seen at least six adaptation of the novel in my life time.
One of those adaptations turned out to be the 1983 BBC miniseries, "JANE EYRE". Directed by Julian Amyes and adapted by Alexander Baron, the eleven-part miniseries starred Zelah Clarke in the title role and Timothy Dalton as Edward Rochester. Following Brontë’s novel, "JANE EYRE" told the story of a plain young English woman in early 19th Britain – from her abusive childhood to her position as a governess at an imposing manor in the Yorkshire countryside. Jane’s story began at Gateshead, where she suffered abuse at the hands of her widowed aunt-in-law and three cousins. After a clash with her cousin John, Mrs. Reed has Jane enrolled at Lowood Institution, a charity school for girls. Jane spends the next eight years under the tyrannical rule of Lowood’s headmaster, the self-righteous clergyman Mr. Brocklehurst – six years as a student and two as a teacher.
Longing for greener pastures, Jane advertises her services as a governess, and receives a reply from a Mrs. Alice Fairfax, housekeeper of Thornfield Hall. She takes the position and becomes governess for Adele Varens, the young French ward of Thornfield’s master, Mr. Edward Rochester. After meeting Mr. Rochester, Jane develops a close friendship with him . . . and the two eventually fall in love. But a secret involving strange laughs, a mysterious fire and an attack on Rochester's house guest, Mr. Mason threatens any chance of marital bliss for the governess and her employer.
I first saw "JANE EYRE" years ago on a video cassette copy that featured no opening or closing credits between episodes. So, it eventually came as surprise to me that the 1983 miniseries had aired in eleven thirty-minute installments. I found myself wondering why the BBC had decided to air the miniseries in this fashion. Why not air it in five one-hour episodes? Or six fifty-minutes episodes? Regardless of the manner in which the BBC had aired "JANE EYRE", I cannot deny that in the end, I found it very satisfying.
Before I wax lyrical over "JANE EYRE", I have to acknowledge some of its aspects that I found unappealing. Many fans probably loved the idea of this adaptation being so close to Brontë’s novel in compare to many other adaptations. And while I am relieved that Alexander Baron’s screenplay did not rush the story in a manner similar to the 1997 television adaptation, there were times when I found this miniseries a bit too loyal to the novel. I might as well confess that I am not particularly fond of the sequences that featured Jane’s years at Lonwood and her time spent with St. John Rivers and his two sisters. The Lowood sequences bored me senseless. I understand that Jane’s interactions with the school’s headmaster was a message on the oppression of a patriarchal society, I practically struggled to prevent myself from hitting the Fast Forward button of my DVD remote. I could say the same about Jane’s time with the Rivers family. While I had initially found her relationship with St. John Rivers fascinating, I heaved a mighty sigh of relief by the time Jane returned to Thornfield Hall. Sometimes, a film or television production can be too faithful to a literary source . . . to the point of dragging the story’s pacing to a near halt.
I have one last complaint to reveal - namely the characterization of Edward Rochester's mysterious wife from the West Indies, Mrs. Bertha Rochester. I realize that Baron and director Julian Amyes were trying to be as faithful to the novel as possible. Unfortunately, Bertha's characterization turned out to be another example of the dangers of a movie or miniseries being too faithful to a literary source. I was surprised to experience a glimmer of sympathy toward the character, while watching the 1997 movie. I felt no such glimmer in this version . . . merely irritation. I cannot blame actress Joolia Cappleman. She must have been following the script or Amyes' direction. But for years, I have harbored the feeling that the characterization of Bertha . . . and Adele's dancer mother, for that matter, may have been examples of Brontë's xenophobia toward the French or anyone who was not British. Bertha's characterization struck me as completely one-dimensional and created in a manner to garner sympathy toward the controlling Rochester, who had just attempted to drag Jane into a bigamous marriage. Considering that the 1966 novel, "Wide Sargasso Sea" had been around for seventeen years around this time, could it have hurt both Amyes and Baron to portray Bertha in a slightly more sympathetic light?
Michael Edwards did a solid job in his production designs for "JANE EYRE". I was especially impressed by his use of Deene Park, located near Corby, Northamptonshire; for the Thornfield Hall sequences. And his recreation of the Yorkshire countryside in 1830s England during those scenes featuring Jane's attempts to find shelter and food following her flight from Thornfield struck me as tolerably convincing. Cinematographers David Doogood, John Kenway and Keith Salmon's photography seemed pretty solid, despite the miniseries being shot in video film. Speaking of the 1830s, I still find it surprising that this is the only adaptation of "Jane Eyre" that is set during this decade. The other five versions I have seen were all set during the early or mid 1840s. I must admit that Gill Hardie's costumes ably reflected that particular decade.
Despite my complaints, I still enjoyed "JANE EYRE" very much. Baron and Amyes did an excellent job of recapturing Brontë's saga. Their handling of Jane's romance with Rochester bridled with passion and intelligence. More importantly, they retained enough of Brontë's work to convey a very plausible development of Jane's character. Both director and screenwriter perfectly maintained Rochester's complex personality. His love for Jane and appreciation of her intelligence seemed apparent. Yet, Baron maintained a good deal of Rochester's sardonic humor and controlling nature. The meat of Brontë's novel has always been centered around Jane and Rochester's relationship. And the miniseries perfectly captured every delicious nuance of it. But I must admit that I was also impressed by the sequences featuring Jane's early years at Gateshead. Baron did a good job of capturing the miseries that Jane suffered at the hands of the Reed family. When I first saw "JANE EYRE", I had lacked the patience to appreciate the sequence in which Jane becomes a vagabond before meeting the Rivers family. This last viewing made me appreciate it, because it conveyed the suffering that Jane had endured after leaving Thornfield Hall - something that most adaptations seem to gloss over.
I cannot deny that the performances featured in "JANE EYRE" were top-notched. Both Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton created a strong screen chemistry as the two leads, Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester. Clarke's Jane seemed very submissive in Rochester's "commanding" presence . . . at least at first. There was an interesting scene in which Jane eagerly approached her employer, the morning following an evening of easy camaraderie between the two. Instead, Rochester responded in a brusque manner, producing a wounded puppy dog expression on Jane's face. Another scene that impressed me featured Jane's reluctant admission of her true feelings toward Rochester. The pair acted the hell out of that scene, leaving me convinced that I had witnessed their finest moment together. Some might view Rochester's failed attempt to prevent Jane's departure from Thornfield as that special moment. But the "admission of love" scene was the one that really impressed me.
Zelah Clarke did an excellent job in conveying Jane's emotional growth from a reserved and pious eighteen year-old governess to the strong-willed and more emotional woman. Her Jane Eyre struck me as slightly more reserved than other portrayals. Which seemed all the more amazing to me, as Clarke slowly revealed Jane's inner passions. Timothy Dalton gave, in my opinion, the best portrayal of the complex Edward Rochester. Mind you, he had his moments of theatricality. But in the end, Dalton superbly conveyed both the best and worst of Rochester's character with seamless skill. Some have declared Dalton as too handsome for the plain-looking Rochester. Considering that just about every actor who has portrayed the character was more attractive than the literary character. I found such arguments irrelevant.
Both Clarke and Dalton received solid support from the rest of the cast. Damien Thomas seemed very impressive as Richard Mason, Rochester's tenuously sane and nervous brother-in-law. I could also say the same about Andrew Bicknell's cool and commanding portrayal of St. John Rivers, the missionary wannabe. Blance Youinou was quite charming as Rochester's young French ward, Adele Valens. And Sian Pattenden was impressively believable as the hot-tempered young Jane Eyre.
I cannot say that "JANE EYRE" is perfect. Unlike other costume drama fans, I do not require that period movie or miniseries be an exact adaptation of its literary source. Although this adaptation of Brontë's novel might not be completely faithful, I do wish that screenwriter Alexander Baron had been even a little less faithful, especially in scenes featuring Jane's years at Lowood and her time spent with the Rivers family. But I cannot deny that this miniseries turned out to be an excellent adaptation. I would probably go so far to state that it might be the best adaptation of Brontë's novel. And we have Baron's writing, Julian Amyes' direction and superb performances from Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton to thank.
"JANE EYRE" (1973) Review
When I began this article, it occurred to me that I was about to embark upon the review of the sixth adaptation I have seen of Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel. I have now seen six adaptations of "Jane Eyre" and plan to watch at least one or two more. Meanwhile, I would like to discuss my views on the 1973 television adaptation.
For the umpteenth time, "JANE EYRE" told the story of a young English girl, who is forced to live with her unlikable aunt-by-marriage and equally unlikable cousins. After a clash with her Cousin John Reed, Jane Eyre is sent to Lowood Institution for girls. Jane spends eight years as a student and two as a teacher at Lowood, until she is able to acquire a position as governess at a Yorkshire estate called Thornfield Hall. Jane discovers that her charge is a young French girl named Adele Varens, who happens to be the ward of Jane's employer and Thornfield's owner, Edward Rochester. Before she knows it, Jane finds herself falling in love with Mr. Rochester. But the path toward romantic happiness proves to be littered with pitfalls.
After watching "JANE EYRE" . . . or least this version, I hit the Web to learn about the prevailing view toward the 1973 miniseries. I got the impression that a number of Brontë fans seemed to regard it as the best version of the 1847 novel. I can honestly say that I do not agree with this particular view. Mind you, the miniseries seemed to be a solid adaptation. Screenwriter Robin Chapman and director Joan Craft managed to translate Brontë's tale to the screen without too many drastic changes. Yes, there are one or two changes that I found questionable. But I will get to them later. More importantly, due to the entire production being stretch out over the course of five episode, I thought it seemed well balanced.
I was surprised to see that "JANE EYRE" was set during the decade of the 1830s. It proved to be the second (or should I say first) adaptation to be set in that period. The 1983 television adaptation was also set during the 1830s. Did this bother me? No. After all, Brontë's novel was actual set during the reign of King George III (1760-1820) and I have yet to stumble across an adaptation from this period. Both this production and the 1983 version do come close. But since "Jane Eyre" is not a historical fiction novel like . . . "Vanity Fair", I see no reason why any movie or television production has to be set during the time period indicated in the story.
The movie also featured some solid performances. I was surprised to see Jean Harvey in the role of Jane's Aunt Reed. The actress would go on to appear in the 1983 adaptation of the novel as Rochester's housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax. As for her portrayal of Aunt Reed, I thought Harvey did a solid job, even if I found her slightly theatrical at times. Geoffrey Whitehead gave an excellent performance as Jane's later benefactor and cousin, St. John Rivers. However, I had the oddest feeling that Whitehead was slightly too old for the role, despite being only 33 to 34 years old at the time. Perhaps he just seemed slightly older. The 1973 miniseries would prove to be the first time Edward de Souza portrayed the mysterious Richard Mason. He would later go on to repeat the role in Franco Zeffirelli's 1996 adaptation. Personally, I feel he was more suited for the role in this adaptation and his excellent performance conveyed this. I do not know exactly what to say about Brenda Kempner's portrayal of Bertha Mason. To be honest, I found her performance to be something of a cliché of a mentally ill woman. For me, the best performance in the entire miniseries came from Stephanie Beachum, who portrayed Jane's potential rival, the haughty and elegant Blanche Ingram. I do not think I have ever come across any actress who portrayed Blanche as both "haughty" and lively at the same time. Beachum did an excellent job at portraying Blanche as a likable, yet off-putting and arrogant woman.
Many fans of the novel do not seem particularly impressed by Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of the title character. A good number of them have accused the actress of being unable to convey more than a handful of expressions. And they have accused her of being too old for the role at the ripe age of 24. Personally . . . I disagree with them. I do not regard Cusack's performance as one of the best portrayals of Jane Eyre. But I thought she did a pretty damn good job, considering this was her debut as an actress. As for her "limited number of expressions", I tend to regard this accusation as a bit exaggerated. Yes, I found her performance in the scenes featuring Jane's early time at Thornfield a bit too monotone. But I feel that she really got into the role, as the production proceeded. On the other hand, many of these fans regard Michael Jayston's portrayal of Edward Rochester as the best. Again, I disagree. I am not saying there was something wrong with his performance. I found it more than satisfying. But I found it difficult to spot anything unique about his portrayal, in compare to the other actors who had portrayed the role before and after him. There were a few moments when his performance strayed dangerously in hamminess. Also, I found his makeup a bit distracting, especially the . . . uh, "guyliner".
The production values for "JANE EYRE" seemed solid. I felt a little disappointed that interior shots seemed to dominate the production, despite the exterior scenes of Renishaw Hall, which served as Thornfield. Some might argue that BBC dramas of the 1970s and 1980s were probably limited by budget. Perhaps so, but I have encountered other costumed productions of that period that have used more exterior shots. I had no problem with Roger Reece's costume designs. But aside from the outstanding costumes for Stephanie Beacham, there were times when most of the costumes looked as if they came from a warehouse.
Earlier, I had commented on the minimal number of drastic changes to Brontë's novel. I am willing to tolerate changes in the translation from novel to television/movie, if they were well done. Some of the changes did not bother me - namely Bessie's visit to Jane at Lowood and the quarrel between Eliza and Georgiana Reed, during Jane's visit at Gateshead Hall. But there were changes and omissions I noticed that did not exactly impress me. I was disappointed that the miniseries did not feature Jane's revelation to Mrs. Fairfax about her engagement to Mr. Rochester. I was also disappointed that "JANE EYRE" did not feature Jane begging in a village before her meeting with the Rivers family. Actually, many other adaptations have failed to feature this sequence as well . . . much to my disappointment. And I was a little put off by one scene in which Mr. Rochester tried to prevent Jane from leaving Thornfield following the aborted wedding ceremony with over emotional kisses on the latter's lips. Not face . . . but lips. I also did not care for the invented scenes that included a pair of doctors telling Reverend Brocklehurst that he was responsible for the typhus outbreak at Lowood. What was the point in adding this scene? And what was the point in adding a scene in which two society ladies discussed John Reed during a visit Thornfield?
Overall, "JANE EYRE" proved to be a solid adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel, thanks to director Joan Craft and screenwriter Robin Chapman. Everything about this production struck me as "solid", including the performances from a cast led by Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston. Only Stephanie Beachum's portrayal of Blanche Ingram stood out for me. The production values struck me as a bit pedestrian. And I was not that thrilled by a few omissions and invented scenes by Chapman. But in the end, I liked the miniseries. I did not love it, but I liked it.
"WUTHERING HEIGHTS" (1939) Review
Considering the popularity of the Brontë sisters, it is not surprising that there have been considerable movie, stage and television adaptations of their novels. I discovered there have been at least fifteen (15) adaptations of Emily Brontë's 1847 novel, "Wuthering Heights".
I might as well be frank . . . I am not a major fan of the novel. I never have been. I do not dislike it, but I have always preferred the famous novels of the author's two sisters - namely "Jane Eyre" (1847) by Charlotte Brontë and Anne Brontë's 1848 novel, "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall". For some reason, "Wuthering Heights" depresses the hell out of me. I have nothing against works of fiction laced with tragedy. But the heavy barrage of emotional and physical abuse, revenge, and over-the-top passion has always seemed a bit too much for me. Due to my less-than-enthusiastic regard for Ms. Brontë's novel, I have always been reluctant to watch any of the television or movie adaptations, with the exception of one - the 1939 movie produced by Samuel Goldwyn.
Directed by William Wyler, and starring Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier; "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" told the story of the passionate and doomed love story between one Catherine Earnshaw, the daughter of a Yorkshire landowner and an orphaned Gypsy boy named Heathcliff. The story opens with Mr. Earnshaw introducing Heathcliff to his family - Cathy and her brother, Hindley - at Wuthering Heights. While Cathy immediately befriends Heathcliff, Hindley becomes jealous of his father and sister's high regard of the newcomer. Heathcliff's pleasant life with the Earnshaw family ends when Mr. Earnshaw dies and a resentful Hindley forces him to become one of the family's servants.
Despite Heathcliff's new status within the Earnshaw family, his close relationship with Cathy remains close. Some eight to ten years later, the now adult pair have fallen in love and are meeting secretly on Penniston's Crag. One night, Cathy and Heathcliff are out when they discover the Earnshaws' neighbors, the Lintons, giving a party at the Grange. After climbing the garden wall, Cathy is attacked by a dog. The Lintons take Cathy in to care for her and Heathcliff is ordered to leave the Grange. Cathy becomes close with Edgar Linton and entranced by his wealth and glamour, while Edgar falls in love with her. When Edgar decides to propose marriage to Cathy, his action leads to a major fallout between Cathy and Heathcliff, the latter's departure for United States, his return, jealousy, obsession and in the end, tragedy.
As far as I know, the 1939 film eliminated the second half of Brontë's novel that centered on the generation featuring Heathcliff and Cathy's children. This elimination has led many fans of the novel to dismiss this version as a poor adaptation. Well, to each his own. I have never read Brontë's novel. And this is probably why I have such difficulty in dismissing "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" as unworthy of the novel. The only way I can judge the movie is on its own merits. And quite frankly, I believe it is one of the better costume dramas to be released during Hollywood's Studio Era.
Producer Samuel Goldwyn assigned his top director, William Wyler, to helm the movie. And Wyler did a superb job. Thanks to his direction, "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" turned out to be an atmospheric and well paced movie filled with superb performances by the cast. Wyler utilized the talents of cinematographer Gregg Toland, along with art designers James Basevi and Alexander Toluboff to re-create the novel's setting - the brooding Yorkshire moors with exquisite details.
The movie's most controversial aspect turned out to be Charles MacArthur and Ben Hecht's screenplay. Many present-day critics believe that the two screenwriters took the bite out of Brontë's novel by romanticizing Heathcliff and Cathy's relationship. Literary critic John Sutherland accused Wyler, Hecht and MacArthur of portraying Cathy as a more passive character, willing to accept Heathcliff's abuse. Personally, I cannot help but wonder how he came to this conclusion. My recent viewing of "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" recalls a capricious and manipulative Cathy unable to hold back her scorn of Heathcliff in the face of the Lintons' wealth and glamour; and a Cathy more than determined to prevent Heathcliff and Isabella Linton's marriage. Not once do I recall a passive Cathy willing to accept abuse from Heathcliff.
Other critics of the movie have also accused Wyler and the two screenwriters of robbing Heathcliff the opportunity to seek revenge against Cathy and the Linton family by deleting the second half of the novel. These same critics seemed to have forgotten that a good deal of the movie's second half focused not only on Heathcliff's return to England, but also his efforts to get revenge on both the Earnshaw and Linton families. He did this by acquiring Wuthering Heights from an increasingly dissolute Hindley Earnshaw and more importantly, seeking Isabella Linton's hand for marriage. The latter finally reached its mark as far as Cathy was concerned. The emotional damage from Heathcliff's marriage to Isabella led to Cathy's death and tragedy. The biggest criticism that emerged from "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" was Samuel Goldwyn's decision to set the story in the mid-Victorian era, instead of the novel's late 18th and early 19th centuries setting. It is believed that Goldwyn made this decision either because he preferred this period in costumes or he was simply trying to save a buck by using old Civil War era costumes. Personally, I could not care less. The novel's setting was merely accelerated by five to six decades. And since "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" did not utilize any historical facts in its plot, I see no reason to get upset over the matter.
"WUTHERING HEIGHTS" went into production as a vehicle for actress Merle Oberon, who was a contract player at Goldwyn Studios. When Laurence Olivier, her co-star from 1938's "THE DIVORCE OF LADY X", was cast as Heathcliff, he campaigned for lover Vivian Leigh to replace Oberon as Catherine Earnshaw. Olivier's efforts failed and Oberon kept her job. Many critics believe that Leigh would have done a better job. I refuse to accept or reject that belief. However, I was very impressed by Oberon's performance. She did an excellent job in capturing Cathy's capricious and shallow nature. Although Oberon had a few moments of hammy acting, she was not as guilty as two of her co-stars. I find it rather disappointing that she failed to earn an Academy Award nomination. Her scene with Geraldine Fitzgerald (in which Cathy tries to dampen Isabella's interest in Heathcliff) and the famous soliloquy that ended with Cathy's "I am Heathcliff" declaration should have earned her a nomination.
Laurence Olivier made his Hollywood debut in the role of the Gypsy orphan-turned-future owner of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff. Olivier harbored a low opinion of Hollywood and screen acting in general. But Wyler's exhausting style of directing and tutelage enabled Olivier to drop his penchant for stage theatrics and perform for the camera. Mind you, I do not believe Wyler was not completely successful with Olivier. The actor still managed to display hints of hammy acting in his performance. And he did not seem that successful in his portrayal of a Heathcliff in his late teens or early twenties, in compare to Oberon, who seemed successful in portraying Cathy in that same age group. Regardless, Olivier gave a first-rate performance, and managed to earn the first of his ten Academy Award nominations.
Another performer who earned an Academy Award nomination was Geraldine Fitzgerald, for her performance as Isabella Linton. I cannot deny that she deserved the nomination. Fitzgerald gave a memorable performance as the passionate, naive and outgoing Isabella, who found herself trapped in an emotionally abusive marriage to a man that harbored no love for her. However, I believe that like Olivier, she was guilty of a few moments of histronic acting. I could never accuse David Niven of such a thing. The actor gave a solid performance as the quietly loving, yet privileged Edgar Linton. Flora Robson was superb as the story's narrator and Cathy Earnshaw's maid, Ellen Dean. And both Niven and Robson proved to be the production's backbone by being the only cast members that managed to refrain from any histronic acting altogether. I can also say the same about Hugh Williams' portrayal of the embittered and dissolute Hindley Earnshaw. Donald Crisp, Leo G. Carroll, Cecil Kellaway and Miles Mander also gave fine support.
I realize that "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" will never be a favorite of the fans of Brontë's novel. But as a movie fan, I cannot look down at this production. Thanks to William Wyler's direction, Gregg Toland's photography, solid adaptation by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, and superb acting from a cast led by Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier; it is quite easy to see why it is considered as one of the best examples of Old Hollywood during one of its best years - 1939. I guess I will always be a fan.
