Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #2624 in DVD
• Released on: 2006-03-13
• Rating: Parental Guidance
• Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
• Format: PAL
• Original language: English, Portuguese
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 238 minutes

Synopsis
Dramatised by Alexander Baron, this magnificent production recreates Charlotte Bronte's passionate and tender story of the love between a fiercely independent governess and her brusque, mysterious employer.

Customer Reviews

deceived, displeased and appalled
I bought this dvd and I regret it greatly: I don't understand why so many people liked it.
I didn't.
I think the actress playing Jane is (nearly) the worst actress I've even seen on screen! Jane is presented as unbalanced: sometimes she's shy with Rochester, not looking him the eyes; and sometimes she's overjoyed over god knows what! I mean: what's got into her?
I'm a huge fan of Jane Eyre, and this interpretation is ...painful to watch!
As for Rochester himself: he's too violent for my taste. and Really, am I the only one who thought that he was on the brink of raping her when she's telling him she cannot "be his"?
I don't think Rochester is THAT violent!
So deceived, displeased and appalled

Sorry Dalton did'nt have Ruth Wilson!
I have seen both adaptations (1983, 2006), and I think each one of them has some qualities the other lacks. Dalton, as some say here, overacts in some scenes, but in general he makes the almost perfect Rochester (for me, besides the overacting, he is too much a sardonic in some parts, like the 'Farewell for the present" scene). Sometimes I feel his Rochester has no deepness.

But what really spoils this version is Zelah Clarke's casting as Jane. And what is a Jane Eyre without a Jane?
She is so cold, so inexpressive and she is totally unatractive (I do not talk of beauty, but of that shiny quality, that passionate mood that Jane has when she lets her spirit express). Zelah, simply, does not have this quality. She is out of Jane all the time.

I regret that Timothy Dalton and Ruth Wilson could not coincide in time: because we need a Jane Eyre with a Jane, as much as we need a Rochester.

Toby, sorry.


(Excuse my English, it is not my language)

Unsurpassed and Unsurpassable
There are many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel "Jane Eyre", and taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations all suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render all the different episodes of the heroine's life.

There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 and 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of all Jane Eyre adaptations and a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid and trivial ones, and crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it all leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester and Jane of the novel and behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour and language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look and act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This "Jane Eyre" (as it dares to call itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Brontë.

The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester and Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex and convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, and the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality and staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totally at odds with the literary model, and Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Consequently this adaptation fails to convey the passion and intensity of the novel and never captivates the audience.

All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, tall and lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism and an air of self-assurance and authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim and stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders all the facets of Rochester's character. Of all the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them all: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness and abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude and deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Brontë's language is equally superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched and complicated thoughts ring absolutely true and natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.

Zelah Clarke delivers an equally excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved and guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling and an equally great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty and respectfulness on the one hand, and her fire and passion on the other, her seeming frailty and her indomitable sense of right and wrong. She and Dalton have wonderful chemistry and their scenes together are pure delight.

As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists and the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty and originality of Charlotte Brontë's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.

The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time and emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, and the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal and most heartrending scene when Jane and Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay and his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.

With even the smaller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script and two ideal leading actors this is the definitive and only true "Jane Eyre".