"Jane Eyre--Jane Eyre," was all he said.

Edit May 16, 2018: For updated and added reviews and content, visit my new website Lit Lovers & Corset Laces. 

Today I was contemplating on the growing popularity of my "Oh, Rochester" post, thinking of how glad I am to see my blog beginning to thrive and to see people appreciating my thoughts. Then it dawned on me that though I compared Rochesters from the different Jane Eyre adaptations but failed to give any attention to the main character herself.

We all know who Jane Eyre is and each reader knows what they love about her. This eighteen year old has barely even eclipsed womanhood and has already experienced pain and hopelessness. Yet, as her obstacles become increasingly challenging, Jane becomes all the more independent and sure of herself. She finds worth in herself when those around her either take advantage of it or don't see it at all.

Still, Jane longs for mutual love and passionate life. She is raw and inexperienced in the ways of the world and throughout the novel we see her discover emotions and sensations that she's never come in contact with before. This girl is the center and cornerstone of the story. She functions as the protagonist, the damsel in distress, the hero, AND the narrator all in one. If Jane is miscasted, the movie or miniseries is doomed before you even press play.

So, just as I did in "Oh, Rochester", I've collected images of the Janes from every version I've seen and will give my personal opinions of each. Casting is often a touchy subject when a book is adapted to the screen because each reader possesses a different opinion. I will give mine without hesitation. Whether you agree or disagree with my analysis, I would still love to see your comments!

So here we go!

Jane Eyre 1944: Joan Fontaine

Positive: Joan Fontaine was a very well respected actress in her time. I loved her in Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of "Rebecca." She had this sweet quality about her in all her movies, and this included Jane Eyre. Joan plays Jane by playing up her sympathetic side. We see that uncertainty that I personally believe Jane had in her.
Negative: We see the uncertainty in Joan's performance, but very little else. In this version, Jane strikes me as WAY too dependent. We don't see the indignant side of Jane that helps establish her as Rochester's equal. Joan didn't infuse any independence in her portrayal at all. Even during the proposal scene where Jane is supposed to come forth and demand that Rochester treat her with respect, Joan isn't demanding. She didn't have the "hero" quality of Jane, only the "damsel in distress." She also isn't young or plain enough to convincingly portray Jane's exterior.

Jane Eyre 1949: Mary Sinclair

Positive: First off, let me say that I'm sorry I couldn't find a better picture. This was the only thing I really had available. As to Mary's positives, I can't think of a single one. In her defense, it was a very low budget made-for-TV adaptation.
Negative: Just like her "Rochester" counterpart, Charlton Heston, there are a list of things wrong with Mary Sinclair. The first and most noticeable is that she was simply too old. Jane is eighteen. Unlike Rochester where you might have to calculate his age because it isn't specifically mentioned, Jane's age is given plain and clear in the text of the novel, so there is really no excuse. Mary also hideously downplayed Jane's inner strength and natural confidence. She made Jane seem timid and afraid, and thus disgraced the character for me.

Jane Eyre 1979: Susannah York

Positive: Susannah was the first actress that actually stepped up and decided to play Jane as the independent woman she is. I loved seeing Susannah stand up to George C. Scott and say "when I come to you, Edward, I come to you as an equal. I will NOT be less" and I also loved that slight sense of vulnerability I received from her in the proposal scene where she cries "don't make me foolish." Susannah was a very commendable Jane.
Negative: TOO OLD! This version as a whole threw the true ages of the character out the window. George C. Scott was much too old to play the thirty-eightish year old Rochester. Susannah was thirty one years old when she played this part, which surprised me when I did the research because she looked even older than that!

Jane Eyre 1973: Sorcha Cusack

Positive: Physically, Sorcha had those large pixie like eyes that I personally find imperative in a Jane. She was convincingly plain and did look rather other worldly in some instances. She also had this "Janian" quality that I couldn't put a finger on. I think it was the way she related to Michael Jayston as Rochester. She seemed to have the upper hand on him and the two of them had this rather odd (yet endearing) chemistry that I found to be true to the novel.
Negative: Sorcha was twenty four years old when she pulled her hair into Jane Eyre's signature knot. That's not nearly as bad as Susannah York, who missed Jane's age by more than ten years, but still it wasn't convincing enough. Jane's age is really important to me as a reader because I can't fully appreciate her journey into womanhood unless she really looks like the teenager that she was in the novel. I also found Sorcha's voice to be rather annoying in many instances. It was so light and too "happy." I didn't see Jane's heartbreak or dispair in any instances.

Jane Eyre 1983: Zelah Clarke

Positive: I actually really liked Zelah Clarke as Jane. She had a sort of quiet strength that I found admirable and I think that people underestimated her performance. I also loved the fact that Zelah was really short. At least, she looked short in comparison to Timothy Dalton who was well over six feet tall. Jane really was "small" in this adaptation which helped highlight the physical dominance that Rochester had over her.
Negative: Zelah was twenty nine. Need I really say more? I also found her quiet strength to be TOO quiet in many instances. Sometimes she just didn't have that outer flash and Jane needs to have that. Zelah was rather reserved just like Jane should be, but she was reserved to the point of boring in a lot of cases.

Jane Eyre 1996: Charlotte Gainsbourg

Positive: Well, she was definitely plain. She did have that pixie-like quality that Jane is described as having. She had pretty good amounts of vulnerability and independence in good balance.
Negative: I don't know just what it is that I didn't like about Charlotte. She had all the elements required to play Jane but she just didn't execute well. The thing is that she didnt inhabit the role of Jane. The whole movie I felt like she was "Charlotte Gainsbourg trying to be Jane" instead of seeing Jane on the screen. Her acting was very remedial like she was making mental notes in her head saying "Now, Jane is supposed to be mad here and happy here."

Jane Eyre 1997: Samantha Morton

Positive: I actually really enjoyed seeing Samantha Morton as Jane even though I hated seeing Ciaran Hinds across from her playing Rochester. Samantha is actually one of my favorite Janes. She made it a point to exude that confidence and inner wisdom that Jane should have. I loved her during the proposal scene. She did the appropriate amount of crying and I loved the line where she cries "I am your equal, and you have treated me as such." Some Janes are rather over-dramatic whereas others don't make their points enough. Samantha was the happy medium for me that showed the essence of Jane through her subtlety. She also had a rather young look about her.
Negative: Samantha had a horrible Rochester to work with. She was great when portraying Jane's singularity and solitude, but when it came to scenes that focused on her relationship WITH Rochester, it didn't resignate well at all. The chemistry just wasn't right. It felt like Samantha Morton had an idea of what she wanted to do and Ciaran Hinds had a different idea and that the two didn't communicate their ideas to each other. Therefore when the camera started rolling, the two were so busy working on their individual characters that those character's didn't mesh well with one another. Exhibit "A" being the kiss, which was absolutely horrible. Could you even call that a kiss?

Jane Eyre 2006: Ruth Wilson

Positive: I liked Ruth as Jane. Her face has the natural plainess, but from some angles we see this strange kind of beauty in her. She played Jane naturally; independence, strength, vulnerability, and all. Just like Toby Stephens was my best "all around" Rochester, Ruth seemed to be my best "all around Jane" just because she played the role as it should be played and did it solidly.
Negative: Some people are going to hate me for saying this because a lot of people like it, but I couldn't stand Ruth in the proposal scene. At first she was great, but when she started sobbing it was just an absolute mess to me. I understand that Jane was in a state of distress and that she was asserting her independence and revealing her passionate nature, but any time the actor has to stop and wipe the snot from their nose during the scene it automatically tells me that you took it a little too far. I'm not making this up by the way, if you watch closely, Ruth really did wipe her nose during the scene. Also, I found a problem with Ruth's height. Either Toby Stephens was really short, or Ruth is just tall, but the two of them are almost the same height and it bugged me because Jane is supposed to be small. Or at least, that's how I pictured her.

Jane Eyre 2011: Mia Wasikowska

Positive: As I've said before, I did have my doubts when I saw that Mia was chosen to be Jane. I didn't particularly like her in Alice in Wonderland, so I didn't know how I would take to her. Surprisingly though, I really did like what Mia did with the role. She is the youngest actress to play Jane (twenty one) and she did look eighteen years old. I loved Mia's eyes when she played the role. The eye contact she made with Rochester and with other characters around her was piercing and very acute. Her glances and gazes gave us a gateway into Jane's thoughts without being melodramatic. Oh, and the leaving scene was absolutely beautiful. That scene alone made me acknowledge her as a serious actress. When she cries, she truly gives the impression that her heart is breaking without having to resort to sobbing and screaming the way Ruth Wilson did. Also, her chemistry with Michael Fassbender was absolutely palpable in every scene that they did together. The two helped strengthen each other.

Negative: I hate to say it, but I do think that Mia was kind of dry in some scenes. I think it was because the screen play didn't actually give her a lot of lines to deliver and a lot of the time her emotions were displayed through her eyes rather than through her mouth. Also, I don't know whether this is a negative or not, but what color was her hair exactly? Sometimes it struck me as red. Did anyone else notice that?

All in all:

My favorite Jane> Probably Samantha Morton or Mia Wasikowska

Still, just like the "Rochester Dilemna" I have yet to find THE Jane, the one that ultimately defines the role. 

"Jane Eyre's Husband" Review

Edit May 16, 2018: For updated and added reviews and content, visit my new website Lit Lovers & Corset Laces. 

I just finished reading Jane Eyre's Husband two seconds ago (literally). I started reading this book already given hope by good reviews, but I was in no way prepared for just HOW magnificent it would be...

Unlike other book reviews that I've done in the past, I don't really need to give a synopsis of Jane Eyre's Husband. Most visitors of this blog have read Jane Eyre before, so the only real synopsis you need is that it's a retelling of that story told mostly from Rochester's point of view. I say "mostly" because it does shift to different characters' perspectives, but the plot stays focused on Rochester just as it should be.

Key things I loved:
The different shifts in perspective work to the book's advantage because the reader gets the benefit of becoming more acquainted with other characters from Jane Eyre. For example, I was extremely happy to see Dr. Carter find his way to the forefront of the book during the time period in which Rochester is struggling for life after being injured in the fire.

The book is divided into three parts. The first is Rochester’s life before Jane which gives the full explanation of his marriage to Bertha as well as his mistresses. The second is about his time with Jane that goes hand in hand with Jane Eyre. The third part dwells on the time after their marriage. The division was actually kind of necessary, because without these separate parts the book might have been too overwhelming due to its rather large length. Still, I liked the division because I felt like it gave me the full extent of Rochester’s progression through life.

Tara Bradley mastered the art of preserving the sanctity of the source material while also bringing in a modern edge to the story. I read another Jane Eyre spin-off called Rochester and it dwelled SO much on the sexual aspect of Jane and Rochester’s relationship that it strayed significantly off the path of the source material and ruined it for me. Tara Bradley sticks faithfully to Jane Eyre in all the parts that the original novel has already laid out for us. However, she takes appropriate liberties in parts one and three so that the reader’s imagination is still awakened.

I never got bored. Not once. At all. Almost every book I’ve ever read has at least a tiny dry area where you might be a little tempted to fast forward a few pages. This is the first book where I made it a POINT to read every.single.word. Some areas even I read more than twice because they were so gripping!

Overall, “gripping” is the exact word to use when describing Tara Bradley’s masterpiece. Somehow this author has an amazing gift of translating emotions from a page into the reader’s very heart. I FELT myself witnessing Rochester’s journey as if I was there for myself. I experienced full force the same emotions that he was experiencing, ESPECIALLY in Rochester’s moments of despair. To me, any author can write about love and romance, but it takes true talent to be able to convey the full extent of a breaking heart to a reader. Bradley’s genius exhibits itself to the fullest in Rochester’s angst, not just in his moments of pleasure. That’s what makes Jane Eyre’s Husband the masterpiece that it is. To me, the whole point of Rochester’s personal story is that he’s burdened by misery for most of it until he meets Jane. The reader can’t be touched by the relationship he finds with Jane until they fully understand the hopelessness of his situation without her. Bradley understands this and executes accordingly. I cried countless times while reading this novel. The great thing is that they were tears of joy AND sadness, and not just one or the other.

To all Jane Eyre fans:
I know in just another post I abused eBooks and basically called them the root of all evil, but I’m telling you now that you HAVE to purchase this book. I downloaded the kindle software to my PC and you should too, just for the pleasure of reading Jane Eyre’s Husband.

To Tara Bradley if you’re reading this:
You are an artist! I hope to read more from you. I’m brutally honest and highly critical when it comes to anything having to do with Jane Eyre. It takes a lot to please me, and you absolutely blew me away with your writing.

My Name Is Bonnie and I'm a Jane Eyre Addict

 More love for Jane Eyre. Thanks to the great advice of RhubarbsMom, I was able to download the kindle movie tie-in version of Jane Eyre without actually buying a kindle. I didn't reread the book, but rather skipped right to the screenplay that I had been longing for. What was GREAT about this screenplay was that it included lines and scenes that didn't make it into the final movie. I understand why they didn't because if they HAD been included the movie would have been somewhere around three hours (not that I personally would mind).

My analysis of the screenplay:

I would highly recommend any other Jane Eyre fanatics to download (FREE) the Kindle software and purchase the Kindle movie tie-in version of the novel, just for the benefit of reading the screenplay. It was absolutely amazing. The movie itself was not so scary (though I jumped here and there) but the screenplay definitely portrays it as a gothic movie. There was one idea in particular that I actually liked that didn't make it into the film. Moira Buffini wrote the script so that we get more acquainted with Helen Burns through her ghost. Her ghost often appears in places and points of dispair for Jane, as if comforting her. Mind you, the ghost doesn't talk because that would be too creepy, but I thought it was a nice little idea.

Blanche Ingram was also originally given a much greater part in the movie and she appeared much more in the screenplay.

OH!!! My favorite thing about the screenplay that didn't appear in the movie was that voiceovers were actually going to be used in a particular scene. Do you remember how in the movie they showed the little glimpses of Jane and Rochester's courtship? Well they originally intended to do this same idea with voiceovers from Jane AND Rochester, adding more conversation. So basically, they would have been shooting different scenes of Rochester and Jane wasting the month of courtship while the characters were doing voiceovers of one of the conversations from the book. That conversation was the one in which Rochester says "For you are a beauty in my eyes and I wish to make the world acknowledge you a beauty." Gosh, I would have loved that!

There's also a bit more emphasis on NAMES in the screenplay. It goes out of its way to point out that the name "Mrs. Edward Fairfax Rochester" was put on Jane's traveling trunk before the marriage got broken off. Also, during the leaving scene, Edward tries to tempt Jane a bit more by embracing her and laying her down and he says "You've never called me by my name. My name is Edward...say it" and the writer adds that he says this gently, which sharply contrasts to what happens later on in the film when St. John yells the same lines at her, saying "Say his name. Say it!!"

I also found a lot more physicality between Rochester and Jane in the original screenplay. As I've just mentioned, in the leaving scene he tries to lay her down and tempt her. I can imagine it. However, it also shows up in other ways. There is a lot of focus on the contact between hands, which I love because that was in the novel too. Cary also commented on that in one of his interviews. We didn't see it all that much in the final movie, but in the screenplay it was definitely highlighted because Moira Buffini actually intended for Rochester to lose his hand during the fire (which most previous adaptations chose not to do, save the 1983 and the 1973 if I remember correctly). I for one am glad that they didn't make him lose a hand. It doesn't translate well to a modern audience, and that's exactly what Cary thought. He says that back then it might have been a bit more normal, but nowadays it's considered highly melodramatic. I agree. I also think that the facial hair was alarming enough.

One last thing I wish they had put into the movie...
This screenplay included my favorite quote from the novel that NEVER gets put in any of the movie. It's not a quote that most Jane Eyre diehards normally go to first, but it's my favorite in the entire book and none of the movies ever use it. It's a quote used during the conversation between the servant and Jane when he's telling her about the fire at Thornfield. He says:

 " The governess had run away two months before;
and for all Mr. Rochester sought her as if she had been the most
precious thing he had in the world, he never could hear a word of
her; and he grew savage--quite savage on his disappointment: he
never was a wild man, but he got dangerous after he lost her."

Anyway, in the returning scene when Jane sees Mrs. Fairfax, the screenplay includes that line. Unfortunately, they didn't end up using it, but It made my night when I read it. I sincerely hope that the deleted scenes will be included on the DVD now that I've gotten a taste of what they were. If they are, then I'm sure that my life will be complete. 

My name is Bonnie and I am a Jane Eyre addict!! However, I don't really think I want to go to rehab. :)

"North and South" Review

North and South (the one by Elizabeth Gaskell) is my second favorite book for a variety of reasons. It tells the story of the young Margaret Hale, the pretty daughter of a clergyman in the south of England. Margaret is a vibrant, sympathetic, and passionate girl who was raised in the small village of Helstone. The story starts in London as Margaret celebrates the nuptials of her cousin and prepares to return home. She is immediately shown the affections of a well-off lawyer, the brother of her new cousin-in-law. He follows her to Helstone and proposes, only to be rejected because of her lack of affection for him.

Margeret is thrown through another torrent of emotions as her family is abruptly uprooted from its quaint parsonage by Mr. Hale, who quits his profession because of conflict in his faith. Margaret and her mother reluctantly move to the dingy industrial town of Milton where they are short of money and the grayness of the setting matches their outlook on life. Mr. Hale takes up a job as a teacher while Margaret begins to take an interest in the poor mill workers that populate Milton. Many of them are starving and the threat of strike fills the air. 

She meets Higgins, a poor mill worker and one of the leaders of the impending strike who must feed his family and take care of his sick daughter who has been taken ill from the bad air within the factories. Margaret sympathizes with the poor workers and finds even more disdain with the mill owners and industrial chaos of the town. This anger is made even more pronounced when she meets the young mill owner Mr. Thornton, a favorite student of her father.

Margaret immediately dislikes Mr. Thornton, who is proud of the trade empire he has built within Milton and the mindset that the north boasts. The two are constantly thrown in each other's company and as Mr. Thornton grows to see Margaret's strong will and kind heart, he falls in love with her. 

After a strike in which Margaret attempts to save his life and is injured in the process, Thornton proposes to her and is passionately rejected as Margaret voices her contempt of his character. As the story progresses, Margaret is forced to face more challenges as her mother becomes ill and eventually dies. Her father follows shortly behind and Margaret is left alone in the world with only one caretaker who bequeaths her all of his money and property before he too passes away. 

Through her life's challenges, Margaret must learn to put aside her prejudices and look at the world through the eyes of others. Margaret slowly and steadily finds a balance between her conflicting emotions. In the end, her affection for her southern heritage, her family, the poor mill workers, and for Mr. Thornton all win and find a place within her. 

This book runs along the same lines as Pride and Prejudice, only with a greater conflict and more gravity in its subplots. There are many twists within the story's progression. The deepest chasms between characters are caused by the smallest coincidences and cases of "bad luck." Irony and symbolism (my two favorite literary words) are both in abundance in this novel. I also found it interesting how this story follows both Margaret and Mr. Thornton individually so the reader gets the full benefit of experiencing the dramatic irony, unlike other novels such as Jane Eyre or Pride and Prejudice. This book is truly a must-read in every way and I promise that you will be completely satisfied when you put it down. 

The book has also been adapted into a BBC Miniseries that stays faithfully true to the novel and pulls at the heartstrings. This is one of the best miniseries' I've come across and it nails the characters perfectly, starring Daniela Denby-Ashe and Richard Armitage (swoon) as Margaret and Thornton. Denby-Ashe truly embodies Margaret and Richard Armitage turns in one of his best performances as the dark and ruggedly handsome Mr. Thornton. The screenplay is also written by Sandy Welch, the same lady who adapted the 2006 Jane Eyre miniseries. :) 

Here is a clip below, just to give the full effect. Enjoy :)