In the 1934 version, I'd swear the "fire" is achieved by someone stood behind the bed curtain holding a match at arm's length! I loved the 1983 pairing of Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton. Since recently rewatching this version, it's Clarke and Dalton I picture when I imagine Jane and Rochester.
I also think of Zelah Clarke, but Timothy Dalton's looks are too distracting - Rochester isn't supposed to look like that. (Or like Toby Stephens, for that matter, but at least he looks Byronic. I think Dalton looks like he's visiting from another movie. But it's a wonderful adaptation, I agree.
The fire scene in the 1973 is the most beautiful by far. Done in very good taste too, without Hollywood cheap stuff. And the way Michael Jayston looks at her 😍and whispers Jane... 💗 (*swoon*)
Yes, in the 1983 version, when he says, "Oh my cherished preserver," as well as saying he knew she would do him good the first time he saw her smile, it's very clear, he knows he is falling in love, or already knows it, and is revealing his affection, as he is, after all, while sardonic, and cheeky, very forthright but not given to flowery sentiments. He knows he is prone to passionate feelings, so is wary of them, having wrongly trusted before, as he reveals. She trusted him precisely because of his rough manner on their first meeting when he fell from his horse. It also always made me wonder about what he was like when he was younger and more trusting.
@@Weiselberry It's not exactly fan fiction, is it? ;) It is fiction meant as a critique of the genre, characters and so on from a new perspective. I don't think it's canon in any case. And hardly how I would have imagined Rochester at 18 or so as a young man. I haven't read the Eyre Hall Trilogy.
@@kellymathews6615 I haven't seen or read The Wide Sargasso Sea, not sure if I ever will as it sounds like it makes Rochester out to be a villain. He himself tells Jane that at 18 "I was your equal" and that "Nature meant for me to be a good man". I see him as much a victim of his circumstances as Jane is.
I just love that tug of war kind of situation between zelah and Tim, also she keeps one arm length distance from him, the way Timothy says " that expression that smile did not strike delight to my innermost heart so for nothing, oh my cherished preserver, good night" is soo romantic. 1996 version was kind of tender and sweet, I am not much fond of 2006 and 2011 versions, though I don't mind 2006, but 2011 scene really feels awkward to me, Rochester putting his pants on in front of jane, also they were so much close to each other as if they were going to kiss, I know many people love it, but I rather find it awkward and I am amazed as Mia's jane just stands there with blank and confused expressions, why is she not feeling uncomfortable. We should not forget that Rochester is Jane's employer first, and if your employer is suddenly so much close to you, one will definitely feel uncomfortable. If I were in place of Jane, I would had literally called Mrs Fairfax for help, LOL. Oh dear 1997, it's just weird from beginning till end. I think they were trying to display sexual tension between jane and Rochester but the result came just opposite, it was creepy and Rochester seemed lecherous. Overall 1983 is my favorite as well, but what I don't like is that we don't get to see the reaction of jane in her own room, instead 1983 shows Timothy's reaction and he really looks tensed and unsatisfied.
So glad you're back, Jerome! Have been waiting (im)patiently for your next comparison! (And I hope your cold is better.) It's difficult to get this scene wrong, but 1997 manages it spectacularly. Hinds is a bully, which puts Morton on the defensive. WRONG! 1973 and 1983 are terrific as you'd expect, but my favourite is - yet again - 2006. Yes, I know it ramps up the romance, but I love the way Wilson retires to her bed kissing the hand that Stephens held. I know it isn't specifically described in the book, but in the absence of narration (I hate voiceover), we need to be shown how Jane is feeling. The book talks about her "feverish" night of dreams, and she speaks the next day of "a secret love kindl[ing] within [her]".
I loved the 1996 version. To me it's all about the balance of nothing happening but making you want more. I love the balance they find in that version!
I love this series:) In regards to the fire scene, I love the 2011 version because Michael Fassbender is so hot, but when I take him out of the equation it is definitely between 1983 and 2006
There's a little detail in JE/1973 that makes it (at least to my 55-years-old male taste...) far superior to JE/1983. Check how Michael Jayston and Timothy Dalton put their arms at the end of the scene. I know Tim followed the book; BUT Jayston, by putting his arms BEHIND his back, gives the audience a hint that Mr. Rochester has, IN FACT, opened his heart to Jane. It works as a superb cliffhanger, leaving the audience in great suspense, eager to watch the next episode! ❤
Most of the adaptations don't get the fire scene right. In the book, Jane puts the fire out all on her own, without Rochester's assistance. The one thing that annoys me with the 1983 version is when Jane wrings her hands like a damsel in distress. (Normally I like the '83 version, but I do have a few quibbles.) Jane also walks out of Rochester's room still wearing his cloak. Is she a cloak klepto? " Oop, Rochester, I stole your cloak. My bad."
As much as I love Dalton, I prefer the 1973 version: the way Jane reacts, how Rochester lets her go and looks at her when saying 'Goodnight... Jane'. You can tell he's already falling in love, something which isn't obvious in other adaptations except 1997's (but it differs from the book).
The '43 and '70 versions are the only ones with which I'm at all familiar - which is fine for me since I'm such a fan of Welles and Scott. You are such a romantic at heart, and this story is such a passion for you, that a fan of yours such as I can't help but be inspired to explore it further based solely on your presentation. Great video kiddo and keep 'em coming as always.)
Well, looks like the suspense is going to be just a little bit longer because this video is twice as long as I expected it would be. I guess I had more observations to make than I thought! Should be out Monday, if I don't post tomorrow. :)
My most favourite version of Jane Eyre is the 1983 version, with the 2006 as a good second. But in the 2011 version, it is quite obvious that mr. Rochester is wearing nothing under that short night shirt. Quite enjoyed that ;-)
Firs- no, I respect this channel too much to do that. I wish there was a book out there I've read that enjoy as much as you enjoy Jane Eyre. Most of the time when I'm reading it's non fiction, though I do occasionally partake in some Cormac McCarthy when the mood strikes me.
7:26 What Rochester is wearing isn't described in the book. (The fire is out and it's all dark by the time he actually wakes up and gets out of bed. And while Jane's putting out the fire, she's hardly in a state of mind to be noticing clothes.) But when Jane says she's bringing him a candle, he says "At your peril you fetch a candle yet!" (LOL) and tells her to wait until he finds his dressing gown. Book Rochester is more modest than Toby Stephens or Micheal Fassbender. ;)
Nope your right, the newest ones are completely over the top. People tend to think modern audiences need a LOT more sex appeal. I think the people who need that won't go watch Jane Eyre in the first place.
New to your channel so totally possible I've missed it but have you seen the National Theatre Live adaptation??? That was my first (which I loved!), even before the book, and otherwise I've only seen the 2011 version. I only saw it once and only read the book several years later though. But you've seen/read them all! Would love to know what you think. This was a fun watch btw (:
You were so punny! This fire scene is a favorite of mine. Its grand to see the awakening feelings here. These versions stood out to me, for better or worse: 1983-- My fav Rochester, Timothy Dalton, does not let me down with the PERFECT delivery of that “cherished preserver” dialog. OMG, just like the book. Zelah Clark looks perfectly overwhelmed as well. Wonderful stuff! In 1996 it was the quiet tenderness of their exchange that caught my attention. Anyone else distracted by that hanging hair that seems to be coming out of her nose? That was most unfortunate. However, the handkerchief thing got to me too. It was sweet. The fire was ridiculous, yet in the 2006 JE I liked the nod to 1943’s JE with the ascending tower windows lighting one by one. And I enjoyed the mushy added line about never being cold again with that lovely, lingering, silhouetted hold. *sigh*. In 2011, though Fassbender has a nice bottom and all, the pants thing was out of character. Poor Jane! Look away!! Didn't care for the almost kissing thing either. But it was much better than 1997 version, which I will devote the next ranting paragraph to. I hated the scene. (I can just hear this Mr. R : “Pam, you are so predictable!”) I whittled my points to these three: I did not like how lecherous he looked touching her hand. She must have felt the same as her departure is frantic, like he just made her eat worms. THEN what the heck is she emoting in the bed scene? Desire? Disgust? How anyone thought this scene was top notch is beyond me.! So many things are off in this version. Whew! Let me end on a nicer note. I love your channel and your devotion to JE and to your viewers. It is certainly nice exchanging views with you, and often we feel the same about things. It as if I had a string … knotted to a similar string …. (well, without the romantic undertones) 😉
LOL, I can't say I noticed before that in 1996 it looks like the hair is coming out of her nose, but you can bet I'm always going to notice it now!! I love all your observations, as usual. :D
There's another little detail in JE/1973 that makes it (I repeat: at least to my 55-years-old male taste!... :-) ) far superior to JE/1983. Check what Sorcha Cusack and Zelah Clarke are wearing when they save Mr. Rochester from the flames. Yes, I'm fully aware that Zelah matches the book; BUT Sorcha, dressed the way she is, delivers much, much better a very important concept underlying (I think...) the whole novel: a virginal young woman rescuing a fallen man. ❤
The 1973 "Jane..." is the best of the best and the way he looks at her... WOW! The 1983... well, what can I say? It's cold. The others... not very interesting, TBH...
Hands down, the fire scene is my absolute favorite scene in Jane Eyre. It was what made me fall in love in with the tale of Jane Eyre in the first place. I love that little Jane Eyre was the hero of the scene and saved the life of Byronic hero, Mr. Rochester. As for the adaptations, surprise, surprise, 2006 is my absolute favorite. I love the look of horror on Jane's face when she discovers the fire. I love how Mr. Rochester immediately asks Jane if she was hurt once the fire was put out and how he tenderly puts the blanket around her, and is just so gentle with her. I absolutely love that Jane kissed the hand that Mr. Rochester held when she returned to her room, and the music playing during that particular scene is so pretty. I also really like 1983 where Mr. Rochester puts the huge cloak around Jane and is also really gentle and tender towards her. Another honorable mention is 1996. I thought Mr. Rochester tending to Jane's wounded hand was a nice touch. I think I would have liked 1997 a lot better if someone else was playing Mr. Rochester. His raised voice and and bossiness just sucked the romance of it. Also, when Jane goes back to her room, she looks like a scared young girl, definitely not a young woman falling in love for the first time. I want to love the 2011 version of this scene, I do. But Mr. Rochester and Jane are way too chill for my taste, and a lot of Mr. Rochester's lines just seem really robotic and not very passionate. Maybe other people read into it differently, but that's just my opinion. And it doesn't make sense that Jane isn't asking any questions about how the fire started. As you can probably tell, I'm very enthusiastic about this whole scene.
Umm as far as Toby's almost shirtless Rochester is concerned, again I think the 2011 version tried to outdo it. I remember seeing it in the movie theater in 2011, and on the big screen you can definitely tell that when Fassbender's nightshirt is backlit by the fire, he, er, most likely is not wearing anything underneath it.
At last! :) I think 2006 does this and the other fire really well. I like it when Rochester, after coming back, doesn't tell Jane what he found out, but asks her whether she saw anything, and then basically confirms her suspicions. My favorites are still 1973 and 1983. I also like how Selah Clarke is tiny like Jane, unlike most other Janes. But I find Timothy Dalton distracting. He looks like he wandered in from another movie. There are many things I really like about his performance, but his looks are wrong. I think what Ciarran Hinds gets wrong is that he ignores the part of Rochester's scoldings that are tender and playful. His rage is startling. Are the guests the next episode? I think Rochester is aware of his love for Jane as it grows, from his enigmatic wondering whether a person is justified in making his own rules about what is right, through his enigmatic "I dare to like Thornfield!" Jane, however, finds it out here for the first time. Sort of.
I like that moment too. I think it's closest to the way I pictured it in the book. Hm, is it Dalton's outfit that makes him look like he's from another movie to you, or his hairstyle? I can't say that thought ever crossed my mind, though I know he's widely considered too handsome for the part. I haven't decided yet what to do next. Of course I'd love to go galloping into the gypsy scene! But I think for that to have the proper context, I need to talk about the guests first, possibly covering Rochester's return, Blanche, and Jane's humiliation in one video. We'll see. :)
I think it's largely the hair as well as his looks - he looks modern, not Victorian. I think that's the problem. My favorite Rochester, as you know is Michael Jayston (despite his narrow shoulders). I'm completely split between those two adaptations, so I have to say both are my favorites. I think you should do the guests separate from your favorite gypsy scene. There really is great variety in how that's dealt with, and how Blanche is portrayed. But there is also the morning after the fire when Jane finds out Rochester has left and learns about Blanche and talks to Grace Poole. That could be separate or included with the guests' arrival. Have fun.
It's interesting to speculate when Rochester falls in love with Jane. We have his account in Chapter 27, when he tells Jane how she intrigued him from the start. I love the passage "When once I had pressed the frail shoulder, something new-a fresh sap and sense-stole into my frame". He's definitely in love with her by the time of the fire, and possibly before. As for the next scene to compare, what about when Jane leaves the room, pursued by Rochester, after Blanche et al talk of governesses (and Rochester sings)? This is a scene that all of the adaptations cover as far as I remember. Whatever you choose, I'm looking forward to it.
Does Rochester sing in any adaptation besides 1973, where he actually sings a corsair song, as he does in the book. I think the others just have Blanche playing the piano. But I may have forgotten one or another.
supergran, I agree that he was probably already in love with her before this scene. I like to think of it as a steady progression that starts at the moment they meet and grows through all their conversations. Then the fire scene is when it really hits him. Jane and Rochester's brief moment on the stairs is definitely something I want to cover!
I do not like the 1997 version, particularly the Rochester, and to a lesser extent, the Jane. It does have its charms, but I'd watch other versions first.
Rochester holds Jane's hand too long. Note that in the book this is the first scene where Rochester calls her Jane, a step of familiarity in Victorian times. Also if Jane had been discovered in Rochester's room, it would have scandelous. In the novel Jane somehow hurries herself into her frock, but a lot of the versions she is in a nightgown, which also would be scandelous in those times. Umm and the novel says she used the water jug from her own room, and that a pitcher broke. Was that the euer from his room or her water jug? Umm wouldn't the servants had noticed there was a missing jug from her room?
I prefer the sexier adaptations in 2006 and 2011. They show Rochester's restraint and respect for Jane. Rochester loves her and chooses not to go in for the "kill" which he could have easily done.
I am now past the tipping point. I don't want to miss another one of Weiselberry's Jane Eyre discussions simply because I'm not up to speed. I'll finally read said classic after I finish my current read, which is yet another one of Carter Brown's deliciously trashy detective novels. *LOL*
Rochester runs “hot and cold” here. He’s his moody secretive self despite Jane’s heroic intentions. One moment he’s calling her his prized lamb and when she bids him goodnight he flares up asking her is that how she’s leaving. The scene frightened her with his intensity. Yet the next day when she stops him on his horse to ask about Mrs Poole, he becomes employer and she’s employee when he tells her to keep to what she knows. Then he gallops off only to bring back party ppl to show off Ms Ingram.
Just thought I'd clarify that in the book Jane doesn't see Rochester the next day. After she leaves his room they don't meet again until he returns with his guests. The scene in which she asks him about Mrs. Poole the next morning before he gallops away is a 1983 addition. But, yes, he is very changeable in this scene.
@@Weiselberry He's so changeable in this scene because of the sexual tension - which Jane also feels, but can't quite name yet, but which Rochester recognizes full well. The emotional love is already there, and the strangeness of her being in his bedroom is almost too much for him.
The 2011 fire scene was not sexy to me because it wasn't earned. They'd spent nearly no time on developing their attraction and then suddenly they're all over one another?! Didn't buy it.
YAAAAYYY FIRE SCENE! I definitely do not think you are crazy for your opinion about the 2011 one and I do slightly agree however I must admit it is my favorite of the maybe 4 versions I've seen (however, I do need to rewatch both the 43 and 06 versions to solidify that opinion). I'm now very much in the mood to rewatch both the 06 and the 2011. I am so excited because I am participating in a booktube event called Victober, reading Victorian literature in October, and i'm going to re-read Jane Eyre while listening to the audio narrated by Thandie Newton then I'm going to listen to the recent radio adaptation and watch as many versions as I can get my hands on (though I may avoid the 34 one). I'm especially excited about finally seeing the 83 version all the way through :D. Yet another wonderfui comparison video!
I'd love to participate in Victober. I just don't know if I'll be able to decide what to read: there are way too many Victorian classics on my list to choose from! Oh, I forgot about that new JE radio adaptation! My library finally got a copy of it recently, so I need to check it out. (And review it, of course!) Glad you enjoyed the video! :D
True, you could always just decide based on your mood or based on which ones you've been meaning to get to the longest. I'm only reading a handful and using the rest of the month for mysteries and spooky things that aren't Victorian. I'm also going to have an event I'm dubbing the "Richard Armitage Fright Fest" because I'll be listening to his narration of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, the recent crime thriller he narrated called Their Lost Daughters by Joy Ellis, and Bloody Chamber by Angela Carter that he co-narrated with Emilia Fox :D. Yes, I am so excited to listen to that radio version of Jane Eyre, especially getting to hear what Tom Burke is like as Rochester, after seeing him as Athos in the BBC's The Musketeers, I think he'll be an amazing Rochester. Looking forward to your thoughts on it as well when you get to it :D.
That is probably exactly what will happen, no matter how much planning and forethought I try to put into it. :) The "Richard Armitage Fright Fest"?! I LOVE THAT! :D
Agreed about that, though I think Carolyn was referring to Tom Burke as an amazing potential Rochester. I'm not sure I know him from anything? Armitage would definitely be good acting wise, and around the right age, as Rochester. I think we've already seen the closest to Darcy he's ever going to get. :)
The 1970 version benefits from George C. Scott who was better in the 1970's than most leading men, but it pales next to 1997's version. The 1983 version is severely marred by casting a devilishly handsome Rochester who is uninspiring with his acting. The 1996 version benefits from William Hurt's idiosyncratic interpretation which was entertaining and inspiring. The 2006 version benefits from Ruth Wilson's casting. The 2011 version benefits from the sumptuous production values, but the 1997 version is the best I have seen, and I have watched it many times. Susanna York's elegant appearance and vague personality is disappointing in 1970. Her lavish make-up does not serve the story and is comically anachronistic.
Wow. I am so surprised to see someone saying the 1997 version is the best. Practically every scene with Ciarin Hinds makes me cringe. I mean, sure, Rochester is not supposed to be handsome, but I don't think you're supposed to find him completely repulsive in person AND manners.
@@harringt100 I agree, Cirian scared the crap out of me as Edward Rochester. I only saw his version twice and never want to see it again, he turned Edward into a bully and the romance is not romance but more like creepy love. I'd rather deal with the 1934, 1944, 1996, 2006, and 2011 versions of the fire even if all are different- the ones of Toby Stephens and Michael Fassbender are a bit more hotter to appeal to modern audiences but I still love them anyway- and Dalton's comes closer to the book.
@@ditsashihurkar4913 I'm sure there are many fans who agree with you. You've found your favorite, and that is a good thing. Timothy Dalton is extremely handsome and his flourishes are graceful and his speech is highly articulate, but always the observer observes him acting. The acting shows. His feelings are not felt; they are performed. A fine actor never appears to be acting. The actions and motions of a great actor suspend one's disbelief so that one feels as if one were there witnessing a real interaction between real people and one is very entertained and stimulated by the extraordinary experience. Hines is a great actor and has been hired over and over again for critical parts in great drama. He is one of the best actors today, and he is at the top of his game. His abrasive portrayal may be unpopular to the modern sensibilities, but I think he was authentic to the setting of "Jane Eyre" and typical of aristocratic men of that era. Women like Charlotte Bronte were probably impressed by aristocratic affectation if not aroused by it. I don't judge based on my dislike for the character with his shortcomings and dreadful behavior. I judge by the actor's ability to suspend my disbelief, so that I am expertly entertained.
@@ditsashihurkar4913 I would like to share something from Roger Ebert's excellent review of the 2011 version of "Jane Eyre". _"No version I know of has ever made Rochester as unattractive as he is described in the book."_ -- Roger Ebert That is why the aversion of many toward Hine's version of Rochester is unfounded and askew.
“She’s already freaked out, Rochester. You don’t need to make it worse!”
You made me spit out my ice cream laughing when you said that.😂😂😂
Oh no, hahaha!!
Yes, that and I felt the same about the "This is the one where he pulls his pants on in front of Jane."
In the 1934 version, I'd swear the "fire" is achieved by someone stood behind the bed curtain holding a match at arm's length! I loved the 1983 pairing of Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton. Since recently rewatching this version, it's Clarke and Dalton I picture when I imagine Jane and Rochester.
I also think of Zelah Clarke, but Timothy Dalton's looks are too distracting - Rochester isn't supposed to look like that. (Or like Toby Stephens, for that matter, but at least he looks Byronic. I think Dalton looks like he's visiting from another movie. But it's a wonderful adaptation, I agree.
Now I'm picturing someone holding up a lit match behind a curtain, and the actors reacting to that, and it's so funny!
The fire scene in the 1973 is the most beautiful by far. Done in very good taste too, without Hollywood cheap stuff. And the way Michael Jayston looks at her 😍and whispers Jane... 💗 (*swoon*)
I also had the same problem with the reactions in the 2011 versions. She looks like she's watering the plants rather than putting out a fire.
"She's already freaked out, Rochester. You don't need to make it worse!" LOL
What can I say, 1973 is such a classic and Sorcha and Jayston's expressions are spot on
Yes, in the 1983 version, when he says, "Oh my cherished preserver," as well as saying he knew she would do him good the first time he saw her smile, it's very clear, he knows he is falling in love, or already knows it, and is revealing his affection, as he is, after all, while sardonic, and cheeky, very forthright but not given to flowery sentiments. He knows he is prone to passionate feelings, so is wary of them, having wrongly trusted before, as he reveals. She trusted him precisely because of his rough manner on their first meeting when he fell from his horse. It also always made me wonder about what he was like when he was younger and more trusting.
@@tiffanystewart9265 The Wide Sargasso Sea?
That's one writer's idea of what he may have been like, written 119 years after Bronte's novel...
@@Weiselberry It's not exactly fan fiction, is it? ;) It is fiction meant as a critique of the genre, characters and so on from a new perspective. I don't think it's canon in any case. And hardly how I would have imagined Rochester at 18 or so as a young man. I haven't read the Eyre Hall Trilogy.
@@kellymathews6615 I haven't seen or read The Wide Sargasso Sea, not sure if I ever will as it sounds like it makes Rochester out to be a villain. He himself tells Jane that at 18 "I was your equal" and that "Nature meant for me to be a good man". I see him as much a victim of his circumstances as Jane is.
I just love that tug of war kind of situation between zelah and Tim, also she keeps one arm length distance from him, the way Timothy says " that expression that smile did not strike delight to my innermost heart so for nothing, oh my cherished preserver, good night" is soo romantic. 1996 version was kind of tender and sweet, I am not much fond of 2006 and 2011 versions, though I don't mind 2006, but 2011 scene really feels awkward to me, Rochester putting his pants on in front of jane, also they were so much close to each other as if they were going to kiss, I know many people love it, but I rather find it awkward and I am amazed as Mia's jane just stands there with blank and confused expressions, why is she not feeling uncomfortable. We should not forget that Rochester is Jane's employer first, and if your employer is suddenly so much close to you, one will definitely feel uncomfortable. If I were in place of Jane, I would had literally called Mrs Fairfax for help, LOL. Oh dear 1997, it's just weird from beginning till end. I think they were trying to display sexual tension between jane and Rochester but the result came just opposite, it was creepy and Rochester seemed lecherous. Overall 1983 is my favorite as well, but what I don't like is that we don't get to see the reaction of jane in her own room, instead 1983 shows Timothy's reaction and he really looks tensed and unsatisfied.
Pretty sure he already knew he loved her, But this is the moment he decides to go for it completely.
So glad you're back, Jerome! Have been waiting (im)patiently for your next comparison! (And I hope your cold is better.) It's difficult to get this scene wrong, but 1997 manages it spectacularly. Hinds is a bully, which puts Morton on the defensive. WRONG! 1973 and 1983 are terrific as you'd expect, but my favourite is - yet again - 2006. Yes, I know it ramps up the romance, but I love the way Wilson retires to her bed kissing the hand that Stephens held. I know it isn't specifically described in the book, but in the absence of narration (I hate voiceover), we need to be shown how Jane is feeling. The book talks about her "feverish" night of dreams, and she speaks the next day of "a secret love kindl[ing] within [her]".
I loved the 1996 version. To me it's all about the balance of nothing happening but making you want more. I love the balance they find in that version!
Also honourable mention of the 1972 Czech jane Eyre, I really loved the fire scene in that version ❤️❣️
I love this series:) In regards to the fire scene, I love the 2011 version because Michael Fassbender is so hot, but when I take him out of the equation it is definitely between 1983 and 2006
I love the way you put that. :)
There's a little detail in JE/1973 that makes it (at least to my 55-years-old male taste...) far superior to JE/1983. Check how Michael Jayston and Timothy Dalton put their arms at the end of the scene. I know Tim followed the book; BUT Jayston, by putting his arms BEHIND his back, gives the audience a hint that Mr. Rochester has, IN FACT, opened his heart to Jane. It works as a superb cliffhanger, leaving the audience in great suspense, eager to watch the next episode! ❤
Most of the adaptations don't get the fire scene right. In the book, Jane puts the fire out all on her own, without Rochester's assistance. The one thing that annoys me with the 1983 version is when Jane wrings her hands like a damsel in distress. (Normally I like the '83 version, but I do have a few quibbles.) Jane also walks out of Rochester's room still wearing his cloak. Is she a cloak klepto? " Oop, Rochester, I stole your cloak. My bad."
As much as I love Dalton, I prefer the 1973 version: the way Jane reacts, how Rochester lets her go and looks at her when saying 'Goodnight... Jane'. You can tell he's already falling in love, something which isn't obvious in other adaptations except 1997's (but it differs from the book).
The '43 and '70 versions are the only ones with which I'm at all familiar - which is fine for me since I'm such a fan of Welles and Scott. You are such a romantic at heart, and this story is such a passion for you, that a fan of yours such as I can't help but be inspired to explore it further based solely on your presentation. Great video kiddo and keep 'em coming as always.)
Thank you! :)
Dear Jerome, I'm on tenterhooks waiting for your next comparison! Please don't keep us in suspense much longer! :-)
I won't! The next one will hopefully be up by this time next week. :)
Thank you! No pressure!
Well, looks like the suspense is going to be just a little bit longer because this video is twice as long as I expected it would be. I guess I had more observations to make than I thought! Should be out Monday, if I don't post tomorrow. :)
My most favourite version of Jane Eyre is the 1983 version, with the 2006 as a good second. But in the 2011 version, it is quite obvious that mr. Rochester is wearing nothing under that short night shirt. Quite enjoyed that ;-)
Great video! Love your Jane Eyre videos :)
Thank you! :)
Firs- no, I respect this channel too much to do that.
I wish there was a book out there I've read that enjoy as much as you enjoy Jane Eyre. Most of the time when I'm reading it's non fiction, though I do occasionally partake in some Cormac McCarthy when the mood strikes me.
I wouldn't mind. Makes me feel like I'm one of *those* youtubers. :)
7:26 What Rochester is wearing isn't described in the book. (The fire is out and it's all dark by the time he actually wakes up and gets out of bed. And while Jane's putting out the fire, she's hardly in a state of mind to be noticing clothes.) But when Jane says she's bringing him a candle, he says "At your peril you fetch a candle yet!" (LOL) and tells her to wait until he finds his dressing gown. Book Rochester is more modest than Toby Stephens or Micheal Fassbender. ;)
Yeah that's right , it was all dark and Rochester got dressed before she was able to see him.
Nope your right, the newest ones are completely over the top. People tend to think modern audiences need a LOT more sex appeal.
I think the people who need that won't go watch Jane Eyre in the first place.
I hate the 1997 adaptation. Rochester is creepy and almost abusive at times. What was wrong with Ciaran? Why did they let him get away with this?!
Ann Nee I agree with you here. He was shouting and down right scary. Not a good portrayal of the scene when compared to the book.
What's wrong with Ciaran is the writing and directing. He could have made a very good Rochester - physically he's closer to the book than anyone else.
Ciaran is too harsh in this role.
It's alright, mine is also the 1983 version ; )
New to your channel so totally possible I've missed it but have you seen the National Theatre Live adaptation??? That was my first (which I loved!), even before the book, and otherwise I've only seen the 2011 version. I only saw it once and only read the book several years later though. But you've seen/read them all! Would love to know what you think. This was a fun watch btw (:
Yes, I have! I talked about it here: ua-cam.com/video/6npDt9N_7hc/v-deo.html
You were so punny! This fire scene is a favorite of mine. Its grand to see the awakening feelings here. These versions stood out to me, for better or worse:
1983-- My fav Rochester, Timothy Dalton, does not let me down with the PERFECT delivery of that “cherished preserver” dialog. OMG, just like the book. Zelah Clark looks perfectly overwhelmed as well. Wonderful stuff!
In 1996 it was the quiet tenderness of their exchange that caught my attention. Anyone else distracted by that hanging hair that seems to be coming out of her nose? That was most unfortunate.
However, the handkerchief thing got to me too. It was sweet.
The fire was ridiculous, yet in the 2006 JE I liked the nod to 1943’s JE with the ascending tower windows lighting one by one. And I enjoyed the mushy added line about never being cold again with that lovely, lingering, silhouetted hold. *sigh*.
In 2011, though Fassbender has a nice bottom and all, the pants thing was out of character. Poor Jane! Look away!! Didn't care for the almost kissing thing either. But it was much better than 1997 version, which I will devote the next ranting paragraph to.
I hated the scene. (I can just hear this Mr. R : “Pam, you are so predictable!”) I whittled my points to these three: I did not like how lecherous he looked touching her hand. She must have felt the same as her departure is frantic, like he just made her eat worms. THEN what the heck is she emoting in the bed scene? Desire? Disgust? How anyone thought this scene was top notch is beyond me.! So many things are off in this version.
Whew! Let me end on a nicer note. I love your channel and your devotion to JE and to your viewers. It is certainly nice exchanging views with you, and often we feel the same about things. It as if I had a string … knotted to a similar string …. (well, without the romantic undertones) 😉
LOL, I can't say I noticed before that in 1996 it looks like the hair is coming out of her nose, but you can bet I'm always going to notice it now!! I love all your observations, as usual. :D
1983 version is the best❤
There's another little detail in JE/1973 that makes it (I repeat: at least to my 55-years-old male taste!... :-) ) far superior to JE/1983. Check what Sorcha Cusack and Zelah Clarke are wearing when they save Mr. Rochester from the flames. Yes, I'm fully aware that Zelah matches the book; BUT Sorcha, dressed the way she is, delivers much, much better a very important concept underlying (I think...) the whole novel: a virginal young woman rescuing a fallen man. ❤
The 1973 "Jane..." is the best of the best and the way he looks at her... WOW! The 1983... well, what can I say? It's cold. The others... not very interesting, TBH...
Hands down, the fire scene is my absolute favorite scene in Jane Eyre. It was what made me fall in love in with the tale of Jane Eyre in the first place. I love that little Jane Eyre was the hero of the scene and saved the life of Byronic hero, Mr. Rochester. As for the adaptations, surprise, surprise, 2006 is my absolute favorite. I love the look of horror on Jane's face when she discovers the fire. I love how Mr. Rochester immediately asks Jane if she was hurt once the fire was put out and how he tenderly puts the blanket around her, and is just so gentle with her. I absolutely love that Jane kissed the hand that Mr. Rochester held when she returned to her room, and the music playing during that particular scene is so pretty.
I also really like 1983 where Mr. Rochester puts the huge cloak around Jane and is also really gentle and tender towards her.
Another honorable mention is 1996. I thought Mr. Rochester tending to Jane's wounded hand was a nice touch.
I think I would have liked 1997 a lot better if someone else was playing Mr. Rochester. His raised voice and and bossiness just sucked the romance of it. Also, when Jane goes back to her room, she looks like a scared young girl, definitely not a young woman falling in love for the first time.
I want to love the 2011 version of this scene, I do. But Mr. Rochester and Jane are way too chill for my taste, and a lot of Mr. Rochester's lines just seem really robotic and not very passionate. Maybe other people read into it differently, but that's just my opinion. And it doesn't make sense that Jane isn't asking any questions about how the fire started.
As you can probably tell, I'm very enthusiastic about this whole scene.
Umm as far as Toby's almost shirtless Rochester is concerned, again I think the 2011 version tried to outdo it. I remember seeing it in the movie theater in 2011, and on the big screen you can definitely tell that when Fassbender's nightshirt is backlit by the fire, he, er, most likely is not wearing anything underneath it.
At last! :) I think 2006 does this and the other fire really well. I like it when Rochester, after coming back, doesn't tell Jane what he found out, but asks her whether she saw anything, and then basically confirms her suspicions. My favorites are still 1973 and 1983. I also like how Selah Clarke is tiny like Jane, unlike most other Janes. But I find Timothy Dalton distracting. He looks like he wandered in from another movie. There are many things I really like about his performance, but his looks are wrong. I think what Ciarran Hinds gets wrong is that he ignores the part of Rochester's scoldings that are tender and playful. His rage is startling. Are the guests the next episode?
I think Rochester is aware of his love for Jane as it grows, from his enigmatic wondering whether a person is justified in making his own rules about what is right, through his enigmatic "I dare to like Thornfield!" Jane, however, finds it out here for the first time. Sort of.
I like that moment too. I think it's closest to the way I pictured it in the book. Hm, is it Dalton's outfit that makes him look like he's from another movie to you, or his hairstyle? I can't say that thought ever crossed my mind, though I know he's widely considered too handsome for the part. I haven't decided yet what to do next. Of course I'd love to go galloping into the gypsy scene! But I think for that to have the proper context, I need to talk about the guests first, possibly covering Rochester's return, Blanche, and Jane's humiliation in one video. We'll see. :)
I think it's largely the hair as well as his looks - he looks modern, not Victorian. I think that's the problem. My favorite Rochester, as you know is Michael Jayston (despite his narrow shoulders). I'm completely split between those two adaptations, so I have to say both are my favorites. I think you should do the guests separate from your favorite gypsy scene. There really is great variety in how that's dealt with, and how Blanche is portrayed. But there is also the morning after the fire when Jane finds out Rochester has left and learns about Blanche and talks to Grace Poole. That could be separate or included with the guests' arrival. Have fun.
It's interesting to speculate when Rochester falls in love with Jane. We have his account in Chapter 27, when he tells Jane how she intrigued him from the start. I love the passage "When once I had pressed the frail shoulder, something new-a fresh sap and sense-stole into my frame". He's definitely in love with her by the time of the fire, and possibly before. As for the next scene to compare, what about when Jane leaves the room, pursued by Rochester, after Blanche et al talk of governesses (and Rochester sings)? This is a scene that all of the adaptations cover as far as I remember. Whatever you choose, I'm looking forward to it.
Does Rochester sing in any adaptation besides 1973, where he actually sings a corsair song, as he does in the book. I think the others just have Blanche playing the piano. But I may have forgotten one or another.
supergran, I agree that he was probably already in love with her before this scene. I like to think of it as a steady progression that starts at the moment they meet and grows through all their conversations. Then the fire scene is when it really hits him. Jane and Rochester's brief moment on the stairs is definitely something I want to cover!
I do not like the 1997 version, particularly the Rochester, and to a lesser extent, the Jane. It does have its charms, but I'd watch other versions first.
Rochester holds Jane's hand too long. Note that in the book this is the first scene where Rochester calls her Jane, a step of familiarity in Victorian times. Also if Jane had been discovered in Rochester's room, it would have scandelous. In the novel Jane somehow hurries herself into her frock, but a lot of the versions she is in a nightgown, which also would be scandelous in those times. Umm and the novel says she used the water jug from her own room, and that a pitcher broke. Was that the euer from his room or her water jug? Umm wouldn't the servants had noticed there was a missing jug from her room?
Nice!!!
I prefer the sexier adaptations in 2006 and 2011. They show Rochester's restraint and respect for Jane. Rochester loves her and chooses not to go in for the "kill" which he could have easily done.
I am now past the tipping point. I don't want to miss another one of Weiselberry's Jane Eyre discussions simply because I'm not up to speed. I'll finally read said classic after I finish my current read, which is yet another one of Carter Brown's deliciously trashy detective novels. *LOL*
2006!
Rochester runs “hot and cold” here. He’s his moody secretive self despite Jane’s heroic intentions. One moment he’s calling her his prized lamb and when she bids him goodnight he flares up asking her is that how she’s leaving. The scene frightened her with his intensity. Yet the next day when she stops him on his horse to ask about Mrs Poole, he becomes employer and she’s employee when he tells her to keep to what she knows. Then he gallops off only to bring back party ppl to show off Ms Ingram.
Just thought I'd clarify that in the book Jane doesn't see Rochester the next day. After she leaves his room they don't meet again until he returns with his guests. The scene in which she asks him about Mrs. Poole the next morning before he gallops away is a 1983 addition. But, yes, he is very changeable in this scene.
@@Weiselberry He's so changeable in this scene because of the sexual tension - which Jane also feels, but can't quite name yet, but which Rochester recognizes full well. The emotional love is already there, and the strangeness of her being in his bedroom is almost too much for him.
The 2011 fire scene was not sexy to me because it wasn't earned. They'd spent nearly no time on developing their attraction and then suddenly they're all over one another?! Didn't buy it.
2006 version gives me the vapors every time. It's ridiculous how *hot* that scene is.
YAAAAYYY FIRE SCENE! I definitely do not think you are crazy for your opinion about the 2011 one and I do slightly agree however I must admit it is my favorite of the maybe 4 versions I've seen (however, I do need to rewatch both the 43 and 06 versions to solidify that opinion). I'm now very much in the mood to rewatch both the 06 and the 2011. I am so excited because I am participating in a booktube event called Victober, reading Victorian literature in October, and i'm going to re-read Jane Eyre while listening to the audio narrated by Thandie Newton then I'm going to listen to the recent radio adaptation and watch as many versions as I can get my hands on (though I may avoid the 34 one). I'm especially excited about finally seeing the 83 version all the way through :D. Yet another wonderfui comparison video!
I'd love to participate in Victober. I just don't know if I'll be able to decide what to read: there are way too many Victorian classics on my list to choose from! Oh, I forgot about that new JE radio adaptation! My library finally got a copy of it recently, so I need to check it out. (And review it, of course!) Glad you enjoyed the video! :D
True, you could always just decide based on your mood or based on which ones you've been meaning to get to the longest. I'm only reading a handful and using the rest of the month for mysteries and spooky things that aren't Victorian. I'm also going to have an event I'm dubbing the "Richard Armitage Fright Fest" because I'll be listening to his narration of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, the recent crime thriller he narrated called Their Lost Daughters by Joy Ellis, and Bloody Chamber by Angela Carter that he co-narrated with Emilia Fox :D. Yes, I am so excited to listen to that radio version of Jane Eyre, especially getting to hear what Tom Burke is like as Rochester, after seeing him as Athos in the BBC's The Musketeers, I think he'll be an amazing Rochester. Looking forward to your thoughts on it as well when you get to it :D.
That is probably exactly what will happen, no matter how much planning and forethought I try to put into it. :) The "Richard Armitage Fright Fest"?! I LOVE THAT! :D
Richard Armitage is too good-looking for Rochester. He'd be a hell of a Darcy, though.
Agreed about that, though I think Carolyn was referring to Tom Burke as an amazing potential Rochester. I'm not sure I know him from anything? Armitage would definitely be good acting wise, and around the right age, as Rochester. I think we've already seen the closest to Darcy he's ever going to get. :)
The 1970 version benefits from George C. Scott who was better in the 1970's than most leading men, but it pales next to 1997's version. The 1983 version is severely marred by casting a devilishly handsome Rochester who is uninspiring with his acting. The 1996 version benefits from William Hurt's idiosyncratic interpretation which was entertaining and inspiring. The 2006 version benefits from Ruth Wilson's casting. The 2011 version benefits from the sumptuous production values, but the 1997 version is the best I have seen, and I have watched it many times.
Susanna York's elegant appearance and vague personality is disappointing in 1970. Her lavish make-up does not serve the story and is comically anachronistic.
Wow. I am so surprised to see someone saying the 1997 version is the best. Practically every scene with Ciarin Hinds makes me cringe. I mean, sure, Rochester is not supposed to be handsome, but I don't think you're supposed to find him completely repulsive in person AND manners.
@@harringt100 I agree, Cirian scared the crap out of me as Edward Rochester. I only saw his version twice and never want to see it again, he turned Edward into a bully and the romance is not romance but more like creepy love. I'd rather deal with the 1934, 1944, 1996, 2006, and 2011 versions of the fire even if all are different- the ones of Toby Stephens and Michael Fassbender are a bit more hotter to appeal to modern audiences but I still love them anyway- and Dalton's comes closer to the book.
@@ditsashihurkar4913 I'm sure there are many fans who agree with you. You've found your favorite, and that is a good thing.
Timothy Dalton is extremely handsome and his flourishes are graceful and his speech is highly articulate, but always the observer observes him acting. The acting shows. His feelings are not felt; they are performed. A fine actor never appears to be acting. The actions and motions of a great actor suspend one's disbelief so that one feels as if one were there witnessing a real interaction between real people and one is very entertained and stimulated by the extraordinary experience.
Hines is a great actor and has been hired over and over again for critical parts in great drama. He is one of the best actors today, and he is at the top of his game. His abrasive portrayal may be unpopular to the modern sensibilities, but I think he was authentic to the setting of "Jane Eyre" and typical of aristocratic men of that era. Women like Charlotte Bronte were probably impressed by aristocratic affectation if not aroused by it.
I don't judge based on my dislike for the character with his shortcomings and dreadful behavior. I judge by the actor's ability to suspend my disbelief, so that I am expertly entertained.
@@ditsashihurkar4913 I would like to share something from Roger Ebert's excellent review of the 2011 version of "Jane Eyre".
_"No version I know of has ever made Rochester as unattractive as he is described in the book."_ -- Roger Ebert
That is why the aversion of many toward Hine's version of Rochester is unfounded and askew.
Yes ... 1997