DVD Talk review of 'Jane Eyre (1973)'
08-05-06, 04:37 PM
#1
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DVD Talk review of 'Jane Eyre (1973)'
I read Holly E. Ordway's DVD review of Jane Eyre (1973) at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=22950 and...
I think you must have watched a different adaptation from me. I'm sorry, I know everyone is entitled to their opinions but I have read hundreds of comments and reviews on most of the adapations and even those people who would not choose this as their favourite have said that they think the acting and characterisation is excellent. Sounds like a touch of sour grapes to me. Perhaps a bit upset that this has proved a lot more popular than the 1983 verison with an enormous fan base and web site. Like many people I watched this adaptation way back in 1973 and it made such a strong impression on me that I went and read the book and through the years read all the Bronte books, that is the sign of a wonderful adaptation. I think you'll find it has a much larger fan base than the 1983 version and it was due to popular demand that it was re-released over 30 years later, don't think that has happened with many order adaptations, so " a certain percentage of us" as you put it, but in actual fact it's more like thousands of us must have very strange taste and a weird idea of what constitutes excellent acting. You claim to have read the book, well done. Didn't you find that most of those "cheesy lines" actually came directly from the book or perhaps we were reading different versions, perhaps yours was the Enid Blyton version. By the way excellent acting is usually understated and not theatrical which is where Mr. Jayston excels. I also love your description of the 1983 version as outstanding! Yes it's wonderful, overlong, tedious with 2 main characters who look nothing like the characters described in the novel (Zelah looks old enough to be Rochesters mother) and where in the book is Rochester described as young, tall and handsome, again must be another version, very, very theatrical acting, a lot of staring and long pauses, very little in the way of chemistry and passion and humour and even pilot looks disastrously miscast, was Rochester's dog supposed to look like an overgrown poodle. Yes, a truly wonderful adaptation. Let's just say I and thousands of other people are so glad we didn't take your advice way back in 1973 when this was first screened and "skip it". Many of us may have watched the disastrous 1983 version instead and decided to "skip" reading the book, and that would have been a tragedy. Keep taking the tablets!
I think you must have watched a different adaptation from me. I'm sorry, I know everyone is entitled to their opinions but I have read hundreds of comments and reviews on most of the adapations and even those people who would not choose this as their favourite have said that they think the acting and characterisation is excellent. Sounds like a touch of sour grapes to me. Perhaps a bit upset that this has proved a lot more popular than the 1983 verison with an enormous fan base and web site. Like many people I watched this adaptation way back in 1973 and it made such a strong impression on me that I went and read the book and through the years read all the Bronte books, that is the sign of a wonderful adaptation. I think you'll find it has a much larger fan base than the 1983 version and it was due to popular demand that it was re-released over 30 years later, don't think that has happened with many order adaptations, so " a certain percentage of us" as you put it, but in actual fact it's more like thousands of us must have very strange taste and a weird idea of what constitutes excellent acting. You claim to have read the book, well done. Didn't you find that most of those "cheesy lines" actually came directly from the book or perhaps we were reading different versions, perhaps yours was the Enid Blyton version. By the way excellent acting is usually understated and not theatrical which is where Mr. Jayston excels. I also love your description of the 1983 version as outstanding! Yes it's wonderful, overlong, tedious with 2 main characters who look nothing like the characters described in the novel (Zelah looks old enough to be Rochesters mother) and where in the book is Rochester described as young, tall and handsome, again must be another version, very, very theatrical acting, a lot of staring and long pauses, very little in the way of chemistry and passion and humour and even pilot looks disastrously miscast, was Rochester's dog supposed to look like an overgrown poodle. Yes, a truly wonderful adaptation. Let's just say I and thousands of other people are so glad we didn't take your advice way back in 1973 when this was first screened and "skip it". Many of us may have watched the disastrous 1983 version instead and decided to "skip" reading the book, and that would have been a tragedy. Keep taking the tablets!
Last edited by yolanda; 08-28-06 at 02:53 PM.
08-09-06, 08:33 AM
#2
New Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad I’m not the only one to find this review disappointing and very different from my own experience of watching this DVD – along with lots of other JE fans. Not to say that I disagree with all of it. I concur that the beginning is certainly the worst part of the adaptation, suffering from bad acting from the Reeds and a slightly lacklustre Jane. (Although I think that interpretation is closer to the book than bumptious, rebellious Janes we get in other adaptations – remember, Mrs Reed is astonished when Jane actually talks back to her). But when Holly comes to criticizing the acting of Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston I’m completely at odds with her. The acting is amazing! Sorcha plays Jane as a wonderful mixture of of shy, genial and provoking while, to my mind, Jayston IS Rochester – not shouty or morose like other actors have (mis)interpreted him, but clever, melancholy, moody and passionate.
It IS possible to like both the 1983 and 1973 versions, although they are very different, so I would advise any JE fans not to take Holly’s advice – buy the damn thing (or rent it on netflix) and decide for yourselves.
It IS possible to like both the 1983 and 1973 versions, although they are very different, so I would advise any JE fans not to take Holly’s advice – buy the damn thing (or rent it on netflix) and decide for yourselves.
