There must be, since IMDB reports at least 22 adaptations of it over the past century of film and television, four since 1996 alone! Somebody is likin’ it, and I count myself among them, just a fantastic story. I think it’s because it’s one of the few love stories that really seem to be about genuine love between two human beings who have a real connection that springs from who they are as people, vs. beauty and lust passed off as love.
I read the book as a girl and I’ve read it at least once more since, and I watch every adapatation I’ve come across.
And I think I like the most recent one the best. Perfectly cut, an excellent balance of all the parts to the story, great mood. Mia Wasikowska is excellent and believably mousy, and does a better job than I can remember seeing before of somehow making Jane’s inner fire and intelligence very clear through her contained quiet. Bonus is Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, and the girl who plays Jane as a child is excellent.
If your favorite thing is seeing how Grace Poole freaks out, this will fall a little short, I think…some versions dwell on that to the point of making the story seem a little like a horror film.
My favorite Rochester is probably George C. Scott, but he was playing against Susannah York, who was terribly cast.
Zefferelli’s version was good, I love William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg was very good casting.
(I assume this thread will attract at least one person who will bring up Emily and Wuthering Heights; for the record, I’m not a fan at all. Never understood the appeal, since Catherine’s a bitch, Heathcliff’s a fool and the whole story is convoluted and pointless. Just one woman’s opinion.)
I’m not sure if this is what you want, but it’s my favorite book. I am looking forward to seeing the 2011 movie version as soon as it’s out on DVD (yes, of course I have it on pre-order). My own favorite version is the Clarke-Dalton 1983 TV miniseries, although I think it was very low-budget 1980s BBC TV studio clunky. I enjoyed the Wilson-Stephens 2004 Masterpiece Theatre one as well.
I am glad to hear you think so highly of the 2011 movie. I have found that the two-hour feature film format tends to ensure that nearly everything except the romance and the Gothic horror stuff tends to get cut out. Jane’s return to Gateshead and being able to let go of the past; St. John tends to lose a sister (or two!); Jane’s inheritance, making her financially independent – these are all really important parts of her story! Also, they tend to make Brocklehurst a fiend and Lowood something bordering on a concentration camp: you’re seeing all of this (in the book, anyway) through the eyes of a very angry ten-year-old girl. Religion was bleak, and poverty and illness rampant, and the church had to save the souls of these basically unwanted children.
I wrote some stuff on the TV Tropes page about Rochester that later got edited out. Lots of people think he’s a manipulative jackass, almost cruel, and not quite worthy of Jane. I think he’s a tragic figure in an impossible situation, trying to do right by his ward, his servants, and his tenants. He knows he’s probably going to be alone for the rest of his days and is wondering what in the hell he did to deserve this. Then he meets this woman and he can’t even trust his own judgement when he’s around her, so he won’t allow himself to even speak to her much; and then he wonders if she might just be after his money and social standing.
I even think that Blanche Ingram isn’t all that bad: yes, she’s a spoiled brat, but you gotta wonder why she’s still unmarried at 25 if she’s so wonderful. She’s just doing what she’s been brought up to do: make a good match with a wealthy member of landed gentry.
Yeah, the other Bronte men are not the same. Heathcliff and the abusive alcoholic in Tenant of Wildfell Hall are unredeemable monsters.
Jane Eyre. Sorry, it was 2006, not 2004. A must-see, really, although I don’t think Toby Stephens is quite as… robust as I imagine Rochester to be. But he is heart-breaking.
I agree with you on both Bronte sisters novels. Jane Eyre is a beautiful story with honor and great character drama and Wuthering Heights is just a crazy, ugly mess without one likable character.
I still have yet to see a movie representation of Jane Eyre that completely works for me, but they are getting better.
I have to admit I’ve never read the book, but I think the Broadway musical has some really beautiful music in it. You might roll your eyes at the thought of a musical version, but fans of the book said it stayed pretty close to the source material, and it ran for a year and a half, which isn’t too shabby.
I reread Jane Eyre every few years because it is such a lovely story. I reread Wuthering Heights every ten years or so in case I can figure out what people see in it. By the end, I hate all the characters and am rooting for them all to die in a fire.
There are 22 adaptions? I only own 4 on DVD–I have some catching up to do!
My favorite is the Dalton/Clarke version; I think it’s the most faithful to the novel. I also have the York/Scott one (on a very poor DVD), Welles/Fontaine (fun because of narration–the passages of text they show aren’t actually in the book!), and the Hurt/Gainsborough.
The same actor plays the clergyman who almost marries Rochester & Jane in both the Dalton/Clarke and York/Scott versions.
If you want a good laugh, rent the very early version with Colin Clive and Virginia Bruce; everyone talks about how pretty Jane is, Adele is used as comic relief with pratfalls, and Rochester says he’s going to divorce his not-raving-mad wife. It’s available from Netflix.
It’s long been my opinion that you should read Wuthering Heights when you’re about 15/16 and in the midst of your own turbulent and self-centered emotions to match Cathy’s and Heathcliff’s. If you wait and read it for the first time as an adult, you’ll only get irritated at them.
Straight male. I read it many years ago and liked it(along with Wuthering Heights). I missed the most recent movie adaption, but I hope to catch it on DVD.
I haven’t seen the newest Jane Eyre but this is exactly what I think :). I did like the Masterpiece version. I wish someone could go back and time and make Emily change her last name. I really feel that strong of a dislike for the creator of such horrible people as Heathcliff and Katherine.
All time favorite book. Reread it yearly. I live in the US but I made a pilgrimage to the parsonage at Haworth which was just as cold and narrow as I expected but it was thrilling to see. The churchyard really is all tumbled gravestones, just as you might picture. I walked in the lavender carpeting the hills above and felt all melancholy and romantic. Saw Branwell’s portrait of his sisters at the national portrait gallery. (He really had no talent at all). Even have trudged through Villette (Don’t bother).
Over all, huge fan.
I have never yet made it through Wuthering Heights, in book, movie or audiobook version, because I get too pissed off.
I was pretty happy with the 2011 film; I felt it was very faithful to the storyline and didn’t change anything it didn’t absolutely have to; but of course it felt a bit thin because you can’t possibly fit everything into 2 hours. In some adaptations they just skim over her time in Mrs. Reeds house (I’m looking at you Zeffirelli) but it really needs to be fleshed out to understand why she becomes the person she is.
St John was also nicely sympathetic - many times he’s just creepy or something, but this time you can see why Jane would consider becoming a missionary with him as his sister.
I didn’t like the flashback aspect, I prefer my Jane Eyre to travel only one direction in time but that is a minor quibble. I liked the film very much and look forward to rewatching it when it comes out on DVD.
You’re shitting me. George C. Scott and Susannah York!!! I have a broner and a boner right now, and this is about to be my new favorite movie. I’ve seen only one version, a BBC production, but it’s a novel of interest to me (not one I care about particularly well enough to pull down from the shelf again – I’m an Eliot fan when it comes to chicklit of the 19th C these days). I wonder if Bataille wrote anything about this Bronte in his essay on another Bronte.
York sounds like she’d have been just fine as the little lady – what was the problem, if those who have seen this version can comment?
I’m sorry, but I have little interest in seeing an adaptation of Jane Eyre, unless someone can firmly convince me that it will truly capture the psychic contours of the text, and that it’s not going to be just another cheesy period piece, pandering to the present-day appetite for all the cliches that Hollywood unfailingly dishes up when portraying British novels of that time. Such works were born of a frame of mind that I suppose most movie-goers don’t care for–or probably wouldn’t even recognize–and I’m almost always disappointed that they don’t even try to convey it.
I guess I think this way because I spent a year completely consumed in the world of such works, writing an undergrad thesis on 19th century novels. (And I’m a straight male, but I don’t see why that’s an issue. )
I was thinking about this last night after I turned the computer off, in particular about the version with Toby Stephens. In that one, I don’t think we ever hear Mr. Brocklehurst’s name, and only get Helen Burns’s when we see it on her tombstone. Perhaps not a big deal if you’re already familiar with the story, but if this were your first experience of it, skipping this early part of Jane’s life leaves a gap in her characterization.
I like books by all 3 sisters (and I’m a straight male) . But it irritates me when people talk about ‘Wuthering Heights’ as a romance, or say that because the characters are unpleasant it’s quality as a work of art is diminished.
Wuthering Heights is not a romance or a life affirming love story - it is a study of child abuse (as is Jane Eyre) and people (both Heathcliffe and old Cathy) who have what would later be called personality disorder or sociopathy.
A great book does not need to have any sympathetic characters.
)