Jane Eyre (1996)

Thanks for the memories!

Load of rubbish!!

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

After viewing this adaptation of Jane Eyre, I'm going to go with my gut and label it as the "subdued" version. I have to say that it wasn't wholly bad as I anticipated (after reading reviews.) There are a few fans that will stick up for this one. I believe the charm they see in this film is perhaps relatable to them? Jane and Edward were more stoic, quiet and less passionate in this movie then the characters are in the book. However, as my sister stated (who did like this version) and I've have to agree, Jane was well suited for this Edward, despite coming across as a depressed drunk at times (Edward, not Jane). The lack of passion for me is what brought this movie down. I don't think William Hurt was fully suit to play Edward, but then I'd have to say Charlotte wouldn't make a good Jane paired with the other Edwards. The beginning of the film was good though. I was impressed with how it was handled and how much was kept in the story. (unrelated but I got a kick out of seeing actors and actress from other movies, Persuasion in particular).

Franco Zeffirelli brings his Italian flair to a British tale, with French and American actors playing the leads, supported by a mainly British cast (along with Aussies and Kiwis). It works well in a most charming and emotionally satisfying film. Zeffirelli subdues his Italian over-the top expression of emotion; except for the music which brims with feeling and almost tells the story by itself (Capponi and Vlad). The costumes, cinematography, and story line are subdued but effective. It's a Gothic tale, so the "shadows are as important as the light". Rochester is worldly wise and tough as an "India rubber ball". He sees austere Jane as having a "strange unearthly beauty". He quizzes her about her talent (strange paintings) and asks if that head upon her shoulder "has more of the same kind of furniture within ?" Jane must subdue her emotions because she is "his hired servant".The film is criticized for the seemingly lack of passion between Rochester and Jane, which smolders before it blazes. Also, criticized is an abrupt conclusion, as Zeffirelli quickly fans through the last pages of the novel; and uses his considerable filmatic stagecraft to give a stunning almost dialogue free conclusion. His last visual shot frames the couple in a happy pastoral scene.

It is early in the 1800s England, young Jane is orphaned and raised in the household of her aunt-in-law, who favors her own three children and mistreats Jane. Until Jane is about 11 or 12, when she is sent to a boarding school. The aunt makes it clear that she doesn't want Jane to return to her home during holidays.Anna Paquin is the young Jane Eyre and, even though her performance lasts only about the first 20 minutes of the film, it is arguably the most critical one here. She established Jane as a straightforward, truthful person that is willing to buck convention and become a woman of independent thought and independent means.The movie follows the familiar arc of the Jane Eyre story, with Charlotte Gainsbourg as the young adult Jane Eyre , taking the job as governess. Gainsbourg is not really a homely person, but her makeup, wardrobe, and hair style made her look very homely, quite a contrast to the pretty women that the master sometimes brought home.The other key character is William Hurt as Rochester, the master of the estate. He uses a passable English accent and is fine. But the movie works because of Jane Eyre, it is her story.I saw this version just two months after the most current version with Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre and Michael Fassbender as Rochester. While both of them are very good, I believe I preferred this 1996 version a bit more, for the way the various scenes were presented, and because Gainsbourg I feel is a more effective young adult Jane Eyre.

I am a fan of the story and book, and while i know that movies from books are never the same, this movie makes so many fundamental changes to the story, that it ruins the experience. passage of time changes, characters change and the whole story is never truly told. it seems the writers were told they could only make a 90 minute film, and decided to slash the story to pieces without care. As with all verisons, they never get her time at school right, and then unlike others, you never believe the chemistry between Jane and Rochester. Anna Paquin is quite charming as a Young Jane, but the adult Jane does not live up to the younger. there are much better versions out there. don't waste your time with this one.