HAMLET:
"O all you host of heaven! O earth! What else?
And shall I couple hell? O fie! Hold, hold, my heart,
And you, my sinews, grow not instant old,
But bear me stiffly up. Remember thee?
Ay, thou pour ghost, whiles memory holds a seat
In this distracted globe. Remember thee?
Yea, from the table of my memory
I'll wipe away all trivial, fond records,
All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past,
That youth and observation copied there,
And thy commandment all alone shall live
Within the book and volume of my brain,
Unmixed with baser matter."
(1.5.99-111)
Because there is no non-dialogue description of characters or events in plays (these things being demonstrated by the production of the work) there must be some assumptions made when reading plays. This allows for directorial interpretation of characters and their emotional and physical states. A figure of grief, entirely obsessed with the events surrounding his father's death, Hamlet's monologue after his talk with the ghost of his father supports theories that he is going mad.
The monologue begins after old Hamlet's ghost has left his son, beseeching him to remember what has been said between them. Hamlet immediately calls, desperately and sarcastically, to the "hosts of heaven" (angels and saints, presumably) and to the earth to bring even more shocking news (1.5.99). He asks if he will "couple hell," meaning that he is questioning the fate of his soul (1.5.100). These are quite natural reactions to an encounter with the ghost of one's father, especially when said ghost reveals that he was killed by his own brother, who has now married the ghost's wife. Hamlet's reaction to these things is understandable, but depending on the choices of the director and the actor, these words could be made more or less desperate and panicked.
Hamlet also speaks to himself, appealing to his inner strength. He tells his heart to "hold" and his "sinews" to "grow not instant old, / But bear [him] stiffly up" (1.5.100-102). In translation, he is trying to calm his emotions and keep his body strong and stable. This could be simply an attempt to steady himself. However, the director could have made the choice to show Hamlet in Act I as very feeble due to poor self-care since the death of his father. Depending on the choices made with Hamlet's appearance and way of carrying himself, these few lines, and the lines that follow, can be interpreted as representative of Hamlet's madness.
For the rest of the monologue, Hamlet swears to his father that he will remember what has been revealed to and asked of him. He repeatedly asks, "Remember thee?", as if doubtful that he could do anything else (1.5.102,104). He not only promises to remember -- he says that he will remove all other memories from "the table of [his] memory" so that his father's "commandment all alone shall live [there]. . . unmixed with baser matter" (1.5.105,109-111). Whether this is Hamlet's -- and Shakespeare's -- natural dramaticism or Hamlet's insane preoccupation with his father's death is determined by the decisions of the director and the actor. Hamlet could be making a measured and rational oath, or he could be whipping himself up into a passion about avenging his father's death.
Hamlet's sanity is completely unregulated by the script. Hamlet can be interpreted as a hero and martyr, or as a madman and murderer. The decision has to be made for each production of the play, because Hamlet's sanity or madness must also entirely shape the audience's understanding of the play. The reality of the ghost's appearance, the relationship between Ophelia and Hamlet, and the audience's perspective of Claudius are all dependent on the audience's interpretation of Hamlet and his state of mind.
Monday, December 12, 2016
Are You My Uncle or My Father ?
Passage: Like Niobe, all tears-why she, <even she>
(O God, a beast that wants discourse of reason
Would have mourned longer!), married with my 155
uncle,
My father's brother, but no more like my father
than I to Hercules. Within a month,
Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes, 160
She married. O, most wicked speed, to post
With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!
It is not, nor it cannot come to good.
But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue (Act 1. Sc. 2. 31).
The plot of Hamlet breaks out amidst a tumultuous time for the royal family. King Hamlet has recently died and his brother, King Claudius, is to marry his widowed wife, Queen Gertrude. As expected when one's uncle marries one's mother, young Hamlet is distraught about the matter and is struggling to except it as reality. The passage above begins to develop Hamlet as a character in general and characterizes his feelings about the marriage.
The passage shows that Hamlet is a thoughtful and educated individual. Hamlet compares his mother to Niobe, a character in Greek mythology. After all fourteen of her children were killed as a result of her making fun of another goddess' two children, Niobe turned into a rock which became well-known as the Weeping Rock. By comparing his mother to this deceitful, wicked character, Hamlet reveals his education on Greek mythology and his ability to relate it to his own life. Hamlet once again references Greek mythology when he says "my father's brother, but no more like my father than I to Hercules" in lines 157 & 158. He shows how he knows how irrational it would be for him to be Hercules' father and makes the direct comparison to himself and his uncle, King Claudius. His ability to understand and apply characters from Greek mythology to his life shows that he is a thoughtful and intelligent individual.
The language Hamlet uses when talking about the marriage between his mother and uncle characterizes his opinion about the marriage and shows that he is a passionate individual. In lines 154 & 155, Hamlet says that "a beast that wants discourse of reason would have have mourned longer". By saying that a "beast" would have mourned longer shows that he thinks that his mother and uncle did not mourn the death of his father for an appropriate amount of time. By labeling the tears of his mother as "unrighteous", Hamlet makes a powerful statement. He basically is saying that the tears his mother cries and wicked and not genuine. He does not think that the tears can be genuine if she so quickly decided to marry her late husband's brother. Line 162, "with such dexterity to incestuous sheets!", perfectly summarizes Hamlet's feelings. The word "dexterity" shows that Hamlet is disgusted by how efficiently his mother and uncle took to bed. By calling the sheets "incestuous", Hamlet makes that assertion that he is totally disgusted by the marriage and looks at the situation as if it is incest. The powerfully, passionate language that Hamlet uses as he describes the marriage characterizes himself and his opinions on the recent marriage.
The passage reveals a lot about Hamlet as a character and his thought process in tricky situations. His utilization of Greek mythology shows thoughtfulness and intelligence. The words he uses to describe the marriage between his mother and uncle reveal how he is not a big fan of calling his uncle dad. The passion he shows when describing his feelings indicate the kind of character he will be for the rest of the play.
(O God, a beast that wants discourse of reason
Would have mourned longer!), married with my 155
uncle,
My father's brother, but no more like my father
than I to Hercules. Within a month,
Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes, 160
She married. O, most wicked speed, to post
With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!
It is not, nor it cannot come to good.
But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue (Act 1. Sc. 2. 31).
The plot of Hamlet breaks out amidst a tumultuous time for the royal family. King Hamlet has recently died and his brother, King Claudius, is to marry his widowed wife, Queen Gertrude. As expected when one's uncle marries one's mother, young Hamlet is distraught about the matter and is struggling to except it as reality. The passage above begins to develop Hamlet as a character in general and characterizes his feelings about the marriage.
The passage shows that Hamlet is a thoughtful and educated individual. Hamlet compares his mother to Niobe, a character in Greek mythology. After all fourteen of her children were killed as a result of her making fun of another goddess' two children, Niobe turned into a rock which became well-known as the Weeping Rock. By comparing his mother to this deceitful, wicked character, Hamlet reveals his education on Greek mythology and his ability to relate it to his own life. Hamlet once again references Greek mythology when he says "my father's brother, but no more like my father than I to Hercules" in lines 157 & 158. He shows how he knows how irrational it would be for him to be Hercules' father and makes the direct comparison to himself and his uncle, King Claudius. His ability to understand and apply characters from Greek mythology to his life shows that he is a thoughtful and intelligent individual.
The language Hamlet uses when talking about the marriage between his mother and uncle characterizes his opinion about the marriage and shows that he is a passionate individual. In lines 154 & 155, Hamlet says that "a beast that wants discourse of reason would have have mourned longer". By saying that a "beast" would have mourned longer shows that he thinks that his mother and uncle did not mourn the death of his father for an appropriate amount of time. By labeling the tears of his mother as "unrighteous", Hamlet makes a powerful statement. He basically is saying that the tears his mother cries and wicked and not genuine. He does not think that the tears can be genuine if she so quickly decided to marry her late husband's brother. Line 162, "with such dexterity to incestuous sheets!", perfectly summarizes Hamlet's feelings. The word "dexterity" shows that Hamlet is disgusted by how efficiently his mother and uncle took to bed. By calling the sheets "incestuous", Hamlet makes that assertion that he is totally disgusted by the marriage and looks at the situation as if it is incest. The powerfully, passionate language that Hamlet uses as he describes the marriage characterizes himself and his opinions on the recent marriage.
The passage reveals a lot about Hamlet as a character and his thought process in tricky situations. His utilization of Greek mythology shows thoughtfulness and intelligence. The words he uses to describe the marriage between his mother and uncle reveal how he is not a big fan of calling his uncle dad. The passion he shows when describing his feelings indicate the kind of character he will be for the rest of the play.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Emotional Appeals
The three film adaptions of Jane Eyre that we watched in class each took aspects of the novel and either lessened them or enhanced them. Two of these aspects that I found most important were the emotional appeal of Jane's struggles with reason and passion and the portrayal of nature. Along with these, I weighed cinematography, setting, and soundtrack in how much I liked each one. I can't choose a favorite, because in some I love adult Jane and dislike the portrayal of her childhood, and in others it is the opposite. Personally, I most enjoyed Franco Zeffirelli's 1996 adaptation in terms of Jane's childhood, while I preferred Susanna White's 2006 adaptation in terms of her adulthood.
In all honesty, the only reason I prefer Zeffirelli's portrayal of Jane's childhood is because every other director's portrayal of it is absolutely ridiculous. Nothing really stood out as fantastic in Zeffirelli's version, but nothing stood out as terrible either. He dramatized and combined a couple of events to be efficient, but nothing wandered too far away from the novel. In White's version, the film opens with Jane standing in a red robe in a desert. If that isn't wandering away from the novel, I don't know what is. This version also dramatized every scene in Jane's childhood to the point of absurdity. I think the portrayal of the red room in this version is what really did it for me, I just couldn't take the red lighting seriously. In fact, the red room was what did it for me in the other version as well. Cary Fukunaga's 2011 adaptation has a red room that is not red, and that apparently has a ghost that lives in the chimney. Jane also knocked herself out in this one, which I found really strange. In short: Zeffirelli's appealed to me because it wasn't gaudy.
I prefer White's adaptation for Jane's adulthood really for only one scene. The proposal in this version struck me as more emotionally appealing than any of the others, and I'm a sucker for emotionally appealing movies. This version was so much more appealing to me because of how Jane expressed her emotions. In both other versions we watched, Jane still seemed controlled to some degree. In the novel, Jane claims that her emotions had taken complete control of her and that she had almost lost free will during this scene. I think White's version does a significantly better job of showing Jane's surrender to her emotions than the other films do (also, the other two just weren't very moving).
I haven't given anything to the last (Fukunaga's) version yet, so I will say that I enjoyed the soundtrack more than any of the other movies. I also enjoyed the scenery and cinematography in this adaptation as well. The flaw I found in this version, however, is that nothing really moved me. I think that's because it felt like there was a lack of vulnerability in the characters, and that's what I enjoyed so much about White's version (of the proposal, I guess). It appears that in order for a film to appeal to me, emotional appeals are the most important factor.
Friday, November 25, 2016
Film Adaptations of Jane Eyre
Each film adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre has upsides and downsides. Each film attempted to capture the essence of the book as well as it possibly could. Each actor in each film tried their best to portray the personality of their character and get their motives across. Some of the actors were able to better portray their characters and get their points across.
Zefferelli's film starring Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt was very accurate to the plot of the book. Charlotte Gainsbourg's portrayal of Jane was very accurate to the descriptions of her in the book. Her physical features matched those described in the book and she behaved like her. William Hurt is a very talented actor, but I thought he was a little older and not quite as attractive as I had pictured him. The scenery was lovely and despite a few minor plot changes, the story line was very faithful to the novel.
White's film, which starred Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, was fairly faithful to the plot of the novel. I liked the way this film went into more depth to show how she was excluded by her her Aunt and the rest of her family. I thought Ruth Wilson had potential, but ultimately, I don't believe she really captured Jane's essence. Toby Stephens made an excellent Rochester and the proposal scene from this movie was arguably the best of the three. However, some of the other scenes from White's film were fairly cheesy. For example, the Red room in this film was very cheesy, as it was just a red light shining on her face. They could have made some different decisions for setting in this adaptation, but it wasn't a bad movie.
Cary Fukunaga's film starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender had a gorgeous setting and very attractive actors. My main quarrel with this film was that I found the actors to be more attractive than I thought the characters should be. Michael Fassbender is a very attractive man and Mia Wasikowska is a beautiful woman. Not to mention, St. John looked like he could have been a male model. This may sound silly, but I did not like the fact that Jane was blonde in this version. I think that at this time fair hair was a sign of beauty and Jane was specifically supposed to be plain. However, I really enjoyed the interpretation of Bertha in this version.
Ultimately, I have to say that I think Zefferelli's film is probably the best in my opinion because of how accurate it is to the novel. However, it would have been even better if they had Charlotte Gainsbourg's Jane paired with Toby Stephens's Rochester in the setting from Fukunaga's film. Don't get me wrong, Michael Fassbender is a beautiful man, I just felt that he was perhaps a little too beautiful to play Mr. Rochester.
Zefferelli's film starring Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt was very accurate to the plot of the book. Charlotte Gainsbourg's portrayal of Jane was very accurate to the descriptions of her in the book. Her physical features matched those described in the book and she behaved like her. William Hurt is a very talented actor, but I thought he was a little older and not quite as attractive as I had pictured him. The scenery was lovely and despite a few minor plot changes, the story line was very faithful to the novel.
White's film, which starred Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, was fairly faithful to the plot of the novel. I liked the way this film went into more depth to show how she was excluded by her her Aunt and the rest of her family. I thought Ruth Wilson had potential, but ultimately, I don't believe she really captured Jane's essence. Toby Stephens made an excellent Rochester and the proposal scene from this movie was arguably the best of the three. However, some of the other scenes from White's film were fairly cheesy. For example, the Red room in this film was very cheesy, as it was just a red light shining on her face. They could have made some different decisions for setting in this adaptation, but it wasn't a bad movie.
Cary Fukunaga's film starring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender had a gorgeous setting and very attractive actors. My main quarrel with this film was that I found the actors to be more attractive than I thought the characters should be. Michael Fassbender is a very attractive man and Mia Wasikowska is a beautiful woman. Not to mention, St. John looked like he could have been a male model. This may sound silly, but I did not like the fact that Jane was blonde in this version. I think that at this time fair hair was a sign of beauty and Jane was specifically supposed to be plain. However, I really enjoyed the interpretation of Bertha in this version.
Ultimately, I have to say that I think Zefferelli's film is probably the best in my opinion because of how accurate it is to the novel. However, it would have been even better if they had Charlotte Gainsbourg's Jane paired with Toby Stephens's Rochester in the setting from Fukunaga's film. Don't get me wrong, Michael Fassbender is a beautiful man, I just felt that he was perhaps a little too beautiful to play Mr. Rochester.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Value in Sticking to the Script
The novel Jane Eyre is vastly intriguing, standing the test of
centuries. What is most astounding is how relevant the story remains
after all these years. There is so much demand for the story that it
has been adapted into three movies in just the last twenty years. Each film differs in representing the characters, setting, and storyline. Each piece takes creative license on many aspects of the plot, but some choices make more sense than others.
The Franco Zeffirelli film has by far the best Jane. Charlotte Gainsbourg looks the most like Jane would, and has the passion ate and logical mind needed. She interacts with the other characters in the most authentically Janian of the three versions. However, the Rochester is a tad too stiff and harsh to completely embody the character. The aspect I like most about this film is it's accuracy to the novel; out of the three, it stays closest to the original plot and wording. The scene that best exemplifies this is Rochester's proposal; it takes place at night and in the orchard, just as per the book.
Susanna White does a decent job of staying with the overall story line and creating interest in the piece. On a side note, I enjoy that the girl who plays young Jane is Georgie Henley, the same actress that played Lucy in the Chronicles of Narnia. However, Rochester's proposal takes place in the daytime, which is contradictory to the book. During the day, Jane was usually with Adele, so it makes little sense that the two would have the time to have the discussion during the day.
Last but not least, Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre has the highest production value. Clearly a lot of time and energy (not to mention money) was put into this film. However, this version least akin to the book, creating its own plot from bits and pieces of the novel. While this is not necessarily a poor decision, it simply tells a different story. And viewing this as a person who views that book plotlines as sacred, I cannot appreciate this film as well as the others. Both the Jane and the Rochester are well-cast, but it's hard to get past the shifts in the story.
My favorite film, which much deliberation, is the Zefferelli. Aside from Fukunaga's production value and White's Adele, I appreciate how closely Zefferelli's stays to the novel but still finds new life in the story. THe Jane is a bit more well-cast than the Rochester, but I appreciate the pairing. Also, who can forget the way Rochester's horse fell in the scene where Jane and Rochester meet- it is quite hilarious.
The Franco Zeffirelli film has by far the best Jane. Charlotte Gainsbourg looks the most like Jane would, and has the passion ate and logical mind needed. She interacts with the other characters in the most authentically Janian of the three versions. However, the Rochester is a tad too stiff and harsh to completely embody the character. The aspect I like most about this film is it's accuracy to the novel; out of the three, it stays closest to the original plot and wording. The scene that best exemplifies this is Rochester's proposal; it takes place at night and in the orchard, just as per the book.
Susanna White does a decent job of staying with the overall story line and creating interest in the piece. On a side note, I enjoy that the girl who plays young Jane is Georgie Henley, the same actress that played Lucy in the Chronicles of Narnia. However, Rochester's proposal takes place in the daytime, which is contradictory to the book. During the day, Jane was usually with Adele, so it makes little sense that the two would have the time to have the discussion during the day.
Last but not least, Cary Fukunaga's Jane Eyre has the highest production value. Clearly a lot of time and energy (not to mention money) was put into this film. However, this version least akin to the book, creating its own plot from bits and pieces of the novel. While this is not necessarily a poor decision, it simply tells a different story. And viewing this as a person who views that book plotlines as sacred, I cannot appreciate this film as well as the others. Both the Jane and the Rochester are well-cast, but it's hard to get past the shifts in the story.
My favorite film, which much deliberation, is the Zefferelli. Aside from Fukunaga's production value and White's Adele, I appreciate how closely Zefferelli's stays to the novel but still finds new life in the story. THe Jane is a bit more well-cast than the Rochester, but I appreciate the pairing. Also, who can forget the way Rochester's horse fell in the scene where Jane and Rochester meet- it is quite hilarious.
Jane Eyre Through Film
Interpreting a novel into a cinematic production is often difficult and easily judged. However, it is clear that all three films had workers that wanted to portray the novel as best as they could in their production. Since Jane Eyre can be interpreted in a variety of ways and make connections for some that it doesn't for others, the depiction of this novel in film can be vastly different. Although the three films were created during different time frames and had their own unique and creative twist, they all have redeeming qualities that make them stand out and be successful.
In the 1996 production by Zeffirelli, the scene in which Jane walks outside to take a break from teaching Adele is exactly how I pictured it. There is an emphasis on the beauty and elegance of nature which was also present in the book. The film creators did a good job portraying this importance of nature. However, other aspects of the movie were not carried out as well as the other films and did not follow the book. For example, Jane woke up next to Helen when she was dead in her bed, however, in the book she was removed from the bed before she woke up. This was not accurate or aligned with the novel. In addition, when Jane met Rochester in the movie, it was a overcast day. In the novel, it was nighttime when they met and it was cold, dark, and icy. Lastly, the marriage proposal scene was very awkward in this film and seemed forced and uncomfortable. This film was my least favorite because most of the scenes, characters, and settings did not look or seem like they did while I was reading the novel.
In the 2006 production by White, Lowood is exactly how I pictured the school to look and the relationships that Jane has with the people there and with the Reed's are portrayed very well and are in line with the novel. This film does a very good job at portraying Jane and how she feels regarding different experiences in her life. One thing that happens incorrectly in this film is Jane waking up next to Helen after she has died; in the novel, Jane is removed from the bed before waking up. Aside from this, this version of the film portrays characters and scenes just as I pictured them from the novel. The proposal scene seemed quite accurate and natural unlike the previous film. This version was definitely my favorite out of the three.
The 2011 production by Fukunaga was quite different than the other two versions. This film had flashbacks taking place which added a new element to telling the story of Jane and her life. In addition, this film seemed to have more accuracy when comparing it to the book. For example, the scene in which Jane wakes up from sleeping next to Helen is portrayed correctly in that Jane is removed from the bed before she wakes up so she doesn't see Helen dead. One inaccuracy, however, was that the proposal scene took place during the day and not at night like it did in the novel. Despite this, the proposal scene in this film seemed the most realistic and had the best acting. Overall, this movie rated somewhere in between the other two for me personally.
Watching all three of these films and seeing both the subtle and obvious differences was very interesting and beneficial to further my interpretations and understandings of the novel itself. It was good to be shown other people's interpretations of the text and understand how others may relate to the story. My favorite film version would be the 2006 BBC production by Susanna White, however, I would not mind watching any one of the films in their entirety.
In the 1996 production by Zeffirelli, the scene in which Jane walks outside to take a break from teaching Adele is exactly how I pictured it. There is an emphasis on the beauty and elegance of nature which was also present in the book. The film creators did a good job portraying this importance of nature. However, other aspects of the movie were not carried out as well as the other films and did not follow the book. For example, Jane woke up next to Helen when she was dead in her bed, however, in the book she was removed from the bed before she woke up. This was not accurate or aligned with the novel. In addition, when Jane met Rochester in the movie, it was a overcast day. In the novel, it was nighttime when they met and it was cold, dark, and icy. Lastly, the marriage proposal scene was very awkward in this film and seemed forced and uncomfortable. This film was my least favorite because most of the scenes, characters, and settings did not look or seem like they did while I was reading the novel.
In the 2006 production by White, Lowood is exactly how I pictured the school to look and the relationships that Jane has with the people there and with the Reed's are portrayed very well and are in line with the novel. This film does a very good job at portraying Jane and how she feels regarding different experiences in her life. One thing that happens incorrectly in this film is Jane waking up next to Helen after she has died; in the novel, Jane is removed from the bed before waking up. Aside from this, this version of the film portrays characters and scenes just as I pictured them from the novel. The proposal scene seemed quite accurate and natural unlike the previous film. This version was definitely my favorite out of the three.
The 2011 production by Fukunaga was quite different than the other two versions. This film had flashbacks taking place which added a new element to telling the story of Jane and her life. In addition, this film seemed to have more accuracy when comparing it to the book. For example, the scene in which Jane wakes up from sleeping next to Helen is portrayed correctly in that Jane is removed from the bed before she wakes up so she doesn't see Helen dead. One inaccuracy, however, was that the proposal scene took place during the day and not at night like it did in the novel. Despite this, the proposal scene in this film seemed the most realistic and had the best acting. Overall, this movie rated somewhere in between the other two for me personally.
Watching all three of these films and seeing both the subtle and obvious differences was very interesting and beneficial to further my interpretations and understandings of the novel itself. It was good to be shown other people's interpretations of the text and understand how others may relate to the story. My favorite film version would be the 2006 BBC production by Susanna White, however, I would not mind watching any one of the films in their entirety.
1+1+1=1
Many books are adapted into different versions, the most popular of which being a film. Most likely the films are created to let a book be enjoyed by those who might not be inclined to read it. They are also created when a book is written to be descriptive and full of such intense imagery as to make the reader want to be able to see the plot and not just imagine it. However, in the process of turning a book into a film, the writers and directors have to adapt and modify the plot as to make it fit a film’s format. Because of this, even film adaptations of the same book can be different and portray ideas differently than presented in the book. Of the three Jane Eyre adaptations we watched in class each has its own faults and strengths in accurately portraying the novel.
The first film we watched was directed by Franco Zeffirelli, famous for his modern adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. Though the film recognized the importance of Jane’s childhood, it added a few scenes to make it pass faster than it did in the book. Rather than a gradual building of a friendship with Helen and Jane, it forms almost instantly when Helen shares her music with Jane, something that was not present in the book. Also, this adaptation doesn’t have Jane as a teacher at Lowood, and Helen is the only girl who we see become ill, so the film suggests that the entirety of Jane’s time at Lowood was just suffering.
Like the first film, the BBC adaptation also begins in Jane’s childhood. However, rather than have the scene in the red room be a hallucination brought from child-like fear as it is presented in the book, this film shows it as possibly real. They have red light illuminating the entire room, and they have an actor for Mr Reed appear on the bed. During the proposal scene this film has Jane and Rochester talking during the day rather than at night as they were in the book, but it does include the ominous storm following their discussion. It even includes the foreshadowing of the lightning bolt striking the tree where Rochester had just proposed to her.
Unlike the other films, the Universal version does not follow the exact plot of the novel, instead starting at the moment when Jane is running from Rochester’s house. This has the viewer’s first impression of Jane to be different from the book. Instead of a rebellious girl fighting against unfair circumstances, Jane is first viewed as a weak, ill, and in fear of something from her past. This adds an element of mystery to the plot, as well as intrigue into Jane’s past rather than the book’s anticipation of the future.
Though the each film as approached the novel differently, they all display the key themes and events from the novel. Each has the heart wrenching moment of Jane’s only friend dying and the teachers at Lowood being unsympathetic towards it besides Miss Temple. They all also show Mrs Reed's favoritism for her children and Jane’s constant seclusion during childhood. Some create new scenes or have different approaches in their portrayals, but through these differences they show the same main ideas of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)