#michael jayston is my rochester

[edeschmedie]

yessss

The way she* is always on my mind.

*Jane Eyre (1973)

[mariocki]

RIP Michael Jayston (29.10.1935 - 5.2.2024)

"Well, I played a lot of interesting people. I was Siegfried Sassoon in ‘Mad Jack’, and played Beethoven and Rochester in Jane Eyre amongst others. When I did Equus in 1976, a critic described my work on television as ‘odd bits of TV’, but these are no small parts for an actor."

[adobongsiopao]

This Jane played by Sorcha Cusack from "Jane Eyre" 1973 version of is quite strange. What's something different about her compare to other Jane from different versions is that she smiles many times. When I first watched the 1973 version, I admit it was not easy to understand her because she looked too confident and quite a smug whereas in other versions of Jane they're usually look somber or quite serious. Upon replaying the show few times, I'm beginning to understand and even appreciate why this Jane does that habit.

It's in the novel and Mr. Rochester loves her smile.

Surprise, surprise. It is mentioned in the novel that Jane does smile in some occasions and Mr. Rochester admits in few chapters that he loves to see her in that state. It's not much compare to 1973 version but it does something special about her and made Mr. Rochester fall in love with her.

"Look wicked, Jane: as you know well how to look: coin one of your wild, shy, provoking smiles; tell me you hate me—tease me, vex me; do anything but move me: I would rather be incensed than saddened." (Chapter 25)

"There was much sense in your smile: it was very shrewd, and seemed to make light of your own abstraction." (Chapter 27)

"I believe you felt the existence of sympathy between you and your grim and cross master, Jane; for it was astonishing to see how quickly a certain pleasant ease tranquillised your manner: snarl as I would, you showed no surprise, fear, annoyance, or displeasure at my moroseness; you watched me, and now and then smiled at me with a simple yet sagacious grace I cannot describe." (Chapter 27)

Her smiles needed to make her and Mr. Rochester's chemistry and humor to work in the show.

The 1973 version has a reputation for being light-hearted and there are many funny moments there compare to other versions. In order to make that happen, the relationship between Jane and Mr. Rochester is portrayed as gleeful and grumpy pairing - Jane is seen perpetually amused and patient while Mr. Rochester is sarcastic and prone to be serious. Mr. Rochester, portrayed by Michael Jayston is often look grumpy and say whatever things he has on his mind then Jane choose to remain cool and say something funny to counter his thoughts. It actually works and it results to a great chemistry between them. Now can you to imagine what if Jane looked sad often in the show.

It has a tragic backstory - she learned it from Helen

While there is humor in 1973, it doesn't forget that there at least few moments that are sad just like in the novel. One of them is the story of Helen. Helen is one of the few people in Lowood that Jane befriended. She taught Jane how to remain humble and forgiving after the latter experienced abuse in Gateshead Hall. In this version, Helen herself is often seen smiling and it says so in the novel.

"What a smile! I remember it now, and I know that it was the effluence of fine intellect, of true courage; it lit up her marked lineaments, her thin face, her sunken grey eye, like a reflection from the aspect of an angel." (Chapter 7)

Even on her death, Helen chose to smile and told Jane who was seen sad and some sort of scaredy-cat not to worry about her. This could probably explain why adult Jane remain looking optimistic. We never know when Jane started to do it but whenever she does that she learned it from Helen.

[edeschmedie]

What an interesting week. I was going through a Romanov period which proved a very short one because after watching Nicholas and Alexandra (1971) I found out that Michael Jayston had recently passed away.

I remember him from my absolute favourite BBC miniseries, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1979). His Guillam left quite an impression on me and I remember thinking Benedict Cumberbatch coming short in the film version. (There are so many things I am not happy with in the film version but I don't think I should start). I know many people rave about Alec Guinness as Smiley but I have always thought Jayston's Guillam is meant to be the character the audience identifies with. Knows enough to know that something big is happening, but not enough to still be amused/annoyed at Smiley's seemingly random exploration. Jaded enough to feel put off by Tarr's general annoyingness but still cares enough to pick up on Tarr's genuine fear for his life. Excellently played by Jayston.

But then, upon further digging, I found out that he was also the Rochester in my favourite BBC adaptation of Jane Eyre in 1973. I watched it on TV so many years ago that I never knew who the actors were. Whenever I read Jane Eyre again since then his has always been the face I see for Rochester. Watching other Rochesters in the other adaptations has not dislodged that face. The 1973 version is the definitive Rochester for me. And yet, I never even suspected it's the same actor who played Guillam! I honestly cannot believe that 2 of the best TV characters I have loved for years were played by the same actor. What are the odds!

So when I came down with the flu on Monday I took the chance to spend my days off rewatching Jane Eyre (1973) and Tinker Tailor (1979). To nobody's surprise (my partner simply asked if he could put all my Romanov books back on the shelves!) I immediately got myself on a Jayston binge, devouring everything I could find online. Thanks to a small but very dedicated Jayston fan community, I discovered so many old gems but my favourite is an obscure little family drama, Flesh & Blood (1980). Only series 1 is available online and even though Jayston apparently didn't return for series 2 I still want to know what happened to the Brassingtons. I am so invested and I can't live not knowing what happened next! Oh well, for now I will just spend this unfulfilled energy screenshotting Jayston as Ross Brassington, adding to my growing Jayston folder.

RIP Michael Jayston. Thank you especially for your Peter Guillam, Mr Rochester, Tsar Nicholas II and Ross Brassington.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

I have now seen three out of five episodes. I went into this knowing people thought Jane rather strange in this and that she smiled a lot, but like some posts I've seen about this, I do think it has an actual foundation. Sure, some of Rochester's comments about her being austere and smiling little come off strange, but I also like seeing how amused by and interested in Rochester she is and her genuine enjoyment of his company. I find almost all other adaptations a bit lacking in that regard. It feels like an essential element to their dynamic, which is why I think in this version they probably have the most chemistry after 2006! Michael Jayston as Rochester is fantastic! I don't necessarily like him better than my other favourite Rochesters (1983 and 2006), but I do like him very much, and there's a je ne sais quoi he brings to the role. Other casting is rather good too. I like that Mrs Fairfax is a bit less bright than other portrayals and emphasises why Jane and Rochester long for other company. Loved seeing her confusion at their exchanges. That's not usually included. Blanche Ingram is usually completely unlikable but I think here (though also in 1997) you also see a bit what makes her appealing. Yeah, I'm really enjoying it so far! It's rather faithful and an engaging watch. And though it's inaccurate, I really enjoyed that Jane immediately recognised it was Rochester dressed up as the fortune teller.

I rate 1973 very high because of its treatment of the childhood part of the book, yes, but also specially because of the Jane/Rochester dynamic. It makes or breaks an adaptation of Jane Eyre for me. It doesn't even have to be exactly the way it is in the novel, but I need to get a sense that they are on the same wavelength, and that that is a strange wavelength. And 1973 passes this test with flying colors.

Michael Jayston's Rochester is special to me, because it embraces so much the ridiculousness of the character, his theatrics, his impishness. I feel adaptations often feel the need to make him macho and dominant, and that's not what I get from the novel as his character. Toby Stephens has something of this, but not the level of commitment to the bit Jayston's has.

And yes to what you say about Mrs Fairfax and Blanche Ingram.

I'm so glad you are enjoying it :3

[withlovemuffin]

Review: Jane Eyre, 1973, starring Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack

@thatscarletflycatcher suggested this adaptation to me, because she knows I love silly man Mr Rochester, my poor little meow, my court jester of a man. I wasn’t disappointed one whit- indeed, I was actually pleasantly surprised! I’m usually rather skeptical of older adaptations, but this one was a banger.

Let’s get into it!

- small Jane: I adored her so, so much. It felt accurate to her character, and I do believe she’s probably one of my top favorite Young Janes, right up there with Georgie Henley.

- Aunt Reed was, per usual, absolutely horrendous! I loved, as far as adapting choices go, that she was still rather pretty, as she’s described in the book, though perhaps not as young as intended.

- Something about John Reed just felt about right. In most adaptations, he’s just positively awful, but in this one, you can see his duality- the thinly veiled disrespect in his “charm” to his mother, and his blatant disrespect towards others, especially Jane. The wine chugging was a rather nice touch, considering he dies later for his undisciplined habits.

- Mr Brocklehurst was also awful, 10/10 for villainry, loved how he just hands Jane a pamphlet and goes “this tells of naughty naughty children who lie and the various ways that they gruesomely die, happy reading!” bonus points for the scene after the typhus epidemic starts at Lowood where the two gentlemen approach him and say, in a paraphrase, “we’ve noticed you’re a little unsympathetic cunt, so we decided to suggest for you to form a committee!”

- oh, Miss Temple is a dream here. She’s marvelous. I loved her little ways of displaying affection to her pupils, and how she’d make sure to soften any blows from the others.

- Now- Helen. By far, probably my favorite Helen. She was actually sweet and wise and kind. Sometimes I get from the other adaptations that Helen didn’t actually like Jane all that much, but this one took the time to establish “no, they’re friends, absolutely friends.”

- I have so much love for Sorcha Cusak as Jane Eyre. She reminds me a lot of Mia Wasikowska, as far as her sort of unconventional attractiveness, and her softness. I won’t say I exactly prefer her to Ruth Wilson, but she’s definitely in my top Janes. I do, however, like her proposal speech much more than Ruth’s. I love Ruth’s, to be sure, but Sorcha’s feels like steel below silk.

- I think 1973’s Adele is probably by far my favorite. She was genuinely so sweet and adorable. I can’t say much about her, because she didn’t get terribly much screen time.

- Mrs Fairfax: 10/10 would adopt her as an aunt

- Now- my favorite. Michael Jayston’s performance as Mr Rochester is quite unlike any other I’ve ever seen. His attractiveness isn’t quite in his face as much as on his face. His charisma and his facial posture is just charming, the way he quirks his lips at the corners when he’s teasing or verbally sparring with Jane. Completely unmatched! I find it hard to compare him to Toby Stephens because Toby was cast for a purpose, and it was to take “unconventionally attractive” and make it his bitch, and just completely ooze sexuality, regardless of being regarded as an “ugly man.” (get a pair of glasses, you idiots.) Michael Jayston, however, makes Rochester a silly yet passionate man, and hardly biting. I also love that they included him in drag- absolutely wonderful. And the eyeliner was a paid actor.

- The other half of the budget went into finding the biggest dog on earth to play Pilot, I love him.

- I’m not completely sure how I felt about Bertha. I do appreciate that they didn’t try to make her or overstate that she was “exotic” like 2006 did. I think they went the right route by making her seem pathetic- her catching a glimpse of herself in the mirror when she tears Jane’s veil, her wailing about how Rochester said he’d take her home, etc. I almost felt bad for her, but also another portion of the budget went into the audio quality of her laugh wafting throughout Thornfield.

- I almost forgot- I adored this Blanche. So biting! So beautiful! She’s actually dark headed and not just perpetuating the mean blonde queen bee role!

- My dear, dear St John- you are not 29, you are 30 going on 68. Seriously, I’ve never seen a man so confusing looking. He was handsome, but in like a slight uncanny way.

- I also loved Diana and Mary so much, so so pretty and sweet. 10/10, would collapse on their porch

- Honorable Hannah mention, i feel like she and Mrs fairfax would get on like a house on fire (oops, too soon?)

Well, there we have it! My review of 1973- I was absolutely and thoroughly charmed. Thank you, to my friend, for allowing me to commentate in her DMs, maybe one day I’ll post screenshots and snippets of it, or she can if she so pleases XD

[scousegrrl]

Jane Eyre (1973)

[idlesuperstar]

For @cinemaocd - the happiest of birthdays, dear heart! 

Here is a smorgasbord of 19th century SHIRTSLEEVES SWOONSTERS (in varying levels of historical accuracy) for you in celebration <3

Also here are all the past birthday gifsets because I’m very modest and humble: 2014 - double drink! // 2015 - fave swoonsters // 2016 - domestic swoonsters // 2017 - FUR! // 2018 - handsy Roger // 2019 - bicorn beauties

[ariel-seagull-wings]

@princesssarisa

Another thing i found interesting about Jane Eyre (and by consequence its fandom).

So before, watching the 1973 minisseries adaptation (starring Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston) and then following it by reading the novel, i had the atention called to your posts about how fans tend to either: idealize Jane as the perfect role model of quiet reason and stoicism, or mock her as the embodiment of the “I Can Change this Brooding Bad-Boy Man” trope.

When i finally camed to watch that minisseries and read the novel, i wondered if Charlotte Bronter uncounsciously predicted that kind of reactions, because the text itself shows characters presenting those points of views about Jane’s character, and then Jane herself questions then.

I’m talking about the two man most present in Jane’s life, who are presented as the candidates for her heart and hand in marriage: Rochester represents the side that believes Jane is there to change him into a better man, but Jane refuses that kind of pressure, imposes herself and says “No. I am not here to be a moral compass to fix you. I am my own person, with my own emotional baggage, who also is in proccess of self-discovery and has to change for myself. I fell in love with you for whom i knew you to be and wanted to have a quiet married life with you, only that. If you feel that you need to change, it is you whom must give the first step”.

And Mr St. John Rivers represents the side that puts Jane on a pedestal, saying that even the cold snow can’t be a botter for her, that she is strong enough to support the hardships of a missionary worker and even a marriage without love, motivated only by the common work.

And Jane also has to explain: “I am a human being. I get tired when i return from home after walking in the middle of a storm. I cry. I have fear of a premature death caused by the climate of a country where i know no one. I want to love, and be loved back, and be cared. I enjoy pleasures like painting and cooking. I can’t be strong all the time, and you can’t demand that i pretend to be like this”.

This is an element that made Jane a very relatable character, that presented discussions ahead of the time about how we would tend to view female characters in contemporary pop culture.

[five-solae]

DAY 9: Favourite Rochester (actor)

It’s harder for me to choose a favorite Rochester than it was a favorite Jane. I like Michael Jayston, Timothy Dalton and Toby Stephens the best - the other actors just don’t do it for me. 

Dalton has a lot of presence as Rochester, he’s the one that more easily embodies the boisterous nature of the character - his volatile twists and turns. He brings a certain dimensionality with his portrayal that very much reminds me of the book, so kudos to him.  (Plus, I love his accent).  

He’s also good-looking, but not to the point it’s unbelievable that Jane doesn’t think he’s handsome.

The only issue I have with his portrayal it’s that he can get a bit too intense sometimes. Maybe that’s because of the overall theatrical style the 1983 adaptation has, but still. 

Jayston is almost like a breath of fresh air in comparison. This Rochester is easily amused and not as broody as some of the others. He’s able to depict Rochester’s more playful qualities believably without coming off as odd or even creepy (let’s face it, some of the things the man says and does can be taken this way. He’s not exactly a regular, well-adjusted guy). 

Stephens, on the other hand, harmonizes both the lighthearted and somber qualities of Rochester in a more noticeable way than Dalton. In theory, he should be my favorite for successfully conveying the character’s complexity in a way that both appeals to me and stays true to the book.

But there’s something to Dalton’s portrayal that captivates me more. Perhaps it’s the writing - which is faithful enough to the book - combined with the skillful acting that does it for me. It’s by no means a perfect depiction (is there even such a thing?), but it’s the one I ultimately enjoy the most.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

I don't think 2006 cheats by making him lighthearted or fun, because he is in the book, but by making him look and feel younger and Jane to look and feel older. A late 20s guy behaving like Mr Rochester is a bit immature, sure, but when you are faced with the man being almost 40... that's just completely different. I also think this is sort of a minor gripe on the big scheme of things, and it goes more on the lines of "well, yeah, it's easier to make this forgivable if their difference in age was far smaller).

I'm not the biggest fan of 1973, but there is something about Michael Jayston where he is old enough but also fun and impish and it brings out the "whatever the hell is wrong with you, sir, because there is something terribly wrong with you, no doubt, it is very entertaining".

The brooding is sort of a general period drama disease. They also turned colonel "I will spill my guts out with little prompting" Brandon into a brooding man.... and John "I am a man, I claim the right of expressing my feelings" Thornton into a brooding man... Rochester did not stand a chance :P

speaking of je2006 rochester (honestly when am i not) i remember reading a comment or two somewhere talking about how toby's rochester was inaccurate because he was too easy-going and friendly and it perplexes me every time i think about it

now everyone is entitled to their own opinion ofc and i'm not here to tell anyone they're wrong and i'm right but it really confuses me because bro gets on my nerves like,, every other scene dhsjhshs i really start questioning whether or not we're even talking about the same adaptation

plus even though he is a pain in the ass i really disagree with the image of rochester as a 100000% stone-cold mean and aloof man,, in addition to that sliver of charisma he has we also get a few glimpses at a side of him that is more humorous and kind than his usual disposition throughout the book and i love that toby's performance captured and combined all sides of rochester's character instead of just giving us Some Constantly Rude Guy Who Has Absolutely Zero Qualities Which Could Make Him Appealing In Anyone's Eyes But People Love Him Anyway For Some Reason

[claudia1829things]

“JANE EYRE” (1973) Review

"JANE EYRE" (1973) Review When I began this article, it occurred to me that I was about to embark upon the review of the sixth adaptation I have seen of Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel. I have now seen six adaptations of "Jane Eyre" and plan to watch at least one or two more. Meanwhile, I would like to discuss my views on the 1973 television adaptation.

For the umpteenth time, "JANE EYRE" told the story of a young English girl, who is forced to live with her unlikable aunt-by-marriage and equally unlikable cousins. After a clash with her Cousin John Reed, Jane Eyre is sent to Lowood Institution for girls. Jane spends eight years as a student and two as a teacher at Lowood, until she is able to acquire a position as governess at a Yorkshire estate called Thornfield Hall. Jane discovers that her charge is a young French girl named Adele Varens, who happens to be the ward of Jane's employer and Thornfield's owner, Edward Rochester. Before she knows it, Jane finds herself falling in love with Mr. Rochester. But the path toward romantic happiness proves to be littered with pitfalls. After watching "JANE EYRE" . . . or least this version, I hit the Web to learn about the prevailing view toward the 1973 miniseries. I got the impression that a number of Brontë fans seemed to regard it as the best version of the 1847 novel. I can honestly say that I do not agree with this particular view. Mind you, the miniseries seemed to be a solid adaptation. Screenwriter Robin Chapman and director Joan Craft managed to translate Brontë's tale to the screen without too many drastic changes. Yes, there are one or two changes that I found questionable. But I will get to them later. More importantly, due to the entire production being stretch out over the course of five episode, I thought it seemed well balanced. I was surprised to see that "JANE EYRE" was set during the decade of the 1830s. It proved to be the second (or should I say first) adaptation to be set in that period. The 1983 television adaptation was also set during the 1830s. Did this bother me? No. After all, Brontë's novel was actual set during the reign of King George III (1760-1820) and I have yet to stumble across an adaptation from this period. Both this production and the 1983 version do come close. But since "Jane Eyre" is not a historical fiction novel like . . . "Vanity Fair", I see no reason why any movie or television production has to be set during the time period indicated in the story. The movie also featured some solid performances. I was surprised to see Jean Harvey in the role of Jane's Aunt Reed. The actress would go on to appear in the 1983 adaptation of the novel as Rochester's housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax. As for her portrayal of Aunt Reed, I thought Harvey did a solid job, even if I found her slightly theatrical at times. Geoffrey Whitehead gave an excellent performance as Jane's later benefactor and cousin, St. John Rivers. However, I had the oddest feeling that Whitehead was slightly too old for the role, despite being only 33 to 34 years old at the time. Perhaps he just seemed slightly older. The 1973 miniseries would prove to be the first time Edward de Souza portrayed the mysterious Richard Mason. He would later go on to repeat the role in Franco Zeffirelli's 1996 adaptation. Personally, I feel he was more suited for the role in this adaptation and his excellent performance conveyed this. I do not know exactly what to say about Brenda Kempner's portrayal of Bertha Mason. To be honest, I found her performance to be something of a cliché of a mentally ill woman. For me, the best performance in the entire miniseries came from Stephanie Beachum, who portrayed Jane's potential rival, the haughty and elegant Blanche Ingram. I do not think I have ever come across any actress who portrayed Blanche as both "haughty" and lively at the same time. Beachum did an excellent job at portraying Blanche as a likable, yet off-putting and arrogant woman. Many fans of the novel do not seem particularly impressed by Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of the title character. A good number of them have accused the actress of being unable to convey more than a handful of expressions. And they have accused her of being too old for the role at the ripe age of 24. Personally . . . I disagree with them. I do not regard Cusack's performance as one of the best portrayals of Jane Eyre. But I thought she did a pretty damn good job, considering this was her debut as an actress. As for her "limited number of expressions", I tend to regard this accusation as a bit exaggerated. Yes, I found her performance in the scenes featuring Jane's early time at Thornfield a bit too monotone. But I feel that she really got into the role, as the production proceeded. On the other hand, many of these fans regard Michael Jayston's portrayal of Edward Rochester as the best. Again, I disagree. I am not saying there was something wrong with his performance. I found it more than satisfying. But I found it difficult to spot anything unique about his portrayal, in compare to the other actors who had portrayed the role before and after him. There were a few moments when his performance strayed dangerously in hamminess. Also, I found his makeup a bit distracting, especially the . . . uh, "guyliner". The production values for "JANE EYRE" seemed solid. I felt a little disappointed that interior shots seemed to dominate the production, despite the exterior scenes of Renishaw Hall, which served as Thornfield. Some might argue that BBC dramas of the 1970s and 1980s were probably limited by budget. Perhaps so, but I have encountered other costumed productions of that period that have used more exterior shots. I had no problem with Roger Reece's costume designs. But aside from the outstanding costumes for Stephanie Beacham, there were times when most of the costumes looked as if they came from a warehouse. Earlier, I had commented on the minimal number of drastic changes to Brontë's novel. I am willing to tolerate changes in the translation from novel to television/movie, if they were well done. Some of the changes did not bother me - namely Bessie's visit to Jane at Lowood and the quarrel between Eliza and Georgiana Reed, during Jane's visit at Gateshead Hall. But there were changes and omissions I noticed that did not exactly impress me. I was disappointed that the miniseries did not feature Jane's revelation to Mrs. Fairfax about her engagement to Mr. Rochester. I was also disappointed that "JANE EYRE" did not feature Jane begging in a village before her meeting with the Rivers family. Actually, many other adaptations have failed to feature this sequence as well . . . much to my disappointment. And I was a little put off by one scene in which Mr. Rochester tried to prevent Jane from leaving Thornfield following the aborted wedding ceremony with over emotional kisses on the latter's lips. Not face . . . but lips. I also did not care for the invented scenes that included a pair of doctors telling Reverend Brocklehurst that he was responsible for the typhus outbreak at Lowood. What was the point in adding this scene? And what was the point in adding a scene in which two society ladies discussed John Reed during a visit Thornfield? Overall, "JANE EYRE" proved to be a solid adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel, thanks to director Joan Craft and screenwriter Robin Chapman. Everything about this production struck me as "solid", including the performances from a cast led by Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston. Only Stephanie Beachum's portrayal of Blanche Ingram stood out for me. The production values struck me as a bit pedestrian. And I was not that thrilled by a few omissions and invented scenes by Chapman. But in the end, I liked the miniseries. I did not love it, but I liked it.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

You expressed some eagerness at hearing my thoughts when I watched Jane Eyre (1973). I just watched the first episode! The transitions were soooo weird, however beyond that the direction was rather good! Definitely better production values than 1983. Jane missed a bit of passion at first but I did end up liking her! Bit much voiceover maybe but I do like there is one. Miss Temple and Helen really were so good! Finally all the Helen scenes! And they didn't tone down the religion. Very strange for the episode to end in the middle of the meeting Rochester scene; still, I'm very excited to see Michael Jayston. I already like him as an actor.

Yes!

For a BBC 1970s-1980s production, they truly threw the house through the window, as we say in Spanish XD I think only Wuthering Heights 1978 got as much evident budget (and it has some actually artsy, inspired camera work? that one is kinda wild).

The whole tone of 73' is strangely... lighthearted? Jane goes through life like "I'M GOING ON AN ADVENTURE WEEE" which is a bit strange overall, but it pays off nicely when she gets to interact with Rochester, because he's trying all his bullshit so hard and she's like "lol, you are pathetic, I love you".

The voiceover thing is strange too, because it's hilariously overdone on episode 1 (like, the action stops so that Jane can narrate at us XD) but then it slowly goes away as the adaptation moves forward? I don't remember it ever being fully absent, but it is noticeably dropped in intensity.

I ADORE 73 Helen! I think the series does get what is The PointTM of the character and translates it well, and that's so satisfying considering how often that is not the case.

The ending of the episode is meant to be a cliffhanger, I think. If you are not familiar with the story, the mystery of the stranger would be a hook to tune in next time.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

Just finished Jane Eyre (1973) and I cannot say otherwise than that I absolutely adored it! 2006 must always be my favourite; I first saw it when I was little and it left a lasting impression on me; but this definitely takes second place! I think this adaptation was very successful in compressing some things—as is almost unavoidable—but never giving the feeling like something is truly missing. The compression in the film adaptations always makes it feel like something is lacking, but here I really did feel all the essentials were there. 1983 has as much, if not more, but the acting in this version elevates it beyond that one. Episode four was just constantly spot on, and their chemistry was so, so good. I love them together. The St John section was very, very decent, and I'm so glad we got Jane teasing Rochester at the end! The one thing missing in this adaptation is perhaps a certain moody atmosphere, but it has so much to make up for that and I'll take good acting over good cinematography any day!

I'm sorry it took me so long to answer this ask, but in the interim since I got it: i) an assignment I had for the end of October was moved to last friday and I had to rush it ii) the washer broke down iii) the water purifier broke down iii) the dishwasher broke down. So I have been running after things and being too tired at night to answer asks.

I'm so glad you liked it! It truly is a hidden gem. While I think the St John part is better in 83, this Rochester brings so much more to the rest. I think Michael Jayston commits to the notion that yes, Rochester loves Jane and really truly means to make her happy and is ALSO being very stupid about it and hurting her deeply in the process too. It's very clear (and poignant) in that bit at the wedding where he grabs Jane's hand and holds it over his heart, like he fears something will happen and she will be taken away from him. The very gesture shows both, how much she means to him, but also the fear and guilt that are plaguing him because he knows he's doing something he shouldn't.

I get what you mean about the moody atmosphere. It IS a big deal, but ultimately we have so many adaptations now, that time has made it less of an issue for me. If we only had, say, 73 and 83, I'd be begging for some Gothic atmosphere. As is, having 97, 06 and 11, I'm like "we can have a happy go lucky Jane Eyre. As a treat."

[thatscarletflycatcher]

oh, you NEED to watch 73 if you haven't. Michael Jayston I'd say is close to Toby Stephens in terms of the overwhelmed silly man side of the equation minus the "smouldering sex appeal", he DOES do the fortune teller bit, and he has insanely good weird little impish Rochester vibes. Like, I get what you mean about Dalton, but my problem is that his bravado is too well done and becomes convincing. At times you are persuaded he's some manipulative mastermind, confident and self assured. It's difficult to get across that he's most of the time trying very hard to pretend. Michael Jayston's Rochester you really see as much as Jane sees that it is all pretense, and it makes it half amusing/half endearing (which is what I myself get from the character in the book at those points at least).

Brewing for @ravenkings concept about Jane Eyre adaptations:

What does your favorite Jane Eyre adaptation say about you?

1946: Orson Wells fascinates you.

1970: your mind is a mystery to me.

1973: you are a positive minded individual or a stickler for play by play adaptations.

1983: you think Timothy Dalton is really really hot.

1996: tenderness and healing from trauma is your jam.

1997: you really, really love Disney's Beauty and the Beast.

2006: you love the romantic tropes of Jane Eyre more than Jane Eyre itself (not that you don't love Jane Eyre anyways).

2011: you are depressed and lonely and really really really craving a change.

Now come at me with the murder comments, just know that I made this one in good humor and half in jest and it'd be lovely if we can keep it... not messy.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

Jane Eyre adaptations according to how funny they are:

1973: It's funny sometimes because it's probably the most lighthearted adaptation, and also because Michael Jayston and his guyliner are hilarious. I'm not 100% how much of it is voluntary and how much involuntary.

1983: whatever funny you might find here, is unintentional and rare. It has one joke and it falls flat.

1996: This is also a very serious adaptation, but as it leans in on tenderness and lowered drama, it's not as bad as it sounds.

1997: Involuntarily funny most of the time, my favorite laughs are: Jane returns from Gateshead right after she leaves, Grace Poole's "oh, that smells rotten" face, and the letter to Pilot exchange, which is actually an intentionally funny bit.

2006: Not funny overall, but the few jokes there are in it land well and make me laugh.

2011: Jane's "you are weird" reaction faces are hilarious, and specially the contrast in that scene where Rochester finds out Richard Mason is at Thornfield and he's doing ALL the drama. And that's mostly it.