JE83 stars Timothy Dalton as Edward, Zelah Clarke as Jane, Jean Harvey (Mrs. Reed in JE73) as Mrs. Fairfax, Judy Cornwell (Mrs. Musgrove in P95) as Mrs. Reed and Morag Hood (Mary Musgrove in P71) as Mary Rivers. There are 11 episodes of approximately 30 minutes each.
I had only seen this adaptation once, and it was on VHS and it was edited. The DVD version has the missing scenes restored. The Region 1 JE83 DVD is 311 minutes long (Region 2 is 312 minutes). The Region 1 JE73 DVD is only 248 minutes long (Region 2 is 275 minutes long).
The first hour is devoted to Jane’s childhood. The Reeds were unpleasant, but not as awful as they could have been. The Lowood years were much better, in my opinion. Helen was quite good. She was as religious as she should have been, and Mr. Brocklehurst was sufficiently awful. It may be nitpicky, but I was surprised that Helen doesn’t die while sharing a bed with Jane. I’d always liked that in the book; Helen is the first person Jane truly loves, and to have Helen die in Jane’s arms is very powerful. This is the first adaptation I’ve seen where Miss Temple plays an important role in Jane’s life. We even get to see Miss Temple verify Jane’s story, and this is also the first adaptation where Miss Temple leaves the school to get married.
What else do I like? Pretty much everything. The costumes are better than they have been with other adaptations, and Jane’s hair moves – it even comes loose when Edward kisses her. I think the gypsy scene is done better than it was in JE73; Dalton is better at hiding his voice than Jayston was.
All in all, I think that Dalton is more forceful and more vibrant than Jayston. Yes, he’s better-looking than Rochester should be (as have all of the Rochesters we’ve met so far), but he did a wonderful job with the part. He makes Edward simply ooze passion, and we can also see just how tortured he is. As for Zelah Clarke, she is tiny and almost delicate in appearance, but she gives back as good as she gets. She cannot be called plain, but she’s still very “Jane-like” in her performance. I like Clarke better than Sorcha Cusack and her eyebrows. There is such a wonderful chemistry between Dalton and Clarke. It’s almost palpable.
Adèle isn’t annoying, and her accent is good. She doesn’t appear very often, which is fine with me.
I know the story very well, but I don’t know the book as well as I would like. There is a difference. I can quote passages from P&P or Persuasion, but I can’t do that from Jane Eyre. And, because I don’t know the book as well as I know the story, I found myself searching my Kindle from time to time because I couldn’t recall if certain bits of dialogue had been in the book. But this script is amazingly faithful to the book, while not allowing this fidelity to weigh down the production.
However, the fidelity to the story is why I was so surprised (and not in a good way) that this line:
“I sometimes have a queer feeling with regard to you–especially when you are near me, as now: it is as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame.
was cut out of this adaptation.
The words that come next:
And if that boisterous Channel, and two hundred miles or so of land come broad between us, I am afraid that cord of communion will be snapt; and then I’ve a nervous notion I should take to bleeding inwardly. As for you,–you’d forget me.”
are intact, but the first part is gone. I’ve always loved this speech. I find it to be very sweet and very romantic, and I cannot for the life of me understand why Alexander Baron (who wrote the script) left it out.
And then, for some reason, they added a scene where Rochester tells the attorney who broke up the wedding to find Jane and let him know she’s OK. There have been smaller scenes without Jane, but this is, to me at least, a rather important scene, and I’m very surprised they put it in. I don’t like this scene at all. Jane Eyre is told in the first person. We, the readers, know nothing that Jane doesn’t know, and to put in a scene that tells us something that Jane doesn’t learn about until later was, in my not-so-humble opinion, not the best idea Mr. Baron had.
Andrew Bricknell’s St John is far more handsome than was St John in the 1973 adaptation. He still doesn’t look quite like a Greek god, but he’s not unattractive. He’s very good — he does cold and ambitious very well. This is the first adaptation where we meet Rosamund Oliver. That’s the good news. The bad news is that she isn’t used enough to make us really believe that she and St John are in love.
The blind Edward actually blinks, which may be meaningless to most people, but I’m so nitpicky that I noticed it.
We still get a voice over, but not as much as in JE73. I didn’t mind the voice over in JE73, but there is so much less here that the difference is noticeable. For some reason, I felt more emotionally involved with this adaptation than I have with any of the others, including JE73. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve only seen this production once before (and it was not the “complete” edition). Despite the cuts, I loved it, and thought it was vastly superior to any of the others I’d seen. I wondered if a re-watch hold up to more intense scrutiny. The answer is yes. I still like it better than any of the other adaptations I’ve watched so far. Granted, with the exception of JE73, there isn’t much competition, but I have to say that I prefer it to JE73. These are the first two adaptations I’ve watched for this project that make a concerted effort to tell the whole story, so it’s hard to compare either of them with the earlier versions. I have seen JE70, but I saw it so long ago that I cannot possibly remember how faithful it is; it is next on the list (since Traxy pointed out to me that it’s at the Internet Archive!), and I may end up revising my opinion. And maybe I won’t.
September 21, 2011 at 11:42 am
Hi Julie.
I’ve just finished watching this myself. (I’m trying to keep pace with your Eyre-athon!)
What can I say? JE83 cannot be faulted in any rational way – it’s faithful to the absolute letter of the book. Zelah Clarke is perfectly adequate, better than I remembered her. The minor characters are well portrayed – St John is suitably icy. Timothy Dalton is mesmerising! He gives us all that is in the book – and then some more! (Although it’s this “some more” which almost tips his character over into caricature – “My hope, my love, my life!”)
As I say, I shouldn’t be able to fault it. So why does it leave me almost unmoved? I’ve thought long and hard, and have to conclude that JE83 was the best RADIO presentation never made. If I closed my eyes while watching it, I would miss little (well, apart from Timothy Dalton!). No advantage has been taken of the fact that it is a VISUAL presentation with all the benefits and versatility that that medium brings.
I could go on (and on, and on) – but I won’t!
Looking forward to your next review in the series!
September 21, 2011 at 3:00 pm
I understand exactly what you’re saying. But on the other hand, P&P80 is my favorite P&P, so these almost literal productions don’t really bother me. Except for P71, where they do some very silly things in the name of fidelity. I was not left unmoved here. I felt a part of the action, more so than in any of the other movies I’ve watched.
But I can definitely imagine closing my eyes and letting Timothy Dalton’s voice sweep me away. *swoon*
I am now watching JE70 and should have that column up by later tonight my time. Then it’s on to William Hurt, Ciaran Hinds, Toby Stephens and Michael Fassbender. One of the reasons I whipped out the Kindle and searched for dialogue is because I have seen so many adaptations that I’m almost forgetting the book. LOL!
Thanks for your comments. I’m so pleased you’re enjoying this because I am, too!
September 22, 2011 at 10:17 am
It would be wrong to say that I didn’t enjoy JE83. It has much to commend it and, heck, any Jane Eyre is better than none!
You brought up P&P80. Now, I wouldn’t have said this if you hadn’t mentioned it first (‘cos I know how much you love it!), but one scene in it illustrates what I mean about not utilising the VISUAL medium to the full. You know when Darcy gives Elizabeth the letter? In ’80, a full five minutes is spent just lingering on Elizabeth reading the letter while Darcy walks away. BORING! For all it’s faults (and I know there are many!), P&P95 dramatises the letter. So we are SHOWN rather than just TOLD – a much better use of the camera!
It just takes a bit more flair, creativity and imagination, but that doesn’t always characterise the adaptations of the period*. Of course, it means taking a slightly less reverential attitude towards the classics and not viewing them as holy writ that you tamper with at your peril! Lol.
*There are some memorable exceptions, of course! I, Claudius springs to mind!
September 22, 2011 at 11:41 am
Well, perhaps P&P95 “dramatizes” the letter, but Davies reversed the contents, which makes zero sense. Elizabeth ends up being as angry at the end as she was at the beginning. (granted, Ehle’s Elizabeth is angry more often than not to begin with) And then, as I pointed out in my posts on the subject, she never says “I never knew myself” until several days later, when it has less meaning. Yes, it’s dramatized, but it’s still messed up.
As for memorable 70s adaptations, have you ever seen The Pallisers? The costumes were AMAZING.
September 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm
I thought you might say that, which is why I hesitated to use the example. I wasn’t being mischievous – honest! I completely agree about the letter contents reversal. But the letter dramatisation does make five minutes interesting (not to mention controversial for some – lol) and not interminable!
I don’t remember seeing The Pallisers. I believe it’s on Youtube, so should check it out. So little time, so much to see!
September 22, 2011 at 2:03 pm
If it’s on YouTube, I’m impressed. It’s got something like 25 episodes. But it’s one of my favorite series ever.