Just over 2 years ago, I reviewed Pride and Prejudice: A Latter-Day Comedy.  It’s a movie I really like, and I watch it periodically because I do find it to be so entertaining.

I bought my copy from an LDS (Mormon) website and, as a result, I get emails and other promotions from that site to this day.  That site, DeseretBook.com, sent me an email this morning offering me the chance to buy the movie at the price of $9.99.  The email said that this price is good for today only (but the website itself doesn’t say that), and that it won’t ship for a couple of weeks.  But this movie is hard to find, so I wanted to make sure that everyone who wants a copy is able to order one for their own collection.

Good luck and, if you do buy a copy, please let me know whether or not you liked it.


Updated July 22, 2012:  the movie now costs $12.99.  It’s still less than the list price of $19.99 and less than Amazon’s price of $17.01.

Last year, I posted the Declaration of Independence in its entirety.  This year, I give you “The Signing” from one of my favorite movies of all time, 1776.  No, the Founding Fathers did not sing and dance their way through the Revolution, but there are still enough facts in this play/movie that it cannot be called “mindless entertainment.”

This scene gives me chills each and every time I see it.  If you ever get a chance to watch this movie, I cannot recommend it highly enough.  It’s on TCM this evening at 5 Eastern time.  Enjoy!

Overnight I got an email from Amazon Canada telling me that they are offering a special for Harry Potter fans. It’s an amazing boxed set containing all 8 films in DVD, Blu-ray and digital editions. The set includes a total of 13 discs, and there are tons of extras. Here’s the complete description from their website. I don’t happen to have an extra $349.99 (whether it be Canadian, American or even Australian) lying around. But if I did, this sure sounds like something I’d consider buying.

It is a little odd that this new boxed set is for sale because of the announcement from Warner that no new Potter products were going to be available after December, 2011.  Who knows.  I’m not exactly “plugged in” with Warner, and I am one of the millions of fans still waiting for Pottermore to go live.  So, if you are in a position to buy this, please let me know if it’s any good.  If not, I still have the regular movies (and, of course, the books!) to keep me company.


Update! — For those who don’t want to/can’t buy from Amazon.ca, the set is being offered for $349.99 US.  Unfortunately, regardless of whose dollar we’re talking about, I still can’t afford it.  *sigh*

Yesterday was Jane Austen’s 236th birthday.  I did not write a post on the big day itself because I was out with my local JASNA chapter celebrating it.  A good time was had by all.

I don’t need to repeat what I wrote last year, but the fact remains that Jane is still popular with a wide variety of people.  It’s still pretty amazing that the younger daughter of a country rector is remembered (and revered) for 6 novels and several unfinished stories 194 years after her death.


Let’s fast-forward a little bit from the Regency era to the years after World War I.  Yes, the Downton Abbey Christmas Special is due to air on ITV in the UK at 21:00 (9 p.m.) on Christmas night.  Here is the press pack: http://www.itv.com/documents/pdf/DOWNTON_ABBEY_PRESS_S2_XMAS_Lores.pdf

As you will see, Sybil and Branson will not be around.  That makes sense — they’re not fabulously wealthy and can’t pop back and forth between Ireland and Downton on a whim.

Here are some stories about what may and may not happen:






And here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-tZVGdZoEM&feature=player_embedded) is a trailer for the Christmas special.  I am dying to find out what happens to Mr. Bates and, by extension, to Anna.

I just finished watching the last series of Spooks. After the weirdness that was series 9, I was looking forward to the show going out in a blaze of glory.

A friend told me I’d be irate at the ending, and I was.  I am very, very disappointed.  For years now, I’d wanted Ruth and Harry to live happily ever after, and for her to die like that is just so wrong.  Yes, she sacrificed herself for him, but it’s just not fair.  I got all teary-eyed when Ruth died, and then again when Harry looks at the list of names of MI-5’s dead. There was Adam, and Jo, and Ros and Ben and so many spies who I came to know and love.  Obviously Connie and Lucas aren’t there, but so many others were (one question though — I didn’t see Tariq’s name on that wall.  Did I just miss it, or was it not there at all?).

What I really found intriguing was the sight of Tom Quinn showing up at the Russian’s home just after the Home Secretary tells Harry that he knows how to deal with that particular Russian.  The idea of the Government hiring Tom to kill this man was just the right touch for the ending  of the series. It really brought things to a full circle.

Anyway, now it’s all over.  All we have now is the memory of 10 years’ worth of great television.  Next year at this time, there won’t be a new series of Spooks to keep me on the edge of my seat, and that makes me sad.  Not as sad as Ruth dying of course, but very sad all the same. Someday, when I have the funds, I want to buy a box set of the entire series so I can watch it whenever I want.

JE11 stars Mia Wasikowska as Jane and Michael Fassbender as Rochester.  It also features Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, Sally Hawkins as Aunt Reed, Tamzin Merchant as Mary Rivers, Imogen Poots as Blanche Ingram and Simon McBurney as Mr. Brocklehurst.  Haddon Hall once again plays Thornfield, and it’s gotten to the point that I don’t know if I can imagine any other house as Thornfield.  This is, of course, the adaptation that inspired the Jane Eyre-athon project and, even though I still don’t love it, I am very grateful to it.

I don’t want to repeat what I said back in April, but it all still holds true.  I’m still not fond of the idea that most of the movie is a flashback. The last half hour was still terribly rushed. I still think it’s silly that Jane is an heiress but the Riverses aren’t her cousins.

I did listen to the commentary by Cary Fukunaga, and am very glad I did.  There were some interesting little tidbits, such as the fact that they filmed the entire movie in a 2+ month period (March — May) and had to add leaves to the trees digitally during scenes that were supposed to take place during the summer.  He said he really wanted to be faithful to the book and talked about scenes from the book that were either changed or omitted from the movie, and tells us why.  But he never mentioned that the Riverses are Jane’s cousins.  I really wanted to hear his reasons for omitting that information.

Given the fact that the movie is only 2 hours long, they spend a lot more time (on a relative basis) on Jane’s childhood than some other adaptations have.  Of course, Helen is not quite as devout as she should be, but I really did like the Lowood scenes (as an aside, we see a lot of Helen as a ghost in the deleted scenes). Gateshead was fleshed out more than it was in both JE96 and JE97, which I appreciated because what Jane goes through in her childhood is important to the rest of the story.  Unfortunately, there is no gypsy scene, and one speech that was otherwise taken directly from the book has been edited so that the grammar is incorrect.  Just before Edward proposes, and Jane still thinks he’s going to marry Blanche, Jane says:

I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you.

Unfortunately, hypercorrectness has set in, and in this film, Jane says “…as it is now for I to leave you.”


Dear Moira Buffini,

Here is today’s Grammar 101 lesson: “I” is a subject pronoun.  “Me” is an object pronoun.  The twain  never meet.  Subject pronouns are never part of a prepositional phrase; only object pronouns are.  The word “for” introduces the prepositional phrase and therefore must take “me” rather than “I.”

So, the next time you think about changing a sentence written by someone who writes better than you do, think again.  Either that, or buy a grammar book and learn what the parts of speech are.


I honestly don’t think I’m being nitpicky.  After all, it seemed that Buffini’s intent was to lift the entire speech from the book, so why did she make that one change?  Did she think that Charlotte got it wrong? If so, I am not only not amused, I am also not impressed.

In the final analysis, I liked the film somewhat less this time than I did back in April.  After spending so many months with the likes of Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine, Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke, Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, etc. I was forced to rethink my earlier impressions of the chemistry between the two leads.  This time, I really didn’t see much.  Mia’s Jane is sometimes too repressed.  Fassbender’s Edward rarely shows me that he’s tortured.  It still gets a “meh” from me.  It is beautiful to look at, but we know that beauty is often skin deep. There is just not enough substance in this film for my taste.  I know it can be done — JE70 (which is 20 minutes shorter and had a tiny budget) managed to do that without all the resources Fukunaga et al. had at their disposal.  It’s a shame, too; I had been looking forward to this version and thought it had great potential.

This is the end of the great Jane Eyre-athon.  I need to finish a bunch of library books, as well as some books I already own, and I need some downtime to figure out what my next “project” is going to be.  I’m leaning towards Wuthering Heights because, in large part, there are so many adaptations out there, and also because I’ve never read it.  I started it not too long after I’d read Jane Eyre, but I only read a couple of chapters before putting it down with no regrets. But that was almost 40 years ago, and I hope I can do better this time.  I also hope to include Sparkhouse as one of the adaptations, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.


I’m taking a break for a bit, but will be back with more blatherings in a week or so.  Ta!

JE06 stars Ruth Wilson as Jane and Toby Stephens as Edward.  Also featured are Tara Fitzgerald as Mrs. Reed, Christina Cole as Blanche, Francesa Annis as Lady Ingram, Andrew Buchan as St. John and Georgie Henley as Young Jane.

It’s only about 4 hours long, meaning it is considerably shorter than both JE73 and JE83, the only other BBC adaptations that are available for home viewing. There are commentaries for hours 1 and 4, but I did not listen to them because, for some bizarre reason, there were no subtitles. My own copy is the Region 2 version but that’s in storage, so I took out a Region 1 copy from the library. Unfortunately, it was not a very good copy – lots of skipping and stuttering. I do not know if any scenes were cut, since I only saw this version once, and that was when it first aired back in 2006. I did watch some of the cast/crew interviews and was not amused that the casting director said she wanted Toby Stephens in the role because he’s so good-looking. One is left wondering if she’s actually read the book. Haddon Hall plays Thornfield once again, but we see it from different angles than we did in JE96. I don’t remember who said this in the interviews, but one woman involved in the project said she wanted to establish from the outset that Thornfield “is a place of terror.” Once again, I am left wondering how well this person knows the story. Jane does not arrive at Thornfield thinking of it as a “place of terror.”

Jane’s childhood is only given 15 minutes or so. This includes both the Gateshead and Lowood years. Miss Temple and Miss Scatchered are nowhere to be seen. I thought maybe I’d missed them, but they’re not even in the credits. Richard McCabe (Captain Benwick from P95) plays Mr. Brocklehurst. He’s scary, but not the best I’ve seen in the role. The scene where Helen’s hair gets cut was deleted (it’s in the deleted scenes), and most positive references to religion are also gone.  No surprise.

There is some dialogue from the book, but not a lot. But, oddly enough, there are some passages that I don’t remember from the book at all, but they are there, in the script. So it kept me hopping between taking notes and searching my Kindle.

For some reason, there is a red scarf hanging outside the window on the 3rd floor at Thornfield – the part of the house that is supposedly uninhabited. And Jane wears a tiny red scarf at certain points in the story – the day after the fire in Edward’s room, for example. If I’d had a chance to listen to the commentary, I’m sure I’d learn why, but the movie has to be back at the library. So maybe another time.

The gypsy scene is included, but in this version, Edward hires a woman to tell fortunes while he’s hidden away, listening to everything. It’s an interesting way of handling a very difficult scene to pull off.

Since there are no voiceovers in this version, it’s not as jarring to see scenes without Jane, and this version has a scene with Blanche and Edward where we see just how hard Blanche is working to catch him. At the house party, Mr. Eshton talks a lot about twins and the spiritual connection between them. I think they’re trying too hard to be prophetic.

Unfortunately, the “piece of string” speech is butchered. As I’ve said before, I love that speech, and was disappointed that Welch decided to change it.

After the aborted wedding, when Jane is at the Rivers’ house, we see flashbacks to what happened before she runs away. Edward has Jane pinned to the bed, and he tries to seduce her into staying with him. Yes, the scene is incredibly sexy, but it’s also very wrong. In the book, Jane won’t let him touch her because, as I have always thought, she knows she’d find it hard to leave:

“Now he made an effort to rest his head on my shoulder, but I would not permit it. Then he would draw me to him: no.

… Now that you think me disqualified to become your husband, you recoil from my touch as if I were some toad or ape.”

… “Jane!” recommenced he, with a gentleness that broke me down with grief, and turned me stone-cold with ominous terror — for this still voice was the pant of a lion rising — “Jane, do you mean to go one way in the world, and to let me go another?”

“I do.”

…”Jane” (bending towards and embracing me), “do you mean it now?”

“I do.”

“And now?” softly kissing my forehead and cheek.

“I do,” extricating myself from restraint rapidly and completely.

What the bed scene in the adaptation does, however, is to emphasize just how much chemistry Wilson and Stephens have. I really understand what this Jane and this Edward see in each other. It’s so obvious that they are each other’s soul mate and that they burn for each other with a passion that’s real and meaningful. This has not always been the case in adaptations of Jane Eyre. I just wish they could have done it more subtly, as Brontë does in the book. We’re pretty smart; we don’t need to be beaten over the head with their sexual attraction.

I really liked Andrew Buchan as St. John. I think he’s extremely good-looking, and also I thought he showed us how cold and repressed the character is. He tells Jane that he trembles when Rosamund is near, but he also says he fights the temptation because she won’t be a good missionary’s wife and he won’t give up his ambitions for her. We do learn that St John and his sisters are Jane’s cousins, and we do learn that she is an heiress but, as we have seen so many times, this portion of the film is quite rushed, as if the filmmakers are just itching to get Jane and Edward back together as quickly as possible.

The ending is sweet (except for the fact that Jane walks to Ferndean?!) if a little corny. And it all wraps up with Jane and Edward having a portrait painted of them and their extended family. Jane looks quite pretty with her hair in a less prim-and-proper style. The Rivers girls are married, and servants (yes, even Grace Poole) are included.

So, all in all, even though I know I shouldn’t like this version very much because of all the liberties it takes, I do. I really enjoyed it. Parts of it brought me to tears, and I turned off the DVD player with a smile on my face.  As I said, I own it and I can definitely see myself popping it into the player when I feel like being swept away in this wonderful story.

I read the book several years ago, and knew I had to see the movie when it came out.  I’ve only seen Brad Pitt in Thelma & Louise and Ocean’s Eleven, so I know pretty much nothing at all about his acting ability.  I just know I liked the book and was curious about the movie.

The movie was excellent.  Just as we saw in The Blind Side, a book that’s very fact-oriented is turned into something that’s more people-oriented.  Pitt was terrific as Billy Beane, the former “5-tool,” “can’t-miss” prospect who does miss.  Josh Hill was very good as Peter Brand, a character who is based on current Mets Assistant GM Paul DePodesta.  I don’t have as much sympathy for Art Howe as he might like, but I do agree that the film was not kind to him.


I’ve been a fan of Spooks (known in the US as MI-5) since I first saw series 1 on DVD.  I was late to the party (no surprise!), but I quickly made up for lost time and became so addicted to it that I am having trouble accepting the fact that it will all be over on October 23rd.

Section heads come and go, but Harry Pearce has been a constant for 10 years now, and I will miss him dearly.  I hope that he and Ruth manage to find some happiness together because they deserve it.   But here is the trailer for the final season.  I’m not sure I’m going to like all of what happens.

JE70 stars George C. Scott as Rochester and Susannah York as Jane; it also features Jean Marsh as Bertha and Angharad Rees as someone named Louise.  In addition, Sophie is played by Anna Korwin, who also played her in JE73.

St. John Rivers was played by a man named Ian Bannen.  I’d never heard of him so I looked him up. He was born in 1928, meaning that he was in his early 40s when this movie was made.  George C. Scott was born in 1927, meaning he was only a year or so older than the man playing St. John.   Susannah York was born in 1939, making her 30+ as Jane.  Interesting tidbit – the music was written by John Williams.  Yes, “THE” John Williams.  So it’s a given that the music is wonderful. It’s a shame that the print isn’t very good because the music sounds a bit tinny.  But then, this is a 40+ year-old production, so I don’t have high hopes for any of the sights or sounds being very good.

The film is only 100 or so minutes long, and the opening credits take up almost 3 minutes. I’m not sure why they thought this was a good idea.

Jane is never at Gateshead.  We first see her in a carriage heading towards Lowood, which is suitably gruesome.  We see a girl chopping up the ice in the pitcher that is used for washing up.  Mr. Brocklehurst brings up Mrs. Reed, but we never meet her or any of the Reed children.  We know immediately which girl is Helen, because she coughs almost constantly.

We’ve seen Mr. Brocklehurst complain about the girl with wavy hair, but in this version it’s Jane he’s complaining about.  That really doesn’t make much sense to me.  Brocklehurst says his lines in a very weird way.  I almost think the actor is drunk.

Miss Scatcherd is truly evil – possibly the most evil Miss Scatcherd yet.  She makes Jane stand on a stool for the crime of having wavy hair, and makes Helen stand on a stool outside for not obeying her.  Of course, given how much Helen coughs, it’s pretty obvious something bad is going to happen to her.  Helen isn’t as religious as she ought to be, but they do include the fact that Helen dies in Jane’s arms.

Approximately 15 minutes has been spent on Jane’s childhood which, given that the movie is only 100 or so minutes long, is pretty good.  We know that Jane’s childhood is over because, all of a sudden, we see Susannah York laying flowers on a grave, Mr. Brocklehurst is calling out “Jane,” and Susannah York responds to him.  There is no way in the world that Susannah York could ever be called “plain.”  Even in simple clothes and a not-very-flattering hairdo she’s beautiful.  She’s also much taller than Jane should be.  Brocklehurst is actually not unpleasant now.  But he still sounds drunk and Jane tells him off.

Next thing we know, Jane is at Thornfield.  One day, she’s out walking and admiring the view and the music sounds like a heartbeat.  All of a sudden, the heartbeat changes to horses’ hooves and we see George C. Scott get thrown by his horse.  Finally, a Rochester who is not good-looking.  I am actually quite pleased with this.  But, oddly enough, we never get the scene where he asks Jane if she thinks he’s handsome.

Unfortunately, this copy must have been taken directly from US television, because it’s pretty obvious where the commercial breaks are.  In fact, at the 30:20 mark, it’s very noticeable that something is missing.

Scott is very brusque and downright rude at times.  More so than in the book, I think.  Or maybe I’m still affected by the charms of the various Rochesters I’ve seen during this project.

We don’t get to hear about Bertha until Edward has been home for a bit.  After putting out the fire, Jane asks Edward if the laughter came from Grace Poole, and Edward says yes.  This is interesting, because I don’t remember hearing/seeing anything about Grace Poole before this.  Perhaps that’s what is in the missing clip.  I’ll have to wait until I can rescue my own copy of the DVD from storage.  But who knows when that will be.

Blanche is attractive, although a bit long in the tooth. If IMDb is correct, she was born in 1936, making her 34 years old in 1970.  Blanche tells Edward that the governess is plain, and I just had to laugh. As I said earlier, I don’t think it’s possible for Susannah York to ever be anything but lovely.  As a result, Jane’s speech later on about being plain is unintentionally funny.  She does dress better after they get engaged, and she’s never anything resembling plain.  I know it sounds as if I’m harping on this, but at least in the 1973 and 1983 versions, they tried to make Jane look as plain as possible.  They don’t seem to have tried here.

We do not get the gypsy scene in this version, which does not surprise me at all.  1973 is the first version that has it, and it’s plain that this is a difficult scene to pull off well. Jane never goes back to Gateshead, so we never learn about the rich uncle in Madeira.   It is quite rushed – the scene with Bertha and Jane’s veil takes place after about 64 minutes. Bertha doesn’t tear the veil – she just lets it fall onto the floor, but nobody says anything about it.  Why bother keeping the scene?  The wedding is at 65 minutes, leaving us 35 minutes to meet Bertha, meet the Riverses, find out that Bertha burned down the house, etc.  When Jane does meet the Riverses, she tells them her real name, and they are not her cousins, nor does she turn out to be an heiress.  Edward goes blind from the fire, but he does get to keep both his hands. Instead of not blinking, George C. Scott just keeps his eyes closed.  He doesn’t look injured at all; he just looks as if he’s sleeping.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this was the first JE adaptation I ever saw (if it’s not, then JE43 was, and I didn’t retain much). This was made a year earlier than P71, yet the costumes are so much nicer.  There are no icky green plaid dresses or beehive hairdos to be found.  The sets are suitably dark and gothic.  Except for the fact that St John seems to be more empathetic than he should be (his proposal to Jane is way too passionate), the characters do resemble those in the book.

To be honest, while I went into this willing to be snarky about this film, I found that there was really no need to be.  It’s actually quite decent, given the circumstances.  There’s obviously a reason I remembered it, even after all these years. Whenever I can get my DVD out of storage, I plan to watch it again.

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.