I have spent the last week thinking constantly about
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, since I have reread it for the 8th or 9th time, I believe. Since I wrote some
blog posts on
Villette when I
read it for the first time three years ago, I thought it was time that I wrote a post about
Jane Eyre.
The first time I read this novel I was in eighth grade and thought it one of the most romantic and exemplary books I'd ever read--even more so than
Pride and Prejudice that I had read a year earlier.
I bought
Jane Eyre on a whim at the school's book fair--it was only five dollars, I liked the cover, it promised romance on the back, and it was fairly thick. As I began reading I was instantly pulled in by Jane's voice--or Charlotte Bronte's voice, is how I view it now after having read all her works--and by the familiarity of feeling that seemed to swell in me as I read about how she fought her emotions as a child between being good and wanting justice, how she dealt with the loss of a friend, and how even as she worked she yearned to be more a part of the world. Then I met Mr. Rochester. And then I
really met Jane.
Mr. Rochester
It seems like Mr. Rochester is an enigma to many men (my husband included) who only see the movies of
Jane Eyre. In the movies he seems to be very changing, sometimes violent, kind of a creeper, mean (trying to force jealousy), a liar, manipulative, and not really in love with Jane--perhaps in infatuation, but not love. So why on Earth does he seem to be a man of romance to so many women?
The way I tried to explain it to Cody was that just like he and I are perfect matches for each other--based on past experiences, mutual interests, learning from each other, etc.--for the character Jane, Mr. Rochester is her perfect match. The blossoming of that realization is very apparent in the novel, though I think, harder to show in a movie since most of the realizing happens in Jane's head. Also, near the end of the book there is a quote that says, "I know what it is to live entirely for and with what I love best on earth...I am my husband's life as fully as he is mine." Even though most of the time, Mr. Rochester seems to be a crantankerous man, he loves Jane and Jane loves him.
I do have my problems with Mr. Rochester's character, but guess what? He isn't
my match. He's Jane's, and it's wonderful seeing how they complete each other. My real problem with Mr. Rochester is how he is portrayed in the movies. But I'll get to that later.
The Real Jane
What did I mean when I said that during my first reading of
Jane Eyre I went through her childhood and early working time and meeting Mr. Rochester, and then
that's when I
really met Jane? Hadn't I been reading about her for the first 300+ pages? Why wasn't she real before then?
Well, she was. But she didn't discover her strength, her core, until 300+ pages into it. Mr. Rochester seems to see it in her before she does (during the gypsy scene, "that brow professes to say--'I can live along, if self-respect and circumstances require me to do so. I need not sell my soul to buy bliss. I have inward treasure born with me, which can keep me alive if all extraneous delights should be withheld, or offered only at a price I cannot afford to give.' The forehead declares, 'Reason sits firm and holds the reins, and she will not let the feelings burst away and hurry her to wild chasms. The passions may rage furiously, like true heathens, as they are; and the desires may imagine all sorts of vain things: but judgements shall still have the last word in every argument, and the casting vote in every decision. Strong wind, earthquake-shock, and fire may pass by: but I shall follow the guiding of that still small voice which interprets the dictates of conscious.'") Since it was my first reading of the novel, I didn't see this foreshadowing.
It wasn't until the critical moment of the plot, when all is in turmoil, and Jane is in agony and doesn't know what to do, when she thinks, "
I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad--as I am now. Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent they are; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth? They have a worth--so I have always believed; and if I cannot believe it now, it is because I am insane--quite insane, with my veins running fire, and my heart beating faster than I can count its throbs. Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations are all I have at this hour to stand by; there I plant my foot."
Oh my heart stopped when I read this!
This is what I think and feel! This is how I want to be! my 14-year-old self thought. I wanted to be strong against temptation. I wanted to know that it was okay to step out of the flow of what is "normal" and "accepted," to stand alone and to be okay with myself for doing that. If Jane could do it--and by extension, Charlotte Bronte, because I am
certain she had to do so as I've studied her life--then I could, too.
I've often thought of this quote as I've gone through hard times, especially a few years ago when I had to make some tough decisions and stick by them. It was extremely difficult. It wasn't what I had expected. However, though I didn't feel
exactly like Jane in that no one was trying to outwardly force me to do the opposite of what I had decided, the other half of my nature was wanting me to do it. I wanted to do what I had decided I wouldn't do. But I could think about how I knew what I was doing was right and then I would have more strength to do it. Also, it was just a good quote to keep floating around my head during dating and being engaged--"
Laws and principles have a worth! They have a worth!" I would inwardly say to myself when temptation could have arisen. As a result, I never felt like I got close to anything I didn't want to get close to.
Back to the plot: After this point in the novel, we see the foil of the Thornfield Hall episode in the shape of the Rivers' home. I rather like the contrast and have never found this point in the book particularly boring, especially because it shows that Jane can stick by what she said she would do and that she won't give in purely to reason; she still has feelings and knows that she needs to satisfy reason and desires in order to have true happiness.
Needless to say, I love Jane. I love Jane because she grows up in this novel (not like in
Pride and Prejudice, which I also love, but Elizabeth is 21 pretty much the entire novel) and you get to see how she changes and figures herself out. I love Jane because she has integrity. I love Jane because she knows how to balance logic and reason, and emotions and feelings.
The Movies
(MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT: I'm not tiptoeing around any plot developments here)
 |
| 1983 version |
Now for my critiques of the movies. I have seen the 1983, 1995, 2006, and 2011 versions of
Jane Eyre. While I think the chemistry between Jane and Mr. Rochester is best in the 2006 version, I think that Jane's passionate integrity comes out best the 2011 version. I do like that the 1983 version includes more lines from the actual book, and includes a more faithful rendition of Lowood than the other three. The 1983 version is also the most complete movie (probably because it is a miniseries) in having events that are in the book but that are usually omitted from the other movies (i.e. the gypsy scene, when Jane lost her parcel and went begging, a true rendition of how Jane gets her inheritance, Rosamond Oliver, the several times that St. John proposes, how Rochester ends up at a separate house at the end, and that Rochester's hand was amputated not just that he went blind). I also think that Jane's character was developed very well in the 1983 version in that she doesn't seem like an abnormally quiet person all the time; she can and does laugh and her bluntness seems more in character in this version.
However, the acting is a little forceful in the first several episodes of the 1983 version, the typhus episode is actually talked about (unlike in the other three) but Helen Burns death and her parting, inspiring, life-changing, faith-building words are not included. The made a few, though not memorable (unless you have just read the book like I have), changes towards the end, but overall, they did a remarkably good job with this version, except for the kid actors in the first couple episodes.
 |
| 1995 version |
The 1995 version completely changes events for the last half of the movie--St. John apparently is Mrs. Reed's parson at Gateshead, the house burns down the moment Jane leaves, since Mr. Eyre "never believed Jane to have died" and still left her his fortune--how on Earth did Mr. Mason find out about the wedding?, when Jane returns it is to Thornfield Hall, not Ferndean Hall. I was just very unimpressed with the ending of this movie (and some events at the beginning at Lowood--Jane's hair did
not get cut off, neither does Helen's; Ms Temple is supposed to be the superintendent, not Ms. Miller; and Jane didn't stay on the stool all day, only a half hour).
 |
| 2006 version |
The 2006 version I haven't seen in four years so I can't say much about it except that there is one scene in particular when Jane is leaving Rochester that I think the director wanted to put in a little more firey-ness than actually is found in the book. But whatever, that's his license. Also, I don't think that Mr. Rochester was ugly enough; he was rather nice looking in this version. Until I saw the 2011 version, this one was my favorite.
 |
| 2011 version |
The 2011 version is one of my favorite versions because it gives more of the full picture, without being a mini-series like the 1983 version. While Jane's passionate integrity comes out more in this movie, I feel like the build up of her and Rochester's relationship isn't as strong as it is in the book. I also think Rochester is too handsome in this movie. Overall, this is my favorite version for a shortened 2 hour movie adaptation.
