Jane Eyre

Plot synopsis:
=== Introduction ===
The novel is a first-person narrative from the perspective of the title character. The novel's setting is somewhere in the north of England, late in the reign of George III (1760–1820). It goes through five distinct stages: Jane's childhood at Gateshead Hall, where she is emotionally and physically abused by her aunt and cousins; her education at Lowood School, where she gains friends and role models but suffers privations and oppression; her time as governess at Thornfield Hall, where she falls in love with her Byronic employer, Edward Rochester; her time with the Rivers family, during which her earnest but cold clergyman cousin, St. John Rivers, proposes to her; and her reunion with, and marriage to, her beloved Rochester. During these sections the novel provides perspectives on a number of important social issues and ideas, many of which are critical of the status quo (see the Themes section below). Literary critic Jerome Beaty opines that the close first person perspective leaves the reader "too uncritically accepting of her worldview", and often leads reading and conversation about the novel towards supporting Jane, regardless of how irregular her ideas or perspectives are.
Jane Eyre is divided into 38 chapters, and most editions are at least 400 pages long. The original publication was in three volumes, comprising chapters 1 to 15, 16 to 27, and 28 to 38; this was a common publishing format during the 19th century (see three-volume novel).
Brontë dedicated the novel's second edition to William Makepeace Thackeray.
=== Jane's childhood ===
The novel begins with the titular character, Jane Eyre, aged 10, living with her maternal uncle's family, the Reeds, as a result of her uncle's dying wish. It is several years after her parents died of typhus. Mr. Reed, Jane's uncle, was the only person in the Reed family who was ever kind to Jane. Jane's aunt, Sarah Reed, dislikes her, treats her as a burden, and discourages her children from associating with Jane. Mrs. Reed and her three children are abusive to Jane, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. The nursemaid Bessie proves to be Jane's only ally in the household, even though Bessie sometimes harshly scolds Jane. Excluded from the family activities, Jane is incredibly unhappy, with only a doll and books for comfort.
One day, after her cousin John Reed knocks her down and she attempts to defend herself, Jane is locked in the red room where her uncle died; there, she faints from panic after she thinks she has seen his ghost. She is subsequently attended to by the kindly apothecary, Mr. Lloyd, to whom Jane reveals how unhappy she is living at Gateshead Hall. He recommends to Mrs. Reed that Jane should be sent to school, an idea Mrs. Reed happily supports. Mrs. Reed then enlists the aid of the harsh Mr. Brocklehurst, director of Lowood Institution, a charity school for girls. Mrs. Reed cautions Mr. Brocklehurst that Jane has a "tendency for deceit", which he interprets as her being a "liar". Before Jane leaves, however, she confronts Mrs. Reed and declares that she'll never call her "aunt" again, that Mrs. Reed and her daughter, Georgiana, are the ones who are deceitful, and that she shall tell everyone at Lowood how cruelly Mrs. Reed treated her.
=== Lowood ===
At Lowood Institution, a school for poor and orphaned girls, Jane soon finds that life is harsh, but she attempts to fit in and befriends an older girl, Helen Burns, who is able to accept her punishment philosophically. During a school inspection by Mr. Brocklehurst, Jane accidentally breaks her slate, thereby drawing attention to herself. He then stands her on a stool, brands her a liar, and shames her before the entire assembly. Jane is later comforted by her friend, Helen. Miss Temple, the caring superintendent, facilitates Jane's self-defence and writes to Mr. Lloyd, whose reply agrees with Jane's. Jane is then publicly cleared of Mr. Brocklehurst's accusations.
The 80 pupils at Lowood are subjected to cold rooms, poor meals, and thin clothing. Many students fall ill when a typhus epidemic strikes, and Jane's friend Helen dies of consumption in her arms. When Mr. Brocklehurst's maltreatment of the students is discovered, several benefactors erect a new building and install a sympathetic management committee to moderate Mr. Brocklehurst's harsh rule. Conditions at the school then improve dramatically.
The name Lowood symbolizes the "low" point in Jane's life where she was maltreated. Helen Burns is a representation of Charlotte's elder sister Maria, who died of tuberculosis after spending time at a school where the children were mistreated.
=== Thornfield Hall ===
After six years as a student and two as a teacher at Lowood, Jane decides to leave, like her friend and confidante Miss Temple, who recently married. She advertises her services as a governess and receives one reply, from Alice Fairfax, housekeeper at Thornfield Hall. Jane takes the position, teaching Adèle Varens, a young French girl.
One night, while Jane is walking to a nearby town, a horseman passes her. The horse slips on ice and throws the rider. Despite the rider's surliness, Jane helps him to get back onto his horse. Later, back at Thornfield, she learns that this man is Edward Rochester, master of the house. Adèle is his ward, left in his care when her mother abandoned her.
At Jane's first meeting with him within Thornfield, Mr. Rochester teases her, accusing her of bewitching his horse to make him fall. He also talks strangely in other ways, but Jane is able to give as good as she gets. Mr. Rochester and Jane soon come to enjoy each other's company, and spend many evenings together.
Odd things start to happen at the house, such as a strange laugh, a mysterious fire in Mr. Rochester's room (from which Jane saves Rochester by rousing him and throwing water on him and the fire), and an attack on a house guest named Mr. Mason. Then Jane receives word that her aunt Mrs. Reed is calling for her, because she suffered a stroke after her son John died. Jane returns to Gateshead and remains there for a month, attending to her dying aunt. Mrs. Reed confesses to Jane that she wronged her, giving Jane a letter from Jane's paternal uncle, Mr. John Eyre, in which he asks for her to live with him and be his heir. Mrs. Reed admits to telling Mr. Eyre that Jane had died of fever at Lowood. Soon afterward, Mrs. Reed dies, and Jane helps her cousins after the funeral before returning to Thornfield.
Back at Thornfield, Jane broods over Mr. Rochester's rumoured impending marriage to the beautiful and talented, but snobbish and heartless, Blanche Ingram. However, one midsummer evening, Rochester baits Jane by saying how much he will miss her after getting married, but how she will soon forget him. The normally self-controlled Jane reveals her feelings for him. Rochester is then sure that Jane is sincerely in love with him, and he proposes marriage. Jane is at first sceptical of his sincerity, but eventually believes him and gladly agrees to marry him. She then writes to her Uncle John, telling him of her happy news.
As she prepares for her wedding, Jane's forebodings arise when a strange woman sneaks into her room one night and rips her wedding veil in two. As with the previous mysterious events, Mr. Rochester attributes the incident to Grace Poole, one of his servants. During the wedding ceremony, Mr. Mason and a lawyer declare that Mr. Rochester cannot marry because he is already married to Mr. Mason's sister, Bertha. Mr. Rochester admits this is true but explains that his father tricked him into the marriage for her money. Once they were united, he discovered that she was rapidly descending into madness, and so he eventually locked her away in Thornfield, hiring Grace Poole as a nurse to look after her. When Grace gets drunk, Rochester's wife escapes and causes the strange happenings at Thornfield.
It turns out that Jane's uncle, Mr. John Eyre, is a friend of Mr. Mason's and was visited by him soon after Mr. Eyre received Jane's letter about her impending marriage. After the marriage ceremony is broken off, Mr. Rochester asks Jane to go with him to the south of France, and live with him as husband and wife, even though they cannot be married. Refusing to go against her principles, and despite her love for him, Jane leaves Thornfield in the middle of the night.
=== Other employment ===
Jane travels as far from Thornfield as she can using the little money she had previously saved. She accidentally leaves her bundle of possessions on the coach and has to sleep on the moor, and unsuccessfully attempts to trade her handkerchief and gloves for food. Exhausted and hungry, she eventually makes her way to the home of Diana and Mary Rivers, but is turned away by the housekeeper. She collapses on the doorstep, preparing for her death. St. John Rivers -- Diana and Mary's brother -- and a clergyman save her. After she regains her health, St. John finds Jane a teaching position at a nearby village school. Jane becomes good friends with the sisters, but St. John remains aloof.
The sisters leave for governess jobs, and St. John becomes somewhat closer to Jane. St. John learns Jane's true identity and astounds her by telling her that her uncle, John Eyre, has died and left her his entire fortune of 20,000 pounds (equivalent to over £1.3 million in 2011). When Jane questions him further, St. John reveals that John Eyre is also his and his sisters' uncle. They had once hoped for a share of the inheritance but were left virtually nothing. Jane, overjoyed by finding that she has living and friendly family members, insists on sharing the money equally with her cousins, and Diana and Mary come back to live at Moor House.
=== Proposals ===
Thinking Jane will make a suitable missionary's wife, St. John asks her to marry him and to go with him to India, not out of love, but out of duty. Jane initially accepts going to India but rejects the marriage proposal, suggesting they travel as brother and sister. As soon as Jane's resolve against marriage to St. John begins to weaken, she mysteriously hears Mr. Rochester's voice calling her name. Jane then returns to Thornfield to find only blackened ruins. She learns that Mr. Rochester's wife set the house on fire and committed suicide by jumping from the roof. In his rescue attempts, Mr. Rochester lost a hand and his eyesight. Jane reunites with him, but he fears that she will be repulsed by his condition. "Am I hideous, Jane?", he asks. "Very, sir: you always were, you know", she replies. When Jane assures him of her love and tells him that she will never leave him, Mr. Rochester again proposes, and they are married. He eventually recovers enough sight to see their first-born son.

Tags: dramatic

Review:
about as good a version of Jane Eyre as you'll find.
First, I doubt if I can give ANY version of Jane Eyre a 10, as every version I have seen so far puts too much emphasis on the part of the book involving Rochester and Jane (which is important) and not enough on her proposal of marriage from the vicar (which is VERY important to Ms. Bronte's theme)--this juxtaposition of plots is essential.
It is mentioned in passing in several of the movies but never is allowed to have the prominence that it had in the book.Now, despite this, I would say that this is my favorite version of Jane Eyre, though the Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine version of the 1940s is close to being as good.George C.
The only area where the 1940s version seemed better was in the back story at the horrible school where Jane was raised..
No wonder I think this is the best adaptation of Jane Eyre - I didn't realize that Delbert Mann directed it until I read it on this website.
I also remember a very touching and well acted death scene between young Jane Eyre portrayed by Sara Gibson and Helen Burns portrayed by Rosalyn Landor.
If you like the story and have the opportunity by all means watch this great version of a classic novel..
I thought this little obscure adaptation was one of the better versions of the Bronte novel to ever be put on film.
Scott's Rochester ties with the best interpretations of the character with the likes of Mr.Orson Wells and Ciaran Hinds.
The musical score (one of the earliest works of John Williams) was a haunting little melody that fit the film perfectly and I found the laughing and the "Grace Poole" parts more mysterious, even slightly more frightening.
This version also has Blanche Ingram portrayed as Charlotte Bronte' had visioned, a tall brunette of a slightly older age and not rediculously imitated by a supermodel as in some other adaptations.
Ms. York did a remarkable job as Jane Eyre, however, I believe the best Jane Eyre performance goes to Samantha Morton in the BBC 1997 version.
I thought this little version (even with Jane's 70's hair-do)was great and after a long search I finally found it on video.
I've read the book so many times and seen every version of Jane Eyre made and for me, George C Scott played the tortured soul Mr Rochester the best.
George C Scott was as rough and gruff as Mr Rochester was supposed to be.
Susannha York was a bit too pretty to be Jane Eyre but she tried her best.
Of all the actresses who have attempted this role, belated congratulations to Miss Susannah York for alone understanding "Jane" to the core, a knowledge absolutely necessary to render the character in a manner that Miss Bronte herself would assuredly recognize and approve.No other film actress has achieved Jane's self possession, self reliance, modesty, and self control in a way that consistently points to the novel itself, rather than some film director's misguided attempts to deliver a trivialized cartoon cut out.
And it is these attributes that render Miss York's treatment of Jane's deeply held emotions all the more affecting, since they are kept under lock and key.Some other actresses have come close, (Joan Fontaine) while others have evidently had no conception of what on earth they were doing (Virginia Bruce).Suffice it to say that up to now, Susannah York has bested all others.
Delbert Mann understood the importance of landscape to this story, (another key attribute jettisoned in other versions) and for this he is to be congratulated.Finally, the sumptuous and unforgettable score of John Williams.
His performance makes this movie worth seeing.The rest of the cast is competent, with special mention of the actress who plays Blanche Ingram.
I believe that anyone studying either the novel or the adaptations of Jane Eyre would benefit from watching this version..
Best version of Jane Eyre ever !!!.
Some criticized this version of the movie because Susannah York and George C.
Scott look a bit older than they were in the Charlotte Bronte novel.
Others point out that Susannah York is not plain, she is attractive (actually she's gorgeous and they play down her good looks in this film).
Wonderful version of Bronte's classic novel, especially Mr. Rochester.
While I may not have seen every version of Jane Eyre, this is my favorite of those encountered and definitely preferable to the more recent ones.
Scott has taken command of Rochester's role for me, just as Alastair Sim in the 1951 A Christmas Carol commands the role of Scrooge, making all others second best.Of course this is Charlotte Bronte's classic story of an orphan, Jane Eyre, who is first sent to Lowood School, and then upon reaching young womanhood, obtains a position as governess to a little girl called Adele at Thornfield Hall.
However, Thornfield Hall has an air of mystery about it...Susannah York seems a bit too old and perhaps too pretty for the role, as Jane is intended to be rather plain.
Some have criticized Scott's Rochester as lacking passion, but I personally found him perfect in the role.Everything else as I recall is well done, including supporting cast, Yorkshire moors scenery, haunting atmosphere, and lovely musical score.Just a point of interest, these two stars appear together again in the 1984 version of A Christmas Carol, with Scott as Scrooge and York as Mrs. Cratchitt.
JANE EYRE - 1970 Version.
Scott was one of America's best actors, but the number of times that he did second-rate films hurt his reputation.
It was a superb performance (on par with Orson Welles in the same role in the 1944 version as Edward Rochester).
Suzanna York was good as Jane (and presumably got along better with Scott than Fontane did with Welles).
Frank Gorshin would spoof Scott's Rochester on television later in 1970.The film did not show as much of the Brocklehurst - Eyre conflict as the 1944 version.
Otherwise it sticks to the same plot line as the 1944 version (in particular when Rochester tells Eyre not to worry about Blanche Ingram, whom (Scott says in a line he could get away with in 1970 but Welles couldn't in 1944) only wants to marry him so his money could manure her father's fields.Both film versions were equally good, but neither fully told the complete novel as well as they could have..
Scott's Rochester more closely resembles Rochester's foil, St.John, than the character from the novel.
In fact, the actor playing St.John in this adaptation played a passionate St.John while Scott is content to smash things or just stare at the ceiling (which he does all the time).
The 40s version had the mist and the overacting of the great Mr Welles - this has a fabulous cast, particularly Scott and York who are both superb, but just falls short of the magic of the creaky old b&w version.
See it for George C.Scott's brilliant Rochester.
Overall,this is an inferior adaptation of the Bronte classic in comparison to the 1944 Orson Welles version.
Fans of his Ebenezer Scrooge in the 1984 version of "A Christmas Carol" will be fascinated with his deep insight into the Rochester character and the unpretentious earthiness he brings to a role that due to its many blustering and eloquent speeches is often misinterpreted by many of the best actors.
His best scene by far is not with Eyre but his candid conversation with his mad first wife which gives us a close-up look at a side of the character not usually explored in film versions of this story.
So while the Orson Welles version undoubtedly stands as the definitve interpretation, this version despite its flaws is very much worth your time because of Scott's brilliant performance.
Susannah Yorke is a luminous young Jane Eyre, and her performance is impeccable.
The orphan girl Jane Eyre is sent by her aunt Mrs. Reed to Lowood Institution, a charity school for orphans directed by the religious and harsh Mr. Henry Brocklehurst.
When Jane (Susannah York) reaches adulthood, she is hired by Mrs. Fairfax (Rachel Kempson) as the governess of Adele, who is the rejected daughter of the master of Thornfield Edward Rochester (George C.
However, a gloomy secret from Mr. Rochester's past affects their lives and Jane Eyre does not marry him.
But Jane still loves Mr. Rochester and St. John Rivers does not love her like a woman."Jane Eyre" is another good adaptation of the classic romance of Charlotte Brontë.
Jane Eyre is described as a plain woman and Susannah York fits better and better to this description than the sweet and gorgeous Joan Fontaine.
Scott has a good performance but it is impossible to compare him to the powerful Orson Welles.
However, this 1970 version is more faithful to the novel after the unsuccessful marriage of Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester, with an adult discussion of the couple and more accurate fate of Jane.
This is by far the worst adaptation of Jane Eyre I have seen.
George C Scott is ridiculous and bumbling as Rochester -- when not just plain old acting angry.
RELEASED IN 1970-1971 and directed by Delbert Mann, "Jane Eyre" adapts Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel about the eponymous character (Susannah York) who becomes a governess of a French girl at a huge estate in northern England circa 1800 after an upbringing at a harsh religious orphanage.
Can Jane escape the shackles of a pre-Victorian world ruled by men and legalism to find love?While this version of the oft-filmed book was released to TV, it has the vibe of a theatrical release with great northern England locations, a superb score by John Williams and quality actors.
Does anyone know if the made for tv movie 'Jane Eyre' with George C.
Scott and Susannah York is out in Video?
I can understand some people's disappointment watching this Jane Eyre, but I liked it.
The dialogue is well written and intelligently woven, and the story is compelling particularly in the tender scenes between Jane and Rochester.
Ian Bannen is excellent, Susannah York's Jane is older and perhaps more attractive than most Janes but that doesn't stop her from embodying the role and George C.Scott is brilliant in a gruff and brooding portrayal of Rochester.All in all, a good film if not the best.
I had previously watched the classic 1944 version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine; this later adaptation is well enough done and acted as TV movies go, but can't really be compared artistically (especially with respect to the narrative's Gothic trappings, much more vividly captured in atmospheric black-and-white).It was surprising to find George C.
Scott in a romantic melodrama, but it's he who gives the film life; in any case, this seemed to start him off tackling the classics for TV  following JANE EYRE with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1976), OLIVER TWIST (1982), A Christmas CAROL (1984) and even MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE (1986)!
Susannah York is a good match for him and brings reasonable passion to the title character.
The supporting cast, then, is peppered with veteran character actors such as Jack Hawkins, Kenneth Griffith and, best of all, Ian Bannen (as the religious fanatic who proposes to Jane).I own but have never read the Charlotte Bronte novel; still, from what I recall of the earlier version, this one's pretty faithful  and it has suitably literate dialogue to boot.
Scott does a great job on his part and Susan York graces the screen with her beauty, and her acting.
It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence!
The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood.
While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation.
But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine.
Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts.
I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre.
Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible.
The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep.
Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel.
But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester.
Take your pick.The picture isn't good, and despite boasting a score by John Williams, the sound isn't either.Despite being only an hour and a half, the film starts with a length opening credits scene before young Jane arrives at Lowood.
Susannah York as Jane was gorgeous and at nearly 20 years too old, but her performance was pretty good.
Scott's Rochester was not very good-looking, but the lines about him not being handsome were cut for some reason!
I thought Ian Bannen was too passionate as St. John and not enough the cold, unfeeling character of the book.Overall, this version was actually pretty decent.
It was bright and full of life.But, Susannah York is too pretty to play the part of the `plain, quakerish governess.'  And, I thought she looked too old to be 18, the age she is when she first arrives at Thornfield.George C.
Scott physically fits the part of Mr. Rochester, yet the way he approached playing the role was too "soft."  During the course of reading the novel, I figured that Rochester had a fiery temper and was more exacting and fierce, yet passionate.The picture is not so clear.
I was not convinced that Jane and Rochester were in love.
This 1970 adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre is one that I recently found out about and was very interested to sit down and watch.
In many ways as vital to the standard of any adaptation as Jane, is Mr. Edward Fairfax Rochester.
The rest of the cast is quite good with one notable exception - and this one case may be the worst thing about this adaptation: Ian Bannen's St. John Rivers.
I've never read Jane Eyre nor seen any other versions of the story.
The only prejudice contained comes from reading up a bit on the story and also the reviews of this version of the film while watching this version on DVD.The quality of the DVD is awful.
Scott...IMO...bring credible portrayals of Jane Eyre and Rochester.
They portray characters trapped by the bonds of their roles in society.The story meanders a bit because the script is adapting "Jane Eyre: An Autobiography" but the film and the story are ultimately "Jane Eyre: A Love Story." The love story, though, is quite antiseptic in nature.
So the portrayal of the autobiography is the thread told which meanders from the story being told...and causes a cold disconnect of the passion of love.The story also loses a bit because the whole life of Jane Eyre is encapsulated into 110 minutes.
Jane Eyre is directed by Delbert Mann, has a screenplay by Jack Pullman, is based on the novel by Charlotte Bronte and music by John Williams.
It stars George.C Scott, Susannah York, Ian Bannen, Kenneth Griffith, Jack Hawkins and Jean Marsh.Jane Eyre is despised as a child and sent to LowWood school.
The elder Jane(Susannah York)advertises her services as a governess.
The halls mysterious owner Edward Rochester(George C.Scott)falls in love with Jane and soon she with him, however the hall holds a dark secret which will threaten Jane's future happiness forever if revealed.This 1970 TV adaptation is a bit hit and miss.
Scott captures the gruffness and inner turmoil of Rochester completely and he is adorable in the scenes where he falls in love with Jane, becoming tender and gentle, desperate to escape his sad past.The acting is fine and the score by Williams is sweeping and haunting.
Ah, the matronly Jane, though I think I can see why, paired up with George Scott I can say I've never more felt the age gap between Jane and Rochester.
George also didn't play a mysterious enough Rochester; he was always around, monologue-ing to Jane.