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: romantic, cruelty

Review:
I love the story of Jane Eyre so much, to insult anything that has to do with this beloved character is not easy to say.
I've seen 3 versions of this movie after having read Charlotte Bronte's book.
I've seen this particular film adaptation of Jane Eyre four times, and I'm still not tired of it.
As a faithful fan of the book Jane Eyre, I could not be more pleased with the cast and their faithfulness to Bronte's characters.
What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story.
Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor.
The woman in this movie did not seem to have much to triumph over, including one of the greatest parts of the story when Jane runs away from Thornfield and Mr. Rochester.
The director does not copy the book but entails his personal feelings and evaluations to the strange fate of Jane Eyre throughout the movie.The film is made wonderfully: the cast, the music, the entire convention - It supplies the viewer with the right picture of the Victorian England.
Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and has been since childhood, but William Hurt's weary, throwaway acting style is completely unsuitable to the bold passion of Edward Rochester and poor Charlotte Gainsbrough looks like a bored, petulant teenager whose dental braces hurt!
I do appreciate that they finally used such a young, plain woman to play Jane, a character who is supposed to be a worldly 18, but if you want to see a version that closer approximates the personalities and passions of the novel, please see the 70's version with George C.
I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story.
There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial.
This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor.
I don't like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination.
The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed.
I don't think I can improve on a comment I read below, so I'll just paraphrase it: "Jane Eyre is a great great book, the screenwriter should read it sometime." It's true that this movie's two leads were sadly miscast.
It is true that Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre" has a complex and almost unbelievable storyline, but several main parts of the plot were changed in this movie, and the change was not for the better!
Walt Disney versions of Peter Pan for example, have very little to do with J.M. Barry's original.Jane Eyre is a very serene, rather melancholical book with beautiful strong characters.
The results give a different emphasis to the story and one that for this viewer works well.In this particular incarnation the rags to riches heroine Jane Eyre is played with subtlety by the beautiful Charlotte Gainsbourg (with Anna Paquin as the younger version) and Rochester the master of the manor is a William Hurt, playing his character more for life and flesh than the usual darkly sinister keeper of secrets.
What results from the combination of cast and crew is a film that is far more a romance than a vapid mystery: the fire between Jane and Rochester is palpable and is given more space and time than the other versions which elect to dwell on the mad 'wife' upstairs finally destroyed in the fire that brings Rochester down to Jane's initial stance on the social scale.The cinematography by David Watkin captures the period beautifully as does the musical score by Claudio Capponi and Alessio Vlad.
In the scene with Adele when she says that Jane may never come back and Rochester hesitates to comfort her, I think that Hurt's acting choices showed great insight to the character.
I can't say that any of the others have done it justice.This version captures the romantic core of Bronte's novel, and I think all of the cast did a fine job.Though this may be contrary to the opinions of some other, rather grumpy reviewers, I absolutely adore William Hurt as Mr. Rochester.
There's a raw but restrained emotion to their interactions in the film (very accurate to the time period), and I found the evening scene between them to be just as romantically thrilling as it was in the novel.All in all, this is a movie I will be purchasing..
Zeffirelli´s version of Jane Eyre is the most touching movie,I´ve ever seen.....Hurt is BRILLIANT AS USUAL and just PERFECT as Mr.Rochester!....his facial expression is superb......I don´t care what the critics say.
I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it.
The writer took out all the most important scenes between Jane and Rochester, leaving audiences very little understanding of the passionate love that they have for each other.
Bottom line is: if you want to see a true adaptation of Jane Eyre and a really good one, rent the 1983 BBC version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clark.
At least with this one, you wouldn't have to say to yourself, "Hey this isn't how it's suppose to be!"  Better yet, if you can find the 1973 version, then watch that one, it is the best of all the Jane Eyres out there.
The much put upon Jane Eyre gets yet another adaption to the big screen with Charlotte Gainsbourg in the title role and William Hurt as the brooding Lord Rochester.
But it hardens her character though she wonders if love will come her way.When the grownup Jane Eyre now played by Gainsbourg leaves the school where she has become a teacher she gets a job with Lord Rochester's estate as a governess.
Then again Fontaine's Rochester was Orson Welles another American.Jane Eyre I've always felt was a feminist role model, a woman who makes her way in the world successfully when women were not legal and social equals.
I think that too many people overlook the great acting done by William Hurt in Jane Eyre.
When Jane (Charlotte Gainsbourg) reaches adulthood, she is hired by Mrs. Fairfax (Joan Plowright) as the governess of Adele, a young French girl that is raised by master of Thornfield Edward Rochester (William Hurt), and leaves Lowood.
"Jane Eyre" by Franco Zeffirelli is so far, the weakest adaptation of the classic romance by Charlotte Brontë.
Despite the great cast in Zeffirelli's version, with names like Charlotte Gainsbourg, Geraldine Chaplin, Joan Plowright, Fiona Shaw and Anna Paquin, the performance of William Hurt is very disappointing in the role of Edward Rochester.
I had compassion for the children , the young girl and the young woman Jane Erye.The movie makes you understand that not everyone has a happy childhood, not everyone has a life protected and are loved and full of beauty.
Although Zefirelli makes it clear to the viewer throughout the plot that Jane is a very balanced person with a brain as good as any man's, she has her full share of a woman's intuitive understanding of the male mind, seeing at once that a little jealousy is just what is needed to arouse Rochester from his dejection.As he realizes, she is a practical person.
One must admit that young Jane was much better than the adult one while William Hurt disappointed a lot playing the role of Rochester, very cold and nearly without any temperament.
It seems to be that the passion (or love, whatever you would like to call it) between Jane and Mr Rochester is much more subtle in the book, whereas in the movie, it is pretty obvious that she is attracted to him and that he will ask her to marry him.
I have enjoyed 3 other versions of Jane Eyre, starring, Orson Wells & Joan Fontaine, Timothy Dalton & Zelah Clarke and finally Ciaran Hinds & Samantha Morton, so when I decided to sit and watch this version of Jane Eyre, I was hoping that I would be left thinking, YES, they got the two leading roles right again.
To play Rochester & Jane, the actors chosen, needs to bring that certain something to the roles, (I can't say what, because I am not sure myself), but if you have ever read Jane Eyre, and thoroughly enjoyed it as I have, then you will know what I mean.
If you love the novel Jane Eyre, please stay away from this version..
On our cemetery monument are the words "MY SECOND SELF."  (Wuthering Heights is my next favorite novel.) William Hurt is a great actor, but he can never be Edward Fairfax Rochester.
I do have several complaints though, I know that one can not transfer a book to film perfectly, but they should follow the story line.The meeting between Mr. Rochester and Jane when they confess there love is to short and lacks the passionate speech and playfulness that the book has.
The first time I saw this Zeffirelli version of the famous Bronte classic, I wasn't particularly impressed with either Charlotte Gainsbourg's feisty interpretation of Jane, or with William Hurt's over-sensitive version of Rochester.
This Jane is the one with dark and brooding tendencies (played as a child by Anna Paquin, this side of her comes across well); while Rochester is damaged by his past but not quite right in the characterisation, less a gothic hero than a damp squib.A second viewing put both in a more favourable light, but the problem is that 'Jane Eyre' has many other, much better, adaptations out there and this version adds very little.
That is Zeffirelli at his best.) William Hurt is simply perfect as Mr Rochester, (and actually extremely sexy in a slightly strange way..) Both Anna Paquin and Charlotte Gainsbourg turn in great performances as the young and slightly older Jane respectively.
If you loved the book, watch this version of the movie.
The French actress, Charlotte Gainsbourg--cast as Jane, is absolutely perfect, & her younger self is played by the amazingly talented Anna Paquin (in one of her earliest roles).
I don't believe I ever read "Jane Eyre", and I don't recall ever seeing another film version.
Director: Franco ZeffirelliStars:William Hurt, Charlotte GainsbourgThis version of Jane Eyre benefits from the artistic sense of director Franco Zeffirelli, but it shows the financial restraints limiting the production.
However, It is fairly well organized and well acted.Jane Eyre is a great love story of a couple who meet and feel an immediate attraction for each other.
But this one really reaches me in a surprising way when every other screen version of Jane Eyre I've seen try to connect the audience to the characters by casting way-too-attractive actors.
On this note, I think this version is by far the most authentic adaptation I've seen.The only complain I have also comes from the major characters - their lack of chemistry in later scenes.
Charlotte Gainsbourg looks the part but she fails portrays Jane very well at all, I didn't believe she was in love and William Hurt isn't angry or temperamental enough in his portrayal of Rochester.
Jane Eyre is my absolute favorite book, so I looked forward to seeing this movie the minute I heard it was coming out.
Well,I remember i saw the film version of "jane eyre" with ciaran hinds,some time ago...it was wonderful!
I was honestly surprised to see william hurt as rochester!he did a good job i think and also ms gainsbourg!
I grew up watching (over and over again) Joan Fontaine as Jane Eyre, and after reading the book, I felt that Fontaine, even though they "played down" her look, was far too lovely to play the part.
I thought Orson Welles was perfect in the role.BTW, the young Miss Eyre was played by Peggy Ann Garner in the 1944 version (good but I think Anna Paquin was equally as good if not better), not Liz Taylor.
Miss Taylor played Helen Burns in the 1944 version.I have not seen the Timothy Dalton version, but will be renting it soon as I love all the stories by the Brontes.Anyway, I'd give this telling of Jane Eyre a 7..
In my opinion it's in fact Gainsbourg and not Hurt who is wooden (although she has charm) and in their scenes together his good acting rubs off on her.My major problem with this adaptation is the final 20 minutes, because it totally leaves out the last 3rd of the novel with the Rivers family.
Even with the most recent 2006 film.It must be very difficult to translate this story to film, since even with the many mini series, that have plenty of time to include aspects in the book, that two hour movies cannot, still seem rather lacking one way or another.Every one seems to have their favorite adaptation, and this one appears to be less often among them, with even harsh criticism of William Hurt in the role of Rochester.For me, although he does not have the dark hair and eyes Hurt's demeanor is more like the Rochester I grew fond of from the novel.
I don't think it was the perfect representation, but He is my favorite, by far.Again physically, Jane Eyre was described differently in the novel, but just like Hurt, had the essence of the Jane from the novel.Most of the flaws I saw, were directorial and screenplay originated, and very much not the acting or the interpretations of the characters by the actors.
Jane and Edward were more stoic, quiet and less passionate in this movie then the characters are in the book.
I don't think William Hurt was fully suit to play Edward, but then I'd have to say Charlotte wouldn't make a good Jane paired with the other Edwards.
I have loved the A&E version of Jane Eyre since I was a child.
Jane is rather subdued, but still, when reading the novel and in the other film adaptions, you can catch glimpses of her true character.
My favorite part of all the Jane Eyre adaptations is the fight before Rochester proposes, the "I have lived a full life here!
Franco Zeffirelli's 1996 version of "Jane Eyre" had all the workings of becoming the best adaptation of the fabulous novel.
Charlotte Gainsbourg, a talented subtle and intelligent actress whom I like in every movie I've seen her made a great Jane.
But after seeing another adaptation of this novel, the one with Orson Welles in the role of Rochester, my opinion changed drastically.This 96 version is for now the best one I've seen, so I cannot complain.
The best film version of Jane Eyre, but still only so-so..
The one thing that saves this film is the excellent performance by Charlotte Gainsbourg as the adult Jane.
Charlotte Gainsbourg does a wonderful job as Jane Eyre, a principled and passionate young heroine.
I also enjoyed William Hurt's interpretation of Rochester, although it would have been nice if he had had more lines from the book to say in the movie.
The only other things that could have been better was the depth of the screenplay such as the romantic intensity between Rochester and Jane, the length (I wish they had put more parts of the book in this film) and the acting of Anna Paquin as the young Jane.
So much so that I had to pause the movie (i'm watching it for the second time in a row right now) to comment on it.i loved the book Jane Eyre.
But I must say I simply loved Charlotte Gainsbourg as jane Eyre.
yet, as far as jane Eyre goes, this is truly a great film, true to the book, and amazing cast.
For those who loved the book, and most ladies everywhere DO, this is an acceptable film version of the classic story.
I love the book Jane Eyre and have seen just about every film version--some I have seen several times, in fact.
This is not to say I disliked Hurt and he has done several WONDERFUL little films over the years.So, my final verdict is that this is an acceptable version of a great book.
I really loved this adaptation of Jane Eyre.
This movie did leave out certain scenes from the book but William Hurt gave a excellent performance as Mr. Rochester.
Jane Eyre 1996 is the last of the 3 I have seen and I wondered at times if it was the same story.
Now I need to read the book.Jane Eyre, 5 Stars.
However, the truth is that William Hurt was totally miscast and never got anywhere near being Rochester, and as for Charlotte Gainsborough's attempt at being Jane Eyre, it might have been better if she had taken a holiday.
He does that often with good stories, unfortunately.) Anyway, the story is brilliant, so if you are deciding on which version of 'Jane Eyre' to watch, this is it, however, I would recommend that you read the book.