Jane Eyre 1973: A review

*Warning: might contain spoilers*

I watched the 1973 Jane Eyre (starring Micheal Jayston and Sorcha Cusack) yesterday and I must say, it was quite an experience. Primarily because I expected a lot more from this adapation than from any other adaptation. However, I regret to say, I found it a trifle lacking.

The chief cause of this was Sorcha Cusack, who played Jane. I wasn't sure if there was a failure in her acting technique, or misconception on my part regarding her facial features, and expressions. I felt like she was so artificial. The only rare moments in which she was believable were the proposal scene, when she is at the Rivers' doorstep, and when she argues with St. John in the end of the film. At almost every other scene, it seemed to me as if she just read lines from the script (or more like sang them), instead of acting them. I hold the character of Jane in the novel in high esteem, and recognize her complexities, her inner struggles between duty and desire, freedom and entrapment. Bronte's Jane is not one who merely smiles all the time, but is rather thoughtful, introspective, and very intense. Very passionate. Sorcha did not convey any of this. Her acting was rather flat, and not at all intense. She did not make me feel for Jane as I watched her romance with Rochester evolve. Although her eyes seemed to laugh, I detected little fire in their depths. As I watched her, I could not fully comprehend what Jane's obstactles were. When Jayston's Rochester questions her about her past at Lowood, I could not guage from her expressions about her feelings towards Brocklehurst, and the shackles imposed on by the school administration as well as her past. Although I wasn't too fond of Zelah Clarke as Jane, I feel like she really shines in this regard compared to Sorcha. Zelah's expressions were more serious, but I was able to notice a change in them at the right time. When she talked about presents, I felt I could pity her. When she was happy after Rochester's proposal, we could see it written all over her face. When she wrung herself from Rochester, her face showed the torment, as did her tangled hair. In the after-the-fire scene, one of my favorites in the novel, Zelah Clarke, though submerged in the over-sized nightcap, still managed to convey a sense of the sexual intensity, the battle of desires seething in her, while Sorcha just stared at Rochester, placidly, without much tension or discomfort. For these reasons, I found Sorcha's gestures were not as moving. She seemed to remain the same throughout the novel, with the same chirpiness, the same mellow, dull expressions.

Jayston, on the other hand, is THE BEST ROCHESTER EVER! I liked Dalton's Rochester prior to watching this version, but now I'd have to say Jayston;s is much better than him. If it wasn't for Jayston, the film would have little to its credit and, in my opinion, would have failed. He made every scene he was in stand out and he really made up for the deficiency in Sorcha. His expressions were so well put, and I was suprised to see the right balance of humor and distress in him, the right balance of tenderness and tact. He wasn't overly melodramatic like Hurt, or overpowering like Dalton. I found it so endearing during the moments when he chuckled. And who the deuce can forget his favorite word? He was best at the scene right after the interrupted wedding, when he does not bring the house down with his screams but instead conveys the sense of his torment with more dignity. He made Rochester seem so real. And I forgot that he was merely an actor, acting his parts.

Young Jane was not remarkable, besides being considerably older than 10 years of age. She played her role quite well, though I think Sian Pattendon (of the 1983 version) did a better job in her expressions of fear and rage. I liked Helen in this version better, however, for she seemed much more friendly than any other Helen I've seen (and only competed with Sorcha for the rate of smiling). Adele too was unremarkable, as was the one in the 1983 version. My favorite Adele was the 1996 version's, where we got more of a sense of the child's personality through her reaction to Rochester's treatment of her. The other charcters were quite mellow, not very different from those in the other versions I've seen. I have never taken a fancy to St. John and the one in this version seemed just as cold, and exacting as could be expected. While the 1996 one was goofy and the 1983 one showed his struggle with feelings for Rosamund, I didn't quite catch his peculiarity in this version.


In all honesty, I did like this version. And I do do do like Jayston! It is just that I had such high expectations for this version. I wished for it to be more than significantly better than the 1983 one, or any other. Above all, I thought that once I watch this, no other version would ever measure up. However, this did not happen. I think the 1983 one was better overall compared to this version, though Jayston is the better Rochester. I found the ending of the 1983 version more satisfactory than the 1973 version. I was disturbed by the sight of Jane in a bright red dress in the 1973 version. Perhaps the director left it till the end, to take a powerful stance. Perhaps, other than Jayston, therin lies its triumph.