So, my last post about Jane Eyre did not alleviate my obsession. What it did do was pave the way for a Jane Eyre marathon with a couple of friends.

I spent from 7 pm Wednesday night to 3 am Thursday morning watching JaneEyre. It was Glorious! (Also a bit unfortunate because I got only 3 hours ofsleep. But I can’t complain because it was waaaay too much fun! J)

We started with the 1983 version starring Timothy Dalton. Great adaptation. Next we moved on to the 1934 Orson Welles version. Did women really talk in those breathy, feathery uber-feminine voices all the time, or were they just movie voices? Then we wrapped up with the 2011 adaptation starring Michael Fassbender.

I can now say with certainty that the 2011 version is my 2^ndleast favorite. Nothing will ever be worse than the William Hurt version. But this was close. I never thought Jane Eyre could be boring, but they managed it. It was dull and boring with too much dead air with the focus on Jane’s brooding. They left out the best bits of their interactions and then expected me to believe that he’s madly in love with her?! When did that happen? Please.

And then there were the close ups of the fire and flowers. I DON’T CARE about the fire getting lit or the flowers on the trees. I don’t need a close up of the match lighting the kindling. And the close up of Jane examining the painting - what purpose did that serve? Just more dead air when NOTHING was happening. That might not be entirely true. She may have heard the laugh when she was looking at the paining. I can't really remember. I do remember thinking the shot was unnecessary. Cut out that crap and add back the gorgeous dialogue that you so stupidly left out. The whole thing just fell flat.

I noticed that they seemed to take their cue from the Orson Welles version and at the end. Rochester wasn’t wounded in any way by the fire other than being blind - and having a truly awful beard. Add to that the disappointing ending that is cut far too short and you have the less than mediocre most recent adaptation of one of the most amazing stories ever written.

*Sigh*…I was warned. A friend I trust told me it was a waste of time. But I had enough other friends who raved about it, I thought I’d give it a chance. At least I can now have an informed opinion about it.

I did like the way it started. It was different and I thought it worked well. Although, when I saw Jane fleeing Thornfield I was unaccountably reminded of hobbits scurrying about on overlarge feet with their cloaks billowing out behind them. And the camera shot following her run down the stairs was reminiscent of the Orc rush down the hill as they are chasing after the Fellowship. That made me giggle.

To be fair, we started this movie at 1:30 am, so some of my impressions may come from being a bit overtired. I will probably watch this version again, but unfortunately you never get a second chance to make a first impression. I’m afraid any future viewing will be tainted by this first experience, even if some of the impressions were influenced by sleepiness.

So, I'm on a Jane Eyre kick.

If you're not interested in Jane Eyre, read no further. That is all this post is about. :) This has been on my mind constantly this last while and I'm hoping that by purging here, I can possibly move on with my literary interests.

I've re-read the book all the way through, then went back and read my favorite parts again. And as I told my hubby, they are best experienced by being read aloud - with the accent. So generally I read alone, so no one is disturbed by my method of enjoyment. :) I love the character and relationship development that can happen in books that can be sometimes difficut to capture on the screen.

It's also fun to watch the many, many film adaptations of the story. I looked it up, and I found 21 adaptations. There are probably more that I didn't come across. That's kinda crazy! But I really enjoy watching the different versions and comparing them all with each other and with the book.

I was observing the other day that Jane Eyre does not seem to have any definitive version that the majority of fans point to and say, "That's my favorite version with the best actors and script." I don't think an adaptation like that exists. There is no definitive Rochester like, say, Colin Firth is Mr. Darcy. Jane is just as hard to pin down. I have a favorite actor for each character and they are in completely different versions made 33 years apart! I have yet to see an adaptation that I can call my favorite. I have a few that I like just about equally, but there are cons to them all that are big enough that I can't say it's my favorite.

My very first film exposure to Jane Eyre was the 1943 version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine. So, while not a terrific adaptation, it holds a special place in my heart. Welles wasn't half bad a Rochester, and I have to say I enjoyed the shots with him stomping about the grounds in the wind with his cloak billowing out behind him. Yeah...

I think the next version I saw was 1983's Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke as the main characters. Now, I think Timothy Dalton is grand, but as Rochester? Really? Did no one read that he's not supposed to be a particularly handsome man? Dalton did a great job (mostly, he did tend to over do it at times) but it was just ridiculous to hear the line asking Jane for a potion to make him more handsome coming from him. He's already got the tall, dark, and handsome going on. What more does he want? And Clarke as Jane emoted about as much as my cabinet door. I read an opinion of a fellow fan who said that Dalton at times over acted because he was acting for two. I find that difficult to disagree with.

Then I found the 1997 Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton version. I didn't like Rochester in this one. His character was portrayed in a way I didn't agree with. But Hinds is very talented and did a great job with what he was given. I find this one to have one of the most touching reunion scenes at the end. Morton as Jane didn't leave much of an impression either way.

And in 1996 someone was ridiculous enough to cast William Hurt as Mr. Rochester. Huge casting bungle if you ask me. I'm not a fan of his anyway. I don't think the man can act to save his life. And he didn't have an accent, or at least not a convincing one. It's set in England; he's an English gentleman. He should have an accent! Charlotte Gainsbourg was Jane. She had some weird accent that kept distracting me. Anna Paquin as Young Jane was the standout in this version. Everything else was easily forgotten - except to harp on its awfulness. :)

My latest discovery, as in just a few days ago, was the 1949 version with Charlton Heston as Mr. Rochester. That one caught me off guard. I associate Heston with Moses and Ben Hur, not Jane Eyre. He wasn't too bad, though. He had the physical presence, but he also tended to overact and instead of it being powerful or touching, it was just funny. And, again, there should be accents! Neither he nor Jane had an accent in this and it was just wrong.

Michael Jayston is my favorite Mr. Rochester. He was in the 1973 version. His performance was fantastic. I discovered this version just about a week ago. I went into it not expecting much and he knocked my socks off. Physically, he's not how I picture Rochester, but he managed to make me forget that with his performance. I think that may also be my favorite script. It was very faithful to the book and has some conversations in there that I've not seen in any other adaptation. It has moments that really shine. But I thought, on the whole, the Jane in that version was awful and the costumes and makeup (poor Rochester was wearing eyeliner (or guy-liner as I've seen it referred to) ugh!) were distracting at times. And in one particularly pivotal scene, trees and shrubbery are obscuring Jane's face. Who made that shooting decision? So, while Jayston is a delight to watch, it's difficult to stomach the movie as a whole.

Ruth Wilson is my favorite Jane. She was in the 2006 adaptation. She had what I felt was the right blend of reserve and spirit to really show who Jane was. And it was a gorgeous film. It was made not too long ago and the advances that have been made in movie making are all too obvious when you compare production values of now to those of the older versions. This one has a good script, too, but I think I like '73's better, but not by much. Rochester is good in this adaptation, too. He played the part well, and I liked him, but he doesn't qualify as a favorite.

I have to admit that I've seen nothing but clips from the 2011 edition of Jane Eyre so I don't have very solid ground to stand on for any sort of criticism or praise. So, I will not comment until I've seen it all.

That makes seven adaptations that I've seen. Only 14 more to go! Hmmm, I don't think I'll ever get around to seeing them all. I don't know that I really want to see them all. I saw a clip from the 1934 version (which I think may be the first film adaptation of the story) that was truly awful and why would I want to see the rest?!

So ends the Jane Eyre rant. I hope to be over my obsession soon.

Drama in the Kuster House

Willie the Whale has gone missing! Willie is 8-year-old Jonathan's Very First Webkins Ever and the loss has proved devastating. There have been tears two nights in a row. Has some misguided do-gooder freed the unfortunate Willie, or is he simply a victim of childish irresponsibility?

UPDATE:

Mom to the rescue! Willie has been located. The small stuffed whale was hiding in the playroom under sundry boxes and toys. There was much hugging and rejoicing at his discovery. Willie is relieved to be home on Jonny's bed. Jonny is equally relieved. "I'm so happy I could cry. And I am crying!" the emotional boy was heard to state as he hugged his mother, adding "You're the best mom a son could have! Even if you do get a little crampy sometimes." [Editorial Note: We believe that he actually meant crabby, but crampy is equally appropriate.]

Jonny's future plans include inviting "a bunch of other scientists and engineers" to come during summer vacation and help him make tracking devices for all his toys. We wish him luck in his endeavors.