That’s all, not a word about the novel. After all, plenty of volumes have been written on this theme, and my aim was to write a brief report about BBC miniseries, shot in 1983; the series, which according to IMDb, is considered to be the best novel screen version up to nowadays.

Nevertheless, my first impression after the watching was middling, that’s why I suggest start with criticizing the movie.

When the movie was still the miniseries, it consisted of 11 half-an-hour series, while now it’s sold as a single (though a bit reduced) whole, lasting for a bit longer than 4 hours; i.e. all the series are joined into one whole and the variant we’ve got is approximately an hour shorter. All this makes the narration dynamics rather strange. Each half an hour there happens one very emotional scene, the aim of which is to finish one more seria and make us long for the continuation; but the intervals are rather blurred. Besides, the film seems to be reduced at the expense of its second part, as it looks completely sketchy. It would be interesting to watch it as "a whole" perhaps it would have made the impression better. The following shots are lacking in the variant I’ve got:

The second point is that the action partially reminds not the movie, but the TV-play. I don’t know about the others, but it’s an annoying factor for me. By the way, both actors, playing the main roles (I mean Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke) have come to the movie world from the theatre.

And, finally, there is some confusion in the film, rather funny indeed. For example, after the fire-scene in Mr. Rochester’s room, Jane, all so romantic, departs to her room to spend the rest of the night in Mr. Rochester’s cloak; and in the morning she meets R. in this very clothing. Mind that they are concealing the fact of night meeting from everyone, haven’t seen each other after it, and no single servant could have passed this cloak to the master without suspecting of anything. (The idea was taken from here).

Here the main criticism is over; it’s high time to start praising.

First of all, selection of the actors for the main roles is great. Jane Eyre in Zelah Clark’s performance is a wonderful and very organic creature. The only rebuke in her address I’ve ever met, is that she’s too nice, while Jane in the novel called herself plane. Well, firstly, Jane Eyre could have rather low opinion about her own appearance; secondly, Zelah Clark is surely not Isabel Adjani. So I suggest not taking this failing into account. The thing I really appreciated is the interpretation of Jane’s character. The book left the impression that Jane is serious and reserved; while Z.C. managed to make Jane absolutely different: without changing any word, she made her charming and merry, though rather shy. Generally, the hit is direct.

I liked Timothy Dalton as Mr. Rochester less. Strictly speaking, his acting is good, but from time to time he "overdoes". Let us take, for example, his sobbing in the library after Jane leaves him. Besides he’s too handsome and can’t fail to know about it, - while women love Mr. Rochester only for money. Nevertheless I do recommend him to you. Some places are so well-read by him, that it expiates all the rest.

The second plus is the positivism of the perusal. All the troubles of Jane’s life are shown in a very brief way, and even Mr. Rochester is not awful, but quite all right in the end. This story is about love, and not about hardships and humiliations. This is also an undoubted plus.
Thirdly, the movie is very English according to its spirit. It’s constantly raining, or not raining at al, - but the weather is irreproachable. All of them are drinking tea, brought on typical English tea-trays by typical English maids. Everybody is looking through the windows at typical English landscapes, brightened up with no color correction. No one is in a hurry, except the producer in the movie’s fourth part. Thornfield, the castle, where the main part of the action is taking place, seems to be very stern (as it should be) outside, and very cozy inside. I was completely charmed with the stage, when Jane gets to the castle for the first time.

Perhaps, something else should be added about the rest of the actors, but nothing comes to my mind. Two main heroes, appearing on the screen for the major time-period, are the basis of the movie; it makes all other actors stay in the background and doesn’t give any impression of them. I liked the girl in the part of Jane as a child (Sian Pattenden), Judy Cornwell, acting as Mrs. Rid; I didn’t like sisters Mary and Diana (they’re not interesting), and, finally, Madam Rochester could have been made more frightful. She’s brilliantly described in the book – red eyes, blue face…. And here we see just a shaggy haired woman, not frightful at all.

Well, it’s high time to finish, that’s why here’s the conclusion:
As an independent creation the movie is not obligatory for watching, only if you’re a fan of Timothy Dalton or a great lover of romantic rubbish. But do watch it as the screen version of your favorite novel. Everything concealed behind the shot is supposed to be known by the viewer. And everything you’ll see is a perfect picture-addition to the book. As for me, I like well illustrated books.

The story of the actress Zelah Clarke
About the series on the official Timothy Dalton site