Timothy Dalton was very good as Mr. Rochester.

yeeep

@@zmac8689 yes I agree. but this version is my fav

*curt*

You all prolly dont care but does someone know of a way to get back into an Instagram account?? I stupidly forgot the password. I love any help you can give me!

@Johnny Bowen instablaster =)

i like Ciaran Hind's dialogue on this event

@@dj-ux1jr william hurt e Charlotte...

I disagree. It's good but it's not the best version.

The funny thing is, in the book she hears him clattering along on the icy road for ages, so long, in fact, that she has time to withdraw herself into a gap in the hedge so she will not be seen. Of course, that plan goes awry when Rochester goes splat right in front of her

@@chooseyourpoison5105 When the source material is a great book, it doesn't need run of the mill horror elements like jump scares. But the movie makers are rich and making more movies and I am making KZfaq comments so they get the last laugh

Yeah, he's Batman. In the book of course he gallops past and the horse slips on some ice.

he borrowed the technique from Euron Greyjoy.

Loool so rude

When I hear that line I can tell that Mr. Rochester is not in the best moods right now.

haha I get it. He's saying he is her people! She never thought of that!

There is a constant theme of other-worldliness that runs continually alongside the Christian references in the book such as that of the mythical 'gytrash' (Rochester's dog). When Jane returns after visiting her dying aunt Reed, Rochester wryly refers to her as having come from the abode of the dead. Even near the end, Jane 'hears' Rochester calling her across the miles. Yet Christianity runs parallel with these mystical elements all the way through. Loved reading this book.

🤣🤣🤣

Agree! If you pay close attention to Rochester's description in the book, Wells is visually and vocally the closest. Only deviation I found is that Wells is tall, not of 'middle height'.

1st version I saw was Orson Welles.

Thank you, It's my favourite; very menacing and the thick back and white is perfect. Witha very young Elizabeth Taylor.

Not to mention wraith-like little Margaret O'Brien who stole every scene.

Why don't you like her?

@@klematiszromanne2728 She looks like Greta Thunberg

@@avian8338 That's a stupid reason.

lol She is my favorite Jane She does not look like G T

@@l.a.3479 The user seems to be a guy hence in this situation his comment is not worth respecting. Not liking a person solely because if their looks is such a typical comment from a guy towards women whom he only see as an object for men to look at. He’s a failure of a human being please ignore his comment.

Yes. In the book it’s described as her wanting to feel more, to be more alive, so she just wandered through places to places to stay outside a little longer.

In the book it's described as being a bright sunny day, though very cold, and Jane was looking forward to the walk. So all the fog and eeriness here isn't strictly to the book. Nor did she scare Rochester's horse - it slipped on the ice with Jane nowhere near.

I agree

Absolutly the perfect Jane.

That's one of the worst

I did not like toby steven.... the english in that veriosn did not call for that period of time. it felt like a modern day conversation. he did not carry the immagine well either

Who are the stars

Best by far and most true to Jane and Rochester in the book

@@kay-ron625 of course old people with no taste prefer dusty movie with no artistic value whatsoever.. its the worst by far

@@samanthasmith61 I don’t know where you’re getting this assumption that people have to be old to appreciate the 1983 version. It was before I was born. Sometimes more classic versions are better than remakes. Everyone has their own opinion - taste is often subjective. Feel free to have your own without criticising the older population.

@@samanthasmith61 Absolute cringe. Timothy Dalton is too smarmy and the woman... my God. No emotion whatsoever.

@@TaxingIsThieving ew cringe, you don't know what art film is suppose to be.. you have no artistic taste in your bone

I think this scene is extremely dark and serious in the book. "‘Let Miss Eyre be seated,’ said he: and there was something in the forced stiff bow, in the impatient yet formal tone, which seemed further to express, ‘What the deuce is it to me whether Miss Eyre be there or not? At this moment I am not disposed to accost her.’ I sat down quite disembarrassed. A reception of finished politeness would probably have confused me: I could not have returned or repaid it by answering grace and elegance on my part; but harsh caprice laid me under no obligation; on the contrary, a decent quiescence, under the freak of manner, gave me the advantage". One of Jane's paintings is of a drowned woman "Sinking below the bird and mast, a drowned corpse glanced through the green water; a fair arm was the only limb clearly visible, whence the bracelet had been washed or torn." In the novel there is a great amount of wit in this scene, but I think they capture much of that in the film. Most of their lines are taken directly from the text.

@@jaredlind2888 the delivery of a line sets the tone with acting not just the content. Maybe we viewed this scene in a different way in the novel.

I think this scene is full of dark humor! Rochester knew who she was from the accident on the road, so he has the advantage of her, but Jane rises to parry a few times. I know I grin like a lunatic while I’m watching it, at least. And I lol every time I hear him ask “that head I see now on your shoulders?” 😆

@@jpnwtn 🤣 I wanted her to say, in a sarcastic response, "No, it was a different one."

I love this version and her accent and the dialogue is greatly satisfying to me as a writer.

No

This.

Not me

He'd be great

As you might know, the novel is told from Jane's POV. And she's an intelligent, yet desperately lonely young woman. So we get only her impressions of Mr Rochester, with its overtly romantic overtones. He definitely uses Jane's naivety & vulnerabilities against her, and I feel the "punishment" of losing his sight and arm is small compared to his worryingly obsessive tendencies. As long as we remember that real world people *donot* function as fictional, all will be well.

To borrow a Facebook phrase - "it's complicated." He does genuinely love Jane, but he puts himself and his own needs first, which leads to him lying to her. Jane only comes back to him once she inherits her uncle's money and has found her family, and Rochester has lost his eye and hand - in other words, when they are finally on an equal footing and the power imbalance that characterised their relationship earlier no longer exists. As for Adele, he didn't discard her, quite the opposite. She was probably not his daughter (she bears no resemblance to him) but when Rochester hears she is destitute after the death of her mother, his former mistress, he "picked her up out of the slime and mud of Paris" and arranged for her to be cared for. Rochester is an interesting character because he's essentially a good man who does bad things, but redeems himself.

Yep, Rochester is meant to be to a great extent what first appears to be, and turns out to be in the middle, a cold and warped being. Almost his whole life has been an overreaction to realizing his first wife was insane, but perhaps more damningly a complete stranger. I see his narcissistic traits as being fertilized by the hate of himself for his affairs, feeling the essence of love and of healthy relationships slip farther and farther away from him, and knowing he had only himself to blame. Rather than excusing his behavior it simply paints a full view of it, and even Rochester admits all of his faults pretty genuinely once he has the benefit of hindsight. He still fails to execute much self-control or to come clean about ignoring Bertha's existence until the end of the book. So he is pretty squarely deceptive and selfish, but a narcissist is still a person and while that will never entitle them to your mind your heart or your safety, they can still have an arc (preferably while the people in their life watch from a safe distance) and change, like Rochester did. I agree immensely with @TheShillNecked Lizard, that Rochester's a very moldable man, first into depravity then redemption

Read the book if you want to understand. This is one of the worst adaptations.

Exactly. Rochester is narcissistic, even displaying sociopathic behaviour in breaking the law by trying to marry her while being married. He is not at all a dream man, quite the opposite! And it pains me that Jane, who was so abused and never loved, has fallen for him of course... as it is doomed for all who suffered such a childhood as Jane's. Pity.

Thank you I do too!

equally good actors

I love Ruth and Toby, but now I'm intrigued seeing this scene. I may have to watch it for comparison.

her aunty and cousin used to beat her and force her outside. she cant be scared of silly stuff like dark woods ❤

... has no fear as she walks ... ... isn't afraid as she walks ...

A different movie...stay on topic, please.

The book doesn't really give much more.

i disagree, the chapter where Jane and Rochester reunite in the book has incredible dialogue. But it is long and for a movie, it does it take up precious time@@vonBottorff

Thats how they sound in the movie

Michael.

@@arthurmead5341 Yes, that's the only thing that bothers me about this scene. Mia's a great actress, but she sounds too much like a child here.

"High-pitched audio" *Is the normal audio*