To Thornfield Hall - a review of Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre

Recently (over the course of last month), I've been on a Jane Eyre craze. To be honest, this blog was been partially responsible for it; once I felt the urge to learn more about the story, book, movies, and author, I realized I might be able to turn it into an article, and from there it was a matter of time before I gave in and watched four movies and read the whole book. 😅

It all began when I was back at my mom's place, and we sat down to watch a movie together. She was sure we had watched Jane Eyre before, but after a careful check, it turned out we had only watched Pride and Prejudice (The BBC version is the best, by the way), Sense and Sensibility, and Emma. So, we went ahead and watched the 1996 version of Jane Eyre. I enjoyed the story, it being new to me, but I didn't feel that was the best version out there—something felt off. When I heard there was a BBC-produced version, I expressed a wish to watch that too and compare the two. And that what we did, over the course of the next few days. However, it.. came nowhere close to the Pride and Prejudice movie produced by BBC - it did seem more faithful to the book, but it was still a mess, with characters coming off flat and one-dimensional.

That's when I resolved to read the book. And read I did! I got the English version from Standard Ebooks—a superb edition, with no typos to offend or distract, just the pure story in easy-to-use CC0-licensed epub format that Calibre likes—and while reading it, I also watched the 2011 and 1996 versions of the movie—thus managing to watch the last 4 movie adaptations of Jane Eyre.

And... I am honestly appalled at how far the movies depart from the book.

The book, Jane Eyre, is fantastic. The characters are rich in depth, Jane Eyre herself popping off the page with her education, compassion, willingness to sacrifice, bluntness, and self-reflection.
The movies are not as fantastic.. The only way in which they are better are that the movies are definitely shorter than the book—but if that's the measure you use to judge a work's quality, you may find a blank canvas on a wall more fit the moment of time it would take to inspect it (with no undue offense to any modern artists, of course 😁 😁).

⚠️ This article contains plenty of spoilers for Jane Eyre. You have been warned—read the book first to appreciate things fully. ⚠️

^An abstract "woven" pattern of blue, green, and yellow, to hopefully serve as a spoiler deterrent
An abstract "woven" pattern of blue, green, and yellow, to hopefully serve as a spoiler deterrent

Highlights of the book

The book is also deeply Christian—as evidenced by many references to Biblical story and morals throughout. There's mentions of apostles, leviathans, even a potential allusion in how Jane takes three days to fully recover (and awaken to a new life, in a sense) at one point—and that's even ignoring the direct mention of "Calvinistic doctrines" in summarizing a sermon, which one needs to be somewhat familiar with to appreciate the scene better.

Brontë does highlight, in places, the corruptness of certain church officials, or the dissolution of certain morals—and the movies are quick to capture those parts, near-verbatim.
Yet, Jane Eyre holds fast to an firmly rooted faith in a loving God, whose law she should keep despite the temptations life throws her way. This is something mainly delivered through Jane's inner dialogue, and subsequent actions

The scene in which Jane's faith comes out the clearest, in my opinion, would be the scene where she decides to flee Thornfield and Mr. Rochester, despite their mutual affection for each other, upon discovering he is already wed with a wife still living. She does not do that simply out of propriety or shallow fear of other people's opinions, or even fear of civil laws. She doesn't even do it out of worry that such a relationship would fall apart before long—though she does note that concern. She does it, ultimately, out of a deep understanding of what is right, and just. She leaves Mr. Rochester, heart and mind at odds, resolved to not give in to the temptation to stay with the one she loves, for the greater affection she holds for God. And reading that fictional account in the book, I find myself encouraged that, yes, it is possible to avoid the temptations in one's life, no matter how deeply rooted they are.

Naturally, all of this is hard to convey in a movie. Narrating Jane's thoughts at key moments is an option, and the 1997 movie did experiment with including narrative passages from the book. However narrating this scene, Jane's flight from Thornfield, which is the very climax of the story, would be a terrible case of telling and not showing, and would probably ruin the movie then and there. Moreover, it's easy to boil down Jane's character to simply one rebellious against social custom, which doesn't help with portraying her as obedient to a higher law.

Conveying characters

In the movies, Miss Blanche Ingram is perhaps the only character conveyed properly, and that's only because she is about as flat in the book, being primarily characterized by her natural beauty, her horse riding skills, and her mother's scheming to marry her into wealth. And yet, even she is not perfectly captured on camera, as while in the books she entertains Adele (Mr. Rochester's adopted daughter) at least once, in the movies she shows an utter disdain for children, demanding that Adele be sent to school the moment she shows up.

But overall, I feel the biggest differences in how characters are portrayed between the book and the movies can be found in the characters of Mr. Brocklehurst and Mr. Rochester.

Mr. Brocklehurst

Mr. Brocklehurst is the parson in charge of the school where Jane is sent off to be far away from her hateful aunt. He can be noted for his sternness towards children; sternness to the point of humiliation. He is universally presented as a bad school director—which is further evidenced by the plain uniforms the student-girls at Lowood are required to wear, which are devised to be so plain that they would learn to be humble (as if pride came from possessions or fine clothing, when it's really a problem of the heart!).

That's where the movies stop, however. Directors love the scene when Mr. Brocklehurst is first introduced, drilling young Jane on her understanding of hell and learning from her aunt that Jane is a "liar", a accusation he immediately takes at face value. They also enjoy the scene when Mr. Brocklehurst then repeats the accusation against Jane in front of her schoolmates and punishes her to stand on a chair.
And by leaving us with only that impression of the parson, we are left thinking that he is perhaps some religious freak or some ruthless abuser of children like the Mr. Squeers of Nickolas Nickleby.

Yet, the book shows us a fuller picture of Mr. Brocklehurst, by presenting a further three scenes with him:

First off, there's the scene in which all girls of Lowood are required to attend Brocklehurst's church services, both morning and afternoon, every Sunday, no matter weather and season. It's mentioned in passing, but I like how it shows the devotion to himself that Mr. Brocklehurst expects from everyone.

Then, there's the time where Brocklehurst and his wife and daughters visit the school—and we see all three of them dressed in opulent, luxurious fabrics (in stark contrast to Mr. Brocklehurst's preaching about humble dresses), and distancing themselves from the poor girls at the school, hurrying to get out of that place. (And once typhus breaks out, not even Brocklehurst, for all his supposed religiousness, dares visit the school.) In that we see Brocklehurst's facetiousness, which is nearly absent in the movies.

And finally, as a book exclusive, we get to see the result of Brocklehurst's mismanagement of the school—once the public learns of the poor conditions kids are subject to there, Mr. Brocklehurst's position as a director is promptly replaced by a board that gradually improves the school. While this doesn't offer us more of Mr. Brocklehurst's character, we do get to see the effects of his actions—and how the injustice dealt by him does not go unchecked forever.

All of that cements what Mr. Brocklehurst's problem is: not that he is overly religious (for indeed, if he were, he would not oppress the orphan, as James 1:27 makes clear), but that he is proud, uncaring, unloving; self-centered, treating others with disdain, yet expecting respect from them.

Mr. Rochester

Mr. Edward Rochester is another character who gets the short straw in movies—which is baffling, considering that he is Jane's love interest and the secondary character of the book.

The movies do well to capture Rochester's faults: his short temper, his unfortunate story, his attempt to distract himself from his first marriage by courting other women, far away from home. But they don't do as great of a job in covering Mr. Rochester's perfections.

Sure, the movies capture the way Edward treats others liberally and as equals, especially Jane, who even remarks her surprise when he asks her how she is feeling about the work as a governess. Yet we don't fully see the gentleman-like qualities of Mr. Rochester, apparent in the book: the way he treats his guests, making sure they lack nothing; the way he is true to his word as a matter of principle; even the way he is unwilling to soil his "flower", Jane, by forcing her to be his mistress.

More crucially, the movies have a hard time capturing the way Mr. Rochester loves Jane—how he is not lusting after carnal beauty, after riches or status, not even after industry and hard-working craft. Instead, he is longing for a fellow soul he can converse with, confide in, find sympathy and truth in, hear justification and critique from, and share in mutual feeling, understanding, and intelligence. The book stresses how all of that he has failed to find in his prior relationships, but finds much of in Jane Eyre, and how it's what binds him to her.

The book delivers Mr. Rochester's explanation of all of this, over the course of multiple conversations and through Jane's analysis in inner monologue. But in the movies, we find a Mr. Rochester struck by how direct Jane is, and then driven by an unexplained, irrational feeling for her—a faint shadow of the rationale and passion of the book—but, alas, there's only so much that could fit in 120 minutes.

On the topic of Edward's love for Jane, I can't help but mention another omission that the movies make. In the book, as Jane is preparing for her marriage with Edward in less than a month, Jane decides to test Mr. Rochester's love for her, she herself being secure in knowing her affection for him—for which she resolves to displease him to see his reaction—perhaps inspired by Mrs. Fairfax's warning that there is a darker side to Mr. Rochester. And we can see Jane is clearly intentional in what she does, as she can hardly resist not caressing and comforting Mr. Rochester whenever she teases him.
The movies, instead, make various other uses of Edward's and Jane's time before the wedding. Depending on the director, Jane is either prim and serious and dedicated to her work to the point of ignoring the upcoming wedding until the very last day, or she and Edward are passionate, spending the whole month as lovers in caresses and kisses and intimacy and planning. Either one is not what the book suggests: a time when passions are tested, so that things that are temporary might be revealed, and only what's permanent remain.

Other characters

In the movie adaptations, St. John and his sisters are generally true to the book, though St. John's aspirations for India are never presented in the depth they are in the book, nor is Jane's admiration for his faith ever mentioned.

The Mrs. Reed's daughters, Jane's cousins, are dedicated a bit more time in the book than the movies, and the author explores how they turn out after they all grow up. Over her stay with them before and after Mrs. Reed's death, Jane manages to slowly befriend them, though she finds their conversation lacking in richness of topics. The movies leave them out for the most part, which is fair, as they don't end up impacting the story much.

Adèle is a bit of a mixed bet. Some of the movies portray her as more affectionate, some as more vain, others as more childish; with different movies deciding whether they want her speaking more French or more English overall. I don't remember her having a particularly marked character in the book itself, so I don't think I can judge the movies on that.

Yet, I wish that the characters and morals of the book were visible in the movies moreso than just the basic storyline and plot—even for the 2-hour limitations of the format—for I find most of the book's enjoyment came from the characters, the internal dialogues, and especially in the way Jane Eyre finds some morsel of goodness in people around them and the way the author explores the root of character's sins, so that we can, however briefly, sympathize with them in our own fallenness, yet understand that they are reaping the rewards of their actions and choices to keep walking in those same sins, whether pride, greed, lust, or something else.

The movies

As for reviewing the individual movies:

Conclusion

And that, dear reader, concludes my review of Jane Eyre. Truly a classic of English literature, a romance novel covering social commentary issues of the day like other great classics of its era, yet so full of great characters and so deft at analyzing them!
And as a bonus, if you read the original English text (from Standard Ebooks! It's such a good edition!), you will get to learn a lot of words related to French (surtout, debarrass), to Greek/neo-Platonist ideals (sublunar, hierophant), and to now-rare practice of physiognomy; all little treats for the logophile, scattered throughout the book.

Errata 2025-10-09: An earlier version of this article had "Ms. Rosalyn" instead of "Miss Blanche Ingram". This has been corrected 😅

|← Articles tagged books (1/1) →|

Articles tagged 100DaysToOffload (24/27)

Articles on this blog (31/34)