“Jane Eyre (2006)” vs. “Jane Eyre (2011)”
March 14, 2022 | Dara Marie | @thornfield_laneEven though they’re disappointing more times than not, I love watching adaptations after I’ve finished a book. Good or bad, they help me reminiscence the book by providing visuals for characters and settings; they solidify my love for the original material.
Charlotte Brontë’s classic romance novel left such a profound impression on me, I was hesitant to watch any adaptation for fear it would ruin it. Once I had worked up the courage, I watched the two newest—what have been considered the best—versions. I had many thoughts after finishing them and since that’s one of the reasons I created Thornfield Lane in the first place—give my ravenous thoughts a proper home—I now present a view into my brain. I would also like to remind you that this is all my personal opinion. You are more than welcome to disagree.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Jane Eyre (2006) vs Jane Eyre (2011):
Jane Eyre (2006)
This BBC miniseries breaks the story into four hour-long episodes, starring Ruth Wilson as the titular protagonist and Toby Stephens as Mr. Edward Rochester. It received credible acclaim upon its release, being nominated for BAFTAS, Primetime Emmys, and a Golden Globe.
This was the first adaptation I underwent namely because Wilson is one of my favorite actresses; she had already proven my favorite literary characters are safe in her hands through her portrayal of the devious Mrs. Coulter in HBO’s His Dark Materials. This trust proved more than justified in no time: she is stellar as Jane.
While Jane is not an extraordinary or overly fascinating character, she is intelligent, realistically human, and unrelentingly herself. This is not only evident but clearly understood in Wilson’s performance. There is so much heart, so much life in this Jane. At times confident, at others insecure. Often quiet but a thoughtful powerhouse when she speaks: she is everything and more Charlotte could have ever imagined.
I also loved how the series showed the way Jane became more beautiful. She’s described as quite plain and believes herself as thus, but as Rochester loves her, she sees herself as worthy and desirable. These were quick moments in the book but held such emotion for me. The series found subtle ways to slip them in and along with Wilson’s exceptional talent for portraying non-verbal emotions, it’s perfect.
Ruth Wilson as Jane Eyre in Jane Eyre (2006) via BBC
But of course, what is Jane Eyre without the Byronic hero, Edward Rochester? Like Ruth Wilson, Toby Stephens brings more life to Rochester. While still brooding, moody, sarcastic, and, in time, romantic, they did veer from the book with him. They made him more likable, which makes him a less dark character. It definitely worked. I warmed up to his character sooner in the series than I did in the book. I sometimes forget how toxic Rochester could be when I’m thinking of this series rather than the book. I’m at a loss for how I feel about this change since I will always be true to my love for the source material, but I also appreciate tidying his character.
All in all, Stephens does a fabulous job, I believe. His sarcasm flows naturally and he takes on the demeanor of an angered child when provoked which is rather funny and exactly how I often imagine these types of 19th Century male characters.
Despite these changes, I will say Stephens has a fabulous, cocky, smoldering smirk I deeply appreciated; it feels very Rochester, as though he is trying to suppress a bit of mischief.
Toby Stephens as Edward Rochester in Jane Eyre (2006) via IMDb
Individually phenomenal, these powerhouse actors shine together. Their chemistry is tangible. Interactions between Jane and Rochester flow without resistance as they play off each others’ suppressed flirtation. I was a bit unsure of the relationship for a while in the book, trying to feel it out. After the third scene with them, I impatiently wanted them to kiss and proclaim their love.
They’re just so cute together. Yes, I claim to be a writer and just wrote that sentence in a semi-professional blog. But listen, there’s honestly no better way to say it! Wilson’s smile and bright eyes when Jane looks at him are adorable and Stephen’s puppy dog eyes and soft voice are so endearing. Don’t even get me started on the proposal scene… too late! It’s swoon-worthy! The writing, the acting—all of it. It just about melted my heart into a million sappy droplets the first time I watched it. It’s now become my ‘comfort scene’ if I’m having a bad day, trouble sleeping, or just need a dose of hopeless romanticness. If you’ve never seen it and would like a word-for-word recitation, I got you covered. It’s now ingrained in my subconscious.
I loved the epilogue in the book, so I was pleased to see they included a short scene at the end showing them in the future with their children, even if it left out a few details and is a tad bit cheesy.
Maybe it’s because of the actors’ chemistry, or maybe it’s just because it’s expected from a modern adaptation, but the romance is way more physical than the book. I have heard this as a main criticism against the series, and I do understand. It certainly takes liberties not all viewers will appreciate. There’s nothing graphic, but there is a fair amount of kissing and cuddling. Their ‘break-up’ scene after the called-off wedding occurs while they make out on Jane’s bed. She climbs atop him for kisses after agreeing to marry him at the end. Some of it took me by surprise and I’m sure would make Charlotte Brontë blush. All I can say is, yet ready for a lot of PDA with this one.
At least their feelings are clear, though. Through jealousy and denial, the characters’ attachments are unmistakable.
Ruth Wilson as Jane Eyre and Toby Stephens as Edward Rochester in Jane Eyre (2006) via Fanpop
Another main criticism I’ve heard against this series is the dialogue being more modernized. Trust me, I was just as concerned as you are before watching it but it’s honestly not as bad as it sounds. They don’t use slang or ‘text language’, it’s just not as stilted as authentic 19th-Century dialogue. I personally didn’t take any issues with it as there were plenty of other aspects I felt meritable and close to the book. Even though it’s not an exact word-for-word, it’s a very close summary. The screenwriter’s high school English teacher would still flag them for plagiarism if they hadn’t cited it right.
When it comes to book adaptations, I believe the run time should mirror the content’s complexity/content: a shorter, simpler book needs a shorter adaptation; a longer, more complex book needs a longer adaptation. Four hours to tell an over five-hundred-page story is reasonable in my opinion. It allows the needed time to develop both characters and plot. And they do. They get the main plot points in with minimal compromises and changes. Pacing is a major downside, though. It can be strange to say the least, especially at the beginning. Her childhood is rushed to the point of feeling choppy. I was pretty concerned for the first twenty minutes on my first watch.
Only fifteen minutes are dedicated to her childhood; by the twenty-five-minute mark, she’s grown up, left Lowood, started teaching Adele, and just encountered Mr. Rochester on the road for the first time (a solid 140 pages in the book).
In addition, the cinematography isn’t great. There are several nightmare/flashback sequences that are cheesy to the point of cringey. It feels a bit dated in its editing and camera work, along with feeling dusty. Despite being BBC, the quality leaves things to be desired. Its age (16 years) is evident.
Toby Stephens as Edward Rochester and Ruth Wilson as Jane Eyre in Jane Eyre (2006) via We Heart it
For all its flaws, I really love this adaptation. It is a comfort watch for me. I may be partial to it since it was the first version I watched and stars one of my favorite actresses, but I honestly feel warmed and happy every time I watch it. Or even any time I think about it. The proposal scene lives rent-free in my mind 24/7. I picture their faces when thinking of the characters.
Jane Eyre (2011)
The most recent adaptation is the 2011 feature film starring Mia Wasikowska as Jane, Micheal Fassbender as Mr. Edward Rochester, and Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax. It received both Oscar and BAFTA nominations for Costume Design.
The first thing to say about this film is it is visually stunning. I was immediately blown away by so many gorgeous camera shots with vibrant colors; the muted greens in the forest, the misty dawn blue that filled the room after the fire scene, and the sunlight spilling through the trees during the proposal were a visual treat. The costumes likewise were incredibly well-made and I can see why they were nominated for awards. Thornfield Hall is stunning and makes me wish it was a real place I could visit. While I picture the actors from (2006) for the characters, I imagine (2011)’s imagery and setting when reminiscing the book. (And I think you’d be surprised how often I do).
Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre in Jane Eyre (2011) via The Guardian
I love a bit of artistry in film editing, so I appreciated the dual timeline; starting the movie with her running away from Thornfield and jumping back and forth from her childhood and Thornfield to her time with St. John. It was unexpected and well-executed. It spiced up the plot a bit without being overly confusing.
The soundtrack is enough to send you to la-la land. It’s simply gorgeous—soft, beautiful, emotional. I’ve started turning it on for background music while reading and writing and I just love it. Sadly, I think the music is more expressive than the characters.
Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre in Jane Eyre (2011) via Creative Criticism
Physically, Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender were perfectly cast. They closely match Brontë’s description of the mousy governess and brooding master. And yet, I hated their acting. So much. It felt so stiff. So fake. I wanted to slap life into them.
For instance, the scene when Rochester’s bed is on fire was painful to watch because neither Jane nor Rochester seemed widely concerned. Silly audience for being concerned; this is just a normal Tuesday evening at Thornfield Hall, didn’t you know? Even in the proposal, I was inwardly begging for them to have an ounce of conviction in their voices. It was all so formal, which, to be fair, is pretty British and 19th-Century, but at least I heard inflections in my head when reading the book.
I’d really enjoyed Fassbender in The Light Between Oceans (2016) and Macbeth (2015), but man, I thought this Rochester was horribly dislikeable. He was on the verge of being verbally abusive to Jane and I didn’t feel there was much inkling towards his true feelings for her. And yes, this is more true to the book, but I didn’t feel there was any redemption in this Rochester. There wasn’t much of a moment when I felt, “Wow, he really loves her.” I thought, “Wow, he really doesn’t want her to leave,” when he was screaming into the wind after she ran away but that’s about it.
Meanwhile, Jane felt dead and monotone. Yes, I’m aware she can read that way on the page, but she’s also witty and insightful and full of life. There was no spark of life in this Jane.
Michael Fassbender as Edward Rochester in Jane Eyre (2011) via Austen Prose
That being said, the scene when Jane leaves Rochester was fabulously done. It was a time Mia’s quietness shined through. It made Jane seem like she was trying to shut out her emotions so she wouldn’t break down which is fairly understandable at that point while Fassbender’s persistence felt true to the book. At past the halfway point, it was the first scene that truly moved me due to characters.
Along with the “breakup” scene, the reunion was heartwarming. Rochester genuinely looked beaten down and worn as he was supposed to (no offense to 2006, but Toby Stephens looked pretty much the same). Their embrace simultaneously broke and warmed my heart.
For a romance movie, the ending scene was the only time I genuinely thought the characters had chemistry. The stiff acting made it difficult to connect to them and root for them. It was just, kind of heartless. Not to say it was mean. It was just, without soul. It does not have as much heart and as much soul as Jane Eyre.
Michael Fassbender as Edward Rochester and Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre in Jane Eyre (2011) via Times of Malta
As I previously mentioned, a huge factor for me in book adaptations is their run time. The book is over five hundred pages long, and that’s a lot to have to get through in a two-hour-long film. Because of this, a fair amount was cut from the book. You don’t see a lot of the beginning and I am deeply upset they cut out the gypsy scene. It’s one of the wildest (and funniest and most iconic and genuinely one of my favorite) parts of the book! But, with the film as cinematic as it is, I could see how such an eccentric scene might not fit well.
I also felt the ending was abrupt. While I loved the reunion scene, I was not expecting it to just cut so suddenly. I literally blinked and said, “Wait, what?” when the credits started rolling. I rewind-ed to make sure my laptop hadn’t glitched. I was sad the epilogue was never even glimpsed at. Come on, I want to see two of my favorite characters having a happy life together. Is that too much to ask?
Having concluded my breakdowns, it may seem I have a clear favorite.
Ok, I do.
As I’ve said, Jane Eyre (2006) is very near and dear to my heart. But I don’t want to completely dismiss Jane Eyre (2011) and bash on it. They’re just two very different adaptations, focusing on different things. I love the actors’ characterizations and chemistry in (2006), but am blown away by (2011)’s cinematography. I love artistic films, but the story of Jane Eyre doesn’t call for it. It’s simple, so let it be simplistic. The novel is about a normal woman trying to make her way through life in the 19th century without money or beauty, never intending to find love. The story’s heart is its characters. So focus on that.
I know it’s futile to say I hope no further adaptations of Jane Eyre are made. As with many classic works, it’s been remade again and again and it’s only a matter of time before a new one comes out. I can only hope that the future film or miniseries closely considers the strengths and weaknesses of its predecessors. If done with care, I believe it would be the greatest one yet.
At the time this is published (March 7, 2022), Jane Eyre (2006) is available to stream on Hulu and Jane Eyre (2011) can be rented on Amazon Prime Video if you’re interested in either.
Which is your favorite Jane Eyre adaptation? Is there another adaptation I should watch? I'd love to hear from you! You can connect with me through thornfield.lane@gmail.com or on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok (soon!), and Twitter: @thornfield_lane. 