On Sunday, I eagerly watched the theater broadcast of the recent U.K. play adaptation of Jane Eyre. It's a 3 hour production directed by Sally Cookson and starring Madeleine Worrall as Jane, Felix Hayes as Rochester, and five other actors playing all the other roles. I thought it would be fun to write a short review of it. I'm sorry. Because this is not short.
During the interval of the broadcast, there was an interview and behind the scenes video about the play, and I really liked what I heard from the director about how she views the story, and how she feels that Jane's journey is the essential feature. It is called Jane Eyre after all. I very much agreed with her on that, and I loved that she felt such a connection to the story and put that love for it into her production. The play is focused on Jane's story as a whole, starting with how she develops, so it was nice to see that all five parts of the book (Gateshead, Lowood, Thornfield, Morton, and Ferndean) get pretty fleshed out (the first three though are really focused on). It was overall a good adaptation and a bold and unique interpretation of the story. But I may have had some minor issues with it.
I wonder that if I had a chance to watch this again, if I would feel as strongly about the things I'm about to mention. Because when I first heard Jane Eyre the Musical I didn't love it, but after listening to the soundtrack a few times - I adored it. So it's possible I just need to get used to some things, and also forget some of my hopes and expectations to really see the piece for what it is because this is not a straightforward adaptation. But anyways. The first thing that struck me with this play was the staging. It's very stark, modern, minimal and theatrical. But I could have done with something a bit more evocative of the time period. This is theater, so I understand that sometimes it's nice to pull back and focus on performance and see the story created by just the actors, but for me, sitting in a theater watching it on a big screen, I felt a little taken out of the story at times by how the background was bland and unexciting. It had the feeling to me of a really good rehearsal. I would have loved a little more theater-level realism to set the stage as it were. When there were some great moments in the play (and there were!) I was so easily distracted by the feeling that these are actors doing a role. It was just something that was at the back of my mind sometimes while watching. I did like some things about the set though. There was real fire coming out from the bottom of the stage. And for a simple constructed set, they made good use of everything and it was very inventive.
Some of the ways they adapted the story felt more like it was there to be modern or innovative and I felt like it would have been better if it was there to serve the story and not just to be an effect. Things like the way the play shows Jane traveling to a new place by the whole cast running in place. It went on for a little longer than necessary. And I felt like they could have just transitioned (*cough* and added more dialogue from the book *cough*). And Rochester's dog Pilot. He was comic relief, because he was played by a person, running around barking, and he was funny, but Pilot isn't in the story that much. It didn't add anything to the story, and must have replaced some things I would have liked to see.
There was music to go along with the action - a live band played background and also played for the mysterious woman who seemed to narrate Jane's inner thoughts through song -turns out the woman was playing Bertha - I actually liked that!- and I also did like the music. Some of the songs that are in the novel was set to music for the show (with some liberties taken with the lyrics) - including my favorite - Rochester's song to Jane. I don't think I've ever seen that done before! That made me so happy! However there were a couple (two that I recognized) modern songs that were sung to illustrate the story and it bothered me that although the songs have some parts that fit with the story (kinda) the lyrics don't completely fit. Like "Mad About the Boy" with one lyric that goes "Lord knows I'm not a school girl/ Who's in the flurry of her first affair" -- but that's exactly what Jane is though.... And then near the end there was "Crazy" - the Gnarls Barkley song which hardly fits if it was sung for Jane. Which it seemed like it was. If it was sung for Bertha, that fits better. It was strange for me though.
These are the things I really liked:
- The Greek chorus of the cast speaking Jane's inner thoughts as if she was having a conversation with herself. I especially liked it when Rochester tells Jane he'll tell her everything when they have been married a year and a day, and the chorus of Jane's thoughts are basically like "What? Are you kidding me??" For me (because Jane does not show her feelings!) it's nice to get that window into her thoughts this way.
- The scene where Jane tells off Mrs. Reed was particularly powerful to me. I loved the real indignation that seemed to emanate from the actress playing Jane. That moment was very believable for me.
- After Jane and Rochester meet, there is this montage of Jane and Rochester sort of seeing each other around the house and watching each other. It showed that they sensed each other's 'strangeness' and were intrigued by each other. Especially because there is that passage in the book where Rochester talks about watching Jane in the early days. It was nice to see that adapted. Pretty much anything that shows Jane and Rochester's connection appeals to me though.
- In a similar vein - Jane and Rochester's engagement scenes appealed to me, because Rochester was trying to give Jane gifts, and Jane kept refusing them. Until he gave her the veil. And she accepted it - only because it would make him happy. Aww.
- The farewell scene emotion-wise was pretty good too. I did wish there was more time spent on Rochester's motivation for what he did (like when Jane says she does believe Rochester would hate her if she were mad, Rochester does not say his answer to that - and I do love that speech.)
Since the cast is small, I want to talk about them individually (because this post is not long enough!)
Madeleine Worrall as Jane. I think she did a tremendous job carrying the whole production with a lot of emotion, and she had to play Jane as a baby into an adult which must not have been easy. I do wish Jane was played by a younger actress though - it is superficial of me, but I feel like Jane's youth makes it easy to understand why she makes the mistakes she does with Rochester. I also thought that it was out of character how overly emotional Jane was at times. When Jane is an adult, she really keeps things locked down tight, on the outside. Madeleine's Jane always seemed on the verge of outburst. Jane is restrained and composed. which makes those moments when her reserve cracks all the more effective. That seemed missing to me in this adaptation. It would have been nice to have seen her inner emotions more from the chorus of Jane's thoughts I think.
Felix Hayes as Rochester. Just superficially again - me no likey the beard haha. But I liked him more as Rochester than I did of Madeleine as Jane. Even though this Rochester showed a bit more anger and bitterness than that teasing side of Rochester that I like, but he did have some funny moments and he did deliver on some teasing. The proposal scene just lacked a little bit in romance because he seemed so angry when he was asking/ordering Jane to marry him. I mean the audience laughed at how aggressive he was, and I feel like the proposal shouldn't really be a funny moment... Felix also played John Reed which was interesting. Should I read some kind of interpretation in that??
 |
| Jane's traveling! |
Simone Saunders as Bessie, Blanche, and Diana. There were two actors I really liked in this production. Simone was one of them. I liked her because I felt like her portrayal of Bessie was so spot on. Just the right amount of temper and tenderness, and she was so believable. And her Blanche was fantastic too. Snooty and entitled. I was really impressed by her acting! Especially because they were such different characters and she was so great at doing all of them.
Craig Edwards as Brocklehurst, Pilot and Mr. Mason. Craig Edwards was the other actor I really loved. I kinda wish he played Rochester! It would have been interesting to see his interpretation. But it was his Brocklehurst that I thought was so good. He just seemed so stiff and forbidding and perfect. And his Pilot was fun, even if I was not as happy with the addition he made to the scenes.
Laura Elphinestone as Helen, Adele and St. John Rivers. Hmm. Helen is Jane's friend, but I didn't really get a sense of Helen's great kindness from this production. It seemed like Helen was really nice to Jane just once, the other two times Helen's conversation with Jane came off a bit begrudging. Adele was weirdly super loud and annoying every time she had a scene. No wonder Rochester didn't want her around. That's probably just the way both characters were adapted perhaps. Laura as St. John was very good though. I loved how uptight and preachy she was as St. John. There was very little sympathy for him as a character though. Not that I do have sympathy for St. John, but Jane does in the book.
Maggie Tagney as Mrs. Reed and Mrs. Fairfax. Maggie was great in both roles. They are such different characters, and Maggie made them very believable as individuals. And they felt true to the characters as they are in the book!
Melanie Marshall as Bertha. Wow, Melanie has a fantastic voice. Such a great range, and it was used to full potential here. Sometimes her singing was high and eerie and served as background, and other times it was jazzy or folksy for whatever served the song. And again, I liked that she was Bertha too. It kind of fit that she was in a way, shadowing Jane throughout her story. But not in the way that Jane and Bertha are similar or have a similar life, but because she will play a role in Jane's life unbeknownst to her.
Well, I think I've written my longest review ever of an adaptation of Jane Eyre! I can be very critical, but I hope I was not overly so. I think this was a good production - I mean there are ones that really get it wrong, but this play does have a lot going for it. A great sense of atmosphere for one. It's like an impressionistic version of the story, and it does portray the emotional beats of the novel well for the most part. And again, I love that the focus is so much on Jane. It's gotten some very good reviews in England, so I think as a piece of theater it must be excellent. And it seemed like a lot of the theater goers when I went enjoyed it. It is a very intriguing interpretation that got me thinking, nevermind my personal hang-ups! :)
If you made it through reading this whole post - congrats!!
0 comments: Comments
Post a Comment