News0 min ago
jayne eyre
5 Answers
on sunday night's episode, the fortune teller came to see the ladies in the house, watched secretly by Mr rochester.
It's year's since i read this book, but I thought Rochester himself was the fortune teller - dressed up. Have I remembered it wrong?
It's year's since i read this book, but I thought Rochester himself was the fortune teller - dressed up. Have I remembered it wrong?
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by crisgal. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, you've remembered it right. In the book it is Rochester himself who dresses up as the fortune teller. I always thought it was unrealistic though - like the 'how can't Lois Lane see Clark Kent is Superman' type thing. Maybe the producers or screenwriters thought the same?! x
Haven't watched the adaptation though - has it been good? I bet Toby Stephens makes a brilliant brooding Rochester ; )
Clem xx
Haven't watched the adaptation though - has it been good? I bet Toby Stephens makes a brilliant brooding Rochester ; )
Clem xx
yes that is correct, and he reveals his identity to jane as they sit infront of the fire talking, jane sees the ring and knows before he removes the headgear. How could the story change so much that a totally new chatacter appears? I.E. a real fortune teller, that turns the whole point of the scene around, i don't follow.
dot, how does it turn the point of the scene around? I don't see what you're getting at. Rochester wants to see everyone's reactions and he still achieves this even though he's hiding rather than acting as the fortune teller.
The adaptation has, to my mind, so far been excellent. It's very atmospheric and conjures the slightly other-worldly environment of the house very well, yet it also has a subtle up-to-date feel too. This would have made that fortune-telling scene very jarring had they stuck with Rochester dressing up. In the spirit of this adaptation the way they handled that scene was spot-on. Crisgal, bear in mind one is a book, the other is a TV drama. The TV version has to stand up on its own and it can't just simply be the book transferred scene by scene intact. This scene indicates how a good adaptation should work.
I'm in love with Ruth Wilson, who plays Jane. Such assurance for someone just out of drama school. And she's so unconventionally beautiful, just as (in my mind) Jane should be. Those amazing eyebrows! And that slightly protruding top lip is SO cute! But I am watching it because it's good, not just to ogle her, honest.
The adaptation has, to my mind, so far been excellent. It's very atmospheric and conjures the slightly other-worldly environment of the house very well, yet it also has a subtle up-to-date feel too. This would have made that fortune-telling scene very jarring had they stuck with Rochester dressing up. In the spirit of this adaptation the way they handled that scene was spot-on. Crisgal, bear in mind one is a book, the other is a TV drama. The TV version has to stand up on its own and it can't just simply be the book transferred scene by scene intact. This scene indicates how a good adaptation should work.
I'm in love with Ruth Wilson, who plays Jane. Such assurance for someone just out of drama school. And she's so unconventionally beautiful, just as (in my mind) Jane should be. Those amazing eyebrows! And that slightly protruding top lip is SO cute! But I am watching it because it's good, not just to ogle her, honest.
1 to 5 of 5
