Books to Movies: Jane Eyre and So Many Versions

This A-Z List looks at movies made from books. From books by B authors I have read, I selected Bronte's Jane Eyre. 

Problem: Does a viewer have to choose? 

I have a theory that part of survival--at the evolutionary level--IS the ability to compare and contrast: That's a stick, not a threat. That's a snake; it's a threat! That's a particular type of snake, so not a threat.

Consequently, unfortunately, human beings at the "natural man" level seem obsessed with taking this survival trait and applying it to every human endeavor--deciding what's better and what's worse about people, causes, and art. Social media didn't create this insta-judgment approach to life. But it took the tendency to go right for the jugular and pushed it to the extreme. 

And truthfully, assessing, comparing, judging variations between artistic endeavors is part of the fun of art. What makes something good or bad? Why does something work? Why is AI writing so horrible? Why are colleges accepting it as a standard? What exactly is the conspiracy here? 

However, I'm not sure rankings and stars and thumbs-up and reviews and so on and so forth are always necessary. They seem to have replaced discussions ABOUT art with proclamations of positions.   

There are too many Jane Eyre movies and series to count. I have seen many of them. I honestly cannot say that one version is vastly superior to all the others. I can say that I like bits and pieces of all of them.  

Jane Eyre with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine: Orson Welles in my mind captures the look and energy of Rochester almost perfectly. That dressing gown!

Jane Eyre with Clarke and Dalton: The actors seem to "get" the characters. Zelah Clarke has the waif-like look. In addition, Timothy Dalton more than any of the other Rochesters appears to grasp Rochester's fundamental self-consciousness, which often gets lost behind the bombast (see Orson Welles). Bicknell's portrayal of St. John Rivers is also, to my mind, one of the most accurate--and thoroughly chilling.

Jane Eyre with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson: Comes closest to presenting a consistent yet creative interpretation of the book. Stephens and Wilson fit each other in a happy-to-be-alive way that I truly appreciate. 

Many of the other versions haven't lingered in my memory because they were wildly anachronistic or the vibe simply wasn't there. I remember William Hurt because I always remember William Hurt, but I recommend Accidental Tourist first. 

The answer to the above question is...

No! 

The more versions, the merrier the viewer. After all, much of the fun is comparing and contrasting different interpretations, not for the sake of rankings but for the sake of the harder question: How does one put a book to film? 

And--What enchants us about a particular story?