Running 1:24, about 15 minutes shorter than the 1993 film, this one cut out much more of the plot, apparently by design as much as necessity. We never see Antoinette's traumatic childhood experiences or her convent-school education; she mentions them briefly later.After a lead-in scene previewing her time at Thornfield, the movie begins with Antoinette meeting Rochester for the first time. Some of its main drawbacks are immediately apparent. Antoinette, despite her West Indies upbringing, is portrayed as speaking with a native English accent (with occasional hints of Scots); she also comes across as more cheery and self-assured than in the book. Meanwhile, Rochester's brusque, rapid mumbling is often hard to understand.This production focuses almost exclusively on the one main relationship, with far less effort devoted to adding island "flavor" or other atmospheric components. Scenes of Antoinette and Rochester dominate the screenplay: their excitement at meeting and marrying each other, their passionate physical encounters, their later conflicts as Rochester grows uncertain about her background and his situation. We see a bit less of the scheming Christophine and the seductive Amelie and only the tiniest evidence of other servants. Daniel Cosway, bearer of secrets about Antoinette's past, appears suddenly, rather than making himself known to Rochester through letters. It all feels a bit rushed.Labeled NR (Not Rated), the film contains a few bits of female frontal nudity, some naked bodies placed strategically so nothing much shows, and lots of shadowy groping and panting.This film features some beautiful scenery and nice production values (film angles, lighting, costumes, etc.). Due to its questionable portrayals and abbreviated plot lines, though, I wouldn't recommend it as highly as the 1993 version.

Like other 'dominant' cultures, or ex-imperial cultures, some fair play – that British favourite – is more fair than others. That 'Jane Eyre' is practically a part of our national identity is an example of not so fair play. Jean Rhys, who wrote "Wide Sargasso Sea", certainly thought so: it's clear historically that she brooded and brooded on how she might tell a different story; how she might address the imbalance of the unfair representation of Creole people as shown in 'Jane Eyre'.Rhys takes a story which the British might be said to have taken to their hearts, and turns you around and around it, and re-presents it to you, stripped of its familiar historical and cultural associations, rendered uneasy, disturbing even, by the lack of a secure, firm, knowledgeable base from which to view the new circumstances. Edward Rochester the hero, the charming and dangerous man, the verbose, quick-witted soul-mate of poor, plain Jane Eyre: take him out of his moral context, Victorian Britain; take away his supports: his house, his past, his father; put him in a place where only lately has the abomination called slavery come to a formal end; where plants threaten to engulf you, where beauty is intoxicating, and where one's reputation swims in the hot breeze; and you create a different man.In laying bare the horror that lies underneath a great Gothic romance story, Rhys was stripping our eyes of its assorted veils. It seems to me that in this world she creates, Rochester is Britain; and Antoinette is the West Indies: beautiful, exotic, other, misunderstood, abused, damaged, robbed, abandoned by the curiosity, idleness, greed and arrogance of a people who thought themselves superior.More fool me: I haven't read the book; so I have no idea how faithful or otherwise this adaptation is to it. It looked good; it kept you watching; it was well cast. Most importantly, it brings this unique perspective to vibrant life. "Wide Sargasso Sea" serves to remind me that Antoinette's story, her background, her upbringing, her life and what happens to her, is just as much a part of my British 'heritage' as the wild moorland and English gentleman's world of Edward Rochester in 'Jane Eyre'. What Antoinette becomes is monstrous. Slavery was monstrous, and the wholesale rape of the Caribbean for the profit of the very few was equally monstrous. But handsome Rochester is monstrous too: the callous appetites of the society of which he is part help make him so.This certainly makes for uneasy viewing; the altered angle is deeply unsettling, and uncovers some decidedly unpleasant truths about the attitudes of Victorian men – or of white people you might say. You won't forget this version of events: it alters forever the place Mr Rochester occupies in literary, romantic and even social history. But most importantly, it tells HER story. Jane Eyre was poor, plain and little. Antoinette was rich, beautiful, and tall. But both were victims of other people's appetites and greed. This drama showed this expertly.

This adaptation of Jean Rhys's book is very lively, colourful and full of excellent acting. It tells the story of Edward Rochester, before he meets Jane Eyre. He is in the Caribbean, where he falls in love with and gets married to the beautiful young Antoinette. But he discovers the dark secret of her past, and slowly becomes wary of her emotions. The part of Rochester was very well acted by Rafe Spall, though not as well as Toby Stephens in the recent BBC dramatisation of Jane Eyre. Thought some parts didn't seem completely true to Bronte's Jane Eyre, the outline of the "woman in the attic" story is here and proves a useful prologue to the main story.

Having always been an avid lover of Jane Eyre, picking it apart in Eng. Lit. A-level was a painful and disillusioning experience, as Charlotte Bronte's startling racism is exposed, and you realise just how annoying Jane really is. The BBC 1 adaptation of the book has helped restore my love of the story, but THIS drama was truly inspiring. The doomed love affair was splendidly crafted. Edward Rochester, young, moody, disregarded by his family is coerced into marrying Antoinette Cosway-Mason, a beautiful, innocent girl of creole descent. After the initial passion, whispers of Antoinette's heritage, her promiscuity, and rumours of her mad murderous mother come to drive Rochester away from his wife. When he finds her beating a servant (who previously was abusing her mistress' non-white, non-black background), Rochester starts to believe in her hereditary madness, and becomes repulsed with the islands, their exotic honeymoon home and his ethnic wife. Rochester here seemed more moody than his older, chattering counterpart, but you have to remind yourself that this is the young man as he was, and it was refreshing to hear his perspective as well. 'Bertha's character by Rebecca Hall was sublime: shown with such sincerity, passion; complete, even down to the nuances of the regionally-indefinable accent. There are so many moving lines in this short drama. The scene where she yells 'My name is ANTOINETTE!' was gut-wrenching. When Antoinette reveals her mother's true story, we believe the rift is healed, and trust restored. Yet the unwise use of a love potion convinces him again of her betrayal, and his lust and vengeance lead to a powerful scene where Antoinette slumps against the door of her bedroom wherein her husband is -literally- banging the maid.Marvellous to watch, the loose camera-work and exotic locations bring together a flavour of mystery and mysticism, enhanced by the delicate melodies weaving in and out of the scenes, and the exotic, pulsating drum rhythms - I'd watch it again just to hear the soundtrack. All in all, it ends in tragedy for both; she driven mad by hatred for him, and he overcome by regret when he realises that it was his fault. We know he cared about her - it was clear in Jane Eyre; yet here it seems that it was just not enough. Mrs Rochester the First: in my opinion, infinitely better.