A Housekeeping Notice and some Odds and Ends
I have been tinkering away behind the scenes here. The resource branch of the site, which is currently here, is not meeting the needs of this blog. Thankfully, the lovely people at Dalhousie University have given me webspace! So, as soon as I can find the time to imput the code, I should have a lovely new site that will be much easier on the eyes and easier to get around as well. (Having three pages for Jane Eyre illustrations is just silly, and I haven't even started posting items from my personal collection yet!) As always, contributions will be most welcome. I am hoping that copyright and storage quotas will also allow me to find some stable homes for the tons of radio, film, and audio adaptations I have been reposting ad nauseum. There's hope.
Also, I have already set up a forum for extended discussion. I hope to get that up and running with the website. The archives, are still in a terrible mess and I apologise for not making more progress in indexing everything.
While I am at it, I have to messages for my readers in general. First, a lot of my readers have been sending me their stories lately. I would like to hear more of them! You can find my email address through my profile. Also, I have the constant problem of links expiring. If you have had this problem and you want to have a file reposted it is best to email me directly. I often find it difficult to find which program, song, or file you mean when your message is only left in the comments.
Now, for some news!
Bronteblog has found a few more names for the supporting cast of Jane Eyre 2006.
Speaking of Jane Eyre 2006, I am sorry to say that the BBC has blundered... Following the lead of imdb, who despite my warnings did not fix the error on their page in time, the BBC have linked to the wrong Ruth Wilson. I must make this clear, since it is actually confusing some people... Jane Eyre is being played by the 24 year old Ruth Wilson and not the one who is 48. This is a mistake. I have written again, but by the time they catch it we might have our DVDs of the series already! (now, there's a happy thought!) (To make matters even more interesting, we now have THREE, three, count 'em three Ruth Wilsons!) I have already written to the BBC to point out the mistake.
One more bit of news... I am in anticipation that there will be something fun and surprising for those readers who admire the BBC's 1973 production of Jane Eyre, in the coming weeks- I hope. It may all come to nothing, but we'll see.
8 comments:
Something fun and surprising – can’t wait! It isn’t more scary superimposed pictures, is it? ;-)
Interesting that the 2006 version will include both the Reed girls and Rosamund Oliver. The inclusion of the latter would seem to suggest that the Morton episode will be given quite a lot of importance. (Dare I say not *too* much I hope?)
They've not blundered in terms of ascribing the right Ruth Wilson because those are her credits. Just her date of birth is wrong (suggesting that someone has input that field wrong).
:) I hit the enter key before having written the second part - whoops! I wanted to add that such errors seem to rather unfortunately be the way - I think it's because the website people don't seem to have much of a clue of the programmes or personalities. At least we should expect a fairly chunky amount of behind the scenes footage and so forth to appear on a Jane Eyre webpage (I'd expect it about 2 weeks before broadcast). :)
to liz: I solemly promise that there will be no more scary superimposed pictures from Jane Eyre '73. :)
Well, they did as much for the '83 version. It would suggest that it is at least going to get a decent treatment. There is always hope, and it shouldn't be all that long before we get to find out! :)
to Aidan brack:
That is also because of imdb's error. Ruth has her own accurate page now (thank goodness) but they didn't link to it. I know there isn't much they can do to prevent this from happening. The same blunders happened in publishing this year. Many of our author bios had the same errors but the publisher knew that they all stemmed from one of the major sources which had misprinted his place of birth. ;)
Indeed! And the BBC seem to like posting clips from their series online nowadays! Very exciting!
There's even the slim possibility of them sticking it online for UK Broadband users (they did so for a recent period drama). IMDB is unfortunately just riddled with errors - people are careless and there isn't enough peer review except on the major articles. I somewhat suspect Wikipedia will become the more accurate film resource given time to grow.
I would certainly be surprised if there weren't four interviews posted by the close of the series - there will be four episodes after all and normally new content goes up each week to encourage people to discuss the series on their website (not that it's really a discussion because they seem to excise the vast majority of negative feedback - somewhat understandably).
Can you give us some clues as to what the fun and surprising angle is on the 1973 version, got me very curious now as this is my favourite JE adaptation. By the way, loved the discussions about Michael Jayston's wig, agree it didn't detract from his scrumptiousness. What an actor!
I would rather not give more information because I don't want to get anyone's hopes up in case it doesn't work out, but since saying less will be worse, I'll say this much. It involves a member of the cast, who is neither Sorcha nor Michael.
I think you can guess that this is my favourite versions as well. It never fails to cheer me whenever I am stressed or sad. It's a beautiful thing- and Michael Jayston is simply astounding in it.
Post a Comment