Of Swords and Parasols

How, precisely, do you take Wide Sargasso Sea and make it all about how Rochester really isn't that bad and may be a jerk, but is really just a poor innocent lamb tricked into marrying a crazy woman who he really just wanted to protect?

(Note:  I'm not talking about your interpretation of Rochester based on Jane Eyre, but specifically of Wide Sargasso Sea.)

Mostly by making every single thing through his narrative POV with the assumption that he was justified and it was all her fault, and removing the ENTIRE FIRST PART OF THE BOOK, which, of course is the entire point to understanding her character and issues, and giving Antoinette virtually no narrative at all.

OTOH, Rebecca Hall was absolutely fabulous as Antoinette, and struggled mightily against a terrible script and theme.  They should remake it again with her in the lead and a GOOD script.  Rafe Spall did a good job, too, but the pro-Rochester/anti-Antoinette approach rather ruined him for me.

WSS was one of my favorite books last year, and while I knew an adaptation wouldn't really be able to get the "it" of the book, which largely relied on living inside their heads, I didn't exactly expect it to end up the exact opposite of the book in virtually every important way.