Jane Eyre

This film needs restoration. It is so dark in some places you can't really see anything. George C. Scott is flat and wooden; no emotion. Susannah York is too old for the part. The movie is too short. With all that said I still rate it a 7. Give it a try but lower your expectations.

I've read the book so many times and seen every version of Jane Eyre made and for me, George C Scott played the tortured soul Mr Rochester the best. One couldn't fancy Orson Welles, William Hurt was just a sap and Timothy Dalton melodramatic. George C Scott was as rough and gruff as Mr Rochester was supposed to be. When you first read of him, Jane is quite frightened - he has a large personality, makes a lot of noise and kicks things about. Gradually we see a softer side and soon you really want the guy to be happy. The set appeared right out of my own imagination and the creepy bit made me lift my ankles from below the sofa. The score is absolutely brilliant - oh those violins really get your heart pumping'. Ian Bannen is suitably slimy as St John (sinjin). Susannha York was a bit too pretty to be Jane Eyre but she tried her best. She was flavour of the month at the time and I can't remember what other actresses were around that would have been more suited. Jane was supposed to be VERY plain, and considerably younger than Mr Rochester. Nyree Dawn Porter played Blanche beautifully an sympathetically.

While I may not have seen every version of Jane Eyre, this is my favorite of those encountered and definitely preferable to the more recent ones. This adaptation is made by George C. Scott who, as others have noted, positively IS Mr. Rochester. In fact, I've never really been able to properly appreciate any other version, because I keep longing to see Scott in the part. Forget William Hurt, Ciaran Hinds, or even Timothy Dalton. Scott has taken command of Rochester's role for me, just as Alastair Sim in the 1951 A Christmas Carol commands the role of Scrooge, making all others second best.

Of course this is Charlotte Bronte's classic story of an orphan, Jane Eyre, who is first sent to Lowood School, and then upon reaching young womanhood, obtains a position as governess to a little girl called Adele at Thornfield Hall. Adele's father and the lord of the manor is the enigmatic Edward Rochester. As opposite as employer and governess appear, as intimidating as Mr. Rochester seems and as wary as Jane is, the two become attracted. However, Thornfield Hall has an air of mystery about it...

Susannah York seems a bit too old and perhaps too pretty for the role, as Jane is intended to be rather plain. Charlotte Gainsbourg from the 1996 version is actually my favourite Jane portrayal. However, York is convincing enough as the maidenly but rather spunky governess. The two, Scott and York, have amazing chemistry together, an endearing tenderness in some of their scenes. It is touching to behold the interactions between the rough hewed, gruff, & brooding Mr. Rochester and the shy, gentle, principled, yet underneath potentially passionate Jane. Some have criticized Scott's Rochester as lacking passion, but I personally found him perfect in the role.

Everything else as I recall is well done, including supporting cast, Yorkshire moors scenery, haunting atmosphere, and lovely musical score.

Just a point of interest, these two stars appear together again in the 1984 version of A Christmas Carol, with Scott as Scrooge and York as Mrs. Cratchitt. I enjoy all the versions and Scott's sideburns are wonderful, but he seems to be enjoying playing Scrooge a wee bit too much! He's a lot better here as Mr. Rochester.

RELEASED IN 1970-1971 and directed by Delbert Mann, "Jane Eyre" adapts Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel about the eponymous character (Susannah York) who becomes a governess of a French girl at a huge estate in northern England circa 1800 after an upbringing at a harsh religious orphanage. She slowly gets to know the surly, world-wise master of the estate, Edward Rochester (George C. Scott), and his curious situation. Eventually she meets a devout clergyman, St. John Rivers (Ian Bannen), and his two sisters. Can Jane escape the shackles of a pre-Victorian world ruled by men and legalism to find love?

While this version of the oft-filmed book was released to TV, it has the vibe of a theatrical release with great northern England locations, a superb score by John Williams and quality actors. The book was criticized as "anti-Christian" when it was published, but it's actually anti-legalism. Mr. Brocklehurst (Jack Hawkins) represents a poisonous form of dead religiosity at the orphanage while the seemingly unbalanced St. John Rivers represents a much more subtle and less extreme form.

The story's about Jane navigating the pitfalls of society and religion in a fallen world and, maybe, hopefully, finding freedom and genuine love. The locations/tone/themes are akin to "Sense and Sensibility" (1995), but with an anti-legalism subtext. Jane Austen's 1811 novel no doubt influenced Brontë's book. Both movies are worth checking out, but I slightly prefer "Jane Eyre." It's the perfect antidote to CGI-laden "blockbuster" drivel.

THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 48 minutes and was shot in North Yorkshire in northern England (Ripley Castle, Ripley; Pateley Bridge; Brimham Rocks; and Grinton). WRITERS: Jack Pulman wrote the screenplay based on Brontë's novel.

GRADE: B+/A-

This movie's greatest strength is George C. Scott as Rochester. He is stern, abrupt, powerful, and playful - his character is fascinating and we can see why Jane becomes fascinated by him. Physically, too, he embodies the Rochester of the novel - large and athletic, not exactly handsome, but not exactly ugly, either. His performance makes this movie worth seeing.

The rest of the cast is competent, with special mention of the actress who plays Blanche Ingram. She plays that character with an important degree of authority to remind us of Jane's vulnerability.

I believe that anyone studying either the novel or the adaptations of Jane Eyre would benefit from watching this version.