Jane Eyre

Reading the novel before seeing the movie, I had my own ideas about the characters of Miss Bronte's book. The movie leaves quite a bit of the story out, but dutifully makes up for it with a strong actors and incredible cinematography.

Joan Fontaine portrays the shy, demure Jane Eyre. (or is she?) I always believed this was the story of a woman forced to be what society felt a woman should be. Once Jane becomes the governess of Mr. Rochester's ward, she feels free to be the woman she truly is: strong-willed, opinionated and passionate.

Truly, they just don't make movies like this anymore. Not just a love story, this is a tale of finding oneself and realizing one's true destiny.

A thoroughly engaging adaption of the brooding classic, this film rises above the turgid tone often imposed on other classics brought to the screen. Joan Fontaine turns in a brilliantly deceptively understated performance, and Orson Welles restrains from the scenery chewing that marred some of his own projects; there is surprising chemistry between them. At times, Welles is a downright "sexy" leading man! The script (credited to John Houseman and Aldous Huxley) captures the right "tone" of Victorian cruelty and repression.

Under Robert Stevenson's direction Fontaine/Welles seem to capture the essence of two abused outsiders resisting their attraction for one another, trying to adhere to convention. A strong supporting cast. There are brief though memorable appearances by Agnes Moorehead, Elizabeth Taylor and Peggy Ann Garner as "young" Jane.

George Barnes' camera captures appropriately stark images of Ross Dowd and Thomas Little's sets. Charlotte Bronte's grim novel is well suited to the excellent B/W, cinematography: a memorable scene early in the film has young Jane being punished by being forced to stand on a stool that is nearly in the center of a fan of shadows cast by the stair railing, It is almost reminiscent of expressionist German films of the Weimar years.

The film manages to entertain as well as inform. Purists may object to the last 3 lines of the film which hint at a slightly happier denouement than the book offered. In spite of that, Jane Eyre is still a nearly flawless film.

Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre is certainly one popular item for adaption to the big screen and small. I count 22 versions on the Internet Movie Database, but this one starring Joan Fontaine as plain Jane Eyre and Orson Welles as the brooding Rochester is probably the best known.

I had previously reviewed a 1934 version that starred Virginia Bruce and Colin Clive had done for Monogram. And as befit that studio the budget for the project was pretty anemic. And no one could possibly have believed the glamorous Ms. Bruce could be a plain Jane.

Also Joan Fontaine fresh off her Oscar for Suspicion was a far better actress. Fontaine has played glamor roles, but she dialed down the surface beauty to give a finely etched performance as the shy young thing brought up in cruelty by her aunt Agnes Moorehead and schoolmaster Henry Daniell in the institutional school she is sent.

Fontaine is great, but she is also building on the performance of Peggy Ann Garner as the young Jane Eyre who has enough resiliency to overcome a really horrible childhood. In many ways the Garner/Fontaine character of Jane Eyre echo how Joan's sister Olivia DeHavilland as Catherine Sloper was brought up in The Heiress. The miracle is that Jane Eyre doesn't become as twisted as Catherine Sloper.

Orson Welles with his stage training and magnificent voice and pieces of subtlety in his manner scores well as Mr. Rochester who carries a secret tragedy within him. He engages Fontaine to be governess for his 'ward' Margaret O'Brien and love cannot take its course because of some really big barriers. What they are you have to see Jane Eyre for.

I'm sure that 20th Century Fox must have had Suspicion in mind when casting Joan Fontaine. In both films she goes off to live in a big estate a bit apprehensive about what she's getting into. And in both films she has reason to be apprehensive.

One young actress who received no billing, but got real notice was eleven year old Elizabeth Taylor. She plays Peggy Ann Garner's friend in Henry Daniell's school and her death scene must have not left a dry eye in any theater Jane Eyre was playing.

This version of Jane Eyre sets a very high standard for those before or since to follow.

This version of the classic novel is most distinguished by its fine cast. The adaptation itself is pretty good, although the first part (Jane's childhood) comes across better than the main part of the film. The original novel is a complex story and character study, and it would be quite a job to squeeze everything into a film of under two hours - all things considered, this version does a pretty good job despite eliminating some significant parts of the book.

There are a lot of fine actors in the cast, and Orson Welles is ideal for the role of Rochester. Joan Fontaine is good too as (the adult) Jane, although the character in this version is somewhat less interesting than in the novel, so she has less to work with than Welles does. There are some fine performances in the early part of the movie, and some excellent casting, including Agnes Moorehead as Jane's mean-spirited aunt, the icy Henry Daniell as Brocklehurst, and a young Elizabeth Taylor as Jane's school friend Helen. That part of the film works perfectly.

Although the last part is not quite as effective, overall the movie still offers several good reasons to watch it. You get to see a fine cast in action, and if the film is not the masterpiece that the novel was, it's a good picture and certainly worth seeing.

Stevenson isn't willing to let us forget that his film is based on a book. The first thing we see a leather-bound volume with the title "Jane Eyre" emblazoned on the cover; the book opens to reveal the film's credits exquisitely lettered on the opening pages. We're in danger of falling in love with the book as an object before the story even begins. By the time Joan Fontaine had finished reading out Brönte's opening paragraph, with the sentences themselves before me, I was in no mood to watch the movie - I wanted to go away and read the book.

Yet when it's not reminding us that it's at heart a version of something else, it's a very good film, falling not too far short of David Lean's "Oliver Twist" - which it resembles. Both films were shot almost entirely in the studio, yet don't feel studio-bound; they feel rather as though the directors had managed to find unusually claustrophobic out-of-door (or, in Lean's case, urban) locations. In both films a portion of every frame is consumed by impenetrable shadow. (Yet "Eyre" is detailed, and makes the best possible use of every frame.) Both films take place around in a callous England of the 1920s. (I got the impression that if Brönte's characters had for some reason gone to London they would have encountered Dickens's, although this impression was destroyed when the rich Londoners visit Rochester's castle.) Both films manage to be sentimental in an agreeable way. Both have excellent musical scores. In fact, this may be Herrmann's best score of the 1940s, certainly better than the one he wrote for "Citizen Kane", which is seems better than it is because the film as a whole is a masterpiece.

If you can, make sure you see a print with a pristine soundtrack. Orson Welles isn't always easy to understand.