Jane Eyre

Watching Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine in this classic makes me wonder where all the good cinematographers have gone. Any comments from out there?

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.

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.

Jane Eyre is directed by Robert Stevenson who co-adapts the screenplay with John Houseman, Aldous Huxley and Henry Koster. Based on the Charlotte Brontë novel of the same name, it stars Orson Welles, Joan Fontaine and Peggy Ann Garner. Music is scored by Bernard Herrmann and George Barnes is the cinematographer.

After a harsh and eye opening childhood, orphan Jane Eyre gains employment at Thornfield Hall as governess to the young ward of Edward Rochester. A Difference in class and life outlook, Jane and Rochester are by definition polar opposites, but a bond exists, a bond that surely can't conquer the mysteries of Rochester the man, and the secret of his estate - can it?

Stevenson's version of the often filmed Jane Eyre has been pored over numerous times before, the constant question that arises is that of just how much input and work did Orson Welles have in the production? Knowing what we now know of Welles' 40s output, Jane Eyre undeniably has the Wellesian stamp all over it, with Fontaine herself quoted as saying the big man was often found behind the camera. This is not to decry Stevenson in any way, he himself would carve out a good career in directing further down the line, but this take on Brontë's famous novel shines because of Welles' presence in front and behind the camera.

With that comes one of only two quibbles with the film as a whole, namely it's Welles' portrayal of Rochester that dominates the film, and not that of Fontaine's Eyre. Which is quite staggering considering he doesn't enter the fray until 34 minutes into ty epic. The other problem, naturally, is that with a running time of just over an hour and thirty five minutes, it was never going to be a detailed adaptation of the novel. However, what exists is still an excellent mounted production, a film pulsing with aggressive atmospherics and simmering emotional passions.

It has been argued that the opposing acting styles of Fontaine and Welles are a distraction, I don't see it that way at all, as one of classic cinemas greatest voices emotionally spars with one of its most beautiful faces, this is monochrome gold dust. In mind of the difference of characters as written on the page, it actually comes off as inspired casting. With the production that surrounds them perfectly in keeping with the characters' state of mind.

The look is assuredly what would become known as film noir, with George Barnes' (Rebecca/Spellbound/Force of Evil) vivid black and white photography dovetailing splendidly with the matte paintings and Gothic set designs. It still amazes me to this day that this film was entirely produced on stage 2 at 20th Century Fox. So many images burn into the memory. From the shards of shadows that accompany young Jane as she stands on the punishment stool at Lowood Institution, put there by the despotic Henry Brocklehurst (a menacing Henry Daniell), to each chiaroscuro lit composition of Rochester in and around the oppressive like family home, the film has visual moodiness in abundance.

Herrmann's (The Devil and Daniel Webster/Citizen Kane) score is crucially in tune as well. Orchestral swirls to portray Jane's longing are counter pointed by the menacing down beats that attack the viewer for Rochester's bluster. Away from the two leads it's young Peggy Ann Garner who delivers the most telling performance. She gives the child version of Jane a sorrowful edge that sets the tone of the film, her early scenes with an uncredited Elizabeth Taylor (beautiful and effectively correct in vocals) are a lesson in child acting. The rest of the cast is filled out with admirable performances from Margaret O'Brien (Meet Me in St. Louis), John Sutton (Captain from Castille), Sara Allgood (The Lodger) and Agnes Moorehead (The Magnificent Ambersons).

This may not be a definitive Jane Eyre adaptation, and the compromised ending does knock it down a point, but all told it's still a top piece of classic cinema. 9/10

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.