Jane Eyre is a book that provides almost unlimited scope for directorial fantasy. How much mysterious, frightening, not always explainable is happening on its pages! How much drama there is in it! And the characters of even secondary characters are bright, memorable. But the movie forty-third year is not much to expect, and I did not expect anything special. In general, the picture was quite tolerable, although, if you look at it, little is able to satisfy the admirer of this novel.
I liked the young Jane Eyre played by Peggy Anne Garner, who played a child abandoned to the mercy of fate, who was useless, rebellious and unwilling to forgive offenses. Her friend Helen Burns, played not by anyone, but by Elizabeth Taylor herself, also made a very good impression - just such a humble and meek Helen should be, albeit older. Apparently, all the charm of this film adaptation is given just by children – Adele Varance (Margaret O’Brien) is successfully depicted by a cute little turntable, very fond of dresses, as follows from the book. These images are accurately reflected. Adult actors, in my opinion, do not look so good in their roles. Mrs. Reed isn't too oppressive and limited. Mr. Brocklehurst didn't seem soulless enough. In it, especially in the scene of the conversation with Jane (which in itself is difficult to imagine), there was a spark of humanity - not kindness or soulfulness, but specifically belonging to the human race. Having descended to argue with her and even convince her to stay in school, he discovered weaknesses and emotions that deprive this image of integrity. Blanche Ingram, in principle, turned out well, although she looked too refined, despite her arrogance. Jane herself is well-behaved, as befits a governess, but too pretty, because it is strange to hear from her mouth “If God gave me a little beauty.” In addition, she too clearly harbors the hope of reciprocity, while in the book she strongly discouraged such thoughts. But Mr. Rochester got into this film from some other artistic reality. Gradually, you get used to it, but still a wide-bitched face, convex eyes and full lips suggest some southern roots. It is not represented by such a misanthrope as Bronte painted it. Yes, and the main intrigue of the film, unfortunately, carefully hidden. The ugly shadow on the wall, the laughter and the shaking board with which the secret door is laid may be good, but curiosity is not satisfied. The result is disappointment.
Of course, many moments have been changed and removed, the plot is thoroughly redrawn. Events happen almost continuously, there is no time for reflection and experience. The heroes who seemed superfluous to the director disappeared, including the Rivers family, which played not the last role in Jane’s life, but a certain Dr. Rivers appeared, who had the most friendly feelings for her (to which she, however, responded very, very restrainedly). The rather illogical decision was to leave Mrs Fairfax and Adele in the house after the disaster, especially since he was given a rather deplorable appearance. But it is likely that Mr. Rochester’s excessive concern for Adele was meant to symbolize his subtle and sublime nature. Speaking of subtle nature. The lines that replace Jane Eyre’s thoughts once run ahead of the locomotive, before the time begins to spread about the true character of Mr. Rochester. Which, ideally, the viewer should recognize himself in the course of the action. And in any case, his character was not easy, for a long time he could not understand Jane and, even distinguishing her from others, considered an ordinary woman interested in the same things as other women he knew - jewelry, outfits, luxurious views, etc.
Surprisingly, Jane Eyre in this film adaptation really does not mind such pleasant additions to marriage, while in the book luxury items were deeply indifferent to her. She learned to value herself as she is - poor and outwardly unattractive. Mr. Rochester's attempts to dress her up, to give her a secular gloss, rather frightened her, because they were obliging her, deprived her of independence. Let’s say that she could have dreamed about wealth as a child, as depicted in the film, but as she grew up, she fully realized her path. In general, the theme of Jane and Wealth is distorted. Not quite right, I think, is her attitude towards Lowood. Yes, Lowood was a terrible school with extremely harsh living conditions, but he did give Jane a shelter and education, hardened her spirit and allowed her to gain the respect and appreciation of others, which she desperately needed. So here you can even agree with Brocklehurst, and the hatred of this particular Jane for Lowood is incomprehensible.
Add to this still landscapes, scenery, indistinct dark interiors – and you get a medium, slightly Gothic, not always accurate and too straightforward movie, interesting mainly the opportunity to compare it with other screen versions. Which is why I actually met him.
Continuing surfing through the expanses of the film adaptations of Jane Eyre, I cannot but mention one of the old film adaptations of 1943 with the colorful Orson Welles as Rochester and the Oscar-winning Joan Fontaine as Jane Eyre. This version, like Pride and Prejudice of 1940, is a luxurious classic with an exclusively Gothic entourage, which was greatly contributed by the black and white format.
Up to the last quarter of the film, everything seems to be going well, despite some freedom with the interpretation of images, but then begins the sweet heart of Hollywood interpretation “of himself”. What sins, however, is not only this film version of "Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte. From the film adaptation of the novel, where almost all the characters are represented by a kind of set of antipode heroes, whose characters mutually reveal each other for greater understanding and greater bulge, two pairs of sisters Reed and Rivers were removed with the unflinching hand of the director. And other minor personalities were treated rather carelessly, focusing mainly on the period Jane spent in Thornfield. The scenes from the shelter are not particularly horrifying. No epidemics, Helen Burns (played by little Elizabeth Taylor) is dying of a cold. But, as a surprise, there is a good Dr. Rivers! This alone is enough to understand where the film adaptation will go in the future, although, as in all the other versions I saw, the main points are preserved. And the acting works of the central characters for the production of that era are simply excellent. Peggy Anne Garner, who played little Jane, is amazing, especially in the scene where she says goodbye to Gateshead. The dialogues have been adjusted to fit the plot, but the main intrigue of the confrontation between the characters has already disappeared. It's so cute, so Hollywood. Jane leaves Thornfield with a proudly raised head and a firm conviction in her eyes that it is necessary for the plot. But then... Where are the wanderings? Where's the privation? She did not go on the run (vagabonding is so unglamorous, so not Hollywood), and went to visit a dying aunt in Gateshead. Where he settled after the death of a relative. Well, then Jane still returns to Thornfield, where among the black ruins alone and restlessly wanders Rochester. Curtain. You can see: classic, chic and staged, but not romantic. However, despite all that being said, the film is very captivating.
Orson Welles, actor and director, master, man who rattled half of America with one radio production... The image is gothic and brutal beyond measure. Perfectly successful scenes of sharpness, sullenness and Hollywood passion, for tenderness - 0 out of 10. Rochester's age is uncertain. It could be either 35 or 45 depending on the light. The interpretation of the image is interesting, the voice of Rochester-Wells is amazing with its modulations and hoarseness, which can be understood only when viewed without dubbing. Jane Eyre - Joan Fontaine - very interesting in terms of the manifestation of character on the face. The eyes are beautiful and alive. But it's too Hollywood sweet. Wonderful Jane Eyre, but older than necessary. The love that is required by the narrative is not observed. What caused it? Rather, the canons of the Golden Age – so that everything was beautiful, but sterile as in a hospital. The scene under the chestnut ... hmm... In terms of staged almost flawless: here you and thunder, and sparkling lightning, and cracked chestnut, but ... the impression was that if Jane did not quickly agree to marriage, Rochester her under this chestnut right now and would have buried. That is, everything is very Hollywood, with on-screen passion, but not convinced. In the final scene, Wells is presented beautifully. And, again, both actors play equally well. But here’s the thing: “submitted” and “represented” are not the verbs to describe the great love of a great novel. However, let’s still make a discount on what is before us – a creation of the Golden Age of Hollywood, created according to its canons and with its own special aesthetics. And let's enjoy it. It will not be boring at all.
The film is a rather peculiar reading of the famous novel Charlotte BronteJane Eyre. In this film, elements of drama and melodrama are combined with elements in the style of gothic thriller. But this reading is very interesting.
I don’t think there’s anyone who, if they haven’t read it, has certainly seen one of the many adaptations of this book. For this reason, I do not see much sense to retell the plot, especially since it is given in sufficient detail in the annotation.
But I warn you that the film adaptation is rather curtailed. Many moments and characters are cut from the film, some events in the tape are given in the form of pages of a book, the contents of which are read voice-over. Some may not like it, but I personally found it interesting.
The actors in the film are quite well selected. Orson Wells looks interesting in the role of Rochester. At times, of course, he looks like Othello/b (no wonder he played the role later in the movie), but there is something sympathetic about the character he created.
Joan Fontaine is perhaps more beautiful than Jane Eyre demands. But the actress played well. The actress gave her interpretation of Jane in the film, but coped well with the role. I can’t help but mention the younger performers (or rather, performers) in the film.
This is the charming 11-year-old Elizabeth Taylor as Helen Burns. Peggy Ann Garner plays young Jane. And of course, 6-year-old Margaret O’Brien as Adele, Rochester’s charming daughter.
The film is also very good thanks to the work of the cameraman, and I personally liked the interesting decision to use Gothic tones of shooting, which very accurately conveyed the mood of the characters and the film itself, in general. Due to this, the picture looks like a romantic drama with a slight raid of a detective thriller.
In any case, this is a very good adaptation of the famous novel, which will not leave indifferent its fans.
I loved the movie, especially after watching the 1934 film. The actors are well-chosen, with one exception: Mr. Rochester, for some reason, not 40, but 28. Whereas Jane Eyre instead of 18-24. So the difference of 20 years (which is important in the book) is completely invisible, because it does not exist. The rest is great. Some parts of the plot were not mentioned, something was twisted (for example, Mrs. Reed’s death was “slightly” postponed, and nothing was shown about rich Uncle Eira and cousins Diana and Mary at all), but maybe this is for the best, because the film already runs about two hours.
It was well shot, albeit in black and white. The actors convey emotions according to that time: somewhere replayed, of course, somewhere monotonous, but this is even a plus in this film. The feelings of the heroes capture the viewer. Jane and Edward kissed in the garden during a thunderstorm, and it happened at the end. It was an 8-point movie for me, and it made me happy. I recommend watching after reading the book and to get acquainted with the history of cinema.
He is an old soldier and does not know the words of love.
This film adaptation is a rather sad spectacle, even if you make a discount for the years of war and the lack of noticeable technical achievements in the cinema of that time. I don’t know why you should call it Jane Eyre and rewrite the original story so carefully. An adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's novel on primitivism would have gone for a Disney cartoon, but not for a full meter. Villains here are as evil as devils in hell, and virtue is always beautiful (for example, Helen Burns, played by the beautiful Elizabeth Taylor). The already small circle of Jane’s relatives was reduced to the limit: apparently, the director considered it superfluous to have the daughters of Mrs. Reed, as well as the entire Rivers family, and so that the audience did not get confused in the branches of the family tree, simply removed them from history. So did rich Uncle John, so you'll laugh, but Jane got rich at the expense of her hated aunt.
The character of the heroine herself is turned inside out several times and tailored to the manner of Scarlett O’Hara – Jane daring everyone and everyone, and the first acquaintance with her begins with the phrase “Be careful, she bites!”. And it was said not by an evil aunt Reed, but by one of the servants.
After the book and several of its adaptations, to see Jane dreaming of coats and jewelry, and then happily choosing scarlet and gold silk on her honeymoon dress is beyond good and evil.
Gentlemen flirting with a stranger like cowboys in a saloon, schoolgirls wandering around the yard in the rain with signs around their necks, like concentration camp inmates - this is only a small number of shocks.
Of course, to look at the face of Joan Fontaine is much more pleasant than Zila Clarke, but she has no more in common with the heroine of the novel than the crow and the desk. The same can be said about Rochester playing Orson Welles.
Movie Jane flirts with the owner, looks with more joy at Adele’s dances than teaches her mathematics, and does not even remember her love of drawing.
And Rochester, played by Wells, reminded me not of an English gentleman, but of a Spanish Moor. And, as it turned out, not only me: I was not lazy to study his filmography, from which it turned out that in 1952 Wells really played Othello. And at the sight of his glazing look, I had the impression that already then Wells was rehearsing the moment of his hero’s blindness and, in order not to waste time, he was doing it right during the filming of the episode of dating a new governess.
The rudeness of his manners could be devoted to a whole paragraph. However, this is the sin of many characters. So, Blanche Ingram (platinum blonde a la Lyubov Orlova in “The Merry Guys”) tells Rochester that he is a bore and a boor, and he before that manages to flash before her so many strong words that you already forget where the action takes place: in the castle of an English aristocrat or in the port of Dublin, for example.
In general, “Jane Eyre” in 1944 is a very controversial reading of the classic novel about love and loyalty, which is more suitable for the definition of “made based on motives” than “screen adaptation”. You will not find in it subtle nuances that convey the mood of the characters through glances and gestures. This is a very clumsy work, designed for a not very sophisticated viewer, who is not used to thinking about the subtext and not particularly distinguishing semitone. Black and white cinema in the full sense of the word.
4 out of 10