Beauty in a house with a monster In fact, the monster is not here: it is presented as a miserable victim of fate (which, in principle, corresponds to the truth) and even lost teeth and claws in this interpretation. The main scene with the participation of the madman is more pity, not a rush, but a couple of sinister midnight moments in the film is present and still gives the story a slight Gothic hue. But very easy - the events taking place in Thornfield, do not dominate, but are built into the plot along with other milestones in Jane's life. In the film adaptation, unfortunately, there are no semitones and subtle shades; it badly lacks sharpness and character, as well as some characters.
Mr. Rochester, for example, is too soft, gracious, even somewhat lethargic, and does not show his temperament anywhere except in one scene where he accuses Jane of prudence and self-interest in an ungentlemanly manner. St. John’s interpretation is also quite surprising, whose domineering, though by no means cruel, nature and devotion to one idea, reaching the point of fanaticism, are not at all conveyed. His feelings for Jane are indistinct: as if both are convinced that there is no love between them, but St. John’s behavior, his sudden fervor in the explanation scene, suggests rather the opposite. Alas, this interesting image, combining a number of peculiar qualities, was not revealed. As for the secondary characters, Mr. Brocklehurst is presented in an even more democratic perspective than in the 1943 film adaptation; moreover, Jane also chastises him here, which seems quite fantastic. I was disappointed by Nyrie Down-Porter in the role of Blanche Ingram; in the unforgettable role of Irene Forsythe, she looked more insidious and tough, and here she played just a secular and rather boring young lady, trying her best to please a potential suitor. It surprised me that The Forsyte Saga, where Nayrie D-P had proved herself to be a more mature actress, had been filmed a few years earlier. However, the emphasis on her character in Jane Eyre was clearly not done, so there was not much to play there. In general, secular society only creates a background in both screen adaptations I watched, while it helps to emphasize the attitude of Rochester to Jane, to reveal the difference between her and the other ladies, and Jane herself makes her seriously think about her own imperfection in comparison with the brilliant (well, according to the book) Blanche.
In fact, Jane is not so much inferior to Blanche, as Jane performed by Susanne York is indecently beautiful. In any case, you can not call her an ugly and gray mouse. However, in most scenes, she successfully masks it with a hard-stone expression, really spoiling her a little. I think that in the film adaptation of the forty-third year, Joan Fontaine was more able to convey Jane’s social behavior, here she behaves too freely, not at all constrained, except that she is restrained. With inner dignity, I think she overdid it. Her ability to feel deeply and attach to people, even if it was outwardly invisible, I did not feel at all. In the Rivers house, she behaves like a ruined and insulted aristocrat, and the St. John sisters next to her look like provincial simpletons, which is not true.
But the point is not even in this, but in the fact that, based on the film, a simple governess believed in the love of her master instantly and unconditionally. And this again impoverished her character, as Jane’s caution, and disturbing dreams, and distrust, and sinister signs fell away as unnecessary. In short, I did not believe in the rapid development of Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester's love. In some places, there were some inexplicable images, for example, a brooding smile on the face of Jane, leaving Thornfield after a tragic breakup, while she left it with completely different feelings.
I don't want to end with criticism. The movie is actually normal. I was glad that at least sketches, but given a mention of painting, although it does not echo the plot and does not open any new facets of Jane’s nature. But many faults can be forgiven for the final conversation between Jane and Mr. Rochester, where he teases her: "You're ugly, you can't be picky." This line is a direct entry into the character and a reference to their peculiar relationship from confession to marriage, which Jane built, not quite believing in her status as a bride. These conversations were a constant struggle between two independent characters and demonstrated both sharp tongues and the self-will of both.
It is a shame that the Pilot is portrayed as any dog, but not a black dog, like a demon. But I liked the scene of falling from a horse – it was given dynamically and brightly, and also incomprehensible, but beautifully combined with the sunset. In general, the colors in this film are quite rich and cheerful. There is nothing otherworldly either in Jane or in the artistic reality surrounding her, and I would like at least a little mysticism, because such opportunities open up for her. Well! Let’s see where the other directors are. And also very romantic and sensual music of John Williams, very adorning this adaptation.
