Customer Rating: 
Summary: Classic Favorite
Comment: This is an old classic that I have been wanting for a long time. Actors are very well suited for their parts, although Fontaine is a little lacking in hers, however, this is her style in most of her films.Thanks for chance to own it and watch it when I can.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Mesmerizing Gothic Romance
Comment: "Do you think I could stay here to become nothing to you?" -- Jane to Edward
This magnificent Gothic drama based on Charlotte Bronte's famous novel is perfect in every way. Robert Stevenson, who helped Alduous Huxley and John Housman adapt Brnote's classic work to the screen, may have been credited with directing this brooding masterpiece but, once again, Orson Welles' signature is everywhere. George Barnes photographed Fontaine to beautiful advantage once again as he had in Hitchcock's Rebecca. And Bernard Herrmann's atmospheric score is one of his finest.
Peggy Ann Garner, so wonderful as Francie in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, is equally memorable as the young Jane. She lives with Miss Reed (Agnes Moorehead) in an unhappy house where love has been replaced by cruelty. When she believes she is getting her freedom by being shuffled off to school, her dreams of the coming joys are shattered immediately upon discovering it is more of an institution. Young Jane will find one friend there in Helen, played nicely by an already captivating Elizabeth Taylor.
The cruel hand of Henry Daniell will lead to tragedy for the friends, however, and for her remaining years there Jane can only dream of being loved by someone. Breaking away to work as a governess to the adorable Adele (Margaret O'Brien) at Thornfield, she is confronted by a man whose romantic misfortunes are much greater and far graver than anyone knows. Welles' performance as the erratic and moody Edward Rochester seems odd until we learn the secret in the tower which is at the heart of his torment and this film.
Fontaine gives a winsome performance as Jane Eyre, whose heart has never felt the warmth of love from another. But she has the ability to love, and falls for the enigmatic Edward, whom she believes is out of her reach. The audience is slowly drawn in to Edward's world and that of Thornfield just as Jane, and therefor understands her resolve to stand by her employer despite his dark secret. It will finally come between them them at the alter. Only when she returns to Thornfield in the aftermath of the inevitable does the stormy sky which has hung over her chance for happiness finally begin to clear.
Jane Eyre is intense and mesmerizing, and perhaps the finest example of a brooding Gothic style drama ever put on celluloid. Joan Fontaine was always magnificent portraying characters such as Jane Eyre and, though there has been much debate over the years about Welles' approach to Edward, it proves to be memorable nonetheless. His uncredited work behind the camera turned this into a darkly romantic masterpiece. A must for film lovers.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Still Fabulous After All These Years
Comment: The best production ever done of the classic Bronte novel. The epitomy of English Gothic Romance.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Jane Eyre
Comment: If you ever want a wonderful heart warming movie with great feeling and acting please watch this movie. It has drama and warmth, it is one of those movies you cannot stop watching. I have enjoyed this movie many times over the years and I shall continue to do so with my new DVD.
Customer Rating: 
Summary: Brontë Told in Shadow and Light
Comment: It's hard to review a 97 minute movie based on a 400 page, densely threaded novel. There simply isn't enough time to hit all the key points in the story. But what they did here was commendable, if incomplete.
Of the four big budget productions I've seen ('44, '96, '97, '06), this one comes closest to capturing the story's dark tone. This is in no small part due to George Barne's magnificent black and white photography and lighting, producing sharp contrasts of shadow and light. I think this works in concert with the book's themes. JANE EYRE is as much a story of contrast and conflict, as it is about likeness and profound union. Apart from concrete examples -- the child abuse, dark secrets and near bigamous marriage -- the heroine (described as a person of strange contrasts), is at odds philosophically with nearly every other major character in the story. In one corner are the dogmatic Helen Burns and St. John Rivers, in another the cruel, hypocritical Mrs. Reed and Mr. Brocklehurst, in a third, the man she loves, the rule-bending, ethically bankrupt Edward Rochester with much society and little connection... and in the fourth, by herself, Jane, with no society but much connection.
It is also a story of bold challenge, which, (at least in the eyes of some critics), places the protagonist squarely on the dark side of "Gods" law when she questions Burns about the very existence of afterlife, and River's about sanctity of living for it. Like most versions, these are omitted, but the films style goes a long way to at least suggest the tale has a dark underbelly. And as always, the child abuse, attempted "feigned union" with the "defrauded wretch" are included. We just never get a complete understanding of all she's rejecting in favor of the wretch.
Unfortunately like most short adaptations, there's no St. John Rivers. He exists in name only as a kindly doctor (played sympathetically by John Sutton). Consequently there's no contrasting philosophy between this character who lives for the hereafter and boasts of his mastery of impulse control, and Edward Rochester who lives for the now, and is notable for his lack of it.
The studio sets, which include hand painted skies and backdrops, also lend weight to the tale which is rooted in abstract ideas. Though I suspect people accustomed to location shots and heavy CGI may balk.
The script is by necessity shaved. The dialog, which is a mix of excerpted Brontë and invention, is well crafted and tonally consistent. If they lacked the author's brilliance, at least they did no harm. Unlike the '06 script, which was not simply modernized, but flat out bad; and ranged from prosaic to shamefully expository, and often laughable. The '97 was similarly afflicted.
Jane's childhood is handled remarkably well considering time constraints. Peggy Ann Garner as young Jane is wonderfully spunky, willful and sympathetic. And Bessie (Sara Allgood), is played with just the right balance of sternness and warmth. Otherwise they do manage to convey the severity of Lowood Institution fairly effectively.
Both Welles and Fontaine have given better performances, Here their characters are more suggested than dramatically realized. Still Welles does possess a commanding presence and menace necessary to play Edward Rochester, which is heightened by dramatic lighting. This also aids Fontaine, (albeit to a lesser extent), whose delivery, like Welles', is often self-conscious. She tends to be more mouse-like, than understated, and lacks the inner acuity, curiosity and intense study of her master of the novel -- and there are no explosive clashes to offset her demeanor. But since the best story teller here is the visuals, it is strong camera work and editing, that carry her through Jane's concerns, longing and pain... and even her admonishment of her master.
Having seen many adaptations of JANE EYRE this past year, it was interesting to note that Welles and Fontaine were in good company, finding these roles elusive. I found many a strong actor stumbling their way through performances. A quick summary.
ROCHESTERS:
* William Hurt ('96) Singularly-Internally-Wounded Rochester
* Ciaran Hinds ('97) Maniacal Rochester
* Toby Stevens ('06) I'm-Not-Really-Rochester, Rochester. "Hey I'm not half as bad as Brontë made me out to be."
JANES:
* Charlotte Gainsbourg ('96) Sweet-Mouse-Like Jane II;
* Samantha Morton ('97) Bossy-Jane;
* Ruth Wilson ('06) Extremely-Sympathetic-Jane. In my opinion the best of the four, but incomplete; likely a victim of a very weak script.
What Welles/ Fontaine have in their favor is a contrasting resonance, which keeps the dynamic of the story intact. Something some later adaptations lack. However while we might imagine this Rochester threatening Jane with violence when she tells him she's leaving, it might be a bit tougher to imagine this Jane, summoning enough strength, through emotional exhaustion, to calm him when he threatens her and is "... about to burst an insufferable bond and plunge headlong into wild license," But technically we don't need to. The scene, as in most versions, is omitted. Here it's basically condensed into one last... "we'd be hurting no one Jane," and she softly blesses him for his kindness and leaves. The shot is atmospheric and affecting. It doesn't convey his savage, twisted state, or how depleted she is, or the excruciating struggle she's just endured, or the courage it took to endure it (but few versions do), but we do at least feel some stakes in this one, if not intensely.
Me, I think the miniseries format is the only way to do justice to this novel. But apart from the flawed but mostly wonderful Clarke/Dalton '83 -- which I think overall has the richest characterizations and script, but is as wanting of visual artistry as this one is dependent on it -- there's little that really works for me. I'm hoping if HBO ever digs itself out from it's current mess, they'll one day tackle this material. Who better to do language, long threaded narratives, complex themes, ambiguous characters, or characters with surprising contrasts?
If you don't mind a broad suggestion of the story, rather than a fully articulated version, you might find this one worth a look. If only for the shadow and light of it.
|
