Jane Eyre (1943)

Orson Welles hauls out his "Citizen Kane" corsets to become Mr. Rochester to Joan Fontaine's Jane Eyre in "Jane Eyre," a lavish 1944 adaptation of the book by Charlotte Bronte.

Jane is a poor orphan shuttled from one horrible situation to another -first the home of her cruel aunt (Agnes Moorhead), then to an orphanage run by Henry Brocklehurst. He announces to all that Jane is possessed by the devil and that no one should be involved with her. But one little girl, Helen Burns, played by an absolutely beautiful Elizabeth Taylor, befriends her. Alas, due to the inhumane treatment at the orphanage, Helen dies. With the help of the kind doctor to the orphans, Dr. Rivers (handsome John Sutton) Jane sticks it out at the orphanage to receive her education. When they offer her a teaching position there for pennies, she leaves to become the governess for little Adele (Margaret O'Brien) at Thornfield, the home of the mysterious, tormented Edward Rochester.

O'Brien was one of the most adorable child actors in films, and one of the best performers. Welles couldn't stand her because she was a scene stealer. Mary Astor confessed being afraid of her on "Meet Me in St. Louis." It's all lost on the audience, as she is wonderful.

Welles made a calculated decision to hire himself out as an actor to finance his film work. He makes a magnificent Mr. Rochester - romantic, angry, and magnetic. His resonant voice speaks the dialogue with conviction, and, at 27, he was able, with a little help, to cut a dashing figure, an advantage that didn't last too much longer. Fontaine is perfect as the subservient, shy, unloved Jane, her soft, plain appearance and breathless voice giving an overall air of dignity and true beauty - at once recognized by Mr. Rochester. There is, however, the matter of Grace Poole.

The film is atmospheric - in fact, it may be a tad on the overdone side, but the wind blowing on the moors, the storms, the lightning, the mausoleum-like, cold house all fit the darkness of Mr. Rochester's soul to perfection.

Truly there was no one in cinema history quite like Orson Welles - brilliant, eccentric, a profligate spender, and ultimately self-destructive, on the outs with Hollywood and unable to finish any of his later projects. The saddest thing in his biography is the dinner he has with Steven Spielberg, whose help he wants in getting a distributor. Spielberg instead approaches him like a fan and wants to talk about the great films, the great performances, and no offer of help is forthcoming. How heartbreaking for Welles to spend the next 40 years of his life competing with his old dazzling image.

Fmovies: I found Joan Fontaine's performance as Jane Eyre as one of the more satisfying of her career,in that she was less histrionic than usual.I thought of her as not-to-the manor-born,but could,and did,achieve the position of governess in that social register of Edward Rochester by being quiet,smiling,and,in the words of Spencer Tracy,"don't bump into the furniture." Of course,Jane learned harshly,in her youth,the hard,cold facts of life.Mr.Rochester was enough to scare the wits out of any delicate woman like Jane.But,she was quiet,smiling,and didn't bump into the furniture,and,thereby,won his respect--and love.She could play the piano--and speak French,too.That helped to cement their relationship.Miss Fontaine's performance was gentle and in perfect pitch.Orson Welles' performance was an interesting study of character development,from over-bearing--even rude,to controlled kindness and deep concern for Jane's welfare.A fine film,good to watch.

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.

Jane Eyre fmovies. Magnificent is the only word that can be applied to this remarkable film. It represents Hollywood's ability to make the occasional brilliant movie when all aspects of the film-making craft come together in such talented union. JANE EYRE can hardly be faulted in any single department; the outstanding acting performances; not only of the principle characters, but right down the line to even the smallest part; the superlative score by Bernard Herrmann; splendid photography and art direction; but above all, a script that sparkles with literate dialogue and which unfolds the narrative with such consummate skill. I first saw this film as a very young child, and it gripped and enthralled me then as it still does all these years later. Romantic, gothic and mesmerising, it is as near faultless as it is possible for any movie to be.

Well, since I seem to be determined to comment on every version of Jane Eyre, here goes! This is my second-favorite Jane Eyre, running very close to the Timothy Dalton/Zelah Clarke version. This film definitely LOOKS better than the newer one, since the newer one was a TV miniseries with, let us say, flawed production values. Other commentators complained about the darkness of the film, but hey, it's JANE EYRE! It's a Gothic novel! What did they expect? Welles is SUPERB - in spots he is better than Dalton, and, oddly, I think he's rather sexier in this role. He really DOES show the charm that would have attracted Jane to him. SO why do I like Dalton's version better? Well, #1, it has a better Jane. Joan Fontaine doesn't hold a candle to Zelah Clarke in the role. And #2 - the Dalton version is longer and so, stays closer to the book. Dalton himself excels, but in a much different way than Welles. Welles' Rochester is definitely more world-weary, and maybe not quite so petulant, though both qualities are in keeping with Rochester's character in the book. If you only have two hours, maybe THIS is the one to watch!

If you remember any novel at all of Charlotte Bronte, it is JANE EYRE, her romance of a struggling governess who falls in love with a wealthy, mysterious land - owner whose ward needs an educator. It is the story that has been filmed most often of all of Bronte's novels (three films and a series, as opposed to only one series based on VILLETTE and none for SHIRLEY or THE PROFESSOR). It is not as overpowering in it's appeal as her sister Emily's WUTHERING HEIGHTS, but it is (for most people) a good romantic novel. It is also one of the few Victorian novels that is read today (in fact, it was used in an episode of FRIENDS, when Phoebe and Rachel are supposed to be in a literature night school class).

What was unique about the novel when it was published in 1847 was that it was rare for a novel to be told from the perspective of lowly governess, and about unrequited love for her employer. This was really hot stuff for Victorian England (though not as hot as Heathcliff and Cathy running wild on the moors of Yorkshire). The novel also gave Charlotte Bronte a chance to even one old score. The business about her being sent to the school run by Henry Brocklehurst was based on Charlotte's personal feelings about a school she had been sent to that was run by one William Carus Wilson. She felt Wilson was a hypocrite and tyrant (this view has been disputed by scholars researching Bronte since the 19th Century).

This is the best known version of the novel, but it is not as complete a version as one imagines. The early part of the novel, showing how Jane's aunt Mrs. Reed and her son John bully Jane (as a poor relation) is cut (John doesn't even have any lines). Henry Daniell is effective as Brocklehurst, in that his religious tyranny over his students is shown, but the hypocrisy of his behavior (in the novel his wife and daughters are fashionably dressed, as opposed to the girls in his school) is not commented upon. The subplot concerning the Rivers cousins is not included in the film. Possibly this is wise, as it concentrates the narrative to Jane's hiring by Edward Rochester, her growing love for her "Byronic" employer, and her discovering of the shattering secret that derails their marriage.

When the film was made Joan Fontaine was at the height of her career as a movie star. She had won her Oscar for best actress in SUSPICION only three years before. She fit the role of the quiet "plain Jane" heroine quite well. But in her memoirs NO BED OF ROSES she reveals that she did not like this film. Her co-star got on her nerves. Orson Welles did the role of Rochester because he was trying to demonstrate to Hollywood producers that he was quite a good actor, even if he was not directing as he wanted. But, as it turned out, he got involved in the production of the film - and he had some clashes with Fontane whom he thought was a spoiled star. That their scenes together worked is amazing.

Of the others in the cast, the two I find most interesting are Elizabeth Taylor as the ill-fated Helen Burns, Jane's closest friend at Brocklehurst's school. It is a small part, but the beautiful young Taylor makes it heart-breaking. But also note the performance of Hillary Brooke as the fortune - hunting Blanche Ingram, who summarizes the reason for her defeat in this movie while playing billiards with her parents: "GOVERNESSES, MAMA!!"