User Reviews

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.

Well, either Orson had a lot to do with this movie's production directly, or he had at least one early acolyte in director Robert Stevenson. A handful of Mercury Theatre/Kane actors holdover here, as well as a score by the great Bernard Herrman.

It's hard to describe which is the most jaw-dropping surprise in this movie: the Kane-esque gothic expressionism of the cinematography, or the stunning acting performances. Welles plays probably the most romantic leading role of his career as the brooding Rochester, while Fontaine postively glows in an understated turn as the title character. Of particular note are two child actors: Peggy Ann Garner, as the young Jane, who has a brief but dazzling turn to open the picture, and who was better known shortly thereafter for her lead in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn; and the never-yet-equaled Margaret O'Brien, the oscar-winner who played 'Tootie' in 'Meet Me in St. Louis' as Rochester's ward and Jane's charge. Oh, and nearly incidentally, one of Elizabeth Taylor's first performances, as Jane's doomed friend Helen.

One can only speculate how the history of film would've been different had Welles somehow started a trend in Hollywood story-telling like that of this rendition of 'Jane Eyre'. He certainly had enough classics pitched in his early and still hopeful days in Hollywood, and this film, whether or not he deserve direct credit for it, is one of the strongest -- and, despite the pacing, most concise -- retellings of a literary classic in film history. Without too much hyperbole, it's as if Charlotte Brontë were on the level of Shakespeare and Fontaine and Welles forgotten archetypes of deep myth. It's not a stretch to say that this film version is far more accessible to the modern sensibility than the book itself is, without losing the period feel and contemporary feeling of the original text.

8/10, a forgotten classic.

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.

A thoroughly engaging adaption of the brooding classic, this film rises above the turgid tone often imposed on other classics brought to the screen. Joan Fontaine turns in a brilliantly deceptively understated performance, and Orson Welles restrains from the scenery chewing that marred some of his own projects; there is surprising chemistry between them. At times, Welles is a downright "sexy" leading man! The script (credited to John Houseman and Aldous Huxley) captures the right "tone" of Victorian cruelty and repression.

Under Robert Stevenson's direction Fontaine/Welles seem to capture the essence of two abused outsiders resisting their attraction for one another, trying to adhere to convention. A strong supporting cast. There are brief though memorable appearances by Agnes Moorehead, Elizabeth Taylor and Peggy Ann Garner as "young" Jane.

George Barnes' camera captures appropriately stark images of Ross Dowd and Thomas Little's sets. Charlotte Bronte's grim novel is well suited to the excellent B/W, cinematography: a memorable scene early in the film has young Jane being punished by being forced to stand on a stool that is nearly in the center of a fan of shadows cast by the stair railing, It is almost reminiscent of expressionist German films of the Weimar years.

The film manages to entertain as well as inform. Purists may object to the last 3 lines of the film which hint at a slightly happier denouement than the book offered. In spite of that, Jane Eyre is still a nearly flawless film.

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.

Watching 'Jane Eyre' is like watching two films. The first part seems so far removed from what follows and is easily the best part of the movie. We see a young Jane (Peggy Ann Garner) being placed by her cruel aunt in an orphanage run by wicked Mr. Brocklehurst (Henry Daniell at his most chilling). One of her schoolmates is a very young Elizabeth Taylor as Helen Burns, long dark curls and eyelashes revealing her to be very beautiful, even at an early age. And the wonderful John Sutton is the doctor who witnesses the brutal treatment of the girls at the school. All of this is conveyed in a brooding series of scenes, lit with low-key lighting and many atmospheric effects backed by Bernard Herrmann's moody background score. The second part of the story involving the mature Jane Eyre (Joan Fontaine) is less successful in keeping with the richness of detail shown earlier. Furthermore, Joan Fontaine is never fully convincing as the plain governness, demure and docile to an irritating degree. She plays the role so weakly that she is completely dominated by Orson Welles--overacting to the nth degree as Mr. Rochester--and the story is sent reeling off course to an unsatisfying conclusion. The structure of the film is so offset by the impressive first half-hour that the second part seems artificial by comparison. Excellent black and white photography cannot conceal the artificiality of the sets. All of the supporting performances are well acted. As usual, Agnes Moorehead does an outstanding job. Summing up: a nice try but not quite the film it should have been considering its source was a classic novel. And by the way, Joan Fontaine was not nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for this one as someone previously stated.

I've been having a "Jane Eyre-athon." There are many good versions of this Gothic story of the fight between worldliness and virtue. Many have one really outstanding element, but this version, with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine remains overall the best. Like most, it eliminates much of the second half of the book, which is the really important part for Bronte, who is one of the finest religious thinkers of her age. There are so many bests in this version, it will always be hard to top for getting Bronte right.

This version was shot when black and white film-making was at it's best, and Fox was known as the best at noir/Gothic, with velvety blacks, and really crisp lighting and shading. One thing that helps this film be better is that it has the best script (by Huxley, Stevenson and Houseman). The script transitions well, and really captures the major emotional elements of the story. This version also has the best child Jane (Peggy Ann Gardner). I agree with many that Zelah Clarke (Jane in the 1983 miniseries) is probably the definitive adult Jane, but Joan Fontaine is equally fine, and many people will simply not sit through the slow miniseries. Joan Fontaine was not a glossy beauty, and was usually cast as "plain" despite her natural loveliness. She has a real sense of refined restraint that seems very natural, and her strength is not so much in knowing she is strong, but overcoming her weakness. That is a very important mental/emotional component for getting Jane right.

Orson Welles is beefy and sexy, and plays every note of Rochester perfectly. If he is a bit too young for the role, that is the only flaw. While I feel that Cirian Hinds (the 1997 film version) is the best Rochester, Welles performance equals him. Once again, the striking dark haired beauty Blanche was cast with a platinum blonde, she is undeniably and great and striking beauty, and is the best of the Blanche – easy to see why men like her, and why women don't. Little Margaret O'Brien, who I usually find cloying and hammy is, of course, the perfect Adele, so we have the best Adele, too! She is absolutely convincingly the daughter of a diva, a dancer and coquette, and her "look at me" peskiness is just right for Adele.

The supporting roles, just simply nail the characters as described in the book, Broklehurst, Agnes Morehead as the Aunt, Mrs. Fairfax, and young Elizabeth Taylor as young Jane's friend all add up to make this a masterpiece. Having Bernard Herrmann do the score doesn't hurt a bit, either. (Film buffs will find it of interest that some of the exact themes and sound cues used in this film were also used again in Hitchcock's NORTH BY NORTHWEST.) See the 1934 version for a laugh and film history. See the 1983 miniseries to see the truest rendition of the book. See the 1997 version for breathtaking color, scenery and Cirian Hinds' Rochester. See this to be fully satisfied. This is simply an exquisite film – film-making at its best in every respect; and while not as letter-perfectly definitive as the 1983 miniseries, I feel it is overall the best, truest version of JANE EYRE.

An American romantic drama; A story about a naive orphan who, in time, becomes governess in a mysterious Yorkshire mansion. Besotted with her charismatic but intimidating employer, she is unaware that the master of the house is concealing a dark secret. Charlotte Brontë's novel is distilled to 90 mins of high level melodrama, dramatic contrasts in lighting, dramatic swells of music at key moments, and highly dramatic delivery of dialogue, in which each character replied immediately and powerfully to what another had just said. But, it also features fabulously stirring performances from Joan Fontaine who was believably passionate, chastened, firm, desperate, and loving; Orson Welles is awesomely dominating, and expressionistic as Rochester; Peggy Ann Garner gives us a heart-rending young Jane. Elizabeth Taylor's small part also adds much to the touching scenes of childhood. The vivid black-and-white photography, dark visuals and bleak setting, together with the ominous soundtrack by Bernard Herrmann, combines to create an intimidating atmosphere and attractive viewing.

Reading the novel before seeing the movie, I had my own ideas about the characters of Miss Bronte's book. The movie leaves quite a bit of the story out, but dutifully makes up for it with a strong actors and incredible cinematography.

Joan Fontaine portrays the shy, demure Jane Eyre. (or is she?) I always believed this was the story of a woman forced to be what society felt a woman should be. Once Jane becomes the governess of Mr. Rochester's ward, she feels free to be the woman she truly is: strong-willed, opinionated and passionate.

Truly, they just don't make movies like this anymore. Not just a love story, this is a tale of finding oneself and realizing one's true destiny.

My first impression- it was very Gothic. Quite dark and ominous with eerie music adding to the look and feel. This was quite a stark contrast to the 1934 version, that's for sure! It was much more faithful to the novel than 1934, but it still changed quite a bit as well.

I found Joan Fontaine to be slightly too subdued in her performance as Jane. I know Jane is suppose to be reserved, but I think it was taken too far- almost to her having no emotions at all. Orson Welles as Rochester's performance stressed Rochester's dark and troubled side- completely ignoring the character's sense of humor. Once again, stressing the Gothic elements.

Look out for a very young Elizabeth Taylor in an uncredited role as Helen Burns! This version was certainly more faithful than 1934 and much better made on the whole, yet I'm afraid I don't share the love a lot of people seem to have for it. It still changed a bit too much for me and was at times overly dark.

Though Jane Eyre was blessed with incredible performances by Welles and Fontaine, the movie completely disgraced the novel. I just finished reading the book, and the injustices were incredible. Especially that of switching St. John to a doctor at Lowood, and making him an unimportant part of Jane's life. Not to mention the fact that Stevenson disregarded any attempt to include Ms. Temple, one of Jane's most important role models. This movie truly makes me wonder if Stevenson actually read the book. Or if he did, was he paying any attention to the words he perused?

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!!"

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!

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.

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.

This is by far the best movie version of this beautiful, wonderful book. Charlotte Bronte weaved an incredible tale about an intelligent, early feminist who feels deeply and is full of passion. Orson Wells is a superb Rochester and Joan Fontaine plays Jane the way she was meant to be played: sweet, gentle but strong and intelligent. It's a continual joy to watch and a movie that can definitely be considered a classic from the golden age of Hollywood.

This is adaptation of the oft-filmed Bronte classic, benefits enormously from Welles' presence as the brooding, tortured Rochester. Welles' theatricals might seem a bit overwrought to a modern viewer, but the performance still stands up as a powerful study in conflicting emotions and inner turmoil. Joan Fontaine, as in Rebecca and Suspicion, is once again on hand as a pallid innocent caught up in tense Gothic drama and responding with a self-sacrificing femininity that hints at co-dependency and masochism. The dark, shadowy noir look of the production suits its Gothic origins and the stylistic emphasis on tight, cramped compositions creates an appropriately claustrophobic atmosphere surrounding the doomed lovers. Margaret O'Brien, the so-charismatic-she-was-almost-spooky child acting prodigy of the age, is well cast as Jane Eyre's sympathetic charge, and her relationship with Jane makes the rough early period of the story watchable, as Rochester fumes and slams his way around.

This sports a good cast, is a famous story and has good cinematography but is such a depressing film I wouldn't watch it again. A big reason I checked it out was I am a fan of Peggy Ann Garner, and there aren't many films of her available. She is the star of this movie for the first 20 minutes as a young "Jane Eyre." Sadly, it's the story of her hard life as a kid under wicked people, and then she's out of the picture as Joan Fontaine plays her as an adult.

One of the wicked people tormenting young Eyre (Garner) is the head of the school and, of course, is portrayed as a man of the Bible, a Christian man. For several famous English authors (Charlotte Bronte here, and Charles Dickens) of the 19th century - and with almost all filmmakers in any era - its another opportunity to make a Believer look evil. No wonder film critics liked this movie.

As the adult Eyre, Fontaine's character still has a hard life until the very end. Once again, this is very similar to many Charles Dickens stories, such as Oliver Twist. Fontaine does fine in her role but Orson Welles delivers one of the few bad performances in his career, overacting terribly here. His ravings are such you can't understand what he says anyway.

Two other youngsters besides Garner are in this movie: Margaret O'Brien (speaking of overacting) and Elizabeth Taylor (in an uncredited role.) There is some cinematography in here, a number of shots that feature a lot of ground fog.