Change Your Image
cheilith
Reviews
Jane Eyre (1973)
I... Had a Very Hard Time Reaching the Ending.
Good gravy, if I had to sit through one more second of this criminal adaptation I might be prone to do something bad.
Okay, so let's review. This version of Jane Eyre has been praised to the skies by some fans who call themselves "purists," not all, but for many it's the faithful adaption that quotes the lines from the book word for word, as if it was a script. But Jane Eyre is not script, it's a lively vibrant beautiful story of a girl who became a real woman so inwardly that no "accomplished" lady of the time could hold a candle too. I admire Jane for all her beautiful traits and beliefs and how well she stays true to her own character under all the tribulations without smelling of smoke. Yet, she's not devoid of emotion, feeling – everything a human possess, a heart which had never experienced romantic love until she met Edward – utter heartbreak and finally fulfillment of life because of love. Now, having said that, this is why the 1973 and 1983 adaptations fall so short for reasons I don't want to forgive.
Why translate Jane Eyre to screen at all if you don't take advantage of the visual storytelling? The way these two adaptations play out, they read from the book, verbatim as if what was meant for pages would work just as well as dialogue. And with zero body language and crude color palettes for every scene to-boot. It's a shame. It turns an exciting, riveting title into a bland and boring story that frankly isn't worth telling if you're going to strip it of all the passion, emotion and human aspects of Jane and Edward.
Sorcha had such little facial range, and no body language to indicate emotions. Rochester, like Jane, came off as a long-winded, boring intellectual because all he did was talk, and without passion. I could not feel ANY passion; likewise I could not feel any anguish! This is why such exactness in an effort to stay-true-to-the-book becomes a wasted effort. Visual adaptions NEED artistic leeway, to capture the essences of the story. If done this way, new scenes can be added because you have a feel for how the characters would behave, regardless of the scenario.
At first I tolerated this version but by the end I was angry. I felt nothing but boredom. I believe I even prefer the long drawn 1983 one to this. My reason for that is at least in 1983 I did like the characters of Jane and Edward enough to finish. Zelah and Timothy showed a bit more emotion, albeit not quite Jane and Edward for me but at least they had chemistry and were even adorable at times. I disliked Jaystons Rochester so much. He was wrong for the part. He did not have the masterful presence and mysterious persona.
For the life of me I cannot like this adaption. It may be some fan's favorite but it's lack of depth and human feeling makes it unrealistic and un-relatable. I need to feel these characters are human to be able to sympathize!
So that being all said, I do want to make one point, since leaving nothing positive on a review isn't cool. What I wrote is my opinion of one film that I was reviewing for a project, this does not mean that what I stated, you as a viewer, will feel the same. Perhaps many good qualities are to be unearthed in this adaption? I just know that personally I already have a favorite and don't need to make this the new one.
Jane Eyre (1996)
Subdued
After viewing this adaptation of Jane Eyre, I'm going to go with my gut and label it as the "subdued" version. I have to say that it wasn't wholly bad as I anticipated (after reading reviews.) There are a few fans that will stick up for this one. I believe the charm they see in this film is perhaps relatable to them? Jane and Edward were more stoic, quiet and less passionate in this movie then the characters are in the book. However, as my sister stated (who did like this version) and I've have to agree, Jane was well suited for this Edward, despite coming across as a depressed drunk at times (Edward, not Jane). The lack of passion for me is what brought this movie down. I don't think William Hurt was fully suit to play Edward, but then I'd have to say Charlotte wouldn't make a good Jane paired with the other Edwards. The beginning of the film was good though. I was impressed with how it was handled and how much was kept in the story. (unrelated but I got a kick out of seeing actors and actress from other movies, Persuasion in particular).
Jane Eyre (1970)
An Elderly Rochester Will Still Put Up Just As Much Fuss
Ah, the matronly Jane, though I think I can see why, paired up with George Scott I can say I've never more felt the age gap between Jane and Rochester. Jane looking a little older made some sense to bridge the gap.
For 1970, some things done right were seeing ample time of young Jane at Lowood. I definitely got a sense of her anguish and background (though, still no Mrs. Reed). Also, we finally get Moors house with St. John and his sisters, their roles easily get chopped in the time constrained adaptations. And one other thing, although Susannah was pretty ancient, I found her mannerisms to be eerily similar to Ruth Willison's portrayal. I was also glad to finally be in color after all the short B&W productions I watched prior.
I have some deductions however. The romance felt rushed. I couldn't see why Jane fell for Edward, and why so quickly? When they spoke together it was more like two actors acting. George also didn't play a mysterious enough Rochester; he was always around, monologue-ing to Jane. It happened too fast without the buildup because all the little scenes were omitted. It's all those little scenes however that build the romantic feelings.
I also wasn't too pleased with the ending. Because I never felt the romance, I didn't feel Jane's anguish for leaving. When she came back, I still wasn't feeling it (I'm just told to feel it because that's how the story goes) and as for Rochester's feelings, he didn't even seem shocked to see Jane, let alone over-joyed. He just sat there! *sigh*. It wasn't terrible but I've seen better.
Jane Eyre (1934)
So Funny! For The Wrong Reasons.
What is this comedy?! I expected to sit through an old worn adaption that creaked and had little to no music, but honestly I did not think it would be this bad! It wasn't even the production values that brought it down, it was the interpretation. As one reviewer said, this was an entirely different story that simply borrowed characters -- well, the names of the characters (kinda how Monogram borrowed the actors) -- to create a sugar-coated drama very loosely based on the book, Jane Eyre. Every element of suspense in the story was removed. It's actually laughable; those changes made the story absurd. It didn't help either that Adele was constantly having pratt falls—why was the time constraint wasted on her? Bertha came across as a nice lady who was cruelly locked away because Rochester felt like it, yet he came across as such a nice guy, boring even. All in all, it's only worth watching for the sheer ridiculousness that it is. You'll get in a few laughs.
Studio One: Jane Eyre (1949)
Charlton Heston makes this adaptation worth it.
My very first thought was, "Charlton Heston!? Are they serious!?" I never expected to see him playing this role. I watched, and it turns out I was quite happy with his feet filling Rochester boots. After getting over my shock, I realized he did fit the role using his own charm not so unlike what Ciaran Hinds did. His only flaw however, was his strange taste in women.
It didn't make sense that he would marry Bertha; she was an unattractive old hag in this. As for Jane, what was so special about her? Let's face it, she was dull. Instead of being unique, she was more like a typical American actress of the time. Perky with her head in the clouds, and when she was sad it was Hollywood sad. All this made her so boring. I couldn't see why Rochester was drawn to Jane, so his romance with her felt forced. And on top, there wasn't any chemistry. However I did like this adaptation more than I anticipated, for a short BW 1940's production. (Heston's performance pretty much stole the show). Bertha was also seen early on which was an interesting change. As for length, this was like a Coles notes version of Jane Eyre. But it did it well; I didn't think the story could be shortened this much and still be true. --- Aired on "Studio One"- an American drama anthology program. Mary Sinclair also played Cathy, with Charlton Heston as Heathcliff in a "Studio One" production of "Wuthering Heights".
Jane Eyre (1943)
Heavy On The Gothic But Decent.
Not bad, definitely a step up from 1934 but that's not saying much. I've heard good reviews for this one, so much so that for some this is the best version. I can see how they could see that and for the time period, absolutely. However, years later Jane Eyre has been adapted in ways that succeed this one for a number of reasons.
Story wise, the first half was really well done. Elizabeth Taylor was a surprise, she played Helen. The second half took a good chunk of film time before Rochester even proposed so I kept wondering how it was going to fit everything left in. The answer was to keep all the scenes short and deviate the story when Jane leaves. Instead of going to the moors she goes to Gateshead, for the first time in years. I was told Mr. Rochester would come in and rescue her in the 1944 adaptation but was glad to see that wasn't true, she came back to him as written.
Performances were both well done. Orson Welles isn't my favorite Rochester but did a decent job. For me, he was just too shadowy without being light-hearted enough. Joan was very good, even with the 1944 constraints she pulled it off to fit the best of both worlds, staying true to Jane's character with Hollywood acting thrown in.