Film review: Jane Eyre (1944)

[my_daroga]

Jane Eyre is not my favorite adaptation of Jane Eyre, nor is it a strictly faithful one. It relies heavily on its “literary” merits, demonstrated by passages of typed exposition that do not actually appear in the novel (though large parts of the dialogue do). Its 96 minutes necessitate gross cutting of major subplots. And at no time does anyone

Comments

[lettered]

Awesome review, per usual.

She's my favorite young!Jane, too. Though Anna Paquin is second (far second, iirc, but not Paquin's fault).

It may be personal bias, but I think Jane is a very strong character. Disappointing to have her so portrayed. As you said there was some display of spirit in the beginning. Looking forward to watching the rest with you.

Agreed on Welles' age.

[my_daroga]

We'll have to talk about it when we're done watching, obviously. And I don't know if it's personal bias on my side as well, but Fontaine just doesn't live up to it. But we'll see together; I could be biased against Fontaine somehow.

[seraphcelene]

It's always interesting how doctored some of the older films sometimes feel. I have a feeling it has more to do with how much more stylized older films tend to be so that adjustments and changes made in post-production can sometimes feel tacked on. I get a greater sense of intention from older films.

I really enjoy your reviews and you've given me yet another film to add to the list of things to see. I've also got to get around to reading Jane Eyre. A crime for an English major, but I was never required to read it and so never did.

[my_daroga]

There was a girl in high school I very much admired who loved Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice and is more or less the reason that I read both. I'm glad you enjoy reading my reviews, thank you!

I'm not entirely sure about the old vs. new dichotomy in terms of stylization and doctoredness. Part of me thinks that we cannot see the artificiality of the current style, because we are "in" it. But I think there are plenty of conventions and stylistic shortcuts modern Hollywood films take. It used to be that a handful of companies made every film and streamlined the product so it all looked "of a piece." Now the economy and focus groups and box office does more or less the same thing. We don't have the "star system" anymore, actors/directors/writers aren't under contract to a specific studio, but don't think still work more or less the same way?

Put it another way, I'm not sure if there *is* more intention in older films. Citizen Kane, sure, because for once one person was "in charge" of every aspect of production. But for the most part,

[seraphcelene]

I didn't mean to imply that there *is* greater intention in older films, just that I get a greater *sense* of it. Which, as you point out, probably has more to do with the distance between me and older films than it has to do with the objectives of the film itself. I'm more likely to miss it in newer films. I don't know if maybe I just expect less or the morality and themes are more familiar and thus less noticeable. That's not to say that I don't notice it because there are moments and films where it's very obvious to me what the filmmaker or scriptwriter is trying to achieve. For example, I think it was lostakasha who did a marvelous review of Superman Returns that opened up the film for me as a commentary on immigration and terrorism and other themes that apply very specifically to a post-9/11 global environment. I didn't see any of that until she pointed it out, which also likely has much to do with my skills at parsing films

[my_daroga]

I was disappointed by William Hurt, frankly, but then my investment in the novel is probably less than yours. I don't think I've seen a film version that would satisfy every purist, but the one tkp likes best (and I do too, but the novel is one of her favorites, too) is this one from 2006. It is on DVD. The Jane and Edward are too attractive, but sort of in ways I could maybe believe people wouldn't find them so generally.

You probably wouldn't like the Orson!Eyre. I enjoy it because he amuses me and the cinematography is beautiful and there's lots of quotage. And Helen is played by Elizabeth Taylor, and the young!Jane is great. But it cuts out a lot, too.