What really surprised me about this adaptation is that - although it is the shortest ever made (running time of 90 minutes which is very very little for a book like Jane Eyre) - it still works. Unsurprisingly it falls short in many respects. A lot of the story is cut and characters are changed or left out completely (for instance St. John Rivers and his sisters, there is a Dr. Rivers included instead but he is the kindly physician who attends the girls at Lowood and has nothing whatever to do with the haughty and intensely unlikeable St. John from the book). However they cleverly condense the story and always give the right background by letting Jane narrate it throughout, just like it is done in the book. Of course, some things are intensely wrong. Joan Fontaine is a beautiful woman, which is wrong for Jane. But I think you have to remember that the 40s were a different time and the approach to literary adaptations was different so you shouldn't judge it by todays standards. All movie stars were attractive (and the couple who weren't were constantly cast as either Dracula or Frankenstein). Orson Welles also looks wrong for Rochester (his face is too babyishly round) but they still pull it off. Welles can work wonders with his eyebrows and forehead and the cunning use of spooky shadows on his face (while Fontaines face is always well lit, I found this contrast quite enjoyable to watch) manages to convey a suitably grim impression of Rochester. I like Welles' Rochester a lot but occasionally his articulation falls a bit short. Some of his lines are hard to make out because he slurs them so badly but it doesn't happen that often so it's OK. Joan Fontaine gives Jane a sightly weaker character than is entirely appropriate (constant curtseying and more weeping than is in the book) and yet she conveys all her passion and some of her rigid strength. I also liked that this movie focuses most of it's screen time on what's important, which is Jane and Rochester. They devote precisely enough time on Janes childhood to give the right impression about its oppressiveness but no so much as to steal time away from the rest of the movie. The part after Jane runs away from Thornfield is just skimmed over which is a shame, but since they only had 90 minutes I'm perfectly willing to cut them some slack there. I'd much rather do without that than having too little screen time given to the development of the relationship between Jane and Rochester. This however is very carefully done. Welles smoulders and stares and I'm absolutely amazed at how sexy all that handshaking is even without all the "standing too close and almost kissing" that all adaptations of the 2000s deemed necessary. The only scene between the two that was ruined was the proposal scene. Jane believes Rochester too quickly and Welles supposedly passionate line "Say it Jane, say it" comes out as just a tad hurried and almost comical. But the rest is superb, so I didn't mind too much. I can sincerely recommend this movie, I know it falls short as a literary adaptation but I can honestly say it works. And I'm always surprised how movie-makers in the 40s seemed to be able to make much better use of limited screen time than the movie-makers of today.
Review of Jane Eyre
