"Jane Eyre" is a great romantic novel, full of passion as all the novels of the Brontë sisters, and with a terrific story to tell. This version, the third I have seen, has no passion, no mystery and apparently no direction. Robert Young has treated the Brontë world as if it were the world of Jane Austen. I recently saw the 1944 and the 1970 versions (the Robert Stevenson and the Delbert Mann ones). The Stevenson opus had the advantage of a really powerful cast. Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles understood and projected all the passion and the mystery of the novel. Besides, it had a marvelous musical score by Bernard Herrmann. The 1970 film had at least a passionate Rochester in that great actor George C.Scott. But this one! I don't believe any woman in her right mind would fall in love with the prosaic, colorless, inexpressive man that a very bad actor, Ciaran Hinds, could project.And the leading lady, Samantha Morton, is not only plain (as Jane Eyre is described in the book), but totally unattractive and only a passable actress. I felt I was not watching a film, but having the book read aloud to me. The only element that can be saved of this unfortunate "Jane Eyre" is the color photography and some natural but already hackneyed scenery. See the 1944 version and forget about the others. It is still a classic film and a clear demonstration of what can be done with a classic novel when there is talent behind and in front of the camera. Let's not forget that Aldous Huxley was a co-author of the '44 screen play. What a great film after 45 years. The responsibles for the '97 version should take cover.
