I had high hopes for this movie, and I still think it's worth seeing from a historical point of view, but it certainly could have been better.
Naturally it's tough to do the novel justice in 62 minutes, but it would have worked better had they not wasted precious time on silly or insignificant events. For example, does anyone really want to see Adele dust the banister? The 1938 version of "A Christmas Carol" manages to cover a lot of ground in 69 minutes by making every line count. Alas, this version of Jane Eyre doesn't.
The character of Jane Eyre, in my opinion, has been molded into a strapping, two-fisted gal who progresses from slugging her cousin and shouting at her aunt to an impudent governess who goes about smashing vases and smart-talking her employer's fiancée! The novel portrays Jane as a plain and intelligent young woman who possesses great dignity and the ability to stand tall, despite the trials of her surroundings. This movie's Jane Eyre would be at home with the Bowery Boys.
Colin Clive is an interesting actor, but unfortunately the moody, difficult aspects of Mr. Rochester that he might have done something with are almost entirely gone. Rochester here is seen doting on Adele (his niece, whereas the book suggests Adele is his illegitimate child) and fawning over Jane with stunning rapidity. Check out when he invites her to dance and wonders why she didn't dress up for the party! Are we to believe that the engaged and wealthy owner of an estate expects his governess to deck herself out and participate in the party as a social equal? And would an orphanage teacher/governess have a party dress?? Perhaps this movie would play better for someone who hasn't read the book. For me, I kept thinking: The novel possesses a wealth of fascinating scenes and well-drawn characters. Why don't we see them here? The revelation of Rochester's wife in the novel, for example, was suspenseful and shocking. Here, the actual Mrs. Rochester strolls casually up to say how do you do! I must say that Christy Cabanne's direction was reasonably competent, and at times I felt like he was doing a lot with a little. So, the movie's not a total loss, but it's a major disappointment in that with better, tighter scripting we might have enjoyed a small-scale yet well-crafted production. Too bad!
Naturally it's tough to do the novel justice in 62 minutes, but it would have worked better had they not wasted precious time on silly or insignificant events. For example, does anyone really want to see Adele dust the banister? The 1938 version of "A Christmas Carol" manages to cover a lot of ground in 69 minutes by making every line count. Alas, this version of Jane Eyre doesn't.
The character of Jane Eyre, in my opinion, has been molded into a strapping, two-fisted gal who progresses from slugging her cousin and shouting at her aunt to an impudent governess who goes about smashing vases and smart-talking her employer's fiancée! The novel portrays Jane as a plain and intelligent young woman who possesses great dignity and the ability to stand tall, despite the trials of her surroundings. This movie's Jane Eyre would be at home with the Bowery Boys.
Colin Clive is an interesting actor, but unfortunately the moody, difficult aspects of Mr. Rochester that he might have done something with are almost entirely gone. Rochester here is seen doting on Adele (his niece, whereas the book suggests Adele is his illegitimate child) and fawning over Jane with stunning rapidity. Check out when he invites her to dance and wonders why she didn't dress up for the party! Are we to believe that the engaged and wealthy owner of an estate expects his governess to deck herself out and participate in the party as a social equal? And would an orphanage teacher/governess have a party dress?? Perhaps this movie would play better for someone who hasn't read the book. For me, I kept thinking: The novel possesses a wealth of fascinating scenes and well-drawn characters. Why don't we see them here? The revelation of Rochester's wife in the novel, for example, was suspenseful and shocking. Here, the actual Mrs. Rochester strolls casually up to say how do you do! I must say that Christy Cabanne's direction was reasonably competent, and at times I felt like he was doing a lot with a little. So, the movie's not a total loss, but it's a major disappointment in that with better, tighter scripting we might have enjoyed a small-scale yet well-crafted production. Too bad!
Tell Your Friends