JANE EYRE (1943)

As I was watching the opening credits to this 1943 adaptation of the famous novel by Charlotte Brontë, I couldn't help but be impressed by the talent involved.  Besides Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles playing the lead roles (perfect casting it would seem), Aldous Huxley and John Houseman were involved in writing the screenplay, and Bernard Herrmann wrote the score.  The likes of Agnes Moorhead and a young Elizabeth Taylor get to play very minor roles.

Admittedly I hadn’t heard of the director Robert Stevenson,  who was one of many screenwriters who eventually graduated to directing.  In Stevenson's case his most notable film was probably ‘Mary Poppins’, some twenty odd years later.

I’ve never read the novel but I had a broad idea as to the main storyline.  It’s a Gothic romance, and this film certainly doesn't stint on the Gothic atmosphere: it’s in black-and-white, there’s plenty of mist and thunderstorms, all the buildings seem cold and oppressive, the countryside is bleak and windswept, the music is harsh, etc, etc.

The cinematographer for this film, George Barnes, had won an Oscar three years earlier for his work on ‘Rebecca’, also starring Joan Fontaine.  She was an obvious choice to play Jane, since in both films the heroine has to put up with a husband/master who is moody (to put it mildly) and haunted by his past.  

In neither case does it occur to him that the heroine deserves to know about what is troubling him, whether because the writer simply wants to heighten suspense, or because in those days women were treated as inferior beings, who can say?

Young Jane shows plenty of spirit in the face of awful cruelty from her aunt, and at the school she is packed off to.  But inevitably as the story progresses and she falls in love with Rochester she becomes remarkably submissive (from a modern viewpoint).  She doesn’t even get angry at the discovery that he was happily going to deceive her into a bigamous marriage.

That being said, Fontaine gives a typically fine performance which makes Jane a believable and attractive protagonist.

Unfortunately I was less keen on Welles’ portrayal although any actor would struggle to make Rochester a sympathetic character given his behaviour, such as the aforementioned attempt to commit bigamy.  And the whole business of him seemingly planning to marry a woman whom he doesn’t love and who doesn't love him left me thoroughly bewildered.

The screenwriters heavily streamlined the novel so as to focus on the romance element of the story, which may not have been a good idea given the lack of chemistry between Fontaine and Welles.  It also has the effect of emphasising the more absurd parts of the story, such as the mad wife locked away.

Overall this version of the story didn’t grab me; it's a typical Hollywood production of this period in that it is well made up to a point, but lacks depth and nuance.