“JANE EYRE” (1943) Review

“JANE EYRE” (1943) Review

Many fans of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, “Jane Eyre”, are aware that numerous (probably over twenty) television and movie adaptations of it had been made over the past several decades. While perusing the Internet, I was surprised to discover that the opinion of the 1943 adaption seemed to be extremely divided. Fans either regard it as the best adaptation or the worst. There seemed to be no middle ground.

As many know, “JANE EYRE” told the story of young 19th century English orphan who is forced to live at the Yorkshire estate of her widowed aunt-by-marriage, Aunt Reed. After a recent altercation between niece and aunt, the latter sends Jane Eyre to be educated at an all-girls school operated by a tyrannical and religious zealot named Mr. Lowood. Jane spends eight years at the school as a student and two years as a teacher. She eventually leaves Lowood School after she is hired as a governess for Adèle Varens, the French-born ward of a mysterious landowner named Mr. Edward Rochester. Not long after her arrival at Thornfield Hall, the Rochester estate, Jane meets her enigmatic employer. It does not take long before Jane and Rochester’s relationship evolve from employee/employer to friends, before it eventually becomes romantic. However, a possible romantic rival for Jane and a secret in Thornfield’s attic prove to be major obstacles in the road to romance for the young governess and her employer.

So . . . how does “JANE EYRE” hold up after 71 to 72 years? Actually, I believe it holds up pretty well. I thought director Robert Stevenson and the screenplay he co-wrote with John Houseman, Aldous Huxley, and Henry Koster did a solid job in translating Brontë’s novel to the screen. Many critics and movie fans have noted that this adaptation seemed to have convey the novel’s Gothic atmosphere a lot stronger than other versions. I supposed one has cinematographer George Barnes, production designer William L. Pereira and set decorator Thomas Little to thank. However, I recently learned it was Orson Welles (who not only served as leading man, but also an uncredited producer) who had convinced Stevenson and his fellow co-producers William Goetz and Kenneth Macgowan to inject more Gothic visuals into the movie. I could not say that René Hubert’s costume designs contributed to the movie’s Gothic atmosphere. But I was impressed by how Hubert’s costumes reflected the movie’s early 1840s setting, as shown in the images below:

338848.1 Fontaine, Joan (Jane Eyre)_01

I certainly had no problems with how the movie handled Jane’s story through most of the film. From the opening scene in which the leading character found herself harassed by the Reed film to her disrupted wedding to Edward Rochester. I usually find it difficult to endure the Lowood School scenes in other adaptations of Brontë’s novels. But I cannot say the same about this adaptation. I really had no problem with it. It could be that I was so fascinated by the performances of Peggy Ann Garner, Elizabeth Taylor and Henry Daniell that I completely forgot that I was watching one of my least favorite sequences in the story. And of course, the best part of “JANE EYRE” remained the growing friendship and romance between the titled character and Rochester. This was especially apparent in two sequences – Rochester’s courtship of Blanche Ingram during his house party and Jane’s confession of her love for him.

Although I was impressed by how Stevenson and the film’s other screenwriters handled Brontë’s tale up to Jane and Rochester’s disastrous wedding ceremony, I could not say the same about the rest of the film. In fact, it suffered from the same narrative problem that plagued several other adaptations – a weak finale. First of all, this is the only adaptation in which Jane never meets the Rivers siblings – St. John, Diana and Mary. She does meet a Doctor Rivers, who first treated Jane when she was a Lowood student. Instead of seeking refuge with the trio, Jane returns to Gateshead Hall, the home of her dying Aunt Reed. Following her aunt’s death, Jane reunites with Rochester. That is it. And I hate to say this, but the entire sequence – between Jane’s departure from Thornfield Hall to her return – seemed very rushed and unsatisfying.

I also have another major problem with the movie – its Gothic elements. There were times when these elements served the mysterious aspects of the movie very well. However, a good deal of these “Gothic touches” struck me as heavy handed . . . to the point that they ended up annoying me. This was apparent in Jane’s first meeting with Rochester, with so much fog swirling around the pair that at times they seemed almost hidden. The worst aspect of these “Gothic touches” occurred in the scene in which Jane and Rochester confessed their love for one another. The moment the pair sealed their engagement with a kiss, a bolt of lightning came out of the sky and struck a nearby log. I mean . . . come on! Really?

A good number of critics and movie fans did not seem particularly impressed by Joan Fontaine’s portrayal of Jane Eyre. I never understood the complaints. I thought she did an excellent job. More importantly, her portrayal of the passionate, yet introverted Jane seemed spot on. What were these critics expecting? An over-the-top performance by Fontaine? Jane Eyre is not an overtly emotional character – at least as an adult. However, I am happy to note that Fontaine certainly had a strong screen chemistry with her leading man, Orson Welles. Many have stated that Welles pretty much dominated the movie. To me, that is like saying every actor who has portrayed Edward Rochester overshadowed the actresses who have portrayed Jane. Personally, I thought Welles’ enigmatic and quick-witted portrayal of Rochester complimented Fontaine’s more introspective performance rather well. I guess these fans and critics did not want balance . . . just two very theatrical performances.

The other performances in the movie struck me as first-rate. Agnes Moorehead, who was part of Welles’ Mercury Theater company before her arrival in Hollywood, portrayed Jane’s haughty Aunt Reed. And I must say that she did an excellent job in portraying the character with a not-too-shabby English accent. Henry Daniell was equally impressive as the tyrannical head of Jane’s school, Mr. Lowood. But I was really impressed by Margaret O’Brien, who did a remarkable job as Rochester’s French ward, Adèle Varens. I would not know an authentic French accent, if I was stuck in the middle of Paris. But I must say that O’Brien’s accent was just as good as the other young actresses who portrayed Adèle. And she gave such a charming performance . . . at the age of six.

But O’Brien was not the only child star who gave an excellent performance. Peggy Ann Garner was equally impressive as the young Jane Eyre, who had no qualms about butting heads with the haughty Reed family. Also in the film was a young Elizabeth Taylor, who gave a mesmerizing performance as Jane’s doomed young friend, Helen Burns. I was surprised to discover that Hillary Brooke, who portrayed Blanche Ingram, was an American actress. I thought she was very convincing as the charmingly bitchy and very English Blanche. The movie also featured solid performances from Sara Allgood, John Sutton, Edith Barrett and Barbara Everest.

So . . . do I feel that “JANE EYRE” is the best or worst adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s novel? Honestly? I would say neither. Yes, there were times I could barely deal with the movie’s over-the-top Gothic atmosphere. And yes, I found the last quarter of the film both weak and rushed. But overall, I would say that it is a pretty good film. And I believe that it still holds up rather well after 71 to 72 years.

“THE V.I.P.s” (1963) Review

damemaggie1

 

“THE V.I.P.s” (1963) Review

Many have claimed that the 1963 drama, “THE V.I.P.s” came about, due to the publicity that surrounded the Elizabeth Taylor-Richard Burton romance that had blossomed during the production of “CLEOPATRA” in 1962. I rather doubt it, considering how Taylor ended up in this movie. I do know that “THE V.I.P.s” was one of several collaborations between producter Anatole de Grunwald, director Anthony Asquith and dramatist Terence Rattigan.

I suspect that “THE V.I.P.s” was just another production that materialized between the three men, during this period. Asquith had originally considered Sophia Loren for the leading female role, based upon her performance in the 1960 movie, “THE MILLIONAIRE”. But Taylor, Taylor, fearful that Burton found Loren appealing, persuaded Asquith to hire her instead. So much for the idea that this movie was about cashing in on the Taylor-Burton romance. Rattigan claimed that he had based the film’s screenplay on Vivian Leigh’s attempt to leave her husband Laurence Olivier for Peter Finch back in the early 1950s. But only one of the movie’s story arcs was based upon this incident. “THE V.I.P.s” focused on a group of important passengers for a flight to New York City, who are delayed at Heathrow Airport by the fog. The passengers are:

*Film actress Frances Andros, who is leaving her millionaire husband Paul Andros with her love, playboy Marc Champselle

*Film producer Max Buda, who wants to leave England with protégée Gloria Gritti by midnight in order to avoid paying a hefty tax bill.

*Australian businessman Les Mangrum, who needs to reach New York City in order to prevent his business from being sold.

*The elderly Duchess of Brighton, who is travel to Florida in order to take a job that will pay her enough money to save her family’s historic home.

There is one thing I can say about “THE V.I.P.s” – it is a beautiful looking film. And for a movie that is mainly set at an airport and a nearly hotel, that is quite a miracle. I suppose one can credit cinematographer Jack Hildyard’s sharp and colorful photography that has held up very well after fifty years or so. On the other hand, if anyone asked me if I could recall legendary Hollywood composer Miklós Rózsa’s score for this film . . . I would deny even remembering it. The score seemed that unmemorable to me.

On the other hand, the movie did provide some top-notch performances. I can honestly say that not one member of the cast seemed to be going through the motions. Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton were certainly in top form as the estranged couple – Frances and Paul Andros. There was one scene, which led to a slightly violent conclusion, struck me as particularly memorable. I also enjoyed Louis Jordan’s charming, yet frank portrayal of the playboy Marc Champselle, who seemed to be genuinely in love with Taylor’s character. “THE V.I.P.s” proved to be the only time in which actor Rod Taylor portrayed a character from his native country. And as usual, he gave it his all as the passionate businessman Les Mangrum, desperate to save his company. Equally passionate was Maggie Smith, who not portrayed his secretary, Miss Mead, who harbored a secret love for him, but also managed to create a strong screen chemistry with Taylor. Smith was especially effective in one scene in which her character pleaded with Burton’s Paul Andros to help save Mangrum’s company. I must also add that both Elsa Martinelli was quite charming as the Italian actress, Gloria Gritti, who had attached herself to producer Max Buda’s star.

However, my two favorite performances came from the unlikeliest performers – Orson Welles and Oscar winner Margaret Rutherford. I had started on this film, expecting both to give over-the-top performances. Instead, Welles surprised me with a subtle portrayal of the sardonic European movie producer with a penchant for ironic wit and desperate to prevent his money from being seized by the British government. Equally entertaining was Margaret Rutherford, who certainly earned her Best Supporting Actress Oscar as the broad-minded aristocrat, who is dancing on the edge of desperation to save her stately home, by selling her services to some American business in Florida.

Yes, “THE V.I.P.s” looked beautiful. Yes, it featured some excellent performances. And even the stories were somewhat interesting. But overall, I do not believe I would ever become a fan of it. The movie reminded me of the countless number of night time soap opera television shows and movies that deluged the airwaves during the 1980s. Yet, those shows and movies from thirty years ago seemed to have more bite. The problem with Terence Rattigan’s screenplay is that the melodrama seemed to be lacking in bite. I found it too charming, too polite and possibly too intellectual – especially the story arc about the Andros’ marriage. It is not dull. But the drama struck me as simply too old-fashioned . . . even for 1963.

What else can I say about the movie? Well . . . I would not exactly recommend it. There were moments when I found myself bored, while watching it. Hell, I can think of a good number of melodramas between the 1930s and 1950s that struck me as more interesting. As much as I enjoyed Jack Hildyard’s photography and the performances featured in the film – especially Margaret Rutherford and Orson Welles’ – I think the movie fell flat in the end.