Also I'll only cover 'adult' Janes in this review since the young ones almost always get the short shrift, save for one example I'll move onto in a bit.
Virginia Bruce played the titular heroine in the 1934 adaptation of 'Jane Eyre'
One of the longest hours of my life ever was spent on this atrocious version of 'Jane Eyre'. Mr Rochester is just the most sickly sweet and jolly romantic in the world, and Colin Clive in the role does this interpretation/complete neglect of the character no favours. The filmmakers seemed to have no qualms whatsoever with completely butchering the source material yet for some reason still want to keep some of the Gothic elements of the novel, resulting in some of the worst whiplash of tones ever in a motion picture. Virginia Bruce does her film proud by turning Jane into just about the least convincing governess ever, some drugged up Californian bimbo would've probably done a better job than her at managing the household, and beyond that she has no chemistry with Clive (who is equally bad), it's like she's serenading a corpse as the two canoodle. But if she'd just stood around passively I may have consented to give her a 1.5 for not sinking to the rest of the film's badness but no somehow, she finds a way to add to the tapestry by giving a simultaneously dull and over the top performance.
Virginia Bruce in 'Jane Eyre' (1934): 1/5
Joan Fontaine played the titular heroine in the 1943 version of 'Jane Eyre'
The 1943 Robert Stevenson adaptation of 'Jane Eyre' does for me exactly what it says on a tin: an incredibly passionate romance with all the suppressed passion you'd expect from this sort of film. It's not exceedingly over the top and is a good enough adaptation, although I think it hits its highest points before the main meat of the film it remains a thoroughly engaging film, overall, in terms of just being a watchable film. On the minus side it's far too short, although to its credit it does well enough within this runtime constraint to put as much of the story in as possible.
Joan Fontaine actually played a variation of the character of Jane Eyre in 'Rebecca' (based on the Daphne du Maurier novle) 3 years previously; and I would dare say that was the more complex and impressive performance by her there as her depiction of a literally nameless non-entity of a newlywed, a fish out of water in the magnificent Manderlay, and trying to find her way through her husband Maxim de Winter (a terrific Laurence Olivier in his first great performance, after a series of dull early ones), the wrath of housekeeper Mrs Danvers (an impressive Judith Anderson), the sly machinations of thet notorious womanizer Jack Favelle (a perfectly cast and darkly charismatic George Sanders), and the overbearing presence of the deceased former Mrs de Winter. I can't say whether Fontaine should've won the Oscar or not since I still have not seen Ginger Rogers' leading win, but it's a great performance.
Why do I mention this? Well simply due to the fact that in that earlier film, though I won't make an argument (I'll save it for another time) for 'Rebecca' having a better source material to go by than 'Jane Eyre', it is most certainly the superior film in so many ways, not least how it handles Fontaine's lead performance. Hitchcock cleverly employed all manner of fancy closeups, lighting techniques, set design, etc. and most importantly, generated the right sort of chemistry and dynamic between her and her co-stars so as to bring out the most of Fontaine; whereas Stevenson, while generating a very palatable atmosphere to the film's tone, I would say is a bit more workmanlike in his handling of Fontaine's lead performance. In 'Rebecca' Fontaine had bundles to work with and delivered a performance for the ages; in 'Jane Eyre' she's kind of hampered by the fact that unlike films like 'Rebecca', 'Suspicion', and even lighter fare like 'This Above All' or 'September Affair', the direction and camera just isn't as focused upon her. She's the lead yes, but the film doesn't quite allow her to give a great performance by the overbearing melodrama which risks clashing with her performance, and I guess Fontaine does well to follow in vein by giving an uncharacteristically subdued performance. The best parts of her performance, however, do come when she's taking a more louder/emotional attitude to things, in particular her final scenes in which she brings far more of an emotional bent to her performance than before. Which isn't to say that they're her only good scenes; she is very good in the proposal scene where she actually makes the rather rushed attraction between Rochester and Jane resonate quite well, and does the gradual breakdown of her defences quite well. It's not amazing stuff, but certainly good.
Fontaine is good as always, but she really is the sort of actress who benefits more from a strong, distinctive direction that focuses upon her, or a louder sort of role, or a role with a darker tinge to it. This Jane is prim and proper, and her portrayal is repressed enough for sure, eschewing her usual more emotional style; unlike Bruce, thankfully, who seemed to have completely abstract ideas about how Jane should be played, Fontaine is quite by the book, and subtle, but I'm not quite sure if subtlety was the right way to go for an actress whose best work was always of the more overt sort. She seems sometimes rather lacking in terms of the impact it had on me, particularly when sharing the scene with Orson Welle's Rochester. Which is not to say she gives a bad performance, in fact she was better for me overall than Welles who had good moments but also underplayed/overplayed several crucial moments. She's probably the most consistent out of the whole cast in terms of her portrayal of a character. I just think that so far as Fontaine's reactive performances go this is definitely a lesser one, particularly in comparison to 'Suspicion' and especially 'Rebecca'. I must reiterate that Fontaine gives a good performance but is somewhat miscast, she was an actress who needed big, loud dramatic moments to thrive. As Eyre she's consistently good, but never great, and the only major problem with the performance is that I don't think the role fits her quite perfectly; in fact, she's not even the best Jane Ere within her own film, as Peggy Ann Garner as the young Jane makes a far more interesting portrayal I could have gone for a lot more for. Olivia de Havilland, her sister, may have been a better choice.
Joan Fontaine in 'Jane Eyre' (1943): 3.5/5
Charlotte Gainsbourg played the titular heroine in the 1996 version of 'Jane Eyre'
This version of 'Jane Eyre' is an okay adaptation. It is watchable enough and has its moments throughout but has one major miscasting issue in one of the lead roles and plays it a bit too safe at points. As a result there's nothing overtly bad about it, but there's nothing terribly good either.
Charlotte Gainsbourg is thankfully not miscast, as in terms of just aethestic and style she really does look and act the part of Jane Eyre quite well. Unlike William Hurt, who quite frankly looks ill at ease for the whole duration of the performance, failing to convey the mystery of Rochester and instead settling into a slightly eccentric, pretty underwhelming figure, Gainsbourg is well-fitted to the role. She looks like Jane, she has that right sort of stiffness and emotionless to her initial scenes and is a good reactive figure throughout. A reservation some might have is that her natural French accent slips in here and there, but I never thought distractingly so, and anyway, the consistency with which she maintains her other character traits make it a good performance overall.
She's never quite amazing, and yet never underwhelming either. In short she's a fairly standard Jane Eyre who brings the right approach to the front. In a more distinctive version of the story she may have made more of an impact, but as it is it's a good performance, if somewhat limited by the film and the inadequate Hurt. I actually considered giving her a weak 4 for the fact that her romantic scenes with Hurt are prevented from being totally disastrous by her sterling conveyment of passion in these scenes, but in the end I don't feel they really warrant that extra bump from an effective performance to a very good performance.
Charlotte Gainsbourg in 'Jane Eyre' (1996): 3.5/5
Samantha Morton played the titular heroine in the 1997 version of 'Jane Eyre'
Whereas Fontaine and Gainsbourg were good but not great, and Bruce was downright awful, Samantha Morton's portrayal of Jane Eyre resides somewhere in between the two, veering more towards the latter. Her performance, indeed, is much like the film itself: not offensively, excessively bad but mostly rather bland, and intrinsically flawed in characterization, and several moments of extreme inadequacy. Ciarin Hinds is not nearly as miscast as William Hurt as he does convey a certain sense of mystery to the character of Rochester. He nullifies a lot of this however with his overly gruff and sometimes, rather OTT depiction of certain scenes where a more downplayed approach would've been helpful.
I've read some critical essays on Jane Eyre which actually fit in with Samantha Morton's interpretation of her as a self-conscious feminist, suffragette-esque in her pursuits. I will confess to not being as well-acquainted with the novel as many of these critics, but I have to say when reading it I'd always imagined Jane as less a radical sort and more retiring nature. With drive, certainly, and a strong will, but certainly not a suffragette. Anyway, though, we're here to talk about the film itself, and not the adaptational quality of the character; but I must say though Morton does distinguish herself from previous Jane Eyres with her louder approach, it doesn't necessarily pay dividends. I would argue, in fact, that Morton's approach should have been used by Fontaine to portray her character, as it would have fit in with her usual 'big' acting style, while Morton, usually a very reserved sort of actress, would have done well to fit the role to her standard type of acting.
In fact, a subtle variation on her performance in say, 'The Sweet Hereafter' or 'Minority Report' would have actually paid dividends. Unfortunately, Morton stays rather one note the whole way through. She externalises a bit too much while not giving nearly enough internalistion of Jane's feelings and planning, which is very necessary for the character. I wouldn't actually mind seeing another take on this sort of Jane Eyre who's more Bathsheba Everdeen-esque than her usual reserved sort of portrayal. Morton, however, does not manage this too well as she is often a bit bland with her interactions and reactions to other characters. A modern-day actress like Carey Mulligan would probably manage to mend together the inherent reserve of the character's writing with a more incisive bent to the acting, but Morton seems a bit lost between the two and thus becomes a bit boring to watch, really. Too often she retains the same expression on her face that's not of reserve but of listlessness, making the scenes where she suddenly begins shouting and expressing passion to come across as quite jarring as it feels like the hasn't quite got the hang of the character. It's not an actively bad performance, but definitely very lacking.
Samantha Morton in 'Jane Eyre (1997): 2/5
Ruth Wilson played the titular heroine in the 2006 version of 'Jane Eyre'
The 2006 miniseries of 'Jane Eyre' is terrific. Quite a down to earth adaptation, that its grimy and rough feel generates such strong emotions really is testament to Susannah White's top-notch direction, which embraces many of the dark and uglier aspects of the source material, while also finding time to bring out the beauty of the setting's mystique. The score is wonderful, the acting mostly good and in some respects brilliant, and most impressive of all (regarding the production itself) the writings finds ways to both trim the story down while retaining some of the most memorable moments in the novel (i.e. the gypsy scene). A reservation I've heard from ome people about this adaptation is that it kind of skims over Jane's childhood, considering it being a miniseries and all, expecting more time to be spent on this crucial point of Jane's development into who she is. Well all I can say to this is I didn't mind it much personally, but if I had to pinpoint a reason it'd have probably been the fact that everyone involved in the production was probably so enamoured by Ruth Wilson's performance, that they were oh so eager to quickly move towards her portion of the story. Simply put, Wilson gives one of the greatest television performances of all-time. Up there with Ian Richardson, Alec Guinness, Mark Rylance, and Claire Foy in her ability to take an iconic character and mend it into her own distinctive yet faithful portrayal.
Rumour has it Wilson carried onset with her a copy of the text on each day of shooting, and it shows; her Jane Eyre perhaps reflects the Jane I'd envisaged when reading the book, above all the others. Headstrong but taciturn, beautiful but not elegant, her quietly powerful screen presence itself, alongside those incredibly emotive eyes which themselves speak volumes, encompasses so much about what Jane is that in terms of character creation alone she's terrific already. In fulfilling the novel's description of her as being 'quiet and grave at the mouth of hell' her effectively nuanced portrayal of Jane's feelings of being overwhelmed at Thornfield Hall are at the right points portrayed with extreme subtlety. At other points, when her fears of the place seem to come to realisation she vividly reminded me of Deborah Kerr in 'The Innocents': without histrionics, she evokes the fear within the character so palatably and yet always feels naturally unnerving in doing so. Jane is reserved, and her characterisation stays reserved throughout most of the first half of the miniseries as she finds ways to shield her true feelings from the world, but Wilson avoids being one note by always showing the little cracks here and there of fear and feeling.
There are many highlights throughout this performance worth mentioning...in fact, too many to mention, I would say. The encounter with the 'gypsy' woman, which first shows the suppressed, passionate side of Jane slowly being brought out of her, is a marvellous showcase for Wilson's penchant for switching between reveal and concealment of her character's neuroses. In her bedside encounter with Mrs Reed (a memorable Tara Fitzgerald) she evokes the right amount of both anger and yet tenderness, ultimately realising Jane as the bigger woman out of the two so marvellously. And of course, her steadily brewing romance with Toby Stephen's Rochester. As one who has been thoroughly unimpressed with a large portion of Stephens' career, from his lackluster Bond villain to his outrageously bland Gatsby, his performance here is an absolute revelation. His brooding, Byronic performance stands out so well, however, largely in part due to the contrasting power of Wilson's performance. Together they build up the eventual release of emotion and fulfilment of desires so wonderfully; I particularly loved Wilson's conversation with Rochester about leaving his employ. Her feelings of romance rising to the surface, she breaks one's heart with her delivery of 'I wish I'd never been born, I wish I'd never come here'; and the eventual proposal scene works brilliantly because the two actos have earnt that moment.
It can be argued that the proposal scene results in Jane transitioning, momentarily, into a more traditional love interest. There is however a strength that underlying her romance, showing that no she will not, she will not be a mere Smithsfield bargain. While depicting the sweet moments of the romance she still remains as steadfastly independent and moralistic as she had been in contrast to many of the scenes before, making her actions in the revelation scene all the more powerful. Like Fontaine's scene in 'Rebecca', it's mostly a showcase for the male actor who slowly brings out the painful past, and like Olivier Stephens is magnificent (not nearly as magnificent, but not far off). Wilson however, I think betters Fontaine in both revelation scenes of 'Rebecca' and 'Jane Eyre' by her heartrending silent reactions and her consequent deconstruction of herself from bride back to governess. The script goes against Jane's character to let Rochester be intimate with her even after the revelation, but Wilson earns her diversion by still faithfully staying close to the Bronte's characterisation of Jane, by mending this version's discrepancies with the text by making her obligation sufficient a thing of choice, but also a by-product of a scattershot, passionate mindset.
All of which sets her out into the moors, confused and seeking solace elsewhere. Which sets up the final segment of the miniseries, where even without the central romance to flourish Wilson still conveys the intensity of it with her broken-down portrayal of Jane. In each adaptation of Jane Eyre there's a risk of losing the audience and the performance's power if the final segment is not done correctly, but Wilson is flawless in her depiction of Jane Eyre's handling of the fallout of the situation, and her final development into an assured, self-governing woman. That final scene with Rochester is a knockout. I won't say more, but I will say that it perfectly caps off one of the greatest performances in the history of television that feels so effortlessly so.
Ruth Wilson in 'Jane Eyre' (2006): 5/5
Mia Wasikowska played the titular heroine in the 2011 version of 'Jane Eyre'
Cary Fukunaga's 'Jane Eyre' is a wonderful piece of cinema. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's better than the 2006 miniseries, but then again it's an entirely different beast. This version has breathtaking scenery, a strong Gothic streak throughout, and most distinctly, a very precise sense of style that in the wrong hands may have come across as stagy or hammy, but in the hands of the director, production crew and actors crafts something rather special. It has a few slow patches here and there but all in all is a tremendously immersive cinematic experience, and pretty exhilirating to watch.
Mia Wasikowska's performance here can actually be seen as a bit of a precursor to her excellent turns in the likes of 'Maps to the Stars' and in particular, 'Stoker'. In both films she plays the enigmatic central character whose characteristics are developed by the sometimes louder, more overt work of actors around her. Especially in the case of 'Stoker', a spiritual adaptation of Hitchcock's 'Shadow of a Doubt', where she plays a confused, angsty teenager gradually drawn into the allure of her Uncle Charlie (a surprisingly good Matthew Goode--what is it about these sort of roles that bring out the best in usually mediocre actors?). Anyway, I digress. Jane Eyre is basically Wasikowska's role in 'Stoker' with a more melodramatic, romantic twist. This version of 'Jane Eyre' practically pulsates with passion in every frame, and it's up to the actors to try and keep up with Fukunaga's incredible vision, which Wasikowska asserts from the outset. We first see her running away from Thornfield Hall, much of the rest of the film to be delivered in flashback. It's a daring note to begin on, but Wasikowaska is incredibly effective in showing just how distraught and broken down Jane Eyre is, with and has a very unsettling impact.
Even without the flashbacks, Wasikowska's performance so wonderfully evokes the history of her tenure at Thornfield Hall and beyond that they might not even have been necessary. The scenes in which she interacts with St John Rivers (an excellent Jamie Bell) and his sisters are particularly good; the use of a flashback structure works so well in that for once St. John Rivers is not just some stiff to be overcome as a means to an end (Rochester), but the relationship between Rivers and Eyre becomes something very special. Bell's cold yet not altogether unpleasant approach meshes perfectly with the broken down but not soulless quietude of Jane, making these 'present' scenes not superfluous but instead another fascinating stepping stone towards Jane's character development. For a central character Jane Eyre's always been a particularly reactive one, and Wasikowaska is very good in differentiating between her quiet hatred for Sally Field's genuinely disturbing Mrs Reed, and her quietly blossoming violent passion for Rochester (a strong performance by Michael Fassbender).
Wasikowaska makes for a particularly young-looking Jane Eyre, and she knows how to play this to her advantage; deceptively innocent and scared, but there is a brimming intelligence, especially in the scene where she explains why she could not possibly be a witch to Rochester. She's never outrightly defiant but conveys it with her stylized, quiet style. With an especially childlike Adele she conveys a sort of motherly warmth with delicacy and strength; with Fassbender she facilitates his volatile portrayal brilliantly, as the two of them take on a very distinctive, classical style to the performances that nevertheless feels very fitting, particularly under Fukunaga's direction. This is most certainly a performance that follows the film's style; perhaps she benefits from the excellence of the production itself, but regardless Wasikowska gives a very strong performance that brings the right amount of realism to go with that particular style she takes on.
Mia Wasikowska in 'Jane Eyre' (2011): 4.5/5
Final ranking:
1. Ruth Wilson in 'Jane Eyre' (2006): 5/5
2. Mia Wasikowska in 'Jane Eyre' (2011): 4.5/5 (verging on a 5)
3. Joan Fontaine in 'Jane Eyre' (1943): 3.5/5
4. 3. Charlotte Gainsbourg in 'Jane Eyre' (1996): 3.5/5
5. Samantha Morton in 'Jane Eyre (1997): 2.5/5
6. Virginia Bruce in 'Jane Eyre' (1934): 1/5
Photo credits:
free-classic-movies.com
https://whistlesinthewind.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/jane-eyre-1944-a1.jpg
https://towritenow.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/4114647nbsri.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjHFr0HRJUt5duiiGoHQdehy4ttzjS7ZXVNpiRdHGfZXIsfU5dtbskQ3fywYlOFJ8HQtgrk295SQOeFxw_5p0J9lJH15Wbi3t9for2vVvXcJNwdap8xoe40uX-h0zsPUjY6q9OTjW21v3P/s1600/jane+eyre+1997.jpg
http://www.messeriestv.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/jane-eyre-ruth-wilson.jpg
I really need to catch up on my Jane Eyres.
ReplyDeleteI suggest starting with Wasikowska. Don't bother with Virginia Bruce or Samantha Morton. Also check out the 1970s and 1980s miniseries with Scott and Dalton, since you seem to quite like them both as actors.
ReplyDelete