Jane Eyre

First, I doubt if I can give ANY version of Jane Eyre a 10, as every version I have seen so far puts too much emphasis on the part of the book involving Rochester and Jane (which is important) and not enough on her proposal of marriage from the vicar (which is VERY important to Ms. Bronte's theme)--this juxtaposition of plots is essential. It is mentioned in passing in several of the movies but never is allowed to have the prominence that it had in the book.

Now, despite this, I would say that this is my favorite version of Jane Eyre, though the Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine version of the 1940s is close to being as good.

George C. Scott is a great Rochester--very gruff, brooding and unattractive--as well as an incredibly fine actor. Susannah York is a stronger and spunkier Jane than Joan Fontaine's and I prefer the spunkier one. The only area where the 1940s version seemed better was in the back story at the horrible school where Jane was raised.

RELEASED IN 1970-1971 and directed by Delbert Mann, "Jane Eyre" adapts Charlotte Brontë's 1847 novel about the eponymous character (Susannah York) who becomes a governess of a French girl at a huge estate in northern England circa 1800 after an upbringing at a harsh religious orphanage. She slowly gets to know the surly, world-wise master of the estate, Edward Rochester (George C. Scott), and his curious situation. Eventually she meets a devout clergyman, St. John Rivers (Ian Bannen), and his two sisters. Can Jane escape the shackles of a pre-Victorian world ruled by men and legalism to find love?

While this version of the oft-filmed book was released to TV, it has the vibe of a theatrical release with great northern England locations, a superb score by John Williams and quality actors. The book was criticized as "anti-Christian" when it was published, but it's actually anti-legalism. Mr. Brocklehurst (Jack Hawkins) represents a poisonous form of dead religiosity at the orphanage while the seemingly unbalanced St. John Rivers represents a much more subtle and less extreme form.

The story's about Jane navigating the pitfalls of society and religion in a fallen world and, maybe, hopefully, finding freedom and genuine love. The locations/tone/themes are akin to "Sense and Sensibility" (1995), but with an anti-legalism subtext. Jane Austen's 1811 novel no doubt influenced Brontë's book. Both movies are worth checking out, but I slightly prefer "Jane Eyre." It's the perfect antidote to CGI-laden "blockbuster" drivel.

THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 48 minutes and was shot in North Yorkshire in northern England (Ripley Castle, Ripley; Pateley Bridge; Brimham Rocks; and Grinton). WRITERS: Jack Pulman wrote the screenplay based on Brontë's novel.

GRADE: B+/A-

While I may not have seen every version of Jane Eyre, this is my favorite of those encountered and definitely preferable to the more recent ones. This adaptation is made by George C. Scott who, as others have noted, positively IS Mr. Rochester. In fact, I've never really been able to properly appreciate any other version, because I keep longing to see Scott in the part. Forget William Hurt, Ciaran Hinds, or even Timothy Dalton. Scott has taken command of Rochester's role for me, just as Alastair Sim in the 1951 A Christmas Carol commands the role of Scrooge, making all others second best.

Of course this is Charlotte Bronte's classic story of an orphan, Jane Eyre, who is first sent to Lowood School, and then upon reaching young womanhood, obtains a position as governess to a little girl called Adele at Thornfield Hall. Adele's father and the lord of the manor is the enigmatic Edward Rochester. As opposite as employer and governess appear, as intimidating as Mr. Rochester seems and as wary as Jane is, the two become attracted. However, Thornfield Hall has an air of mystery about it...

Susannah York seems a bit too old and perhaps too pretty for the role, as Jane is intended to be rather plain. Charlotte Gainsbourg from the 1996 version is actually my favourite Jane portrayal. However, York is convincing enough as the maidenly but rather spunky governess. The two, Scott and York, have amazing chemistry together, an endearing tenderness in some of their scenes. It is touching to behold the interactions between the rough hewed, gruff, & brooding Mr. Rochester and the shy, gentle, principled, yet underneath potentially passionate Jane. Some have criticized Scott's Rochester as lacking passion, but I personally found him perfect in the role.

Everything else as I recall is well done, including supporting cast, Yorkshire moors scenery, haunting atmosphere, and lovely musical score.

Just a point of interest, these two stars appear together again in the 1984 version of A Christmas Carol, with Scott as Scrooge and York as Mrs. Cratchitt. I enjoy all the versions and Scott's sideburns are wonderful, but he seems to be enjoying playing Scrooge a wee bit too much! He's a lot better here as Mr. Rochester.

... but not quite. The 40s version had the mist and the overacting of the great Mr Welles - this has a fabulous cast, particularly Scott and York who are both superb, but just falls short of the magic of the creaky old b&w version. This one has its moments a-plenty though and is well worth tracking down. A definite 8 out of 10.

This film needs restoration. It is so dark in some places you can't really see anything. George C. Scott is flat and wooden; no emotion. Susannah York is too old for the part. The movie is too short. With all that said I still rate it a 7. Give it a try but lower your expectations.