Jane Eyre

A cheerful Rochester? A beautiful Jane Eyre? A slapstick Adelle? Oy, what's the point of adapting a classic novel if you're gonna change every character!

I suppose the film has a certain appeal anyway; it's pleasantly ancient and strange, and it's nice to see Colin "Dr. Frankenstein" Clive in another role. But, to true devotees of the original novel, this is a real butcher job.

Creaky stagy and truly muffled and, well, ancient, this 1934 Monogram talkie has 1929 production values which clearly irritate some viewers. One must be kind to these 61 minute double feature barrel bottom scrapers and emotionally account for the time and place they were made. Monogram was formed in 1931 as a result of the talkie boom, and by 1934 were trying to upgrade their image. They were probably still using the same 1928 equipment the first bought second hand in 1931 from some creaky talkie outfit the folded in 1930. Remember this was a time when there was 30,000 single screen cinemas in the USA alone so anything and everything had a chance of showing in maybe six or seven thousand cinemas. Monogram charged a flat rental fee for their films and since they knew how many cinemas would play a particular sort of film they knew show much profit was in it before it was even made. Some very entertaining films from this period include their 61 minute version of OLIVER TWIST, their 66 minute operetta musical KING KELLY OF THE USA complete with an animated sequence!...and their super block buster again around 65 minutes GIRL OF THE LIMBERLOST. The only reason they would have attempted JANE EYRE is because: a: it was out of copyright and they could make it 'for free' b: Oliver Twist made some money and the sets and costumes were still at the studio c: Monogram Pictures were double feature fillers usually and they needed to make another, and one with a veneer of 'quality'. d: they were trying anything to see if they could make it. Monogram fans would see the same stairs and rooms and furniture for the next 25 years in almost every other Charlie Chan Mr Wong and Bowrey Boys Monogram Picture...even as late as 1958 in The House On Haunted Hill and in 1965 in the Elvis comedy in a ghost town TICKLE ME. True!

I give this "version" of Jane Eyre 5 stars because I think every Eyre-lover should see it, for a laugh and a lark. The story has absolutely nothing to do with the book, and it doesn't stand alone as an individual piece either. It's just wretched and sloppy. And I don't blame the production values for that.

Virginia Bruce looks like she really doesn't want to be there, and she can't lose that depression-era slouch...She saunters around Thornfield, flops her away down the road, and just looks dour and unpleasant. Her loosey-goosey posture was really distracting.

Poor old Bertha locked upstairs, clearly off she's off her rocker, but she didn't seem demented enough to be hid away.

The only really good thing about this picture was when Jane tells Brocklhurst off for interrupting her class at Lowood. I half expected her to start slashing away at him with the pointer. Given that the rest of the script had nothing to do with the book, it would have been a nice touch. I mean, why not? Everyone wants Brocklehurst to get his come-uppence. And this Jane is just the girl to do it!

See this one, then see Cusack/Jayston, then see Welles/Fontaine, then see Stephens/Wilson. In that order, for me, the most recent is the most satisfying...except for a few missed marks.

This version of the classic story should move like the wind at 62 minutes, instead its slow and talky and not very good. I'm not certain how much is the result of too much time having passed since this film was made, 70 odd years ago and counting, but this is a movie to a avoid simply because time has not been kind to it. The film feels more like a filmed stage play than a movie as there is never any sense place beyond what we would see if it were on a stage. The performances are okay but there are times one wonders if they were aware of that film acting for sound had advanced from the overdone to a more naturalistic style. I don't think it would be fair to comment on the additions and subtractions from the book, especially in light of the fact that they use chapter headings from the book to advance the plot that gallop from one to ten and onward. Not something to watch unless you love the story or hate yourself enough to watch a film thats almost too painful to get through.

According to the Internet Movie Database there are 22 versions of the famous Charlotte Bronte novel Jane Eyre done, counting both silent screen and small screen adaptions all the way to the present time. I never realized how popular a property Jane Eyre was for dramatization. I doubt very much if anyone would ever consider this 1934 version starring Virginia Bruce and Colin Clive as the best of them.

Still in reviewing this movie you have to take into account that this was done for Monogram Pictures on a shoestring budget. Bruce and Clive were borrowed from MGM and Universal respectively and neither was exactly a box office name. The running time is only 63 minutes so like every other work of literature there will always be stuff left out unless it's a TV mini-series and you have several hours to play with.

One criticism I will agree with. Jane Eyre in fact is a plain Jane and the glamorous blond Virginia Bruce just isn't right for the part. Joan Fontaine was far closer to Charlotte Bronte's idea of Jane Eyre in her version with Orson Welles on a much bigger budget with MGM.

It's definitely a subpar version of the novel, but be a bit more charitable to this Jane Eyre considering the circumstances of its creation.