While I do understand the need to change and condense things when making a book into a movie, if you aren't remaining faithful to the book, don't show me text in a book as though you are staying completely true to the story. The voice-over alone would have been fine, but the suggestion that what is read is from the novel was really irritating. At other times during the movie, this same technique is used again. But the passage is way different from the book's opening. Another thing that annoyed me about the movie: at the beginning, a book is shown onscreen and a voice-over reads what is written on the page. I know it's always hard to show inner thoughts and feelings of characters in a movie, but I really missed how the book explains what's going on in Jane's head.
1944 jane eyre movie movie#
In the novel, Jane is independent and holds her own against Rochester in the movie I couldn't imagine what he saw in her, really. This removes what I enjoyed most about the novel, the match of equal minds that defines the relationship. (She also starred in Rebecca, based on the Daphne du Maurier novel which seems at least partially inspired by Jane Eyre.) Fontaine's Jane is much too meek and is really overpowered by Welles' Rochester. I wasn't particularly impressed with Joan Fontaine as Jane, though. I was also delighted to see Agnes Moorehead, a young Elizabeth Taylor, the little girl from A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (Peggy Ann Garner) and child actress Margaret O'Brien, adorable as Adele. He is great as Rochester he can carry off the speeches and he has the right amount of darkness and intensity to him. The movie version I chose to watch was the 1944 adaptation, mostly because it stars Orson Welles, and I really like him. You can analyze a lot more about the various themes of the novel, like what it says about religion, morality, duty, forgiveness, and marriage, but I was happy enough to read through the rest because I really liked Jane and Rochester, and I wanted to see their love story play out. Maybe I like him because Jane does, or because they do seem like a well-matched pair of intellectual equals.
Rochester, despite his dubious past and the way he deceived Jane. If you don't like Jane, you will probably not enjoy the novel, but I really liked Jane. All I can assume is that she was struck and in shock, but coming to know the characters I think more would have been said and thought during this critical time. The only time it didn't work for me was when the big secret is revealed during this time things seemed a bit rushed and Jane's reactions didn't come until later. The way it's written (as a first-person account of Jane telling the reader her story) felt very intimate and interesting. Since I did know how the story would go, I was afraid that reading through the book would be tedious, but I actually enjoyed it very much.
Seriously, there should have been a spoiler warning with it - surely there are some people reading the book for the first time with no idea what it's about who would like to enjoy a few surprises.) (It's a good thing I knew the secret, too, since my copy of the book included an introduction by Joyce Carol Oates that revealed all the major plot details and many of the twisty bits. Jane Eyre was already next on my Lit Flicks Challenge list, but when I happened to be the October giveaway winner and The Bluestocking Society kindly sent me the book (thanks, Jessica!) I wanted to get to it right away.īefore reading or seeing Jane Eyre, I did have some idea of the general plot: Jane is a governess who comes to work in a creepy house for a brooding man with a big secret.
0 kommentar(er)
