This version plays up the "book" adaptation angle, but as others have noted, even though it's reading the "text" to the audience, it's not the actual text of the novel. Why read "the first paragraph or Chapter 1" and then completely change the opening? Pretty weird. Another thing to point out -- Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine are just a couple years apart in age. I think Welles is 28, which is a shockingly young Rochester -- I just watched the George C. Scott version, and Scott was at least 15 years older when played Rochester. Joan Fontaine, on the other hand, is a little too old -- maybe 26 -- to be playing the part of Jane Eyre, and she's also way too pretty... probably the best-looking Jane Eyre of all the various actresses who have played Jane Eyre.. and although Jane Eyre is supposed to be horribly plain, no version casts a plain actress. But in what universe is Joan Fontaine plain? Overall, I like this version when it goes goth and works...
The movie jumps starts with a Philip Seymour Hoffman fantasy and a Marisa Tomei nightmare. Actually, that's meant to be a joke, but I can imagine them meeting the first day, and then they have to shoot that opening scene. I can imagine the screenplay is pretty vague, saying something about a love scene in Rio for "Andy and Gina," and then director Sidney Lumet lays out his more specific vision for the two actors... not that the love scene is all that graphic, but it's an abrupt way into the movie, and it definitely does tell you something about Andy (Hoffman). Man, I don't like that big sweaty bastard from the beginning. Neither Andy nor Hank (Ethan Hawke) are all that easy to like. One does drugs, the other doesn't pay his child support. Neither have got lives together and neither have the economic resources to dig themselves out of whatever physical or psychological holes they find themselves in. And there are no lines the dudes won't cross. Hank has Thu...