Jane Eyre (1943)

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 black and white vibe. Unfortunately, the layout of the plot feels pretty paint by numbers. I didn't hate any of it, but nothing much stands out to me. Even Helen Burns. That's a young Elizabeth Taylor. I knew that, but had forgotten, and I had to go back and re-watch her scenes to notice. Taylor does stand out. Even at a young age, she had those eyes.

The whole subplot with St. John is cut, which isn't that big of a deal, but yeah, I was looking for more to wow me, especially since this is now about 6th or 7th version I've watched this year... just a pretty run-on-the mill adaptation.

Rating: 2.5/5