Somehow they managed not to make a classic here. The main culprit is Welles, whose affected, slurry acting style - which slips into Irish whenever he tries to be droll - is awful.Poor Joan Fontaine doesn't come off too well either, being required to maintain the same startled-anguished look in every scene, which is the same startled-anguished look she uses in every film. The two of them fail to gel so much that it seems bizarre that they are in the same room together, and of course, these two Americans don't quite look right up on the Yorkshire moors anyway.Then there are the preposterous sets - Thornfield Manor becomes a full-on romanesque castle whose brooding menace, lit only by a few candles, trivialises the people inside. It's all too dour.

Jane Eyre (1943) *** (out of 4)Good telling of the classic novel has the orphaned Jane Eyre (Joan Fontaine) finally escaping from a brutal school where she accepts a governess job for the mysterious Edward Rochester (Orson Welles). Once on the job Jane soon discovers that the mysteries surrounding Edward might come back to haunt both of them.JANE EYRE is an incredibly popular novel that has been turned into countless movies. While I certainly haven't seen them all, this here is considered by many experts to be one of the best versions out there. There's certainly a lot to like about this film thanks in large part to some nice direction, a terrific atmosphere and of course the legendary stars but the film is still far from perfect in a few other areas. With that said, fans of the novel or this period of Hollywood are still going to find this rewarding.Director Robert Stevenson does a pretty good job directing the film as he's able to bring some nice style as well as create a very good atmosphere. There are some fairly dark moments here that will almost remind people of what would follow in film noir but the darkness here is quite effective. The use of shadows inside the castle are also put to good use. I will say that I thought the flow of the story could have been handled better as it really did seem like a lot of stuff just happened way too fast. I say this because it just seemed the final third of the film was rushed including the ending, which is a tad bit forced. The screenplay's story structure could have also been handled better.With that said, the stars certainly shine here with Fontaine doing an excellent job in her role. I thought the actress fit the role perfectly and she also made you believe everything that this young woman was afraid of. I thought she played the scared victim quite well. As for Welles, he too comes across extremely good and especially the way he manages to be mysterious with just a few cracks of humanity, which of course is seen by Eyre. Margaret O'Brien is good in her supporting part as is John Sutton as a kind doctor and Henry Daniell as the religious nut. Peggy Ann Garner also deserves a special mention as she's terrific in the role of Eyre as a child.JANE EYRE certainly has a lot going for it even with the flaws that are scattered throughout. While the film is far from perfect, the atmosphere and the two leads make this worth watching.

My problem is with the artistic approach. I cannot comment on Fontaine's or Welles' talent.The way their characters are approached makes me shiver. Jane is a frightened child, which is not true in the book and makes no sense in the movie, as well. Mr. Rochester is cold, uninteresting and Frankenstein-ish. Every line he says seems disconnected from the previous one. The music is unholy. How could any two characters be perceived as being in love in this movie is beyond me.Everything is crammed, things happen quickly without fluidity. Lots of facts were taken out so not to complicate the plot or the number of scenes and the ending is positively terrible. I jumped from my seat at the fantastic gong when they kissed. It was surprising, I can tell you this, but romance had been shot in the head.

After a harsh childhood, orphan Jane Eyre (Joan Fontaine) is hired by Edward Rochester (Orson Welles), the brooding lord of a mysterious manor house to care for his young daughter.I was a bit worried that this film would be dry and boring, as I find many old novels to be a bit dry and boring. I am no fan of the writing of Charles Dickens, and I did not care for "Wuthering Heights". I do love Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, so maybe it is just the old English language...Either way, a great film here that almost seems more like a Universal horror picture than a romance. The script was written by none other than Aldous Huxley ("Brave New World") and the music was composed by Bernard Herrmann ("Psycho")... through in a great actor (Welles) and director (Robert Stevenson) and you have a strong picture.Unfortunately, Joan Fontaine gets all the credit for playing Eyre, and I think this is misguided. The young Eyre was a stronger, more interesting character than her adult counterpart. And yet, that actress (I regret I do not know her name) does not seem to have launched a career with this role.