Jane Eyre (1971) - Review

I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this version, finding it even better than the 2011 one on every front besides cinematography, which is to be expected.

Of course, I have a few complaints so lets start with those. Especially the casting.

Jane Eyre (Susannah York) was played by a 31 year old when she was meant to be 19. Not one of those 'how is she 31, she looks so young!' types either. She looked her age, and that closed half the age gap between them. She wasn't how I pictured Jane either, which added to the disappointment. She lacked personality, even coming off as robotic sometimes, and was too conventionally pretty to be playing a character repeatedly described as ugly and plain.

I was on the fence about Mr. Rochester(George C Scott) but he grew on me. He's the most book accurate casting I've seen, but he doesn't have the same appeal as the 1996 Mr. Rochester (William Hurt) does, who could be angry and loud but still had a softness about him. He was angsty and gloomy, and his words were spoken with emotion. This version's Rochester was more stern and severe, lacking the poetic side for the most part. But he portrayed the inner torment, sadistic amusement, and admiration for Jane well. He won't be the one I picture while reading the book, but he was lovable in his own way. I found him rather handsome too, which helped.

Adele was cute and sweet, but didn't have 1996 Adele's charm. Same with Mrs. Fairfax. And all the characters, really. 1996 Jane Eyre is by far my favourite so I think I'm a little to nitpicky. My apologies.

St. John is an exception, because I didn't find him as irritating in this movie as I did the others, or book for that matter. He's not a bad character, I just find myself wanting the story to get back to Jane and Rochester. I'm not going to take it out on sweet innocent Jane, so St. John gets my wrath. There was just less of it in this version, which is saying something.

I made the mistake of watching two other Jane Eyre versions before writing this, so I'm getting them confused and it's made it hard to go into depth about the specifics about the plot, so I'll just summarize it.

Her childhood was too brief to get a feel for her life before Thornfield, and I don't think anything before Lowood was even shown. She was presented as an orphan, and it stayed that way. She didn't leave to visit her Aunt nor did she inherit a large sum from her Uncle. It's hard to fit the whole book into a movie, but if this was the only version of Jane Eyre someone ever saw, they'd be missing out on a lot. It did show more of Jane and Helen's relationship than other adaptations, so that's something.

Mr. Rochester tells Jane, "but I loved her once, as I love you now," in regards to Bertha, which undermines his love for Jane. This line was not from the book and was a mistake to add. He was not meant to have loved Bertha, who he scarcely met before their marriage, which was an arrangement set by the parents. He takes care of her because he is responsible for her, not because he loves her.

Last but not least, the soundtrack. It was beautifully composed and added a much needed passionate element to the movie, and they have stuck with me even past the closing credits.

The cinematography wasn't lacking either, it's just that the movie was made in 1971 so it's not the best quality. The landscapes themselves were lovely.

If you are a Jane Eyre fanatic like myself, this adaptation is worth the watch!

If you're just getting into Jane Eyre, watch the 1996 version first. It's superior.