Jane Eyre (1934) User Reviews

Goodness, that's unfaithful

[dr_foreman · 3/10 · 23 January 2004]

A cheerful Rochester? A beautiful Jane Eyre? A slapstick Adelle? Oy, what's the point of adapting a classic novel if you're gonna change every character!

I suppose the film has a certain appeal anyway; it's pleasantly ancient and strange, and it's nice to see Colin "Dr. Frankenstein" Clive in another role. But, to true devotees of the original novel, this is a real butcher job.

Freshen up your home with Jane Eyre....

[ptb-8 · 3/10 · 17 February 2005]

Creaky stagy and truly muffled and, well, ancient, this 1934 Monogram talkie has 1929 production values which clearly irritate some viewers. One must be kind to these 61 minute double feature barrel bottom scrapers and emotionally account for the time and place they were made. Monogram was formed in 1931 as a result of the talkie boom, and by 1934 were trying to upgrade their image. They were probably still using the same 1928 equipment the first bought second hand in 1931 from some creaky talkie outfit the folded in 1930. Remember this was a time when there was 30,000 single screen cinemas in the USA alone so anything and everything had a chance of showing in maybe six or seven thousand cinemas. Monogram charged a flat rental fee for their films and since they knew how many cinemas would play a particular sort of film they knew show much profit was in it before it was even made. Some very entertaining films from this period include their 61 minute version of OLIVER TWIST, their 66 minute operetta musical KING KELLY OF THE USA complete with an animated sequence!...and their super block buster again around 65 minutes GIRL OF THE LIMBERLOST. The only reason they would have attempted JANE EYRE is because: a: it was out of copyright and they could make it 'for free' b: Oliver Twist made some money and the sets and costumes were still at the studio c: Monogram Pictures were double feature fillers usually and they needed to make another, and one with a veneer of 'quality'. d: they were trying anything to see if they could make it. Monogram fans would see the same stairs and rooms and furniture for the next 25 years in almost every other Charlie Chan Mr Wong and Bowrey Boys Monogram Picture...even as late as 1958 in The House On Haunted Hill and in 1965 in the Elvis comedy in a ghost town TICKLE ME. True!

Pretty bad, but bearable

[joystar5879 · 5/10 · 28 September 2009]

I agree. This was not Bronte,and it was definitely NOT Jane Eyre. It was, however, MONOGRAM!!! Please don't blame the poor actors. The studio game them nothing to work with. Virginia Bruce was a lovely girl, and an up and coming MGM star. Colin Clive was classically trained in the British theatre and had 10 years of repertory work under his belt. You know what that means. One week you might be playing a country parson, and the next week, Shakespeare. They both had earned their acting chops. Unfortunately, the majority of Monogram's budget probably went to pay the stars, and their was little left for anything else. We're talking prehistoric sound equipment, high school dramatic writing, and summer stock wardrobe. For a 1934 film, the tech aspects were strictly 1919. I'm sure that at the end of shooting, the stars politely shook hands, grabbed their cheques and ran like Hell! I know that if Clive had made Jane Eyre at Universal, with the same quality as their Great Expectations, he would have knocked Orson Welles flat! (g) JS

Thank God for Claire DuBrey!

[orsonwelles-1941 · 9 June 2002]

For the most part this is a fairly weak Monogram (read budget with a capital B) adaptation of the Bronte classic. Colin Clive is woefully miscast as Edward Rochester, a character so complex and filled with such passionate brooding that it takes the likes of an Orson Welles or a George C.Scott to really pull it off. Instead Clive plays the master of Thornfield like he is just some normal single dad on the make who just happens to have his unbalanced first wife locked up in the attic.Maybe director Cabanne thought that this interpretation would make the character seem more suspicious to the audiences of 1934. Unfortunately this reviewer writing in 2002 finds Clive's Rochester about as suspicious as a stained glass window. In a Lutheran church.Virginia Bruce is adequate as the title character but unfortunately her best lines are undermined by unnecessary stock music pulled from Monogram's Oliver Twist (released the previous year). However horror fans especially those who feel at home with the jump-out-of-your-skin style of Sam Raimi of Evil Dead fame should see this film for the well-timed SHREIKS emanating from that attic. Claire DuBrey's banshee routine is enough to make your heart jump out of your mouth and do the macarena on top of the TV. So see this Eyre for the Screamer not for Ward Cleaver.

Worst version ever made

[overseer-3 · 1/10 · 12 May 2003]

Jane Eyre is my favorite novel. I have read Charlotte Bronte's classic story many times over the past 30 years. The original story has many spiritual aspects that appeal to me, beautiful inner and outward dialogue, an intriguing plot, complex characters, and other fine qualities no longer appreciated by a large segment of the reading public in the modern world.

I bought the DVD for this ancient film dinosaur with Virginia Bruce and Colin Clive (Dr. Frankenstein! no less) because I suspected it would be good for a laugh. But this film version is so bad I was more shocked than amused.

They ominously started the film on the wrong foot by misquoting the first line of the novel; they removed the character of Helen Burns altogether; they gave Grace Poole a husband who was a servant in the house who warns Jane "I like you, so I'm going to tell you: lock your door at night!"; they have Jane screaming at Mr. Brocklehurst and calling him names, so she is fired from her job as teacher there. In the book Jane isn't fired; she leaves to find a governess position to escape from Lowood Institution (here called an orphanage, even though in the novel not all the children were orphans - Lowood in the book was a charity institution, not an orphanage); in this film Adele is not French, her origins in the house are not even discussed; she calls Rochester "Uncle Edward", and he fawns over her and spoils her rotten, something that didn't happen in the book at all.

They make Blanche ugly and older, and Jane Eyre a platinum blonde with Mary Pickford curls. Hello? Jane was supposed to be plain, and Blanche was supposed to be gorgeous. They turn it all around in this monstrosity. In the scene where Jane saves Rochester from the fire the possible reason for that fire is not even discussed between them; he kisses her hands and she promptly leaves the room like she was leaving a garden party, seemingly unaffected by his passion.

The worst liberty they took with the classic novel was having Edward Rochester apparently trying to have his marriage to his first wife "annulled", which made no sense, since Rochester was not Catholic. There is no Mr. Mason in this version; there is no attempted wedding scene. The "insane" wife just walks into a room at Thornfield in which Jane, Rochester, and the minister are standing and announces she wants to see her husband. The servants spirit her away and she protests in a totally normal voice: "I want to see my husband!" LOL! Why didn't they LET HER SEE HER HUSBAND??? I was starting to think that everyone in the house was insane, and Bertha was the only normal one!

There's more that I can say about this sad state of affairs (like having Jane singing to Rochester, which DID send me into fits of laughter) but I won't bore you, and will simply conclude with this statement: do NOT show this version to anyone who has not read the book first. This is NOT "Jane Eyre"; this is some other story!

The best, most faithful version of Jane was the 1982-3 BBC version with Timothy Dalton. Why the Timothy Dalton version has not been put on DVD yet, and this 1934 Monogram Colin Clive fiasco has been, is totally beyond my comprehension. Hopefully this sad state of affairs will be attended to and corrected shortly.

A classic becomes a classic for very specific reasons. When film companies approach a story like Jane Eyre with disrespect, and feel they can change anything and everything about it to their heart's content, then the very spirit of that classic is destroyed. When will they ever learn?

So bad it's not funny

[christinekay · 1/10 · 11 November 2007]

I have long held "Jane Eyre" as one of the best classics in the English language, and felt that even an average production of the novel would be fairly enjoyable. If the director stuck to the story, it would be impossible to make a bad version ... unfortunately, this film proved me wrong.

The original novel showed the trials of the eponymous heroine as she escapes a traumatic childhood both with her aunt and later at the notorious Lowood school. She ultimately goes to work as a governess at Thornfield where she falls in love with the owner, Mr Rochester, a man far above her in social class. Will they manage to declare their love for either other? If so, how? And what about the strange woman in the attic?

The sexual and social tensions in the novel create a tense and dramatic atmosphere - not to mention the Gothic elements of the woman in the attic - and most directors would, you feel, jump at the chance to make a film of "Jane Eyre" for those very reasons. It is acceptable to change certain aspects of a story for adaptation for cinematic reasons if these assist in telling the story, but this version makes so many changes that the original plot and all the subsequent tension is completely lost.

Jane's relationship with Mr Rochester is extremely cordial, and he seems almost like the boy next door in his dealings with her. In reality, this would never have taken place in the England of the time: governesses were strictly "below stairs", and no employer would have behaved in such a familiar and friendly way with her. The idea of any tension between them has completely disappeared. Likewise, the revelation of the identity of the madwoman in the attic is not dealt with as in the novel (which would have made a highly dramatic scene for cinema audiences), but is given a completely different treatment, which is considerably weaker and lacks virtually any impact. In fact, I wonder if the scriptwriter had actually read the Charlotte Bronte novel, as these changes to the original plot have effectively destroyed all that was of interest in the story.

Colin Clive is a fine actor and could have been a far more effective Rochester than the script allowed him here. Virginia Bruce is rather too pretty for the title role and, again, not given the chance to handle the role in the proper way.

The Orson Welles/Joan Fontaine version of "Jane Eyre" remains the standard for me, despite certain reservations: it is certainly far better than this film, which should never have been made.

Glamorous But done on the cheap

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 3 July 2011]

According to the Internet Movie Database there are 22 versions of the famous Charlotte Bronte novel Jane Eyre done, counting both silent screen and small screen adaptions all the way to the present time. I never realized how popular a property Jane Eyre was for dramatization. I doubt very much if anyone would ever consider this 1934 version starring Virginia Bruce and Colin Clive as the best of them.

Still in reviewing this movie you have to take into account that this was done for Monogram Pictures on a shoestring budget. Bruce and Clive were borrowed from MGM and Universal respectively and neither was exactly a box office name. The running time is only 63 minutes so like every other work of literature there will always be stuff left out unless it's a TV mini-series and you have several hours to play with.

One criticism I will agree with. Jane Eyre in fact is a plain Jane and the glamorous blond Virginia Bruce just isn't right for the part. Joan Fontaine was far closer to Charlotte Bronte's idea of Jane Eyre in her version with Orson Welles on a much bigger budget with MGM.

It's definitely a subpar version of the novel, but be a bit more charitable to this Jane Eyre considering the circumstances of its creation.

Little more than a bar of floral-scented soap wrapped in pretty bows

[netwallah · 1/10 · 27 October 2007]

The reason this is not a good movie is not limited to the fact that it has eliminated the complexities of Charlotte Bronte's plot and the depth of her characters, but still more that it is little more than a bar of floral-scented soap wrapped in pretty bows. Basically, it has become a vapid story in which a poor but pretty girl marries the rich, handsome gentleman, and little else. True, the screen-writers nod in the direction of a few of the original ideas. Jane doesn't get along with her aunt's family, Jane arrives at the orphanage, Jane leaves the orphanage, the members of the Rochester household have the same names as in the Bronte novel, there is a mad wife in the attic, Jane does spend three minutes in a minister's house and she does nearly marry him, there is a fire, and Rochester is blinded. But in each of these details all the life and complexity has been entirely removed. All we have left is a very pretty Jane (Virginia Bruce) gazing soulfully at the very handsome Rochester (Colin Clive), and the inevitable conclusion. A tone of falsity runs throughout the movie, as well. The history of meanness is missing from the brief orphanage scene, so we only see the consequences in Jane's annoyance with the puppet-like schoolmaster. The costumes seem wrong: the little girls wear knee-length dresses and long ruffled pants-like undergarments—a Victorian fetish, I think. The governess wears a fully-extended ball dress while taking tea with the master, but a plain dress at the ball. And Rochester does not take off his enormous top hat as he runs into the burning mansion. For what it is, this movie is too long at 62 minutes.

The first sound adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's tale...

[AlsExGal · 5/10 · 1 November 2022]

... that's not at all faithful to that tale. Virginia Bruce stars in the title role, a young woman raised in an orphanage who hires on as a governess of the niece of the cranky Mr. Rochester (Colin Clive). As Jane tries to find her way within the household, she starts to fall in love with her boss while also wondering about the strange screams coming from the room into which she's forbidden to look.

Some sources have called this the best movie ever made by a Poverty Row studio. There are plenty that I liked more than this, but I'm not really the audience for this type of story. The acting is decent, and the costumes and sets are nicer than in most Monogram efforts, but it still seems clunky, sometimes amateurish, and with very uninspired direction. Running at just over an hour, it's not a major investment in time.

Completely rewritten version of the classic novel!

[didi-5 · 6/10 · 16 September 2006]

This creaky Monogram cheapo, running at just over an hour, manages to change the Bronte novel to such a degree that after the first ten minutes I had to stop laughing, forget about the book, and enjoy the film for what it is - essentially a film using characters from 'Jane Eyre'.

Jane Eyre is a wilful child who is happy to go to Lowood and eventually is fired after calling her employer a 'wicked old crocodile'. So the whole point of abuse of Lowood is lost with this flippant treatment and the complete removal of Helen Burns. Oh, and Jane swans off with 'the inheritance she has from her uncle'. Eh? On her way to Thornfield with a comedy cart driver (added character, husband of Grace Poole) she steps down and gets in the way of Mr Rochester's horse. OK, this is from the book, but her response to his questioning what she does at Thornfield is not! Once at the house, Adele is the English niece of 'Uncle Edward', so removing the point of illegitimacy and neglect of the child, who is now doted on.

Even the first scene of conversation between Jane and Rochester is off-kilter, especially when she takes to the piano and sings to him! Blanche Ingram is a matronly woman who couldn't possibly compare with Jane's ringlets; Adele does imitations of party guests for Blanche's dad; and there is no Mason, no gypsy scene, no tension. There is the burning bed scene but that falls flat and has none of the drive we expect to see from that situation.

Rochester is waiting for an annulment to come through, so no obstacle to marrying Jane and no potential bigamy here. In fact Adele suggests he marries Jane and so he rushes to propose! The 'mad' wife seem strangely lucid, although Jane still leaves when she sees her and almost immediately it seems the house burns down.

John Rivers is included briefly as Jane goes to work for his mission and even agrees to marry him before meeting Mr Poole again and discovering about the Thornfield fire. Now her affections seem to change again and she goes back for the reconciliation with the now blind Rochester.

As Jane, Virginia Bruce is far too pretty but she was a good actress and, putting aside the book and other interpretations, is watchable and engaging. Colin Clive, best known for Frankenstein, plays Rochester with some skill but does not have enough to work with. This version is too merry, too happy, without the complications and the discontent you would expect to see from a man disappointed with his lot and damaged from an inappropriate marriage to a madwoman.

I was glad to see it and have rated it a 6 because as a film on its own, it is fairly good. As an adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's complex novel it is a disgrace.

Jane....stand up straight for goodness sake!

[niborskaya · 5/10 · 17 May 2007]

I give this "version" of Jane Eyre 5 stars because I think every Eyre-lover should see it, for a laugh and a lark. The story has absolutely nothing to do with the book, and it doesn't stand alone as an individual piece either. It's just wretched and sloppy. And I don't blame the production values for that.

Virginia Bruce looks like she really doesn't want to be there, and she can't lose that depression-era slouch...She saunters around Thornfield, flops her away down the road, and just looks dour and unpleasant. Her loosey-goosey posture was really distracting.

Poor old Bertha locked upstairs, clearly off she's off her rocker, but she didn't seem demented enough to be hid away.

The only really good thing about this picture was when Jane tells Brocklhurst off for interrupting her class at Lowood. I half expected her to start slashing away at him with the pointer. Given that the rest of the script had nothing to do with the book, it would have been a nice touch. I mean, why not? Everyone wants Brocklehurst to get his come-uppence. And this Jane is just the girl to do it!

See this one, then see Cusack/Jayston, then see Welles/Fontaine, then see Stephens/Wilson. In that order, for me, the most recent is the most satisfying...except for a few missed marks.

Blond bombshell instead of 'Plain Jane'

[Ted-101 · 8/10 · 27 July 2006]

I was very curious to see this film for a long time, and was happy to finally get the chance to see it when it came out on DVD not long ago. I've always liked Colin Clive, and it seemed to me that he would be a good choice to play Edward Rochester. I wasn't disappointed. He was nervous, agitated, sympathetic and quite tormented as usual. I wasn't familiar with Virginia Bruce going in, and was absolutely astounded that she was chosen for the part of Jane Eyre. What we have here is a big, buxom, beautiful blond with a flawless, pale complexion and a gorgeous smile. With her shoes on she's nearly as tall as Clive & that sultry, fleshy body of hers suggests she outweighs the gaunt actor by more than a few pounds as well. During the party Rochester has for his guests he says to Jane, "You're a funny little thing..." which I thought was a hoot since the script writer must have wrote the scene before clapping an eye on Ms. Bruce, who is anything but a "Funny little thing."

What does all this mean? Well yes, as others here have said, this film has only a glancing similarity to the novel. The discrepancies are so outrageous that they border on being quite charming and sweet. Aileen Pringle as Blanche Ingram is an attractive actress, yet Virginia Bruce has a huge advantage in looks over her that actually leads to dialog suggesting as much! In the novel Rochester is tormented and difficult, but he is a powerful and dominating figure. Here, Colin Clive as Rochester is tormented and weak, and as such we have a romance where he is all but consumed and comforted by Jane's tall figure and ample charms. The sequence where Rochester tricks Jane into choosing jewelry, clothes and other items out for herself and not Blanche Ingram (which is Jane's mistaken notion) is consistent with the novel and other film versions and is very touching. This is the no stress version of Jane Eyre that I found very pleasing to watch.

It's a Monogram - not Masterpiece theatre!!!

[kidboots · 6/10 · 12 March 2009]

I love the book as well and I also agree that the Timothy Dalton series exactly depicted how I had always imagined Jane Eyre as looking. If we are nit-picking Joan Fontaine was hardly a plain jane - maybe by Hollywood standards. I feel that this version was never intended for people that had actually read the book - heck, the people that produced it had probably never even heard of Charlotte Bronte. There are quite a few satirical films around that depict the philistines that used to run the studios. People that would take a fine novel (like "Jane Eyre") and dumb the story down so it is completely unrecognisable. "Stand In" (1937) is a great satire on the studio system - Leslie Howard plays a literate accountant put in charge of a film studio to get it out of the red, Humphrey Bogart is a director who wants to make tasteful, high class films but nobody seems to know what he is talking about. The thirties were the height of glamour and artificiality in the studio system. Nobody would have gone to the movies to see the heroine played by an unattractive actress. Virginia Bruce (has she ever looked more beautiful than in this film!!!) played Jane Eyre and who else would play Jane as a child than Jean Darling, who started her career in Our Gang and could have doubled as an angel.

Actually this film was quite a "special" production for Monogram - it even secured the services of Colin Clive as Mr. Rochester. The film starts out truthfully in it's depiction of Jane's treatment at the hands of her beastly cousins (Richard Quine portrays John Reed). She is sent to Lowood (and goes very willingly). The roles of Jane Eyre and Helen are combined as Jane is shorn of her beautiful ringlets. After several years she becomes a teacher and when she has a confrontation with Mr. Brocklehurst, she finds a position as a governess at Thornfield Hall. Unknowingly, she has already met Mr. Rochester (Colin Clive) after he has a fall from his horse. She meets Adele (Edith Fellows) who plays a little Miss Fixit and is instrumental in bringing Jane and Rochester together. She also meets Rochester again and he is completely love struck!!!

Jane hears a scream in the night and is told it is one of the servants. Meanwhile Rochester has indicated that he will marry in a few months and everyone assumes it will be haughty Blanche Ingram (Aileen Pringle). He invites Jane to her first ball and with adjectives like pretty and charming being thrown about, she is almost the belle of the ball - not quite the Jane Eyre I remember. There is also the famous fire, which Jane stamps out with her foot and then coughs prettily to awaken Rochester. Jane finds out who is behind the "fire" and the screams - it is Rochester's wife. She escapes from her room just before his marriage and announces herself. Bertha (Claire Du Brey) seems quite sane and composed - not the mad harridan of Bronte's book.

Jane flees and finds herself working in a soup kitchen run by StJohn Rivers and because she is so irresistible, he also has proposed. She then meets Sam, a worker at Thornfield Hall, who tells her that the Hall has burned down and that Rochester is blind.

I liked it also and agree with some of the other reviewers. I certainly didn't think Adele was that bad - at least she had a passable English accent.

Recommended.

Static

[dbborroughs · 4/10 · 19 April 2004]

This version of the classic story should move like the wind at 62 minutes, instead its slow and talky and not very good. I'm not certain how much is the result of too much time having passed since this film was made, 70 odd years ago and counting, but this is a movie to a avoid simply because time has not been kind to it. The film feels more like a filmed stage play than a movie as there is never any sense place beyond what we would see if it were on a stage. The performances are okay but there are times one wonders if they were aware of that film acting for sound had advanced from the overdone to a more naturalistic style. I don't think it would be fair to comment on the additions and subtractions from the book, especially in light of the fact that they use chapter headings from the book to advance the plot that gallop from one to ten and onward. Not something to watch unless you love the story or hate yourself enough to watch a film thats almost too painful to get through.

Not the Cliff Notes version, but not bad

[gimhoff · 14 April 2004]

Adapting a classic novel faithfully and accurately is a good thing, and most IMDB reviewers have condemned this version for its fast-and-loose adaption of the Charlotte Bronte novel. However, faithfulness to the source material isn't the only standard by which to judge a movie. This version of Jane Eyre is only an hour long, so all except a few of the main plot points are sacrificed or, as others have noted, altered. But if you don't intend to pass a school exam on the novel by watching the movie, and if you judge the movie on its own merits, it does have merits. Virginia Bruce and Colin Clive are attractive and appealing leads. Several of the character actors are given moments in which to shine, and make the most of them. And the settings and photography are suitably moodily atmospheric. On its own, without reference to the book, it's not half bad, and worth the hour.

Not a good adaptation of Jane Eyre But I Still Liked It At Times.

[Space_Mafune · 5/10 · 13 January 2008]

This film examines the life of Jane Eyre, quickly brushing over her childhood and early life in Lowood and focusing more on her life after becoming governess at Thornfield Hall.

While the lovely Virginia Bruce was definitely miscast in the role of Jane Eyre, who was supposed to be somewhat plain, and really Colin Clive as Edward Rochester was miscast too, at times I still enjoy this movie's fanciful romantic moments focusing on their two characters.

Personally I found great humor in some of the early scenes featuring the Jane Eyre character in this movie, scenes that do help to endear her to the majority of the viewing audience so that we come to root for her throughout the film.

Many of the later scenes at Thornfield Hall focusing on a strange, mysterious secret hidden in a section of the house provide moments more akin to those one expects from the Horror films of the era which some fans of that genre may well enjoy.

Ultimately the way the movie just touches briefly on so much makes the story sometimes feel somewhat incomplete and an abrupt ending that doesn't match the expectation built up in the viewing audience ultimately will prove a letdown to many.

Jane Eyre, chronologically ...

[mjgcpa · 3/10 · 16 April 2011]

For fun, our family is watching all the extant versions of Jane Eyre in chronological order. So, we all read the book first. And, the 1934 version was the oldest version we could get our hands on (Netflix). It took about 3 minutes to figure out we were going to stray far afield from the book.

Letter Grade: D

This must have been Matinée fodder. A "star vehicle". 62 minutes. When you look at the epics being done in 1933-35, there seems to be no excuse for butchering the storyline and the essence of Jane from Charlotte Bronte's writing.

Onward ...

To Eyre is Human

[lugonian · 2/10 · 31 January 2015]

JANE EYRE (Monogram, 1934), directed by Christy Cabanne, is another "poverty row" screen treatment taken from classic literature in the formatted style to the studio's own presentation to Charles Dickens' OLIVER TWIST (1933) starring Dickie Moore. While not the original screen adaptation to Charlotte Bronte's immortal novel, "Jane Eyre" consisted of numerous silent screen versions, one as early as 1913 starring Lisbeth Blackstone, another, retitled WOMAN AND WIFE (1917) with Alice Brady, and again (1921) in retained title featuring Mabel Ballin. For this first talkie edition, the title role goes to Virginia Bruce (1910-1981) on loan from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Bruce, a fine actress, is one who never really achieved the sort of movie stardom of a Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn. Regardless of its merits and low-budget structure, JANE EYRE, in fact, didn't help nor hurt Miss Bruce's screen career, nor did it prompt any possibilities for other movie studios in remaking the Bronte story over and over again, namely the next-in-line remake, the oft-revived and admired 20th Century-Fox 1944 production starring Orson Welles (Rochester) and Joan Fontaine (Jane). For now, let's concentrate on this JANE EYRE from Monogram Studios.

Told through the passages of the novel, Jane Eyre begins with, "Chapter I, 'The cold winter wind had brought with it somber cold and penetrating rain.'" Jane Eyre (Jean Darling) is introduced as an child orphan living in the home and charity of her unsympathetic Aunt Mary Reed (Clarissa Selwynne) and her spoiled children, Georgiana (Anne Howard) and John (Richard Quine). John, a momma's boy, pleasures himself "disciplining" his cousin through unnecessary tactics of facial slaps and accusations of being a thief who's stolen one of his books. Because of her unruly outbursts for defending herself, Mrs. Reed soon deposits her niece to the Lowood Orphanage for Girls where Jane finds herself under the kindness of Miss Temple (Greta Gould) and strict disciplinary actions of its no-nonsense headmaster, Mr. Brocklehurst (David Torrence). As the pages flip, skipping through various details of Jane's childhood, the story resumes with "Chapter X, 'I remained an inmate of Lowood's walls for ten years, eight as a pupil, and finally two as a teacher."' The adult Jane Eyre (Virginia Bruce), is shown as a humanly kind schoolteacher getting through to her pupils with kindness and understanding. Because Mr. Brocklehurst doesn't believe in her tactics, he immediately dismisses her. Jane soon acquires a new position, that of governess in the estate of Edward Rochester (Colin Clive). Though Jane enjoys her new position caring for Rochester's mischievous niece, Adele (Edith Fellows), and the fine companionship of Mrs. Fairfax (Beryl Mercer), the housekeeper, she's surrounded by strange surroundings and occurrences by night with the sounds of tormented screams from the far distance of the mansion, a mysterious fire in one of the rooms, and a strange figure roaming about, reasons known only by married servants, Sam (John Rogers) and Grace Poole (Ethel Griffies - a role she repeated in the 1944 version), but most of all, Mr. Rochester, who'd rather spare Jane from the outlandish details.

Other members of the cast include that of Aileen Pringle (Blanche Ingram, Rochester's snobbish fiancée); Lionel Belmore (Lord Ingram, Blanche's father whom Adele says resembles a walrus); Claire DuBrey (Bertha Rochester); and Jameson Thomas (Charles Crack).

For anyone quite familiar or in favor of either the 1944 Joan Fontaine version or the numerous latter theatrical and/or made-for-television editions to JANE EYRE, would be quite disappointed by this production. Though comparing with the others is inevitable, this JANE EYRE presents itself more like an early 1929 sound talkie than one made in 1934. The low budget qualities and musical background limitations would have been forgivable had it not been for the present structure of the film. Although quite a common practice for the screen treatment to stray from the book in favor of rearranging situations and characters to add more interest, JANE EYRE might have succeeded into at least an average product had the film itself been fully developed in both characters and plot. As much as Bruce, Clive and Fellows dominate in these proceedings, the cast support results to mostly extended cameos. A major character of John Rivers (Desmond Roberts) becomes a third dimensional one appearing briefly as a man running a charity mission who's gotten to know and love Jane enough to offer her his hand in marriage. Rivers suddenly disappears, never to be seen again. While Leonard Maltin's TV and Video Guide clocks JANE EYRE at 67 minutes, it's curious as to whether the director's cut was originally longer at possibly 80 minutes, than the now circulating 62 minute edition.

Retaining Colin Clive (immortally known for his title role of Universal's 1931 edition of FRANKENSTEIN) in the role of Rochester, it's a wonder how JANE EYRE of 1934 might have succeeded had it been produced and distributed by major studios as RKO Radio with Katharine Hepburn (excellent choice); MGM (with Maureen O'Sullivan); Paramount (Elissa Landi); Warner Brothers (newcomer Jean Muir); United Artists (Joan Bennett) or even Universal (newcomers Jane Wyatt or British born Valerie Hobson), as possible casting examples for the Bronte heroine.

Not as frequently televised as Monogram's OLIVER TWIST (1933), the long unseen JANE EYRE has become available over the years on either video cassette (1990s) and/or DVD format, the only method of getting to see how "it happened to Jane" as well as an opportunity in rediscovering Virginia Bruce in a rare leading screen performance and getting to hear her sing Franz Schubert's "Serenade" while playing the piano. (**)

See it for curiosity, but anybody looking for faithfulness will despair!

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 1 June 2012]

Charlotte Bronte's novel is a classic, and while I wasn't expecting something word-by-word adaptation-wise, I was expecting at least some of the novel's spirit to come through. Sadly, no. Apart from some curiosity value, decent(but not timeless) production values, a touching scene with Rochester tricking Jane into choosing clothes and jewellery and a sometimes scary performance from Claire DuBrey especially with the banshee routine, this is probably the worst Jane Eyre film or adaptation to exist. Its lack of faithfulness is not its only problem. The script feels really stilted and sloppy, the music is stock and the story here is completely lacking in the book's heart and complexity and bears only glancing resemblance to it and the film is far too short and rushed. I have no better news to say about the acting. Virginia Bruce was a gorgeous woman, but she was far too beautiful for a plain character such as Jane, while Colin Clive turns Rochester from a brooding, dark and complex character into a performance too cheery and refined. The two don't convince really in their chemistry together in my opinion. The character of Adele is also too slapsticky for my tastes. All in all, has curiosity value, but apart from one or two things, as an adaptation and on its own terms this Jane Eyre doesn't work. For a better film adaptation, the best one is the Orson Welles film, the best overall adaptations are between the 1973 and 1983 mini-series. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Not even Colin Clive could save it

[MissSimonetta · 4/10 · 22 August 2013]

This low-budget Jane Eyre adaptation is of historical interest only. It was the first film version of the story to be made with sound, and it is every bit as creaky as you would imagine. The image and sound quality are lacking, most of the action only seems to take place in a handful of rooms, and the music is forgettable. The story is stripped of its Gothic atmosphere and character depth, until there's barely anything to suggest what made the original novel so great.

Virginia Bruce is much too beautiful to play the titular heroine, though to be fair she does bring a lot of spirit to the part. Colin Clive is a fantastic actor who could have given us a great Rochester, but the writers watered down the character so much that he's nothing more than a generic love interest. Edith Fellows is occasionally cute as Adele, but she's more shrill than anything and tends to engage in pratfalls often.

Eyre enthusiasts will be appalled, non-fans will be bored. It may not be the worst movie ever and it's competent enough, but there are better ways to spend an hour.

An Early Version but Not That Bad!

[Sylviastel · 7/10 · 10 July 2011]

If you want accuracy or something better, you can check out the later versions of Jane Eyre. Anyway, this film was done in 1934 and it's an early talking version of the story. Please remember that most films until 1929 were silent and this film was only done five years later with the new sound of the time. I don't fault the studio for only delivering a short film version of the Bronte classic novel, Jane Eyre. Virginia Bruce is fine as the title character. Recently deceased Edith Fellows played Adele Rochester. Colin Clive was fine as Edward Rochester. The rest of the cast and the crew made films faster and more in quantity than they do nowadays. In fact, the studios worked their cast and crews making five or six films a year in those days. Times have changed the course of film-making. With the advent of sound to occur only 5 years before, this Jane Eyre version is faithful to the story even though the film is only about an hour log. Sometimes short is sweet! But films of that era were often about an hour long as well.

Drab, inaccurate and lifeless....but those are only the good qualities!

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 20 April 2010]

Hmmm. In this film, you've got a pretty Jane Eyre (in fact, Adele makes a point of saying this as do guests to Mr. Rochester's party), an Adele who does NOT have a French accent, a kindly Mr. Rochester and many other story elements that makes you assume the screenwriters either never read Charlotte Bronte's book or were under the influence when they wrote the screenplay. I halfway expected to see Jane and Rochester honeymoon on a zeppelin or something equally crazy in this film! Because this film was made by the poverty row studio, Monogram, it bears all trademarks of such a cheapo production--no background music (making the whole thing drab and a bit creepy), often poor acting and a very hurried pace. In fact, much of the film comes off almost like snapshots of various parts of the book--not fully fleshed out scenes. For example, as a child Jane arrives at Lowood School and only seconds later, up pops a message saying that years have passed and she now is a teacher there. Then, in a VERY rushed scene, she quits her job and tells off the headmaster. You have no context for this--no explanation. As a result, Jane seems a bit like a jerk! I guess this is what happens when you try to cram the story into a tiny bit more than an hour! In many ways, it came off more like a Cliffnotes or Illustrated Comics version of the story....when it actually got details correct. That's what you get with a budget of $102.98!

So is there anything good I can say about the film? Hmmmm....no. I have read the book and seen about 4 or 5 versions of the film, so I obviously love the story. Such a cavalier attitude like this film had towards the source material just irritates me. The only half-way nice thing I can say about it is that you DO get to see Colin Clive play a normal person for once--not the crazed character he played in "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein"! It isn't good, but it is interesting for that reason alone.

If you are desperate enough to want to see this particular version, Alpha Video has released one. While normally most of their DVDs have poor sound and graphics, this copy isn't that bad--though their is a bit of a background hiss--made more noticeable because of the lack of background music. My advice--while the George C. Scott version isn't perfect (it skips important parts of the book like most Jane Eyre films), it is exceptionally good due to the acting and production values. Or, perhaps the old Joan Fontaine version--it's pretty good, too. And, while the casting ain't great, even the William Hurt version is a billion times better than this 1934 film.

A time capsule of very early movie making.

[DAHLRUSSELL · 7/10 · 23 July 2006]

This version of JANE EYRE is for film history buffs only - in it's day, it probably would have been a "9". This is a very early talkie, from one of the smaller movie companies, and all the growing pains show. (Garbo's ANNA Christie was made the year before this, and while still stagy, it shows what a larger, more successful film company could do, compared to this smaller one. Garbo's film was a film, this feels more like a record of a stage performance.) The script is rather "favorite scenes from JANE EYRE." It takes major plot points and turns them into a brighter story all together, mixing and matching elements at will.

Virginia Bruce is tall, platinum, strikingly beautiful with a lovely contralto voice, voluptuous figure and mesmerizing sad eyes (that inspired Italian doll maker Lenci, in many of his boudoir dolls of this period). All of this, of course makes her wrong to play Jane, in one of the most total miscasting moments of film history. Worse yet, she slumps and slinks around like a 1930s starlet, more Jean Harlow than Jane Eyre. To see her languidly lounging against a pillar or a piano, combined with some of the abrupt dialog lines that contradict the original story, brings lots of laughs to a Bronte fan. This version also added characters and played loose with details in ways that also made me laugh.

Colin Clive as Rochester is handsome, refined, and gentlemanly. He treats her like an Etonian suitor. Virginia Bruce rather brusquely runs the scenes with him, and often seems very bored with him, practically rolling her eyes. So, of course, all of this is wrong for the story. Now, I must say, they are both very good actors, and inhabit their roles, and for this period, they are both very fine (compare them with the supporting cast, especially the hysterically bad Adele – a child actor coached to the ends of every finger and curl in the most obvious stage mannerisms of the day), but the limitations of the medium of that day and their miscasting does them no favors.

The casting of his fiancée is very odd indeed, and shows how the beauty of WOMEN was valued at that time, over girls. She looks a good ten years older than Rochester, and quite the dark-haired demimonde vamp. Watching many versions of JANE ERYE, I find that the casting of this role and Adele tell us a tremendous amount about the tastes of the times.

The sets are bright and light, but we must understand, that some of this dynamic was needed for the cameras that were being used at the day, the makeup is very dramatic, but again, the makeup then needed for a face to "read" on camera was not even natural skin tones. So for these things, this version is a fascinating film study of a particular moment when films were transitioning. Miss Bruce's costumes are lovely – more Cinderella than plain Jane – and are also a notable moment of history, when this high waisted, fully flounced skirt was "in style" for period films. This type of dress, too, was copied by doll maker Lenci. You will notice that all the lines are spoken very slowly and distinctly, and many will dismiss it as bad acting, but this too, had to do with early sound recording, it was necessary for the way film was made.

Since I AM interested in film history, this has made me anxious to see more of Virginia Bruce. I want to see if her particular presence was used in more contemporary pieces, where her looks and personal style would have made her shine. This is a time capsule.

Jane, They Hardly Knew Ye

[wes-connors · 3/10 · 21 March 2010]

Abused and raised in an orphanage, beautiful Virginia Bruce (as Jane Eyre) goes to work as governess at Thornfield Hall. There, she and wealthy employer Colin Clive (as Edward Rochester) can't help falling in love. You figure they'll get over the class distinctions, but Mr. Clive has a past which may prevent him from marrying. Not to mention his being matched up with societal Aileen Pringle (as Blanche Ingram). While caring for mischievous little Edith Fellows (as Adele) and singing for her boss, Ms. Bruce discovers the mysterious manor's screaming secret. It's not Charlotte Bronte or even an amazing facsimile. Beryl Mercer (as Mrs. Fairfax) is a real trouper. Somber, indeed.

*** Jane Eyre (8/15/34) Christy Cabanne ~ Virginia Bruce, Colin Clive, Edith Fellows, Beryl Mercer

SPOILERS: A disappointment, but of interest to film buffs

[dmjarrett · 14 August 2006]

I had high hopes for this movie, and I still think it's worth seeing from a historical point of view, but it certainly could have been better.

Naturally it's tough to do the novel justice in 62 minutes, but it would have worked better had they not wasted precious time on silly or insignificant events. For example, does anyone really want to see Adele dust the banister? The 1938 version of "A Christmas Carol" manages to cover a lot of ground in 69 minutes by making every line count. Alas, this version of Jane Eyre doesn't.

The character of Jane Eyre, in my opinion, has been molded into a strapping, two-fisted gal who progresses from slugging her cousin and shouting at her aunt – to an impudent governess who goes about smashing vases and smart-talking her employer's fiancée! The novel portrays Jane as a plain and intelligent young woman who possesses great dignity and the ability to stand tall, despite the trials of her surroundings. This movie's Jane Eyre would be at home with the Bowery Boys.

Colin Clive is an interesting actor, but unfortunately the moody, difficult aspects of Mr. Rochester that he might have done something with are almost entirely gone. Rochester here is seen doting on Adele (his niece, whereas the book suggests Adele is his illegitimate child) and fawning over Jane with stunning rapidity. Check out when he invites her to dance and wonders why she didn't dress up for the party! Are we to believe that the engaged and wealthy owner of an estate expects his governess to deck herself out and participate in the party as a social equal? And would an orphanage teacher/governess have a party dress?? Perhaps this movie would play better for someone who hasn't read the book. For me, I kept thinking: The novel possesses a wealth of fascinating scenes and well-drawn characters. Why don't we see them here? The revelation of Rochester's wife in the novel, for example, was suspenseful and shocking. Here, the actual Mrs. Rochester strolls casually up to say how do you do! I must say that Christy Cabanne's direction was reasonably competent, and at times I felt like he was doing a lot with a little. So, the movie's not a total loss, but it's a major disappointment in that with better, tighter scripting we might have enjoyed a small-scale yet well-crafted production. Too bad!