Jane Eyre (1970 TV Movie) User Reviews

Poor video quality

[tpottera · 7/10 · 1 September 2003]

This film needs restoration. It is so dark in some places you can't really see anything. George C. Scott is flat and wooden; no emotion. Susannah York is too old for the part. The movie is too short. With all that said I still rate it a 7. Give it a try but lower your expectations.

No Chemistry *Contains Spoilers*

[CherryBerry · 5/10 · 3 August 2003]

Overall, this version is O.K. I liked when Jane and Edward visited Ferndean. It was bright and full of life.

But, Susannah York is too pretty to play the part of the `plain, quakerish governess.' And, I thought she looked too old to be 18, the age she is when she first arrives at Thornfield.

George C. Scott physically fits the part of Mr. Rochester, yet the way he approached playing the role was too "soft." During the course of reading the novel, I figured that Rochester had a fiery temper and was more exacting and fierce, yet passionate.

The picture is not so clear. The sound sometimes is too slurred and I could not understand Adelle at all.

Where is the love? The plot seemed rushed and many many crucial points of the story were not included. The script was not true to the novel. I, for one, appreciate when the movie adaptation is as true to the novel as possible. I was not convinced that Jane and Rochester were in love. There was not enough focus on their relationship. Whatever happened to Adelle? Perhaps if the director was able to shoot a three hour movie (or more) instead of a two hour movie, it would be able to address the missing parts of the story.

If you have time/money to spend, I would recommend seeing the 1983 BBC Version, starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke instead. It is nearly four hours long, but it is well worth it.

Another Good Adaptation of a Classic Romance

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 11 May 2011]

The orphan girl Jane Eyre is sent by her aunt Mrs. Reed to Lowood Institution, a charity school for orphans directed by the religious and harsh Mr. Henry Brocklehurst. Jane has a tough childhood without love in the boarding school, where she loses her best friend Helen Burns. When Jane (Susannah York) reaches adulthood, she is hired by Mrs. Fairfax (Rachel Kempson) as the governess of Adele, who is the rejected daughter of the master of Thornfield Edward Rochester (George C. Scott), and leaves Lowood. Jane moves to the manor and sooner she feels an unrequited love by her master. When Mr. Rochester gives a party to the beautiful and wealthy Blanche Ingram (Nyree Dawn Porter), Jane decides to find another job. However, Mr. Rochester breaks with Blanche and proposes Jane, despite their different social classes and age. However, a gloomy secret from Mr. Rochester's past affects their lives and Jane Eyre does not marry him. She wanders and is saved by the religious St. John Rivers (Ian Bannen) and his two sisters. St. John Rivers is a man of God and wants Jane Eyre to join his journey to India. But Jane still loves Mr. Rochester and St. John Rivers does not love her like a woman.

"Jane Eyre" is another good adaptation of the classic romance of Charlotte Brontë. I have just watched the 1943 version and it is inevitable the comparison between the two films. Jane Eyre is described as a plain woman and Susannah York fits better and better to this description than the sweet and gorgeous Joan Fontaine. George C. Scott has a good performance but it is impossible to compare him to the powerful Orson Welles. The atmosphere in black and white of the 1943 film is impressive while in this television version everything and everywhere is colorful and does not fit to the Gothic fiction of Charlotte Brontë. However, this 1970 version is more faithful to the novel after the unsuccessful marriage of Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester, with an adult discussion of the couple and more accurate fate of Jane. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Jane Eyre"

almost as good as the 40s version ...

[didi-5 · 26 January 2000]

... but not quite. The 40s version had the mist and the overacting of the great Mr Welles - this has a fabulous cast, particularly Scott and York who are both superb, but just falls short of the magic of the creaky old b&w version. This one has its moments a-plenty though and is well worth tracking down. A definite 8 out of 10.

Pretty good but hampered by time constraints

[marspeach · 7/10 · 17 August 2012]

This version was originally aired in theaters in the UK, but only on television here in the US. Although the DVD claims to be "digitally remastered," the quality is still, quite frankly, terrible. Apparently the story goes that the original film was lost somewhere along the line, so the video releases use the TV version. That is apparent with bad, cuts and jumps in scenes that pop up occasionally throughout the movie, most likely at points where there were commercial breaks. After the fire in Rochester's room, Jane asks him if Grace Poole started the fire. One problem with that- there was no mention of the name "Grace Poole" at any time in the movie before this! That must have been a scene to have gotten cut, or the writers are morons. Take your pick.The picture isn't good, and despite boasting a score by John Williams, the sound isn't either.

Despite being only an hour and a half, the film starts with a length opening credits scene before young Jane arrives at Lowood. What the purpose of that was, I'm still not sure! Susannah York as Jane was gorgeous and at nearly 20 years too old, but her performance was pretty good. I liked that George C. Scott's Rochester was not very good-looking, but the lines about him not being handsome were cut for some reason! So disappointing. I thought Ian Bannen was too passionate as St. John and not enough the cold, unfeeling character of the book.

Overall, this version was actually pretty decent. I couldn't find many negative things to say about it, really, which is a good thing. . Despite being too old, the cast did a pretty good job overall. Ultimately it suffered from time constraints. Other than the horrible picture and audio quality of the DVD, it's really not bad It's a shame that the original film was supposedly lost! Maybe it will somehow be miraculously found one day?

A rushed production, but a triumph for John Williams

[MissSimonetta · 6/10 · 10 August 2020]

I have never seen a feature-length version of JANE EYRE which did Bronte's novel justice. To minimize her coming of age novel to a gothic love story strips Jane of her arc and the story of its coherence. This 1970 production suffers from rushing the story, cramming it in under two hours, as well as from a poor transfer. Susannah York and George C. Scott are both miscast-- York is too pretty and Scott is too subdued. That the two share no chemistry does not help.

The one ace the movie has is the John Williams music. Williams had been working in film and TV for about a decade at this point, and this is perhaps his first standout movie score. The love theme is gorgeous, prefiguring the more famous "Across the Stars" from the Star Wars prequels, and the music for the spookier scenes feels like an embryonic version of the mystery motif in the first two Harry Potter movies. But even apart from what he would do later, the music is just so perfect. Such a shame the movie is not of equal merit.

Surprisingly decent

[poj-man · 6/10 · 15 September 2013]

I've never read Jane Eyre nor seen any other versions of the story. The only prejudice contained comes from reading up a bit on the story and also the reviews of this version of the film while watching this version on DVD.

The quality of the DVD is awful. However, I hardly find that a reason to downgrade the effort.

The amount of savagery certain reviews on this website is quite surprising to me. Much of the criticism seems to be directed at the cast and the adaptation not meeting the preconceived notions derived from either the novel or the other cinematic adaptations. The criticism is based not upon how the film plays but rather how the film meets preconceived notions of the story and characters.

The film isn't half-bad. Jane Seymour and George C. Scott...IMO...bring credible portrayals of Jane Eyre and Rochester. They portray characters trapped by the bonds of their roles in society.

The story meanders a bit because the script is adapting "Jane Eyre: An Autobiography" but the film and the story are ultimately "Jane Eyre: A Love Story." The love story, though, is quite antiseptic in nature. So the portrayal of the autobiography is the thread told which meanders from the story being told...and causes a cold disconnect of the passion of love.

The story also loses a bit because the whole life of Jane Eyre is encapsulated into 110 minutes. One cannot just simply compress a lifetime into such short a span and not lose a bit. Passion must develop to capture people but that development time is lost by packing too much into the story. This causes the antiseptic nature of the film to originate and perpetuate.

As an aside...as an author...I can see a much better way to create this story for cinema. Start with Jane's arrival as Governess and develop from there. Focus on the building of Rochester's estate as a parallel to the building of the Eyre\Rochester relationship. Build the relationship of the characters. Reconstruct (for modern audiences) the dramatic confrontations including having Jane at and showing the manic first wife burning the manor down \ burning the relationship of all. Who cares if it isn't "faithful" to the original novel? It would have the power to draw and that is what film making is about.

Awful treatment of a great movie

[Linent · 1/10 · 31 December 2004]

I bought the DVD version of this movie on the recommendation of my wife who loved the version she saw aired in television. But the version put to DVD was a disaster. The lighting was poor to non-existent and entire scenes were simply excised. In one instance Adele is being put to bed, and we immediately cut to another scene - coming in in mid-sentence - where it's the next night. Characters such as Grace Poole and Mason are never even introduced, leaving one to wonder if they'd dozed off for a few minutes during the movie.

The DVD we saw was produced by Platinum Disc Corp and even at $6.32 it was robbery.

Be careful which version of this movie you buy! We're sending this one back.

about as good a version of Jane Eyre as you'll find

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 19 June 2005]

First, I doubt if I can give ANY version of Jane Eyre a 10, as every version I have seen so far puts too much emphasis on the part of the book involving Rochester and Jane (which is important) and not enough on her proposal of marriage from the vicar (which is VERY important to Ms. Bronte's theme)--this juxtaposition of plots is essential. It is mentioned in passing in several of the movies but never is allowed to have the prominence that it had in the book.

Now, despite this, I would say that this is my favorite version of Jane Eyre, though the Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine version of the 1940s is close to being as good.

George C. Scott is a great Rochester--very gruff, brooding and unattractive--as well as an incredibly fine actor. Susannah York is a stronger and spunkier Jane than Joan Fontaine's and I prefer the spunkier one. The only area where the 1940s version seemed better was in the back story at the horrible school where Jane was raised.

Good if not as good as the Welles film and 1973 series

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 28 January 2012]

I can understand some people's disappointment watching this Jane Eyre, but I liked it. Is it the best version? No, the 1973 series and the Welles film I prefer, I haven't yet seen the 1997 version. However it is better than the Zeffirelli film, which looked beautiful but was dull. The sound was rather slurred when I saw it with some blurry picture quality, and I just wish they had more of the Brocklehurst-Eyre conflict. Plus Jane's hair I wished was more authentic to the period.

On the other hand, it is a beautifully shot movie with sumptuous and atmospheric scenery and lovingly tailored costumes, and the score is haunting. The dialogue is well written and intelligently woven, and the story is compelling particularly in the tender scenes between Jane and Rochester. Ian Bannen is excellent, Susannah York's Jane is older and perhaps more attractive than most Janes but that doesn't stop her from embodying the role and George C.Scott is brilliant in a gruff and brooding portrayal of Rochester.

All in all, a good film if not the best. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Love in an old people's home

[jback-5 · 2/10 · 14 September 2008]

This TV production of 1970 starring Susannah York and George C. Scott is another proof of how difficult it is to adopt "Jane Eyre" to the screen, and how much can go wrong in doing so. It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence! But even if the editing were better, the film would not be. The script is bad, the portrayal of the characters is untrue to the novel and nearly all actors are miscast. As a consequence one does not have the feeling of watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel at all. The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.

This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood. While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation. What Helen has to suffer is bad enough as described in the novel, but here Miss Scatchard is portrayed as a kind of sadistic prison ward, who deliberately wants to drive Helen to a premature death. And this is about all which happens at Lowood. If you compare that to the deep impact the years spent in Lowood have on Jane in the novel, one can only state with regret that the movie does not even touch the surface of that particular episode in Jane's life. And this is the problem throughout this adaptation: It rushes from scene to scene, very often without transition, and nowhere comes even near the essence of the novel. The dialogues are an odd mixture of made-up lines and lines from the novel, very clumsily patched together, and the scenes between Jane and Rochester are so shortened that both share only 5 minutes together on screen before they fall in love, and the little conversation they have contains nothing of the brilliance, the intensity and also the humour of the conversations between Rochester and Jane in the novel. But the scriptwriter not only did Brontë's language injustice but in addition managed to ruin her moral set-up with just one sentence. When Rochester and Jane go to see Rochester's wife after the would-be wedding, Rochester says: "Yet I once loved her (his wife) as I love you now." The whole moral concept of the novel depends on the fact that Rochester is indeed an innocent victim of an amoral scheme and was trapped into marrying a mad woman whom he never loved, and that his effort to seek a true life partner is, if not sanctified by God's and man's law, yet understandable and forgivable! But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.

From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine. In addition, Ms York was in her thirties when the film was shot and looks it. Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts. I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre. To cast George C. Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible. Scott looks as if he were around 50 but acts in various scenes as if he were 70.

To compliment the "maturity" of the leading actors all passion, desire and despair seems to have been deliberately wrung out of the script. The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep. When Jane returns to him in the last scene, he is just as mildly pleased as a grandfather who has just been paid a visit in his old people's home by his favourite granddaughter. The only character who displays an appropriate amount of emotion is St. John, of all people. Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel. But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester. The only redeeming features of this very disappointing "Jane Eyre" are the locations and the score, and I would only recommend this production to those who want to watch and compare every single adaptation of "Jane Eyre".

A pleasure watching

[Thornfield2 · 8/10 · 25 May 2001]

I thought this little obscure adaptation was one of the better versions of the Bronte novel to ever be put on film. I would say that George C. Scott's Rochester ties with the best interpretations of the character with the likes of Mr.Orson Wells and Ciaran Hinds. The musical score (one of the earliest works of John Williams) was a haunting little melody that fit the film perfectly and I found the laughing and the "Grace Poole" parts more mysterious, even slightly more frightening. This version also has Blanche Ingram portrayed as Charlotte Bronte' had visioned, a tall brunette of a slightly older age and not rediculously imitated by a supermodel as in some other adaptations. Ms. York did a remarkable job as Jane Eyre, however, I believe the best Jane Eyre performance goes to Samantha Morton in the BBC 1997 version. However, Susanna York and George C. Scott's scenes have the most chemistry and tenderness in them. I thought this little version (even with Jane's 70's hair-do)was great and after a long search I finally found it on video. 8 out of 10.

Reduced to the dollar store, but worth so much more

[Blanketgirl928 · 7/10 · 27 March 2006]

I watched this on a whim because it was sold at a dollar store. I enjoyed it because of acting and the chemistry between the two main characters. At first the likelihood of them falling in love is convincingly unbelievable. Thankfully I couldn't remember the plot from having read the book a few years ago. The music score by John Williams enhanced it as well as added to my fear of what was living in the attic. One of my main complaints is that Jane is repeatedly called "plain" and "not pretty" but the actress is actually gorgeous. At the time Hollywood didn't seem to cast any actresses that were realistically plain yet appealing.

Worst version ever!

[timjrutherfordtr · 1/10 · 11 September 2021]

Just watched this on Prime. Those who've given this 10/10 must have reviewed the wrong movie! Absolutely terrible. So dark you can't see many of the scenes. Characters not introduced or developed. Wooden acting. Zero chemistry between leads. Watch the old Orsen Wells version...or any other version but this one for that matter!

games

[Kirpianuscus · 2 December 2022]

The first part seems a game with details from novel. The second propose a very closed by his essence Mr Rochester. George S. Scott is prettz inspired master of Thornfield and this is the virtue of film. Inspired comparing with other versions but his age, her age transforms the conversations in talks of middle age couple after a not very short marriage. Maybe not the best one but in style of Orson Welles , realistic.

The problem of Susanah York is the same in the case of Mrs Clark - too mature and , like in case of Timothz Dalton - too beautiful . But essential is the more than decent result and the basic risk remains to forget than she acts Jane Eyre.

The game with parts of novel, the absence of others are reasonable compensated by inspired option for the role of St John Rivers.

Sure, not faithful adaptation and few innovations not so inspired. But nice effort for define the spirit of book, not always with expected inspiration.

JANE EYRE (TV) (Delbert Mann, 1970) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 22 December 2007]

I had previously watched the classic 1944 version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine; this later adaptation is well enough done and acted as TV movies go, but can't really be compared artistically (especially with respect to the narrative's Gothic trappings, much more vividly captured in atmospheric black-and-white).

It was surprising to find George C. Scott in a romantic melodrama, but it's he who gives the film life; in any case, this seemed to start him off tackling the classics for TV – following JANE EYRE with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1976), OLIVER TWIST (1982), A Christmas CAROL (1984) and even MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE (1986)! Susannah York is a good match for him and brings reasonable passion to the title character. The supporting cast, then, is peppered with veteran character actors such as Jack Hawkins, Kenneth Griffith and, best of all, Ian Bannen (as the religious fanatic who proposes to Jane).

I own but have never read the Charlotte Bronte novel; still, from what I recall of the earlier version, this one's pretty faithful – and it has suitably literate dialogue to boot. John Williams, then, delivers a sweeping and heavily romantic score.

They skipped the best part!

[fplum · 7/10 · 22 November 2006]

I enjoyed the movie for what they presented but they left out the beginning of the book. Jane gets into a fight with here guardian aunt, who then locks her in a dark closet for the night. Jane is terrified, has hallucinations, and swoons. The next day is when arrangement's are made for her to go to that school. Almost reminds you of scenes out of Charles Dickins "Great Expectations" (Guardian Aunt - "I raised you by hand I did and this is the thanks I get?") and "Mommy Dearest". I do agree with other reviewers that George C. Scott does a great job on his part and Susan York graces the screen with her beauty, and her acting. Instead of for TV this one should have been released in theaters

The movie doesn't do justice to the novel

[Red-125 · 7/10 · 9 April 2019]

Jane Eyre is a novel that can translate well into film. (Check IMDb for the multiple versions available.) This version of Jane Eyre (1970) was directed by Delbert Mann.

It stars George C. Scott as Edward Rochester, and Susannah York as Jane Eyre.

York does a very good job. It helps that she was British, so she didn't have to work on her accent. The biggest problem is that we have to accept the fact that she's "plain," when she was very beautiful.

George C. Scott was an excellent actor, but he was a U.S. actor through and through. He was great in Patton, but not great in Jane Eyre. I never could accept him in the role.

We saw the movie on the small screen, and it worked well enough. This version of Jane Eyre has an anemic IMDb rating of 6.5, which I think is about right. My suggestion--watch the 1943 Welles-Fontaine version, which is rated 7.6.

Visually, musically stunning but a horrible adaptation.

[sophie_amundsen · 4/10 · 13 January 2005]

I watched this film, along with every other adaptation I could get my hands on- including seeing plays- in preparation for some academic research. The cinematography is very moving, as is the music. Unfortunately all of the life was taken out of the story. I have never seen such an awful portrayal of Mr. Rochester. All of his most fundamental traits are gone. Where is his wit? Where is his passion? Scott's Rochester more closely resembles Rochester's foil, St.John, than the character from the novel. In fact, the actor playing St.John in this adaptation played a passionate St.John while Scott is content to smash things or just stare at the ceiling (which he does all the time). I have no idea what they were thinking. I would like to give this film a slightly higher vote based on the wonderful music and cinematography but I honestly can't bear to see this film for too long because of George C. Scott's performance.

Best Adaptation

[rockstar74 · 10/10 · 22 May 2004]

No wonder I think this is the best adaptation of Jane Eyre - I didn't realize that Delbert Mann directed it until I read it on this website. I loved this film - if memory serves me it was a made for t.v. movie. George C. Scott and Susannah York were perfectly cast. I also remember a very touching and well acted death scene between young Jane Eyre portrayed by Sara Gibson and Helen Burns portrayed by Rosalyn Landor. Jean Marsh was also good as Mrs. Rochester. The music was hauntingly beautiful. I am fortunate that I taped it when it reran on a cable movie channel several years ago. If you like the story and have the opportunity by all means watch this great version of a classic novel.

Brilliant Casting

[fatcat-73450 · 7/10 · 19 January 2024]

George C Scott sports his ugly mug and gruff demeanor expertly in another Victorian Classic (he aptly played Scrooge in a competent adaptation of A Christmas Carol). Although he looks a little older than Rochester's late 30's as envisioned by Bronte, I can't really imagine anyone doing her vision more justice. Leaps and bounds better than the 2015 adaptation of Far from the Madding Crowd that sported some sort of male model playing Hardy's homely Gabriel Oak.

The actress playing Jane, while also visibly older than the teenaged Jane of the novel, is expertly cast; she's not exactly ugly as Jane seems to have been meant to be, but she does have Jane's restrained passion and she very much fills hearts with compassion, embodying that weathered but also lonely personality that you'd expect me an adult raised in an orphanage to have.

If you love the book, you'll love this version, no doubt. It's got the casting and the settings.

Unfortunately, if you're not just singing along to a well-known tune with knowledge of the source material, you might be confused. The whole novel is covered here, which means that the story is very much simplified and you have to already know what's between the lines to really see its brilliance as a supplement to the novel. We never see Jane fall in love with Rochester, nor vice versa. In fact, the movie just lunges from the initially prickly Rochester to the two protagonists' emotional proximity with little development or explanation. Along the same lines, Rochester remains a rather brusque fellow throughout and he doesn't really earn the audience's endearment.

If you know and like the book, it's a highly fitting companion, though.

Honourable Mentions: Hardcore (1979). Scott plays a father looking for his daughter amongst the pornographic rubble of a decadent Los Angeles. Along the way he develops a somewhat paternal fondness from a young working woman. I don't think it's an actual romance - perhaps he just sees his daughter in her - even though there are hints, but it's the same dynamic and I think makes for a very nice romantic story - an older man with a tough outer shell comes to fill the emptiness of a lost and lonely woman as they grow close to each other through the course of the work.

A Waste

[sfgraves · 1/10 · 3 April 2001]

This is by far the worst adaptation of Jane Eyre I have seen. It is uncertain whether or not the writer of the screenplay ever read the book by Bronte. George C Scott is ridiculous and bumbling as Rochester -- when not just plain old acting angry. Susannah York has the most dated 1970's hairstyle I have ever seen in a Victorian movie. The characters hardly speak to each other, so the rich banter enjoyed in the book that is the basis for their deep intellectual and abiding love, is gone. The ending is ludicrous.

Please, rent the Timothy Dalton version instead. It is so true to the book, it's like having the novel read aloud to you. Dalton is superb as Rochester. G. C. Scott is laughable.

Wonderful version of Bronte's classic novel, especially Mr. Rochester

[roghache · 9/10 · 30 March 2006]

While I may not have seen every version of Jane Eyre, this is my favorite of those encountered and definitely preferable to the more recent ones. This adaptation is made by George C. Scott who, as others have noted, positively IS Mr. Rochester. In fact, I've never really been able to properly appreciate any other version, because I keep longing to see Scott in the part. Forget William Hurt, Ciaran Hinds, or even Timothy Dalton. Scott has taken command of Rochester's role for me, just as Alastair Sim in the 1951 A Christmas Carol commands the role of Scrooge, making all others second best.

Of course this is Charlotte Bronte's classic story of an orphan, Jane Eyre, who is first sent to Lowood School, and then upon reaching young womanhood, obtains a position as governess to a little girl called Adele at Thornfield Hall. Adele's father and the lord of the manor is the enigmatic Edward Rochester. As opposite as employer and governess appear, as intimidating as Mr. Rochester seems and as wary as Jane is, the two become attracted. However, Thornfield Hall has an air of mystery about it...

Susannah York seems a bit too old and perhaps too pretty for the role, as Jane is intended to be rather plain. Charlotte Gainsbourg from the 1996 version is actually my favourite Jane portrayal. However, York is convincing enough as the maidenly but rather spunky governess. The two, Scott and York, have amazing chemistry together, an endearing tenderness in some of their scenes. It is touching to behold the interactions between the rough hewed, gruff, & brooding Mr. Rochester and the shy, gentle, principled, yet underneath potentially passionate Jane. Some have criticized Scott's Rochester as lacking passion, but I personally found him perfect in the role.

Everything else as I recall is well done, including supporting cast, Yorkshire moors scenery, haunting atmosphere, and lovely musical score.

Just a point of interest, these two stars appear together again in the 1984 version of A Christmas Carol, with Scott as Scrooge and York as Mrs. Cratchitt. I enjoy all the versions and Scott's sideburns are wonderful, but he seems to be enjoying playing Scrooge a wee bit too much! He's a lot better here as Mr. Rochester.

Ebenezer Scrooge meets Jane Eyre

[KathleenGriffin · 1/10 · 5 February 2005]

Miscasting happens. Susannah Yorke is a luminous young Jane Eyre, and her performance is impeccable. However, Edward Rochester is supposed to be 35. White-haired George C. Scott looks and behaves like an arthritic 80. Jane's deceased uncle is in better shape! He creaks and snarls, obnoxious and grim. He looks like an ax-murderer who has sent his ax out to be sharpened; we're not surprised he keeps a wife caged in the attic! The great love story looks like a sado-masochistic nightmare. There is enough darkness in the novel, but Bronte's Rochester is relatively young, athletic, powerful, and charming when he chooses to be. He has a fine speaking and singing voice, a good mind, and a conscience that he unsuccessfully attempts to stifle.

See it for George C.Scott's brilliant Rochester

[orsonwelles-1941 · 21 November 2001]

Overall,this is an inferior adaptation of the Bronte classic in comparison to the 1944 Orson Welles version. The acting by the supporting cast,especially Jack Hawkins as Mr.Brocklehurst, is campy to the point of near-parody. The cinematography is entirely too bright for this type of film,the gaudy oranges and reds made even tackier by the copious amounts of speckles and scratches that give the print a sometimes aggravating institutional-film quality.Thornfield Hall is supposed to be hiding a very malevolent aspect of Rochester's past and the wise filmmaker needs to mask the castle in gloom and shadow with only a few candles here and there so the cast doesn't trip over themselves. Instead Paul Beeson turns the place into a showplace for expensive furnishings and draperies with enough chandeliers to turn the place into an elitist sports arena. Thank God for George C.Scott! Fans of his Ebenezer Scrooge in the 1984 version of "A Christmas Carol" will be fascinated with his deep insight into the Rochester character and the unpretentious earthiness he brings to a role that due to its many blustering and eloquent speeches is often misinterpreted by many of the best actors. His best scene by far is not with Eyre but his candid conversation with his mad first wife which gives us a close-up look at a side of the character not usually explored in film versions of this story. So while the Orson Welles version undoubtedly stands as the definitve interpretation, this version despite its flaws is very much worth your time because of Scott's brilliant performance