Can't say I blame him -
she's a goddess - But one could indeed understand how she may not be inclined to be overly charitable towards Orson's contributions to the film.[/quote]As Rochester prepares to meet Mason, he has an intimate conversation with Jane, one in which he seeks more assurances of her support and affection. The scene begins with a rather conventional shot/reverse-shot sequence between Jane and Rochester, and the melodrama of the wounded lover underlies the convention. Yet the scene takes a surprising turn as Rochester leaves and Jane watches him go.
At this moment, a sharply disjunctive edit that looks very much like a later interpolation Welles may have created in the editing room, the conventional romantic shot/reverse-shot scene suddenly gives way to a scene in which the silently observing Jane physically dominates the frame, once again occupying that metadiegetic middle space (figure 7).
[quote]
This occurs at 1h3m20s - Sharp perspective of the door in the foreground. This scenes is all about editing - a series of fairly static shots put together with a lot of quick cutting to create suspense - it ends with the same -ahem- 'metadiegetic' ;) shot as the beginning
Yet at the very moment in which the film might have emphasized her melodramatic position as wounded lover, the very Wellesian mise en scene instead reasserts her power within the narrative and her power over it. In figure 8, the departing Jane has grown much larger than the bereft Rochester. In figure 9, Jane begins to open the door, and Rochester is Lilliputian in comparison to her; he has shrunk almost to the size of a thought in her mind, a regret in her heart. In figure 10, Jane has opened the door wide enough to walk out, and in the process she has eclipsed Rochester altogether, excluding him from the frame, a striking visual demonstration of authorial control implied by her position in the frame. The Rochester she leaves behind (Figure 11) seems both devastated and powerless. Here again, the mise en scene suggests not only her power within this narrative but her power over this narrative, indeed her own complex homo-and heterodiegetic relationship to this narrative.
- noticing stuff on the fly - so my ad hoc opinion at this point would be to assume that the Maestro directed (directly or indirectly) about half of the shots (with good, gothic-style 
material thanks to Stevenson and Barnes comprising the other half) plus the rhythm of the film is quite bouncy and musical and despite the rather sandwiched plot strands, the scenes themselves somewhow flow together well, so Welles seems to have had (direct or indirect) participatio in the cutting. Although essentially a Selznick Rebecca-gothic romance, there are certain Wellesified thematics that slip in (childhood of Jane, role of Rochester). So although the movie doesn't have the kinetic electricity of a pure Welles auteur project, the Maestro seems to have, for whatever reasons, had enough interest in this project to want to put considerable personal input into it to make it ultimately bear his esthetic stamp. But I'm just boppin' and scattin' 