WELLESNET MESSAGE BOARD

[/quote]the cast and crew seemed to think that Orson was deliberately holding his on-camera embraces with her a bit longer than necessary. ???[/quote]

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

Ellis and Kaplan's "yearning, passive" Jane is further complicated in my final example, a series of shots late in the film (figures 8-11). Here Jane leaves Rochester. She is devastated by their interrupted nuptials and the discovery of Rochester's mad wife, Bertha Mason. She still loves Rochester, :p though she will no longer live with him. 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.

This begins at 1h24m28s - One could compare it the scene where Susan leaves Kane - they're fairly similar when you consider they are filmed at opposite 180 degree angles. Both feature a plane level, central screen receding/advancing figure with emphasis on doors and doorways.

So what's the deal with Jane Eyre? ??? I'd say say the maestro deserves co-directorship - but the degree of Welles' autership is of course always a tricky subject - so I don't know - I feel there's certainly enough interesting clues to warrant an in-depth study, if that hasn't already been done. One would need to review Welles' 40's films, plus maybe Rebecca and that Dali movie as well as the various Jane Eyre's on radio and a shot-by-shot analysis of Jane (To me, there's a goldmine of Wellesian film rhetoric therein- so I've just been boppin' and scattin' - 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' here.

Ham Actor

During a scene in Jane Eyre in which Orson Welles was to be burned to death, he hollered to his co-star Joan Fontaine, "I now know what Joan of Arc endured!"
"Keep your spirits up," she called back. "We'll let you know if we smell burning ham!"

[Fontaine was hardly one to talk: During her dancing scene at the premiere of the musical comedy A Damsel in Distress in 1937, a woman sitting behind her loudly exclaimed, "Isn't she awful!"]

[Trivia: Among Fontaine's non-thespian incarnations: licensed pilot, champion ballonist, expert rider, prize-winning tuna fisherman, hole-in-one golfer, Cordon Bleu chef and licensed interior decorator.]


Fontaine [born De Beauvoir De Havilland], Joan (1917- ) Japanese-born American actress [noted for her roles in various films]

[Sources: Carol Amende, If You Don't Have Anything Nice to Say... Come Sit Next to Me]

:p :laugh:

Finally picked up this 2007 edition of Jane Eyre: really terrific, with lots of interesting extras, and a beautiful print. It's an interesting production, kind of an unofficial Mercury production, what with no less than 5 former Mercury members on board. Jane Eyre was the first film Welles was involved with after the collapse of Mercury in 1943, and he claimed he produced it; Joseph McBride, who delivers a marvelous commentary along with Margaret O'Brien, quotes a Selznick office memo which reveals that according to information from 20th Century Fox, Welles:

a. made changes in the script
b. participated in the casting (according to Welles, he hired Elizabeth Taylor)
c. invented some of the shots (however Welles maintained he never went behind the camera, only made suggestions)
d. was in charge of the editing

Personally, I can believe that Welles edited this film: it really moves in a Wellesian way, and also that some of the shots are his: it's very gothic. In addition to his contributions, there is Agnes Moorehead, Erskine Sanford (in a cameo) and the amazingly evocative music of Bernard Herrmann: you can easily feel you are watching the sequel to Kane and Ambersons. And if anyone knows the music of Herrmann's opera of "Wuthering Heights", you will recognize many themes which he recycled from this film score for Jane Eyre; Herrmann was an early beleived in recycling!

And finally, John Housemann worked on the script, along with Aldous Huxley and the director, Robert Stevenson.

This is the closest we'll ever get to that elusive third 'A' Mercury film (not counting the 'B' "Journey into Fear").

My edition is the Cliff Notes version: for $12.99 you get a book containing summaries, character studies, historical notes and essays, along with the DVD. It's for students, but I used it this week for teaching; the book is in itself a very interesting read with plenty of references:

http://www.amazon.com/Jane-Eyre-Cliffs- ... 536&sr=1-1

Oddly enough the DVD sans the Cliif Notes book costs more: $14.99, yet the DVD and DVD case in both is identical:

http://www.amazon.com/Jane-Eyre-Orson-W ... 670&sr=1-4

If you don't have it, you might want to consider getting it: it's a bargain in either release, and, as I said, an unofficial Mercury production from 1944.

For ordering information:
http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=6801

Facebook:
Marianne Stout
I have seen the Orson Welles version of "Jane Eyre" but find much of it too harsh. But it was an uncredited first role of Elizabeth Taylor as a young child. I am watching a newer version with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. I am enjoying it. Does anyone else have an opinion?

Marci Schwartz
I like the newer one as well. Even though it is in color, it still retains the black atmosphere.

Beth Kennedy
I loved the first. Elizabeth should have been credited. She was very good. I don’t know if I’ve seen the remake

Cathleen Montimurro
I have seen four versions over my lifetime, kudos to the one with Welles. Just the right atmosphere. My only reservation is that I thought Hilary Brooke played Blanche as too hard a character for that time.

My copy of "JANE EYRE" on Blu-ray arrived in the mail today (a few days ahead of the Nov. 12 street date). As reported on the main site, the extras and content are identical to the 20th Century DVD release. The 1080p transfer is terrific. As this is a limited edition (3,000 copies) from Screen Archives Entertainment/ Twilight Time, you may not want to wait too long before placing an order.

AV Club on Jane Eyre:
http://www.avclub.com/article/jane-eyre ... tic-216280

Somewhat less flattering appraisal in Shadowplay:
http://www.avclub.com/article/jane-eyre ... tic-216280

"Jane Eyre", with Joan Fontaine as Jane and Orson Welles as Rochester, opened in UK theaters 75 years ago today. It's US premiere was a few weeks later.
Proposal scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvRnOkg ... r3V8_sLsNU

Yes, while Joan evokes "I" from Daph's novel REBECCA, Orson has more than a touch of the future Franz Kindler in this scene. As Keith Baxter once said, you can never separate Orson from the Gothic and the bolt of lightning that concludes this extracts ascribes demonic power to someone who appears to have stepped out of the pages of Horace Walpole and Mrs. Radcliffe!

Master of Thornfield: Orson Welles and ‘Jane Eyre’:
https://www.wellesnet.com/jane-eyre-making/