[margarita]

Мы с мамой дружно сошлись на том, что новая "Джейн" Уилсон/Стивенс so far обскакала Кларк/Далтон 83 года, хотя прежняя нам очень нравилась. Вчера пересматривали немного эту прежнюю и... эх, как там все бледно! Бедная Зила, у нее мимика из двух с половиной выражений состоит, и главное из них - неимоверно-грустное-бровки-домиком. Раньше я это терпела, но когда есть с кем сравнить, с кем-то более мимически выразительным... А Далтон в первой серии очень много ухмыляется, на сей раз меня это раздражало. И еще они почти весь текст говорят точно по книге, и пока говорят-говорят, играть им некогда. Больно много говорить надо. Вот впаду в ересь - в новой версии текст обкорнали, но игра актеров (АБТ, кстати) это компенсирует более чем. Но посмотрим, что будет дальше, я уж как бы подсела на "Джейн"



А вот очень старая "Джейн" 1944 года... Гы, я побоялась бы смотреть. Страаашно







Ревью:



Good 1940's movie but laughable adaptation of the book, July 13, 2004

Reviewer: Kathryn Atwood (Illinois)

Of all the cinematic Rochesters I've seen, Orson Welles most closely resembles him. But that's where the similarity between the book and this movie end: Welles' performance is a string of screaming fits, nothing like the multi-faceted character of the book.



Joan Fontaine is completely wrong for the part; she's absolutely gorgeous (Jane Eyre is supposed to be extremely plain.) Joan tries to portray Jane's plainness by keeping her head down and shoulder's hunched forward, so we all know that she's plain and humble. Sorry Joan! It doesn't work! You still look gorgeous and completely wrong for the part. Furthermore, Jane wasn't beaten down psychologically, as she is portrayed in this film; considering all of her negative circumstances, she should have been, but she was always able to maintain her steely self-respect. Joan Fontain looks absolutely crushed throughout the entire movie.



The relationship between the two main characters consists, then, of Orson screaming at Joan and Joan hunching down -- not exactly romantic chemistry and nothing like the book which depicts one of the greatest romances of literature.



I can understand the problem screenwriters have shortening a story for a screen adaptation, but this one really takes the cake: Jane is about to go back to Lowood School of all places (where she was starved and mistreated as a child by the sadistic schoolmaster, Mr. Brockelhurst, and later worked as a teacher) when she hears Rochester calling her back to Thornfield. Instead of verging on accepting St. John Rivers loveless proposal of marriage -- an important character who was completely cut from this movie -- she almost agrees to work for Mr. Brocklehurst again before Rochester's long distance cry saves her. It appears that the screenwriters didn't fire Brockelhurst during Jane's childhood as did Charlotte Bronte.



All that being said, a 40's movie is a 40's movie. If you generally like movies from that time period (and if you can forget about the book for a few hours), there are some very interesting and enjoyable aspects to this; it's a quality film. But if you love the book, I would recommend re-reading it instead of watching this.