Exclusive“Jane Eyre” (1943): First Literary Drama

I dreamed I heard your voice in the night, Deep and tender, Deep and tender with loving words. I dreamed I saw your wondrous eyes, All glow with love and light divine. Come back, come back, my love, you cry. Come back. Do you think because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong. I have as much soul as you and full as much heart. What are you doing, Tiff? I started reading this book and I just can't put it down. This girl, I can never get her to concentrate. Always has her nose in a book. Wait, wait a minute. I'm almost to chapter three. Chapter three? Hold on. I know what you're doing. We're going to talk about Beauty and the Beast, aren't we? Look, that's not a classic film. You know that. Well, what then? It's another story about an innocent young girl and a mysterious man in a spooky castle. Another one? I know. The Secret Garden from 1949. Well, that does fit the description, but no, it's not that. Hmm. I'm sure there are hundreds of stories that fit that description, but I can't think of another one that was made into a classic film. One of the things that I've loved while discovering more about the golden era of Hollywood is realizing just how many adaptations of classic books were made during that time period. That's true, but wait a minute. An innocent young girl, a mysterious man with a dark secret, a spooky castle. It's Jane Eyre. I'm Tiffany Brannan. I'm Rebecca Brannan. Welcome to Real Thoughts on Cinema. It's a truth universally acknowledged that avid book fans tend to dislike movies, especially adaptations of their favorite classic books. That's true, but in some cases, such as the widely acclaimed Lord of the Rings trilogy, book fans can really love a movie adaptation of their favorite classic, even if it isn't that accurate because they kept enough of the spirit of the literature. That's a good point. I know these days, historical fictions are really popular. Yeah. Many people just love them. Even recent shows like Bridgerton, and before that, Downton Abbey. People love being transported to another time. But whether it's a hallmark movie, a big blockbuster, or some British film or series, these historical fictions in the last few decades just don't do anything for me. What is it about them particularly that you don't like? They seem very inauthentic and decidedly modern. They just don't seem to get into that classic feel. And of course, the difficulty is we imagine things in our mind and they're so beautiful and... ...pensible. And we're always disappointed to see it on the screen when it doesn't look like we thought it would. Well, I don't think any movie or TV show can really live up to what we picture in our minds when we read a book because everybody pictures something different, for one thing. That's the great challenge of adapting great literature. And there always are going to be people who say, oh, you missed that detail. Because besides being very long, most books are way too long to be on a film. But I do think that they don't have to be so decidedly modern. They don't have to be so stuck in the here and now. Because one of the things we love about these old books is that they're timeless. It's something that we can appreciate now that even at the time didn't have that quality. Yes. And that's why I think that people who are old book fans could really enjoy watching classic film adaptations of their favorite books because they have that timeless quality. Absolutely. An excellent example is Jane Eyre from 1943. While they did change quite a few of the plot elements and reordered some of them, it has a timeless quality and it really captured the dramatic spirit of the work. It truly did. But before we get too deep into talking about that, let's discuss some of the production details behind that film. It was made by 20th Century Fox, directed by Robert Stevenson, and it was uncredited but co-produced by Orson Welles, who also starred in it as the leading man, Edward Rochester. And he was a famous radio personality. Indeed he was. He's best remembered, of course, for Citizen Kane. That was his greatest work and also his film debut. That's right. He wrote it, directed it, produced it, starred in it. He did everything. It is still at the top of the American Film Institute or AFI's 100 years, 100 movies list. Yes, still widely considered one of the best films. But a lot of people don't know about anything he did besides Citizen Kane or maybe War of the Worlds when he did that radio stunt a few years earlier scaring everybody by convincing people that aliens were invading. Just further proof that people will believe anything. Yes. But Citizen Kane started a successful run of films for him including the rather obscure Jane Eyre. Joan Fontaine plays the title character. Wonderful actress. And they're really the two most notable performers. Definitely. Agnes Moorhead plays her aunt. And interestingly, Agnes Moorhead, I'm trying to think, how would people know her? Well, if you're familiar with Citizen Kane, she's in that, she plays his mother. Later films like Pollyanna, the Disney classic from 1960, she plays old Mrs. Snow. But she actually got her start in Citizen Kane, that was her film debut because she was part of Orson Welles' radio troupe and he brought many of his favourite performers to the screen. She has a very small part in Jane Eyre, honestly. She's only in two scenes, right? She wasn't that big of an actress yet. She was just getting started. She makes her mark, though. She does an excellent job. And Henry Daniel plays the cruel Mr. Brocklehurst at the Institute. But interestingly, the first portion of the film is very different from the later part because they, you would think it could be classic Hollywood style to start just with the romance, but they started when she was young. Yes. The plot follows Jane Eyre, an impoverished orphan who after living the first few years of her life with her cruel aunt is taken away by an equally cruel schoolmaster to Lowood Institution, which is really a glorified orphanage for girls. There she meets a really sweet girl named Helen Burns played by Elizabeth Taylor. A very young, very famous actress. One of her earliest parts. Uncredited, but if you know her you're going to go, oh my goodness, that's Elizabeth Taylor. And young Peggy Ann Moran plays young Jane. She was a talented child actress, best known for A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. That's right. I remember seeing her in that. But Helen Burns, Elizabeth Taylor's character, sadly dies due to the horrible conditions. And Jane is encouraged by a kindly doctor to carry on without her friend. Ten years later, as a grown woman, she makes the decision to leave Lowood, although she's been offered a teaching position there, in favor of accepting a job as a governess. She advertised, and it was accepted by Mrs. Fairfax, who is housekeeper for Edward Rochester. Very mysterious man, with a beautiful estate, sort of on the moors in England. Rather remote. Yes, and there she is, governess to his ward, little French girl Adele, who is played by another famous child actress, Margaret O'Brien. Best known for Meet Me in St. Louis. She's still alive today. She's quite old now, but this is a great example of her early acting as a young child star. And doing an impressive French accent. She also gets to show off her dancing talent. And she loved dancing. In an interview that I did with her, I saw her in Hollywood a few years ago, she said how she loved ballet so much, and she had a teacher who wanted her to actually go to Russia and become a professional ballerina as a young child. But her mother said, no, no, I don't want you to go to Russia. You have to stay here with me. Stay here and be an actress. But when Jane meets Mr. Rochester, there's an immediate connection between them. They sort of see through each other's outward defenses, if you will, because they're both somewhat guarded people. And even though she thinks she's so plain and little that he would never show an interest in her, he eventually starts to feel very close to her as well. And eventually confesses his love for her. But there's a mysterious secret up in the topmost tower which may keep them from ever being together. So I remember I started reading Jane Eyre years ago. It was actually right before my ninth birthday. I remember reading an excerpt from School and I liked it. I remember that. It was the part about Helen Burns, actually. And so I got the book and I was so excited to start reading it. And I even wanted to have a Jane Eyre-themed birthday party. But I was very distressed when I read ahead a bit and saw that Helen Burns died. And that sort of stopped me from reading it. So when I watched the movie a couple of years ago, I was very surprised to see that the part about the really disturbing orphanage is a very small portion of the overall story. I know. I was so shocked. There's this whole love story. It seems like two different stories, frankly. And I'm so impressed that they chose to include all of it, as much as they could, in the movie. Now there definitely were some later situations that happened. There is a man who wants her to marry him and he's going to become a missionary after things don't work out so well with Mr. Rochester. Some of those events are a little different. But they kept what was so important. Setting up her background in this cruel environment, but that it doesn't harden her. And as we see in the book, Helen Burns is a devout Christian and that really inspires her to see the loving aspect of that and not just the cruelty. Right. And interestingly, you were telling me something about the opening narration. Is it actually from the book, right? Yes. They use the book a lot in the movie. It starts with seeing the cover of Jane Eyre and then the credits are actually in the book. And then Joan Fontaine, at intervals, reads narrates a section of the book while I show it to you. But the opening paragraph where she introduces herself is not from the book. They just made that up. But it's very convincing. And it really sets the story well. She tells you who she is, the year she was born, and speaks about religion at that time more a mask of cruelty and bigotry far too often. So it's really doing a good job of showing religion itself isn't bad, it's these people misusing that as a way to abuse authority. Because people who want to abuse authority will use any excuse to do that. It's just amazing how complex it is, though. Especially if, like us, you were just familiar with the very first part of the book. It sort of starts out like a female version of Oliver Twist and then goes into being kind of like Beauty and the Beast. It's a completely different story, but they're connected. It's all about, it's really telling about a person's life. We all know our lives don't always go on a straight path. Sometimes different portions of our lives seem like they're happening to a completely different person. When I think about what I was doing five years ago, I feel like that was almost a different girl. Now this is a historical fiction, of course. The book was written in 1847 by Charlotte Bronte, one of the famous Bronte sisters. She's born in 1820, so the first portion happens around 1830, and the later part is around 1838 or so. So it's the very beginning of the Victorian era, because Queen Victoria took the throne in the late 1830s. All too often, it was the case during the Golden Era of Hollywood, and to be fair, they do that now too, to use any old costumes they have to go with a historic look, but not an accurate historic look. The 1830s had a very distinct look. It was a very harsh hair over the ears, full skirt, very heavy blouse and top, although sometimes they would be off the shoulders for formal wear, and they really did that in the film. They kept that accuracy, and Joan Fontaine really looks like you'd imagine Jane Eyre looking, so I appreciate that dedication to it. To replicate that, it's never as easy with these period pieces as with the more modern pieces, but I'm wearing a fancy gown to represent another one of the characters, Blanche Ingram, played by Hilary Brock. She is Jane Eyre's rival for the heart of Edward Rochester, a wealthy young lady who is very sophisticated and is setting her cap on the wealthy Mr. Rochester because her family, although very noble, is somewhat impoverished. She always wears lavish jewelry, including cameos in one scene, and large headpieces. In one scene, while she's playing the piano, a gentleman notes, marvelous shoulders, eh? So I'm wearing an off-the-shoulders style. My style was inspired by the title character of Jane Eyre. She wears one dress for the majority of the film, and while I didn't have a dress exactly in that style, the shirt, waist, and long skirt that I'm wearing, very conservative early 1800s style, is very evocative of her fashion, and I've done my best to replicate her hairstyle as well. A notable plot point is this brooch that she's given by Bessie, a kindly maid who lives at her aunt's house at the beginning of the movie, and she wears it for the rest of the films, which I have replicated here. I think one of my favorite things about this movie is the score. It's by Bernard Herrmann, who is perhaps best known for writing some Alfred Hitchcock thrillers. He did Psycho, North by Northwest, Vertigo. Some of the later ones, actually. Yes, his later ones. But he got his start working with Orson Welles, Citizen Kane. Really? I didn't know that. Yes, that was when he really became famous, and he was a great classical composer. That's right, his music is so gorgeous. He wrote an opera of another Bronte novel by the other, Emily Bronte, Wuthering Heights. Yes, he did. Is that right? That was his only opera. Really? And I understand he used some of the themes from this movie in that, as well as the love theme from another of his movies, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir from 1947, which has a really gorgeous score. If you know that Herrmann style, you can recognize it. It's so dramatic, and it just, oh, it really sells the film. But not in what we consider film score music now, it's much more classical than that. More symphonic. It's more appropriate for the time period. If you had a John Williams score to this movie, it wouldn't work. It's really beautiful, and it creates that mood. I think it's interesting to see a reflection of the time in which it's set, 1840s, and the time in which it was made, 1940s. Yes. Almost exactly 100 years later. Because we see certain film styles that were popular at the time, like the dramatic black and white, the shadows. But I understand some, in certain scenes, this is what I read, the cinematography is kind of unusual, and it's believed that was due to the influence of Orson Welles. You can tell. He had very unique cinematography styles, and particularly, I want to say, in the shooting of his own character. Right. He's often in profile, there's a lot of shading, and I think they must have used catchlights, especially for her. Her eyes are always shining, particularly when she's looking at him. And the angle, he's very tall, and she was kind of a small lady, and so the visuals of them and their interactions are always impacting. When he comes, he's stomping around wearing huge boots, a cape, he actually looks like the Beast. I got a Beast feel from him several times. It's so much like Beauty and the Beast. I think the makers of that movie must have seen this. Yeah. He's charming, but he's rough at first, and he learns to be kinder toward her, just like the Beast is eating out of his bowl like an animal, and then he learns to be a gentleman, which is kind of funny, because he is actually a prince. He's not really an animal. And the thing that's done the most brilliantly in this film, if we're speaking about in contrast to, say, Beauty and the Beast, is due to that's being made in the 1990s, that was beginning of, you know, not the beginning of, but fairly trying to make female characters stronger, particularly Disney princesses. They were making them more independent. So their way of her kind of standing up to him was them shouting at each other. But that doesn't happen in Jane Eyre, but it's the same dynamic, but it's done with subtlety. There's such an open frankness about her, and that's what really attracts him to her. She really is a stronger character than Belle, because yelling and getting all upset, she's not really in control of her emotions. Jane is always very controlled and very refined, and she changes him by example. He's greatly moved. Interestingly, many people say that Jane Eyre was the first feminist novel. Really? Now, I guess the fact that it was written by a woman, you could say that. It's about a woman. And it's about a woman. The title is a woman's name. But I think it shows a strong woman who's not pushing an agenda. She's not, as it also pointed out, she's not aiming for equality on any level, but she just is trying to survive in her own difficult world. The definition of a strong woman I think has become somewhat warped. What we call a strong woman now, and what I think is actually a strong woman, are very different. In contrast, Jane is... Her strength is shown in her ability to live her own life follow the path that she has chosen for herself while still being feminine and refined and modest and not trying to throw herself out there trying to be like a man. She's never trying to be like a man. And in contrast, we have Blanche, who is very vain and very selfish, preoccupied with how she looks, and she's using her beauty and her wiles, being less modest with what she wears and being very flirtatious to try to trap a man with little care for him as a person. She reveals that in one scene. It's a running theme that Edward Rochester is ugly. Orson Welles actually is looking pretty good in this movie because he was still very young. He was in his mid-twenties. He was only three years older than John Fontaine. He's supposed to be quite a bit older than he is. She's supposed to be a bit younger. He's wearing a prosthetic on his nose and it's not noticeable. It's not cartoonish or caricature-like, but if you know what Orson Welles looked like, he had quite a small, turned-up nose. Why does he look different here? And if you really study and realize, but he loved transforming himself. He did that in Citizen Kane, too. He said he wore more makeup as the young, beautiful Kane than as the aged Kane. So he liked to transform himself with makeup and use cinematography and effects. Speaking about Orson Welles, because we've got to talk about him, because he is something else. He's one of those very unique actors who can get away with just playing himself, basically, every time. You just see him there and you're like, that is what he was actually like in real life. And it's great to watch. It's a lot of fun. He's really over the top, but he can pull it off. You've got to be Orson Welles to pull that off. Because you just know that's what he was like in real life. He was definitely actually like a running up on that horse in the fog. And he had such an amazing low, resonant voice because of being a radio performer. I love the scene where he's walking through the snow and his cape is blowing and the dog is falling. It's just a great moment. But this character is fascinating and I haven't read the entire book either, but I did read, I think, a bit more of it. Just after we watched this movie, I was inclined to read more of it and I got further so I got to reading the character of Edward Rochester. I'm not sure how much of the dialogue is taken from the book, but I do know the dialogue is so beautifully written in this movie. I'm sure some of it was. Yes. I know for a fact. That quote that I was reading at the opening is very close to a line she says. And I love that scene. Later on in that quote, a bit more of the line where she says, if I were beautiful and wealthy, obviously she's saying like Blanche, I would make it as hard for you to leave me as it is now for me to leave you. There's a lot of strength in that even though it's also very vulnerable. That's definitely her most vulnerable moment as she reveals how she cares for him. One of their first interactions together he just calls her and wants to talk to her and she's always just kind of studying him. And you can tell it unnerves him because he's someone who really is put up a front. He's trying to hide who he is and he knows she can see through that. She can see the sensitive spirit. And he's like, why do you stare at me? Do you find me handsome? No, sir. Yes. He loves the honesty. Yes. Because he knows he's not handsome. Whereas Blanche will often deny it. He says, I'm ugly as sin. And she's like, oh, no, you're not. She's like, oh, I said it. Allow me, I repeat, ugly as sin. But she does let slip, oh, you're revolting me, of course. And he, of course, immediately latches onto that. And starts referring to himself as revolting. Yes. Because he knows that's really what she thinks about him. And he completely takes her down in that scene and just tells her exactly what she's doing which is she's just after his money. And she's very offended and she's starved out. Says, Mr. Rochester, you're a bore and a cur. But that's the end of their romance. In the book, the reason that he's seeming so interested in Blanche, and there are rumors of their engagement, is to make Jane jealous. It's to Really? Yes. Maybe that's his idea in the movie, but it seems more like he's just enjoying a little flirtation with her and he has for a while. Would you say it seems like, from your knowledge of the book, you get to know his character a bit more? I think so. It's longer. Of course. There's more depth. But I just think they very intentionally kept his character mysterious. Yes. As a plot point, sort of. And, again, I don't know how much cinematography Orson Welles influenced, but you can tell he did a lot because it is very unique and it uses those angles, those perspectives. The gimmick of not seeing a character. Yes. Without spoiling too much, his wife is never fully seen. Isn't this the only movie version that they did that? Yes. Usually you see her, but you see her outline. Much as in Citizen Kane, the central character, that reporter, you never even see his face. Really? You don't see his face. You see him from the back. You never actually see who it is. That's so funny. I know I've seen that movie. I completely forgot. Yeah, that was sort of a gimmick. It doesn't matter who he is. That just goes to prove how well it was done that I didn't even remember that. They made him such a gimmick. I've never seen a film as much as Jane Eyre that allows you to feel the presence of a character. Yes. They do these scenes, between the two of them, a close-up, like on his eyes, then on her eyes, the catchlights, you feel like you know what it would be like for Orson Welles to be looking at you. And not only you, but Jane. You know how Jane feels with that look from him. And then you know how he feels with the look from Jane. She's so brilliant in this part. She does this great job of being, I don't want to say expressionless. I don't want to imply that she's expressionless, but her face is always so composed. And she does everything with her eyes. And it's just really amazing to watch. It's sort of a master class in the subtlety of acting. And it's brilliant contrast. Because he is so larger than life with his acting performance. So she off-plays him perfectly. Because if they were both doing that much, it would be too much. Or if they were both underplaying that much, it might be a little bit dull. But they just counterbalance each other perfectly. And I think that theatrical drama is what's missing from the historical fictions. That's so true. They seem a bit pedantic. They're a bit pedestrian with the way they're walking along, talking. It's hard to get past. You just can see those people in a t-shirt and jeans. They're not really in it. But you just know that's what Orson Welles was like. He was crazy like that. And his first wife was Rita Hayworth, the great actress. She was married multiple times too, right? They were married at the time this film was made. And she said that he was the true love of her life, but he was just too crazy. She just couldn't put up with him after a few years. Even though she really loved him, he was just kind of nuts. I can see that. He reminds me of somebody that I've known. It's interesting to see a character like this. Your first thought seeing a character like this is this is such a made-up character. No one could be like that. Unless you know someone like that, no one of us do. Especially being in the performing arts. That's the other thing. Orson Welles was a performer. We know a lot of people like that. And Edward Rochester is a performer. His whole life is a performance. He's putting on a facade. Speaking of other novels, it's a little bit like The Count of Monte Cristo. Yes, and that brings me to something I wanted to mention. The Byronic Hero. When talking about this book, people often refer to Edward Rochester as a Byronic Hero. Now, what's Byronic? It's referring to Lord Byron, who wrote many great works. He wrote novels, poems. He died very young. I think he was 31 when he died. He was good friends with Shelley and Keats. The three of them were similar. They lived rather depraved but artistic lives. He himself, Byron, is considered the first Byronic Hero. The precursor to the anti-hero of modern literature, this dark and moody but very attractive, troubled, complex... He's not entirely a good guy, but you can't help liking him. As a matter of fact, he often is privileged, wealthy, but moody and sad. Poor little rich boy. Yes, with some dark secret, some mystery, some inner thing that's torturing him. And the character of Montecristo is considered a type of Byronic Hero. Edward Rochester is a Byronic Hero. Even the Phantom, from the Phantom of the Opera, is considered a Byronic Hero. Because oftentimes, there is some physical suffering that has marred him. There's another one I've always thought... Oh, Arthur Dimmesdale from The Scarlet Letter. Yeah, he has a... I would say he's a Byronic Hero. One of the other classic Byronic Heroes is from a work by the physician of Lord Byron, called Lord Ruthven. It's about a vampire. And they say that the physician based this vampire on Byron himself. And in The Count of Montecristo, they referred to Lord Ruthven many times. Because they say the Count is like... Oh, he's so cold and pale. Oh, there's Lord Ruthven. Be careful. Before Dracula. Everyone talked about that. Somebody should do an adaptation of that, because Dracula is so overdone. It's like, somebody wrote a ballet of Lord Ruthven. Well, actually, there are several operas based on that story. There are a couple of versions of Def Ampere in German, in The Vampire, and it's about him. And Edward Rochester has that same moodiness and Orson Welles was perfect because he was a Byronic Hero. Yes, he was. Citizen Kane is a Byronic Hero. I always think that it's just a crying shame he didn't make an adaptation of The Great Gatsby. Because he would be so good as that character. The Great Gatsby is a Byronic Hero. Definitely. Of the 20th century. I've always thought he's like the Count of Monte Cristo of the 20th century. Yes, he is. It's a very similar story if you look at it structurally. And when you see all these great stories, like we were saying, Beauty and the Beast, The Secret Garden, this story, they're similar. And they can be brought out and brought beautifully onto the screen. This movie is very unusual. I think some people would say it has film noir tendencies. As you know, I don't like that category because it wasn't used at the time. In America, they didn't say, oh, let's make a film noir. They said, let's make a detective film. Let's make a mystery. Let's make a drama. And because most movies were in black and white, still at this point, they used shadows and lights and wet pavement to create dramatic effects. And beyond that, I think more and more is that term has started, like most terms, has started to be bandied about way too much. Pretty much any movie that's in black and white, people will call it film noir. That's not a film noir. It's in black and white and it's dark. It's a film noir. If you're going to use that term, it should refer to really detective and crime films. Particularly for the late 40s or early 50s. Out of the past, have and have not. Like those ones. But they'll call Sunset Boulevard a film noir. I'm sure people would call this. And I would say that this definitely should not be called a film noir, if anything should, because it's a historic piece. Yeah, absolutely. And it's timeless. And film noirs were very modern. How would you say it differs from the book the most? What is the largest point or detail? The largest point is that after that opening, it focuses on her relationship with Edward Rochester. It doesn't bring in these other people. She leaves at a different time. It's not until the truth comes out about his wife that she leaves. But she leaves earlier than that. Really? Yes. And then she comes back. It's much more complicated. But they made it simpler. She's at an orphanage. She comes to that estate. She's there with him. They fall in love. They're going to get married. They don't get married. She leaves. And then she comes back. She seems to hear him calling. That's from the book. And she comes back. And they all live happily ever after. Which I honestly didn't think was going to happen. I couldn't believe that. After Helen Burns and all the other things that happened, I didn't think it was going to end as well as it did. I thought when she comes back... I don't want to spoil it too much. But I thought, he's going to be dead. Yes. And then there is something bad that's happened to him, but he actually gets better. Yes, he does. It's like, wow. That's a really happy ending. Considering the scene when he asks her to marry him. It's like, wind and the lightning strikes this tree and it breaks. It's like, man! It's the most dramatic proposal scene in Hollywood history, I think. And the way he says it, too. He just says, say Edward, you'll marry me. It's like, we're foes, but it's very in keeping with his character. And it shows that he's not a free man. He feels like he finally has a chance for escape from his tortured past. Right after she says yes, he just kind of holds her against him and says, God forgive me, or God pardon me. Yes. And lightning breaks the tree. I guess that means no. Yes, that's the answer to his prayer. God does not forgive him. Until it ends up ending very well. One consideration when making these classic novels into films was the difference in certain social mores. Now, I think most people would say the Victorian era must have been more prudish than the 20th century. But the Production Code Administration was a very important part of the Hollywood system, also known as the PCA. It enforced the Motion Picture Production Code, which was commonly called the Hays Code. Or the Censorship Code, but not accurate. It's not just like film noirs in a real genre. It isn't censorship. But there were a lot of censor boards all around the country and world at that time. And they liked to censor movies. They would cut things out, they would make edits, and it ruined the films. So they realized, we need to make movies right in the first place. And that's where the Production Code Administration came in. It was first instated in 1930, the Production Code. But then in 1934, the PCA was formed, headed by Joseph Ibrine. And from 1934 to 1954, during his tenure, it was really enforced properly, and that's what we consider the Golden Era of Hollywood. So this is right in the middle of that time period. There aren't too many things that would have been controversial. Of course, it's disturbing at the opening, seeing how dark it is. And you could say it's critical of religion, which some people would say the Code didn't allow. But there are compensating moral values and contrasts. That's what I love about films like these. You can use this to shut people up. Everything had to be happy and light and beautiful, because this is dark, and it's kind of disturbing to see. And there are others that are even more so. Some of them, you might be surprised how violent they are. But it's just done in the right way. And the element of the whole situation with Edward Rochester's wife, and the idea of almost bigamy and being in love with someone when you're still married, the issue of divorce and remarriage, as well as a rather violent section with some blood, but it's in black and white, so it's not too gory. But one issue that I would say they had to be careful was Adele. She's implied to be his illegitimate daughter, but they kept the details quite vague. Even in the book, it's a little vague about... you realize he was definitely having an affair with her mother. But whether he's actually her father is never 100% indicated. It really doesn't matter. Obviously, we know he was having an affair with her, but they make it subtle. Yes. It's not... And even after Jane realizes he's still married, she's going to leave, he's basically asking her to live with him. But it's more pointed in the book. In the book, he actually says let's go to France, we will live together as man and wife, and no one has to know. But he just says why could you not stay here with me? Would it be so wrong? And it's almost like he's just saying stay on as governess. It implies that it would continue in a more friendly manner. More platonic. She knows what he means, because he says we wouldn't be hurting anyone, and she says we'd be hurting ourselves. So it's a strong moral message in both the book and the film. And we realize that he's made a lot of mistakes in his life. But we also sympathize with him, and that's why he's the Byronic hero. He's not completely pure. He has some pretty bad sins on his conscience. But unlike many Byronic heroes, this pure woman is able to redeem him ultimately. And you see her true strength of character and morality, which has been instilled in her in spite of religion being kind of harsh for her. And that's when that scene she decides to leave, and he's just calling after her. He's like Jane, Jane, the way he says it. She's like oh. But she walks out. She's a very resolved young lady. I think that even young people today like our own age could really enjoy this film, especially if they're classic book fans. Because it's timeless, because it's dramatic, it's exciting. It really gets you into the story, and it's a great example of the most beautiful black and white cinematography and great costumes. There aren't the modern day references to the 40s that could be confusing because it's set in an earlier time. So I would say it's... Beyond the costumes, it's not that much about the culture of the time. No, it's not. Because it takes place in such an isolated location. It's just them and this castle. So I think, especially if you're a classic book fan, Jane Eyre is a great place to start. And even if you're not, if you like any other kind of historical dramas. If you're a Disney fan and you liked Beauty and the Beast, I think you'll like this movie. It's better than the live-action remake. Yes, it definitely is better. Instead of watching the live-action remake, you can watch it. It's definitely better than that. And it's easy to watch. You can rent or buy it on Amazon Prime Video, many other streaming platforms like YouTube, Google Play, as well as, you can buy it on DVD. On Amazon, Walmart, Barnes & Noble. It's very easy to find films online if you're inclined to do so. If you know how to look, you can find them for free. Yes. And it's great to amass your own collection of DVDs if you have a DVD player. Or even VHSes if you're into that. But I think Amazon Prime is our greatest tool. We have a wide DVD collection but in our new house, we don't actually have the DVD player hooked up to our larger screen. So we watch so many great movies on Amazon Prime. And there are other streaming platforms like Tubi. You can find a lot of old movies for free on there. That's free, yes. With ads, but you can put up with that. Yes. Not everyone likes classic literature. True. A lot of people really enjoy watching series that are about more realistic, dramatic real-life events. Join us next week as we talk about what was really the first medical drama. While it was a film, it started off a series all about a young doctor. Thank you for watching. Goodbye.