Tampilkan postingan dengan label Jane Eyre. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Jane Eyre. Tampilkan semua postingan

Kamis, 18 Agustus 2011

Classic Movie Man’s Guilty Pleasure: “Devotion”

In 1943, Warner Brothers set out to film an account of the Brontë siblings, focusing mainly on the lives of authors Charlotte (Jane Eyre) and Emily (Wuthering Heights). In the 1930s and 1940s, the studio produced many successful historical biographies. Film versions of both Wuthering Heights (1939) and Jane Erye (1943), produced by rival studios, hit box office gold, so wouldn’t a movie on the lives of the authors and real-life sisters be a hit too?  That was part of the thinking behind Devotion, a production that seemed to be doomed from the beginning, but succeeds in spite of itself.

Lupino and DeHavilland Set To Star
Before production started, Warner Brothers had hoped that movie star sisters Joan Fontaine and Olivia DeHavilland would play Emily and Charlotte respectively. Fontaine wasn’t available, so Warner Brothers replaced her with Ida Lupino, who was already under contract to the studio, as was DeHavilland. Nancy Coleman played youngest sister Anne, and Arthur Kennedy played Branwell, the only boy in the Brontë brood. The cast was rounded out with Paul Henried as the Reverend Arthur Nicholls, Sydney Greenstreet as William Makepeace Thackery, and Montagu Love, in his last film role, as Rev. Brontë, patriarch and widowed father of four gifted and complex children.




From left to right: Olivia DeHavilland, Ida Lupino, Nancy Coleman
Top Production
The studio employed some of its top talent for the film’s production. Curtis Bernhardt (Possessed, 1947) was tapped as the director. Oscar-winner, Ernest “Ernie” Haller (Gone With The Wind, 1939) was assigned the cinematography duties, and Perc Westmore was on hand for makeup. The lush score was composed by Erich Wolfgand Korngold who won an Academy Award for scoring The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938).

Don't Know Much About History
One of the major criticisms of the film is that it plays fast and loose with the facts, although Hollywood biographies of the period were hardly known for their absolute accuracy. As is often noted, the Brontë sisters were not famous for their attractiveness, but Lupino, DeHavilland, and Coleman are all quite beautiful in the movie. But come on, it’s Hollywood where there are no plain Janes.




For poor girls, they sure have some great clothes!
Poor, But Nicely Dressed
The Brontë’s weren’t wealthy by any stretch; in fact, they were quite poor. Jane Erye’s Lowood school was partly based on the four older sisters’ experiences at the Clergy Daughter’s School at Cowan Bridge, where the eldest Brontë daughters, Maria and Elizabeth became ill and died. Charlotte and Emily returned to Howarth, England, and were homeschooled by their father. The movie version hints at their lower economic circumstances, but the sisters Brontë are always beautifully, if simply, dressed and coiffed.

In the film, older sister Charlotte, as portrayed by DeHavilland, is somewhat self-centered and a bit snobby compared with Lupino’s more cerebral and serious portrayal of Emily. As the youngest sister Anne, Coleman doesn’t have much to go on. Her character has minimal screen time and no real story line to follow. Kennedy’s Branwell is a tortured self-destructive soul. The real Branwell struggled with drugs and alcohol, so Kennedy’s portrayal does seems close to the truth.




Lupino and Paul Henried starred together
in In Our Time (1944)
A Faithful Setter Dog?
As melodrama, Devotion is quite satisfying. Lupino and DeHavilland obviously took their roles seriously and give excellent performances, as does Kennedy. Henried is fine as Nichols, although some critics at the time didn’t find him at his best. Bosley Crowther in his New York Times review said, “Paul Henreid plays Arthur Nicholls with the air of a faithful setter dog.” In the broader context of his review, that was actually a compliment, since Crowther didn’t like the film overall. But Crowther and many other critics couldn’t get past the liberties the screenwriters took with the facts.

A Love That Never Was
In the film, Emily and Charlotte are both in love with Nicholls; however, there is no evidence that Emily was involved with her father’s curate or even had any feelings for him. Charlotte eventually married Nicholls, but she refused his first proposal and some Brontë historians believe Charlotte, although fond of Nichols, was never really in love with him. In the film Charlotte is infatuated with Professor Heger while studying in Brussels. Again there is no evidence that any romance took place. Events are out of order, which bothered purists like Crowther, but for lovers of classic film, Devotion is fun to watch.




DeHavilland starred with John Lund in Too Each His Own,
at Paramount after she successfully sued Warner Brothers.
Loving Lupino and DeHavilland
I love Lupino’s brooding, wistful Emily. When she shows Nicholls the moors and the house in the distance that she calls Wuthering Heights, with Korngold’s score at full tilt, it’s wonderful. Emily’s dream sequences are artfully done, too. The dark mysterious man on horseback haunting Emily looks quite spectacular on the screen. DeHavilland’s snobby and bossy Charlotte can be obnoxious, but she’s far from unlikable. When she professes her love for Profesor Heger, she’s convincing and sincere. Who cares if it didn’t really happen? It’s effective filmmaking.

Three Years on the Shelf
When the film wrapped, Warner Brothers held back its release. There are a few stories explaining their decision. Some say the studio delayed the release because they felt a costume drama wouldn’t play well during the height of World War II. The studios were sensitive about showing too much opulence on the screen during the war years, but rival Twentieth Century Fox released Jane Eyre in 1943 to great reviews and good business. The other, and more intriguing explanation, involves DeHavilland and her lawsuit against the studio. During the studio era, stars signed long-term contracts, typically for a period of seven years. Under that system, actors were paid a weekly salary and expected to perform in movies assigned them. If a star refused a role, they were put on suspension without pay until production of the film they refused to star in was completed. In addition to not paying the star’s salary, studios added time spent on suspension to their contracts, potentially extending them almost indefinitely. DeHavilland was fighting this practice in court.

Banned From the Premier
The story goes that so angry was the studio with DeHavilland that they refused to promote her career during the litigation. Whether or not their anger would go so far as to shelve a big-budget movie like Devotion to make a point, seems over the top. However, movie moguls from the period could be vindictive and spiteful. When the film was finally released, DeHavilland was under contract to Paramount. Warner Brothers wouldn’t let her attend the premier. Even worse, they gave her third billing behind Henried, which would never have happened had she been in the good graces of the brothers Warner. Considering how hot DeHavilland’s career was after she left Warner Brothers, it would have made sense, from a business perspective, to have let her participate in the film’s publicity. Hard to tell if we’ll ever really know the story behind Devotion’s delayed release, but it’s fun speculating.


The Classic Movie Man’s Verdict
Devotion may not be an accurate portrayal of the lives of the most famous of the Brontë sisters, but as film entertainment, it’s a lot of fun. Lupino, DeHavilland, Henried, and the rest of the cast are such pros, they make you care about their characters. Would it have been a better film if they spent more time on historical accuracy? Perhaps, but did audiences complain that both the 1939 version of Wuthering Heights and the 1943 version of Jane Eyre left out major plot points and characters? Hardly. That’s one of the reasons Devotion remains one of my favorite guilty movie pleasures.

What do you think? Is there a classic movie that you love, but the critics hate? Please feel free to share your favorite guilty movie pleasures here.

Minggu, 13 Maret 2011

"Jane Eyre": A Golden Age Classic

A recent article in The New York Times featured a story on the new film version of Jane Eyre directed by Cary Fukunaga. Charlotte Brontë’s novel, first published in 1847, has been filmed at least 18 times, according to Charles McGrath, the author of the Times piece. Brontë’s classic Gothic romance set the standard, and in many cases the rules, for romantic literature. So it isn’t hard to understand why the story of a poor orphan girl who ultimately finds love and happiness has fascinated filmmakers and filmgoers alike for generations.


Huxley, Houseman, and Stevenson
It’s interesting to note that Fukunaga grew up watching the 1943 film version directed by Robert Stevenson starring Orson Welles as Rochester and Joan Fontaine as Jane. Like Fukunaga’s version, it’s not a strict adaptation of the novel. The screenplay written by Aldous Huxley, John Houseman, and Stevenson has a literary quality that captures both the novel’s spirit and tone. That literary quality is bolstered by the extraordinary black and white cinematography by George Barnes, who framed every scene as if it were a painting.




Peggy Ann Garner, as the young Jane, takes her punishment at Lowood School

“Desperately Appealing”
Peggy Ann Garner plays the young Jane who is sent to Lowood School by her cruel Aunt Reed, played by Agnes Moorehead. Young Jane’s sad experiences at the strict boarding school are heartbreaking. Under the tyrannical leadership of schoolmaster Mr. Brocklehurst (Henry Daniell), Jane and her friend Helen (played by an unbilled Elizabeth Taylor), are exposed to many indignities. The performances in these early scenes are very affecting. Bosley Crowther in The New York Times said Garner “…is desperately appealing as the tortured child, Jane, and Henry Daniell is monstrously sadistic as her evil schoolmaster.”




Although her looks were downplayed, Joan Fontaine still made a beautiful Jane Eyre.

When Jane becomes an adult (Fontaine), she decides to make her own way in the world as a governess. When she arrives at Thornfield Hall, Jane is overwhelmed by the estate, but intrigued by her new master, Mr. Rochester (Welles). Hired as a governess for Adele Varens (Margaret O’Brien), Jane is conscientious and caring.




The studio reused old sets and props to give Jane Eyre its rich look.

Creativity on a Budget
The film shot during World War II was constrained by the budget limitations that the studio imposed on the production team. By recycling older sets and using props and furnishings on hand at Twentieth Century Fox, the producers created an atmosphere that is both lush and mysterious. The deep shadows and sharp focus give the film its unique texture; it’s the Hollywood dream factory at its creative peak.




The movie title in the opening credits was stamped on a book.

The Novel Version
Part of the appeal of the novel is the voice of the narrator, Jane. The 1943 film starts out with a shot of the first page of Jane Eyre with Fontaine’s voice-over reading of the text. Unlike the novel, where Jane is clearly the main character, Rochester is given almost equal status in the Stevenson version. As played by Welles, Brontë’s brooding hero is bigger than life; if he had been paired with a less competent actress, his characterization might have overshadowed Fontaine's Jane.  




Joan Fontaine won an Academy Award for her role in Suspicion costarring Cary Grant.

Fontaine on a Roll
Jane Eyre was Fontaine’s fourth major film role after her breakout performance in Alfred Hitchcock’s Rebecca (1940). An Oscar winner for another Hitchcock classic, Suspicion(1941), Fontaine’s career was flying high. Welles on the other hand was no longer the boy wonder of Hollywood. RKO suspended his contract, which almost put it out of business. Welles’s overspending on the back-to-back financial failures Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons greatly lowered his marketability in Hollywood. It’s somewhat amazing that he was offered the role of Rochester and even more amazing that he would get top billing over the more famous Fontaine, who played the title character!




Orson Welles as Mr. Rochester and Fontaine as Jane Eyre

Stevenson Was in Control of Jane Eyre
Much has been said about Welles’s influence on the film’s production, some suggesting that he was really the director. According to Fontaine's memoir, No Bed of Roses she discounted that notion. Fontaine said that slowly, but surely, Stevenson took charge of the film in spite of Welles’s attempts to run the show. Stevenson had a distinguished directorial career that goes back to the early 1930s. His films from the studio period include the 1941 version of Back Street starring Charles Boyer and Margaret Sullivan. He directed many major movie stars including the likes of Robert Mitchum and Ava Gardner. Stevenson really hit his stride when he signed on with Walt Disney. Stevenson’s first three films for Disney are considered classics, including Johnny Tremain and Old Yeller (both 1957) and Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959), which featured a young Sean Connery. He reached his box office and creative peak with the Oscar-winning Mary Poppins (1964). Stevenson’s output at Disney made him one of the most commercially successful directors during the 1960s and 1970s.




Director Robert Stevenson around the time Jane Eyre was being filmed

Timeless Appeal
I think the reason the Stevenson version is so successful is the way it expresses the longing and yearning of the main characters in their search for love and acceptance. Fontaine’s Jane is vulnerable, but strong; you identify with her ultimate goodness of character. Through Fontaine’s characterization her yearning becomes our yearning; we want her to find happiness. If Welles’s Rochester is a bit over-the-top, Fontaine’s more subtle performance evens things out. In spite of the overpowering Welles, it’s still Fontaine’s picture. Jane Eyre is the star and we do love Jane.