This first blog post revisits one of the first posts I ever wrote as a blogger and fanatic on Blogspot seven years ago. Simple as it may seem, it’s exciting to rank the Jane Eyre adaptations all over again! It's an opportunity to map how my tastes have changed over the years. I also know now that it’s impossible to definitively rank Jane Eyre interpretations. There is no ‘complete’ or ‘perfect’ Jane Eyre adaptation; every fanatic knows that “tastes differ.” Some of us may have that "one" we hold dearest that will never be supplanted, while viewers like me may periodically shuffle favorites based on evolving values and standards. This ranking reflects my most recent binge of ALL the available Jane Eyre film and TV renderings.

14. Jane Eyre 1934, starring Virginia Bruce as Jane and Colin Clive as Mr. Rochester

The Good: There's nothing really "good" about this adaptation, even to the most charitable viewer. In this first try at a Jane Eyre talky, half the story is cut to focus on Jane’s relationship with Rochester. Perhaps it’s nice to see a take where Rochester is clearly smitten with Jane from the beginning?

The Bad: Not even time can change the 1934's position as the worst adaptation. Even the film’s datedness is no excuse for the lack of faithfulness to novel’s characters, dialogue, or plot. The butchered script leaves almost nothing for the actors—who are clearly new to the idea of voice acting—to attempt to rescue. Rochester is a kind and caring uncle to Adele and an attentive suitor to Jane with no real character hitches (which, in this case, is a problem), and Jane is about as unremarkable as it gets. I wouldn't recommend watching this film unless you want to cringe or laugh.

Grade: F-

13. Jane Eyre 1957, starring Joan Elan as Jane and Patrick Macnee as Mr. Rochester

The Good: The highpoint of this otherwise horrible adaptation is the last scene. The reworking of Jane's "I will be your neighbor, your nurse, your companion" line is sweet.  

The Bad: I used to think that adaptations generally got better over time as film and TV modernized. This one proved me wrong. I was surprised by how entirely unfaithful this adaptation was to the source material. Among the major points of departure: Jane and Rochester never get to the altar, they're simply interrupted by Mason during the proposal (huh?); Rochester's intentions toward Jane appear unsavory and predatory (there's an awkward scene of him coming onto Jane while he's drunk); and Jane is portrayed as a hopeless romantic who infantilizes Rochester. This adaptation seems like a satirical interpretation of Jane Eyre by someone who didn't enjoy the novel. It also screams “sexual harassment in the workplace.”

Grade: F-

12. Jane Eyre 1949, starring Mary Sinclair as Jane and Charlton Heston as Mr. Rochester

The Good: While this studio TV version isn't good or faithful by any stretch of the imagination, the characters are portrayed slightly more accurately than the 1957 adaptation. Charlton Heston in particular does a credible job of delivering his lines and presenting Mr. Rochester's enigmatic personality in a short amount of time. This adaptation pays more attention to the social disparity between Jane and Rochester. Sinclair’s Jane seems all too aware that gentlemen in Mr. Rochester’s position are not accustomed to marry the governess. 

The Bad: Mary Sinclair's Jane is too reserved and mild-mannered, and the writing offers little help. Whereas the Jane of the novel is blunt, even "brusque," Sinclair's Jane never volunteers her opinion unless strong-armed by Rochester. Instead of declaring her equality and independence in the proposal scene, Jane cries, "Oh, do not make sport of me!" and observes, "I am only Jane Eyre." Like most pre-60s adaptations (the '34, '43, '52, and '57), this version does not include Jane's time with the Rivers family or St. John Rivers’ proposal. Most those adaptations fail to include St. John at all. The 1949 may be a slight improvement on the '57 and '34, but that doesn’t mean the adaptation is a good one. 

Grade: D- 

11. Jane Eyre 1952, starring Katharine Bard as Jane and Kevin McCarthy as Mr. Rochester

The Good: This is another truncated TV studio tape that omits Jane's childhood and her time with the Rivers family. I was, however, pleasantly surprised by how much this adaptation used direct quotes from the book. This adaptation improved on the 1949 version, adding more interaction between Jane and Rochester and taking more language from the novel. Katharine Bard was the first actress who attempted to capture Jane's independent spirit.

The Bad: I'm not a fan of Kevin McCarthy's take on Rochester. I prefer Charlton Heston as far as pre-60s TV adaptations go. McCarthy doesn’t portray Rochester's mercurial personality, electing instead to play him like a middle-class TV sitcom dad. The script's credible faithfulness to the dialogue between Jane and Rochester was overshadowed by McCarthy's unfaithful delivery and his poor chemistry with Bard. This adaptation's crowning achievement is managing to be just slightly better and more faithful than its early TV counterparts. 

Grade: D- 

10. Jane Eyre 1961, starring Sally Ann Howes and Zachary Scott

The Good: This might be the first made-for-TV adaptation that captures Jane’s wit and sharp tongue, albeit in interesting places. In the reunion scene, Mrs. Fairfax cautions Jane to “be patient” with Rochester, who despite his afflictions still refuses to acknowledge the error of his ways. Jane proceeds to take the opposite approach: she argues with Rochester, forcing him to take accountability for his mistakes and affirm her decision to leave. The artistic license is oddly placed here, but it adds a little fire to Jane’s character. Unlike other mid-twentieth century American adaptations, Howes and Scott share the stage as equals.

The Bad: If you’re looking for faithfulness to the text, I wouldn’t start with midcentury American renderings of Jane Eyre. This 1961 adaptation is filled with odd plot alterations and it rarely draws directly from dialogue in the book. This adaptation has only recently been made available to the public, but beyond its novelty it’s forgettable.

Grade: D

The next tier of adaptations are the most difficult to rank and the most likely to shift depending on my mood and preferences at the time. They share some common characteristics: varying degrees of faithfulness and questionable performances by the leads. 

9. Jane Eyre 1997, starring Samantha Morton as Jane and Ciaran Hinds as Mr. Rochester

The Good: I like that this version captures the difference in age between Jane and Rochester. Samantha Morton looks like Jane with her young appearance and plain but piercing features. The accurate age difference accentuates the unique dynamic between the characters. Rochester is Jane's social and experiential superior, and yet he still relies on her and respects her as an advisor and equal despite her age and position. The best scenes in this adaptation are Jane and Rochester’s conversation following Mason's injury and the reunion scene, when Hinds turns on the waterworks. 

The Bad: While Hinds delivers some beautiful scenes, most of the time he plays Rochester all wrong. The proposal (beware the infamous open-mouthed kiss) and “leaving” scenes are particularly disastrous. Hinds’s Rochester is screamy, aggressive, and a bully. But the director and screenwriter are as guilty as Hinds for this misinterpretation. What would possess a screenwriter to have Rochester accuse Jane of being spoiled after he was just busted for attempted bigamy? In this version Rochester is neither repentant when Jane leaves or grateful at first when she returns. (Aside: I know Hinds could do better with different scripting and direction because he also played Rochester in a 1994 radio adaptation of Jane Eyre, where his vocal performance was much better.) 

Grade: C-

8. Jane Eyre 1957 (Italian), starring Ilaria Occhini and Raf Vallone

The Good: There is much to appreciate about this contribution to the JE adaptation canon. The set and production values were ahead of their time, as was the chemistry between the leads. There is a passion and physicality to this 1957 Italian take that British and American adaptations didn’t embrace until the 1980s. What the show lacks in faithfulness, it makes up for in terms of pure feeling. Take, for example, the gut-wrenching reunion scene, which arguably propelled this version higher than it should be in the rankings. Rochester clumsily attempts to hide his blindness from Jane at first—a departure that initially makes no sense to the audience (especially without the benefit of subtitles). But when Jane realizes the truth and the two embrace, Rochester’s cool veneer melts to reveal his desperate need and desire for her. At this point, only the most steely viewer is left unmoved. Like a true Eyrehead, I couldn’t rest without knowing what the characters were saying to each other, so I translated the Italian subtitles with the help of Google Translate. The script makes the scene even more moving, weaving in clear references to the book. And the nod to the “glittering ornament” at the end? Sigh.

The Bad: I can forgive most of the changes in this adaptation with the exception of bizarre handling of St. John Rivers—or rather, Jack Lloyd, the character who functions as a mashup of St. John Rivers and a romanticized John Reed. In this version, Jack Lloyd is Jane’s childhood friend who carries a torch for her from their time in Gateshead. The adaptation even goes so far as to send Jack Lloyd instead of Bessie to collect Jane when Mrs. Reed dies. While the scenario might be the stuff of fanfiction (who can resist wondering what would have happened if Mr. Rochester and St. John Rivers were standing face to face?), this unnecessary change to St. John’s character goes too far and has no clear motive or payoff. St. John does not appear as a developed character, much less a real foil to Rochester, until the 1970s.

Grade: C

7. Jane Eyre 1970, starring Susannah York as Jane and George C. Scott as Mr. Rochester

The Good: In an otherwise middling adaptation, the departure scene after the failed wedding is one of the best among all adaptations. I tend to measure chemistry between the actors playing the leads is by using Rochester's own analogy: “It’s as if I had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly knotted to a similar string in you.” When the leads have real chemistry, the audience can trace that invisible string in the actors’ voice and movements. In this adaptation, Scott's urgent, "Jane, wait!" gives me that feeling. In the final scene before Jane’s departure, York’s Jane and Scott’s Rochester move in perfect sync with each other; their chemistry is palpable and moving. The score by John Williams also boosts the intensity. 

The Bad: Overall this adaptation is unspectacular and only mildly faithful. York is too old to accurately portray a youth “wise beyond her years.” Scott's take on Rochester doesn't reveal anything new or particularly engaging about the character, and he rarely makes the audience believe he is Rochester. Jane Eyre 1970 is absolutely touching at points, but it isn't remarkable overall. 

Grade: C(-)

6. Jane Eyre 1996, starring Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane and William Hurt as Mr. Rochester

The Good: Charlotte Gainsbourg is another actress who matches Jane aesthetically, albeit in a different way from Samantha Morton. Gainsbourg is young and doe-like, but she wears the calm and collected mask of someone who has learned how to toughen up and make it alone. Across from her, Hurt delivers a melancholy and tender performance as Rochester. Together, the pair emphasizes Jane and Rochester's loneliness. This adaptation reminds us that Jane and Rochester are exiles who find kinship and connection in each other. 

The Bad: The subdued take on Jane and Rochester is 1996's greatest strength and its worst weakness. Gainsbourg lacks the depth and experience to give the viewer a glimpse of the deep well of emotion beneath Jane's cool exterior. Hurt's performance straddles the line between melancholy and sleepy. The movie also rushes through the more intense moments, with the failed wedding, leaving scene, Jane's time with the Rivers family, and her return taking up less than forty-five minutes. This adaptation has some beautiful moments, but it's far from being the most faithful in either pacing or tone.

Grade: C(+) 

5. Jane Eyre 1943, starring Joan Fontaine as Jane and Orson Welles as Mr. Rochester

The Good: Robert Stevenson's 1943 adaptation of Jane Eyre is one of the only versions to properly capture the novel's gothic elements. The cinematography, sets, and score all emphasize the darkness of Lowood, Thornfield, and its inhabitants. Orson Welles might be my favorite Rochester, fitting both my physical idea of the character and showing Rochester's commanding, enigmatical, and even charming and tender sides in equal measure. Welles is a masterful voice actor, knowing just what to do to shift the tone as needed by adjusting his volume, inflections, and other dynamics. 

The Bad: One of the great trivia facts about this adaptation is that Welles insisted on top billing over Joan Fontaine, who played the titular character. That demand was fitting not only because Welles’s performance is so strong, but also because Fontaine's is rather weak. The stunning star actress struggles to play the 'poor, obscure, plain and little' Jane Eyre. In general, Fontaine is too serene. While the leaving scene might be Welles' most dynamic moment, Fontaine's Jane barely seems to respond. In addition to playing Rochester, Welles was heavily involved in the direction and production of the film, leaving his stylistic mark that would come to represent the film noir genre. This version is definitely worth a watch for cinema buffs and anyone interested in early film noir, but it doesn't do the best job of adapting the protagonist to the screen. 

Grade: B-

The following are the top tier of Jane Eyre Adaptations. 

4. Jane Eyre 1973 starring Sorcha Cusack as Jane and Michael Jayston as Mr. Rochester

The Good: Despite claims to the contrary by 1983 diehards, the 1973 Jane Eyre miniseries is the most faithful adaptation of the novel, neither adding or subtracting any details. Though Orson Welles may be my personal favorite Rochester, Michael Jayston might be the actor who portrays the character most accurately. Jayston may not fit the bill physically, but few can match that simultaneously mercurial and infatuated smile Jayston's Rochester reserves only for Jane. Like her counterpart, Cusack is far from the most accurate physical representation of Jane, but she plays her character well, and her chemistry with Jayston is undeniable. Cusack and Jayston are at their best in all of the pre-proposal conversation scenes. They provide a wonderful performance of the period where Jane and Rochester are cautiously probing and testing the other, as well as the the couple's transition into an intimate and even flirtatious friendship/situationship. Cusack’s Jane and Jayston's Rochester both comfort and challenge each other; they are clearly at ease around each other, and yet each is perplexed by their inability to decipher the other's true feelings. In my opinion, no other Jane/Rochester pairing tops those moments. 

The Bad: While the pre-proposal scenes are nearly perfect, Cusack and Jayston leave a bit to be desired in the proposal and departure scenes. Cusack and Jayston are at their best in portraying the informal, everyday interactions between Jane and Rochester, but they aren't as strong during the story's climaxes. This adaptation can also be a little too sedate, lacking the gothic elements and production values that might have placed it first. Unlike many, I appreciate Cusack's voiceovers as a window into Jane's thoughts and internal dialogue, but object to how they are performed—quaintly and lacking the feeling that would animate Jane's stream of consciousness.

Grade: B+

3. Jane Eyre 2006 starring Ruth Wilson as Jane and Toby Stephens as Mr. Rochester

The Good: Ruth Wilson is a nearly perfect casting and delivery, and the chemistry between her and Toby Stephens is something special. The great matching of Wilson's Jane and Stephens' Rochester is evident to anyone who watches the miniseries, but an underrated aspect of Jane Eyre 2006 is Ruth's chemistry with all the secondary characters as well, particularly Tom Buchan's St. John Rivers. This is perhaps the only adaptation where St. John is (1) humanized and (2) a credible rival to Rochester. While it's clear that Wilson's Jane doesn't have romantic feelings for Rivers, they have a different kind of chemistry: the chemistry of close friends and cousins who could conceivably build a successful and rather happy marriage. Jane considers this closely in the novel, almost agreeing to marry St. John, and yet almost none of the adaptations treat this like a serious possibility. St. John proposes, but the audience never feels for a moment that a marriage to St. John would be acceptable or even logical. In the 2006, we finally get to see a well-developed relationship between the two. 

The Bad: The 2006 is the most controversial adaptation, with a large community of critics alongside its devoted fandom. This is another case of an adaptation's strength doubling as its weakness. Jane Eyre 2006 attempts to capture the emotional core of the novel while translating the dialogue and characters to a younger audience. But the same modernization that makes the romantic chemistry between Jane and Rochester so palpable also prevents the actors from fully and faithfully inhabiting their characters. Stephens in particular fails to convince me that he is Rochester. I have had to learn not to conflate my love of looking at Toby Stephens and the (sexual) romanticism of the adaptation with an accurate representation of the characters and the relationship between Jane and Rochester. Wilson and Stephens work well together, and they offer a new and refreshing take on Jane and Rochester that looks like a relatable, twenty-first century relationship in period trappings. For fans, this is what places Jane Eyre 2006 near front of the pack. For Jane Eyre puritans, it also prevents the adaptation from claiming the top spot. 

Grade: B+

2. Jane Eyre 1983 starring Zelah Clarke as Jane and Timothy Dalton as Mr. Rochester

The Good: This is a faithful, well cast, and well acted adaptation that balances faithfulness with a little added sexiness (mostly courtesy of Timothy Dalton). The small and plain, though too-old, Zelah Clarke portrays both Jane's maturity and her girlishness and inexperience. Across her, Dalton shows all the facets of Rochester. He is sardonic and self-important, moody and sentimental, fiery and passionate. Though this adaptation doesn’t portray the age disparity between Jane and Rochester, the performances and the size difference between the actors do enough to convince the audience of Rochester's "century's advance in experience." The 1983 is a daunting eleven episodes long, and yet Clarke, particularly with the help of Dalton, keeps the viewer engaged throughout. Like the 1973, the adaptation pays close attention to the early moments and slow-simmering relationship with Jane and Rochester. Yet, the 1983 does better at nailing the relationship's climaxes, producing heartrending proposal, leaving, and reunion scenes. 

The Bad: Because the adaptation is so faithful in general, the points at which it veers away from the source material are particularly perplexing (all the more because they seem so unnecessary). What was the purpose of beginning the proposal scene inside? Why write in a moment in the reunion scene where Rochester gets angry at Jane's perceived 'pity' and sends her away? Clarke and Dalton are strong throughout, but the subdued tone of the second proposal contrasts with the emotion and intensity the pair built throughout the miniseries. 

Grade: A(-)

1. Jane Eyre 2011 starring Mia Wasikowska as Jane and Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester

The Good: The 2011 Jane Eyre shows how good performances combined with high production values can produce a great adaptation even under seemingly impossible time constraints. While it isn't perfect, I rank this adaption first because it does the best job of capturing the feeling and content of the book as a whole, including details like the novel's gothic elements, the age difference between the protagonists, and even the viewpoint of the story from Jane's perspective (without voiceovers, I might add). Aided by intentional and strategic writing, Mia Wasikowska is a great Jane. She embodies Rochester's description of her: "Your garb and manner were restricted by rule . . . yet when addressed, you lifted a keen, a daring, and a glowing eye to your interlocutor’s face: there was penetration and power in each glance you gave." Wasikowska's looks cut deep, and thanks to some spectacular writing her Jane has a natural talent for challenging Rochester through her ability to know exactly what to say at the right time without trying. Like his counterpart, Fassbender's Rochester gets help from good writing. While he isn't the best physical representation of the character, he summarizes Rochester well in the given time and showcases a beautiful relationship with Jane without overpowering her. The 2011 accurately captures Jane Eyre as Jane's story. When the camera isn't on her, it is viewing the world from her perspective or moving through her memories through the use of flashback. 

The Bad: Not enough time!! Had this film been a miniseries, it might have been the definitive adaptation. Alas, the actors and filmmakers were charged with the task of packing a 400+ page book into less than two hours. The inevitable consequence is the sacrifice of some important details and nuances, particularly Grace Poole's role in the story, the careful development of intimacy between Jane and Rochester, and Jane's complicated relationship with St. John. Jane Eyre 2011 isn't perfect by any means, nor is it necessarily my favorite adaptation, but it is the one I suggest to first-timers because it does the best job of using every tool at its disposal—casting, writing, visuals, and sound—to present a complex and multifaceted book to viewers. 

Grade: A(-) 

Conclusion

There is no perfect or even definitive Jane Eyre adaptation. Each brings something to the table that others do not, or fails to represent a facet or portion of the novel that others may highlight. I look forward to re-doing other rankings that allow me to focus on particular aspects of the adaptations, because to evaluate the adaptations as a whole in relationship to the complete novel is too difficult.