Many things have changed since I started writing in Blogspot years ago, but my love for Rochester always remains the same. That’s why I couldn't wait even a week to publish this post after just having finished ranking the Jane Eyre adaptations. One thing that has changed, however, is the technology at my disposal—namely the innovation of the gif. Gifs have become one of the best fandom tools, and in cooking them up for this blog post I can easily see why. It was fun to highlight small, sometimes underrated, nuances from different performances. Below are my rankings of the best and worst portrayals of Jane Eyre's Edward Rochester, complete with gifs of some of my favorite moments from each.
18. Colin Clive, Jane Eyre 1934
"You are a strange little thing, aren't you? But charming."
The poor 1934 adaptation is doomed to bring up the rear in nearly every ranking. Clive just isn't Rochester, partly because he wasn't written to be him and partly because he doesn't attempt to behave like him. The above gif was hilarious, but endearing.
17. Patrick Macnee, Jane Eyre 1957
Awkward.
Rochester may be many things—over-sentimental, mysterious, even manipulative—but he isn't a lusty drunk. Macnee plays Rochester so badly that you wish Jane had sexual harassment charges at her disposal. His portrayal is as uncomfortable as it is unfaithful.
16. Kevin McCarthy, Jane Eyre 1952
"As we are!"
The 1952 might have been a decent American TV adaptation had McCarthy even slightly represented the Rochester from the text. McCarthy's Rochester is far from the gloomy, haunted, and sardonic character we expect to see. In fact, he's charming, approachable, and nice from the beginning. He's the most optimistic and exuberant Rochester, as seen above. Is McCarthy even in character?
15. Charlton Heston, Jane Eyre 1949
"Goodnight, Miss Eyre."
Pros: Despite all the pitfalls and low production values of this adaptation, Charlton Heston at least seems familiar with the source material. Heston was the first actor in the Rochester timeline to give an honest attempt at accuracy. His Rochester is abrupt, arrogant, and wholly unconcerned with manners in his first conversation with Jane. The 1949 Rochester cares nothing for propriety. He pursues what captures his interest, and that is coaxing a meek (in this adaptation, at least) Jane Eyre out of her shell.
Cons: None of the characters in this American TV adaptation even try for a British accent. The writing also wasn't faithful enough to make for an accurate Rochester. Cheesy TV lines and melodramatic breakneck kisses abound, making it difficult to find anything redeemable in Heston’s performance.
14. Rob de Vries, Jane Eyre 1958 (Dutch)
Pros and Cons: I’ve only recently watched this adaptation of Jane Eyre, so this ranking is fresh. When de Vries first appears, he is almost reminiscent of George C. Scott. He fits the age and, to a limited extent, the physical description of Rochester, but his take on the character is a sedate one. Like his European, British, and American counterparts who took on the role of Rochester in the 1950s, he never appears at home in the character. In general, I think Rochesters from that period of television suffered from the constraints of in-studio filming. Since the viewer never sees Rochester outdoors or in any kind of meaningful motion, he’s rendered a static character trapped in a drawing room. De Vries’s portrayal felt particularly contained.
13. Raf Vallone, Jane Eyre 1957 (Italian)
Pros: Raf Vallone works with an unorthodox script to deliver a passionate performance. The intensity alone is enough to make the viewer swoon despite the adaptation’s sweeping changes to the source material. Vallone gets right to the heart of the matter: Rochester is besotted with Jane from the beginning and can’t live without her by the end.
Cons: I don’t know how “gothic” you can call Vallone’s interpretation. His Rochester is beloved by Adele and the staff at Thornfield, who all seem to know his secret and yet root for him to be with Jane anyway. Even his chemistry with Jane doesn’t atone for the fact that there’s something generic about the portrayal. His performance is closer to a stock romantic hero than it is to the flawed character in Brontë’s text.
12. Zachary Scott, Jane Eyre 1961
Pros (and mostly Cons): There’s not much to like in this thoroughly Americanized TV portrayal. Oddly enough, that may be the best thing about Zachary Scott’s performance. He’s neither attractive or likable on screen, but at least there’s something of the ‘real’ Rochester in that. With very little of the text preserved in the script, Scott takes liberties to produce a stubborn, argumentative Rochester who is convinced of the righteousness of his attempted unlawful union with Jane even after tragedy befalls him. This Rochester is also stressed as he tries to keep multiple plates spinning, which adds a kind of humorous insight into just how full the character’s hands are in the novel. Rochester is hosting guests, dealing with Mason’s unannounced visits to “borrow against Bertha’s marriage settlement,” managing a troubling employee in Grace Poole, and trying to ensure that his wife doesn’t burn the house down—all while falling in love with his employee. Deceit is certainly exhausting. No wonder he desires some peace and quiet!
11. Stanley Baker, Jane Eyre 1956 (BBC)
Pros (and mostly Cons): Baker’s Rochester benefits from a more accurate script (courtesy of Constance Cox) than the 1961 American adaptation, but there’s nothing remarkable about his portrayal. It’s Daphne Slater who makes the 1956 adaptation worth watching, and who does much to redeem Baker’s lukewarm performance. This Rochester is thoroughly a product of Baker’s time. There’s something about him that screams “moody 1950s husband” and keeps him from finding the character. Most importantly, he lacks chemistry with Slater, who arguably deserves a better counterpart though Baker was the TV veteran at the time.
10. George C. Scott, Jane Eyre 1970
"What the devil do you think you're doing..."
Positive: Despite this adaptation’s low ranking, Scott’s Rochester is one my favorites. Scott brings his signature surliness to the part, and he does the character’s early gloom and remorse well, but his Rochester undergoes a steady evolution as the film progresses. By his proposal, the 1970 Rochester has developed a genuine, tender friendship with (and love for) York’s mature Jane Eyre. This interpretation of the character’s transformation over time makes Scott's pivotal scene all the more moving. During Jane’s departure, Scott’s Rochester unsuccessfully attempts to retreat back to his earlier self. After trying to persuade Jane to stay with him, he dares her to leave. But when she starts to exit the room, he can’t bear it; he begs her to wait. It’s as if Rochester realizes he can’t return to his prior state of fierce independence and casual cruelty. On the heels of Patton, Scott’s tenderness is a welcome surprise. His portrayal may not jump out of the list of Rochesters, and it’s certainly not loaded with erotic passion, but it is touching. And though he’s certainly older than Rochester is in the book, there are aspects of Scott’s general look that resemble the grim mouth and square brow that Brontë describes.
Negative: I concur with those who argue that Scott was one of the most underrated American actors of his time, but it’s hard to detect the genius of Dr. Strangelove, The Hustler, or Patton in Scott’s performance here. The qualities that made Scott a great actor—his physicality, his talent for manipulating speech to bring out the best in a script, his ability to convey a range of thoughts in one expression—could have made for a cutting edge, if maybe too American, portrayal of Rochester. But Scott never really owns or takes risks with the character. His performance gets lost in the shuffle of Rochesters because he plays the character too safe to make the lasting impact he did in other roles.
9. William Hurt, Jane Eyre 1996
"At least--shake hands."
Positive: I used to dislike Hurt’s turn as Rochester, but recent viewings have allowed me to appreciate the nuances of his acting. Hurt's take on the character reminds viewers of one important thing: Rochester is lonely. He plays Rochester as someone learning to connect intimately with another person. Sometimes it is a halting, even awkward, process. Both Hurt and Gainsbourg’s portrayals are 'otherworldly' in the sense that the characters have become accustomed to living with their own thoughts. Hurts translates Rochester less through expression and more through embodiment. Physically, Rochester appears almost bent over with the cares of the world. He moves and speaks as if the past is bearing down on him at every moment. But with Jane we sees Rochester slowly, quietly unburden himself, and we feel the relief it gives him. By the time Hurt's lays his face against Gainsbourg's during the proposal, it isn't the explosive moment that many readers might imagine, or that other actors choose to portray. Rather, it’s a sigh of relief: Jane and Rochester finally allow themselves to connect—to embrace and be embraced—after years of isolation.
Negative: I love William Hurt as an actor, so it was disappointing to be underwhelmed by his performance. At its best, and with the right interpretive eye, Hurt's performance is the 'positive' above. At its worst, it's too sedate and one-dimensional to be truly faithful. Hurt—and the 1996 adaptation as a whole—does a great job of portraying the nuances of loneliness and connection, but he doesn't get at the more obvious facets of Rochester—his passion, capriciousness, and even charm—that Brontë more overtly describes in the book. Hurts devotes so much attention to Rochester’s gloom that he misses so much else. Hurt also doesn't fit the billing of the decisive, broad shouldered man with dark, expressive eyes.
8. Ciaran Hinds, Jane Eyre 1997
"Jane. Look at me."
Positive: Viewers could never accuse Hinds of being too sedate. Hinds is committed to portraying a fierce and flawed Rochester that places character’s “state of proud independence” that “disdain[s] every part but that of the giver and protector” on full display. Whereas Scott and Hurt take Rochester’s ruthlessness, vulnerability, and remorse in equal measure, Hinds doesn’t reward the viewer with much of the latter qualities. His Rochester is heedlessly determined to defy the constraints of religion and law to have Jane, and when caught in the lie to secure her, he even defends the righteousness of his cause. For better or for worse (a problem addressed below), arguably no actor captures Rochester’s self-described “stiff-necked rebellion” as overtly as Hinds does. But somehow the emotional payoff is well worth it in the final scene when, physically maimed and unable to give Jane any of the things he formerly valued as expressions of love, all Rochester can do is cry in her arms. Hinds's Rochester spends a lot of time scowling, arguing, and waging war with the world, but he also finds some solace in Jane.
Negative: I'm not entirely sure whether I should have ranked Hinds ahead of Hurt. It's difficult to compare the two because their portrayals have opposite shortcomings. If Hurt isn’t expressive enough, Hinds's Rochester at his worst is a loose cannon and, quit frankly, a jerk. Hinds often pushes Rochester’s heedlessness to the point of aggression. In a few scenes, this approach doesn’t work well because breaks the viewer’s sympathy with the character. In the scene following the failed wedding, for example, Hinds’s Rochester doesn’t exhibit the remorse expressed by Rochester in the text. Instead, in a failure of both writing and acting, he blames Jane for leaving and screams at her until makes it to the carriage. If it weren’t for Samantha Morton’s Jane creditably stands toe to toe with him, we would just call him domineering.
7. Richard Leech, Jane Eyre 1963
Pros: It’s unfair to rank a Rochester based on potential when most of his scenes are irrecoverable. But what I have seen of Richard Leech in this adaptation gives me reason to suspect that he might have offered one of the strongest interpretations of the role. Physically, Leech has all the makings of a textbook Rochester. And in the few scenes available to us, he draws on a faithful script to show us that he is more than just a typecasting. When the viewer first encounters him presenting Jane with lavish gifts, Leech’s Rochester is proud (bordering on haughty) and fiery (or perhaps quick-tempered)…but also clearly “influenced” and “conquered” by Bell’s Jane. There is nothing reserved about Leech’s portrayal; that Rochester desperately loves and needs Jane is evident. Though Leech overacts at points, he also skillfully plays with the volume and tone of his voice to portray convey his fondness for Jane. Alongside his moody outbursts, there is a softness he reserves only for her that tugs at the viewer’s heart, as if Bell’s Jane has the power to soothe him.
Cons: Unless you’re one of the lucky people who saw this version air in 1963, we may never know if Leech gave us a complete Rochester. Two crucial episodes of the six-part miniseries—the episodes that happen to span from Rochester falling off his horse to the his proposal to Jane—are lost, leaving us with only the post-proposal scenes. Younger fans of Jane Eyre can only wonder what Richard Leech’s full performance might have been, and hope that the missing episodes are somewhere in the world to be recovered one day. If adapted and acted faithfully, this could be one of the better adaptations.
6. Jan Kacer, Jane Eyre 1972 (Czech)
Pros: Despite the language barrier, I found this 1972 adaptation of Jane Eyre very satisfying thanks in large part to Jan Kacer’s impressive performance. Though not ‘handsome’ in the typical sense, this earthy, bearded Rochester is certainly enjoyable to look at. As I mentioned in a prior review, Kacer’s chemistry with his counterpart is so palpable that the viewer almost forgets that Rochester never kisses Jane directly on the lips in this adaptation. His physicality isn’t the only basis of Kacer’s appeal, though. There’s a kind of “less is more” to his acting that makes for an understated and yet intimate portrayal of the character. Like all Rochesters, Kacer is gloomy and brooding. Unlike other Rochesters, though, he appears more accountable for his past and present actions. Whereas other Rochesters seem all too comfortable with lying to Jane until they’re exposed, Kacer’s Rochester is ashamed of his prior decision-making and genuinely conflicted about deceiving Jane as their relationship develops. (I always prefer a slightly more self-loathing Rochester to interpretations that view him as the pure victim of others’ wrongs.) Kacer’s portrayal isn’t defining, but it’s endearing.
Cons: Even with translations, viewing a film in another language through the lens of a different culture makes it difficult to judge the quality of the performances in their own context. Kacer may be received differently by a Czech audience. Kacer’s Rochester is more soft and brooding than mercurial and eccentric. His age, good looks, and toned down performance may not appeal to purists even though the adaptation is faithfully written. But to the untrained eye of this American Eyrehead, this is still a great performance.
5. Orson Welles, Jane Eyre 1943
"I was to be aided, and by that hand: and aided I was. And then later that evening--do you remember Jane? Say you remember."
Positive: Orson Welles is arguably the most underrated Rochester. Not only does he possess the basic Rochester ‘specs’ (dark, sparkling eyes, stormy brow, features far from conventionally handsome); Welles speaks and moves with that vigor, informality, and self-importance Brontë ascribes to Rochester. While parts of his performance (the proposal scene in particular) have the usual overwrought style of any 40s film, it works for the character and the gothic tone of the adaptation as a whole. Amidst the film’s crashing scores and moody mise en scène, Welles offers magnetism, intensity, and even gentleness. Whereas most Rochesters live and die by the dramatic proposal scene or (imo) Jane’s return to Thornfield, Welles’s best work takes place in the quieter scenes such as their second conversation, the moment when Rochester catches Jane crying in the hallway, or—in this version—Jane’s surprisingly subdued departure. Like Leech, but to a more masterful degree, Welles has a knack for manipulating the timbre of his iconic bass voice. But his ability to soften his eyes is even more captivating (see above), especially taken alongside the power and broodiness he expresses with just a beat. Welles shifts seamlessly from glowering to tender. Despite the misogyny of his receiving top billing over Joan Fontaine, who played the titular character, his place at the head of the cast was well justified. Welles, not Fontaine, makes this an adaptation that still captivates viewers after so many decades.
Negative: It is a 40s Hollywood film, and Welles is Welles, meaning there is a clear dose of proto-film noir melodrama in his performance that likely won't sit well with viewers looking for a more modern interpretation of the source material. Due to its cinematic context and the constraints of the genre, Welles' portrayal of Rochester might strike younger viewers as outdated or lacking romance. And even I, despite all my love for vintage film, would agree. The dark melodrama of the proposal, which Welles re-dubbed later, falls flat to me, and the film’s abbreviated ending also does him a disservice. Welles did something great within his context, but he is not a Rochester that defines the character for all time.
4. Toby Stephens, Jane Eyre 2006
"Then I will say: don't go, Jane."
Positive: Finally, a Rochester viewers could believe flew through Europe bedding mistresses left and right! Stephens brings a sexiness and sensuality to the role of Rochester that no other actor does, and it's refreshing. It isn’t just that Stephens is gorgeous (though still not conventionally handsome) even with his muttonchops and extensions; he also strategically portrays the character's physicality and charisma through his speech and movement. In an interview on the set of the show, Stephens spoke at length about Rochester's (and Jane's) sexuality and how it influences the intimacy between the characters. His attention to the sexual tension beneath Brontë’s writing reminds us just how ‘scandalous’ Jane Eyre was for a victorian novel, and that sex is in fact a key ingredient in the genre of Gothic novels. Among other themes, Jane Eyre explores Jane’s sensual awakening. Rochester has a sexual history and he’s willing to draw on it (“Do you mean it now? And now?”). But Stephens does more than just play up Rochester’s latent sex appeal. His Rochester also connects to Jane on a soul level (as he continually reiterates), and he genuinely relates to her as an equal and a friend. Aided by the detail and pacing of Sandy Welch’s script, Stephens convincingly conveys the depth and diversity of Rochester’s attachment to Jane. It is both flesh and soul—friendship, kinship, and something even more.
Negative: Though Stephens’s modern interpretation successfully highlights a less-emphasized aspect of the character, he doesn't fully exhibit or inhabit the more traditional facets of Rochester that readers expect. After his early conversations with Jane, Stephens's Rochester ceases to be mercurial and becomes almost too likable. In the book, there are moments where we (alongside Jane) ask ourselves, “What is Rochester doing here? What does he mean by this?? Is he serious?!” Stephens doesn't fully play to those eccentricities or to the character’s “curious, designing mind.”
3. Michael Jayston, Jane Eyre 1973
"You have a curious, designing mind, Mr. Rochester." "Matched to yours, you said so."
Positive: “Yet there was so much unconscious pride in his port; so much ease in his demeanour; such a look of complete indifference to his own external appearance; so haughty a reliance on the power of other qualities...to atone for the lack of mere personal attractiveness.” Jayston's performance embodies Brontë’s initial description of Rochester. Jayston/Rochester is not a handsome man; what you see is what you get. But there’s something about that mischievous smile, his cutting sarcasm, and his quirky confidence that makes him magnetic. Jayston's Rochester is also weird. At first, I disliked the quirkiness of Jayston’s portrayal, but now I appreciate that it’s exactly what makes him so faithful to the Rochester of the novel—he bucks tradition and propriety, speaks using enigmatic language, and dresses in drag to extort confessions from the woman he loves. What Jane Eyre fans don't care to admit is that Rochester is contradictory—even manipulative. He’d rather pretend to court someone else, dress up as a woman, and threaten to send Jane to Ireland to extract a profession of love from her than simply declare himself. And yet, he genuinely loves Jane. While other actors and adaptations shy away from that paradox, Jayston pulls it off and makes us believe it. He may not be the smoldering, romantic gothic hero we prefer to watch, but he’s true to the character we fell in love with.
Negative: As I've mentioned before, Jayston is at his best mostly pre-proposal when he gets to show off Rochester's eccentricity and mischievousness. He is good at being relaxed, odd, and flirtatious. He is not as good at being urgent and passionate. Jayston's proposal, departure, and reunion scene performances are good, and parts of them are incredibly touching, but they aren't powerful or climactic. When it's time for Rochester to progress from the puzzling and bizarre suitor to the raw, desperate, and broken lover of the latter scenes, he isn't as convincing.
2. Michael Fassbender, Jane Eyre 2011
"I pledge you my honor, my fidelity, my love 'til death do us part." "What of truth?"
Positive: One of my favorite moments of Fassbender's in Jane Eyre is not one of the romantic scenes that usually define a Rochester. Instead, it’s the scene where he sits gloomily at the piano playing an augmented fourth. Mrs. Fairfax comes forward with his tea and he responds with a morose, "Keep it!" Then we see his face communicate a vast array of emotions in just a few seconds: annoyance, weariness, frustration, sorrow, pain. What I like most about Fassbender's Rochester is that he is properly miserable, and it feels real. He is suffering, and the audience, like Jane in the novel, grieves for him without really knowing why. His acerbic humor is a front for his pain, but as the film progresses Fassbender layers other qualities—his genuine smile, his odd charm, his sensitivity. He, like Stephens in the 2006, adds a certain kind of sexiness to the role, but Fassbender's Rochester has less of the upper hand. He and Jane are clearly attracted to each other, but she's too good at resisting him, creating a cute dynamic where Rochester for once is the dazzled, infatuated pursuer. Oh, and he delivers a top tier performance during the leaving scene!
Negative: As with the 2011 adaptation in general, a lot of the negatives come down to lack of time, but that's not really a critique is it? When it comes to acting the unspoken details of Rochester, few can match Fassbender. His weakness is Rochester's romantic speaking parts. Compared to the rest of his performance, his delivery of the best quotes from the book don’t pack the same punch. The iconic lines—"you rare unearthly thing,” “I must have you for my own,” “that expression did not strike delight in my very inmost heart”—seem to overpower him. He doesn’t quite find the authenticity in Brontë’s victorian language.
1. Timothy Dalton, Jane Eyre 1983
"To live, for me, Jane, is to stand on a crater-crust that may crack and spew fire any day. Now you look puzzled!"
Positive: It’s hard to believe Timothy Dalton came to Jane Eyre as a novice to TV adaptations, but in his Rochester BBC discovered an absolute force. If Jayston and Fassbender lose steam when performing the ‘hallmark’ scenes between Jane and Rochester, then those passion-packed moments are Dalton's bread and butter. The 1983 adaptation is consistently at the top of my rankings of those “key” scenes best because of his stellar performances, and his work in the early and transitional scenes is just as good. Dalton is another powerful physical presence, towering above Clarke's Jane and sporting a bass voice that conveys Rochester's commanding nature and his socioeconomic, physical, and personal authority. But Dalton also knows how to be earnest and soft, and those moments are just as believable. No matter what Rochester's mood, Dalton plays it with conviction. The audience buys his Rochester in his varied forms—sullen, enigmatic, broken, charming, remorseful, gentle and hopeful. More importantly, Dalton actually captures all these facets of Rochester; he adeptly shifts in and out of the character’s different modes and, as is often necessary, holds them in tandem. We see why Rochester is intrigued that Jane holds up so well under his gaze and questioning: He's so piercing, so intense, so direct that most people wouldn’t know what to do with him. In light of Dalton's performance, it makes sense that Rochester asks, "You're afraid of me?" I could gush forever about the virtues of Dalton’s Rochester, but several writers have already written his praises far better than I can, and his performance will be well loved for generations.
Negative: Like Welles and other Rochesters, Dalton may overplay a bit for a modern audience. He doesn't overact as much as Orson Welles, but in his commitment to that conviction I mentioned above, there are moments where we wish he could dial it back a little. He puts everything on the table all the time, leaving little nuance for the audience to decipher, particularly when he portrays more volatile emotions. Also, this gif is perfection. Gosh, he's hot! That would be an obvious positive were it not for the fact that Rochester has no business being that attractive.