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.
16. 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.
15. 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 sexual harassment charges were at Jane’s disposal. It’s uncomfortable and unfaithful.
14. 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?
13. 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.
12. 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 in spite of the adaptation’s sweeping changes to the source material. Vallone gets right to the heart of the matter: Rochester is besotted with Jane. Sometimes that’s all a viewer really wants to see.
Cons: There is a language barrier, so I’m working from translations and “the look of the thing.” Vallone’s Rochester is too likable. He 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 this Rochester. His performance is closer to a stock romantic hero than it is to the character in Brontë’s text.
11. Zachary Scott, Jane Eyre 1961
Pros (and 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 captured in the adaptation, 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 Rochester’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. No wonder he desires some peace and quiet.
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 of the closest to my heart. Scott brings a surliness to his portrayal of Rochester that subtly melts as the film progresses to reveal the softness beneath. As I've mentioned before, Scott's performance during the departure scene is particularly moving. His Rochester attempts to persuade Jane to stay with him and then dares her to leave. When she actually does, he calls her back longingly, caresses her face, and begs her to wait. 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.
Negative: Scott turns in a good effort at a romantic hero, but is he Rochester? Despite leading with gruffness, Scott’s Rochester overall is nice—even light. None of the character’s flaws make a real impression on the viewer in this adaptation. Scott gets lost in the shuffle of Rochester performances because he plays the character too safe to make a lasting impact.
9. William Hurt, Jane Eyre 1996
"At least--shake hands."
Positive: Hurt's take on Rochester reminds the viewer of one important thing: he is lonely. In this adaptation, Rochester has to learn how 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. In Jane, Hurt's Rochester has found someone with which to share his. We see Rochester unburden the griefs of loneliness and betrayal almost without thinking, and we feel the relief it gives him. When Hurt's Rochester 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 is a healing moment in which Jane and Rochester finally allow themselves to connect—to caress and be caressed—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 physicality, capriciousness, and even charm—that fans of the book expect. Hurts nails the gloom but misses the character’s joy, humor, and wit. Hurt also doesn't fit the billing of the dark, 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, unlike Scott and Hurt. Hinds is committed to portraying a fiercely flawed Rochester. He exhibits Rochester's “state of proud independence” that “disdain[s] every part but that of the giver and protector.” Viewers see those flaws broken down by the end of the adaptation when, unable to give Jane any of the things he formerly valued as expressions of love, all he can do is cry in her arms. Though Hinds's Rochester spends most his time scowling and sulking (a problem addressed below), he also exhibits joy, particularly in the scenes following the proposal and before the failed wedding. His smile is so rare that it feels more special when we see it.
Negative: I'm not entirely sure whether I should have ranked Hinds ahead of Hurt. It's difficult to compare the two because their sins in portraying the character are exact opposites. If Hurt isn’t expressive enough, Hinds's Rochester at his worst is a loose cannon and, quit frankly, a jerk. Hinds' portrayal is a mixed bag. His aggressiveness either works well or not at all, such as in leaving scene where he just screams at Jane until she makes it to the carriage.
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 has much more than just the look. 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 so 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. But alongside his moody outbursts, there is a softness he reserves only for her that tugs at the viewer’s heart if you let it.
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.
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 arguably turns in the most underrated performance of 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 slight 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 even manages to add softness. He is most engaging in the film’s quieter, subtler scenes such as the Jane’s departure, or the moment when Rochester catches Jane crying in the hallway. The gentleness in his voice and expressions in those scenes is remarkable, especially taken alongside his power and intensity at other points in the film. Welles shifts seamlessly from intimidating to tender. Misogyny aside, it’s no surprise that he demanded top billing over Joan Fontaine, who played the titular character. This film belongs to him.
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, fluid interpretation. 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. Welles does 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 oddly gorgeous even with his muttonchops and extensions; he also strategically portrays the character's physicality and charisma through his speech and movement. In an interview for the miniseries, Stephens spoke a lot about Rochester's (and Jane's) sexuality and how it influences the intimacy between the characters. His attention to that in his approach to the character reminds viewers and readers just how ‘scandalous’ Jane Eyre was for a victorian novel. Like it or not, Jane knows that Rochester has the tools to be sexually persuasive, and he's willing to use them (“Do you mean it now? And now?”). But Stephens does more than sexualize the character. His Rochester connects to Jane on a soul level (as he continually reiterates), and his relationship with her teaches him intimacy apart from sex.
Negative: Stephens successfully highlights a less-emphasized aspect of the character, but he doesn't fully exhibit or inhabit the more traditional facets of Rochester that readers have come to expect. After his early conversations with Jane, Stephens' Rochester ceases to be mercurial and becomes a little too likable. In the book, there are moments where we (alongside Jane) ask ourselves about Rochester, “What is he doing here? What does he mean by this?? What is he about?!” He just doesn't make sense sometimes! Stephens doesn't fully play that strangeness or “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. I disliked that about him at first, 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 get a reaction 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 wit is a front for his hurt, but as the film progresses we see other layers of him revealed—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 this 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 lines from the book in the fire and proposal scenes 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.
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: Timothy Dalton is a force, delivering the most consistently good scenes as Rochester. If Jayston and Fassbender peeter out a bit when performing the ‘hallmark’ scenes between Jane and Rochester, then those passion-packed moments are Dalton's bread and butter. In my rankings of those scenes, the 1983 is consistently among the best because of his stellar performance. Dalton is another powerful physical presence, towering above Clarke's Jane and sporting a bass voice that conveys Rochester's commanding tone and stormy temper. But Dalton also knows how to be earnest and soft, and those moments are just as believable. No matter what Rochester's mood, Dalton infuses it with conviction. The audience buys his Rochester in his varied forms—angry, tender, broken and healing. 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?"
Negative: Once again, for a younger or more modern audience, Dalton could also be a bit 'much.' 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.