Oh, Rochester!

 You cannot be a dedicated fan of Jane Eyre without being dedicated fan of the man that comes along with her. Of course we all know who I'm speaking of, but in case you haven't caught on yet, that man is Edward Fairfax Rochester.

Mr. Rochester is the enigmatic, dark, brooding man whose heart is captured by Jane. He's moody and sarcastic. He's bipolar. He's arrogant at times. He's self pitying and overdramatic. However, he's also one of the most beloved male heroes of literature. He has this horrid array of flaws and yet he wins Jane's heart all the same because his passion, romance, and intelligence counterbalance his obvious defects. We love Rochester for his humanity. He is a man of a thousand different complexities that can be analyzed almost a thousand different ways depending on the eyes reading the page.

So how do you then find the man to portray him in a movie? Today I've collected images of the Rochesters from every Jane Eyre adaptation I've seen and will seek to compare them, analyzing their positives and negatives and hoping to come to some conclusion as to who I think is the best Rochester.

*sigh*...here goes.

Jane Eyre 1944: Orson Welles

Positives: Maybe its the black and white-ness of the film that makes Orson Welles seem so very intimidating, but I like it. Welles had a voice that was commanding. The deep undercurrents of his lines really asserted a true sense of control. He really brought out the "master" aspect of Rochester that I sometimes forget when watching other versions. At the same time, he was also able to bring a little sweetness to his portrayal. Some say that he's the best Rochester, even though I don't personally agree. He didn't do the character a discredit, however. As a whole, I was pleased with him.

Negatives: The movie was made in 1944. Even though I do enjoy a good black and white movie (Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, Laurence Olivier, Charlton Heston are all favorites of mine), it's still safe to say that though those kind of movies are a lost art form, they are also dramatically overracted and very melodramatic. You can't turn to Orson to give a modern, more natural portrayal of a Rochester that we can relate to in this day and age. He turned in a great performance for that time period, but that was THAT time period.

Jane Eyre 1949: Charlton Heston

Positive: He's Charlton Heston! I think that's pretty much it for positives. Actually, wait. He has a strong voice too. Ok, NOW that's it for positives.
Negative: Oh gosh, there's a list of negatives. #1: He's good looking!! Too good looking. #2: American accent. They didn't even bother to make the characters go for the British accent. However, it WAS made for TV so I dont think anyone really cared. #3: Yea...waayyyy too overacted, even for the time period. I would skip this version altogether.

Jane Eyre 1970: George C. Scott

Positives: I must say, I was pleasantly surprised by Scott's performance in this movie. I was expecting it to be hideous. As a whole, it wasn't very good, but he had tiny moments of greatness. These particularly came in the scene before Jane leaves Thornfield. He's a rugged man, and that type of ruggedness is something that I always fancied Rochester having. There is a knowing and experienced edge to him that I might even venture to label "worn".
Negatives: Too old. Let me make this fact clear now. Jane Eyre is eighteen. Rochester (on numerous occasions) pronounces himself ALMOST twenty years her senior. What is eighteen plus twenty? Thirty eight. Add the "almost" to that equation and you get this sum...Rochester was AT MOST thirty-eight, maybe thirty-nine to benefit the actor. George C. Scott doesn't fit that category. It adds to the "experience" factor of Rochester, but not to anything else.

Jane Eyre 1973: Michael Jayston

Positive: Jayston brought a more tender take to Rochester. He made him more likeable than other versions and he kind of fits the description of the "grim mouthed" Rochester, minus the sandy colored hair. He kind of brought out Rochester's weirdness. Sometimes Rochester strikes me as kind of a creep because he's so forward and intense when people of that time were mostly reserved. With Jayston playing him, I could see how Jane might be a little hesitant and uncertain about him at first.
Negative: Jayston doesn't really fit the physical build of Rochester to me. I mean, he was described as "athletic" and I just didnt get that from Michael. He also didn't dwell enough on Rochester's brooding side. In fact, he almost laid it down by the riverside. I never saw those "dark thoughts" casting a shadow over his face. He also didn't have the voice for me. As a whole, I still thought he made a presentable Rochester.

Jane Eyre 1983: Timothy Dalton

Positive: Timothy Dalton was a GREAT Rochester. Physically, he was very tall and intimidating across from the girl who played Jane (she wasn't very good). He had the "raven black" hair described in the novel as well as the grim mouth, the athletic figure, and the dark eyes. He played Rochester as both moody, loving, and eccentric. He also played up the mystery of him. With Dalton playing him, we never really understand what Rochester is thinking. He laughs at himself and seems to have this knowingness about him.
Negative: He's gorgeous! He's probably the most handsome Rochester to grace the screen. That's not exactly something that works in his favor in Jane Eyre. He's also highly melodramatic and sometimes downright cheesy. I understand that Rochester is kind of bipolar, but the way Dalton portrayed him it sometimes seemed like he was throwing grown-man temper tantrums. He also didn't have a very good Jane to work with.

Jane Eyre 1996: William Hurt

Positive: Ok, Hurt managed to highlight the depressed side of Rochester. He always had this wistful sadness about him that kind of reminded me that Rochester was in a place where he felt hopeless. He also came across as oddly tender, even though you had to catch it at certain moments.
Negative: He had no chemistry with Charlotte Gainsbourg. The scene where he says "and so you are" during the proposal, he basically just laid his nose on her face instead of kissing her. He also didn't seem forceful and violent enough to be Rochester. Oh, and he too was too old. Does he look almost thirty eight to you?

Jane Eyre 1997: Ciaran Hinds

Positive: Well, he deffinitely brought the "forcefulness" that was missing in William Hurt. He was deffinitely moody and in some ways fit the physical description. He had very nice eyes.
Negative: He wore the same expression seen above throughout the WHOLE movie until the tail end. I didn't like Ciaran Hinds in this adaptation at all because he brought out Rochester's moodiness a bit too much, to the point that I almost forgot that Rochester even had a good side. He's always yelling at Jane instead of conversing with her. He also came across as self-centered and whiny. He was one of my least favorite Rochesters and it was kind of a shame because Samantha Morton wasn't that bad of a Jane. He took away from HER performance. Oh, and this wins the award for the WORST kissing scene I've ever seen. It was like he was trying to gobble up Jane's face!

Jane Eyre 2006: Toby Stephens

Positive: Physically, he was great. This is the Rochester that appealed more to a younger audience because Toby really made Rochester a very sensual character. He made me realize that Rochester was looking for emotional as well as physical love. He showed Rochester's intensity by sometimes lapsing into deep reveries. Toby Mastered the art of being "pretty/ugly". He had this rugged uggliness about him, but from certain angles I saw what Jane saw in him. He was also the correct age, even though it may not seem like it. I think the problem there was that Ruth Wilson didn't look eighteen. Not his fault.
Negative: The negatives Toby had were not really his fault. The script gave him little to work with and stripped down the novel to almost nothing. I would have loved to see Toby delivering some of the best lines from the book. As a whole, Toby handed in a very solid performance and was the best "all around" Rochester. He brought Rochester's physicality, emotions, and intelligence to the screen. I thought that Toby was the best Rochester until...

Jane Eyre 2011: Michael Fassbender

Positive: To me, Michael did the best job of captivating the essence of Rochester. He had all the components that my mental Rochester possessed. I loved a particular scene in the movie where he was playing around on the piano and Fairfax comes up to him with a cup of tea and without even turning around he just snaps at her and says "KEEP IT!" He convincingly portrayed that sarcasm that Rochester had an abundance of. He was physically AND emotionally forceful. During the scene when Jane leaves, he actually edges on passionate violence when he takes her neck in his hands. He makes it obvious that Rochester physically overpowers her. His expression of passion is also deeply intense. There were so many expressions and mannerisms Michael portrayed that had me thinking "that is sooo Rochester."
Negative: He is deffinitely toooo handsome to be Rochester. Do you see that picture? Even with him being a bit uglied up for the role (complete with muttonchops and later on a beard), his sex appeal still shined through. You are NOT supposed to be swooning every time you see Rochester on the screen, which is what exactly what I was doing. It's such a shame because that was his only downside! He would have been absolutely perfect had it not been for the fact that he's sexy. Still, Fassbender was my favorite Rochester.

Overall, every Rochester brought something different to the table. I think the "real" Rochester had a combination of all these elements. Is there a perfect Rochester? I don't think so. If I could choose the "best" one, it would have to be almost a three way tie between Timothy Dalton, Toby Stephens, and Michael Fassbender. Sadly, the perfect Rochester lives only in my mind. But for future reference, if anyone is thinking of making another adaption, I would want to try casting Richard Armitage. :)