The Many Faces of Rochester – Jane Eyre’s Romantic Hero

Posted by Kimberly Lindbergs on August 4, 2011

In a 2009 poll conducted by the popular romance book publisher Mills & Boon (Harlequin Enterprises), women unanimously voted to name Edward Fairfax Rochester the most romantic character in literature. Rochester is the brooding Byronic hero of Charlotte Bronte’s classic novel, Jane Eyre, which has been adapted for the big and small screen numerous times. In the most recent film adaptation of JANE EYRE (Cary Fukunaga; 2011), Michael Fassbender portrays Jane’s love interest but many distinguished leading men have interpreted Bronte’s beloved character over the years including Orson Welles, Colin Clive, George C. Scott and William Hurt. What makes Rochester so appealing? And is one actor’s portrayal more memorable than the rest?

Edward Fairfax Rochester isn’t particularly likable. He’s a troubled man weighed down by heavy responsibilities and unspeakable sorrows. He speaks bluntly without much thought about how his words might affect others. He’s dangerous but not particularly threatening. He’s not conventionally handsome but his wild dark locks and intense gaze instantly attract young Jane Eyre who is almost half his age. At 18, Jane hasn’t seen or experienced very much of the world but she thinks she knows right from wrong. She puts her faith in a God that hasn’t been particularly kind to her but when she meets Mr. Rochester her beliefs are tested and prove wanting. Rochester’s words shake Jane to her very core. She’s fascinated by his erratic moods and fiery temper that occasionally reflect her own inner turmoil. Like Jane herself, Rochester is a wounded soul and his remote and enigmatic nature appeal to the young woman’s curiosity. He’s unlike any man she’s ever encountered and his apparent uniqueness naturally entrances Jane who believes her love can save Rochester or at very least bring him some kind of peace. And in Bronte’s novel, it does. Jane’s love for Rochester truly conquers all but it’s the strange journey of their unexpected romance that makes their love story so compelling. Jane Eyre has been winning the hearts and minds of young women for decades. Every screen adaptation offers it’s own take on the mysterious Mr. Rochester and each portrayal has its defenders as well as its critics. I thought I’d take a look at some of the most popular adaptations of Jane Eyre and see if Rochester’s appeal rests between the pages of a book or has survived on screen.

In 1934 Monogram Pictures produced the first “talkie” version of Jane Eyre starring Colin Clive as Rochester. I’m very fond of Colin Clive. I love him in Universal’s FRANKENSTEIN films and have enjoyed him in movies like CHRISTOPHER STRONG (1933) and MAD LOVE (1935) but he’s an awful Rochester. His gentle and smiling portrayal strips Rochester of everything that made the character interesting to begin with but it’s really not his fault. The entire film is a mess. Christy Cabanne directed this disaster, which features the beautiful blond Virginia Bruce as one of the most ill cast Jane Eyre’s in the history of Hollywood. Don’t believe me? Just watch the following clip.

Nearly 10 years later Orson Welles portrayed Rochester in Robert Stevenson’s 1943 adaptation of JANE EYRE for Twentieth Century Fox. Welles’ booming voice and powerful presence made him the perfect Rochester and he doesn’t disappoint. He was just 28-years-old at the time and incredibly handsome, which benefits his performance. And he has great chemistry with his costar, Joan Fontaine, who is a timid and sympathetic Jane. This is my favorite adaptation of JANE EYRE because I love the way it accentuates the gothic elements of the original story. Welles impressive portrayal of Rochester may seem somewhat theatrical today but he set a benchmark that other actors have attempted to follow with mixed results. This clip shows just how intense Welles’ performance was.

Between 1949-1963 many actors portrayed Rochester in television productions of JANE EYRE that aired in the U.S. and the U.K. including Charlton Heston, Kevin McCarthy, Stanley Baker, Zachery Scott and Patrick Macnee. Unfortunately most of these television productions have been lost or are nearly impossible to see now but some of them sound very intriguing. I think Stanley Baker could have made an impressive Rochester so I hope footage of him from the 1956 television serial that he appeared in surfaces some day. If IMDb.com is any indication it impressed a lot of British TV viewers.

In 1971 George C. Scott played a very surly and memorable Rochester opposite Susannah York as Jane Eyre in an Emmy Award winning production that aired on television. Both of the actors were a bit too old and experienced for their respective roles but they’re both terrific actors and they give worthwhile performances. This production of JANE EYRE was one of the first that was shot outside a studio and it made great use of the natural landscape that is vividly described in Bronte’s original story. Unfortunately Scott lacks the sex appeal that is often associated with Rochester and his severe portrayal often reflects his age, which makes him appear more like a paternal figure instead of Jane’s love interest. But Scott and York did have some chemistry, which you can spot in this clip.

One of the best adaptations of JANE EYRE was produced for television in 1983 and starred Timothy Dalton as Rochester. I’ve always thought that Dalton was an underrated actor and his passionate portrayal of Rochester really gave him the opportunity to shine. His costar was Zelah Clarke and she lacks chemistry with Dalton even though the two actors worked well together. But this JANE EYRE adaptation is really Dalton’s show and he gave the role of Rochester his all, which is apparent in the following clip.

In 1996 William Hurt portrayed Rochester in Franco Zeffirelli’s lush film adaptation of JANE EYRE opposite Charlotte Gainsbourg. Like George C. Scott before him, Hurt is much too old for the role and he doesn’t make a very convincing Rochester. He’s not particularly awful but he just doesn’t have the kind of inner fire and morbid self-absorption that Rochester needs. In other words, he’s a nice guy trying to portray a bad boy and it just doesn’t work as you can see in this clip.

A year later Ciarán Hinds played Rochester in a 1997 television adaptation of JANE EYRE, which featured Samantha Morton as a very convincing Jane. Ciarán Hinds is a less believable Rochester and like Scott and Hurt before him, he lacks the sex appeal and passion that make the character of Rochester so compelling. He’s a dry and somewhat dull Rochester and I was left wondering why young Jane would be so drawn to him. His lackluster performance can be seen in the following clip.

Toby Stephens made a very unique Rochester in the 2006 BBC production of JANE EYRE opposite Ruth Wilson. His intense and fiery portrayal of the temperamental character brought some of Rochester’s more interesting traits to light. He looks the part of a Byronic hero but never softens his approach to the role. He’s tough and uncompromising but still incredibly charming, which made him very believable. The following clip highlights Ruth Wilson’s performance as Jane but you can also see some of the qualities that made Stephens such a convincing Rochester.

Most recently the talented actor Michael Fassbender portrayed Rochester in Cary Fukunaga’s film adaptation that will be released on DVD later this month. I’m an unapologetic Fassbender fan and I think with the right director he could have been a terrific Rochester but his performance is a little too subdued for my taste. He definitely looks the part but he seems to lack chemistry with his young costar, Mia Wasikowska, and there’s very little passion shared between the two. But it does have a lot of other qualities that I appreciated. I was especially impressed with the overall look and feel of Fukunaga’s JANE EYRE. And I loved its somewhat unconventional approach to telling Bronte’s all-too familiar story. You can appreciate the breathtaking production of the film when you watch the trailer.

So what actor has been the most compelling Rochester? My vote goes to Orson Welles with Timothy Dalton, Toby Stephens and Michael Fassbender trailing behind. Some critics think they’re all too handsome for the role but I disagree. Together these actors encompass many of the qualities that make Rochester the quintessential romantic hero that has been making women swoon for over 150 years.

27 Comments |

submit

27 Responses The Many Faces of Rochester – Jane Eyre’s Romantic Hero

Posted By Greg Ferrara : August 4, 2011 5:20 pm

I’m very fond of Colin Clive. I love him in Universal’s FRANKENSTEIN films and have enjoyed him in movies like CHRISTOPHER STRONG (1933) and MAD LOVE (1935) but he’s an awful Rochester.

I’ve never seen that version but as soon as I saw at the top of the post that he played Rochester, I thought, “Colin Clive? He’s all wrong.” My favorite is Welles but, ahem, I haven’t seen any others so, of course, he’s my favorite. But I love Orson Welles anyway and he does such a good job I don’t feel like I have to watch any others. And since you’ve done the legwork for me and also think he’s the best, I’m not going to. I’m going with Welles.

Posted By Kimberly Lindbergs : August 4, 2011 5:33 pm

Welles is tops! I think he just really understood the character in ways that other actors don’t. You’re wise to stick with his portrayal Greg, although I do think the production on the latest film is really lovely. But Fassbender should have been better. More intense. I know he has it in him.

As for Colin Clive, he really isn’t much of a Rochester at all. I think he could have been better if his role wasn’t so watered down but he’s just too excitable for the part. The role needs a more grounded earthy actor, which is why Welles is so perfect.

Posted By A.R. : August 4, 2011 6:15 pm

Not the quibble, but…. I reread the book last year and was under the impression that Rochester was around 40 years old or thereabouts. At the very least, the characters make mention of a 20 year age difference between the two characters. That would put someone like Hurt much closer than Welles.

Anyway, I’ve not seen any of these besides the version with Welles. He’s a pretty good Rochester, and I agree that he seemed to really get the character. Not overly fond of Joan Fontaine’s Jane, however.

Posted By Tom S : August 4, 2011 6:36 pm

The Welles version of Rochester is a great performance, but the movie as a whole is badly weakened because Jane herself is so miscast- Joan Fontaine was great in something like Rebecca, but Jane Eyre is supposed to be a strong, plain woman who won’t take shit from anybody (imagine if it had been Agnes Moorehead in that role.)

Because Joan’s Jane is so weak (it’s particularly shameful compared to the much tougher-seeming child actor they had for her) the character of Rochester is itself weakened- she’s playing her character from Rebecca, and so Welles’ Rochester turns too much into Maxim De Winter.

Posted By wrappedupinbooks : August 4, 2011 6:40 pm

I’m rather partial to Toby Stephens’s Rochester because I think he manages to capture the character’s brooding intensity and sardonic humor. Looking forward to seeing the most recent adaptation next month.

Posted By Kimberly Lindbergs : August 4, 2011 6:50 pm

I like Joan Fontaine so much (and REBECCA) that I tend to forgive her for playing Jane as a very timid woman with Rebecca-like qualities but you’re right, Tom. The film could have been stronger with a more spunky Jane. But one of reasons that I like the the Welles’ version so much is just the overall production and feel of the film. I think it’s the spookiest JANE EYRE adaptation and I love how it’s shot.

Posted By muriel schwenck : August 4, 2011 7:45 pm

I actually like Colin Clive as Rochester. He would have been OK if the script had been better. It’s hard to make a poverty row quickie from such a novel. Timothy Dalton is brilliant. The Welles/Fontaine movie is wonderful, the sets are great and they compress the story very well to fit it to movie length. I think a person should not compare the mini series versions with the movie versions. But do enjoy them all.
Don’t forget the SCTV parody where Joe Flaherty plays Mr. Rochester as the “Rochester” character from Jack Benny! Just look for “Jane Eyrehead” on youtube.

Posted By rtm : August 4, 2011 9:56 pm

I haven’t seen the Orson Welles version but my all time favorite Rochester has got to be Timothy Dalton. He’s perhaps too handsome but at least age-wise he’s just right and he brought such intensity and passion to the role. He also captured the brooding, temperamental personality of Rochester perfectly. I was excited to see Fassbender in the role in the latest adaptation as he’s a wonderful actor but he still can’t top Dalton. Great post!

Posted By Kimberly Lindbergs : August 4, 2011 9:58 pm

AR – I actually re-read Jane Eyre before writing this because I wanted to re-familiarize myself with the original text and in fact Rochester is less than half Jane’s age. To quote from the book: “… he was past youth, but had not reached middle-age; perhaps he might be thirty-five.” And considering Jane’s youth and somewhat naive outlook at times he may have even been a bit younger. William Hurt is also an actor that’s always seemed a bit older & wiser to me. Even in the ’80s he seemed like he was already in his ’40s. I do like him though and I’d even recommend the JANE EYRE adaptation he was in. And Charlotte Gainsbourg is an interesting Jane even if she follows in Fontaine’s footstep and plays her as a more timid/sweet natured character.

Posted By Kimberly Lindbergs : August 4, 2011 10:05 pm

wrappedupinbooks – Toby Stephens’ is very good and I liked his sense of humor too. I think he and Timothy Dalton had an advantage because they got to develop their characters more over a series instead of trying to cram their character into a two hour movie. I definitely recommend the new adaptation just for the look of it and I enjoyed Fassbender & Wasikowska even if though they seemed to lack some chemistry in their scenes together.

Posted By Kimberly Lindbergs : August 4, 2011 10:10 pm

muriel – I’m glad someone’s defending Colin Clive! I like him a lot and I really wanted to like his Rochester but it just didn’t work for me. I am happy it worked for someone though. It is a bit unfair to compare the various series adaptations to the film versions because as I mentioned to wrappedupinbooks above, Dalton & Stephens had the chance to really flush out their character. I haven’t seen the SCTV parody so thanks for mentioning it.

Posted By dukeroberts : August 4, 2011 10:51 pm

Kimberly- I would have to agree with you about Orson Welles being the best Rochester. His version is the best version I have seen. And now, some confessions: 1. I have only seen two of these versions. 2. I have never read the book. With these two confessions out in the open I must say that I found the 80′s version with Timothy Dalton pretty boring. I have not seen it since the 80′s when I was about 13. My opinion may change if I ever see it again, but I tried sitting through the Colin Firth Pride and Prejudice more than once and fell asleep each time, so I don’t expect I will revisit the Dalton Jane Eyre again anytime soon. My sister, however, thinks you’re crazy. She says that Timothy Dalton IS Rochester.

Posted By Juana Maria : August 5, 2011 11:18 am

I am not an expert on the differnt vrsions of “Jane Eyre”, I have seen the one with Orson Welles and “Masterpiece Theatre” while back. I love classic novels, especially Charles Dickens. Please will some one write about Dickens’ novels. I’ve read them quite a bit. Also Joseph Conrad, who few people even talk about. I have read 3 of his novels/short stories:”the Secret Sharer”;”Lord Jim” & “Heart of Darkness”. I love reading. It is still so important in out tech age we live in.

Posted By suzidoll : August 5, 2011 3:27 pm

I have to weigh in with Orson Welles as the best Rochester, mostly because of his charismatic presence combined with that terrific voice. Even Timothy Dalton, who comes in second for me, can’t compete with Welles’s vocal range and his absolute control over it. Some mention should also be made of the film’s expressionist visual style, which may have been Welles’s influence on director Robert Stevenson. George Barnes’s cinematography makes this film, in my opinion. The low angles on Rochester and the low-key lighting do a lot to romanticize the story and the character.

Posted By A.R. : August 5, 2011 4:17 pm

Kimberley: I think you’re right, and I misremembered that detail. It was probably something like “nearly 20 years” or similar. In which case, Hurt or Scott would have indeed been a bit too old for the role. My bad!

I’ve heard the latest version is quite good and was very close to seeing it when it hit theatres. Will definitely have to see it. And you’re not the first person I’ve read who praised Dalton in the role. Definitely not the person I would have pictured (Welles is much closer), but might also be worth checking out.

I’d like to see the version w/Morton as Jane, only because the clips I’ve seen reflect very much what I always imagined her to be like, i.e. somewhat shy and humble but w/an interior passion and stubbornness that mirrors Rochester’s external qualities. Fontaine doesn’t quite capture that in her performance. I still haven’t seen ‘Rebecca,’ but I’ve read the book and can definitely see her fitting that role far better.

Posted By missrhea : August 5, 2011 5:22 pm

I’ve seen only Orson Welles as Rochester but have a hard time imagining anyone else. After seeing him in “Hamlet”, I’d like to see David Tennant try it. He just turned 40 this year.

I am intrigued by Tom S.’s suggestion of someone like Agnes Moorehead in the role of Jane. Ms. Moorehead seems, in my mind at least, very typecast and bound by severe roles. Even in her more sympathetic ones (“Johnny Belinda” comes to mind) she seems hard.

Posted By Jandy Stone : August 5, 2011 10:44 pm

I would have to rewatch the Orson Welles version to judge for sure my thoughts about him in the role; I kind of downgrade the movie as a whole because I, too, think Joan Fontaine plays Jane too close the Rebecca narrator, which is not right. On the newest version, I can agree that Fassbender maybe could’ve been a little better, but that’s mostly because I think Fassbender’s such a great actor that he should’ve been smoldering off the screen at you. I do want to plug the newest version for its atmospheric quality, though – you praise the Welles version for that, but I don’t remember ever getting such a sense of the wildness of the moors as I did when watching Fukunaga’s version. It was incredibly visceral and immediate.

Posted By stefmagura : August 6, 2011 2:42 am

I watched the William Hurt versionand liked it a lot. At least, I think it was that one. Whichever version I watched though got me interested in the book, which I also really liked.

Posted By Jenni : August 6, 2011 9:20 pm

Welles is Rochester to me, and Toby Stephens is second. My daughter and I watched Masterpiece Theatre’s adaptation starring Stephens and he was very good in the role. I think you are right about the atmosphere of the 1944 Jane Eyre, the way it was filmed, the set designs, all played up the gothic parts of the tale. I let my 17 year old daughter watch it with me when she was 10 and it scared her. I think that picture’s style is what catapults it to the top of Jane Eyre’s in film, and Welles gets a lot of the credit for that, too. His voice is a wonder in that film!

Posted By Ari : August 8, 2011 10:41 am

Lovely summary. I did like Orson Welles’ performance, though I mentally tie it with Michael Fassbender’s. I actually think that he and Mia Wasikowska had an amazing chemistry and that his penetrating and gloomy take on the character was probably the best. At the same time, I believe that Orson Welles really encompasses all the aspects of Rochester best, whereas most actors who played the part tended to cater to one facet of Rochester in particular rather than the whole man. I am also SO glad that in one of your comments you mentioned that Jane described him as around thirty-five. On multiple occasions, Rochester pronounces himself ALMOST twenty years old than Jane which means that he could be no more than thirty-seven.

I also took the liberty of doing a bit of math. Rochester said he was sent to Jamaica and married Bertha Mason right after he finished college, which would render the assumption that he was twenty-one. On he and Jane’s ruined wedding day, it is revealed that the wedding date to Bertha was fifteen years prior. When you use those two clues, then that would put Rochester’s age at thirty-six; almost exactly between Jane’s description of thirty-five and fit into the idea that he was “almost” twenty years older than her.

Once again, great post.

Posted By Traxy : August 8, 2011 11:50 am

What a shame you didn’t list Michael Jayston (BBC, 1973). It would have been really interesting to see what you would’ve made of him! Other than that, I mostly agree to the article’s analysis. :)

Posted By Jim Lane : August 9, 2011 5:48 am

I haven’t seen all the productions you list here, but I have seen several, and I too fell early under the spell of Orson Welles; he remains my yardstick for measuring Rochesters (from your clips, Dalton seems to me to come closest; must seek that one out). Like Laurence Olivier’s Darcy in the 1940 Pride and Prejudice, Welles in 1943 strikes me as the perfect Rochester playing the role at exactly the right moment in his career.

Posted By iluvcinema : August 9, 2011 8:04 pm

To date I have seen:

Welles
Stephens
Fassbender
Hurt
and maybe a couple of others

When I was in high school I could not get past the waistline of Welles’ pants – they seemed so high; silliness aside, I think he did a good job. One look at my blog and you will see I am a Fassbender girl BUT I really liked Toby Stephens’ portrayal so the edge goes to him.

Posted By Anna Marie : August 21, 2011 5:24 pm

My favorite Rochester was Orson Welles. He was indeed melencholy and proud. He had that deep commanding voice that I envisioned belonging to Mr. Rochester. Joan Fontaine was very believable as Jane, and they shared good chemistry. I never tire of watching any version of Jane Eyre. It has always been my favorite novel as a girl, and I love it as much 50 years later as I did then. Thank you for posting this wonderful article.

Posted By Kimberly Lindbergs : August 22, 2011 2:31 pm

Just wanted to say thanks for all the nice comments! I really appreciate it and it’s nice to know that there are so many Rochester fans out there. And I’m happy to know I’m not the only one who is especially fond of Welles’ performance.

Posted By muriel schwenck : September 2, 2011 4:58 pm

Regarding Fontaine’s hesitant Jane: that’s Hollywood for you. Fontaine had the acting chops to play the character with a bit more spine, but I doubt the producer/director wanted that kind of character. Actually Olivia de Havilland would also have been good as Jane! They managed to convey plenty in 90 minutes: Welles distinction, the terrific ensemble cast and the wonderful gothic look brings it beautifully to life.

Posted By Al Lowe : September 12, 2011 1:40 am

How about James Mason as Rochester?

I know from an interview he did with a film magazine that he tried for years to interest studio bosses in a remake starring himself.

Then there is “Password,” the TV quiz show starring Allen Ludden. The nightime version attracted some of the biggest stars in Hollywood: Anne Bancroft, Olivia DeHavilland, Joan Crawford, Jerry Lewis, Anthony Perkins, Jack Benny, Woody Allen, James Stewart, etc. and it is available on DVD.
One episode featured James Mason and Jane Fonda as opposing players.
Mason does not seem to be having much fun, for some reason. He is not relaxed at all.
He does get to promote his latest movie – LOLITA.
And – an upcoming TV version of “Jane Eyre.”
Did that TV show ever happen? We may never know.

He was right, though. He would have been well cast in the part.

MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.