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. 

12. Colin Clive, Jane Eyre 1934

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.

11. Patrick Macnee, Jane Eyre 1957 

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.

10. Kevin McCarthy, Jane Eyre 1952

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?

9. Charlton Heston, Jane Eyre 1949 

Positive: 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 probing and coaxing a meek (in this adaptation, at least) Jane Eyre out of her shell. 

Negative: 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 allow that Heston is trying his best and doing an admirable job given the circumstances. 

8. George C. Scott, Jane Eyre 1970 

Positive: Despite its low ranking, this adaptation and its Rochester are close to my heart. As I've mentioned before, Scott's performance during the departure scene is particularly moving. His Rochester progresses through all the phases: he attempts to persuade Jane to stay with him and then dares her to leave. When she actually does, calls her back longingly, caresses her face, and begs her to wait. Scott brings a surliness to his portrayal of Rochester that works in tandem with the softness beneath. Jane slowly finds her way into his heart, creating a touching romance rooted in a kind of paternal tenderness and devotion. Scott's is different from most portrayals and maybe not so loaded with more erotic passion, but it is touching.

Negative: Scott's Rochester is tender and devoted, but is he Rochester? When it comes down to it, Scott never fully immerses himself in the character. As much as we love him, most Jane Eyre fans know that Rochester can get messy, ugly, even a little disconcerting. In short, he has real character flaws that should make an impression on the reader/viewer. Scott gets lost in the shuffle of Rochester performances because he plays the character too safe to make a lasting impact. 

7. William Hurt, Jane Eyre 1996 

Positive: Hurt's take on Rochester reminds the viewer of a key truth about the character: he is lonely. In this adaptation, Rochester has to learn how to connect intimately with another person, and it is a halting and 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 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 of Rochester. 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 vigor, physicality, and unrestrained emotion—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. 

6. Ciaran Hinds, Jane Eyre 1997

Positive: Viewers could never accuse Hinds of being too sedate, unlike Scott and Hurt. Hinds is committed to portraying a fierce and 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. 

5. Orson Welles, Jane Eyre 1943

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); his body and voice evoke the character's commanding physical presence. 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. Even amidst of the film’s crashing scores and moody mise en scène, Welles can be subtle too. His command of the departure scene is easy to overlook in favor of other adaptations’ longer and more passionate interpretations, but it’s just as moving. The gentleness in his voice and expressions in that scene and others takes my breath away, especially alongside the power and intensity of his early scenes. Welles shifts seamlessly from intimidating to tender. Misogyny aside, it’s no surprise that Welles demanded top billing over Joan Fontaine, who played the titular character. This film is an early Welles masterclass.

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

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 

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 description. 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 and engaging. 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'd 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 

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

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, 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 about what he feels that most people don'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.