Last Updated on April 9, 2023
Jane Eyre is an unassuming young woman living in the early Victorian era, somewhere in the north of England. She becomes governess to a little girl at Thornfield Hall; the estate’s owner and the child’s guardian is Mr. Edward Fairfax Rochester, a brooding man with a dark secret.
To help keep this site running: Willow and Thatch may receive a commission when you click on any of the links on our site and make a purchase after doing so.
At the heart of Charlotte Brontë’s most celebrated work is the “it’s complicated” romance between Jane and Mr. Rochester. This is a love story that transcends time, and any screen adaptation of Brontë’s 1847 novel can only be as good as its two lead actors. So which on-screen couple best showcases one of literature’s most known and loved couples?
Here, we consider the Jane-Rochester dynamic in 5 adaptations. We’ve ranked them from our least to most favorite, but everything here is worth watching.
#5 Jane Eyre (1997) Samantha Morton and Ciarán Hinds
It takes time to appreciate Robert Young’s “Jane Eyre.” Integral narrative elements have been excluded from the movie, leaving the actors without valuable and formative moments to sufficiently develop their characters. Samantha Morton (Harlots) and Ciarán Hinds (The Mayor of Casterbridge) do what they can with what they are given, but it may not be enough for Brontë readers.
With her tranquil demeanor and inherent repose, Samantha Morton is a lovely Jane Eyre. She radiates with mirth, her eyes sparkling with pleasure in Mr. Rochester’s presence. In the book, after a childhood of mockery and fear, adult Jane forgives her dying aunt. But her trip to Gateshead to visit her aunt does not feature in the film. Though the audience detects Jane’s kindness in Morton’s interpretation, we don’t witness the fullness of Jane’s fortitude, and miss her generous spirit.
Ciarán Hinds’ brusque, and at times positively cruel, Mr. Rochester is Jane’s absolute antithesis. Hinds is a talented actor, but the film’s interpretation of Brontë’s hero is unsettling.
Mr. Rochester is known to be moody, but in this version he is belligerent with Jane. He yells that he knew she would leave him and that she should “try to be more original” when she departs upon learning of his wife, Bertha. He then grabs her tightly about the arms as she avoids his eye. His attempt to force her into his arms is an uncomfortable departure from Jane’s acquiescence in the novel. Even she seems repulsed by him at this moment.
Although this version has its shortcomings, it is worth watching more than once to make a full-formed assessment. In one sense, Hinds’ basest version of Mr. Rochester is truly vulnerable and pitiable. He provokes the question of whether this hero is truly likable. In this way, Robert Young’s “Jane Eyre” gives food or thought to any Brontë fan already decided on who plays Mr. Rochester the best. Currently streaming for free, with ads at the link below.
Watch Jane Eyre (1997) NOW
#4 Jane Eyre (1983) Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton
With measured dialogue and long steady takes, Julian Amyes’ eleven-part BBC mini-series feels as intimate as a stage play. The episodes do not rely on sweeping exterior shots or clever manipulation of light and shadow. This adaptation is intriguing because it leaves more space for intimate character interactions and spends less time glorifying the Yorkshire terrain.
This adaptation differs from others in its thorough exploration of Jane’s childhood in her aunt’s estate, Gateshead. Bessie Lee, the maid, is the sole loving relationship Jane experiences while living with the Reeds. The only other compassionate figure in her life is Maria Temple, a kind teacher at Lowood School. Their presence in the series is integral to the audience’s understanding of Jane’s development as a person.
Zelah Clarke’s Jane is sweet-tempered and accommodating. Her face is an open book, her eyes seemingly always on the brink of tears. Most impressive of all is Timothy Dalton’s portrayal of the temperamental Edward Rochester. Upon formally meeting her, Rochester unkindly declares that Jane has not enough skill or science to draw well. Jane isn’t phased, but is quick to take the sketchbook Rochester briskly thrusts at her.
Timothy Dalton doesn’t have Rochester’s “shaggy black mane” or craggy ugliness. In fact, he is rather handsome with his cleft chin and dark brow. Mr. Rochester exposes his history of moral weakness to Jane in a Shakespearean monologue. The focus progressively tightens on Dalton’s face and captures each sardonic quirk of his mouth.
Dalton demonstrates his acting range when he dresses up as the gypsy fortune teller, a scene sourced directly from the novel. His voice becomes shrill as he obscures his face and teases Jane. Other directors and actors have shied away from this moment. The choice to retain it allows a glimpse into Mr. Rochester’s innate levity.
To some, the series may seem old fashioned without the magnificent visual elements of more contemporary adaptations. Amyes’ carefully focuses on dialogue and character dynamics, making this adaptation an especially appropriate choice for those who have read and loved Bronte’s novel.
Watch Jane Eyre (1983) NOW
#3 Jane Eyre (2011) Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender
Director Cary Joji Fukunaga’s 2011 film adaptation is undoubtedly gorgeous to behold, but the compacted nature of a feature film means sacrificing depth in the actors’ portrayals.
Mia Wasikowska (Crimson Peak, Madame Bovary) and Michael Fassbender (12 Years a Slave, The Light Between Oceans) cross paths in the dark stone-walled corridors and low-lit rooms of Thornfield Hall. Rife with exterior shots of storm-grey heather upon the rising moors, the film’s cinematography and setting practically pull viewers into the blistering cold of northern England.
Wasikowska’s and Fassbender’s renditions of Jane and Mr. Rochester aren’t quite as awe-inspiring. In the novel, Mr. Rochester initially presents himself as prideful, moody, and “harsh to inferiority of every description,” as Jane describes. However, time exposes a communicative man who “liked to open to a mind unacquainted with the world glimpses of its scenes and ways.”
Though he appears brusque, Mr. Rochester shares a sensitivity with Jane that ultimately turns her heart towards him. Fassbender, commits to Mr. Rochester’s choleric temperament and refuses to evolve along with the story. In short, he is more akin to Emily Brontë’s hero, the rancorous Heathcliff.
Wasikowska is as restrained as her corset-clad waist. Jane Eyre is poised, but Wasikowska’s portrayal is positively austere. Brontë’s Jane is not as plain nor as obscure as others may assume. In the novel, there is a fire and intelligence in her that is evidenced by her ability to hold her own while jesting with Mr. Rochester. Unfortunately, the ease of verbal sparring does not translate as well on screen; the audience does not see two intellectual equals grow closer through a mutual sense of humor, but rather a cold man suddenly declare love for an inscrutable woman.
The course of Jane’s and Mr. Rochester’s relationship comes to an abrupt climax because the audience is deprived of the fully imagined romance that Charlotte Brontë curated for her readers. Despite these flaws, Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender are perfect accessories in Cary Joji Fukunaga’s gothic pastiche, and the stunning visuals go a long way to help make this a compelling adaptation.
Watch Jane Eyre (2011) NOW
#2 Jane Eyre (1996) Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt
Franco Zeffirelli’s somber movie expertly captures the gloom of Jane’s lonely childhood and troublesome experience at Thornfield Hall. Anna Paquin’s (Alias Grace) young Jane Eyre immediately steals the show. She is quietly defiant when told she is to be relocated to Lowood School. For such a small child, she possesses the courage of conviction that defines Jane Eyre as a character.
This adaptation modifies the scene from the novel in which Jane inadvertently drops her slate. In the film, Jane’s sickly friend Helen has her hair cut when the school supervisor, Mr. Brocklehust, discovers her without her cap. In an act of solidarity, Jane comes forward and demands that her long locks be hacked too. Although this moment isn’t directly sourced from the book, its inclusion is a strong introduction to the eponymous heroine.
Allesio Vlad’s and Claudio Capponi’s symphonic score lends an operatic element to the period drama. Zeffirelli created productions such as La bohème for the Metropolitan Opera, and that experience clearly influences the mood of this gothic, yet gentle interpretation.
Charlotte Gainsbourg’s grown up Jane and William Hurt’s Mr. Rochester are tender lovers that yearn for each other in wounded silence. Hurt embodies Rochester’s less-than-handsome physicality and his “strong features, firm, grim mouth.”
His version of Rochester is subdued and less prone to verbal tirades and sharp quips than his character in the book, and his coolness of character matches Jane’s severity, upon which he remarks: “you have the air of a little nun: quaint, quiet, grave and simple.” His melancholic thoughtfulness takes the place of fiery passion.
The most glaring difference between Zeffirelli’s adaptation and the novel is the minimization of Jane’s flight from Thornfield Hall. In the novel, Jane is forced to sleep outdoors and beg for food while attempting to escape the temptation to live as Mr. Rochester’s mistress.
In the film, Jane only endures a long coach ride back to Gateshead where she becomes acquainted with St. John Rivers. The development of this relationship is brief and unremarkable. Jane’s wild foray in the moors is an iconic display of Jane’s anguish as she departs from her one true love. Without it, the film suffers a loss of key character exposition.
Despite the abbreviated nature of the film, “Jane Eyre” is deeply romantic and perhaps overlooked largely because of its solemnity. While some literary elements are lost to Hollywood, Gainsbourg and Hurt make up for this shortcoming by imbuing a strong sense of intimacy between their characters.
Jane’s return to Thornfield incites Mr. Rochester to stand from his solitary chair — though precariously — with his cane. The pair bolster each other and share a long-awaited and passionate kiss. Their coming together again at the end of the film is a sweet reconciliation between the screen and the page.
Watch Jane Eyre (1996) NOW
#1 Jane Eyre (2006) Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens
Susanna White’s four-part BBC serial adaptation proves that stories can truly flourish when they are told at the intended pace. Brontë purists will be satisfied by the miniseries starring Ruth Wilson (Mrs. Wilson, The Little Stranger) in her first major role as Jane Eyre and Toby Stephens (Black Sails, And Then There Were None) as Mr. Rochester.
Much of the screenplay and character building is sourced directly from the novel. With abundant time to develop the plot, the two lead actors are given form to fleshed-out versions of their characters.
Stephens’ Rochester is the kind of capricious Byronic hero that Brontë intended. He demonstrates the “friendly frankness” that makes Mr. Rochester a diverse character and not merely a granite shape of a man with whom Jane Eyre is meant to fall in love.
Wilson’s Jane is observant and capable of biting wit. She incites Mr. Rochester’s jealousy for her own amusement when recounting her time with St. John Rivers. When Mr. Rochester asks if he is much more handsome than he, Jane responds: “Oh, he’s much more handsome than you. And he’s a far better Christian of course than you ever were.”
The BBC mini-series brings the author’s characters to life; Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens thrive in the extended television series and as a result they perfectly embody Charlotte Brontë’s nuanced lovers.
Watch Jane Eyre (2006) NOW
Jane Eyre presents love as a superior force wielded by two human beings with compatible and inseparable spirits. Whichever version viewers choose to watch, Brontë’s classic is an integral piece of our cultural landscape that should continue to be parsed, enjoyed, and adapted.
Kailey Rhone makes use of her English degree working as a production editor in the world of academic publishing. She can be found rewatching “Downton Abbey” and sipping on another cup of Earl Grey when she’s not writing about the intersection of feminism and Jane Austen’s novels. Her work can be found in Persuasions.
If you enjoyed this post, wander over to The Period Films List. You’ll also want to visit our review of Emily (2022), 30 Period Romances You Haven’t Seen and Matthew Macfadyen is My Mr. Darcy.
NellMarch 3, 2023 at 11:03 pm (3 months ago)
I agree quite a bit on your opinion on the above versions, but for you to leave out the 1943 version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine is, frankly, a travesty. The narration, the atmosphere of it, is unmatched in any other version. Not to mention the chemistry between Welles & Fontaine, but most especially Orson’s portrayal of Edward. He is alternately moody, passionate and tortured. Although I love the 1983 version with Dalton, no one compares to Orson Welles’ Rochester.Reply
AdeleJuly 22, 2022 at 5:48 am (10 months ago)
But you forgot the magnificent Mr. Rochester played by Michael Jayston! This 1973 adaptation is mesmerizing and so ramantic, mainly because of him. His voice, his way of looking at her and of reaching out for her hand in so many scenes, his way of delivering the lines so naturally and yet passionately – perfection. I can imagine no other Mr. Rochester. Sorcha Cusack is a very fine and talented actress too. Youtube has been blocking it worldwide for no reason. It is such a pity – this Youtube issue is the only reason so few were able to watch this version. DVDs are also hard to find. The 1983 and 2006 BBC adaptations are also brilliant. It is hard to choose but the 1973 is still the best of the best and so delicately romantic and passionate. The movies are too short to capture everything. Mia Wasikowska was so gloomy in every scene, which was annoying. Ciaran Hinds is awful… his way of always barking at her for no reason and the separation scene when he is throwing her suitcase downstairs and is so violent… sorry, it is a no no. Mr. Rochester was a gentleman. Samantha Morton was very good in the role though. George C. Scott deserves special praise for his elegant, gentlemanlike, heartfelt portrayal of Mr. Rochester. But only the 3 BBC mini series are truly faithful to the book (despite the 2006 one adjustments).Reply
MichelleNovember 21, 2021 at 8:04 pm (2 years ago)
There is only one version, Jane Eyre 1983.Reply
MichelleJuly 10, 2021 at 9:41 am (2 years ago)
Great article! Watching BBC’s 2006 Jane Eyre currently. Looking forward to browsing this blog to find some period pieces I may have missed.Reply
David F PerfetteMay 23, 2021 at 6:51 pm (2 years ago)
The Wassilowska/Fassbender version was my favorite, and the Gainsbourg/Hurt version also very good. I tried watching a couple of the other ones mentioned but just couldn’t stick with it. What did it for me was that the Wassilowska version best captured this percipience of intellect and feeling, expressed especially through the writing for and acting of Wassilowska.
One reviewer thought the two lacked any kind of true connection and I don’t think that’s true. I think what she’s pointing to has more to do with the characters of Rochester and Jane than with the writing for the actors, or their incompatibility. You have two damaged people who do connect in a strong way, but each of their history, trauma and damage leaves them finding connection in a way that works similarly for both of them. Remember Rochester querying Jane for her tale of woe. They both have a tale of woe. They both intellectualize their pain. One, Rochester, has extroverted feelings while Jane’s pain is expressed inward. That works well together. They’re both very intuitive dominant people as well. They connect quite strongly there.
I find that the MBTI is very helpful with stuff like this, and the recipe for a strong connection is typically that they share two main functions that complement each other, where one is expressed inwardly while the complementary function for the other is extroverted. I believe these two are INFP (Jane) and INTJ (Rochester). NFP and NTJ are a typical match, and you can see it conspicuously at work. Rochester: ” What is your tale of woe?” “I want to draw you out Jane Eyre”. This interaction demonstrates both of their two dominant functions at work. Jane: Extroverted intuition and introverted feeling. Rochester: Introverted intuition and extroverted thinking.Reply
LeilaMay 16, 2021 at 11:34 am (2 years ago)
I saw all five versions Jane Eyre and in my teenage years i was in love Dalton’s Rochester..I didn’t care any Jane,neither of them were close to my imagination ..Reply
BUT after – 1997 version with Samantha Morton(best Jane ever) and Ciaran Hinds Rochester <3 is best for me 🙂 I fall in love to this adaptation of Jane Eyre – this two actors are so incredible and….i switch from Dalton to Ciaran Hinds <3 ….. sorry Timothy :)))))
I just can't watch any other Jane Eyre's versions any more – 1997 Jane and Rochester are best,timeless,so natural for me <3
LisaDecember 29, 2020 at 9:56 pm (2 years ago)
I haven’t seen all of these, but I recently watched the Wilson/Stephens version. It’s the first time I could see Jane and Mr. Rochester as a genuine, warm couple. The Mia W/Fassbender version just made them seem like a completely mismatched pair that sort of liked each other for no apparent reason. Their mutual agony after the wedding-that-was-not wasn’t convincing to me, although I loved the depiction of how abusive St. John Rivers really was.Reply
T SinyardDecember 29, 2020 at 8:39 pm (2 years ago)
I adored Dalton’s mesmerizing portrayal of Rochester and his is easily my favorite version.Reply
Lois Nielsen-JohnsDecember 14, 2020 at 1:16 am (2 years ago)
I commented a few minutes ago expressing my preference for the Zelah Clarke/Timothy Dalton version. However I must give honorable mention to Orson Welles as Mr. Rochester, Welles is not handsome, but has the intelligence and virility required of the character. That movie version is too short, and makes too many changes, but Orson Welles is a standout.Reply
Jim MoranOctober 1, 2021 at 1:24 pm (2 years ago)
Agree that this version is too short – especially since Welles trumps the other actors mentioned here in terms of closeness to what Bronte actually wrote. I love Dalton and company, but Welles blasts away the competition with two of his signature attributes- those unbelievably expressive eyes and that rich, sonorous baritone voice that no one else can match.
Lois Nielsen-JohnsDecember 14, 2020 at 12:56 am (2 years ago)
My favorite is the Zelah Clarke/Timothy Dalton version. Dalton is a bit too handsome for the Rochester described in the novel, but he has a knack for playing Bronte characters well (see Wuthering Heights). The growing intensity of feeling between the two main characters is excellent. I will look for the 1973 Sorcha Cusack version.Reply
KatherineNovember 1, 2020 at 7:09 pm (3 years ago)
The 1970 version with Susannah York and George C Scott should have been included. York was wonderfully compelling but I was pleasantly surprise that Scott’s performance was restrained and at times quite tender.Reply
Sarah CordsNovember 1, 2020 at 8:47 am (3 years ago)
LOVE this article! Jane Eyre has never been my favorite story (although I agree, the Ruth Wilson/Toby Stephens adaptation was awesome, but I lose all objectivity when it comes to Toby Stephens), but now I want to watch ALL of these!Reply
JudithOctober 25, 2020 at 9:29 am (3 years ago)
Really enjoyed reading this article as I’m reading the book again. I completely agree with the 2006 version being the best adaptation: the characters’ portrayal by Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens are spot on and their chemistry is the best I’ve ever witnessed on any screen.Reply
AMay 20, 2020 at 11:56 am (3 years ago)
A friend introduced me to the best version I’ve ever seen, from 1973, starring Sorcha Cusack.Reply