So I guess there are some disparaging remarks going around regarding the casting of Masterpiece Theatre's production of Jane Eyre (OK, one blog that I read contained some remarks). They generally stem from the fact that the actor who was cast in the role of Mr. Rochester happens to be both somewhat young and somewhat sexy. I happened to watch this production on PBS, and let me just say this: I LIKE SEXY. So you can all go soak your heads. And I say that with some amount of knowledge of other casting decisions regarding Mr. Rochester, having seen at least three different interpretations of Jane Eyre on film.
OK. Let me first lay out the problem for those of you who may not understand. The character of Mr. Rochester in Charlotte Bronte's novel Jane Eyre is dark, brooding, dangerous, kinda weird and wild-looking, and extremely passionate. I always got the impression that he was very masculine and muscular and rugged, in a time period when perhaps slightly more effeminate men were in fashion. At certain points, Bronte describes him as being ugly, and I guess some casting directors take this as an imperative to cast unattractive people in the role, but I have to disagree. The actor in that role has to make himself as attractive to the audience as he is to Jane. This is hard to do if you're not somewhat handsome. People can do it, don't get me wrong, it's just difficult. So let's compare the most recent Mr. Rochester to others before him, and see how he stacks up in the gosh-i'd-like-to-mack-on-him department.
I'll start off with Ciaran Hinds. Let me tell you, Ciaran Hinds, while making an intriguing Julius Caesar in Rome, is no Mr. Rochester. He's OLD. You cannot imagine yourself kissing him unless you are over fifty (for the men in the audience, if there are any: imagining yourself kissing Mr. Rochester is very important to the believability of the character). Mr. Rochester is supposed to be older than Jane by maybe 20 years or so, which means he should be around 40. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, Ciaran Hinds is somewhat older than that in his particular production of Jane Eyre, and it is palpably uncomfortable to watch him kiss a dewey 20-year-old. I think the feeling I'm looking for here is: YUCK.
Another option is William Hurt. Now, while he seems to be more in the age range for the character, I'm sorry, but he's William Hurt. He is not Mr. Rochester. For one thing, Mr. Rochester is supposed to be dark-haired, and William Hurt is not. Also, he's just not passionate enough. He's mopey and subdued. Away with you, William Hurt (but I still like you, because you were the perfect Macon Leary in The Accidental Tourist; in fact, maybe you were a little too perfect, because now I can't picture you as anyone else).
This brings us to our third Mr. Rochester--Orson Welles, pre-grotesque obesity. He is the only other acceptable Mr. Rochester, all dark and dangerous, and might I add, very very sexy. The only bad part of this film is Joan Fontaine, who is quite obviously too pretty and Hollywood to play plain Jane, but other than that major flaw, it's a good flick. I might say that Welles is a little too polished for the role of Mr. Rochester, but then it's been awhile since I've seen it. I do remember that every time they panned in on him he was swathed in mysterious shadow.
Toby Stephens, in the most recent production of which I now speak, is younger than all of the above actors and, with the possible exception of Orson Welles, is also hotter. I think this is fine. I don't see the problem here. Anything that makes me think, "Man, that Jane Eyre sure is lucky!" is perfectly acceptable to me, and in fact is to be striven for. I mean, yes, I agree that you don't want some Brad Pitt (who by the way is kind of a girly man, if you know what I'm saying) playing the role of Mr. Rochester. You want someone with a little grit to him, someone who could take another guy in a fight. I think Toby Stephens (pictured here) is bang-on for the role. He's somewhat wrinkled and world-weary; he's obviously seen his share of troubles, and really, he's not all that young. And yet you can also look at him, and say, "Damn! Give me some of THAT!"
Is all I'm saying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Could not agree more! I think people are missing the point that Rochester might not have been the typical Grecian god of the period but Bronte's description does not make him a Vulcan either (although he muses about being one), quite the contrary...
You might be interested in checking the opinion of a blogger called The Royal Anna (on livejournal). She rightly said that Rochester is scientifically impossible as he is "The most attractive unattractive man in literature". The more I revisit the book, the more I think Stephen's casting was inspired and spot on!
I most definitely wanted Toby Stephens to get on me, but I just thought having a superhot Rochester makes his appeal to Jane too easy. And it makes him almost an a-hole when he is toying with her. A secretly attractive dude flirting with a plain girl makes my heart race; a hot guy flirting with a plain girl makes me question his motives and want to punch him.
Ciaran Hinds was 43 or 44 when he filmed his Rochester, so not so far out of the age range. I liked his roaring Rochester, tempestuous and passionate. I agree there is a bit of a yuck factor in the scene under the tree when Jane and Rochester admit their love for one another, but the yuck factor had nothing to do with Hinds, in my opinion. Rather, the bizarre kissing is really off-putting to me - Jane's mouth looks better suited for a sleazy men's magazine cover than it ought to, given the character. Quite bizarre, and truly yuck, but no fault of Ciaran Hinds, whose body of work vouches for the fact he knows how to kiss his leading ladies :)
Post a Comment