Too many dang SEXY JANE EYRE adaptations out there, that’s the problem. Friends, I don’t object to sexiness qua sexiness, but Jane Eyre is a book about ugly people. If I accomplish one thing in my life, let it be the increased acceptability in casting the ugly and the weird-looking in period dramas. We would all be the better for it. Interesting things happen to people with bad bone structure, you know, and there’s something particularly ridiculous about watching Babe after Babe deliver the “poor, obscure, plain, and little” monologue to some smooth-faced Male Babe in a billowing cravat.
Also, watching Michael H. Roosevelt Fassbender ask “Do you find me handsome?” and getting “no” for an answer was one of the most ridiculous cheats Hollywood ever attempted to perpetrate on my person, and if I ever meet him I will knock him down for making me sit through that scene.
Honestly, we don’t need another Jane Eyre adaptation; what we need is an adaptation of The Wanderer, but we live in the world that we live in, and there will be more Jane Eyre adaptations shoved into our eyeballs as surely as I’m living. The point is that I don’t just want to look at a bunch of grotesques for the sake of OLD TIMEY AUTHENTICITY or what have you, the point is that Jane Eyre is a book fundamentally about ugly people. Not unattractive people – they’re very attracted to one another – but ugly.
Remember that scene when two of the Reed family’s servants sort of casually dismiss the fact that she’s a victim of child abuse because she’s ugly?
Bessie, when she heard this narrative, sighed and said, “Poor Miss Jane is to be pitied, too, Abbot.”
“Yes,” responded Abbot; “if she were a nice, pretty child, one might compassionate her forlornness; but one really cannot care for such a little toad as that.”
“Not a great deal, to be sure,” agreed Bessie: “at any rate, a beauty like Miss Georgiana would be more moving in the same condition.”
“Yes, I doat on Miss Georgiana!” cried the fervent Abbot. “Little darling!–with her long curls and her blue eyes, and such a sweet colour as she has; just as if she were painted!”
NOT TO MAKE YOU FEEL BAD ABOUT YOURSELF BUT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS EVERY TIME WE CAST A BABE AS JANE EYRE, WE HAVE GOT TO BE ABLE TO EXTEND OUR SYMPATHY AND ABILITY TO IDENTIFY WITH SOMEONE ELSE’S EXPERIENCE TO THE NON-HOT OR ELSE WE’RE GONNA GET REAL BORING AND AWFUL REAL FAST. GOTTA CARE FOR THE TOADS. JANE EYRE IS A TOAD BOOK, AND DON’T YOU TRY TO WORK AROUND THAT BY CASTING A BUTTERFLY WITH A SEVERE HAIRSTYLE.
like, see, that’s a babe
that’s a babe
here’s another babe
babe o’clock
WHEN EVEN BERTHA IS A BABE YOU HAVE GOT YOURSELF A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE TEXT, MON FRIEND
WE NEED SOME WEIRDOS IN THIS MIX. Okay, I’m not going to give you any names, because everyone currently working in the field of acting is still too good-looking to please me, but here are some casting guidelines that should help.
Jane Eyre: An electric eel, a haunted player-piano, a family Bible that smells weird and has a bunch of names written in the back that you don’t recognize, a weird bird that someone just kicked accidentally, some wet batteries
Mr. Rochester: An old boot stuffed with paper bags full of spaghetti, an angry hat, punched-up Mickey Rourke at the end of The Wrestler but without plastic surgery, a TV that’s just been turned off but is still warm
Bertha Mason: That feeling when you’ve been throwing up for ages and you know you’re going to throw up again but there’s nothing left to throw up, not even stomach acid, so you just have the horrible sensation of interior folding and retching until you can’t breathe
St. John Rivers: Yeah, go ahead and cast a babe, obviously.
Tags: books, dream-casting, jane eyre
It’s already been taken care of. Andrea Martin is still the gold substandard in ‘Jane Eyrehead’. https://vimeo.com/21000344
Agreed!
Jane Eyrehead! someone else who remembers that sketch! the so non PC Joe Flaherty in blackface as Mr. Rochester.
Samantha Morton is obviously too much of a babe to play Jane Eyre, but otherwise, I think the 1995 casting was pretty good, looks-wise. Ciaran Hinds can make up for his face with smolder, but he’s kind of a strange-looking dude with a weird, downturned mouth.
The problem with Ciaran Hinds as Rochester is that (a) I can’t decide whether the mustache is hot or goofy, which is a problem common to mustaches, I find, and (b) HE’S ALREADY CAPTAIN WENTWORTH, DAMMIT.
I think Samantha Morton at least makes me believe. Something about the forehead. Very austere, almost a little otherworldly.
Ok, but he’s not hot as Captain Wentworth either, let’s be real. He’s compelling, he’s intriguing, he’s brooding and soulful, but he’s still not hot.
And the mustache is goofy. It would still be goofy on a handsomer face, but Ciaran Hinds does not have a face that is suited by that or any other mustache.
We shall have to disagree on the hotness of Mr. Hinds, because damn, he does it for me.
Oh, he does it for me as well. But I credit that to his own magnetism, because I think he’s objectively weird-looking. It’s just that he’s one of those people who can make it work.
He does it for me too, but he’s not a physically attractive man.
If you do not want his Captain Wentworth, I will happily take it.
I absolutely want his Captain Wentworth, but I do not find him handsome.
Handsome enough to tempt me!
Hot doesn’t equal handsome!! Captain Wentworth is sexy as f.
I was so excited when he was cast as Rochester, and then he was given that absurd moustache. *weep*
I agree. He’s weird looking, and ALSO hot, which means he’s perfect for Rochester. Although his brow should ideally be lower.
Obviously Wentworth is smoking. But he’s not clasically beautiful or anything. He’s charismatic, and I believe him as Caesar, but I also believe him as the kind of creepy loser dude in Oscar and Lucinda, for instance. I was astonished by how unattractive I found him in that movie.
I haven’t seen this version but looking at the stills it seems like at least they made an EFFORT.
He is SO PERFECT as Caesar, and his chemistry with Lindsay Duncan as Servilia was just off the charts. Some of my favourite sexual tension depicted on screen, both by actors of middle age – yessss! You’re right about his versatility – I think that’s not just due to his unconventional looks, but the fact that he’s just a sterling actor. He completely inhabits his role. In the recent Game of Thrones he had a relatively small part but basically acted his co-actors off the screen each time.
Nope, Ruth Wilson is still the perfect Jane in my book. Her face is interesting enough that she could easily read as plain, especially in period clothes and hair, but she’s still captivating and convincingly fairy-like that it would make sense that Rochester would call her elfin.
Plus she’s an amazing actress and she had ridiculous chemistry with Toby Stephens. I WILL STAN FOR THE 2006 ADAPTATION UNTIL MY DYING DAY.
But I agree, no one has ever called Fassbender ugly in his life. I straight up laughed hysterically at that line.
I agree wholeheartedly about the Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens adaptation.
Thirding all the love for that adaptation. They stretched it quite a bit calling Toby Stephens ugly (because DANG, unnnnhhh), but calling Fassbender ugly in the recent movie version made me laugh too.
My cousin and I diligently watched 12 or 13 Jane Eyre adaptations over the course of a winter, and we concluded that the Ruth Wilson one was the best of the faithful adaptations, though not as good as either Rebecca or I Walked With a Zombie.
REBECCA IS SO GOOD. Movie sidebar: I re-watched it a few months ago and had the thought that Frau Blucher in Young Frankenstein was an homage to Danvers. It makes me happy to think that possibly Mel Brooks is a fan of du Maurier.
Anyway, the Ruth Wilson adaption is really wonderful, although Toby Stephens is way too hot.
Whoa, there are that many Jane Eyre adaptations?
THAT ADAPTATION WAS *RIDICULOUS* IT WAS THE SEXIEST OF THEM ALL
Too many strong jawlines and cleft chins in these Janes Eyre.
I MEAN REALLY. THE MAKING OUT AND STUFF.
STILL MAD.
I know it’s totally not faithful to the book, but that hasn’t stopped me watching those scenes more than five or six* times on my cherished DVD copy.
*OK, way more than five or six
Well yeah. I mean I’m mad, but I’m not blind. Toby Stephens (fans self) is a very good actor.
Wait, the book Jane Eyre has HELLA makeouts! I mean, that’s always been one of its chief selling points! How are these specific makeouts not faithful to the book?
It does?!? I have obviously not re-read it in a while. BRB…or maybe not *right* back, ahem…
There’s mad sexual tension. Inappropriate smoldering and canoodling all over the place.
There’s mildly warm physical stuff in the book, but nothing nearly as over-the-top as Toby Stephens panting and groping atop Ruth Wilson. Urgh.
Jane Eyre is a sexy book though! That scene where Jane is about to leave Rochester and run off in the middle of the night, and then she walks past his bedroom and has to physically restrain herself from going in there and fucking him right then? That is the most explicitly sexy scene in all of Victorian literature, and any Jane Eyre adaptation that is not absolutely saturated with sex is a Jane Eyre adaptation that is not doing its job.
right? i don’t thinks she’s classically pretty. she’s a little strange looking, which i find very captivating, but not obviously sexy. toby stephens is way too sexy to play rochester, though. i mean, come on.
At the very least, I can believe that Wilson’s Eyre was an awkward, ugly child.
Charlotte Gainsbourg was borderline OK casting, no? In the possible world in which standards of beauty have changed; and also because nobody knew who Jane Birkin or Serge were then, so when confronted with Charlotte they wouldn’t have had the same frisson we get from thinking about her parents and what an awesome mashup she is? And William Hurt was pretty convincing as sociopathic to the point where all the pretty people who weren’t also sociopaths had rejected him. But I’m not arguing. To wet batteries!!!!
Yes, I really like the Gainsbourg/Hurt JANE EYRE! Gainsbourg is a babe, sure, but, like, kind of a weird babe? I mean, she has a weirdo vibe, but that may just be because she’s French? I dunno, I thought she worked well even though she’s not “plain.” And you’re right, Hurt played Rochester as such a sociopath that it cancelled out his good bone structure and made you concentrate on his bad hair instead.
Yes! I was going to add Charlotte Gainsbourg as my pick for best Jane Eyre. It’s a backhanded compliment, but she is delightful “in real life” but as Jane, she managed to give herself a wonky eye even. Excellent casting. I do adore me some William Hurt, but his sad eye business really made his Mr Rochester convincing.
Yes! I love the way she thrust out her chin to give herself a masculine jawline. People at the time were saying that Charoltte wasn’t pretty enough to play jane, which was just baffling.
Charlotte Gainsbourg is an actual professional model!
Well, she’s yes, and she’s also ridiculously, like, make me gay hot. I don’t know what I was thinking. Let’s get Heidi Klum to play Jane Eyre. I personally don’t find her attractive.
I loved Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane. She is beautiful, but in somewhat awkward, unnatural way that she could pull it off.
This is all absolutely correct, and I completely agree in principle, but I just reeeeaalllyyyy like to look at Michael Fassbender and so would cast him as any character in any adaptation ever.
Oh god, that screencap of Bertha just highlights how over-the-top that adaptation went with the hotness. I mean, Bertha looks like she just stepped out of a music video for a 90s rock band. She gonna put on a leather jacket and start singing “I Hate Myself for Loving You.”
I would watch that in a fucking heartbeat.
Her hair isn’t even tangled! Just frizzy and slightly disheveled. I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion, 2011 adaptation.
But i thought Bertha was supposed to be hot, at least before she went mad. They could make her look a bit more tired though. i just woke up and i don’t have that skin
Agreed! That’s the whole thing with how repulsed Mr. Rochester is with the gorgeous Blanche Ingram – she reminds him of his wife. I definitely think Bertha should be a babe. Or a babe diminished.
I always felt like Jane Eyre was about people who had internal magnetism, and didn’t necessarily have *bad* bone structure, but the kind of weird beautiful that boring normal people say, “gross, you find *him* attractive? He’s just so…odd/old/weird.”
OH for Hugo Weaving as a Rochester who has “magnetism” in the bag, even if stupid normal people didn’t understand.
(obviously there is still 2000% too much babe in all adaptations, though Fukunaga’s St. John was appropriately babesque.)
HUGO WEAVING AS ROCHESTER my eyes just bugged out in pure delighted want
YES. Why has Peter Jackson spent the better part of the past decade casting him as Elrond, who should be played by a Distinguished Silver Babe, when Weaving should have been playing Rochester in every single adaptation of JANE EYRE ever put on film or stage?
Ron Perlman.
So, Tilda Swinton for Eyre, then?
You jest, surely? Orlando. (mike drop) ((comes back, picks up mike)) Caravaggio ((drops mike again)) (((picks up severely dented mike and starts waving it around wildly))) or just anything she’s ever done where she’s not covered in prosthetic makeup? ((((squints, furrows brow)))) Wait. This was actual sarcasm, wasn’t it? Dang. Never mind. Continue as normal.
Now, I think that ugly women who act well should be able to get screen jobs, but since that’s just CRAZY talk IRL, maybe they could add some prosthetic makeup to make whoever they’re going to cast anyway less attractive, like how they altered Kidman to Woolf-ize her?
Except Virginia Woolf was way prettier than Nicole Kidman. I want to look at her face for ever. My colors are nailed to the mast on this one.
Also, a big nose can’t take away cheekbones for days!
you forgot these 2! Sure they are not toads but Charlotte Gainsborough and whats-his-face played it nice and ugly and hot
http://pics.filmaffinity.com/Jane_Eyre-809072053-…
I liked the casting for that movie. It also made their age difference more plain than other adaptations. Jane’s not out of her teens when she meets Rochester, who is nearing middle age. Gainsborough’s performance had an awkward shyness that made her seem quite young.
yes I agree. she played it really well. Very understated and controlled. To date I stand by this being the best one of the lot.
IDK the 1997 adaption with Ciarán Hinds was pretty plain and good?
My harsh, harsh 9th grade English teacher confessed to the class that Timothy Dalton was wayyyy to attractive to play Mr. Rochester and it was weird like seeing her at the grocery store weird. Like, you’re definitely not supposed to have a life outside this classroom and now you’re telling me you have feelings that aren’t asexual and find Timothy Dalton attractive?!?!?
She ended up being one of my favorite teachers and this was the first sign of life. It was awesome.
I had the exact same experience when my English teacher fervently informed us that “Heathcliffe is supposed to be hot!” and I just couldn’t parse any of it.
Anyone ever see the nineties adaptation of “Wuthering Heights” with Juliette Binoche and Ralph Fiennes? I could watch only a few minutes of it because it was so hideously overscored (like a lot of Brit movies from that time).
But in that few minutes, Fiennes walked onset and had Heathcliff nailed with just one look. He can radiate eons-old rage like just about no other actor I can think of right now.
I adore that version, ridiculous overscoring and all!!! It’s the only movie that gets the second generation half of the book right (one of the few that bothers with it at all, actually), and that’s the best part of the book for me. Hareton is my favorite character in the whole thing, and the redemption for him and Young Cathy at the end is what makes it work. But yeah, Fiennes was an absolutely PERFECT Heathcliff. So much rage, especially once he’s come back and is all refined but still has that anger there. He’s the only Heathcliff. Even better than Tom Hardy, which is saying a lot coming from me. Also, Sinead O’Connor was Emily Bronte, and that is just cool. …Okay, now I have to watch that movie, right this instant.
Yes! Bonus points for grief-stricken, going-to-the-dogs-but-still-handsome Jeremy Northam.
I have never seen this adaptation, but I have perfect faith in Ralph Fiennes’s eyebrows and their ability to express rage, hotly.
Oh, he definitely has the hot angry eyebrows going in that movie.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzyt1vesdU1qiku…
I have never seen Ralph Fiennes in anything, and I’m sure acting changes things a lot, but: those big blue eyes make him look innocent and almost angelically sweet. That’s rage? Um.
I like Orson Welles as Rochester. Like, yes a babe, but with some plausible deniability. Can we talk about Joan Fontaine’s weird career of playing “plain” women (Jane Eyre, Rebecca, Suspicion) while simultaneously being the most beautiful angel on the earth?
Almost as surprising as her sister Olivia’s lead in “The Heiress” – but the makeup artist did some eyebrow wizardry that definitely made de Havilland much plainer.
Back to Fontaine: I recommend, with trepidation, “Letter from an Unknown Woman.” Beware: it might qualify as what Roger Ebert once called “movies that hurt too much.” But it is so wonderful, and also stars Louis Jourdan as a charming but slippery [h]eel.
Letter from an Unknown Woman is FIRE.
Not to be creepy, but while the “most beautiful angel on the earth” WAS in the 1943 Fontaine/Welles version of Jane Eyre, it wasn’t Joan – it was the ethereal, heart-stoppingly gorgeous preteen Elizabeth Taylor as poor doomed Helen Burns.
Bertha should absolutely be a babe, though, right? Yeah, she should be a babe that’s tragically lost her mind and been locked up in a tiny attic for years, but she had to have been beautiful at one point, to catch Rochester’s attention and get him to marry her so ridiculously quickly in the first place. An undercover hottie is really perfect casting for poor, poor Bertha.
“Fearful and ghastly to me – oh, sir, I never saw a face like it! It was a discoloured face – it was a savage face. I wish I could forget the roll of the red eyes and the fearful blackened inflation of the lineaments!”
“Ghosts are usually pale, Jane.”
“This, sir, was purple: the lips were swelled and dark; the brow furrowed: the black eyebrows widely raised over the bloodshot eyes.”
guys i think we can safely say she had lost her babeliness at this point
but she should look like she’d be totally hot if maybe you cleaned her up & brushed her hair & she wasn’t trying to set you on fire.
I always took that as a reference to Bertha’s mixed-race background?
Team Hot Bertha, I’m saying. (Did anyone ever see that campy, ridiculous Wide Sargasso Sea adaptation? Good lord)
Marina from the L-Word!
Isn’t that just them being really fucking racist?
*cough* helena bonham-carter *cough cough*
Does she even wear costumes anymore, or does she just dress like a Victorian witch full time?
She is living the ideal life, tbh.
Shhhhh! Tim Burton will HEAR you and the world does not NEED Tim Burton’s Jane Eyre.
With Johnny Depp as Rochester, of course. Ugh.
I’m hoping that since the break-up he won’t be casting her any more and she can do better stuff.
Yes, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS. When the most recent Jane Eyre film was released and they described Mr. Rochester as being “darkly handsome” I was just like that is not right! That so goes against the purpose of the book!! BOTH JANE AND ROCHESTER ARE UGLIER THAN HOMEMADE SIN AND THEY ARE STILL HUMANS AND FLAWED AND FALL IN LOVE AND AGHHH
See, I don’t think Jane’s ugly, I think she’s just not strikingly beautiful, and makes no effort to be. In a setting where women are meant to be as decorative as possible, her determined average-ness makes everybody describe her as ugly.
Really though, is there any meaningful difference between a fictional character whom everyone thinks is ugly and a fictional character who is ugly? It’s not like everyone says she’s short but she’s six feet tall–subjective standards are all there is. The book’s from Jane’s perspective, and her experience is that of an ugly person. She’s rejected and overlooked and abused, and Rochester falls in love with her because she’s frank and peculiar and a remarkably good person, not because he notices how lovely she is in the right light. Why should we need to imagine her beautiful, when almost every other heroine is holding down that fort?
I don’t imagine her as beautiful; I imagine her as completely average, but surrounded by stunning beauties.
That’s actually my problem with Bridget Jones as a movie. The only way that tedious book works for me is if she is actually a radiant beauty with seriously awful self-esteem. Having the film make her as awkward as she believes herself to be isn’t fun.
GUYS WE ARE TRYING SO HARD TO CONVINCE EACH OTHER THAT JANE WAS STILL A BABE AND YOU JUST GOTTA LET HER NON-BABELINESS WASH OVER YOU, SHE IS STILL LOVABLE AND WONDERFUL AND INTERESTING EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS NOT BEAUTIFUL, NOT PRETTY, NOT HOT
I FIGHT FOR THIS WONDERFUL UGLY WOMAN
I’m not saying she’s beautiful. I’m saying that there’s a range between “babe” and “uglier than sin,” and that Jane falls squarely in the middle of that, as author inserts should do. She’s meant to be an everywoman. On behalf of breathtakingly average women everywhere, I just want to make sure to keep reminding people that plain is not the same as ugly.
oh god I would HAPPILY accept a plain Jane, that would be OCEANS better, I JUST HAVE YET TO SEE ONE
Unfortunately, the closest we appear to be able to get is Rachel Dratch on SNL
also I may be taking this to heart more than I should, as Jane Eyre has created a long-term dream where I can enchant a man by being physically unremarkable but smart and completely unimpressed by him.
FWIW, I know several long-term happy marriages that started with an average-looking smart man falling immediately in love with a plain woman who was very smart and completely unimpressed by him. And also unlikely to put up with abuse, or some madwoman in the attic, or any of his “elfin” shit. So, yeah, totally possible.
(I can’t believe THIS is my first comment on The Toast.)
The main impression I get from her early-life stuff is that she’s plain, and she’s fine with it, and she’s also kind of sullen and unresponsive, which takes her from ‘normal looking’ to ‘ugly’. In the vein of all those articles by men saying ‘don’t wear [whatever], it makes you ugly’, because showing that you don’t give a shit about presenting yourself for men – both physically and in being nice and docile and whatever – makes you unacceptable.
So yes definitely plain, and awkward, at a BARE minimum. Come on, moveiland, that’s totes achievable. COME ON.
Hmm, that’s interesting! I read it both ways, in that I feel Jane actually is plain and homely, and that she doesn’t try to buy into beauty standards. She recognizes that she is ugly and doesn’t try to hide it, but confronts it as plainly and bluntly as she does everything else in her life. I actually wrote a couple essays in undergrad that address how the portrayal of both protagonists as ugly is important and revolutionary and whatnot, sooo I will just try to keep these short and hopefully not bore you!
Well, Jane thinks she herself is ugly (at least to the degree that her features are “irregular”), as highlighted in this quote:
“It was not my habit to be disregardful of appearance, or careless of the impression I made: on the contrary, I ever wished to look as well as I could, and to please as much as my want of beauty would permit. I sometimes regretted that I was not handsomer: I sometimes wished to have rosy cheeks, a straight nose, and small cherry mouth; I desired to be tall, stately, and finely developed in figure; I felt it a misfortune that I was so little, so pale, and had features so irregular and so marked.”
I discuss Jane’s, and the book’s, notions of beauty in an essay entitled “Beauty’s role in Jane Eyre” on my website.
What about Sorcha Cusack in 1973? She was convincing. And rochester was funny in an english way.
Strongly-marked horizontal eyebrows must be traced under that brow; then followed, naturally, a well-defined nose, with a straight ridge and full nostrils; then a flexible-looking mouth, by no means narrow; then a firm chin, with a decided cleft down the middle of it: of course, some black whiskers were wanted, and some jetty hair, tufted on the temples, and waved above the forehead. Now for the eyes: I had left them to the last, because they required the most careful working…
“Good! but not quite the thing,” I thought, as I surveyed the effect: “they want more force and spirit;” and I wrought the shades blacker, that the lights might flash more brilliantly—a happy touch or two secured success.
That upper one looks like Hugh Jackman.
Fucking amazing. 🙂 🙂 🙂
I took my BFF to see the Mia version, telling her beforehand to expect a cast of super uglies and I was MAD there weren’t. I kept turning to her to let her know THIS IS NOT HOW IT SHOULD BE, STOP ENJOYING FASSBENDER’S FACE/BOD.
Rachel Dratch is Jane Eyre forever. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/jane…
I mean come on. Perfect. Make that face more.
There’s a lot of Hot Apologia in this comment section. We are all that casting director from the Simpsons: “TV ugly, not UGLY ugly…”
Track down the 1934 Jane Eyre (or don’t, it’s a really awful adaptation). There’s so much Hot Apologia that they have every single character remark how pretty Jane is. Because clearly we can’t have a ugly woman onscreen. I mean, this is who played Jane![]()
I swear, almost every book adaptation made before about 1953 is just terrible.
(1939 was an exceptional year, before anybody brings that up.)
I’ve seen one or two adaptations and am ignorant of dozens I am sure. Are you seriously telling me that nobody ever cast Timothy Spall as Rochester?
I am *here* for dream casting Burney novels. What actors are suitable for the quivering sad sacks of masculinity that are Burney’s male characters?
Ooooh! I am into this! But I have no suggestions. I am terrible at fantasy casting.
ETA: First they need to actually make some Burney movies.
Yes! I will die happy if loving, well-done Burney miniseries or movies become a thing.
Dream casting can be hard! I was thinking through casts for Camilla, and who could convey Edgar’s whinyness? Dan Stevens?
so you just have the horrible sensation of interior folding and retching until you can’t breathe
I just came here to say this is upsettingly accurate.
I’m in for this:
Jane Eyre: some wet batteries
Mr. Rochester: An old boot stuffed with paper bags full of spaghetti
kickstarter y/n?
Oh yes.
I don’t want any new adaptations of anything until I get Muppet Pride and Prejudice with Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Jane and Lupita Nyong’o as Lizzie and Kristen Stewart as Caroline Bingley.
This is everything I need in my life. Who do I talk to to get you hired as a casting director?
I will sacrifice someone else’s first born to get this movie made. Miss Piggy as Mrs Bennett! Sulky white beefcake of the moment as Darcy! Nathalie Emmanuel as Lydia! Sam the Eagle as Col. Fitzwilliam!
Ooh, does that make Kermit Mr. Bennett?
YES. That long-suffering sigh. The impotence in the face of Mrs. Bennett’s MISS PIGGY HARUMPH.
the Piggy “HMMMPH!” is perfect for Mrs. Bennett! See: Muppet Christmas Carol.
EXACTLY.
Gonzo as Mr. Collins? His main chicken as Charlotte Lucas? Janice as Mary?
Gonzo is WAY too suave for Mr. Collins. Fonzie.
Sam Eagle for Mr Collins
Oh my GOD.
Everybody needs to read Ironskin, which is Jane Eyre with faries and steampunk and is totally awesome.
I really loved it, though the sequel was a bit weak. The third one rebounded, though.
Fassbender is for sure too handsome to actually be Rochester, but at least his face isn’t as perfectly symmetrical as a Greek statue’s like Timothy Dalton. The single most absurd moment in all of cinema is when Dalton goes “Do you think me handsome?” and the babe playing Jane says, “No, sir,” while you’re falling over yourself going, “Your face is objectively and mathematically perfect, obviously she thinks you’re handsome.”
YOU HAVE A CHIN-BUTT, SIR. AS WELL AS DIMPLES WHEN YOU SMILE AND A CLASSICALLY PERFECT NOSE.
George C. Scott was perfect Rochester casting except that, in the version he was in, he was too old and the script was just terrible.
As was Susannah York. I remember an interview with her at the time (possibly in TheTVGuide) where she mentioned that not wearing mascara made her feel oh-so-plain…
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2011/03/06/arts/EY…
How about Steve Buscemi as Rochester?
I think he’s a bit too sickly and kind-looking
I agree 100% with everything in this article but I’m not gonna lie, when I saw the Wasikowska/Fassbender version in the theater, I and the two friends who saw it with me actually moaned aloud at the scene when she puts her hand on his thigh while he’s on the horse. I mean seriously JFC I thought I was going to spontaneously combust.
So yes yes yes in theory to all of this but those two had such amazing chemistry that I am able to overlook (and did overlook) any other quibbles about that production.
I actually quite liked Wasikowska as Jane — her odd, deeply-set eyes read as “plain and sallow” in one light and “elfin and interesting” in another, and that somewhat disturbingly doll-like little mouth of hers is SO naturally sulky — but the pacing of that movie I just couldn’t even.
I find myself with the hotness apologia here — I always reacted to Jane as not being considered pretty because she was perfectly average but didn’t smile when instructed. While in many regards I have wonderful parents, I grew up in a “Now hug Grandma, smile while you play with your cousin, that backhanded compliment was YOUR CHANCE TO BE CIVIL and now you blew it you evil little lying bitch” sort of household, and thinking of Jane as having adequate appearance that was described as ugly because she wasn’t pleasant enough meant a whole fucking lot to me in terms of learning to believe that I was physically good enough and people just told me I wasn’t to make me submit to their emotional needs.
“Adequate” is a weird word to use there. Adequate for what? I have complicated feelings here obviously
THANK YOU. I’m also thinking that Jane’s poverty and social station contribute to people’s perception of her appearance. She’s poor, she rarely smiles, and she makes no effort to be likeable or soft; all this translates to “not really a woman, especially not a fuckable one” to everyone around her.
Right! There’s so much class stuff in a “oh, she’s dark and little BUT LOOK AT THIS LOVELY BLONDE CREATURE I could totally sympathize with HER if she was poor because, y’know, she doesn’t LOOK like a person who deserves to be poor and suffering!” that needs to be explored.
At the same time, I totally think a “TOADS UNITE” reaction to Jane is a valid reading? But perhaps I just think of ugliness/toadhood as a really profound condition that most humans do not occupy, and “plainness” as something different and more common.
Yeah I think… what ‘ugly’ is is a moving target. Like… sometimes I look at photos of my UTTERLY gorgeous friends and think ‘wow. We all look exactly like how witches look’. Because we have the faces of normal human women, you know?
I mean personally I am totally available for looking exactly like a storybook witch, but it’s a bit messed up, really.
Wait. There was pacing in that movie? I was…mostly just looking at Fassbender’s trousers.
I love your take on her attitude affecting how people saw her. I’m sorry you grew up with that, though. Ouch.
Admittedly I noticed the pacing issues a lot less once she left Lowood.
It honestly wasn’t as bad as it sounds. I just had the (apparently not uncommon) experience of going “Okay, I am a child of great privilege … but that specific thing was fucked UP, man.”
I disagree with the assessment that Jane is meant to be “ugly”. She’s not. She’s plain and nothing special looks wise, but she isn’t ugly. Edward is meant to be the ugly one.
Put Ciarán Hinds’ Rochester with Ruth Wilson’s Jane and you have pretty perfect casting in my book.
I’m pretty sure she’s only described as “plain” when people who actually care about her are describing her, esp to her face, esp in a probably misguided and ineffective attempt to make her feel less suicidally depressed about her life. People who talk about her behind her back, and/or people who dislike her, tend to lay on descriptions of her ugliness pretty thick. I don’t think either “plain yet elfin” or “so ugly I’d like to gauge my eyes out rather than see her even once more” (not a real quote) are terribly accurate assessments, but I think it is safe to say she is ugly.
For some reason I suddenly want to see a queered, all-female version of Jane Eyre.
“For some reason”
can lea delaria be in it? pleeeeease? I dont care what part, but please make lea delaria in a jane eyre movie! (acyually, a great deal of the normal looking girls in OITNB would be great in that. also helena bonham carter (her ugly look in merlin) and the girl who played amelie, because she is pretty and gorgeous, but like a NORMAL pretty, not out of this world, cheekbones forever beautiful. it would seriosly help to mix race up a bit, too.
Dalton is too handsome but I would not mind. He is only one who was able to portrait Mr Rochester perfectly.
Okay, so Dalton was SUPER hot, but can we also agree he was SUPER crazy? Like, ‘Jane get the hell away from him, he keeps screwing up your hair and smothering your face in his GIANT HANDS, and CRYING all the time, you need to go until you hear his ghostly voice calling to you across the forlorn wilderness.’
That’s what I LOVE about Dalton-Rochester! He is the only Rochester who really captures that somewhat unhinged element, as well as Rochester’s humour (which is sometimes wry and dry and sometimes this strange carnival oddness). He’s far too handsome to be Rochester, but as someone who’s been in love with the novel since they were 9 and not yet found an adaptation that quite suits, he’s been the closest thing.
I dated a guy who caressed my hair like that a bunch. I dated that guy very, very briefly. STOP RUBBING MY HEAD, IT’S WEIRD.
And no one can say “disgusting” quite like Dalton.
Adam Driver for Mr. Rochester. Enough with the May-December crap.
To be fair, he is 20 years older than she is.
You could make a solid argument for him being only about 10 years older, given that Adele is six or seven and he probably didn’t waste too much time between locking Bertha up in an attic and gallivanting about Europe.
From chapter 36: “Mr. Rochester was about forty, and this governess not twenty; and you see, when gentlemen of his age fall in love with girls, they are often like as if they were bewitched. Well, he would marry her.” So not all that solid.
Well, okay, not if you do something so out there as to actually quote the text.
I do wonder about that “about,” though.
I read “about” as giving a range from 37-45. Definitely old enough to be her father, though.
This is probably the result of my extreme loathing for that particular trope in literature, especially in period.
I had it firmly set in my head that he was a young and stupid 19-20-year-old who got tricked into marriage, figured out within a year or so that he had made a horrible mistake, and dicked around the continent for two or three years before returning to England with Adele in tow. This may also be because he behaves like an immature jerk for a large part of the book, but that is no indication of age, as men of any age often are like as if they are bewitched.
He does marry Bertha very young. He then spends a couple of decades on the Continent; Adele is born during that time. It’s clear from the book he has been mostly-away from England for most of his adult life.
The weird thing is that I’ve read it at least 30 times and studied it in a class at least twice, and I always had it very firmly in my head that he was 10 to 15 years older than Jane at most. After some consideration, it’s because he acts like a much younger man. He’s no Colonel Brandon, for instance.
Well, he is a Byronic hero, rather than a quiet and respectable landowner 🙂 (Of course he holds a major estate, but one of the interesting things about Rochester is his revulsion away from his home turf because of what his family manipulated him into – while of course he benefits from the financial output of that estate. Lots of interesting economic and class things going on in Jane Eyre!)
Adele probably isn’t the first illegitimate child resulting from his time cavorting around the Continent, just the only one whose mother successfully got Edward to take responsibility for his penis.
Those French women! So aggressive!
“Well, okay, not if you do something so out there as to actually quote the text.”
This made me seriously and for real laugh out loud.
I just remembered that young Jane in the Gainsbourg version was Anna Paquin.
Paquin could play adult Jane too. They could just splice the footage together.
Benedict Cumberbatch as Rochester or Jane.
My “like” is for the “or Jane”
BAHAHAHAHHAA
Can we agree though that Bertha was CREOLE and also Blanche Ingram had dark skin, black “oriental” eyes, thick jet black hair? Every time I watch a Jane Eyre adaptation (which ok, is often, despite all this) I truly scream a little to see yet another alabaster waif scramble/flounce on to screen as Bertha or Blanche. Blanche was some kind of fucking Gwyneth Paltrow lookalike in one of them. It isn’t as if their physical descriptions could have been any less ambiguous on the point of being DARK and having BROWN and BLACK everything!!!!!!!
I have a lot of pain about Heathcliff in this respect too.
I never imagine Bertha as anything but biracial tbh.
although that might just be because I read ‘Wide Sargasso Sea’ and I liked it a LOT.
(also should you, or anyone else, be in the market for non-white-dude-Heathcliff, may I recommend Andrea Arnold’s adaptation of WH, which as far as I know is the first adaptation with black Heathcliff.)
If they ever did a comedic Jane Eyre (not really sure what that would look like…), Jemaine Clement should play Rochester.
CANNOT LIKE THIS COMMENT ENOUGH
I am conflicted over this comment. On the one hand, far FAR too handsome. Like woah. On the other hand…his Vladislav in WWDITS makes me think it could work and be hilarious? And I want to hear that ‘I’m a rubber ball, Jane’ thing turned into song, because I’ve always found that bit ridiculous.
I agree. He is very handsome. Totally hot but in an unconventional way and that’s why I think he could work at a comedic Rochester. There are these moments when I think he is odd looking and not attractive. But then something shifts – his face, the lighting, the camera angle, my hormones, I don’t know – and I’m like, “No, don’t be stupid. He is ridiculously handsome.” Also, Rochester’s features, as described in the book, kind of sound like him.
ehhhhh…I don’t know, I just feel that anyone who’s shown up in any ‘Top Sexiest People’ type lists ever should be automatically disqualified, y’know? And yes, still thinking on Rochester-casting a week later. AS I SHALL FOR ALL MY LIFE UNTIL SOMEONE GETS IT RIGHT.
Well maybe Hollywood is just too polite to overtly tell someone they’re ugly by casting them as Jane Eyre? So they cast babes and do this “we’ll just put less concealer on them” business?
Oh ha ha, I do like to laugh.
Your user name is rad as.
OK HERE IS A COMMENT ABOUT A HOT PERSON: St John. Handsome, manipulative, controlling St John Rivers, who can’t understand that other people have real emotions and who represses his own feelings in an overtly masochistic way. Will we EVER get a Jane Eyre adaptation that actually treats Jane’s time with the Rivers family as anything other than a short interlude? Because it’s clearly *vital*. I mean, the novel even closes with a reference to St John, come on. St John is meant to be enormously seductive, in his icy terrifying way – and what’s seductive about him is that he offers oblivion. Jane could lose herself. She chooses not to; not only does she choose Rochester, but she chooses her freedom as an individual once again. Which is p much the point of the book. I’ve seen so many versions where St John is a kindly vicar and uuuugh.
The recent webseries, The Autobiography of Jane Eyre, did a good job with the Riverses, I think. St. John (IIRC they changed his name to Simon) is sincere and dedicated and thinks he has no personal ambition, only a wish to do good; it’s a pretty effective portrayal of someone who can’t imagine any good beyond his own conception of the right.
The people in that series aren’t particularly ugly, but they’re very un-Hollywood and filmed in a convincingly homemade way.
How did that series turn out anyway? I liked the first few episodes, but then Rochester showed up and I couldn’t stand more than about three minutes of the actor.
I liked it quite a lot by the end. I felt awkward and a little skeeved out watching Rochester, at first, and then there gradually came a point where I was rewinding and re-watching all of his scenes with Jane. It’s like the awkwardness transmuted into chemistry, in a way that wouldn’t have worked if they hadn’t taken such a long time to do it. (One of the longest episodes of the series is just him and Jane going out, purportedly to buy groceries, and wandering around town for a day. Nothing plot-significant happens, except for the way their relationship is oh-so-gradually blossoming.)
The great strength of the show, though, is that it is all about Jane, not The Jane And Rochester Love Story.
St. John is so off-handedly cruel, so entirely reasonable in all of his hateful moments (maybe he and Cousin Edmund can hang out and lament the “I love a woman who is just terrible and whom I cannot respect, but I must be with her, but she’s unworthy of love, but there’s this tolerable girl over here who seems willing to put up with me” tragedies of their lives); he terrifies me, because you don’t notice him smothering you until you’re suddenly making dinner and wondering why you can’t breathe.
Yes, that’s precisely it. And it’s why I hate Mansfield Park (despite being an Austen fan) and one of the reasons I love Jane Eyre.
I once saw a post claiming that Jane didn’t want St John because he “wasn’t dom enough for her” which made me wonder if we’d read the same book. St John wants to dominate EVERYTHING. (Though admittedly not in a fun sexytimes way.)
I mean, he doesn’t appear, on first meeting, to have a terribly forceful personality, which could be what they meant. Maybe by “dom,” they meant “surly and unsociable.” There seems to be an odd idea that doms go through the world growling at everyone they meet, disdaining normal social conventions, and bartending in the dark.
I want Bertha played by David Walliams as “Anne” – haunting Jane and Rochester with her “eh eh ehhhh”
I think this is why British adaptations tend to be a little better, since British actors tend to look slightly more normal than American actors (except that I’m still mad about Hermione – I love Emma Watson, but she was way too cute to be Hermione in the first 3 movies – so disregard my point).
She’s too old now, but Helen Worth (Gail from Coronation Street) fits both plain and elfin. The Brits seem to regard her as attractive though, on the show she’s had, what, five husbands? And only one was a serial killer.
I don’t know if he can do accents but Danny Trejo fits the physical description of Rochester.
And Oprah Winfrey as Bertha.
The thing about Jane is that the “abuse” before she went to school was that she had to make her own bed and had no-one in the house of her own age to play with. Yes, her school in the first year she was there was horrific — but after the reform, she notes, briefly, that she loved it so much they had to find her a job so that she would leave. As a governess, she thought disparaging things about her charge Adele and frequently left her alone so she could go for long walks on the moor. It really wasn’t Adele’s fault that her mother worked in the opera.
There were three other kids. The girls ignored her and the boy beat the crap out of her whenever he could. Not to mention the emotional coldness/abusive tone of Mrs Gates, (Miss) Abbot, and even at times Bessie.
Physical abuse (except from John), not as much. Emotional abuse? Tons.
Duuuude.
In the first couple of paragraphs Aunt Reed tells Jane she’s not normal enough to even be in the same room as her family. We learn John “bullied and punished me; not two or three times in the week, nor once or twice in the day, but continually”, he beats her up and she gets punished for, for the first time, fighting back. The kids run around calling her a “bad animal”, the servants tell her she has no right to be in the house, and Aunt Reed locks her in a dark room and calls her “repulsive” when she has a panic attack.
(The servants talk about TYING HER UP in there!)
And though Aunt Reed MOSTLY goes with emotional abuse, she’s not above combining that with violence:
“Mrs. Reed soon rallied her spirits: she shook me most soundly, she boxed both my ears, and then left me without a word. Bessie supplied the hiatus by a homily of an hour’s length, in which she proved beyond a doubt that I was the most wicked and abandoned child ever reared under a roof. I half believed her; for I felt indeed only bad feelings surging in my breast.”
(NB: BESSIE IS THE NICE ONE.)
And even if it WAS a matter of having to make her own bed (it is not), if one kid out of four has to make her own bed while the rest have servants to do it, that says “you are not as good as the rest”. However, Aunt Reed was nowhere near that subtle.
And, I don’t know where you get the thing about leaving Adele alone. Adele had a nurse, and Jane went for walks in the grounds. Jane was in charge of her education, not her entire welfare.
Considering how hard producers believe it is to sell a film, especially a romantic film, without conventionally attractive people i think that the Janes at least look like an (cute) elf and not like a femme fatale. Holywood could make a Jane Eyre starring Penelope Cruz and Johnny Depp.
I just never really believed that grown-up Jane was unattractive. You can definitely cast her as too in-your-face beautiful. But I think we’ve lost “plain” as a meaningful looks setting — there’s either beautiful or ugly and nothing in between. I guess it’s partly is that make-up is so normal now? Most “pretty” people now would spend a lot more time looking plain if they weren’t even allowed mascara.I thought Jane was describing herself as neither pretty nor ugly –but as neutral, unremarkable, unnoticeable. The kind of person you’d know for a while before you even thought about her looks. I also thought she was selling herself short after a lifetime of assaults on her self-esteem, especially because period fiction is FULL of heroines who are all “oh no I am so far from beautiful, with my delicate, elfin features and huge eyes” (wait, didn’t Mallory do a piece about exactly that?) And the thing about unremarkable-looking people who don’t dress to their looks is that they can often scrub up really well.
Like when she’s all happy and in love and glowing Rochester is like WHOA, DID YOU DO SOMETHING TO YOUR HAIR, YOU LOOK HELLA HOT TODAY, and Diana is all “No, the problem with you marrying St John is not that you’re not in his league, because you ARE. The problem is that he wants you to die of cholera in India.”
And honestly when she’s drawing Rochester and it’s all “strong chin” that and “straight eyebrows” this and “flashing dark eyes” the other it’s hard to work out HOW exactly he’s not handsome. About the most unhandsome I can imagine to fit the description is a late 30s Gordon Brown, who really wasn’t so bad.*
Lucy Snowe, though, I do think needs to be played by a character actress who definitely does not have leading lady looks.
*A thought! Instead of fantasy casting actors, fantasy cast politicians! A class of people in the public eye who look weird to normal and we get to say so!
The beauty thing in Jane Eyre is really interesting. A lot of it is racially coded. Dark-skinned or “swarthy” people tend to be described as not only less attractive, but less civilized and sometimes less than human. Blanche Ingram makes up for it by being titled and literally having “white” as her first name, but she’s still nasty and has a temper. Bertha Mason is dark (and probably Creole) and is described as bestial by Jane, the pale little English elf. Rochester is dark and also has violent tendencies. Aunt Reed has dark skin, as does Cousin John.
It reminds me of the debate over Heathcliff’s ethnicity and looks. He’s also described as dark, but also violent, angry, rude, wild, etc. Meanwhile, the fair-skinned/haired characters in both books tend to be sweet-tempered, pleasant, and mannerly.
But for the people in the era described by the book, beauty also reflects health. Jane is considered unattractive not just because she has irregular features, but because she looks sickly–pale, skinny, flat-chested and short, which reflects her malnourished childhood. Helen is also described as ugly for similar reasons.
The beautiful people Jane describes are all tall with splendid physiques, abundant hair, great skin–all things that reflect good health and fertility. Not incidentally these people are all upper class and so of course enjoyed the best food and healthcare the era had to offer.
Your comment is fabulous! 😀
I agree! The thing about Jane and Rochester are also that they weren’t considered good-looking at the time. The beauty standards were different. St John was considered handsome because he was blonde and tall and looked like a Greek god. Rochester’s shorter, has a broader chest, and coarser features. He didn’t live up to the beauty ideal of the day, but that doesn’t mean he was ugly. A few decades ago, being thin used to be considered unattractive and it’s all the rage today. Doesn’t mean that thin people were ugly back in the day, just that the beauty standards were different.
“what we need is an adaptation of The Wanderer”
YES. I recommend this book so much I should probably just get business cards printed up that say “Read The Wanderer or Either_Ada will plague you about it forever, even from beyond the grave.” I would settle for everyone watching the movie instead.
There is not enough recognition for that book or Charlotte Smith in the world. The only thing I am certain I agree with Wordsworth about is that she was a poet “to whom English verse is under greater obligations than are likely to be either acknowledged or remembered”. And I would say ditto to English novels.
The wanderer needs to be a tv adaptation so that each episode can be yet another cliff-hanger…
Exactly – most of her plainness was attributed to her severe and dull-colored wardrobe & hair, and her unsmiling, very serious demeanor. (Anne Elliott got the same treatment in Persuasion).
And Rochester was described sort of Heathcliffy, I thought – all wild and moody and unkempt but he sure cleaned up nice when the ladies came a’calling.
yes I agree. she played it really well. Very understated and controlled. To date I stand by this being the best one of the lot.
For me, the big problem with a filmed version of Jane Eyre is that Jane Eyre is one long internal monologue, so we get to hear all the incredibly snarky shit Jane thinks but doesn’t say. Internally the character is snark personified; externally she’s, well, what Rochester thinks she is, a little mouse, a silent, stoicly angelic waif. So if you film it, you have to do it with a voiceover or better Ferris-Bueller-breaking-the-fourth-wall style.
One of the reasons I love the 2006 adaptation so much is that Ruth Wilson is a genius at conveying everything that’s going on inside Jane’s mind on her face. I could visualize the passages from the novel when she crooked an eyebrow.
Your comment is fabulous! 😀
I agree! The thing about Jane and Rochester are also that they weren't considered good-looking at the time. The beauty standards were different. St John was considered handsome because he was blonde and tall and looked like a Greek god. Rochester's shorter, has a broader chest, and coarser features. He didn't live up to the beauty ideal of the day, but that doesn't mean he was ugly. A few decades ago, being thin used to be considered unattractive and it's all the rage today. Doesn't mean that thin people were ugly back in the day, just that the beauty standards were different.
I am reading this now, for the first time, a year hence, and Alan Rickman has just died only a couple short months ago.
i'm not crying
you're crying
The cowardice in only casting extremely beautiful actors in love stories is somewhat patronizing for it is a reductionist and marketing approach to adaptation.
Although not at all hideous, yet not handsome either, PAUL GIAMATTI must be a rightful intense Rochester. He’s a specialist in playing angry, abrasive characters.
I wish, I wish.