MovieChat Forums > Jane Eyre (1973) Discussion > Rochester: Debunking Byronic glamour?

Rochester: Debunking Byronic glamour?

posted 18 years ago by sophie_amundsen
3 replies | jump to latest

I came across this line from Mr.Chapman, the adaptor of JE 73 when I replied just now to Sophia, and it made me realise that this is another reason why I prefer Michael's portrayal of Rochester:

Mr. Chapman says of Charlotte Bronte that: 'She debunks the Byronic glamour associated with Rochester.' That's a little odd, since there wasn't a Mr.Rochester before she wrote about him, but I think what he is getting at is that there is a Byronic glamour about Rochester which is not a part of his character in the book. He is generally a very real human being: one who has a good nature and deep feelings which, over time, are hardened and wounded by his experiences and this makes him bitter. But on film he is made into Larger Than Life Rochester™.

I must have seen over a dozen versions of Jane Eyre now, and I'm really tired of the Byronics. Why does Jane love Rochester? If you judge by the films, it is because she likes dangerous men, especially if they are tall and dark (and handsome if they possibly can be). Yet in the novel Jane is not attracted to Rochester physically until she has fallen in love with his mind and his personality (which is why it doesn't matter if Rochester would be handsome by today's standards). She's very clear about this ('an original, a vigorous and expanded mind' not 'a tall, dark, and dangerous man'), and yet I'd have to say the 1973 version is the only adaptation that really highlights Rochester's intellect, his wit and his charm. He is passionate, volatile, changeful and abrupt when it makes sense psychologically- not just for dramatic effect or to highten tension in a scene.

I hope the new BBC production will follow Chapman's lead and not give us LTLR™ #14 or 15. Any thoughts on this?

(The rest of Mr. Chapman's mini-interview is here: http://bronteana.blogspot.com/2005/10/robin-chapman-on-jane-eyre-1973-more.html)
***
Bronteana Bronte Studies Blog:

http://bronteana.blogspot.com

[–] sophiatwoK 18 years ago

By my word, you have a point there! Yes, all too many adaptations portray Rochester as the dark macho with a dash of high IQ. I love your term 'Larger Than Life Rochester(TM)' :D

I've been thinking long and hard about his personality, though. After all, he's REALLY giving Jane a very hard time... just because he's too insecure to court her openly. It's a cruel game, let's just say it. Also, he's being very rude to Adele. Yes, we get to know the story, but still, a good man should be softer on a child. Sometimes, I get the feeling that our Mister Edward is just a big kid (aren't all men?). In that sense, the novel is doubly a Bildungsroman. Both protagonists have to grow in many ways to find morally legitimate happiness.

I do think that the Byronic mannerisms are part of the character, though. This is how he tries to impress Jane at the beginning. "Oh, if you knew the things I've seen, the decadence I've lived in.." Fortunately, Jane has the common sense, like most women, not to be dazzled by the Byronic glitz&glam which he later sheds.

What I find most enticing about their story is the plain love. Love affair between ordinary people, not perfect superstars. So very romantic. I agree with you, the '73 version captured this as closely as possible.

[–] Rosabel 18 years ago

I think we have to differentiate between Rochester's behaviour before and after meeting Jane. She first meets him when he's at his worst - not just in his rudeness and unfeeling attitude toward Adele, but in the way he automatically excuses himself for all bad behaviour because of the way Fate has treated him. He gives her that excuse several times - Life has cheated me, so I'm entitled to do what I like - but she won't let him get away with it. She doesn't know the circumstances of his life, but she tells him very plainly that he is still meant to try to do right, not lean on his misfortunes as a crutch and an excuse to give in to temptation. He argues with her, but he appreciates her honesty and steadfastness; she's not cowed by his status as employer, nor by his greater experience of the world. And eventually he DOES come to agree with her. He tells her several times that she's changed his life, and I believe it's true - it even extends to treating Adele with kindness, taking her with them to town to please Jane.

What I find most enticing about their story is the plain love. Love affair between ordinary people, not perfect superstars. So very romantic.

I loved the way the innkeeper at Millcote told Jane her own story without realizing who she was. He uses very simple, straightforward words, and you realize first that everyone else could see what was happening, and also that they saw them as ordinary people, too, not exalted beings: "He set store on her above everything else, though nobody but him thought her handsome. Little, plain thing, not more than 18, and Mr. Rochester rising 40!"

Flat, drab passion meanders across the screen!

[–] lucy_snowe 18 years ago

Indeed. If Rochester were really Byronic, that would mean that Miss Ingram would be entirely right about him - and we can't have that!

' "It is my opinion the fiddler David must have been an insipid sort of fellow; I like black Bothwell better: to my mind a man is nothing without a spice of the devil in him; and history may say what it will of James Hepburn, but I have a notion, he was just the sort of wild, fierce, bandit hero whom I could have consented to gift with my hand." '

It's clear that Rochester's tendencies in that direction are merely an act, just like the gipsy and the various characters in the charade. He loves play acting. ;-)But Jane soon sees through all that.

I am a bit worried, seeing the most recent pics of Toby Stephens, that he is tending towards the mad bad and dangerous to know... but I'm sure his performance will be subtle enough to go past it. And we will always have Jayston. :-)))