As part of my Jane Eyre blog series, I’ve been reading through lots of reviews on Amazon to see how film versions are perceived by viewers–especially the Hinds/Morton version, of course. What strikes me the most is how women either love or hate this version. Mr. H.’s portrait of Rochester as an angry, insecure man is often responsible, but sometimes they just hate his mustache or his hair. Morton comes in for her share of praise and criticism too. And the screenplay is panned for the heavy re-writing (true enough). I’ve picked out some choice bits from both sides of the spectrum.
Hands down, my favorite misspelling of his name is “Quieran Hinds” (though I recently heard of an intriguing contender, Mister Ciaran Hands).
When I first saw Ciaran Hinds (Mr. Rochester) I thought – this man isn’t very attractive and he is really mean! Jane Eyre will never fall for him! But, Mr. Hinds played the role wonderfully and even I looked beyond his roughness and fell in love with the character! Samantha Morton played a wonderful Jane Eyre and I really felt the chemistry between the two throughout the movie.
“A stern and rugged hell of a man”
Mr Rochester (Hinds) Is a not too handsome of a man ( but I think so), that is a stern and rugged hell of a man. When Jane comes, she is soft and not aware of what a man really is. The two give “performances of a lifetime”. I would have to die first before I would let this movie go. Shows what love is supposed to be. “Inner love”.
I thought Ciaran Hinds was terrible as Mr. Rochester. He was far more blustery than smoldering, and the scene at which he screamed at Jane while she drove away disturbed me. He seemed more like an abusive boyfriend than a man overwhelmed with pain and passion.
“He had a tender side”
Ciarán Hinds, who I usually love, plays Mr. Rochester as a raving lunatic, not a tortured man who’s life has been turned upside down by an unfortunate mistake as a young man. There is no chemistry between the characters and the dialogue/plot differs so much from the novel it is a travesty to call this ‘Jane Eyre.
In particular, the actor playing Mr. Rochester portrayed him as a TOO angry, sneering, ranting, bellicose, offensive man. (I don’t know whether I should blame the actor or the director).
“Hitleresque”
I was horried to witness Ciaran Hinds screeching and screaming all the time like he was having a never-ending PMS. And let me just say I love Ciaran Hinds. He is a truly talented actor, amazing in Persuasion and Phantom of the Opera, not a one-note actor by any means. I dont understand what could possibly happen here. Did he so grossly misunderstood the character?
Wonderful. I loved the book since I was a child and when i saw version of Jane Eyre with Timothy Dalton, I didn’t think anything could top that. However, this one is fabulous as well. Ciaran Hinds is perfect as Mr. Rochester. After seeing this movie I became a big fan of his. If you like good love stories this is a must see.
“Perfect”
I thought Ciaran Hinds as Rochester was wonderful. He was very close to how I imagined Mr. Rochester in the book. Not handsome but rugged and likeable. He did tend to be a bully somtimes and that was a negative but he also had a tender side that came out through his facial expressions in a number of scenes between he and Jane.
“Growling and cussing”
And [Morton] looked nineteen, which is nice. However, this served to highlight the creepiness factor when Ciaran Hinds as Edward Rochester comes growling and cussing into the story, acting more deranged and dangerous than his imprisoned wife. The Hitleresque mustache, looming posture and unblinking stare make him more menacing than sad and brooding. He barks and snarls his lines with no hint of the intended facetious humor and vulnerability that make Rochester a redeemable character. When he does make romantic overtures toward Jane, it feels repellent and lecherous. Not sexy at all. It seems like Jane needs an intervention rather than finds the love of her life.
“Barking and snarling”
Ciaran Hinds is a bellowing, buffoonish Rochester who inspires no sympathy or affection. Why WOULD Jane care for this overbearing, oversexed lout? All the subtle but passionate longing that Rochester evinces for Jane (in the novel) is reduced to eye-rolling, sweat-beaded-brow lust. Hinds grabs one side of the admittedly luscious (and well photographed) scenery and chews his way through to the other side; unfortunately, he leaves the true essence of Rochester behind him in his journey.
Cirian Hinds resonates with the dark, seething energy which is Mr. Rochester. His portrayal is fantastic!
“Oversexed lout”
Ciaran Hinds does a wonderful job portraying Edward Rochester, a complex, authoritative and tortured man who is hiding a horrible secret. He is supposed to be almost 20 years older than Jane and not overly handsome–although not as moody and dark as Orson wells, he gives the character more humor and fits the bill admirably.
“Best chemistry on the screen”
This version is one of the best adaptions I’ve ever seen. I can’t get enough of it!!!
It this particular version a lot of events were dismissed and rewritten, but what you can expect from not-even-2-hour movie!? Also didn’t like Mr.Rochester in the beginning, he was hateful, mean, arrogant, bad-mannered, not quite Charlotte Bronte’s description and again -still handsome (in the book he wasn’t handsome man). But with the movie’s progress he becomes quite Bronte’s Rochester.
I JUST LOVE the passion between Jane & Mr.Rochester!!! The both actors are brilliant!!! How they felt each other! Best chemistry on the screen. Also like to see Gemma Jones as Mrs.Fairfax – wonderful! (I’m her big fan).
“Hinds brings Rochester to life”
I’ve seen the Hinds/Morton Jane Eyre many times, each time I see more and more pure acting ability from Hinds than any other actor in this role, his facial expressions portray as much as his spoken lines. Hinds in excellent in portraying the gruffness and hard edge of Rochester yet tenderness in his passion and love for Jane–Hinds brings Rochester to life. The last scenes of this movie with Hinds’ and Morton’s recital of love and devotion for each other are nothing short of astounding. Hinds’ tears were real as he poured out his heart to Jane that he was no longer worthy of her, how could she love him now as a wounded blind man unable to care for her–amazing acting on Hinds’ part.
“His tears were real…nothing short of astounding.”
Ciaran Hinds is an elusive blend of understanding tenderness and explosive passion – of course Rochester would be full of pent-up passions just waiting to be unleashed – with the kind of past he’s led. And Ciaran certainly lets us feel what is in his heart and soul. I absolutely love the little-boy glimpse you get of Rochester as he confronts Jane in the driveway after she returns from the visit to her aunt….Ciaran Hinds was wonderful in “Persuasion” but, Oh My! he really shows his passionate Irish heritage in this film! I love it!
“An elusive blend of understanding tenderness and explosive passion”
No, he’s not a handsome man like Colin Firth in Pride and Prejudice, but he’s attractive in a different way- very masculine- his eyes are magnetic. Besides, anyone obsessing about whether or not he’s eye candy is missing the point that Jane so eloquently makes: she does not care for his appearance. She loves him as the person he is. Mr. Hinds has the ability to give his characters that larger than life feel- His voice is thundering, his gestures are sweeping, but he does not overact. Plus, the chemistry he has with Samantha Morton is incredible. You can feel the tension and sensuality flowing between them, even when all they’re doing is shaking hands.
“A glimpse of the little boy…”
In particular, the actor portraying Mr. Rochester gives one of the worst performances of a Rochester I have ever seen. He’s so hotheaded and violent it’s difficult to see what positive traits Jane sees in him. This is no sardonic hero.
“His eyes are magnetic”
Alas reader, … the screenplay. I hated it. For instance, the “after fire” scene was especially atrocious as Rochester comes off as a nasty lech and Jane has a sort of orgasm entering her room after it. YUCK! All tenderness out the window in what is supposed to be a scene about awakening love, not a lust-fest!… Also, the ending, though the dialog is not exactly from the book, was extremely touching. They are both excellent in this scene.
“Leaves me weeping helplessly by the end”
Ciaran Hinds IS Edward Rochester. I have read the book multiple times, and none of the other actors I’ve seen quite fit the physical description. Ciaran Hinds is perfect. He fits perfectly. The man is amazing, and Samantha Morton is superb. She strikes the perfect balance between quietness and spirit. The only problem I had with it was the fact that they left out one of St. John’s sisters. That is it. The chemistry between Hinds and Morton is unspeakably beautiful. I normally do not cry at movies, but this one leaves me weeping absolutely helplessly by the end. Edward Rochester is my favorite male character ever in any book I’ve ever read (and I’ve read quite a few). Ciaran Hinds captures the essence of Rochester.
“Nasty lech”
Hinds is a true Rochester, both physically and spiritually. He dominates the screen with his powerful personality: the original character is not at all handsome, he’s often emotionally abusive, but still manages to be fascinatingly charismatic and sexually desirable. Hinds is a perfect image of a dangerous, romantic, imposing Byronic ‘doomed hero’, a rake eventually tamed and redeemed by marital love.
“The most disgusting onscreen kiss I’ve ever seen”
Mr. Rochester was disgusting. Then, when Jane and him profess their love for each other, I think that was the most disgusting onscreen kiss that I’ve ever seen (with the exception of anytime that Kevin Costner kisses). The acting was so overdramatized at that point that I had to turn it off b/c I felt like gagging.
“Dangerous, romantic, an imposing Byronic figure”
So you see, Dear Reader, de gustibus non est disputandum (There’s no arguing over taste). Personally, I would agree that Hinds’ Rochester is too angry, but there is some warrant for that in the book, to say nothing of the screenplay (admittedly flawed). As for the charge of lechery, I think that’s in the minds of the beholders, some of whom interpreted Hinds’ abundant sexual charisma this way and found it threatening. But anyone who thinks Rochester is a virtuous, Darcy-like gentleman with his passions well under control needs to read the book again.
And now for my favorite comment of all:
I have had this version for a couple or years. I loved the very original and saw it multiple times, but this version with Quieran Hinds is by far my favorite……and the hero is perfect, in anything, He is my favorite actor. Samantha Hinds is excellent, also.
“He is my favorite actor.”
Linnet Moss 
Curiously enough, this is one of the large stack of DVDs featuring “Quieran” Hinds that I have not yet watched. It has now moved as if by magic to the very top of the pile. Any production that elicits such a range of reactions must be extraordinary.
Thanks for the comment, Laura. I’d love to know what you think once you’ve seen it.
This version is … difficult. On the one hand, it’s very good. On the other, it’s terrible. Mr Hinds is not my idea of Rochester (too angry and shouty), but on the other hand, there are some tender moments (and funny – like the “no doubt even PILOT got a letter!”) and I like Sam Morton as Jane.
Apparently Hinds wasn’t too keen on the kissing, because he’s so much older than Morton, he kind of felt squicky about the whole thing!
Yes, I think he was a bit self-conscious about how much older he was.
As to the angriness, I blame the screenplay because the words he is given to speak are harsh and angry, and often have little to do with the book. If you accept Rochester as a man embittered and angry about how life has treated him, I think the character makes sense within the bounds of the film. That said, I’d have liked a few more tender scenes to balance the harshness. But for my money his acting at the end is absolutely the best of the five I have reviewed. I’m going to re-watch the miniseries (and watch the Toby Stephens one for the first time) when I’m done with my project.
Can’t wait to see what you have to say about them both! ❤
One of the things I like about '97 is when Rochester greets Jane in the morning after the proposal and softly calls her "Mrs Rochester". I do melt at that point!
Yes, that is a sweet scene. My favorite is when they talk privately by the pond, and later on the hilltop watching the sun rise.
I loved the contrast between these reviews – they really had me grinning. “One man’s meat is another man’s poison” – or in this case, “one woman’s poison is another woman’s passion.” I fall into the latter category. I must admit to bias, as Mr. H is my most (only) favorite actor, but this is by far my favorite version of JE. I have at least half a dozen versions sitting in my cabinet and have seen many others, but this is the one I rewatch. I think Hinds perfectly captures Rochester: physically not handsome, yet compelling; mentally bitter and desolate, insecure and desperate. I guess the reason I never felt he was bullying, though he tried to be at times, was Morton’s exquisite acting in response: she perfectly captures Jane’s amusement and control in those moments with her facial expressions. She and Rochester understand each other, and she sees his soul. Apparently those negative viewers did not grasp that delicate chemistry.
I agree with you on Morton. She’s a great match for Hinds and she definitely captures that delicate dynamic in the book where Jane “manages” and humors this difficult man. She even teases him quite a bit, and the plotline punctures his dignity on more than one occasion, so the film’s humor is one of its best achievements as an adaptation (most versions are entirely humorless). In the book, Jane is comfortable with him as he is, and she isn’t intimidated by his occasional bullying and fierceness. She sees through that to his poetical, passionate soul 🙂
What do you think of the “disgusting lech” comments? What’s going on there?
I think those people are projecting, LOL! ANY version that truly shows the reality of the age and social differences between these characters will likely be seen this way, if the p
Sorry, accidentally sent that too soon. If the roles are presented as passionately as they are in the book, with actors of realistically appropriate ages, modern viewers may easily be offended.
I think you’re right that the age difference has a lot to do with it. Some of those who commented on Amazon were repelled by it even though it is true to the book. Personally I don’t understand the big objection to age difference, as long as the relationship is based on mutual love, but I am aware that a lot of women are put off by it. Beyond that, it seems that his physical persona makes women think of sex–some in a good way, and some in a bad way. I simply did not observe anything leering or crude in his performance. I’ll have to go back and see if he has a “sweat-beaded brow” but I think that claim is also imaginative projection. The proposal kiss is misjudged, IMO, but by Morton and the director, not by him.
I agree with you. I did not see ANYTHING leering or crude – all projection IMO. I think that will be confirmed by a re-view. Actually I just rewatched it a couple of weeks ago with my sister, who is unfamiliar with Mr. H and hadn’t seen it before. (We’re doing a Bronte/Austin weekly movie night.) She thought it was the best version she’d seen. (With no pressure from me. I tried not to influence her. 😋)
That’s great! I am glad to have non-biased opinions confirm ours 🙂
Speaking of the age difference, you’ve probably seen Morton’s interview about the movie on YouTube. She touched on that a couple of times. https://youtu.be/Ce3X_4GpLTw
Yes, that was very illuminating! I love all the interviews from those days.
I also agree about the humor in this version! That’s one of its best characteristics. I *love* the scene where he’s on the wall waiting for her return.
Yes, that is the screenplay’s one shining gem and is NOT in the book. But so lovely that you wish it were. I think that the playfulness is very much in the spirit of the original.
Some interesting opinions…lol..Quieran-really?!
I could imagine him playing Heathcliff, he has a potential wildness that would suit that part…I must confess I haven’t seen this adaptation, adding it to the “Must Watch” list…
Yes, he would have made a good Heathcliff for sure! He played Michael Henchard in “The Mayor of Casterbridge” and many fans think it’s one of his best performances.
Ooh I shall add that too…you may have a convert here…first time I saw Ciaran Hinds was in “Game Of Thrones” as Mance Rayder so I obviously need to binge watch eveything he’s ever been in…ever…lol!!
Some great insights definitely inspiring me to go back and re-read and watch! Thank you 🙂
Oh yes, that final scene in GoT was phenomenal and really showed his talents. Up till then he was underutilized! I recommend “Persuasion” if you’re a Jane Austen lover, and “The Eclipse” if you like psychological drama and romance.
It was really sad…I agree the directors could have done a lot more with him~thank you for the recommendations, I can see I shall have plenty to keep me occupied this weekend 🙂
I absolutely agree….Michael Henchard in TMOC~ One of his finest. For all the poor character traits at the beginning~ I found myself crying at the end….Michael Farr in the Eclipse~ Another fine performance~ I thought he was robbed at the IFTA’S…& Persuasion. Of course . We/re all still waiting for #TheSeashore…(Himself’s little joke!)
LOL, “The SeaShore,” that’s great, Dorothy! Did he say that in an interview? As for “The Eclipse,” it is up there in my top 5 list. Also a favorite soundtrack!
If you get multiple comments nearly the same, I’m sorry.
Yes. A good Heathcliff and Michael H was an incredible performance. How interesting these comments are, Linnet. I’m taken back with wonder at the different reactions of people seeing the same thing. Personal experience, it appears, counts more than fact.
I’ve mentioned before how I watched this version when it came out from just because of loving JE and though I enjoyed it, it was not a favorite until years later after I saw himself in “Persuasion” and saw JE shortly afterward, recognizing the actor in both was the same. IMO, his overall look in this version, with the exception of the muttonchops, is perfect. Muttonchops are never (again IMO) right on the romantic lead in the story. Another good Rochester was Toby Smith, who also bore the ridiculous chops. Oh well.
I didn’t like the bellowing in this JE, but the wonderful scene of him perched on the wall his waiting for Jane to return, the scene where he introduced JE to Blanche as his bride, the humor about Pilot, the (amazing) tear from his eye, all are memorable. I especially liked the chemistry between him and Samantha Morton and thought she was a very good JE, the best of those in my memory.
I enjoyed your piece, of course, thank you as always.
Thank you Ellen! I like the Blanche scenes too, and the way this Rochester acknowledges the game he’s playing, where the other ones don’t–which makes them seem more dodgy, not less. As for muttonchops, just be thankful you were not a young lady in Victorian times!! I recall that they made a bit of a comeback during the 70’s, but thank goodness one rarely sees them nowadays.
I think some have taken a literal interpretation of an older man & a young woman but Jane Eyre is so much more than that! I remember watching the Hinds/Morton version for the first time & being completely spellbound by Rochester~ a man used to having women not answer him back, who know their own mind. Prior to this I always admired George C Scott’s version which also touched me….I watched, thinking~ #WHO is this actor? I think Morton resisted the chemistry at the Kiss scene which some commented was #Awkward, but the hesitation & the release of pent up emotion & passion was there. Above all, the scene at the end where Jane & Rochester come together literally had me in tears, witnessing Ciaran’s #Real tears & this confusion over #Pity & #Love~ Truly brilliant acting from both.
I fully agree, Dorothy.
I enjoyed the Scott version too, but my favorite besides Hinds/Morton is the Orson Welles version, despite the way it slashes the original story. For me, Hinds/Morton have better chemistry than any of the others. I just wish that screenplay had preserved more of the original language! Instead, they tried to modernize the language and in so doing, drained much of the magic.
I like Ciaran Hinds but I really don’t like him as Rochester at all, he’s my least fave of all Rochesters I’ve seen. I have no problems with looks and he is meant to be a man of passion, but he is just brutish to me in this adaptation. I really don’t like that… So yeah, I’m with the dislikers… 😊
There’s no arguing over taste 🙂
LOL! No, there isn’t. For me Ciaran Hinds will forever be the perfect Captain Wentworth. 🙂
Oh yes, he hit it out of the park on that one. But he doesn’t have to do much except look beautiful and brooding. He actually does not have that many lines! Still, what he communicates with facial expression alone is amazing.
Not just facial but his whole body expression is spot on!
I don’t know how long ago you saw the Hinds/Morton version but you may want to watch it again. If it was a while ago I’d love to hear if you still have the same reaction. ☺
You’re right, it’s been a long time! Maybe I will gather the courage and try again… thanks for the encouragement.
Great post. I also enjoy comparing TV or movie adaptations of classic novels, especially characters and casting. But, Ciarán Hinds as Mr. Rochester? Well, I think he is completely miscast. For me there is nothing too mysterious or “hidden” within him. I personally loved Michael Fassbender as Mr. Rochester, thought he made a nice part.
Thanks dbmovies. Your preference shows once again how diverse opinions can be in the matter of casting. This is especially true when it is a matter of casting the characters in a beloved story.
this is one of the BEST romantic films I have EVER seen… I don’t know how many times I have seen it… the more often I watch it, the more I want to come back and watch it again…
It portrays so many little hidden secrets every person capable of loving – wether they want to admit it or not, feels, felt or dreams of…
those apparently insignificant little things that are exactly what makes this version so magical and magnetizing, like for example that quick stop in the hallway, when he enters the house after returning home, and him knowing/feeling that she is waiting for his return, standing up there to enjoy a quick glance of him, catching her by surprise and therefore having proof that she must be feeling something for him… or the moment he falls into despseration, when she leaves the room after having saved him from the fire, all confused and excited over the fact that he held her hand and caressed it… or when he acts like a little boy, sitting on top of the wall, counting the minutes for her to finally get back… stating that even the dog must have gotten a letter from her but not him… aaaaaah… simply magical… the entire thing lives of these little moments… the passion moments are epic… Hinds is a master at what he does… certainly, the chemistry is grand between the actors, but HE is what truly turns this into a masterpiece… I can’t get enough of it…
Wonderful comment, thank you!!!
I want to see this movie soon. I saw him as Captain Wentworth wonderfull– he is oe of my favorite actors now I had never heard of him got movie at the library.
Want to see him as cesar too. Talented handsome . wonderful.
He is indeed, Susan. Thank you for the comment! Be prepared for a character very different from Wentworth… I can certainly recommend “Rome” as well. Mr. Hinds doesn’t look like the real-life Caesar, but it scarcely matters because he’s so good in the role.
I did see Jayne Eyre yesterday-l think it very good. c Hinds love seeing him in itSuch fine actor. Eyre did very well young and innocent.
Glad you got to see it! Mr. Hinds always does a wonderful job, and Samantha Morton as Jane was excellent too.
My absolute favourite. Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton are just lovely. The bestest Mr Rochester of all time. Love love love.
Thank you Helen! It’s my favorite too. You may enjoy some of my other posts about Jane Eyre : )
I have not read the book but I was wanting to see a good English love movie an I had no knowledge much of any of the actor/actress prior hand so was just a movie to watch not knowing what to expect but I have always loved English love stories an I feel in love with Pride and Prejudice this had been my favorite so far an I even purchased the DVD for my own collection so here I go I scanned movies I could see without subscription a lot of complications to get to etc an this movie was easy to click on an start watching so it was intriguing from the start like I say I never read the book or subtitle about the movie so I was all in from the beginning an maybe the best parts was in the beginning with little Jane Eyre an her Aunt an Mr. Brocklehurst it took me back to being a child facing discipline, ok no one cares to hear this, but this is what a movie should do, takes your mind to other places so I had to be careful to keep my mind together to keep up with the movie not knowing about the book or what to expect next so early on I was impressed with the movie so much I knew there was nothing that would stop me from getting to the end so I watched on to be more intrigued, Jane Eyre as she came on the scene grown up she fit the character could not say she was pretty or ugly but thought her looks we’re appealing an then Mr. Rochester came on scene the movie became more intriguing I mean it is a love story so I felt Ciaran Hinds was great in this movie he played/acted very superb an I don’t want to take anything away from Jane Eyre the actress who played her but I’m female attracted to males so naturally my mind is on Mr. Rockchester all I can say to end it up is that I’m a fan of the movie an everyone in movie played a part to make it great even pilot the dog looked intriguing so there you go I was even in love with the dog, so after the movie I found myself watching it over an over again but I think this movie tops Pride an Prejudice for me mostly because I fell in love with Mr. Rockchester/Ciaran Hinds please forgive for prestalking him this is what the movie did I went on to lookup more of his movies to watch so there you go only a great movie can do this to the watcher/audience. Janie
Thank you Janie for adding your comments! I’m so glad you enjoyed the movie. I agree with you about Jane’s childhood and definitely about Pilot too!
I have never read the book or watched any movie about Jane Eyre until this past week. Mr. Hinds made me fall in love with his character. I have always liked a challenge in men. Lol. He is not an attractive man but there’s something about Hines that draws me in. I had never seen anything he was in before. Morton was gentle and sweet which complimented Hines sour grape personality. I loved it! Now I am reading the book.
Thanks for the comment, Tray! If you keep watching Mr. Hinds, you may find that he is more attractive than you thought at first. Watch “Persuasion” or “Ivanhoe,” and see what you think. Hope you enjoy the book. It is a favorite of mine and I wrote an entire series for this blog about it and its film adaptations.
I first read Jane Eyre when I was 12 and it became my favorite book of all time. Orson Welles was my favorite Mr. Rochester. Anyway, I don’t know how I missed this version of Jane Eyre, but I just watched it last week. I recognized Ciaran Hinds (I didn’t know his name, but have seen him in a few movies). I was consumed by this movie and have been obsessing over Mr. Hinds. since. He drips masculinity. I love when he ignores Jane when he and his quests arrive. Making her jealous I see.
Yes, the kiss sucked, but I feel that Jane did not want to get carried away, as virtuous as she was, yet feeling her love and desire towards Mr. Rochester (I sure understand that!!). So it was a clumsy kiss. These two characters had such chemistry. I have watched the proposal and ending multiple times this weekend. Finally, the ending, when Mr. Rochester cries was so touching I felt like I was intruding on a private moment. Ciaran hinds is now my favorite Mr. Rochester and my new favorite actor.
Thank you so much for your reactions, Debbie! I recognize the way that you noticed Mr. H. in a few movies before you learned his name. That happened to me too. When I saw him in “Rome,” I thought “Who IS that MAN???” I also agree with your analysis about the clumsy kiss. You can find several other posts about Mr. Hinds by searching his name on my blog.
Nobody has posted a comment in a long time, but I just want to add my two cents. Best Jane Eyre film for, in so many ways but especially because Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton were so brilliant in this! So much chemistry. First film I ever saw of Hinds, and now I am a diehard fan. Probably my favorite actor ever. Anyone who says “he isn’t handsome” well, I vehemently disagree. Go watch “Persuasion” for instance and tell me that! As for the mustache and mutton chops, that is true to the 19th century and honey, I may be strange but I go for the 19th century men! Alas, I was born in the wrong century lol. Anyway, I loved this article so thanks! –Laurie
Thanks so much Laurie! I agree that the great strength of this version is its chemistry. And Mr. H. is nothing if not magnetic. His face does’t look girlish, but in my book, that’s a plus! As a fan, be sure to check out ciaranhinds.eu. They have a wealth of photos and interviews, plus a complete filmography. Plenty to keep you entertained : )
I will definitely check out that site, thanks Linnet! 😊
P.s. agree, he is not girly looking at all (like the pretty boy Timothy Dalton? Just my opinion) and that is another reason I like him, he is masculine and sort of ruggedly handsome, you know what I mean and his eyes alone…dont get me started lol 🙂
I know exactly what you mean. I prefer a craggy and masculine type, yet his eyes are large and very expressive. He has a perfect combination of manliness and sensitivity.
Yes, he really does “act” with his eyes. No better example than in “Persuasion” when he summons Anne to get her to say if she is going to marry Eliott–his eyes are so dark and spitting fire in that scene! It’s like holy moly, he is pissed as hell lol. He runs the gamut of emotions with his eyes, it is a wonder to behold! 🙂
Laurie, you make me want to watch it again! Have you seen the “Above Suspicion” TV series where he plays a police investigator? He’s older, of course, but has so many great scenes with Kelly Reilly. And he uses those hazel eyes to great effect! I highly recommend these shows if you can stand the realistic scenes of bodies and such.
No, I haven’t seen that except for a few video clips. Not sure that sort of program is my cup of tea, but I would watch anything he is in, his acting is just so watchable. Thanks for the suggestion! Oh yes, Persuasion is worth watching again. In addition to the eyes, I marvel at how in both Persuasion and Jane Eyre, he carries off scenes where he completely ignores the woman he actually desires, in an attempt to get her interested in him. He is sooo smooth, and I think I would be very frustrated to be on the receiving end of that. Poor Jane, that is one reason she is convinced he isnt that into her, cause he has snubbed her so adroitly! 😄
In both Persuasion and Jane Eyre, his character has a reason to try to pretend he doesn’t care–Wentworth has his old grudge, and Rochester has his hidden wife. But I swear that Rochester is also toying with Jane for his amusement. He has a little cruel streak that way. The character in Above Suspicion is aloof too, and in a position of power, but he has some moments of great tenderness. CH and Kelly Reilly have good chemistry, but then I’ve never seen CH with a female lead where they had bad chemistry.
Oh I agree, about the bit of a cruel streak, it is definitely there. I think a bit of sadism suits that character well lol! And it is even evident in the Rochester as portrayed in the book. Which makes sense if you realise Charlotte Bronte was somewhat of a masochist, as some scholars have pointed out. If you read the bio Charlotte Bronte: A Fiery Heart, it tells how she based several of her characters, including Rochester, on a Belgian professor she was madly in love with, but he was married and had no interest in her romantically. She seems to have written Jane Eyre in part to say to him, “if I can’t have you for real, I will have you on paper!”
I agree that there is a dominant/submissive vibe in the novel. This is something I blogged about in my series comparing the Jane Eyre movies. This masochistic element exists in tension with Brontë’s feminist views, and it makes for a great, complex novel!
So true! Another thing I dont believe most critics of this understand, is that the entire 19th century had dominant/submissive currents. Men and women had very defined roles, such that a “good” wife was meant to be submissive and adoring of her husband; whereas the role of the husband was supposed to be a “benign tyrant.” I actually did some research on gender roles in the 19th century, and this is what it said. Certainly as you point out, Charlotte Bronte must have been torn between her feminist feelings, and her deep need for a husband and kindred spirit. She seems to have found that to a degree at the end of her life with her marriage to Arthor Nicholls, but sadly she died 9 months into the relationship. Life sometimes sucks lol.
Yes, Charlotte had a terribly sad life. So much suffering and loss. As you say, she needed a kindred spirit. She created one for herself in this immortal book–and what a gift for us! As to the dominant and submissive thing, have you ever noticed in the book how at certain points she refers to him as “my master”? She even does that when she goes back to Thornfield to find him after staying with St. John.
Indeed, she left us a great gift. It is unfortunate that sometimes artists have to make extreme sacrifices in their personal lives, but the result is great art. As for “my master”–that kind of talk was prevalent in that century, especially with married couples, where the man was considered the ruler of his household, including his wife. In England they called a Male teacher a school master, the proprietor of a manor was known to servants as “the master” too, as Mrs. Fairfax referred to Rochester. So yeah, it was a common term in 19th century England.
Yes it was a common term, but governesses did not normally speak of their employers as “my master.” There is significance in both the term “master” as used by Jane and in the possessive pronoun.
Ciaran Hinds is hot. I’d do him.
Thanks for the comment Tara. You are not alone in your opinion : )