Review of Rebecca

Rebecca (1940)
9/10
Marvelous, if not quite faithful, adaptation of du Maurier's thriller
12 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This black and white classic is generally a wonderful adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's novel, and despite a number of liberties taken, I compliment Hitchcock on this brilliant thriller. The story revolves around a shy young woman who, having no family herself, is forced to serve as a paid companion to an obnoxious socialite named Mrs. Van Hopper, vacationing in Monte Carlo. While there, she meets a handsome but abrupt English widower named Maxim de Winter, who is staying at the same hotel and escorts her about. The innocent young woman is swept away by this mature and mysterious man, though she dares not reveal her emotions, given her lowly social position. Though there is strangely little romance involved, Maxim unexpectedly proposes marriage. The two wed and honeymoon abroad, then Maxim brings his bride home to his grand English country estate, Manderley.

At Manderley the insecure, nameless second Mrs. de Winter is emotionally haunted by Maxim's first wife, the beautiful and accomplished Rebecca. Though Rebecca drowned many months earlier in a boating accident, her memory seems all too fresh in the minds of Maxim's sister Beatrice, his servants, and indeed Maxim himself. The haunting R's are everywhere...on the table linens, the lacy handkerchief, the address book, the dressing gown case. We never see so much as a photograph of the mysterious Rebecca, but her lingering presence is felt through both her possessions and the recollections of others. The domineering and foreboding housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers, was personally devoted to Rebecca and exhibits unconcealed disdain for the new intruding and inadequate mistress of Manderley. When Danny shows Maxim's new bride the bizarre West Wing shrine she keeps to her former mistress, it seems as though Rebecca herself might walk in at any moment and use the nightgown and hairbrushes meticulously laid out for her.

For me, the quality of any adaptation of this novel depends upon the persona of the second Mrs. de Winter. Joan Fontaine is sympathetic and endearing in the role, suitably shy and bewildered, but this actress is far too pretty! Maxim's new bride should be unglamorous, even plain and dowdy. Primarily for this reason, I prefer the 1979 serial version which has a perfectly cast Mrs. de Winter. However, Laurence Olivier is superb as the mature, sophisticated, often brooding, and occasionally rather nasty Maxim de Winter. The most masterful performance is definitely given by Judith Anderson as the dark, sinister, and menacing housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers, whose chilling stare dominates much of the tale.

Maxim's business agent and friend, Frank Crawley, is faithfully portrayed as a quiet, kind, and competent individual who is unfailingly loyal to Maxim. Beatrice is suitably forthright, Giles foolish and chubby, the servants appropriately formal, and Jack Favell utterly despicable. Mrs. Van Hopper is wonderfully captured as the rude, chattering, condescending, and altogether obnoxious socialite of the novel, fawning over the aristocracy. Her character is necessary in order to cement sympathy for her paid companion and her social situation. I found the Monte Carlo scenes well presented, though could hardly picture du Maurier's gauche heroine so comfortably at ease dancing with Maxim.

The sets especially are brilliantly done, depicting Maxim's grand English country manor. I felt that I was literally standing in Manderley's grand hall with its incredible staircase. Library, morning room, dining room, upstairs galleries, Rebecca's bedroom, and boathouse are all perfectly captured. The Cornish coastal scenes with the haunting fog enshrouded sea are portrayed in typical eerie Hitchcock fashion. Even Jasper the spaniel is perfect!

*** WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS ***

According to the Hays Code, no movie could depict a murderer in a sympathetic light so the screenwriters were forced to cast Rebecca's death as an accident. Fortunately, I was aware of this in advance so managed the altered portrayal of events quite well. However, it certainly changed the flavour of this sinister tale.

As appealing as the dewy eyed Joan Fontaine is, Hitchcock falls short in capturing Mrs. de Winter. He changes completely her role in the Manderley costume ball preparations by indicating that SHE herself is taking charge. In the book, Mrs. de Winter feels utterly inadequate and useless in these preparations as the domineering Mrs. Danvers organizes menus, flowers, music, and invitations. The worst outrage is his failure to depict the complete transformation of this awkward, insecure young woman, initially so ill at ease as mistress of Manderley and timid with the servants. Once she is assured of Maxim's love and no longer haunted by Rebecca, the novel's Mrs. de Winter immediately becomes a confident lady of the manor, scolding a maid and even taking on Mrs. Danvers. Yes, there IS one movie scene where she DOES defy the housekeeper, declaring, 'I am Mrs. de Winter now'. However, it's ALL WRONG, defeating its purpose by occurring BEFORE Maxim reveals the truth. Hitchcock is certainly a master of the thriller but totally missed the point here.

The ball scenes are shortened due to time constraints, some of the later settings altered, and liberties taken with the conclusion. The novel's Mrs. de Winter is driving home from London with Maxim, rather than remaining behind at Manderley during the fire. The lovey dovey embrace with the implied 'happily ever after' ending is unfaithful to the book. Neither at the beginning nor elsewhere is the viewer ever informed that the de Winters are currently living abroad in obscure hotels on the Continent in self imposed exile. However, for those less concerned with accuracy to the novel, this movie is a haunting and engrossing romantic thriller with an extremely sympathetic heroine.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed