Skip to main content

Do you think the dead come back and watch the living?

Rebecca 
(1940)

(There are spoilers in this review, so you may wish to avoid it if you have not seen the film.)

Hitchcock's first Hollywood foray wasn't an altogether happy experience, with the director prevented from exercising his accustomed autonomy by authorially-minded producer David O Selznick. The finished film bears few signs of those problems (some ill-fitting synching of dialogue is a telltale of Selznick’s late-hour rewrites), but displays all the added polish that studio dollars could bring. (Not that funds were running freely from a tap; Selznick International Pictures had a distribution deal with United Artists, but had seriously over-stretched itself funding Gone with the Wind, released the year before.) The final film is possibly more loved by fans of classical Hollywood cinema than Hitchcock devotees, but it remains a compelling piece of work. The great director is somewhat constricted by his producer’s desire to adhere closely to the source material but emerges with a film that may have actually been better for the limitations imposed upon him.

The director didn't go in for adaptations of established literary works very often, preferring the freedom to stamp his own character and style on his material.  He probably foresaw no significant restrictions, as Daphen Du Maurier’s novel was not revered as a sacred text. It had been published in 1938 to popular, if not resounding critical, success. But fidelity was one of the areas he clashed with Selznick on, particularly in terms of humorous content. He opined to Francois Truffaut that there was none, although this really isn’t true. His wicked sense of humour is on display throughout, and he bookends the film with two deliciously comic turns (Florence Bates as Mrs Van Hopper and George Sanders as Jack Favell). In the middle, of course, is reliable duffer Nigel Bruce, equipped with an inflatable barbell.

A more famous disagreement with Selznick was over the producer’s idea of ending the film with the smoke of the burning house forming the letter R; Hitchcock reduced this to a decidedly more sane shot of a monogram of the letter. Also frustrating to Selznick, who had gone through three directors on Gone with the Wind, was Hitch’s style of editing “in camera”; there was simply no additional footage shot, so the producer couldn’t re-edit.

Critic Richard Schickel suggested that to an extent this was Hitch taking on a “women’s film”, and it’s true that we are bound to protagonist Joan Fontaine’s (we never learn her first name) journey in an initially more straightforward manner than we might expect from the director. But. from the spooky opening remembrance of the house that defines the film (“Last night I dreamt of Manderlay again”) shown as a crumbling ruin, it is evident that there will be more to the film than straight melodrama. Accordingly, during its course the story manages to reconfigure itself several times. It begins as something approaching a frothy romantic comedy, evolves into the gothic mystery that has defined it, and then a more typical suspense plot asserts itself in the final act (what will the fates decide for unhappy Maximillian De Winter?)

The structure provides the director with the opportunity to indulge in the type of subjective viewpoint that is his forte. For more than two-thirds of the film we're Fontaine's constant companion, not privy to information external to her or the truth behind the torment of her remote new husband (Maxim, Laurence Oliver). Fontaine convinces completely as the naïve, besotted innocent in awe of Maxim. Apparently Hitchcock extracted her performance by telling the actress that everyone on set hated her (she was already upset by Olivier treating her badly as he had wanted squeeze Vivien Leigh for Fontaine's role). True or not (and she went on to win an Oscar for her next film Suspicion, also with the director, so it can’t have been too unpleasant an experience), the story certainly resonates in scenes where she is driven to nervous exhaustion by the oppressive presence of the former Mrs De Winter (this is a ghost story really, which Mrs Danvers alludes to at one point).

As winning as Fontaine is, there is a feeling that the film makes slightly too much of her as the wilting violet. You want her to tire of getting pushed around, be it by imperious housekeeper Mrs Danvers or Maxim (who is largely unhelpful in easing her adjustment to Manderlay, and most frequently patronises her as little more than a child). This would be acceptable if there was sufficient pay-off but, just when she looks as if she has grasped the mettle (proclaiming to the housekeeper that she is Mrs De Winter), Mrs Danvers delivers a knockout blow at the costume ball. So ultimately it is less-than-satisfying that her strength asserts itself as a result of a shift in her understanding of circumstances between Maxim and Rebecca, rather than a desire not to take any more crap. She only becomes strong through supporting him in his weakness, rather than triumphing over the odds. While the sustaining of tension requires that characters don’t respond as we might wish them to, the problem with Fontaine is that she ends up testing our patience due to her lack of proactivity.

The lengthy confession scene that propels the film into its final act has received criticism from some quarters as cutting the film dead. Maybe a more effective method of dealing with the exposition could have been employed, although not showing Rebecca (even in photos) is arguably more powerful than encountering her in flashbacks. I think the scene works because the content is engrossing. Olivier may wring out the theatricality occasionally but the scene works dramatically, breaking down his barriers and simultaneously building Fontaine's up.

It’s interesting to see Olivier at the beginning of screen stardom. Perhaps it’s a case of not associating him with contemporary roles, but he seems like a fresh presence cast as romantic lead (although his performance in the following year’s 49th Parallel should be visited for a really fun Olivier part in that period).

The greatest significance of this point in the story is that the focus shifts to Maxim once the truth about Rebecca is revealed. Fontaine isn’t afforded a showdown with Mrs Danvers, and it’s a testament to the juicy dramatics in the final reel, as Hitchcock milks the accusations and revelations, that we don’t immediately miss this. It’s ironic that once the film becomes all about Olivier, Sanders steal it from under him. The actor louches his way through his every scene, reveling in Favell’s caddishness, so shamelessly slippery that you can't but love him.

It’s not so unusual for Hitchcock’s films to suddenly swerve off narratively. Most famous is Psycho, wearing its misdirection of character as a badge of pride. Then there’s Stage Fright, with its untruthful flashback. But reducing the lead character to second fiddle so far through the story speaks more of fidelity to the text than responding to the needs of the screen adaptation. Ironically, the last section of the film is where the greatest deviation from the novel is found. The censor would not have allowed Maxim to get away with murder as he does in the book, even if the audience was willing to accept it. Accordingly, the death of Rebecca is accidental. This will likely hurt the integrity of the piece only if you came to the novel first, as the guilt felt by Maxim makes sense even in a reduced form.

The chances are that the most abiding memory from seeing the film for the first time will be Judith Anderson’s performance as Mrs Danvers.  She’s a dominating, transfixing presence, and Anderson pitches the character just the right side of mentalist (that is, in Alan Partridge's definition of the word). Witness the scene where she gently goads the despairing Fontaine to jump to her death, or the cruel hauteur with which she reveals why she sabotaged the ball.  And, as the extent of her obsession with Rebecca is gradually revealed, it would be the most blithe viewer who didn’t infer lesbian tendencies. Apparently the Hayes Office was concerned lest there be any suggestiveness of Mrs Danvers' preferences, but if that's the case they didn’t succeed. The key scene occurs as she shows Fontaine round Rebecca's immaculately preserved room. This includes a particularly suggestive moment as she reveres one the former Mrs De Winter's nightie, which is see-through. It’s both a slap in the face to the virginal Fontaine and a signifier of, at very least, the sights to which  the housekeeper has been privy.

George Barnes’ black and white deep focus photography is gorgeous, and it’s no surprise that he won an Oscar. Hitchcock resisted shooting in colour as he felt it would work against the gothic qualities in the story. What’s on screen testifies to that; Fontaine’s first sight of Manderlay (a model) through a rain-spattered windscreen, billowing fog rearing around the house, the vast impeccably arranged interiors. California doubled for Cornwall, and the director remarked to Truffaut that the sense of isolation this dictated for the house might be seen to have worked in the story’s favour.

The film won the 1941 Best Picture Oscar, and saw the director’s first nomination out of five (he was never to win) which made it more a triumph for Selznick (he had also won the previous year for Gone with the Wind).

Not as infused with pure Hitchness as his later work, this is still far from the director operating merely as gun-for-hire. It’s the first chance to see his mastery at work on a significant scale, and the result is sumptuous. This would likely have made a satisfying adaptation of a gripping yarn without his involvement, but his presence ensures that it is told with the skill of a consummate craftsman.  


****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …