Skip to main content

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

Rebecca 
(1940)

(SPOILERS) 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

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for