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 dollars 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 to the source material but emerges with a film that may have actually been better for the limitations imposed.

Hitch didn't often go in for adaptations of established literary works, preferring the freedom to stamp his own character and style on his material.  He probably foresaw no significant restrictions, as Daphne 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 where he clashed with Selznick, 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 took place over the producer’s idea of ending the film with the burning house's smoke forming the letter R; Hitchcock reduced this to a decidedly saner shot of a monogram of the letter. Also frustrating 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 there will be more Rebecca 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 Rebecca, we're Fontaine's constant companion, denied 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 wanted squeeze Vivien Leigh for the second Mrs de Winter). 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 were 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. Ultimately then, 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 it 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 as a 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 juncture 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, revelling in Favell’s caddishness, so shamelessly slippery that you can't help but love him.

It’s not so unusual for Hitchcock’s films to suddenly swerve off course 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 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 blithest viewer who failed to 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 nighties, 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 didn't win (nor the next four times), which made it more a triumph for Selznick (he'd 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 it is told with the skill of a consummate craftsman.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.