Rebecca - Alfred Hitchcock

 Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again. 

I suppose there are more famous opening lines to films but if you have seen Rebecca than I think when you hear this line you get a slight chill down your spine. You can see the image of the gate, with the chain and the padlock. You know what is beyond that, and the story you are about to witness and experience. There is a lot written about this film, and it is a classic for a very good reason. This was Hitchcock's first film made in America, and produced by the one and only David O'Selznick. The production value in the opening scene alone will make that very clear. Based on the Daphne du Maurier novel, this film was his 24th film, his very first Oscar nomination as director, and won Best Picture, and Best Cinematography at the 13th Annual Academy Awards in 1941. Both are well deserved awards.

I won't talk much about the plot, beyond stating that it is a classic Gothic thriller for a reason. There is a feel about it from the start to the end which the contrast between the bright Monte Carlo and the dark Manderley helps bring home, as it were. There is great use of studio models, and amazing use of music. It is difficult to think that this is the same writer and director of Jamaica Inn. Even more difficult to think that this is Daphne de Maurier wrote the novels that both films were based on as the films are so very different. 

Looking at it from this time period, I was constantly thrown by the attitudes of the characters. The fact that Joan Fontaine's character is never named but only known as the second Mrs. de Winter should be the first clue. I fully understand that the focus of the story is on Rebecca, the first Mrs. de Winter and so the character really doesn't need a name. Along with that, the story is told from her perspective, starting with that first line - "..I dreamt I went..." Perhaps I am making too much of this. Lawrence Olivier is fantastic as Maxim de Winter. His character is clearly used to being in charge, and always getting his way. Part of this may come down to the class difference between Maxim and his new wife, something made clear with Mrs. Danvers asks about Mrs. de Winter's maid and Fontaine's response is that she doesn't have one. However, it feels like those were the normal social gender roles at the time, the man bossing around his wife. I also found it interesting how so much of the film is about the male gaze. She has very little say in the matter of what happens, she is there just as an ornament - and she seems to be okay with it. Fontaine's character seems to have very little self-esteem to start with, and that is decreased even more when she gets to Manderley and meets Mrs. Danvers (so well played by Judith Anderson). Through out the film I kept wishing that Mr and Mrs de Winter would just take the time to sit and talk to each other, and not make assumptions about what the other person was thinking or feeling. There is an age gap between the two which may also play into this. It is a very period piece in that way - the older man, the younger woman - or maybe it is just the "classic" Hollywood treatment. There are quite a few films from this same time and after where the leading woman, the romantic lead is at least ten years younger than the leading man. You just have to look at the films of Audrey Hepburn to see this. 

Back to the film. There is no McGuffin, no spies, no car chases, nothing like you have seen previously in Hitchcock films. The thrill comes from deeper in the mind instead of on the screen. There IS a quick cameo. As George Sanders is making a phone call, Hitchcock had just left the booth and is passing behind. From what I have read it was supposed to be a bigger cameo, but Hitchcock didn't want any laughter so he cut most of it and left us with this. The version of the film I watched was from the Criterion Collection, spine 135. As with so many Criterion films, the supplements are overwhelming. A new 4K digital restoration, audio commentary from 1990, isolated music and effects tracks, a conversation between film critic Molly Haskell and scholar Patricia White, new interviews regarding visual effects, a 2016 French TV documentary about du Maurier and Rebecca, a 2007 making-of documentary, footage of screen tests for a variety of actresses who were up for the Fontaine role, caster gallery with notes from Hitchcock and O'Selznick, three different radio versions of the story, and more. It is a bit overwhelming but I'm excited to dive into it at some point. I also have this film as part of the Premiere Collection, which also has commentary (different from the Criterion edition), isolated music/effect tracks, a making of featurette, a featurette on the world of du Maurier, screen tests, radio plays, and audio interviews with Peter Bogdanovich and François Truffaut. 

As a timetaker, I also watched the 2020 Netflix adaptation of Rebecca staring Armie Hammer, Lily James, and Kristin Scott Thomas. It doesn't come close to meeting the atmosphere of the Hitchcock, but it was still a decent adaptation. The end of the film is very different from the 1940 version. In doing some research it seems like it was a choice that had nothing to do with the end of the original novel. I have a feeling it was done to make sure it had a "happy" ending, and I'm still not sure what I think about it.