Watching Hitchcock's Rebecca...

Indonesia
September 27, 2009 10:48am CST
I don't know why this woman is so stupid to be intimidated by the maid on this movie, I mean she is the lady of the house and she is supposed to be ruling her! I know that she came from a regular family and not used to wealthiness. But my God...this movie is just so damn stupid in that part. Other than that, it is awesome to see how Hitchcok can build up tension about a character whose face is not even shown just once in the movie right? The way the Rebecca character being portrayed just based on the story of people who knew while she was alive yet presence is still strongly felt in the house? The only real proof she was in the house is actually the embroidered letter R in all things in the house. So, have you watched the movie. Do you think the story is still relevant today? What do you think if one day a studio decide to remake the movie? Any actress and actor in mind?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@oldchem1 (8132)
13 Jun 10
oh you have so missed the very essence of this incredible film!! If I were asked which my favourite film was I would instantly say 'Rebecca' - but it must be the 1940 black and white Hitchcock version. Usually when I watch a film of a book that I have enjoyed I am left disappointed, but I felt that this film stuck very much to the original book and captured the dark, gothic theme well. The film was of course, adapted from the book - Rebecca -by Daphne du Maurier, and was the first American film project for Alfred Hitchcock. The producer was David O. Selznick, who had previously produced the classic Gone with the Wind. This is the only Hitchcock film that won an Academy award (for cinematography and Best Picture) Joan Fontaine was chosen to co-star with Laurence Olivier. Among the other candidates to play Fontaine's role were Loretta Young, Olivia de Havilland (Fontaine's real-life sister) and even Vivien Leigh. I think that the casting of Joan Fontaine (who was 22 years old) was excellent, I know that her acting in this role did take a lot of criticism, but having read the book I think that she put across precisely the weakness and naivety that the role of the shy second wife required. She was the narrator of the film and her character - as in the original book - remained unnamed throughout. The combination of Selznick and Hitchcock led to the success of this film - Selznick's understanding of drama and romance combined with Hitchcock's use of suspense, mystery, and black comedy cumulated in a pure classic. It is a known fact that Hitchcock would have liked to have added some ironic twists to the story but Selznick wanted to remain true to the original book. This he did - well as much as the American film censors would allow. The one major change to the film from the novel is difficult to give without giving away too much of the story. I will not add it here just in case there is anyone who doesn't know - but should you wish to know - just leave me a comment and I will message it to you! Another change was that, in the book Du Maurier (who herself had lesbian relationships) made implications that Rebecca and Mrs. Danvers had an amorous relationship but the censors said that this was NOT to be implied - this WAS 1940!!
1 person likes this
• Indonesia
14 Jun 10
seems like you're big fan of the movie oldchem, I did not even know it is an adaptation of a book. what's the big change from novel to the movie? I'd like to know :) yes, I watched several Hitchcock movies and they are full of twists that people are not expecting and build up suspense in a way that no director could matched until now. Thanks for the response!
@oldchem1 (8132)
14 Jun 10
It is a fantastic book!! The difference is that in the movie, Rebecca is killed when she falls and hits her head on a boat tackle, whereas in the novel Rebecca is shot by Maxim.
• Indonesia
24 Jun 10
oh wow that's a major difference from the adaptation! how can the producer decided to remove the parts? maybe because it is too violent at the time..anyway, thanks for your deep thoughts about this movie, you should post it somewhere in a blog
@alaskanray (4636)
• United States
15 Jun 10
lOl...I liked the plot to this film but I agree, Joan Fontaine's character was pathetically wimpy. Still, you have to consider the age. Women back then were supposed to be subservient to their husbands and it translated over to the victim mentality. What bugged me most about this film was Joan Fontaine's posture. I never considered her a good actress, either. By far my favorite Hitchcock was Notorious with Ingrid Bergman. Now THERE was some acting!
@oldchem1 (8132)
15 Jun 10
I loved all Hitchcock's films - a pure master. I think that Fontaine really played the part as du Maurier wrote it. Du Maurier made her character SO non discript that she never even warrented getting a name!!!
• United States
15 Jun 10
Be that as it may, Fontaine comes across the same in every film I've seen her in. That whole caved chest posture of hers bothers me no matter what film she's in. :)
@scififan43 (2434)
• United States
28 Sep 09
I have seen Hickcok movies before but not Rebacka. so I can't realy comemt on this disscusion.