Watched it last night - my wife really liked it. I was underwhelmed.
I think a good part of my reaction reflected my overall change of opinion re: the story. When I first read it as a teen, I woulda said it was one of my favorite books. But on rereading and viewing, I find myself focussing more and more on my dislike for the main character. Not helped by her portrayal by Lily James, apparently THE currently hot period actor, who has never impressed me. I think this is a story that is NOT helped by familiarity.
No idea why they added the bit at the very end, w/ Danvers jumping into the sea. And I sure don’t remember the protagonist being surprised in the dr’s office - but it has been a while.
They did do a good job of emphasizing her support for a man she knew was guilty. According to IMDB, previous rules prohibited that in the Hitchcock version.
I saw the title while browsing but didn’t realize it was a remake. Does it start like the book and the movie with the narration? If not, I’ll pass because you just can’t do it another way
I actually managed to read this one before I ever saw it. Then I saw the BBC version before the Hitchcock version. I still liked the Hitch version, because, y’know, Hitch, but all the elements that the Hays code forced out are sorely missed. The BBC version stuck really close to the book. The actors in the BBC version weren’t as charismatic as the famous Hollywood actors in the Hitch version, but the script was so much better. The contrast between the two is practically a study in the difference a good script makes.
I didn’t even know there was a new version. Of course, I will see it-- I always see stuff like this, no matter how awful it looks-- I saw the remake of Murder of the Orient Express, too.
If Mrs. Danvers jumps into the sea, I think it’s pretty obvious what they’re implying. I honestly can’t remember what she does in the book-- I was 12 or 13 when I read it, and never reread it, and have seen the BBC version, then multiple versions of the Hitch version. As long as it’s already been spoilered, and I don’t know how to do spoilers in the new forum --> you’ve been warned --> she went down with the house, best I can remember. I do pretty well remember “Only the sea was strong enough for my lady.”
Yeah, I was certain that in the book she was last seen in the burning house.
Apologies for not alerting spoilers - I’ve been so familiar w/ this book for so long, I just kinda imagined everyone was. I’ll see if a mod can/will amend the title.
The book ended with them driving to the house and seeing red sky and ashes. I read the book about a year ago and I remember that it was vague what happened.
I was watching with a couple of people who didn’t know the story and made a comment like “this is where the book ends”. They continued with showing the burning house, and the end of Mrs. Danvers.
This is the sort of thing I can’t not see, so I watched. It wasn’t bad – very pretty filming, the acting was fine (Ann Dowd as Mrs. Van Hopper a standout), I thought the script was fine, the changes to the book/Hitchcock didn’t bother me much. HOWEVER. After finishing, I asked myself what many critics seem to have asked – why bother doing this? Why bother re-making a first-rate classic? If Wheatley was trying to say something different than what Hitchcock or DuMaurier said, I missed it.
I believe Mrs Danvers survives in the book. The author has her moving her stuff out of Manderlay and taking off. The narrator still suspects her of arson though. It’s never really resolved.
That is weird. I read the book in University and also have seen the Hitchcock movie, which is pretty accurate. The main thing the Hitchcock movie changed was the circumstance around Rebecca’s death. I don’t remember everything, but I think they softened it by adding some kind of “accidental death” thing to it. My memory of the book is that Rebecca was so horrible, he actually intended to kill her.
Great question. Truth is, Hitchcock hated the entire process. The producer was super involved, like on set everyday. He demanded the movie be super faithful to the book, which is pretty much is. The funny thing is how well the whole thing turned out. Hitchcock disowned the whole thing, but it is actually one of his best movies. I’d put it up there with Psycho(his best) or Rear Window, another pretty good one he made.
My wife and I tried Hitchcock’s Jamaica Inn, also adapted from a Daphne du Maurier book. It was horrible!
My wife went and read Jamaica Inn and liked it almost as much as Rebecca. Hitchcock failed tremendously with the adaptation to movie, though.
Yes, like I said. He didn’t have total creative freedom. David Selznick was on set almost every day(think Spielberg on set of Poltergeist). Always giving notes, always giving his thoughts. Insisting they stick to the book as exact as possible. Very constricting, Hitchcock felt.
The movie turned out great, but I think the experience ruined it for Hitchcock.
It was even worse for Joan Fontaine. Laurence Olivier was super mean to her and had zero respect for her. All their “sparks” are nothing but acting. I don’t know if Olivier was always a jerk, but he was to her on that movie.
Edit: I just looked it up and he was mad Vivien Leigh, whom he was dating, did not get the role. So he was a jerk to Fontaine.
I’ve read the book a few times and seen the Hitchcock movie version probably 30 times. It’s one of my all-time favorite movies. This is one of those times when the movie is vastly superior to the book (IMHO). The movie trims and streamlines a baroque plot. Hitchcock got rid of extra, unnecessary characters and sidebars (and an extra dog, too).
The ambivalence and ambiguity of Maxim’s relationship with Rebecca, his marriage to the second Mrs. deW, her relationship to Mrs. Danvers and the other household staff-- Hitchcock captured all of that with immense subtlety. The movie bears watching many times.
It’s a little like The Sixth Sense– once you know the secret, you can go back and watch it with different eyes.
Why remake it? Can you really improve on Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine, George Sanders, Gladys Cooper, and Judith Anderson? No. You can’t.
I’ve looked at a couple of the other remakes-- the one with Charles Dance as Maxim sucks large duck eggs. Might take a peek at this one.
That made me laugh out loud! What do you think acting is?
Well, sometimes actors at least like each other enough to have raport. I mean, when Cary Elwes looks longingly at Robin Wright in Princess Bride, it was acting…but the two get along and there is no huge pressure pretending to be lovey dovey.
I had grave reservations about this when it was first announced. Armie Hammer seemed a horrible piece of miscasting and I wasn’t at all convinced that Lily James would be much better. Kirstin Scott Thomas, on the other hand, seemed perfect.
So it was refreshing that it turned out to be merely OK. Armie Hammer isn’t too bad, although there isn’t any point when one isn’t aware that there are dozens of standard-issue British actors who could have played Maxim with less obvious effort. Lily James was good enough in this to make one wonder whether she is best served by being cast so often in ultra-glamorous roles. Kirstin Scott Thomas was as good as I had expected. Not that Mrs Danvers is an especially difficult part to play. Scott Thomas neverthless completely nailed it.
The changes from the book were a mixed bag. Du Maurier’s ending is genius but it is very doubtful that it could ever work on screen. Hitchcock’s alternative at least had an appropriate touch of the grand guignol. This latest alternative probably does’t bear thinking about too closely. The second Mrs de Winter is the only witness to Danvers’ suicide and a second ambiguous death by drowning was the last thing the de Winters needed. Are we supposed to notice this? Or have the scriptwriters not done so?
The trip to London is always one of the clunkier bits of the plot. Having the second Mrs de Winter go alone is an interesting variation, especially as there is a certain logic in Maxim being placed under arrest. But this contributes to one of the odder features of this version, which is that Maxim becomes less central towards the end. Yet the most audicious thing about the book is the way in which Du Maurier convinces us that knowing the truth cements the bond between the de Winters and that, against our better judgments, we still side with them. Sidelining Maxim weakens all that.
I did like the use of locations. Normally I don’t like it when films use more than one recognisable building as supposedly the same building. Also, filming at Hatfield has become its own cliché for British period films. But here the use of lots of different houses for Manderley as a way of creating a deliberate sense of unreality worked really well.
I suppose that can happen. But you do know that Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze didn’t get along AT ALL off screen when Dirty Dancing was being made, right? All that chemistry was ACTING.
Anyway, I think that Rebecca is well remembered by many and one of the things that is often in the “making of” documentaries on it is the trivia that the two lead actors did not like each other and that Olivier was mean to her during the shoot.
I avoided watching Dirty Dancing for years because I was put off by the cutesy title. It turned out to be one of my favorite movies-- I’ve watched it zillions of times. It’s a simple romance with some really great dancing. If those two things appeal, give it a look.
Ain’t memory a funny thing? I probably read the book 3x over a 30+ year period. Watched every film version. And I woulda SWORN the book had Danvers dying in the fire!
Like I said, I recall having liked the story less and less with each successive reading/viewing, so I doubt I’ll read it again to refresh my memories.
For me, I can’t replicate the experience reading it for the first time in grade school. How did Rebecca die? Had she been pregnant? Will Max get away with it? Knowing the outcome, I like Max and the 2d Mrs. less and less.