Long discussed as the first film Alfred Hitchcock made in Hollywood, as well as the beginning of the legendary conflict between Selznick and Hitchcock, this movie is in the end, best remembered as a magnificent film, worthy of every Academy Award it received, and more.

With an outstanding cast, and perfect control of the actors, (with the possible exception of Olivier) Hitchcock, who resisted the domination of Selznick in his projects, manages to weave out of Daphne Du Maurier's novel, a Hitchcock psychological thriller. Somewhat against Hitchcock's intent, the story indeed is fairly true to the novel, with a few exceptions necessary to satisfy American censor boards.

Historically, this becomes interesting because like most movies made from well known novels of the day, it must have been a story that everyone had read or had heard about. The thrill was not in a surprise ending but in how the story (which everyone knows) is presented.

As a Hitchcock flick, it shows what the master could do with a few bucks in his pocket. With a budget that Hitch could only dream about in England, the production values show an exponential improvement which include stage sets, lighting conditions, extensive screen tests, and costuming, to create an environment where the film will live.

The Criterion Collection

If you want this movie for your collection, spend a few extra bucks for the extras on the Criterion Collection. The only drawback to all the extras provided is that it will take you awhile to get through it all. It is well worth the detour and your time.

Watch the movie unfettered by anyone's opinions or commentary, then go back and listen to the commentary by historian Leonard J. Leff author of the book Hitchcock and Selznick. The excellent commentary will add some depth to your appreciation of this flick. It is full of anecdotes, insights, and analysis.


EXTRAS


There is a small booklet packed with information, and a two DVD set. The first has the movie and the commentary. The second DVD has 3 full radio broadcasts of DuMaurier's classic, screentests for the actresses screened for the lead, production photos and notes.

Of the radio broadcasts, my personal favorite is the first, three years before the movie would come out, featuring Orson Welles in 1938. It includes a phone interview with the author.
In 1941, Ronald Coleman and Ida Lupino did another broadcast, and an interview with Selznick is featured. In 1950, Olivier reprised his role, with Vivien Leigh playing the female lead. The last, surprisingly, is my least favorite of the three.

SCREEN TESTS for the part of “I”

The protagonist, the female lead, was never identified with a first name. True to the book, and also in the film, we only know the “I” of the narrative is NOT Rebecca. Up for the part were Anne Baxter, Loretta Young, Margaret Sullavan , Vivien Leigh, and lesser known Joan Fontaine. Anne Baxter, does a great job in my opinion, although she was only 16 years old, adding a refreshing innoccence that was not projected by any of the others. Loretta Young was simply too poised and elegant for the role, and Vivien Leigh merely did another version of her role in Gone with the Wind. Margaret Sullavan doesn’t do a half bad job, but she is a little too plain, possibly, for Hollywood tastes. Fontaine played it edgy and neurotic, and it paid off in Academy Awards, (but only for best picture).

It is rumored that Olivier was disaffected when Vivien failed to get the lead, and treated Fontaine badly during the shoot. Already feeling outclassed by the brilliant British stage actors, this added substantially to her performance.


CINEMATOGRAPHY AND MUSIC

The photography in this movie was in a word, brilliant. Lighting, shadows, and images associated with innocence, and alienation predominate. In this way, the film was edited to enhance the performance of the leading lady. When they were showing “alienation” and despair, the figure is isolated, wound up tightly with her arms close to her body, withdrawing into a small space, as the space around her expands. It was a masterful Hitchcock timing that made it work. The use of fresh flowers as a symbolic element for the purity and naive quality of the protagonist was used just enough to flavor a scene, but not so much that it was obvious.

The score, done by Franz Waxman was adapted meticulously with excellent results, giving the whole film a romantic, tragic ambience. It did not garner an Academy Award, but was worthy of one.


HITCHCOCK HUMOR , STORY CHANGES, AND THE MANDATORY HITCHCOCK APPEARANCE.

Conspicuously missing is the touch of folksy humor that usually marks a Hitchcock flick. There is little of it here, mostly present in a single major character (Jack) and in the servants...in particular the butler, who Neff in the commentary claims was a” mixture of Boris Karloff and Stan Laurel”. Without the commentary I would have missed Hitch walking through a scene, but it does happen, very near the end of the flick.

Adding humor to the movie is apparently merely one bone of contention between Selznick and Hitchcock. Hitch would have changed the story to add ironic twists. Selznick would have remained true to the story, and did, as much as the censors would let him. The one major change to the movie from the novel is that in the novel, Maxim actually shot Rebecca, and the censors would not have a sympathetic character be a murderer. Also, implications that Rebecca and Mrs. Danvers had an amorous relationship was NOT to be implied, although the implication is present in every aspect of the story, and in the movie as well.

OVER ANALYSIS?

Much has been made of the dominating character portrayed by Olivier, and the psychology of the relationship between de Winter and his new wife. It has been analyzed ad nauseum. He was domineering and she was unsure of herself. He was distant, she was warm and wanted closeness. In a brilliant scene where the couple watches home movies of their honeymoon, we are able to see a different side of their relationship. Without it, it would be hard to sympathize with De Winter.

But I think it would be a mistake to take this relationship brilliantly acted by Oliver and Fontaine and turn it into a metaphor on Hitchcock’s approach to women. Hitch did understand and consistently create a male role that was a loner, often uncomfortable around others, and avoiding marriage like a plague, or was by nature, not suited to a relationship. This character would reappear in Hitchcock offerings frequently, and he was not always a likable guy. See, for example Frenzy .

A variation of this s character also reappears in Marnie, with Sean Connery’s role. His attitude toward women is not so much a negative force, as the one he was brought up with. Rather than seeing the Hitchcock element as ominous, I choose to see it as values from a different era than my own. If Hitch was able to bring some self demeaning women out of their self destructive funk by his portrayals of women, it is merely a gift. In this movie “I” does undergo a transformation, and it is beautifully and dramatically done. When “I” begins to mature as a character, she does so with a loss of innocence. We all grow up. Life goes on. Does it have to imply pathology?


THE PLOT-Abbreviated

The story, at the time, was widely known, so our usual concerns about “giving away the ending” probably don’t apply. I will try, however to sketch the story without giving it away, unless of course you have read the preceding analysis, which pretty much gives it all up anyway!

The movie opens in with waves crashing against rocks, and a narrative by the protagonist, “I”, who will never be given a first name, only Mrs. De Winter as the plot unfolds. We meet for the first time, the silent but dominant character of the estate of Manderley, the ancestral home of Mr. DeWinter. It is a stunning edifice, and more than a little imposing.

Flashback to the beginning of the story, to Monte Carlo. A young woman, a paid companion to an overbearing pompous society matron sees a man brooding, overlooking the cliff, the rocks and the sees. She yells “stop” thinking him about to jump. Irritably he sends her off.

They meet again in the hotel, and we find out our narrator is a paid companion to a boorish Society Matron, who treats her quite badly. The girl, we find out, is not assertive, and is bright, but not at all worldly. The Man, we find, is the widowed wealthy estate owner, Maxim De Winter, abroad, and “desolate” over the loss of his brilliant and beautiful wife Rebecca, who died tragically. Or so we think.

De Winter is taken with the girl, who he finds naive and distracting, taking him away from his brooding. They go on drives, and she sketches. She believes he is being charitable, and when she says so, another side of his character surfaces. He rudely and angrily orders her out of the car, and she cries, he softens and hands her his handkerchief to dry her tears. He tells her not to bite her nails. When the pompous boor decides to return to America, “I” runs to de Winter’s room (How shocking!) And he causally asks her to marry him. Then he orders her to pour his tea. She accepts, but little expects what will await her when they return to the ancestral estate.

At Manderley, we meet the overbearing and cold Ms. Danvers, who never smiles and obviously neither approves nor likes de Winter’s second wife. The dead wife simply lives in everything preserved in the house, from stationary and baubles, to her rooms preserved intact of the West wing” overlooking the sea,

At the same time, “I” is feeling very much out of her element, and even her marriage seems to grow more distant, and the love seems inaccessible to her. Danvers continues to mess with her mind, even suggesting she kill herself. “I” is in despair, thinking her failing marriage is due to the fact that her husband simply cannot let his memories of Rebecca go, out of love and devotion.

Pretty cut and dried? Well hardly! There are secrets that you will discover, as the tragedy becomes a murder mystery, and “I” begins to understand more and more, and much more than she ever cared to understand. There are secrets kept, and facts to discover. There are remarkable developments ahead., including a former lover of Rebecca, and some startling facts, many of them shocking !


THE CAST


Laurence Olivier as George Fortescu Maximillian de Winter-Nominated for an Oscar, this was a worthy performance, even if the actor was a pain in the rear, pouting because his girlfriend didn’t get the part. He comes off angry and abrupt, an annoying detail until you realize that it was well used by the director to create a character who was at best, unstable, and at worst, had a problem with impulse control. Patronizing of women? Well, sure. Deeper pathology? Maybe, but don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it. Focus instead on his character, and the story. The lighter moments with this character are critical to understanding him.

Joan Fontaine-as “I” the second Mrs. De Winter-another nominee for an Oscar, she should have received one! She was brilliant in the role, even if browbeaten to perform by the director. She is unsure of herself, neurotic, desperate to please, but unsure how to proceed. The turning point in the movie is her announcement “I am Mrs. De Winter Now!”.

George Sanders as Jack Flavell, Rebecca’s “favorite second cousin” and one of her affairs. He is witty urbane, and perhaps the only real touch of Hitchcock humor in the piece. Because the aura of the movie is so very dark, his statement, in eliciting blackmail from de Winter is sure to bring a laugh. Gentry working selling cars? I love it!

“I’d like to have your advice on how to live comfortably without working hard.”

Judith Anderson as the ominous Mrs. Danvers. This character radiates a twisted malevolence. She implies a lesbian relationship with Rebecca as well, indicating that the former Mrs. De Winter was reprobate in more than one way. And NO one talked of this in 1940! Shocking, but played so very well by this talented stage actress. If I were to award only one Oscar, it would go to her.

Gladys Cooper-as Beatrice Lacy, De Winter’s sister, and possibly the only person in this film who can claim objectivity when it comes to seeing events at Manderley. She was a class act in every movie she was in, and this is no exception. She even has a humorous moment, when she arrives in her Godiva outfit for a costume ball.

Nigel Bruce as Major Giles Lacey-the companion of the sister above. A semi-humorous and more stolid character, unfettered by any tragic moments himself. A needed piece of solidity.

Reginald Denny-as Frank Crawley, who works for De Winter managing the estate. He gives critical information for the plot, so listen to what he says, although smitten with Rebecca himself.
In the end, he maintains that necessary good guy role.

C. Aubrey Smith as Colonel Julyan-the magistrate investigating the reopened inquest about Rebecca’s death. Craggy features, military posture, and perfect for the role. He must be respectful of gentry, but not fawning. A well used character, adding that bit of class consciousness typical of Hitchcock.


Melville Cooper as the Coroner-tiny and unmemorable, but his lines are very important to the plot.

Florence Bates as Mrs. Edythe Van Hopper, the matron who hired “I” as a paid companion. Quite well done, creating the second most evil character in the movie, self serving and crass. Her putting out a cigarette in a jar of cold cream was a jarring act, and meant, I believe to show how wasteful and crass she really was. Well done.

Leonard Carey as Ben-the addled seaman, who’s testimony about the secret life of Rebecca de Winter is critical. But he is addled, so who would listen? Well done...the epitome of a man whose marbles were shot long ago, and can’t be found.

Leo G Carroll-as Dr. Baker. In the commentary (Neff)there is some discussion of this guy, which shows a lack of understanding for the reality of health care anywhere but in America,. Implying he is “second rate” and an “abortionist” because he doesn’t have a fancy office or a receptionist is probably an American view of an occupation that does not accord the practitioner instant royalty anywhere but in America. So assuming he was a bad doctor because he looked poor doesn’t follow. In any case the dignity and erudite appearance of this well known actor should speak for itself.

Edward Fielding as Frith, the butler. A tongue in cheek character, who adds a little much needed humor to the piece.

Other characters are listed, but these are the only ones you need to know.


FINAL RECOMMENDATION

This is the only Hitchcock film that won an Academy award (for cinematography and Best Picture) and it is a marvelous movie. Although Hitchcock himself was always disappointed, and frustrated by the imperiousness of his speed-eating producer, David O. Selznick, I loved this flick. It has got the touch that marks it as a work of the master. You should not miss it.







Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Fit for Friday Evening
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older