This has a promising beginning and it is thoroughly enjoyable (especially the great sequence in the restaurant) until the moment that she realises he has no intention of telling her they aren’t married. And then it falls apart with a series of completely unfunny events cumulating in the ski lodge finale when she succumbs to him and the entire point of the film is lost because they do have sex and they are still not married.
And while I get that for him it is exciting to think of having a mistress instead of a wife but it is also really creepy.
The second-rate nature of the film is emphasised by too many unflattering similarities to The Awful Truth which is one of the all-time great screwball comedies.
However, despite the film’s general failure it boasts one of Carole Lombard’s most brilliant performances. She is effortlessly funny and sexy. To think this was her second last film and then gone. I believe she would have ruled TV. Her scars are really noticeable too. Had she reached the time in her life when she decided not to care about hiding them? She certainly appeared to lack vanity.
Source: Warner Brothers (USA)
This used to be one of my favourite secret Hitchcock films. Secret as in less well known and appreciated. Following on from Rebecca was always going to be hard so it appears that Hitch thought he would make a thriller just the ones he made in Britain. And rather like the majority of his British thrillers, this doesn’t really hang together. The film is a weird hybrid of big Hollywood budget (as reflected in the sets) and British quirkiness but what was marginally acceptable in a low budget British film seems careless in such surroundings. Of course, there are brilliant set pieces and sequences such as the rain-soaked assassination, the coat caught in the windmill gear, Edmund Gwenn attempts at murder, and the plane crash, but the plotting and general storytelling is all over the place.
Johnny Jones and Carol Fisher are rather dull characters (though the actors are perfectly fine) and it’s not even Johnny who saves Van Meer but the charismatic Scott ffolliott played beautifully by George Sanders. I do like Herbert Marshall who was such a dependable actor whether hero or villain.
The torture scene is deeply unpleasant and cruel. While I’m aware that torture is unpleasant and cruel I don’t really need to see it in a film with such light tone. The torture scene does result in an interesting tableau as the villains (and George Sanders) watch and listen.
Naturally being Hitchcock it is very funny though I take issue with the commentators on the documentary on this particular DVD release (Personal History: Foreign Hitchcock) who seem to think it had something to do with Robert Benchley who is reasonably amusing in an entirely Robert Benchley way but I rather think that the Charles Bennett who wrote The Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps, Secret Agent, Sabotage and Young and Innocent, may have been a tiny bit more important on the humour front.
Transport: ship, plane
Animals: cobwebbed sparrow
Source: Warner Brothers (USA)
Another film I have seen many, many times. I wonder if it may even be the first Hitchcock film I ever saw. Therefore it is hard to see it afresh. The one main thing that struck me after watching all of Hitchcock’s British films is the sheer glossiness of it and the money pouring off the screen. Ironically though the very first shot in it is a model! The model itself is of a very Hollywood idea of a large house on a country estate. I know it is often described as a Gothic romance but I think the house was probably a bit more subdued in Daphne du Maurier’s head.
I’m not much of a fan of Laurence Oliver though I can’t put my finger on just why but he is perfect as Maxim. He was only ten years older than Fontaine but both come across as older and younger than their actual ages. He perfectly portrays Maxim’s inability to communicate and his patronising manner which leads him to make poor decisions but when he tells his new wife the truth his vulnerability shows through. I can’t actually imagine spending the rest of my life with a man with such communication issues.
It is really irritating that the lead/narrator doesn’t have a name. It makes writing about her really hard. Joan Fontaine is very good indeed as the girl. I think it is a jolly hard role for any Hollywood actress to play. They are, after all, by definition glamorous. One moment that I can really relate to is when she panics after breaking the ornament. I’ve done that.
The word cad was invented for George Sanders’ performance.
The real star of the film is Judith Anderson. Despite the multiple adaptations of Rebecca, no actor has ever played Mrs Danvers with such malevolence. You can literally feel the effect she has on the second Mrs de Winter, she makes my skin crawl nearly 80 years later.
Florence Bates is fabulous as Mrs van Hopper who despite her awful personality isn’t actually wrong about the relationship between the two de Winters to be.
There is a richness to filmmaking that is absent from your average film of 1940. Was there ever somebody on screen as vulgar as she is as sits in bed plucking her eyebrows or stubbing out her cigarette in a pot of cold cream? How many scenes were as perfectly choreographed as the intimidation of the new Mrs de Winter by underwear?
As a total aside, I have always been bothered by how quickly they drive to and from Cornwall to London. It takes at least 4 and a half hours now.
It’s not easy to put Rebecca into context. It wasn’t just an ordinary film by any standards. It was a big budget prestige special film - not quite as special as Gone With the Wind but still a major film. Rebecca was (and is) an enormously successful novel and David O. Selznick wanted to make it as faithfully as possible (with that caveat) whereas Hitchcock wanted to do with it what he had done with any other adaptation of his which is to take it as a jumping off point. And to be honest I’m glad that Selznick had his way.
This is a cracking British film with a superb cast. It doesn’t seem particularly Hitchcockian though despite these familiar names.
Charles Laughton is brilliant (as always). He had this ability to keep this side of ridiculous.
There are also a couple of other potential hams keeping to the right side: Leslie Banks and Robert Newton. In truth, Robert Newton (who I’m not a fan of) is actually rather bland. The role doesn’t help. Leslie Banks may have preferred not to have his face mutilated during the Great War but he made the most of it.
The rest of the cast is an impressive list of British actors: Marie Ney, Emlyn Williams (looking rather fetching in his gypsy get up), Basil Radford, Wylie Watson, et al. However, it is the Irish Maureen O’Hara who really shines. She is stunning looking (but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the actor is interesting) but she was a commanding presence despite her youth (19 I assume). Unfortunately, I associate her with John Wayne and the disagreeable The Quiet Man.
The model work during the wreck was most impressive and the inn was an interesting though stagy looking set.
The film suffered from a compressed adaptation of the original material (of the bestseller by Daphne du Maurier). Mary’s attitude felt forced - after all she hardly knew the people she was angry with Jem for giving up to the authorities.
Alma fact: continuity
Transport: ships, carts
Source: La Taverne de la Jamaique - Universal (France)