What We Don't See | Rebecca Video Essay
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- you like rebecca (1940)? in this video i give a riveting analysis of the full movie, rebecca (1940). okay, not riveting. interesting? mildly enjoyable? find out for yourself.
Hitchcock directed the full movie, Rebecca (1940), featuring Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier. I explain my analysis of the full movie, Rebecca (1940). In my eyes this is one of Hitchcock's masterpieces.
#Analysis #Rebecca #Hitchcock #JoanFontaine #LaurenceOlivier #FullMovie
using this space to talk about anything movies is a great time so feel free to comment
follow me on letterboxd - letterboxd.com/max584/
The Joan Fontaine character doesn’t assert herself as lady of the manor, or as a spouse, until after the scene in the boathouse. From that moment on, it begins to become clear what she and Maxim need from each other. He can no longer afford to push her away, and she can no longer afford to be timid. Twists are common in movies, but the reveal in the boathouse is the kind that recontextualizes everything that comes before it. Suddenly, you are watching a completely different movie than the one you have been watching for the past hour.
A most important element that you forgot: The name of Rebecca is the most important element in the movie. That the name of the 2nd Mrs DeWinter is NEVER mentioned is a brilliant way to further highlight this element.
In the movie, it's definitely implied they have sex on their honeymoon. Maxim drops a giant bouquet of flowers into her lap in the car and she orgasmically coos, "How perfectly lovely, how perfectly lovely." The second time she says this is ADR'd so Hitchcock is deliberately emphasizing it. Later, when they watch the home movies of this honeymoon at the mansion (which undercuts this essay's point that the honeymoon is "never shown" -- it is, in this scene), we see them goofing around together and eating delicious meals. All that indulgence and sensuality disappears only in the mansion, under the all-seeing eye of his dead first wife. I think this video essayist could stand to give the film a few more rewatches.
Susan Hill was allowed to write a sequel to Rebecca by the DuMauier Estate. It has yet to be filmed but I believe it should be. Some key phrases the author used in the novel are also used in the sequel, which is aptly called "Mrs. DeWinter." I wish they'd film it. It ties all the loose ends together and lets you know what happened to Max and Whatever her name was for real. I recommend that book. Your review was spot on. I'd never thought Max was impotent; that's a novel explanation. I just believed he was a bit insane from, as he himself said, "it doesn't make for sanity, living with the Devil." Rebecca is one of my favorite classic films and one of my favorite books. Susan Hill did a great job, keeping continuity of character and language.
H'mmm. I have that 2nd novel - bought 30+ years ago, but never dared to read in case it would drag down memories of the first one. You tempt me to break the embargo.
@@arnesahlen2704 I read Susan Hills book and I disliked it intensely.
I have read Rebecca`s Story. Rather a dark novel, it went in my dustbin.
Brilliant analysis. The paradox is that without censorship the film would lack a lot of its power.
Her name is Joan Fontaine NOT JANE.
NO WORD OR THOUGHT of Maxim as impotent! This is a trash point from 70+ years on, unworthy of mature analysis. Also NO MENTION of a 2-way lesbian relationship. Mind out of gutters please.
Your analysis is very thought provoking. I read the novel long before I watched the Hitchcock movie. Rebecca looms so large even though she never appears and the new Mrs DeWinter does not even get a first name. Mrs. Danvers is one of the all-time great villains. Interesting, the later adaptations, in which they didn't have to worry as much about the film code.
I loved this movie, read the novel in college. I think your interpretation is spot on! One of Alfred Hitchcock 's best films!
I my personal opinion, Rebecca is Hitchcock's best film. I don't think it would have been nearly as good if Hitchcock had managed to change the story as he intended
Read the book and you will know they stayed together for a very long time.
*He is not MaxIME!* SURELY you watched the film. *MAXim.* And ManderLEY does not have LAY at the end! Basic respect to author and actors: *pronounce words correctly.* 😡😡😡😡
There is NO MURDER in the film! Watch it again. Censors would not allow a murderer to go unpunished - so it was changed to Rebecca's fall and hitting her head on hard metal.
In the original novel, Maxim kills Rebecca.
one of my favorite books. You can feel the presence of rebecca in the other book by dumarier titled "my cousin rachel"
I liked your video. One of my favorite films. It is like being in a dream that turns into a nightmare.
People don't now that in the 1930's and 40's when the seal of approval by the censors flashed on the screen n the theater, the audience booed!
Solid analysis. My biggest question about the plot is why Maxim chooses the second Mrs dewinter. He doesn't seem that taken with her and, if he was so traumatized by his first marriage, why go back to the well?
I think he fell in love with the girl and really wanted to start again, but was always reminded of Rebecca. He loved her, but was afraid of commitment, that's why he never truly opened up to her. He said he was selfish by marrying her because he wanted her for himself, but could never reciprocate that affection. At least that's my interpretation.
He wanted someone to love him. he was taken in by her youthful appearance and child like personality ( the opposite of Rebecca) because she made him feel young and turn the clock back kind of situation but he didn't love her partly because she had no personality at that moment and the Rebecca thing
ESS-pecially - not EX-pecially. 3:15 We don't see the murder of Rebecca because THERE IS NO MURDER! For pete'ss sake, watch the film.😡 Do *proper research* before posting.
Questions don't arise about Maxim's impotence in an estate manor with century+-old separate rooms for marital partners. NO ISSUE about such issues shows up but for leering posts like yours.
I repeat - NO ISSUE cones up about intimacy. What smutty turn of thought prompts all this flagrant BS? I am more appalled by this post than by any other I can remember. 😡😡😡😡
Wow is this an interesting perspective. I'd try to be all intellectual about it, but this is just brilliant and there's nothing more of substance I can say
MAX-im, not Max-EEM. Did you *watch the film? Implying he might have 'someone else' is total dreamscape, a disservice to the supremely shaded writing of his torment.😠
There are two othr films. One with Jeremy Brett, the second with Charles Dance.
Three....2020 version on Netflix, with Armie Hammer and Lily James. 👍
I am always interested how Hitchcock was a foodie. In "Rebecca", we see the breakfast/Dejeuner menu, and the waiter brings Joan Fontaine's scrambled eggs inside of a covered serving dish. Maxim's breakfast in his room, where he hungrily sucks jam off of his thumb. The first breakfast at Manderley, with the groaning sideboard with chafing dishes and an elaborate silver service (what's in the smallest dish she uncovers?)The dinner at the long table, with the servants placing the plates. The lunch with those interesting lamb chops and talk about the sauce. George Sanders eating a chicken leg in the Rolls from the picnic basket. I see food symbolism in "North by Northwest", where Cary Grant sets to his brook trout in the Century Limited dining car ("a little trouty, but quite good"). Back in the early 70s, I attended an afternoon presentation with Mel Brooks at UCLA in the Theater Arts auditorium. His description of a lunch as Chasen's included Hitchcock eating "a shrimp cocktail, a salad with green dressing, a sirloin steak with a loaded baked potato, asparagus and a chocolate sundae", then gesturing to the waiter with "let's do this again".
I never really thought about food in Hitchcock’s films. Hitchock certainly like to create a fascinating public persona for himself and I wonder how much of that was really him or just his performance. That said, food tends to bring people together to have interesting conversation so because of that there’s a lot of big moments in movies happen around the dinner table. Gotta give that some delicious realism especially if it’s in a house as big as Manderlay.
La. Gastronomie anglaise n est pas fameuse d après ce que on dit
His penultimate film, Frenzy, is a good one for this. Many characters have food related names and there are a brilliant couple of scenes where the detective's wife is taking a French cooking course and makes these awful haute cuisine meals, much to her husband's disdain 😅
i enjoyed it..........you brought out lots of interesting points i never picked up while watching the film......great stuff........
This analysis made me appreciate the film even more.
Too disgusting.I stopped at 3:56
0:58 For heaven's sake! JOAN Fontaine, not Jane! To get names correct is basic respect. And the mansion is named ManDERLEY; ManDALAY is a city in Myanmar (Burma).
I was keen to watch this review, but find it seriously wanting in proper adult insight. Time to stop ( 3:45 )
I love this movie 🎥 loved how you broke everything down
It's not Mandaly: it's Manderly...Man-DER-ly.
Not you too! 😵💫😡 LISTEN to both Joan (even in her very first line) and Laurence. ManderLEE! MandaLAY is a city in Burma. It's *basic respect* to pronounce correctly.
I have just pointed this out.
It’s maxim not Maxine
And it’s Joan not Jane
This is my favourite movie
I love it and to hear the actors names mispronounced just gets on my wick !
As for mrs Danvers I’m not convinced she was a lesbian but she might have been intoxicated by Rebecca’s beauty as it seems most people were !
Rebecca was I feel the ultimate malignant narcissist with her charm and beauty covering a can of ugly worms and of course all her flying monkeys like mrs Danvers and her creepy cousin Favell
Who is so smarmy and in his own way very handsome , giving us a clue to the breathtaking beauty his cousin Rebecca must have had and his vile personality which must be similar to Rebecca’s/ not forgetting their incestuous affair which might have produced an imposter heir !
God certainly struck down those two creeps .
I read the sequel
I don’t recommend it
It spoilt my imagined future of the new Mrs and Mr De Winter , but to give you a clue my imagination was a lot kinder to them than the author of the sequel was ….
Also, you are pronouncing Manderley more like Mandalay. It is pronounced Manderlie.
Interesting viewpoint. I don't think we can blame much on censorship because, as you said, the movie IS the novel. It didn't leave anything out that was in the book. And fortunately, because of censorship, it couldn't add anything that WASN'T in the book that would normally be added just for the sake of entertainment. This movie is wonderful, but the book is sensational! If you are basing your theory that Maxim is impotent on the fact that Mrs DeWinter sleeps in her own bed, you are clearly unfamiliar with life in high society in the early 1900s. Most of these women had their own beds in their own rooms which were adjacent to their husbands. This was a common practice, and by no means suggested that it was a sexless marriage. Rebecca had her own room. Even Queen Elizabeth had her own room and still bore her husband 4 children! This couple met and were married in a matter of days. The beginning of their marriage was an extension of that courtship in that they were still getting to know one another. The new Mrs DeWinter was young and is portrayed as being quite innocent and unfamiliar with formal society. She would feel nervous about being a wife in the most normal of circumstances, let alone being expected to immediately serve as mistress of an estate. Their relationship becomes more passionate as they get to know, trust and fall in love each other over time.
The ending was changed. Maxim had killed R by drilling a hole in the boat, but in the film she committed suicide because she had cancer.
JOAN, JOAN, JOAN, Let's end this!
I loved your thesis statement of the film itself being a comment on the censorship of the Hayes Codes, that's so clever.
I've seen this film many times but never thought Maxim and his bride never had sex. I just naturally assumed that it happened on their wedding night and continued afterwards. Long ago I read the du Maurier novel but didn't glean from it an absence of sex for Maxim & wife 2. Is it in the novel and I missed it? Haven't come across any Hitchcock interviews in which he disclosed Maxim's impotency and no sex with wife 2 . Are you reaching a bit in suggesting this?
It never occurred to me that they did not have seen. In fact, they appeared to have a strong attraction to eachother.
Your interesting analysis is rendered totally moot by mispronouncing Maxim de Winter (It’s not Maxeeem). The house is called MandeRley not Mandalay and worst all its JOAN FONTAINE not Jane!!! Kind of disrespectful man.
Take it easy, Joseph Overall this is a very interesting analysis.
Jane Fontaine??? Maxim's impotence? Lesbian relationship?? Rebecca's death was NOT a murder in the movie, only in the book! What movie were you watching? You didn't mention the most glaring absence from the film... HER name!!
Thanks, Max. Great job.
JOAN Fountaine, NOT JANE
Excellent analysis.
Very interesting take!
Very interesting film!