Thank you! Hollywood creates our idea of Manderley- that, I think, is what I was really getting at. An example of a film adding an extra layer, an extra dimension to a classic novel.
Yes, to all of this. Rebecca remains one of my favourite books, I first picked it up after my encounter with Agatha Christie and, as it's shrouded in mystery, I was hooked. I agree with you, Du Maurier was a beautifully visual writer, evocative. You've captured the nuances of the film beautifully here (and it's other outings!) and yes, I absolutely agree with you on the 'keeping it current' adaptations - sigh! Manderley was perfectly personified, and being a Scottish writer who spends a lot of my spare time wandering through castles, gothic houses and old country manors, I'm rather a fan of cluedoesque backdrops, misplaced or not. Give me old and windblown houses every time! With creaking stairs preferably. What a wonderful read of one of my favourites, thank you so much, I enjoyed this immensely.
Is the book better? Almost always. Because readers can make up their own characters. Houses too are silent characters, not to be neglected. And as micast as actors. Taking liberties with either, humans or settings, or even plots sometimes, is just not on. But no readers automatically associate the film with the book and find it not to be a perfect fit, once read. The Gothic touch is a bit too much in the classic adaptation of Rebecca. Then again it just may be the architect in me talking!
Interesting... Thinking about it, films can be better than the original book (Straw Dogs from 1971 is a good example)... it really depends. In the case of Rebecca (1940), I see them as two different works of art, two different things. I am, of course, a huge fan of the original book, but the film adds a separate dimension, especially with Manderley and all the film noir aspects. I'm also a big, big fan of the 1979 BBC adaptation, with Jeremy Brett (who makes another perfect Maxim). Its closer to the original book. Interesting though that their choice of house is neo-Gothic Caerhayes Castle, when, in the book, du Maurier hardly describes it, apart from (and I need to double check this!) 'stone' and 'mullioned windows'- which I suspect is very much a description of her own house, Menabilly, actually Georgian. Rebecca is now part of the popular English imagination, and my own view is that the 1940 film helps to build up the 'mythology- is that the right word? Many thanks for your comment, appreciated.
A classic that I've returned to many times, book and movie. You've captured all of the undertones, I really enjoyed reading this.
Thank you! Hollywood creates our idea of Manderley- that, I think, is what I was really getting at. An example of a film adding an extra layer, an extra dimension to a classic novel.
Yes, to all of this. Rebecca remains one of my favourite books, I first picked it up after my encounter with Agatha Christie and, as it's shrouded in mystery, I was hooked. I agree with you, Du Maurier was a beautifully visual writer, evocative. You've captured the nuances of the film beautifully here (and it's other outings!) and yes, I absolutely agree with you on the 'keeping it current' adaptations - sigh! Manderley was perfectly personified, and being a Scottish writer who spends a lot of my spare time wandering through castles, gothic houses and old country manors, I'm rather a fan of cluedoesque backdrops, misplaced or not. Give me old and windblown houses every time! With creaking stairs preferably. What a wonderful read of one of my favourites, thank you so much, I enjoyed this immensely.
Too kind! Thank you. Again, really appreciate that. Yep. Cluedobethan! That says it all.
Is the book better? Almost always. Because readers can make up their own characters. Houses too are silent characters, not to be neglected. And as micast as actors. Taking liberties with either, humans or settings, or even plots sometimes, is just not on. But no readers automatically associate the film with the book and find it not to be a perfect fit, once read. The Gothic touch is a bit too much in the classic adaptation of Rebecca. Then again it just may be the architect in me talking!
Interesting... Thinking about it, films can be better than the original book (Straw Dogs from 1971 is a good example)... it really depends. In the case of Rebecca (1940), I see them as two different works of art, two different things. I am, of course, a huge fan of the original book, but the film adds a separate dimension, especially with Manderley and all the film noir aspects. I'm also a big, big fan of the 1979 BBC adaptation, with Jeremy Brett (who makes another perfect Maxim). Its closer to the original book. Interesting though that their choice of house is neo-Gothic Caerhayes Castle, when, in the book, du Maurier hardly describes it, apart from (and I need to double check this!) 'stone' and 'mullioned windows'- which I suspect is very much a description of her own house, Menabilly, actually Georgian. Rebecca is now part of the popular English imagination, and my own view is that the 1940 film helps to build up the 'mythology- is that the right word? Many thanks for your comment, appreciated.