Book vs. Movie: Rebecca

When my husband saw me reading this book, he asked (a bit derisively, I must say) if it was some romance novel. I admitted there was some romance to it, but went on to explain that Hitchcock had made a film version of the story. He concluded that if Hitchcock was involved, there must be something more substantial there.

Rebecca, a classic in either book or movie version, tells the story of a young, naive woman who falls in love with (and quickly marries) one Maximilian (Maxim) de Winter. When he brings her to his estate, the imposing Manderley, their happiness is overshadowed by the presence (not literally) of his first wife, the titular Rebecca. Her memory is kept very much alive by Mrs. Danvers, Manderley's housekeeper, who is still devoted and loyal to the deceased Mrs. de Winter.


For the most part, while condensing things a bit, the movie stays true to Daphne du Maurier's novel. Some changes include a different ending for Mrs. Danvers and slightly different circumstances surrounding Rebecca's death. The book also spends more time with some of the minor characters and presents the second Mrs. de Winter's thoughts in greater depth. (While this sometimes helps a lot in understanding her character, in some cases the book gets a bit long-winded.)

The movie's strength owes a great deal to the perfectly cast actors. Joan Fontaine plays insecure and shy extremely well, and while this same type of performance was out of place in Jane Eyre, it was just right in Rebecca. Although some might ask if his mustache is really necessary, Laurence Olivier hits upon the necessary mix of qualities for Maxim: romantic, mysterious, and troubled. George Sanders, while a different physical type than the description of his character in the book, is perfect as Rebecca's slimy cousin, Jack Favell. And Judith Anderson is deliciously creepy as Mrs. Danvers.

Rebecca herself works best without appearing in either the book or movie. I'm not sure she would be completely believable as a flesh-and-blood character, but as an overbearing presence imagined or remembered, the character works. There's one part in the movie that's particularly effective where the camera tracks along an empty space as Rebecca's past actions are narrated.

Book or movie? Both are worth a look. I personally saw the movie before reading the book, and so had a clear picture in my head of the characters as I read, but I was still quite caught up in the story even knowing the eventual ending. There's enough minor differences from one to the other to keep each version interesting. And, while it's not perhaps one of Hitchcock's finest, this is one that fans of the director shouldn't miss. It did, after all, win the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1940.

If you've read the book and seen the movie, which do you prefer?

All I need to know about LOVE

...I learned from the movies.

THE ONE

There is only ONE person out there for you. This person is your soulmate. You will feel empty and unsatisfied with your life until you find this person. Once you find them you will be complete.

The only time you get a chance for a second soulmate is if you are parted from the first one tragically, like through death. If your soulmate happens to donate their heart to someone, look for this person, as that heart will keep beating for you alone in the body of your new soulmate.

NOT THE ONE

Sometimes you may think you have found your soulmate, only to realize that you were wrong. Don't despair. Your chances for finding the one increase dramatically when you are with someone who is not the one. Your odds of meeting your soulmate are even greater if you are engaged to the wrong person. So don't hesitate to move things along with someone who is wrong for you. They don't have to be a bad person, by the way, just someone who is not your match.

Look for someone who is kind but boring; a person like this won't even mind when they find out they are not your soulmate. Probably they will have suspected this deep inside all along, anyway. Don't feel too bad for them -- they are bound to find their one after you throw them over.

So go ahead and date that wrong person. Plan a wedding, even show up for the ceremony. The later it takes for your soulmate to show up, the more dramatic your coming together will be. And drama, as we all know, is what love is all about. Who wants a life of calm contentment and security?

LIES

There's probably something you're afraid to reveal to your soulmate because you're worried they will reject you. Lying is the way to go here. Be it your background, finances, family, children, whatever, go ahead and hide the facts from your soulmate. Wait until they are so in love with you that they won't be able to leave no matter what they learn about you.

Of course, don't be surprised if your soulmate has a secret as well. You'll find out once you are hooked. But by then it won't matter. How wise you both are!

HAPPY ENDINGS

Following all the above steps should get you to happily ever after status. Unless, of course, you are destined to have one of those tragic endings that are so moving. In that case, remember that it's better to have loved and lost... and eventually you might just find your replacement love. (Hint: make sure to find out if your soulmate has checked that organ donor box on their driver's license.)

What have you learned about love from the movies?

Overlooked Oldies: Holiday

Giving the label "overlooked" to some movies seems to me a risky thing to do. It begs for people to pounce on the choice, saying "That's not an overlooked movie! Everyone has seen that! What are you talking about?" My purpose in making a list of Overlooked Oldies is to highlight some movies that are worthy of watching even though they haven't gotten as much attention as some other classics. They might not be the most obscure films ever, but they're not the movies on the top of everyone's classic must-see lists, either. If you haven't seen the movies that always seem to make these lists (like Citizen Kane and Casablanca) by all means do so. My selections are meant to supplement and round out such lists.

Now I'll stop being defensive and share my next Overlooked Oldies pick: Holiday. Not The Holiday or Roman Holiday, just Holiday.

This 1938 George Cukor movie stars Cary Grant as Johnny Case, a self-made man recently engaged to the beautiful Julia Seton (Doris Nolan). Since their courtship has been brief, he knows very little about her, and is thus shocked when he goes to meet her family and finds out how rich they are.

The other Seton children are Linda (Katharine Hepburn) and Ned (Lew Ayres). The sibling relationships can be summed up in this bit of dialogue:

Linda: "Well, I know you wouldn't expect it of a man in father's position, but the fact is, money is our god here."

Julia: "Johnny, it isn't true at all."

Ned: "No? What is then?"

Julia is the most like her father and shares his reverence for riches while Linda is fed up and looking for something else to do with her life. She is thus known as the black sheep of the family. Ned tends to agree with Linda although he appears to have given up on his dreams, spending his time drinking instead of fighting his father. It's quite heartbreaking to watch him, actually.

The movie is not named for any holiday celebrations (although there are two very different New Year's Eve parties in the film). The title instead refers to Johnny's goal of taking some time off to enjoy life. He's been working since he was ten and is now ready for a break to find out why he's doing it. His plan is this: "Retire young, work old. Come back and work when I know what I'm working for."

Julia and her father have other ideas for Johnny and try to pressure him into a new job and way of thinking. More understanding of Johnny's plan is sister Linda. You can probably guess how things will turn out, but it is still fun to go along with these characters for the ride.

Other things that make the movie enjoyable: the moments that showcase Cary Grant's acrobatic skills ("Can you do a back-flip-flop, can you really?") and Johnny's down to earth friends Nick and Susan Potter, played by Jean Dixon and wonderful character actor Edward Everett Horton.

If you've seen and enjoyed The Philadelphia Story and Bringing Up Baby, don't miss Holiday, another great pairing of Grant and Hepburn.

Book vs. Movie: Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre was already next on my Lit Flicks Challenge list, but when I happened to be the October giveaway winner and The Bluestocking Society kindly sent me the book (thanks, Jessica!) I wanted to get to it right away.

Before reading or seeing Jane Eyre, I did have some idea of the general plot: Jane is a governess who comes to work in a creepy house for a brooding man with a big secret. (It's a good thing I knew the secret, too, since my copy of the book included an introduction by Joyce Carol Oates that revealed all the major plot details and many of the twisty bits. Seriously, there should have been a spoiler warning with it -- surely there are some people reading the book for the first time with no idea what it's about who would like to enjoy a few surprises.)

Since I did know how the story would go, I was afraid that reading through the book would be tedious, but I actually enjoyed it very much. The way it's written (as a first-person account of Jane telling the reader her story) felt very intimate and interesting. The only time it didn't work for me was when the big secret is revealed; during this time things seemed a bit rushed and Jane's reactions didn't come until later. All I can assume is that she was struck and in shock, but coming to know the characters I think more would have been said and thought during this critical time.

If you don't like Jane, you will probably not enjoy the novel, but I really liked Jane. I liked her strong will and character. I also liked Mr. Rochester, despite his dubious past and the way he deceived Jane. Maybe I like him because Jane does, or because they do seem like a well-matched pair of intellectual equals. You can analyze a lot more about the various themes of the novel, like what it says about religion, morality, duty, forgiveness, and marriage, but I was happy enough to read through the rest because I really liked Jane and Rochester, and I wanted to see their love story play out.

The movie version I chose to watch was the 1944 adaptation, mostly because it stars Orson Welles, and I really like him. He is great as Rochester; he can carry off the speeches and he has the right amount of darkness and intensity to him. I was also delighted to see Agnes Moorehead, a young Elizabeth Taylor, the little girl from A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (Peggy Ann Garner) and child actress Margaret O'Brien, adorable as Adele. I wasn't particularly impressed with Joan Fontaine as Jane, though. (She also starred in Rebecca, based on the Daphne du Maurier novel which seems at least partially inspired by Jane Eyre.) Fontaine's Jane is much too meek and is really overpowered by Welles' Rochester. This removes what I enjoyed most about the novel, the match of equal minds that defines the relationship. In the novel, Jane is independent and holds her own against Rochester; in the movie I couldn't imagine what he saw in her, really.

I know it's always hard to show inner thoughts and feelings of characters in a movie, but I really missed how the book explains what's going on in Jane's head. Another thing that annoyed me about the movie: at the beginning, a book is shown onscreen and a voice-over reads what is written on the page. But the passage is way different from the book's opening. At other times during the movie, this same technique is used again. The voice-over alone would have been fine, but the suggestion that what is read is from the novel was really irritating. While I do understand the need to change and condense things when making a book into a movie, if you aren't remaining faithful to the book, don't show me text in a book as though you are staying completely true to the story. (Rant over.)

So, when it comes right down to it, does the book or the movie prevail? While the 1944 movie is beautifully shot and appropriately dark and atmospheric, it is also perhaps more melodramatic than even the crazy twists of novel would allow. The acting is mostly good, and it is fine as a movie, but overall I preferred the story in novel form. However, there are a lot of other Jane Eyre adaptations, and perhaps some do more justice to book. (I am intrigued by the version with George C. Scott because to me he really fits the description of Rochester: not exactly handsome, yet intense and strangely magnetic. If anyone's seen this version, or another adaptation, let me know what you thought.)

Oh, and while we're on the subject of Jane Eyre, I'd like to recommend Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair. It's the first of his funny Thursday Next series, which features a literary detective in an alternate reality where characters from books are quite real and traveling into the world of a book is physically possible. This story deals with Jane Eyre's kidnapping and the changing of the famous novel's plot. I want to re-read this now that I've finally read Jane Eyre.

So, that's two down for Lit Flicks, three more to go. I think I might deviate from my original list and choose something different for my next pick... stay tuned!

Leading Couples

Tomorrow night kicks off TCM's Leading Couples Film Festival -- two Tuesday nights of movies featuring some of Hollywood's most famous couples. This is timed to go along with the release of TCM's book, Leading Couples, which I first heard about through Raquelle's review of it on her blog, Out of the Past.

The book has many of the classic movie couples you'd expect (like Bogart/Bacall and Tracy/Hepburn) as well as some more obscure pairings and one really bizarre one. (Fay Wray and King King? Really?) Two types of couples are featured: those that made several films together and those that made a big impression together just one time on film. While I understand that they were trying to make things fair and not feature one person too many times, the rules of the book do mean that some great pairings (like Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn) are missing.

It's a great book for flipping through and reading a little at a time. I've enjoyed learning some useless but fun trivia, like how during filming on Gone With the Wind, Clark Gable taught Vivian Leigh to play backgammon and she in turn introduced him to battleship. I'm also getting some ideas for more movies to add to my watch list. One thing that does make me a little sad about the book: in the facts about each person, spouses are listed, and so many of these stars had several (often brief) marriages. I just think it's a shame that the people who made up some of the most romantic pairs on screen often had troubles in their personal romantic lives. Although I guess their movie love stories didn't always end happily, either.

Anyway, it's a good book for a classic movie fan. For a limited time, you can enter to win your own copy here.

What's your favorite film couple, classic or otherwise?