Oscars Retrospective: Rebecca (13th Academy Awards Review)

 

Rebecca Suite~Franz Waxman - Rebecca

Today, we’re going to talk about Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock was a British filmmaker who was known as the Master of Suspense and, today, is commonly regarded as one of the greatest filmmakers who ever lived. Unlike Frank Capra’s heart, Ernst Lubitsch’s whimsy, Cecil B. DeMille’s epic touch or Walt Disney’s combination of all three, Hitchcock’s style was known for its thrilling elements and copious amounts of dark humor. At one point he hosted his own TV show called Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955-1965) wherein he would explain filmmaking techniques to the audience, inviting the moviegoing public in on the tricks of the trade. In an era where films were associated with either the studios or the stars, Hitchcock was one of the very few directors who garnered the same level of respect amongst audiences (before him, it’s very unlikely you’d say, “Let’s go see [insert director]’s new movie!”)

The 1950s and 60s in particular were his wheelhouse, as he made some of the greatest and most influential movies of that era that, rest assured, we will be talking about down the line. With this in mind, it’s considered one of the great divine pranks of the Academy’s history that someone as renowned as Alfred Hitchcock only ever won the Oscar for Outstanding Production once in his whole life, that obviously being Rebecca, based on the 1938 novel of the same name by Daphne du Maurier.

Before we get into this review in earnest, I should explain Rebecca in the context of Hitchcock’s filmography. His career started in England, where he made the first British talkie (Blackmail (1929)), and steadily churned out thrillers that were successful in both England and America, such as The 39 Steps (1935) and The Lady Vanishes (1938). Eventually, producer David O. Selznick (aggressively) endorsed Hitchcock to come over to America, offering a four-film contract for $160,000 ($3.2 million in today’s money). Hitchcock, acknowledging that he had reached his peak in England and very soured after the production disaster that was his last film, Jamaica Inn (1939) (which is easily Hitchcock’s worst movie), happily agreed.

Thus, Alfred Hitchcock came over to America, where his first film was Rebecca. Hitchcock, already being highly regarded as one of the most elegant directors in the business, was basically given the red carpet treatment by Hollywood, critics and audiences alike. Rebecca was fast-tracked to movie of the year status, becoming one of the top 5 grossers of 1940. Selznick, still drunk off of his success of producing Gone With the Wind the previous year, aggressively campaigned for Rebecca to win the Oscar which it, of course, did. So, yes, the story behind this film is as interesting as any other one that we’ve seen so far but how was the final movie? Was it well-deserved or is this another case of studio politics and scumbag campaigning leading to an undeserved win?

It probably bears mentioning that he also never won the Oscar for Best Director. I don't think I'll ever understand how two separate movies could possibly win Best Picture and Best Director.

Rebecca is interesting as it’s a bit against type as far as Hitchcock movies go. Most of his films usually revolve around espionage adventures or an attractive young blonde being stalked by/involved with a serial killer. Rebecca is instead more of a romance mixed with a ghost story. The movie revolves around a newlywed couple called the de Winters, Maxim (Laurence Olivier) and his wife, who is only known as the Second Mrs. de Winter (Joan Fontaine). Yes, the main character doesn’t even have a name and it’s the kind of thing you honestly don’t notice until you get to the credits and you see how she’s credited. It also makes writing a synopsis of this story annoying as Hell since “the Second Mrs. de Winter” is longer to type out than if they just called her Jane or something.

Maxim takes his new wife to move in with him at his mansion where Mrs. de Winter quickly finds out that a. he’s a widower and b. everyone there is constantly comparing her to his now-dead first wife, Rebecca. The chief housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), in particular seems to have it out for Mrs. de Winter and constantly misses her prior boss. To downright bizarre degrees. Almost like a… okay, I’ll stop dancing around the topic; it’s very clearly implied that Mrs. Danvers is a lesbian and probably was in love with Rebecca. Hays Code and all that nonsense. The rest of the movie is then Mrs. de Winter trying to settle into her new lifestyle while dealing with a servant who hates her guts, a husband who seems mysteriously remote and a house that looks like it was contracted by Morticia Addams.

Normally, when I do these reviews I like to structure it by talking about the good parts first and then going into the flaws later. This time around, I think it’s easier to talk about the problems to start with and then going deeper into the pros later on. In this case, the biggest con is also one of the film’s coolest aspects. Rebecca has the kind of style that only Hitchcock could’ve gotten away with back then in that the style of the movie seems to keep changing based on the emotional state of Mrs. de Winter. Thus the film is pretty easy to divide into thirds.

The first 20-30 minutes deals with her and Maxim dating each other and it’s shot and paced like a pretty nice romance. Then the middle third when she first comes to the house almost immediately turns into a gothic ghost story. There’s this constant level of discomfort as she’s trying to figure out how to be a good wife while also discovering the mystery of what happened to Rebecca. Then, the last half-hour to forty minutes changes into a good old-fashioned Hitchcock thriller once Mrs. de Winter finds out what actually happened to Rebecca and must stop the bad guys from finding out as well. This part of the movie is simply wonderful and is Hitchcock at some of his best.

The problem is that the other two thirds of the movie aren’t really quite his wheelhouse. They’re not bad, don’t get me wrong, but they definitely drag (hey that rhymed!). I’ve seen this movie twice and I still don’t see any reason why the first act couldn’t have been shortened from 30 minutes down to 15. Sure, it’s establishing it as a nice romance that whiplashes expectations with the discomfort of the house but that can still be gotten across in that normal length of time.

And the second act is very slow as well. At first, it’s engaging and sucks you into the mystery but, by the end of it, you feel very antsy in your chair and start to beg for it to get on the road. Now you could say that this is just part of the time period as movies have definitely become more fast-paced as time has gone on. Even by those standards though, this feels pretty slow as later Hitchcock films such as Strangers on a Train (1951), Rear Window (1954) and Psycho (1960) are all breakneck thrillers even to this day. I thought The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1928) moved at a brisker pace and that was over a decade before Rebecca.

As mentioned above, though, once it gets to the last third, the film becomes very excellent again, moving at a breakneck speed with the kind of heart-pounding suspense and scenery-chewing bad guys that only exist in a Hitchcock film (though the final climax is disappointingly quick). And, I have to give Hitchcock credit for being willing to try something new. In an era where directors lived and died by the studio system and quickly filled in their niche, it takes major guts to try something this far off from his normal way of thinking, especially when it’s first foray into American cinema.

While I do have my issues, make no mistake, this is a very cool-looking movie. The gothic atmosphere of this house is incredible. It almost looks like something out of one of the Universal monster movies. There’s nothing about it that jumps out at you but it gives you this sense of constant unease. And the film is very smart in its pacing as you’re never quite entirely sure if the house is actually haunted or if it’s something much more mundane.

A small sample of this film's gorgeous cinematography.

The villains are also excellent and have a nice variety. Judith Anderson is chillingly good as Mrs. Danvers, and was a severe snub for the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. As the de Winters’ servant, she takes her job very seriously and is nothing but polite and serving to Mrs. de Winter but her facial expressions and terse way of speaking conveys so much venom and hatred. There’s also another bad guy that shows up later in the film who is much more of the typical scenery-chewing Hitchcock villain and he is delightful. And there’s, of course, Rebecca who, despite being dead, manages to still threaten and haunt our main characters from beyond the grave. It’s the kind of clever filmmaking that only Hitchcock could do by having the main villain of the movie be a character who’s already dead. And I ultimately do like the two leads, which is of course the ultimate mark of whether or not a movie is doing its job.

In conclusion, Rebecca stands out as the start of a more experimental phase in Hitchcock’s career. While his time in England was mainly occupied by espionage mysteries and thrillers, his films in the 40s would start to experiment a bit more before going into a combination of both styles in the 1950s, where he ended up making his strongest work. His films in the 40s, however, would run the gamut from films that take place entirely in one location (Lifeboat (1944)) to films that would attempt to take place entirely in one shot (Rope (1948)) to screwball comedies (Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941)) to courtroom dramas (The Paradine Case (1947)) to, well, espionage mysteries and thrillers but now with a higher budget (Saboteur (1942), Notorious (1946)). In fact, he actually made two movies this year, his other one being a World War II thriller called Foreign Correspondent and that one’s a fun watch too though not as memorable.

While Rebecca can drag, it’s still got a great Gothic style, great villains and great suspense. And if you’re a fan of Hitchcock films, this is definitely one you’re going to want to check out.

But was it movie of the year though?

In case you missed it:

1st Academy Awards (1927/28): Wings/Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans: Part 1, Part 2

2nd Academy Awards (1928/29): The Broadway Melody: Part 1, Part 2

3rd Academy Awards (1929/30): All Quiet on the Western Front: Part 1, Part 2

4th Academy Awards (1930/31): Cimarron: Part 1, Part 2

5th Academy Awards (1931/32): Grand Hotel: Part 1, Part 2

6th Academy Awards (1932/33): Cavalcade: Part 1, Part 2

7th Academy Awards (1934): It Happened One Night: Part 1, Part 2

8th Academy Awards (1935): Mutiny on the Bounty: Part 1, Part 2

9th Academy Awards (1936): The Great Ziegfeld: Part 1, Part 2

10th Academy Awards (1937): The Life of Emile Zola: Part 1, Part 2

11th Academy Awards (1938): You Can't Take It With You: Part 1, Part 2

12th Academy Awards (1939): Gone With the Wind: Part 1, Part 2