Summary:
A young woman marries a rich troubled widower and is constantly reminded of her husband’s deceased wife.
My Thoughts:
This film is rather remarkable for it’s time; it’s beautifully shot, the sets and locations are gorgeously designed and chosen, the story is intriguing, the characters, interesting, and the directing quite remarkable. This was the only Hitchcock movie to win best picture; Hitchcock himself was nominated for five Oscars (including Best Director for this film), but sadly, he never won. But while this film is the one that took home Oscar gold, I’d venture to guess many would agree with my saying that this is not Hitchcock’s best film. By the time this picture came out in April of 1940, Hitchcock had already released quite a few other notable movies; “The Lodger”, “The Man Who Knew Too Much”, “The 39 Steps”, “Sabotage”, “The Lady Vanishes”. Hitchcock is one of the best directors of all time, and while this is a certainly a good film, it’s a bit more melodramatic and not quire as thrilling as some of his later entries.
“Happiness is something I know nothing about.”
While on a working vacation, a young woman (Joan Fontaine, “Jane Eyre” (1943)) runs into a wealthy widower named Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier, “Spartacus”). The two quickly fall in love, and when the woman’s employer, Edythe Van Hopper (Florence Bates, “On the Town”), requests that the woman go with her to America, Maxim proposes instead that she marry him, and she accepts his proposal. The two move back to Manderley, a large mansion presided over by a cantankerous housekeeper named Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson, “The Ten Commandments”). The housekeeper seems intent on keeping the memory of Maxim’s first wife, Rebecca de Winter, alive, and she also is quite spiteful to the new Mrs. de Winter. As the story progresses, more details about Rebecca’s death come to light, and our protagonist begins to suspect things mightn’t be at all what they at first seemed.
I think the thing I really liked most about this film was the cinematography. The sets and locations are absolutely gorgeous- George Barnes actually won an Oscar for his work as the cinematographer (the only other Oscar this film won besides Best Picture, though it was nominated for a total of eleven). There are many shots in this movie that have a somewhat ethereal feeling to them, which is quite apropos of the themes of the film. The cinematography lends itself to be soft and ghostly, much like the ghostly, unseen presence of the late Rebecca de Winter. There are quite a few wonderful tracking shots as well; shots that follow characters through rooms and into hallways, making use of long takes and deep staging (something Hitchcock was very fond of). But perhaps the most impressive thing for me was the way that light seemed to spill through translucent objects in absolutely mesmerizing ways. Throughout the film, shadows and fog and other various veils waft in front of the camera, as if to always imply that there are secrets within the walls of Manderley. The cinematography does absolutely amazing things for the atmosphere of this film as a whole.
I did really like the characters in this film, though I felt that the way the new Mrs. de Winter is treated, even by the people that claim to like her, was a little outdated. Every single man in this film seems to treat our protagonist like she’s incapable of doing anything at all, and even de Winters herself seems to believe that. I know this portrayal of our leading lady is just a product of the times, but in this day in age it is something that might irk some viewers. Though de Winters is criticized endlessly throughout this movie, she is a remarkably likeable character, and much of that is thanks to Joan Fontaine’s performance. The role of Mrs. de Winter’s is very demanding and versatile; she goes through a roller coaster of emotions in this film, and Fontaine does a marvelous job of showing de Winter’s ups and downs. Maxim is a very unique character, and Olivier plays into his little quirks in an interesting fashion. The first time we met him, I couldn’t say I particularly liked Maxim’s character; he was brash and arrogant, and honestly I couldn’t see why our protagonist would want to fall in love with him. But as the film went on, and we began to learn more about Maxim, his character increasingly intrigued me. His character is one that keeps leaving hints about his lack of happiness and his the darkness of his past, yet at the same time he tries to put on a happy face for his young bride. Mrs. Danvers was the other character that intrigued me the most; her character seemed more attached to the past than any of the other characters. Her dislike of the new Mrs. de Winter is both unsettling and fascinating. Her character
I’d say my biggest issue with this film is that, about a half hour before the film ends, there is a scene where some expository dialogue takes place that clears up a fair amount of the mystery of the story, and for the remainder of the film, the tension was considerably less than the earlier parts of the movie. As a whole, the revelation didn’t bug me terribly, I just felt like the climax of the movie had less tension than many of the scenes prior. Of course there are moments of melodrama as one would expect from a movie made in the forties, but that doesn’t bother me as me; for me its just adds to the old Hollywood charm.
Verdict:
Overall I really enjoyed this film, though if you are unfamiliar with Hitchcock, I wouldn’t recommend you start here. While this is a really good film it’s not nearly as iconic as a dozen other of Hitchcock’s movies. Olivier and Fontaine make for a mesmerizing pair, and the cinematography and production design alone make it worth watching.
Review Written By: