Rebecca [DVD] [1997]

Note: This is a good film, however I only gave it 3 stars because it was not a true adaptation of the book.

I as well have viewed both this 1997 version and the Hitchcock version and have to say, the Hitchcock has the upper hand. I don't deny that the cast of the 1997 version are very good, however, in my opinion they're not right for these specific parts.

Overall, I found this version a little disappointing, and, if I dare say, a little insulting to Du Maurier's talents. There were a few pointless scenes and a few that were changed slightly - for example the point when the main character (Fox) tells Mrs Van Hopper she is going to marry Maxim didn't actually happen in the novel, and it was in fact Maxim who told Van Hopper.

The added scenes which don't appear in the book, such as when they are in the Monte Carlo cafe and on the cruise during their honeymoon, unnecessary to the story, and the time they spent on them could have been put to better use by staying truer to the novel.

I felt that Charles Dance, as fine an actor as he is, was a little to old to play Maxim de Winter, his hair was too light and his features were too kind - in the novel he is described as a dark, brooding man. Emilia Fox, another fine actress, I felt was not as shy as she perhaps could have been.

I felt a little robbed of my 189 minutes spent watching this. Again, I will not deny that it is a good film, but if you've read the book its a disappointment. For a film that is 3 hours long, I personally believe that it could have stayed truer to the book.

So, in my honest opinion, if you've read the book, go for the Hitchcock version, but if you want a good film this isn't that bad at all!

Having viewed this (1997), the Hitchcock, and the older (1979?) BBC versions, and having read the novel umpteen times, I have to vote for the older BBC as the best version.

As regards this version: Charles Dance is certainly a fine actor,as are all the cast, but I found him just a bit too old (Maxim is only 42), and too fair (the second wife comments a number of times on his dark features). Jeremy Brett, the earlier BBC Maxim, was in my opinion the exact embodiment of the character, and gave him the appropriate broodiness.

Emilia Fox, while looking the part of Maxim's shy second wife, wasn't quite innocent enough (innocence is the main quality that attracts Maxim in view of Rebecca's complete lack of it). There was a glint of "knowingness" in her eye from almost the very beginning. Fox's mother, Joanna David, played the wife in the earlier version, and she was not only physically perfect for the role, but she managed to imbue the character with exactly the right amount of innocence and insecurity without the mannerisms of Joan Fontaine (who is too pretty).

I can't think why recent writers of literary film adaptions feel they must include at least one scene in which the hero and heroine are "rolling in the hay" (witness the most recent adaption of "Jane Eyre" with Toby Stephens) unless it's to attract fans of bodice-ripper fiction; I find it a bit off-putting if it isn't actually in the novel, and also a bit insulting to my intelligence and rather active imagination.

I thought Faye Dunaway seriously miscast as Mrs. Hopper, and her hamminess stood out in a most glaring fashion among the other performances in the production.

I am a great admirer of Diana Rigg, but in this role I prefer both Judith Anderson (Hitchcock) and Anna Massey (1979), neither of whom are as beautiful (no insult intended!) as Rigg, and I never thought of Mrs. Danvers as aesthetically pleasing in any way.

My biggest gripe with this version is seeing glimpses of Rebecca herself (a mouth here, back of the head there). SAD mistake. Du Maurier took great pains to keep Rebecca shrouded in mystery for as long as possible; even the few physical facts she gives us ("tall and slim, with that cloud of dark hair and the face of a Botticelli angel") comes through other characters as secondhand information. The second wife's fragile if not non-existent ego, and the constant undermining of her confidence, depends largely on the INDISTINCT picture she has of her glamorous predecessor, which sends her imagination into a frenzy. All this serves to illustrate that evil is much more potent when unseen.

Of course, due to time constraints, the Hitchcock leaves much of the novel out and condenses other parts; this version, on the other hand, adds scenes between Maxim and his wife that are nowhere to be found in the novel, and really don't add much to the story. In fact, I found them detrimental to the over-all pace. I especially object to the fabricated conversation between the two after the fancy dress ball. It would have preserved the dramatic tension much better had they stuck with du Maurier's idea that the wife doesn't get a chance to speak to Maxim until the all-important confession scene. ***SPOILER ALERT*** And why on earth does he strangle Rebecca, when he shoots her in the novel?

In conclusion, my opinion is that of the three versions, the 1979 BBC is the best, and gives us almost the entire novel on film. And the extensive use of Debussy in the musical score is brilliant. Too bad it isn't available on DVD.

I watched the first half of Rebecca back in 1997 on PBS. I immediately found the book and read it in a day. The next Sunday night I watched the second half. The film brought the characters to life in a way that no other movie had. Charles Dance is simply amazing as Maxim de Winter. He is very believable as the tormented widower of Rebecca. Emilia Fox is charming as the second Mrs de Winter. She brings the innocence of the character to life on the screen. She makes the audience, and especially the female audience, sympathize with her. The chemistry between Dance and Fox is perhaps the strongest aspect of the film. The two play off of each other as though they truly were the characters. I highly recommend this film to anyone. It is a magnificent story with many twists and turns. Five stars for Rebecca.