Cast:
Joan Fontaine (The second Mrs. de Winter), Laurence Olivier (George Fortescue Maximilian "Maxim" de Winter), Judith Anderson (Mrs. Danvers), George Sanders (Jack Favell), Reginald Denny (Frank Crawley), Gladys Cooper (Beatrice Lacy), C. Aubrey Smith (Colonel Julyan), Nigel Bruce (Major Giles Lacy), Florence Bates (Mrs. Edythe Van Hopper), Edward Fielding (Frith), Melville Cooper (Coroner at trial), Leo G. Carroll (Dr. Baker), and Leonard Carey (Ben) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith, #977 - Frenzy, and #1343 - The 39 Steps, and #1739 - The Birds)
Joan Fontaine (The second Mrs. de Winter), Laurence Olivier (George Fortescue Maximilian "Maxim" de Winter), Judith Anderson (Mrs. Danvers), George Sanders (Jack Favell), Reginald Denny (Frank Crawley), Gladys Cooper (Beatrice Lacy), C. Aubrey Smith (Colonel Julyan), Nigel Bruce (Major Giles Lacy), Florence Bates (Mrs. Edythe Van Hopper), Edward Fielding (Frith), Melville Cooper (Coroner at trial), Leo G. Carroll (Dr. Baker), and Leonard Carey (Ben) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith, #977 - Frenzy, and #1343 - The 39 Steps, and #1739 - The Birds)
Review:
It does become interesting to consider just how many movies one can see of the late Alfred Hitchcock, particularly since his line of work has taken up nine percent of all films I've ever seen, which is a weird way of saying seventeen films. Of course, the real story is the fact that this was not only the 26th feature film directed by Hitchcock, it was his first directed in Hollywood. Hitchcock was forty years old when he decided to move to Hollywood, having believed that he reached his peak in his native Britain, and it was the efforts of producer David O. Selznick that led to him moving; the two signed a seven-year contract; Hitchcock would end up producing more films by himself than with Selznick, and they would have their disagreements in terms of personality and professionalism when it came to this film, to where they only worked on one other film together in Spellbound a couple of years later, most notably because Hitchcock liked to film a controlled cut without too much extra footage. As such, this is an adaptation of the novel of the same name that had been written by Daphne du Maurier, and it was Hitchcock who had adapted her previous book Jamaica Inn in 1939. Incidentally, the book had been adapted on radio by Orson Welles in 1938, and a stage adaptation had been done by Du Maurier in 1939. Selznick aimed to be quite faithful to the book, as much as one can do with the Production Code, which had one particular rule about spouse death. Hitchcock was a busy man, since this was also the year of release for Foreign Correspondent, which like this film would be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture (other films nominated were films such as The Grapes of Wrath, The Great Dictator, and The Philadelphia Story). As it happened, Rebecca would win the award, making it the only Hitchcock film to ever win the honor; Selznick, as the recipient of the award, became the first back-to-back winner for a producer. As such, the screenplay was done by Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison, while the adaptation was done by Philip MacDonald and Michael Hogan.
Several actors were considered for the main roles, such as Ronald Colman, William Powell, Olivia de Havilland, Loretta Young, among others. Sometimes one needs a Gothic vision to really see the talents of Hitchcock come alive, if only because one wants to see just where the rabbit hole goes in mystery and tortured romance, where the unsaid is more biting than the action. 130 minutes never felt so magnificent when it comes to how Hitchcock has handled the macabre with the terror that comes from memories of a deceased wife that haunts both an estate and the husband himself (incidentally, one never sees the title character nor knows the name of the one of the main characters) that creates such diverting paranoia without becoming a costume show; George Barnes and his cinematography help in that regard to make a stirring film look as alive as it does, and it probably isn't surprising that Barnes won an Academy Award for his work. Of course, the cast is just as effective as the crew. Olivier portrays the vulnerability required with such brooding patience that makes for quite a volatile and curious interaction with Fontaine, one ripped by the past that holds him down further than anything else could, which means one is watching a gripping performance that isn't just a show for Olivier (a talented actor already noted for his performance in Wuthering Heights the year before). Fontaine (the younger sister of actress Olivia de Havilland) had a few key roles in films before this film, most notably Gunga Din (1939), but this was the film that made her a key star (Fontaine however did not care for her typecasting for just melodramatic roles, which would include films done by Selznick like Jane Eyre (1943) and even another du Maurier adaptation in Frenchman's Creek the next year). It doesn't take much to see why she became a star, because her performance is quite excellent, one with the exact type of withering vulnerability required in showing doubt that doesn't become overshadowed by the other members of the cast, and the growing confidence by the second half only helps to make a well-rounded performance of curiosity. Anderson (considered one of the great stage actors of her time) makes a compelling adversarial presence, one who lurks around Fontaine that practically glides from scene to scene (complete with a lack of blinking) that makes the final result all the more haunting. Sanders, when he does show up, makes a perfect cad to view against the others, and the rest of the cast keeps the proceedings dignified and well invested. As a whole, the movie is a classic worth viewing among all the other Hitchcock classics for what is seen and what isn't seen in this Gothic mystery that has the highlights from its director and producer in Selznick without becoming consumed by itself. One can debate just where the film rests among the classics, but one knows by the time the film ends that it is up there in the margins somewhere for what it ends up doing with a master at work.
Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.
