Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier

"Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again",
With these words, the reader is ushered into an isolated gray stone mansion on the windswept Cornish coast, as the second Mrs. Maxim de Winter recalls the chilling events that transpired as she began her new life as the young bride of a husband she barely knew. For in every corner of every room were phantoms of a time dead but not forgotten a past devotedly preserved by the sinister housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers: a suite immaculate and untouched, clothing laid out and ready to be worn, but not by any of the great house's current occupants. With an eerie presentiment of evil tightening her heart, the second Mrs. de Winter walked in the shadow of her mysterious predecessor, determined to uncover the darkest secrets and shattering truths about Maxim's first wife the late and hauntingly beautiful Rebecca.

In my time blogging there are many books that you see reviewed over and over again. Rebecca was one such book. I had never read Daphne du Maurier before, but I was constantly hearing about her. One day when I was at the second-hand bookstore I picked up a copy of Rebecca to finally see what it was all about. The only problem was I couldn't convince myself to actually read it. The only cover I could find was this one:

I had heard this book was Gothic and maybe even a bit creepy, but this cover just made me think 'romance novel'. I try to not let myself judge a book by the cover, but I wasn't succeeding with this one.

 In the fall there is a reading challenge called the 'R.I.P. Challenge'. In 2010 I was seeing Rebecca on many lists either going to be reading it or recommending it as a book for that time of year. I kept looking at the above cover and thinking 'Really?'. I am obviously missing something. While searching through the library catalogue one day, though, I found that they had added a new copy of Rebecca. Despite having a copy sitting on my TBR pile, I requested it and finally read it. I included this cover in my original review:

  That's a big change from the ugly red cover. I am thinking they were worried no one would read du Maurier if they didn't make her look like a romance novelist.

Here are a couple excerpts from my original review:

I loved the characters in this book. Mrs. Danvers was a really well-written villain. You never knew what to expect from her at any given time. It was fascinating to watch her character progress and discover just how crazy she could be. She is very unhappy that Maxim has remarried and still feels like Rebecca is a presence in the household. She is determined to keep her memory well alive and to do anything in her power to bring about the end of the new Mrs. de Winter. I think Daphne du Maurier captured her on the page brilliantly. She really came alive for me. Then, there was Rebecca herself. She played the perfect ghost. Even though she was not alive for the novel, you still knew her really well by the end of it. She may be dead, but she has not actually left Manderley. From the surface she seemed like the perfect hostess for a beautiful house, but as the story progresses and the layers are peeled back you will be fascinated by the character that appears.

And:

I just loved this book so much! When I started it I was constantly interrupted and only managed to get through 200 pages. The next day I managed to block most things out and read to the end. I was so excited to see how the story played out, but on the other hand I was really disappointed that it was over with. There haven't been a lot of books like this so far this year, so I was so happy that I finally found one! It is was atmospheric, Gothic, and the perfect book for this time of the year. If you are participating in the R.I.P. challenge and haven't read this book before, you really should! I am glad that I did!

For Christmas of 2010, I decided to buy my own copy of Rebecca with an appealing cover. I have this one on my stacks:

I had hoped to reread it this year, but I think I will probably save it for the fall.

What do you think of the various covers of Rebecca? Would you be a cover snob like me?


Alfred Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940):

I have wanted to see this movie for ages, but I couldn't find a copy. I had no idea that you could watch the entire thing on YouTube. I still would love to own it at some point; but over the winter I sat down and revisited Manderley for the first time in over a year. From the opening line I was excited. I have seen Alfred Hitchcock movies over the years, but never this one. I expected it to be very good and it was. The movie stars Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine in the two lead roles. Judith Anderson plays Mrs. Danvers. It won best picture at the 1940 Academy Awards and you can easily tell why. It stays very close to the original story and the mood of the movie is perfect. It is very much worth a watch!




Now it is your turn. Let us know what you think of the covers for the book, the book itself, or your own experiences with the movie in the comments.

Carl's Post on Titanic 3D

100 years ago last week the "unsinkable" Titanic departed on its ill-fated maiden voyage to America. Four days later it lay at an enormous depth at the bottom of the frigid ocean, a tragic reminder of the power of nature and the folly of human pride. Though the tragedy was certainly not forgotten over the last century, the magnitude of the wreck of the Titanic came home in a very real way after Robert Ballard discovered the location of the lost ship in 1985. Ballard's documentary footage of the famous lady lying crushed at the bottom of the sea brought the reality home to everyone. Seeing the remains is both sad and alarming. More than 1500 people lost their lives, the real catastrophe being that it did not have to happen that way.

Fifteen years ago my wife and I sat in a theater in Tulsa, OK on opening weekend to see Titanic, the film that became bigger than even writer/director James Cameron probably would have ever dreamed. I remember tears rolling down my cheeks during the scenes of the bodies floating in the water. It was gut-wrenching despite my knowing that it was but a pale imagining of how truly horrific those last few hours of life must have been for those unfortunate people. For some Titanic was movie-making as it should be, full of spectacle and heart. For others it was as bloated and over-hyped as the "unsinkable" ship at its center. Whether you loved it or whether your "heart [couldn't] go on" hearing any more about it, Titanic did succeed in giving viewers an up front view of what it might have been like on that fateful night in 1912.

To commemorate the anniversary of the sailing of the Titanic, James Cameron dusted off the film, gave it the 3D treatment, and re-released it to theaters for a new audience, and for those who couldn't resist seeing it on the big screen one more time. There was no doubt in my mind that my wife and I would see it again. The tragedy is one that draws me in and we found ourselves there on opening night enjoying the spectacle all over again.

When I posted a review of this re-release on my site one of the more frequent comments had to do with a lack of desire to see the film in 3D. I'll be the first to admit that I was over the 3D phenomenon before it ever began in earnest. While 3D visuals in some films, like Avatar for example, cannot help but wow even a cynical movie-goer, the majority of 3D effects seem to be done merely as an excuse to charge higher ticket prices. Titanic 3D is certainly guilty of that. To Cameron's credit the additional three dimensional effects are minimal and don't do anything to disrupt or distract from the movie itself. That being the case, one can easily see how unnecessary it was to give Titanic the 3D treatment. On the plus side the addition of three dimensional material (almost entirely foreground shots added to give the illusion of depth) meant that the film was also remastered and it was visually stunning in its color and clarity up on the big screen. Wow!

I remember not long after the film's initial release being so glad that I had seen it before it's hype got out of control because I found it to be a beautiful film. I felt that it was unfortunate that the theme song got so much airplay, which I believe was instrumental (pardon the pun) in making the public so very sick of hearing about the film. Even if you liked the song at the time (and I did), you eventually got sick of hearing it. I remember hitting a saturation point and didn't listen to it for decades. I just couldn't take it. But that did not diminish my fondness for the film. And sitting there watching it unfold again the other night, I realized that it stands the test of time, it is still a very beautiful film.

Regardless of what one thinks of it, watching the film objectively you have to admit that there is some talented film making going on. Scenes absent of soundtrack music, and often absent of sound of any kind, are placed throughout the film and they make quite an impact. Scenes in which the shot is high above and far away from the ship that are devoid of sound are chilling in their ominous foreshadowing of just how helpless and alone the passenger are. The scene in which Jack (DiCaprio) draws a sketch of Rose (Winslet) is sensuous not because of the nudity but because of the lighting, because of the way the camera plays across both actors' faces, concentrating on the eyes. The scene where the camera zooms in on Winslet's eye that fades into the older version of Rose (Gloria Stuart) is so well done and so moving. James Cameron has creative skills and the evidence of that is profuse.

It can certainly be argued that Titanic is overly sentimental, but I am an overly sentimental guy and thus it finds its audience with me. Given the subject matter I don't mind the sentiment. I remember thinking that Kate Winslet was an unconventional beauty and that opinion was reaffirmed on seeing the film again. I also found myself remembering just why I enjoyed Leonardo DiCaprio so much. I had gotten tired of him for awhile but more recent roles have renewed my interest and it was fun to see some of his early work again.

In the end though the thing that drew me back, and would keep drawing me back if they re-released this every decade, is the awesome nature of the tragedy that befell this marvelous ship and the people who were unlucky enough to be sailing upon her. It is hard to imagine just how scary, how truly terrifying, that entire event must have been. It remains fascinating all these years later.

If you never had a chance to see this movie on the big screen I would highly encourage you to do so. Don't let the prospect of 3D effects put you off, they are not present in any great quantity. And if you happen to be a silly romantic like yours truly, it definitely makes for a great date night film. I don't expect to ever truly understand what it must have been like for those present on the Titanic that night. I doubt anyone could. But Titanic the film succeeds in that it allows the viewer to feel some portion of empathy and understanding that might not have been possible otherwise. And to me that is worth experiencing again.

Carl blogs at Stainless Steel Droppings. Be sure to stop by!

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec

(click here to see a larger version)

Set in Paris 1912, this is the story of an intrepid young journalist and novelist Adèle Blanc-Sec. We first see her in Egypt trying to find a particular mummy that she needs to find a cure for her sister who's comatose (Agathe was victim of an accident when she was younger). At the same time in a Parisian museum, a Pterodactyl eggs mysteriously hatches and the animal starts attacking people...

Adèle Blanc-Sec by Tardi is one of my favourite comic characters and her adventures are always a pleasure to (re)read. I've been waiting for this movie for several years, but somehow I remained a little bit sceptical when I learned that Luc Besson was directing it.


What didn't work for me? Well, many things actually. Let's start with Adèle. In the comics she is supposed to be an arrogant and politically incorrect young woman with a dry sense of humour who permanently harbors an annoyed look. Louise Bourgoin, despite her best efforts, couldn't bring the real character alive. Her jokes were flat (timing, oh the timing ), her acting seems forced and the way she mechanically delivers her lines is almost tragic... I couldn't see anything of Adèle Blanc-Sec in her and that really spoiled the movie for me. The actress is cute, her costumes lovely but that was it.

I read somewhere that Luc Besson, didn't think that the original Adèle (the arrogant and tough gal) would appeal to the feminine public, so he decided to give the character a more tender and sensitive side. I didn't get this, I really didn't. It seems that strong women continue having trouble finding their place in cinema. Of course you can be sensitive and strong, but it seems you cannot be strong and sensitive (and if you are, it needs to be obvious to everyone around you).

Most of the other secondary characters were boring cliches who didn't hold any appeal, especially when they tried to be comic. There was some bad timing going on there as well ! The only exception was Dieuleveult, the creepy Egyptologist played by Matthieu Almaric, who gives us a great performance. It's unfortunate that his screen time was so short, since he steals every scene he's in and I could feel Almaric was enjoying the role.

The particular dark and mysterious Parisian atmosphere from the books was forgotten, and if there is another important character in this comic series besides Adèle, it's the city of Paris. We still get lovely views here and there, but they didn't make me think about Adèle's Paris.

Many things that I enjoy in the comics were either changed or ignored. I could look pass this if, despite its differences with the original series, the story was strong and captivating or even funny. In the end, it was, at my eyes, a complete failure.

I cannot say that I hated the movie, but it came very close. If you are a Tardi fan, this is not for you. If this is your first Adèle Blanc-Sec experience, it might be a pleasant Saturday evening movie.

Official website: http://www.adeleblancsec-lefilm.com/_en/

Dragonwyck (1946)

The story starts in 1844, Connecticut in a farm who belongs to the Wells, a God-fearing and modest family who are satisfied with their fate. All except for the 18 years old, Miranda, the older daughter. The girl dreams of a completely different life from the one she has, always fussing about her physical appearance and her clothes. This perpetually annoys her father who sees her ambition and vanity with suspicion and disappointment.

Everything changes with the arrival of a letter from Mrs Wells cousin, the patroon Nicholas Van Ryn. He invites one of the couple daughters to live in his manor – Dragonwyck - and become the governess of his young child. Miranda sees this as the perfect opportunity to escape her unexciting life. After some discussion and some warnings it is agreed that she will accept their cousin invitation.

Accompanied by her father, she leaves to New York where she is supposed to meet this mysterious and wealthy cousin. Nicholas is surprised with Miranda's lovely physique and manners. And the young woman is immediately in awe in front of her handsome and worldly cousin. They both leave to Dragonwyck shortly after, but the arrival of a pretty and young cousin feels like a treat to Nicholas's wife, Johanna. The newcomer is completely oblivious of the new tension between husband and wife.

Johanna ends up dying under mysterious circumstances and Nicholas asks Miranda do marry him and become the new Mrs Van Ryn. The young woman sees all her dreams come true but rather quickly she learns that her husband is not who she believed...

After reading Anya Seton's book Dragonwyck, I knew I had to see the movie , especially when I found out that Vincent Price was playing the brooding aristocrat Nicholas Van Ryn. The adaptation is quite good, Mankiewicz really managed to capture the gloomy atmosphere from Seton's Gothic novel, even if some plot holes did confuse me at times.

Vincent Price interpretation of Nicholas Van Ryn is perfect! He can be amazingly charming and chill you to the bones at the same time. It's obvious why Miranda feels attracted to him, but his icy and distant look also makes you believe him capable of the worst cruelties. The scene where he collects his tenants payments, sitting in his chair like a feudal lord is magnificent. Van Ryn is the last descendent of an aristocratic line who ruled those lands for centuries and tries to hold to them while the world changes. It's more than clear that Vincent Price had fun playing this role and his acting stands out since his first scene.

In the beginning, Miranda can come across as a snob and rather silly chit, but sometimes you can feel that underneath all that fluff, there's some deep of character. Gene Tierney is a lovely and dreamy Miranda. She feels completely out of place among her family and hopes to get an opportunity to experience the life she wishes for herself. We follow her in her new journey watching her grow and become wiser. I enjoyed the interactions Price-Tierney and there's definitely some chemistry going on between these two actors, even if Price's talent overshadows almost everyone.

A little note about Walter Hudson who gives us a wonderful performance playing Ephraim Wells and Glenn Langam, the laid back Doctor Jeff Turner who will have an important part in the downfall of Nicholas Van Ryn.

As I mentioned before, the adaptation is quite good and follows the novel rather closely. But there are some plot holes that leave you wondering the fate of some characters. The creepy servant Magda or the Van Ryn's young daughter, both disappear after Johanna Van Ryn's death and we don't know what happened to them. Other aspects of the story also remained unexplored, like Nicholas' drug addiction who is, at my eyes, an essential part his character and only mentioned quickly during the movie.

Dragonwyck is certainly entertaining, especially for Vincent Price, but I do recommend reading the novel before watching the movie.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038492/

Band of Brothers - A Mini-Series Review

Based on the bestseller by Stephen E. Ambrose, the epic 10-part miniseries Band of Brothers tells the story of Easy Company, 506th Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division, U.S. Army. Drawn from interviews with survivors of Easy Company, as well as soldiers' journals and letters, Band of Brothers chronicles the experiences of these men who knew extraordinary bravery and extraordinary fear. They were an elete rifle company parachuting into France early on D-Day morning, fighting in the Battle of the Bulge and capturing Hitler's Eagle's Nest at Berchtesgaden. They were also a unit that suffered 150 percent casualties, and whose lives became legend.

Over the years I have seen an episode here and there of this show, but this is the first time I have actually sat down and watched all the episodes from beginning to end. I am a bit rusty on writing reviews, but I do know enough to say one simple world about this show: Bravo! They did such a fantastic job with this series. I knew I was going to like it and I am kicking myself that it took me so long to watch it! It shouldn't surprise anyone that it is good, though, because the executive producers are Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks. The two of them together is like magic. I don't think Spielberg would ever put something out that didn't exceed all expectations. Tom Hanks is good, too, but I am still sitting here thinking about him talking to a volleyball.

The best way to describe this show is that it could be real. The action is so believable and the acting so exceptional you felt like they were really there and you were really watching the events of World War II through their eyes. The research was obvious and the interviews at the beginning of each episode were a wonderful touch. Some of the scenes from this show will stay with me forever, I think. The second to the last episode was about the Holocaust and it was so compelling. I watched it and knew it was actors, but I was still horrified. I also got sad when people died. You got to know them through the episodes and it was sad that they were gone. There is a scene in a church where a narrator speaks and it starts with everyone and the narrator slowly tells all those that died. I think that was a very good memorial to all those men that never made it home.

I do have to say that there was so much going on that I am not always entirely sure of the characters and I know I missed some of what was going on. It's a show that I could probably watch again right now and discover a lot of things that I missed the first time around. I think it is a show that I am happy that I owe, so I have that chance to go back through it. This is television at its best. A documentary in fiction form. I strongly recommend it!

The Other Boleyn Girl - The Movie

Based on the best selling novel by Philippa Gregory, "The Other Boleyn Girl" is an engrossing and sensual tale of intrigue, romance, and betrayal set against the backdrop of a defining moment in history. Two sisters, Anne (Natalie Portman) and Mary (Scarlett Johansson) Boleyn, are driven by their ambitious father and uncle to advance the family's power and status by courting the affections of the King of England (Eric Bana). Leaving behind the simplicity of
country life, the girls are thrust into the dangerous and thrilling world of court life – and what began as a bid to help their family develops into a ruthless rivalry between Anne and Mary for the love of the king. Initially, Mary wins King Henry's favor and becomes his mistress, bearing him an illegitimate child. But Anne, clever, conniving, and fearless, edges aside both her sister and Henry's wife, Queen Katherine of Aragon, in her relentless pursuit of the king. Despite Mary's genuine feelings for Henry, her sister Anne has her sights set on the ultimate prize; Anne will not stop until she is Queen of England. As the Boleyn girls battle for the love of a king – one driven by ambition, the other by true affection – England is torn apart. Despite the dramatic consequences, the Boleyn girls ultimately find strength and loyalty in each other, and they remain forever connected by their bond as sisters.

I have read the book, so you know that meant I was looking forward to the movie. More because the book was one of the best books I read the year I read it, so I wanted to see how that would transfer to the big screen. The other night, I finally got my chance. I sat through the annoying commercials (a car commercial set to Mambo Number Five...), I watched the previews for up-coming releases (first movie I have seen in a while without the annoying robot movie preview), and then finally the movie began. The setting was wonderful, the costumes were impressive, and I was beginning to think that I was in for a good show.

First up, I should mention I was not thrilled by the casting choices. I do not mind Natalie Portman, but I am not a big Scarlett fan. There is something about her that I just cannot warm up to. I think that for the role that was written for her, Natalie did an awesome job. Scarlett did meek pretty good, but like I said, I just cannot warm to her. I am not sure Eric Bana was exactly who I would picture for Henry, but he did do a good job. There was, for me, nothing majorly wrong with the cast. Even the secondary characters did a very good job. I just did not like the movie. Actually, I sat there for the entire time praying it would hurry up and get over. The other two people I went with enjoyed it, and I imagine one of them will buy it when it comes out on DVD, but once was more than enough for me!

I know that the Boleyn's and their connection with the king was all rather dramatic, but there was just too much drama for me. I found that they were trying to overplay everything just a bit too much for me. I didn't feel bad for Anne in the end, I was just happy that if she was now dead, the movie must be almost over. In the book, Anne is the younger sister, but in the movie they changed it to have her as the older one. The fact that she was the older sister was a line of dialogue several times throughout the movie. All I kept thinking is that we get it already, no need to mention it again! I just found that the movie had too much whining, tears, and back-stabbing. Historically correct? Probably. Just too much drama for me. It was really rushed, the whole story. Two babies were born, so you know at least 18 months went by, but it felt like a week. I just did not like how the movie was written. It annoyed me to no end.

So, while I know that people like this movie, I do not. I can go on and on about it, but for now, I will just say that this is not a movie for everyone.

North & South Mini series

I really enjoy the BBC Tv series based on famous novels. I was recently introduced to a new one (to me) and spent quite a few enjoyable hours curled up on the couch watching this series that A. sent me! It was very good!

The story it's about the contrast between the living in the south and the north of England, the south is more about landed gentry and the north about the industrialization. The clash between the two occurs when Margaret Hale moves to Milton, in the North, and discovers a way of life and priorities very different from the ones she is used to. She is shocked when she visits a cotton mill and finds the owner, Mr Thornton, beating one of his employees who had been caught smocking in the weaving room and also later when she tries to befriend a mill worker and his daughter. This friendship will make her aware of the workers's difficulties and will lead her to a strained relationship with Thornton, Margaret's feelings will only change after he has proposed and she has refused him and as she slowly gets to know him better. It was a beautiful series, a wonderful BBC adaptation with some very good actors, I can't resist mentioning Sinead Cusack. And of course now I have a new author to discover - Elizabeth Gaskell who wrote the book the series was based upon.

So for all of the above I highly recommend it! Not to mention the eye candy that is Richard Armitage! I totally agree that all that intensity makes him a worthy rival of Colin Firth's Mr Darcy!

Mists of Avalon Mini-Series

Sometimes you love a book so much you could read it all the time, but life gets in the way and you are looking for a quicker way to get through the pages. For Mists of Avalon, I suggest the TNT mini-series. Starring Angelica Huston, Julianna Margulies, Joan Allen, Samantha Mathis, Edward Atterton, and Michael Vartan, this is a very good representation of Marion Zimmer Bradley's novel. From the back of the case:

Long live the new king. But who will it be? The answer will come through the mystical and powerful manipulations of fate emanating from Avalon.

The Mists of Avalon, from Marion Zimmer Bradley's bestseller, retells the Arthurian legend from the perspective of the women who shaped events with spiritual powers. Anjelica Huston plays high priestess Viviane, the Lady of the Lake determined to perpetuate the ways of Avalon. Julianna Margulies is Morgaine, her chosen successor. Joan Allen portrays Morgause, fiercely driven to shape the royal lineage to her own end. Out of the lives of these three and others - and out of the mists - will come a nation's destiny.

I really do not think a movie would have done this book justice, but a mini-series did a fantastic job. Some things are not there, others are changed or taken out, but overall this is a very enjoyable look at the women of Bradley's fantastic fantasy novel. I have never been sure if Julianna Margulies was the best choice for Morgaine, that is my only problem with this mini-series. She is not bad, but she is far from my first choice. Anjelica Huston is wonderful! Michael Vartan plays Lancelot. The actors that played Arthur and Gwenwyfar are Edward Atterton and Samantha Mathis. Caroline Goodall plays Morgaine's mother, Igraine. We also see Freddie Highmore as young Arthur.

A very good adaption, I recommend it.

Movie reviews

Mists of Avalon mini-series (Kailana)
North and South BBC mini-series(Ana)
The Other Boleyn Girl (Kailana)