Exactly. You don't need likeable characters for a novel to work- as long as they are interesting and you can empathise with them, which I think you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Printable View
Exactly. You don't need likeable characters for a novel to work- as long as they are interesting and you can empathise with them, which I think you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I thought mrs Danvers was well written, even though I hated her I think many would get a bit annoyed in this position... but what I loved was how everything was described, he was holding her and touching her and she kept thinking this is how he pets Jasper. she was nothing more than a pet to him.and I love endings like this. not gonna say anything about it but I wouldn't have liked it any other way.
No, but you need to believe in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Not necessarily - just think of Dickens! I thought the characters worked in this novel though, for the most part anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Not always but in this case I think yes. If I'm not sympathetic to, or interested in, any of the characters why do I care what happens and why should I read any further?
I think the film set me up for failure, in the film Mrs. Danvers was really creepy and a little scary and the narrator wasn't as anemic and way more likable.
You read partly because of the plot. And just the general theme- have you never felt overshadowed by someone impossibly wonderful?Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I should have elaborated a bit. You need to believe in the characters WITHIN the novel, they don't need to be real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I found Rebecca un-put-downable and the film was teriffic too.
Yes, I see, they usually need to work within the frame of the text sure.
Yes I thought the book was good, though I've read a couple of others by Daphne Du Maurier and they were a lot weaker. I've read "The Birds" too, which is OK, it is only a short story, about 10 pages long, but again another good film from that one.
I also found Daphne du Maurier weak in Jamaica Inn which I read after having visited the inn some years ago. I haven't read Rebecca although I agree that the first line is a brilliant opening for a novel. Normally a film seldom measures up to the book but Hitchcock's film Rebecca is about as good as you can get in terms of telling a story that holds you from start to finish. I remember being on a train journey with a friend who had watched Rebecca the night before and he said: "Whatever happened to film making?" A scathing reference to what passes for such nowadays. Having read Jamaica Inn and seen Rebecca, I don't think I need to read the novel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I don't agree with your last remark, Brian. I think one should read the book and judge from there. The Hitchcock film was amazing and a real achievement in film suspense and intrigue; however, he did take liberties with the orginal story; the film is typical Hitchcock in construction, style and quirky characters. I saw a miniseries, which came closer to the original book; it stars Charles Dance as Maxim and a young woman as the second wife. I thought it was quite good. The b/w Hitchcock film can hardly be topped for suspense and style, charaters, film angles, etc; but as I said, the film is not totally true to the novel; even though it's a work of art. One aspect is that Joan Fontaine was criticised as being too old for the role of the second Mrs. DeWinter. She was good in the role but in the book version she is very young and naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
I don't know how one can judge or comment on papayhed's original post or vote in the pole, if they have not actually read the novel. I agree with others who said the opening line was brilliant and the fact, that we never know the first name of the second wife; I thought that was quite original. I loved the book myself; I think I have read it twice now. I don't see but superfical resemblence to the story of "Jane Eyre". I had never even thought of any parallels before someone on here brought that up.
Yes I love the film, and I have seen the ITV drama starring Charles Dance and that is also a good effort, Dance is very good. I can see your point Brian about not needing to read the text, it is a good book, but not a great book (I gave it four stars) or anything that is high literature, but a good solid book nevertheless - I think I have read it at least twice. Incidentally Jamaica Inn is a Hitchcock film too, which you may know, but it is a very old one and difficult to really appreciate, poor sound etc. Yes, I am an Hitchcock fan, luckily I have got a collected Hitchcock with about 40 odd films, though they vary in quality, they do have the effect of holding your attention a lot longer than many of the films today as the guy on the train says.
Neely, I am a big Hitchcock fan as well. I finally broke down and bought "Rebecca"; I had to have it for my Hitchcock DVD collection. It's an incredibly well crafted film - a true classic. Interesting that you have seen the Charles Dance ITV production. My library owns it and I kept looking at the cover and could not imagine I would try like it; the cover was deceiving. I finally watched it and was surprised just how much I appreciated it; Charles Dance is fine in the role; the young actress was admirable as well and fit the role better than I thought she would. Now I would like to find Charles Dance's early "Phantom of the Opera" film. I was told several times it's the best version and closest to the orginial book. Have you ever had the pleasure to see it? Who stars in "Jamaica Inn"? I have the book here, but have not yet read it. I heard it was quite good from a friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I've watched a bit of the ITV Rebecca but think the subject lends itself better to black and white.
In both versions, I believe, they have changed the nature of X's death.
No I've not seen the Phantom of the Opera. The actor who plays the lead in Jamaica Inn is Robert Laughton, who also plays in Hitchcock's Paradine Case. He won an Oscar in 1934 for The Private Life of Henry VIII. I wouldn't recommend the film though, as I say the sound is quite poor and it seems a very low budget affair, certainly there are other Hitchcock films I would watch before that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I think you're possibly mixing up 2 actors here Neely. Charles Laughton was the actor, but for some reason I was picturing Robert Newton, from Treasure Island, possibly as they are both fond of a bit of ham :lol: