Book vs. Movie: Rebecca

When my husband saw me reading this book, he asked (a bit derisively, I must say) if it was some romance novel. I admitted there was some romance to it, but went on to explain that Hitchcock had made a film version of the story. He concluded that if Hitchcock was involved, there must be something more substantial there.

Rebecca, a classic in either book or movie version, tells the story of a young, naive woman who falls in love with (and quickly marries) one Maximilian (Maxim) de Winter. When he brings her to his estate, the imposing Manderley, their happiness is overshadowed by the presence (not literally) of his first wife, the titular Rebecca. Her memory is kept very much alive by Mrs. Danvers, Manderley's housekeeper, who is still devoted and loyal to the deceased Mrs. de Winter.


For the most part, while condensing things a bit, the movie stays true to Daphne du Maurier's novel. Some changes include a different ending for Mrs. Danvers and slightly different circumstances surrounding Rebecca's death. The book also spends more time with some of the minor characters and presents the second Mrs. de Winter's thoughts in greater depth. (While this sometimes helps a lot in understanding her character, in some cases the book gets a bit long-winded.)

The movie's strength owes a great deal to the perfectly cast actors. Joan Fontaine plays insecure and shy extremely well, and while this same type of performance was out of place in Jane Eyre, it was just right in Rebecca. Although some might ask if his mustache is really necessary, Laurence Olivier hits upon the necessary mix of qualities for Maxim: romantic, mysterious, and troubled. George Sanders, while a different physical type than the description of his character in the book, is perfect as Rebecca's slimy cousin, Jack Favell. And Judith Anderson is deliciously creepy as Mrs. Danvers.

Rebecca herself works best without appearing in either the book or movie. I'm not sure she would be completely believable as a flesh-and-blood character, but as an overbearing presence imagined or remembered, the character works. There's one part in the movie that's particularly effective where the camera tracks along an empty space as Rebecca's past actions are narrated.

Book or movie? Both are worth a look. I personally saw the movie before reading the book, and so had a clear picture in my head of the characters as I read, but I was still quite caught up in the story even knowing the eventual ending. There's enough minor differences from one to the other to keep each version interesting. And, while it's not perhaps one of Hitchcock's finest, this is one that fans of the director shouldn't miss. It did, after all, win the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1940.

If you've read the book and seen the movie, which do you prefer?

The Oscars: Did you watch?

I know, I know, I recently did a post questioning the value of awards. But I must admit to being sucked in anyway. And so yes, I did watch (most) of the 81st Annual Academy Awards last night. Here's a few scattered thoughts about the show.

Since I didn't see all (or many, actually) of the nominated films, I'm not in a real position to debate about the rightness of who won or lost. I did feel a little sad that WALL-E didn't do better (and didn't Will Smith sound funny saying the title? He has kids, didn't he see the movie?) but overall I didn't care much about the outcomes one way or another outside of how it would leave me in the LAMB Oscar pool. (One year I won a contest run through the local newspaper for Oscar picks. Well, I tied for first. But because I had a relative working at the paper, they gave the big prize to the other guy. I got a hat.)

As far as the entertainment value of the show itself, I thought it didn't seem to drag quite so much as past years. (Although I've long been in the habit of doing other things with the show on in the background, which definitely helps.)

I thought Hugh Jackman was not a bad host, although we didn't see much of him outside of his song and dance numbers. I liked him admitting (pretending?) he hadn't seen The Reader. I didn't especially like the bit with him and Anne Hathaway, but then, I find her strangely irritating most of the time. And while I agree with the sentiment of being happy to see more new musicals out, it was during that number that I decided I don't really like Hugh's singing style.

Some random cattiness: I thought I was in favor of Kate Winslet winning, but I liked her less during her incoherent speech than in any movie I've ever seen her in (although I did like her looking for her dad). Didn't Reese Witherspoon seem strangely asymmetrical? And sorry again, Anne Hathaway, but your thank you speech from your seat professing your love for Shirley MacLaine was rather embarrassing to watch. As was an outclassed Jennifer Aniston presenting on a night with Brad and Angelina both up for awards.

What I did like: Having past winners coming out to talk about the current nominees was a cool idea, and it was interesting to see who got paired up. I also liked the montages of movie genres (like Romance in 2008). Tina Fey and Steve Martin were great. Philippe Petit doing a magic trick and balancing the Oscar on his chin was rather amusing, and made me wish I had liked his movie more. There were other little moments of enjoyment (funny bits, real emotion from folks, etc.) but not much seemed really, really memorable. Maybe because there weren't a lot of surprises?

When Slumdog won and the whole entourage of people started filling the stage, I found myself thinking it would be a great chance for some random person to jump up there just for kicks. Who would notice? I also wanted to see them all break into a choreographed dance number to the film's Oscar-winning song. That would have been a great way to end the night.

That's all I've got. Did you watch? What did you think?

Do awards matter?

It's not a new question, but I think it's still relevant now, with the Golden Globes just behind us and the Oscars fast approaching. Also, on a smaller scale, various awards are being passed around in the blogging world (blogosphere if you must, although I don't like the sound of it). Caitlin over at Fire and Music was even kind enough to send a Superior Scribbler award along my way. So, do all these awards really matter?

Raquelle at Out of the Past made some very interesting points in a post about why she would not be passing along the awards. Mostly it boils down to her not wanting to exclude anyone by her choices. Some of these things do begin to feel more like a popularity contest than a gauge of real merit. If picked, you are in with the cool kids, if not, you are left thinking nobody wants you on their team.

I have to wonder how much even bigger awards, like the Oscars, involve favoritism and factors outside of merit alone. When Julie Andrews won for best actress in Mary Poppins, didn't it have something to do with her being shut out of the film version of My Fair Lady? When Paul Newman finally won for The Color of Money, wasn't it (at least in part) compensation for him never winning in the earlier years of his career? What about this year, will the controversy over Slumdog Millionaire hurt its chances at the Oscars? I don't know, but it does seem impossible to bestow honors completely impartially.

It also seems inevitable that someone will be missed. Even though Citizen Kane is now almost universally regarded as the best movie ever, it lost out on the Academy Award for best picture. So will some great blog get skipped over in the blog appreciation awards? Very possibly.

Don't start that get-off-the-stage music yet, I'm not finished!

These blog awards can also start to feel like chain letters, although fortunately there is no crazy threat (like your blog exploding) if you fail to pass on to the required number of people. As the list of recipients grows, however, doesn't the value of the award begin to fade? It makes me think of The Incredibles, and its point about how saying everyone is special is the same as saying no one is.

I'm also reminded of With Honors, where Brendan Fraser's character is trying so hard to graduate summa cum laude. At the graduation ceremony, his name is called and followed only by silence, but by then the importance of that brief moment has been put in perspective. He has been told he will graduate life with honor and without regret, and that is what really matters. Sure, an award is nice, but it's only a blip in a life. It's not (or anyway I don't think it should be) the end-all be-all of who we are and what we do.

On the other hand, winning an award feels great! The attention and recognition provides a nice feeling of validation. Perhaps because we are social creatures, and being lauded in your community gives one a nice boost.

So while the argument can be made that awards don't matter (that bigger awards are little more than an excuse to get dressed up and party, or worse still a big money-making scheme to draw in viewers to award shows and the system they hype, while smaller awards are given too indiscriminately and without clear enough standards) I think awards do matter. At least, winning this award matters to me. I am flattered.

And so I will accept and display the award bestowed upon me, with thanks to Princess Fire and Music. I will also follow along with its rules:

1. Name five other Superior Scribblers to receive this award.
2. Link to the author and name of the blog that gave you the award.
3. Display the award on your blog with this LINK which explains the award.
4. Click on the award at the bottom of the link and add your name to the bottom of the list.
5. Post the rules.

While there are many blogs I read and enjoy, I'm choosing to pass along this award to the following: The Flick Chick, The Film Doctor, David, Cesia, and The Movie Ness. I hope they will receive it in the spirit I send it, which is to say that I like you(r blog), and I hope you keep writing.

They can choose to play by the rules in accepting and passing it on, call in a guest blogger dressed in Native American gear to refuse, or do anything in between. I imagine it will all depend on whether or not they think awards matter.

Review: Man on Wire

Philippe Petit is the kind of guy who'd be great to invite to your dinner party. Once, anyway. For he's got quite an entertaining story to tell about the time he managed to sneak to the top of the Twin Towers, rig a wire between the two buildings, and walk across. It's a feat no one else has done or will ever be able to do again. How do you beat that in polite dinner conversation? You don't, unless perhaps you can say, "I walked on the moon."

Man on Wire is a documentary film about how Philippe pulled off this amazing feat. It uses interviews of the people involved interspersed with skillfully blended archival footage and reenactments.

Perhaps it was just a matter of my expectations being set too high going in (since the film has already won several awards and is nominated for an Academy Award) but I found myself a bit disappointed by this movie. (I also have a problem with contrarily wanting to go against the majority sometimes, and so the Rotten Tomatoes 100% fresh rating for this film makes me a little cranky.)

The movie sets itself up as a heist film: we have the forming of an outrageous plan, a diverse gang coming together, the gathering of information, the wacky caper. So where does it fall short?

First, there is a lack of suspense. We know Philippe will do his walk, because we've already seen pictures of him on the wire. The moments of worry about getting caught seemed drawn out and exaggerated for effect. The dizzying heights were genuinely frightening, but again, Philippe is being interviewed, so we know he made it safely back down. Sure, you can probably assume in any heist film that the caper will occur, but the best of the genre usually have some great plot twists, and those were sadly lacking here.


There were some fun moments in the planning that were very Catch Me If You Can, like watching Philippe and his friends pose as journalists trying to get an architectural story while really gathering data on how to make the walk happen. The general trusting nature of people and lack of a tendency to question the reality presented helped Phillipe and his crew get their information and get into the buildings undetected. (That was actually a little unsettling to watch in view of the security concerns involved with the World Trade Center.)

One technical aspect of the stunt (which I had seen alluded to as being so incredible that no one wanted to spoil it) didn't really seem that earth-shatteringly brilliant, and didn't seem like that big a secret, anyway, since early talk in the film about the team's equipment (and even the trailer on the film's website) gives it away. But I will let you reach your own conclusions on this and not reveal the details here.

You might wonder, how did Philippe's obsession get started, what drives him? He explains that he always loved to climb, but he doesn't like trying to answer why. It seems that there is a rebellious streak in this dreamer, that he takes a romantic view of committing an artful crime. What he does is against the law, he knows he will get caught, but that's all part of the thrill. Philippe's passion (obsession) is something to see.

Also interesting is what is left out of the movie. No mention is made of 9/11, which is probably a smart choice, as well as a refreshing one. A man walking on a wire between the two buildings is a much better mental picture to carry around than the terrible images of the WTC attack. And I think that's part of why the movie has been so well received, that it focuses only on this beautiful moment involving the Twin Towers. But this deliberate choice of tone also means that some other negative things are only hinted at, like the impact this event and its aftermath had on some of Philippe's closest relationships. I would like to have seen that explored more.

I don't think Man on Wire is a bad movie, but I also don't think it's as great as most everyone else seems to feel it is. I think it's a slightly forced, selective look at a story meant to play on people's emotions about the Twin Towers. There's not quite enough here to make a great heist film, just like Philippe's illegal acts don't really make him a dangerous criminal. The scenes of wire-walking were breathtakingly awesome. But when they were done, I couldn't help but feel a little bit cheated. Maybe that's inevitable; from the unbeatable heights of that moment, where can you go but down?

3/5 wings

Who doesn't love a good movie party?

What's better than watching movies? Watching them with your friends at a movie party, of course! I've done movie parties with family, as a fun girls' night in, for kids, and to introduce friends to classic movies. I also like to have my own private Oscar party, where it has become a tradition for me to use the time to make the very crave-able Emeril's Cheese and Potato Lasagna. But I must say, I have never had a movie party fancy enough to be called a cinema soiree. Yet.

Hopefully that will change soon! Turner Classic Movies is joining up with Triscuit & bon appetit to present a Cinema Soirees contest. Look here for the details and to enter. All you have to do is pick a classic movie to serve as the theme for your fabulous event, and share your ideas for incorporating Triscuits into your party. I am so entering!

What movie is my inspiration? I can't tell you. Yet. Maybe when I win, I will post some fantastic photos of my fancy soiree. Whatever happens, I am looking forward to seeing what themes are chosen and how they turn them into inspiration for Cinema Soirees. If you win, feel free to invite me.