Re: Rebecca (Ben Wheatley, 2019)
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:30 am
The curse of the well-produced movie. How often we fall prey to it. It is necessary to resist always. A well-appointed movie with good design & photography, competent sound and staging and not awful acting can seem like a good movie. It shouldn't. And this isn't.
This really is one of those where you have to wonder - what was the pitch? Why was it greenlit? What was the point?
This movie adds absolutely nothing to Rebecca. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Maybe, its in color so some younger people will watch it. But even they might be better served by the Hitchock version - which I can't believe is 80 years old. The Hitchcock version is better in absolutely every imaginable way - better designed, better shot, better edited, better scored, and above all better written, acted and directed, more engaging and compelling and more suspenseful and dramatic. What did Netflix achieve by making this movie?
I am not at all against remakes. But I there has to be a fundamental idea or conceit driving a remake (or any project)? What is the one interesting thing you are trying to do? If nothing else works, what is the one thing that makes your movie interesting? This movie has that one idea - and it is so banal, so throwaway, so utterly pointless, that it really does not justify making this movie.
And that is a pity. I happen to think that Rebecca is not a great novel (it is a good novel though) but it is a GREAT STORY. It's a crackling tale. Which means it is very readily adaptable for the screen. You could make a very great movie out of Rebecca. Some might argue Hitchcock already did. But there's no reason you couldn't make another one. He did leave a few things out. And you could chance on a fresh angle - that would suddenly be that one kernel to make it fresh and exciting. Like I said, it is a great story. And even in this pointless version, the bones are there. But it wasn't to be.
So what are the failings? The leads are very unremarkable. Is Armie Hammer really good in any role? I think people might cite Call Me By Your Name and Social Network as his notable performances and even there I found him only adequate or ordinary. The guy brings nothing to any role. And this role is very badly written, so he had nothing to work with. But still, he's lifeless. Absolutely dead inside. And think back to Olivier. You have to wonder why was Hammer even cast? He's handsome? I daresay and I don't think very many people would dispute this - Oliver (not just a great actor) was far more dashing in the 1940 version. You could totally feel a young girl getting swept off her feet. Hammer is like a nice looking tall goofy chap. Hardly the stuff of a brooding byronic hero.
And Lily James is equally vapid. You don't give a shit about her. Where are our engaging movie stars? A very dull actress I think.
And herein lies the major failing - the story hardly seems to matter because the two leads are so uninteresting. Who cares what happens to them. Nothing is compelling or suspenseful because you couldn't be bothered if these two bland people live or die. I think this is story-telling 101 - make your characters compelling. If you do that, you don't need to egg on the stakes. I mean if you make the characters interesting, you can have me heartbroken and weeping by the end over a lost shoe or bicycle. The focus of the script is so heavily to make some kind of ghost narrative that it completely relies on it to provide interest. When it should have done the opposite - invest in the characters and see it pay off in the end when the audience cares.
Also the movie is far too modern, nobody behaves in a period appropriate manner. When late in the game you see a period diving scuba suit, it took me out of the movie because everybody was behaving (and almost dressing) in a contemporary way and it was a reminder, ah this movie takes place nearly 100 years ago. Some of it is just plain doesn't make sense. In 1930's the supposedly mousy timid lead character sleeps with a man she met 2 days ago. Um, what? Also the characters actions are often improbable and they don't seem to be acting like normal sensible human beings - even in the most basic way. If I don't see actual humans on screen, it always takes me out of the movie. They key to immersion is NOT 4K or 3D or 48FPS or IMAX or long takes, the key to immersion is probability. A probable tale with probable human behavior will immerse you. Unfortunately, few films today seem to take that to heart.
Anyways, watch the very good Hitchcock version to remind yourself of a very good film and a very interesting, entertaining story.
PS: And yes, Kristen Scott Thomas is the only interesting actor in this. She is the one person screen who you feel is a thinking, feeling human being with an inner life and desires and vulnerabilities or what. Rest all is window dressing - and not that handsome window dressing either.
This really is one of those where you have to wonder - what was the pitch? Why was it greenlit? What was the point?
This movie adds absolutely nothing to Rebecca. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Maybe, its in color so some younger people will watch it. But even they might be better served by the Hitchock version - which I can't believe is 80 years old. The Hitchcock version is better in absolutely every imaginable way - better designed, better shot, better edited, better scored, and above all better written, acted and directed, more engaging and compelling and more suspenseful and dramatic. What did Netflix achieve by making this movie?
I am not at all against remakes. But I there has to be a fundamental idea or conceit driving a remake (or any project)? What is the one interesting thing you are trying to do? If nothing else works, what is the one thing that makes your movie interesting? This movie has that one idea - and it is so banal, so throwaway, so utterly pointless, that it really does not justify making this movie.
And that is a pity. I happen to think that Rebecca is not a great novel (it is a good novel though) but it is a GREAT STORY. It's a crackling tale. Which means it is very readily adaptable for the screen. You could make a very great movie out of Rebecca. Some might argue Hitchcock already did. But there's no reason you couldn't make another one. He did leave a few things out. And you could chance on a fresh angle - that would suddenly be that one kernel to make it fresh and exciting. Like I said, it is a great story. And even in this pointless version, the bones are there. But it wasn't to be.
So what are the failings? The leads are very unremarkable. Is Armie Hammer really good in any role? I think people might cite Call Me By Your Name and Social Network as his notable performances and even there I found him only adequate or ordinary. The guy brings nothing to any role. And this role is very badly written, so he had nothing to work with. But still, he's lifeless. Absolutely dead inside. And think back to Olivier. You have to wonder why was Hammer even cast? He's handsome? I daresay and I don't think very many people would dispute this - Oliver (not just a great actor) was far more dashing in the 1940 version. You could totally feel a young girl getting swept off her feet. Hammer is like a nice looking tall goofy chap. Hardly the stuff of a brooding byronic hero.
And Lily James is equally vapid. You don't give a shit about her. Where are our engaging movie stars? A very dull actress I think.
And herein lies the major failing - the story hardly seems to matter because the two leads are so uninteresting. Who cares what happens to them. Nothing is compelling or suspenseful because you couldn't be bothered if these two bland people live or die. I think this is story-telling 101 - make your characters compelling. If you do that, you don't need to egg on the stakes. I mean if you make the characters interesting, you can have me heartbroken and weeping by the end over a lost shoe or bicycle. The focus of the script is so heavily to make some kind of ghost narrative that it completely relies on it to provide interest. When it should have done the opposite - invest in the characters and see it pay off in the end when the audience cares.
Also the movie is far too modern, nobody behaves in a period appropriate manner. When late in the game you see a period diving scuba suit, it took me out of the movie because everybody was behaving (and almost dressing) in a contemporary way and it was a reminder, ah this movie takes place nearly 100 years ago. Some of it is just plain doesn't make sense. In 1930's the supposedly mousy timid lead character sleeps with a man she met 2 days ago. Um, what? Also the characters actions are often improbable and they don't seem to be acting like normal sensible human beings - even in the most basic way. If I don't see actual humans on screen, it always takes me out of the movie. They key to immersion is NOT 4K or 3D or 48FPS or IMAX or long takes, the key to immersion is probability. A probable tale with probable human behavior will immerse you. Unfortunately, few films today seem to take that to heart.
Anyways, watch the very good Hitchcock version to remind yourself of a very good film and a very interesting, entertaining story.
PS: And yes, Kristen Scott Thomas is the only interesting actor in this. She is the one person screen who you feel is a thinking, feeling human being with an inner life and desires and vulnerabilities or what. Rest all is window dressing - and not that handsome window dressing either.