
Rebecca, adapted from Daphne du Maurier’s novel, is the story of a mousy girl who becomes the second wife of a brooding aristocrat, but finds that she cannot escape the long shadow of his dead first wife, Rebecca DeWinter. Our heroine, played by Joan Fontaine, is never named (nor was she in the novel). Most people watching the film fail to notice this until they try to discuss it afterwards and they realize that they have no way of identifying her.
Equally strange, in this visual medium, is the fact that the title character, the first wife, is never pictured. True, she’s been dead for years before the story begins, but she could have appeared in a flashback, or a photo, or a portrait. Usually, if an item is notable by its absence, then screenwriters make sure to visualize that item as often as possible and make it real for the viewer, but not here.
So we have one character who has a face but no name, and another character who has a name but no face. Each has been reduced to one half of a whole. Shortly after her marriage, Fontaine gets a call for “Mrs. DeWinter”. She instinctively responds “Mrs. DeWinter is dead,” and hangs up, only to realize that the call was probably for her. As Emily Dickinson would say, “I’m nobody, who are you?”

Much like Fontaine’s unnamed character, Thornhill is disparagingly compared to an unseen, unknowable doppelganger. In this case it’s a non-existent super-spy named George Kaplan. Like Fontaine, he is expected to wear the clothes of his doppelganger and keep his appointments, though he knows that the people there will be bitterly disappointed with the substitution.

This goes back to another point I made before: Thrillers are nutty. How do you justify that a normal person would go to such ludicrous extremes to solve their problems? By the rules of our world it makes no sense, but these heroes have entered into a dream world. Hitchcock has plunged them into that shadow-realm of “unreal fantasies, schemes, and plots.”

Perhaps it’s actually valuable that Donat has no pre-established skills to rely on. The target of his search turns out to be a vaudeville performer named “Mr. Memory”, who has memorized every known fact, and that has become a fatal burden. Donat, on the other hand, seems to know nothing in particular, but he gets by just fine. He is not just lacking in skills, he’s totally liberated from the burden of the self. It seems to me that Hitchcock succeeded in breaking the rules and presenting “blank” heroes because his movies could, at their best, create their own fully-realized dream-logic.
2 comments:
Other than THE SPANISH PRISONER, where can we find the blank Hitchcockian hero in more contemporary films? And if blankness is a Jungian thing -- apropos your post about Matt Weiner and Tony Soprano -- who is Don Draper's shadow?
I don't mean to pick on Mamet's movie-- it's really not that bad. I've mentioned other moves with under-skilled, not-appealing-enough heroes: Air Force One, Collateral, even some Hitchcock movies. Of course by definition, most movie in this category are forgottable, so I could mention movies like P2, Deception, The Glass House, etc., but, alas, everybody has forgotten them.
And I'm not saying that blankness is a Jungian thing, just that some of Jung's ideas help explain how Hitchcock made it work.
And not every work that was influenced by Jung has to have a shadow in it, but now that you mention it, Don certainly has one: the real Don Draper who died all those years ago in Korea. Dick Whitman assumed his identity but, just like the second Mrs. DeWinter, lives in fear that people will see through his mask and expose his unsophisticated inner self.
Post a Comment