I think here while wombat has a point, the OP's questions require more than one thought in answer.
First there is the simple observation of the reality of Manderlay not being limited to the house itself, but including the surrounding estate. No doubt both still large and capable of producing profit after the fire. But neither do its size or profitability depend on the presence of such a building, or a rebuilt version of same to be exact. A simple management office will serve the latter.
But as to the purposes and desires of the de Winters, I agree that the early on statement by Maxim that he will probably never see it again (when of course he subsequently does) does provide an indication that foreshadows in hindsight, as it were, the statement in Ms. Fontaine's opening voice over that, after the fire, they do not go back. Why?
Perhaps the answer is in the reasoning Maxim seems to be reflecting. He of course is not saying he physically could not go back, as he obviously did go back. What then was enough to make him say rather that he would not want to go back, and in effect changed his mind?
On one level the answer is obvious - it is the presence of his second wife and what it means for him that leads to his return. But leads in what sense? Surely more than merely leads the narrative along.
One possibility is that the second Mrs. de Winter seems to raise for him the possibility that she by joining him can allow him to return to Manderlay, and find there the life and meaning that Rebecca denied him and in effect nearly destroyed. Or perhaps did destroy, hence his playing the endless tourist around Europe and its playgrounds, to be reborn with his second marriage.
But I think it is more than that. Maxim reveals in the boathouse, when he tells his second wife that "all along" he feared, to the point of virtual acknowledgement, that Rebecca would always stand between them. (To be clear he was I do not think referring to the specific prospect that eventually someone would find Rebecca's body in the cabin of her sailboat. He says instead it would have been something, meaning his fear was not specific.) Now, did he mean that he only had that fear if they were at Manderlay? If he did, that's not what he said, and if he thought that, one would have to wonder why he returned in the first place.
While the narrative's course contains the material development that Rebecca's body is found, since that does not seem to have been Maxim's specific fear, and add in that it does not seem that he only felt she would stand between them if he returned, then what was he afraid of?
Well there is the rather unsatisfactory answer that he was simply paranoid, or even more specifically that Rebecca's ghost as it were would eventually harm him, and his second marriage. Unsatisfactory indeed.
This film is after all in part imbued with the psychological point of view, and so we should here consider the subconscious. Which does become overt and in view as a conscious expression, again in the boathouse, but foreshadowed in the evening when the de Winters are viewing the film of their honeymoon. What then was it?
Remember that Maxim's character is affected by or contains a tendency to fly off the handle, a rapidly escalating moodiness that explodes. Those around him of course let him know they know he has this "quality", and beyond that needs to guard against it, to fight it. Which he in effect agrees is the case. SO there's that general consideration.
Couple that with this fear that Rebecca will come between the couple, in some way.
Now go back to the overt way in which the second Mrs. de Winter, through whose eyes we see the story, feels that she is in effect being subject to a test, as Mrs. Van Hopper early on predicts will be her experience when she gets to Manderlay and the society that goes along with it. And there is something of a test to be sure, from the staff, from his relatives, and even perhaps Maxim himself.
But I don't think that is the case from Maxim's point of view. I think he as a character pretty consistently discounts there being any need to test his wife, to the extent that he misses (not wanting to see?) that she in fact is being tested, or at least laughs off her discomfort when he sees her struggle with it. Is he merely insensitive?
No. I think the answer is that HE needs to be tested and pass the test. He needs to show not only his second wife but even more himself that he can get past his past with Rebecca, and that his second wife can and should allow him to do that, and have her still love him.
How best to get past his past? To avoid it? No, to confront it. And the best way to confront it is to return to Manderlay.
So, getting back to the specific of the OP's question, by the film's end the house has not only burned down. Maxim has also passed the test of having his second wife (and Frank, btw) know what happened, and nonetheless accept what happened and not have it come between them. This having been accomplished, and Rebecca's ability to destroy any happiness for him and them having itself been destroyed, their purpose in returning to Manderlay has been accomplished. And such purpose having been accomplished, there is not only no reason to go back. There is also a reason not to go back, as doing so only brings them back to where their marriage was tested, and the test overcome.
I am reminded here of the theological notion that while there is something to the general concept of facing one's demons, there is also the concept that hanging around demons as a general condition is not a good idea. (While the virtuous man is and should be able to overcome the temptation of sin, it is not considered a good practice to needlessly put one's self in tempting situations.) Manderlay is not merely the place where Maxim lived with Rebecca, but also a place that would inevitably remind him of that past, when it is time to go on to the next phase of his life, a life with his second wife that has nothing to do with Rebecca anymore.
Finally we can add the sense in which is meant that we can never go back to the past. Manderlay is not merely a place but the place where Maxim's past took place. He can never go back to that past, and in that sense can never go back to that Manderlay.
That is why they do not go back, and arguably also why they cannot go back.
reply
share
Deenglow
8 years ago
I enjoyed your post, kenny164. But there is one practical reason (as well as the metaphysical inability to "go back") that is suggested by both book and movie.
Maxim de Winter is obsessed with reputation and traumatised by the fear of gossip and rumour. This is notable not only in the fact that it was this fear that kept him married to Rebecca, but in his reaction to Mrs de Winter's offhand comment about there never being "gossip" about her (brilliantly shot and lit by Hitchcock).
At the end of the narrative, Manderley has spectacularly burned, Rebecca's body has been found, Maxim has been all but accused of her murder, and the whole county has been rocked by the revelation that she was having an affair with her cousin, was dying of cancer, and (so they believe) took her own life. That's the kind of scandal that would keep the locals well fed for decades. There is no way someone as fearful of innuendo and gossip, and as protective of "family honour" as Maxim could countenance trying to rebuild a life, even strengthened by his second wife, in that atmosphere. As you noted, he was always apt to fly off the handle - he would never be safe from his own temper when living at the head and heart of a county in which everyone would be constantly and licentiously chewing over his private affairs and scandals behind his back. Mrs de Winter, knowing her husband, knows this. In the opening chapters she has become his protectress from the prating tongues, and lives with him abroad because the scandal is distant there.
Basically, scandal, rumour and malicious gossip are what keep them from going back. They are all anathema to Maxim de Winter, throughout his first and second marriages.
reply
share
kenny-164
8 years ago
Deen,
To be sure Maxim was as you say traumatized by fear and rumor. And concerned about the family honor. But I am not sure how much of the story would have been common knowledge. The affair with Favel for example was only discussed in the meeting room at the tavern and later in the doctor's office. It was not brought up at the inquest. How then would it have become common knowledge?
The mere fact that Rebecca was perceived as having killed herself in the expectation of her cancer soon taking her life, anyway, is probably all that would have been relayed back to the inquest. Such a motive as would be seen by such a connection would be accepted as obvious, let alone sufficient. I don't even understand that the inspector present as he was to hear Favel's story would have necessarily tied in the connection Maxim explained to his second wife in the boathouse, that of course being Rebecca trying to take Maxim down with her.
Now it may be generally true that suicide can be troubling in terms of a family's reputation. But Rebecca was not born a de Winter, and the reasoning related to the cancer I think would be seen as removing any personal responsibility in her taking her life by Maxim or his family.
So I understand your point, but I do not think there would have been any sort of licentious chewing as you put it of his reputation.
Now, having said that it is possible Maxim may nonetheless have feared all that you said. But I think his wife would have pointed out that such fear was baseless.
I still think the more reasonable explanation is that they wanted to get on with their lives and no longer had a reason to stay there.
reply
share