Or maybe not a remake of this. Just an adaptation of the book. I'd like to see it in colour, with a great cast and classical score. Oh, swoon! Who would you cast?
For me:
The 2nd Mrs. De Winter: Shailene Woodley
Max: Henry Cavill (in say 8 years)
Mrs. Danvers: Asher Keddie (assuming they dressed her up to look a fair bit older)
Despite my casting choices, I'm not a school girl...
CDEGFEDCC. (Shhh!)
There are at least three, one starring Emilia Fox. It is pretty good.
shareYes, the 1979 TV mini-series starred Emilia Fox's mother, Joanna David, and Jeremy Brett. Frankly, I don't think the 1940 film measures up to either the 1979 or 1997 versions, even though it was highly enjoyable in its own right.
IMO Jeremy Brett was by far the best Maxim de W and Joanna David the best of the unnamed second Mrs de W's. However, the 1997 Emilia Fox/Charles Dance version better captured the gothic sexual tensions and ambiguities of the novel.
Mention should be made of Jonathon Cake's amazing performance as Jack Favell in the 1997 version. He not only perfectly captures, but greatly surpasses, du Maurier's original character.
The 2nd Mrs. De Winter: Shailene WoodleyNo.
I do not understand why anyone would think a remake would better this incredible film. No remake.
shareI don't oppose the idea of any remake. Even if it turns out horrible, the original will still exist. And, on the off chance it turns out incredible, the original will still be there.
--
Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb.
Needed? Hardly needed. You want.
shareCOMPLETELY agree, whozzitwhazzit. The 1940 Rebecca is a jewel that can't be touched. The '79 remake was a catalog on why it's not wise to remake a classic. It lacked pace, suspense and style. You'll never recapture the glamour and elegance of artists like Hitchcock, Olivier and (in this film) Fontaine. Leave well enough alone.
shareNeither the 1979 and 1997 miniseries were remakes, they were adaptations based on the book.
Jeremy Brett was great as Max deWinter, Olivier was very good in the role also, but I didn't care for Charles Dance, I thought he came across as boorish and I didn't find him at all attractive.
All three actresses who played the second Mrs. deWinter did a commendable job.
Judith Anderson is still my favorite Mrs. Danvers, but Anna Massey was very good too. Diana Rigg's take on the character was more creepy than the other two.
Neither the 1979 and 1997 miniseries were remakes, they were adaptations based on the book.
Remakes are based on earlier film versions, and none of these versions are remakes, as they were all adapted from the novel. Just stating a fact.
I still think it's needed. If you're a die-hard fan of this film, your point is fairly masked, don't you think? As most of ours would be if they were to remake films we love. But look at it from another stand-point.
The film skims/mixes up moments from the book. I love the book. This is indeed a faithful adaptation, but it's a little bit limited by its 2 hours (yes, limited). 2 and a half would have made it just that much better.
The music can be quite effective but it is overdone, melodramatic and cheesy most of the time. The cast is, unfortunately, something that I doubt can be replicated. It was absolutely perfect, even if the acting was wooden and unbelievable. Then there's the ending. Bah. Whatever. It's a typical '40s piece, which was fine for its time, and as a classic.
However...
A new movie would be superb, as nothing done in colour and widescreen has been achieved well with this story. And I say story because, I hope you will all remember, this movie is based on a source material. A new, truly devoted movie written by an excellent screenwriter, directed by someone along the likes of Steven Spielberg or Joe Wright, a beautiful, lavish, classical-era violin-led score by someone like John Williams or Dario Marianelli, and a truly gorgeous cinematographer... All of these would excel this story. I can just see it. I hope one day somebody does it. Let's not forget the King Kong of 2005 - instead of soiling the memory of the original, it somehow complimented it. The same could be done here. It's such a terrifically creepy story that deserves a modern turn.
CDEGFEDCC. (Shhh!)
No film is ever going to mirror the book in every detail, so give up on that. The 1940 film by Hitchcock is, so far, the best adaptation of Du Maurier's novel. As for color--if you believe that would be an improvement over the spectacular black-and-white of the original, there is no hope for you.
shareI don't really object to new adaptations of the same material, but this movie needs no replacement/improvement. I guarantee any remake is going to be inferior.
What about this suggests to you a 'need' to remake it?
There's another one coming.
shareI believe there is a remake in development, but no casting choices have been announced.
My suggestions:
Maxim: Eric Bana, Matthew McFadyen, I loved the earlier suggestion of Henry Cavill
Mrs. De Winter: Lily James, Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson
Mrs. Danvers: Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton