"Don't hang about here screaming, get on with your walking!"
"I'm asking you to marry me you little fool"
"This isn't at all your idea of a proposal, is it? Well, never mind. You may pour me some coffee."
(Sorry if I misquoted anything, I'm going on memory) Anyway, I would hazard a guess that Rebecca would put up with none of that talk :)
You may pour me some coffee.
Getting mad at his wife for following the dog down to the house by the sea. Anyone in such a beautiful place as the Big Sur area, and with a beautiful woman who loves you, you'd have to hate yourself to be such a jerk. Still, even in real life, women the world over are fascinated by men who treat them badly. It's as sure as the turning of the earth.
If you put me on ignore, then how can I notify you when I win the lottery?
Maxim is meant to be like that though for a number of reasons:
1) He is a lot older than her (possibly old enough to be her father) but this is played down somewhat in the Film, but he patronises her because of her age but she does in her passive way call him out on it a few times like when she starts crying because she thinks he's only being nice out of pity.
2) It's also the time period the film is set in gender roles were less equal so Maxim"s behaviour by modern standards would appear rude and controlling but for the time it was perfectly normal.
3) Let's not forget Maxim isn't just anybody at least socially he is an aristocrat or at the very least Old Money meaning he is used to giving orders and requests and expecting them obeyed that's how he's been raised it's all he knows and unfortunately those habits of domineering inevitably creep into personal relationships. Also a big part of the story is Maxim's obsession with honour and "the right or proper" way to do things. It's why he couldn't divorce a Rebecca and why he had to marry the Second Mirs De Winter. Granted he was in love with her and wanted her to be his wife but I think part of the reason for it is also because it would've been unseemly a year after the death of his wife to bring home a girl back from Monte Carlo without a good reason even if he did love her without marrying her in the publics mind she'd have been looked on as at best a goldigger at worst as his mistress or private wh-re so he had to do what was best for his reputation and hers while still affirming his love for her.
4) Maxim is also not exactly in a fine and dandy state of mind half the time. From the minute the Second Mrs De Winter meets him he is incredibly tormented by his role in Rebecca's death him going to Monte Carlo was his way of trying to escape that guilt. When he meets her he realises he's found something that he initially thinks will take the guilt a pain away or make him forget it at least so he's desperate to do this marriage "right" after the mistakes he made in the first such as being more assertive. Rebecca's. blackmail and control I suspect took a lot out of him, as well as marrying someone for love rather than honour. It was all new to him so of course he'd make some mistakes. AND add that to the fact that he's trying to appear as close to a "regular guy" as possible hiding the fact that he was an accessory to suicide or whatever. So you could argue trying to keep up the facade of normality meant he was overcompensating by being forceful and whatnot to appear everything was fine and under control when in fact it wasn't. I think this would have been a lot clearer if they'd stuck to the book in which Maxim kills Rebecca and hides the body on the boat it's in no way an accident which adds to the power of it. His torment would be a lot more understandable if he actually has killed her not just assisted her body disposal.
5) It adds to the symbolism of the ending. You could argue Maxim represents the extremes of tradition i.e: the attitude towards gender roles, the conservative views on love, sex etc, the importance of family and the emphasis on honouring the family's wealth and legacy.
Rebecca represents the extremes of modernity, ie: subversion of gender roles by being a dominant female with her independence and above all control over her male lovers, extreme promiscuity with her many lovers and liberal attitudes to sexuality it's arguably implied especially based on Mrs Danvers feelings towards Rebecca, that she might have even been bisexual. Which at the time would have been considered horrific. She has no ties or consideration for a traditional family as was elected of her at the time, as represented through that her inability to have children and the implication she made that her child could be a bastard fathered by one of her lovers rather than Maxim. Her potential role as a mother is distorted from being a role of love and happiness to a role which she will use to dominate and enact revenge and superiority over Maxim. The child itself is just an object in that plan.
There are negatives to both these ways of living. Maxims desire to cling traditionalist views make him closed off to change which means that he is content to live in a fantasy with his sham marriage to a Rebecca and even his role as Owner of Manderley rather than reality. When anything threatens that it turns Maxim into someone who ironically dishonours everything he stands for. Maxim is raised be loyal to his family, stick to his role as a member of the elite like a Prince polite, superior distant from the rest of life. Rebecca pushes him into becoming the opposite he dishonours the loyalty to family by assisting in disposing of the corpse of his wife, he becomes a common criminal by hiding the body and then lying to the police which he gets away with and then involves his second wife in his activities. Also because of his actions he fails to produce a son and heir , a big part if the traditionalist view of family and legacy because Rebecca can't have children and at the end of the film there is nothing for whatever child he could have with Second Mrs De Winter to inherit.
Rebecca's extreme modernity is self destructive. Her extreme independence and complete rejection of traditional morals and values makes her incredibly selfish and psychopathic caring for no one except herself. By living this way she symbolically destroys herself as you could argue Maurier uses the reveal of the cancer as a form of cruel irony/ punishment from a higher power for her sins. Sort of a karma comes back to bite you thing. However her actions and lifestyle also worryingly corrupts the world around her. . She pushes Maxim into assisting in her death and corrupts his ability to fully move on with the second Mrs De Winter. She corrupts Favell by deluding him into thinking she loved him enough to get him to try to blackmail Maxim and then get him charged with her murder- a form of final triumph against Maxim for her. She also corrupts Mrs Danvers to the extent where becomes more and more mentally unstable in the attempt to keep her memory and way of living alive as the film progresses resulting in her breakdown that leads her to burn Manderley down.
So this way of living is dangerous.
Manderley is the battle ground between these two lifestyles Maxim tries to keep thing running smoothly and preserving tradition but Rebecca's influence is still as powerful running through the house. Both these extremes cannot co exist long term and in the end as Manderley burns down they both die with it. Rebecca and her legacy loses all influence as all the things that represent her from her clothes to Mrs Danvers are destroyed Maxim literally loses the wealth and family home and values that he was desperately trying to preserve. He is left with nothing and as such has no choice but to start over in the real world with it's changing ideas with the Second Mrs De Winter who represent the balance between the two lifestyles.
beauty freedom love truth
Having seen the movie and having read the book (it's been awhile for the book), I didn't get the idea that Max and the 2nd wife lost their wealth, but elected not to rebuild Manderley and preferred to live simpler after what all they went through. He still owned the land of the estate, his investments, etc.
shareWell, he was just being as honest as possible with her, with his style of talking.
It would have been better if he had told her a few other things as well before they were married....
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
He's talking to a woman whose demeanor mostly resembles that of a startled rabbit, so can you really blame him?
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
True, but the second mrs de Winter marries him anyway. She/' a bit of a drip. I mean, she wouldn't be working as a companion in the first place if she had any gumption. it was usually a job for a woman who wasn't clever enough to do anything else.
shareI don't see it that way at all. Quite often it was women who were brought up well, but lacked money (due to loss of family fortune, etc.) who reluctantly accepted those positions. They had no work training because they hadn't ever been expected to work in a trade. They could, however, be relied upon to have an acceptable level of social grace to accompany a wealthy person in luxurious surroundings, make reservations, attend to social correspondence, etc. Being a paid companion was today's equivalent of "personal" or "executive" assistant. The second Mrs. DeWinter had an upper class accent, her father was an artist, not a laborer. Although she did not have an aristocratic background, she was a lovely, refined person.
shareher father was an artist and not as far as we can tell particularly well off. She should therefore have been prepared for earning a living. a secretarial course would have equipped her for many jobs. if she had school certificate, with a good speaking voice, she could have become a telephonist (my mother and aunt were telephonists in the 1930s). or she could get a job in a shop. or possibly a library, she is certainly literate. Companions were not regarded as executive assistants. if you want to know how companions were regarded in the 1930s and after, look at how they are portrayed in Agatha Christie's novels for example, the one in Dumb Witness for instance, the one in After the Funeral, or the one in labours of hercules. they are pathetic creatures, and not treated with respect at all. certainly not a job for a young woman with any gumption.
shareI stand corrected. Thank you for proving me with this information. My opinion might be biased because I find the second Mrs. DeWinter, as played by Joan Fontaine, to be absolutely lovely. I read the book years and years ago and have a slight memory of not feeling quite so attached to the character in the novel. Thank you.
shareRegarding this thread and the role of companion I am not sure why we should think the range of types of persons within a specific kind of job should be so restricted as might be suggested from reading a couple of novels by a single author. However uncommon a companion might be as played by Joan Fontaine in this film, and for the criticisms usually baseless of the film, this would be the first time I would have heard someone implicitly suggest the performance of the character as a companion is implausible. In other words given the short time since her father's death, with no mother and apparently no family, adding in the remainder of what amounts to the limits of her backstory, we may merely add a desire to see something of the world, for example, to make her character entirely plausible.
shareKenny-164, not sure if your response (above) is directed to just me, and I am not sure I understand your comment, completely, but I must say I loved the second Mrs. DeWinter, as played by Joan Fontaine! I thought the character was lovely, shy, charming and completely overwhelmed by her romance with Maxim de Winter.
I believe this thread was begun with reference to Maxim's blunt manner of speaking. I liked the quirky honesty of that, too. At times his choice of words appeared to be impolite, but to me, those utterances were delivered with the authority and conviction of an upper class manor lord. I had responded, originally, to someone else's comment on the second Mrs. DeWinter.
Worst of all, he treats her like a child.
share