Before getting to magilune's point, I should say in the interest of full disclosure that while Joan Fontaine is my favorite actress, I do have Vivien Leigh in my top five, so this whole discussion is very much in my line of interest. I have also seen the Leigh screen test for the role of the second Mrs. de Winter. And Joan's. It is clear that Joan deserved the part by a clear margin (I have also seen the Loretta Young and Anne Baxter tests). But I do not hold that against Leigh so much. It's not realistic to think of even the very greatest actresses that they will nonetheless not be a good casting choice for certain roles.
Partly this difficulty has to do with audience expectations and the synergies such expectations have with the actor's public image, and even the "real person" inside that public image has a relation to that image, or persona, that will limit the actor in respect of certain roles. Sometimes those expectations can be altered enough over time to allow a role against type or expectations. Think of Humphrey Bogart's career playing gangsters and detectives, then playing his two great roles against type in Treasure of the Sierra Madre and African Queen, and even the lesser film The Cain Mutiny. But even then he could only have gone so far (not to digress but the recently shown on TCM great Key Largo came imo perilously close to being a bridge too far for Bogart's career, as his too cynical character saves the performance by becoming the hero/savior in the end after all).
In Vivien Leigh's case coming off her stunning and widely revered performance in Gone With the Wind, the character of the second Mrs. de Winter would have been a great challenge for public expectations, and more to the point was as shown in her screen test just too much of a stretch for her. He ensuing film performances such as in That Hamilton Woman, Ceaser and Cleopatra, Waterloo Bridge and the underappreciated Anna Karenina were all much better roles suited for her.
I guess one must also consider a comparison of the relative beauty of Vivien Leigh and Joan Fontaine. Certainly many would in a discussion of this sort of comparison. Suffice to say in my case I see them both as great beauties, but Fontaine's is more of an expressive sort, tied to manner and movement, while Leigh perhaps holds the edge in if you will a static appraisal of beauty (as in a picture still). this no doubt has to do with why Fontaine got the part, though. as great an actress as Leigh was, and she was that, her strength did not lie where Fontaine's did, in an expressiveness willing where desired to appear unglamorous, mousy and self effacing.
But of course I recognize the OP was not in this thread suggesting that Leigh have replaced Fontaine, as that she should have been cast as Rebecca herself, changing the book to include a direct appearance by Rebecca in the story. Here I think magilune gets it quite correct.
Remember that the story is not merely told from the point of view of "I", but more than that we are meant to understand the events through her character. We are meant to understand who Rebecca was as the second Mrs. de Winter did, which overtly meant not having seen her. It also meant that she is never shown a picture or anything of the sort of Rebecca, being left to wonder about the woman she replaced as Mrs. de Winter, taking into account the various pieces of evidence she received. That this wondering extended to questions about Rebecca's appearance I think meant something would have been lost if she had even seen a picture of Rebecca. But in terms of the narrative's structure, including some sort of flashback including Rebecca alive would have detracted from the story's being understood through the character of "I". So I am glad they didn't do it.
Having said that would Vivien Leigh have done a great job playing Rebecca herself if there were such a role? Most probably.
reply
share