DVD commentary comment

[deleted]

Which commentary track are you referring to?

It was not merely your perception that Richard Schickel’s commentary leaves so much to be desired. It is sparse and poorly delivered. He misses many opportunities to provide insight and to answer the kinds of questions that naturally occur to interested film buffs.

For a movie of this stature, the bonus features on the newest DVD make a pretty poor showing. The documentaries are rather chopped up, bouncing back and forth between pundits like a ping-pong match. The documentaries are really more about Selznick and Hitchcock than the film itself. Exploring the personalities of these titans is relevant, of course, but I had hoped for more details about the actual making of the film, including locations and sets.

One of the most dissatisfying aspects of the bonus material is a dogged insistence upon finding a lesbian attraction between Rebecca de Winter and her housekeeper and personal maid, Mrs. Danvers. This pernicious notion is found throughout the commentary and the documentaries. Dame Judith Anderson flatly denied any such subtext in her portrayal of Mrs. Danvers, but Richard Schickel does not allow himself to be confused by mere facts. I hold that even if such a portrayal had actually been attempted, it simply would not have worked. It would have run counter to the main plot device of the story, which is the gradually unfolding picture of Rebecca as everything a woman would aspire to be, raised to a level of almost unattainable perfection. To all appearances, she was the perfect wife and lover to her husband, the perfect hostess and mistress of the estate, demure or bold as circumstances required, sure-footed in any situation. A large portion of the story is necessarily devoted to creating this image and exploring its impact upon the second Mrs. de Winter. The object is to present a flawless Rebecca, happily married to Maxim, who in turn was madly in love with her. Without this understanding, the story doesn’t work. To interject the notion of an illicit relationship at this point would certainly strike a false note, if not wreck the entire story.

Schickel’s commentary also reveals that he is simply not familiar with his material. He assures us that a vast departure was made from the novel’s ending in order to satisfy movie censors. He claims that in the novel, Dr. Baker is a sleazy abortionist who had seen Rebecca over the years, and who confirmed that she was pregnant, presumably by Jack Favell. Schickel asserts that these sordid details were whitewashed for the film by transforming Dr. Baker into a respectable physician, (impeccably played by Leo G. Carroll), and having him diagnose Rebecca with inoperable cancer.

Well, unless du Maurier published two different versions of her novel, this is utter nonsense. In the novel, Dr. Baker is a respectable physician whom Rebecca saw exactly twice; once for initial consultation and x-rays, and again the following week for the final diagnosis. She suspected cancer, and Dr. Baker confirmed this, but also found a malformation of her uterus that explained why she had never conceived a child over the years, despite her promiscuous lifestyle. In the novel, Favell sinks to even lower depths at this revelation by nervously asking the others if they think cancer might be contagious. This line didn’t make it into the movie.

I find it astonishing that such slipshod work by Schickel could actually make it into the final cut. His commentary all the way through strikes me as ill-prepared, unrehearsed, and done in one take.

I LOVE YOU for pointing this out. This is the most somnelent commentary I have ever heard. There are interesting bits of info but the guy was clearly reading. Additionally, he sounded like he had a wad of wool in his mouth. Insufferable.