Now, that I've begun teasing my mind with this remake thought, I would love to know whom you would like to cast in the leading roles - Laurence Olivier's role as Max De Winter is quite a challenge for anyone of the nowadays hottest actors (- maybe RUSSELL CROWE, perhaps ??-) and not to mention the touching performance by Joan Fontaine as the naive heroine (- if Jen Connelly would play Rebecca, I would love to see DREW BARRYMORE as the second Mrs. De Winter; I'm serious !!)

And then there are the terrific supporting actors George Sanders (as Revell) and Judith Anderson (as Mrs. Danvers) - I'm just wondering are there nowadays anymore such splendid character actors as they were in REBECCA ??

I could see the remake of REBECCA going far more deeper into psychological horror, and I wouldn't even mind if the remake would include couple of true shockers with ghost-like visions as in WHAT LIES BENEATH (...let's face it - it's fun to play with corpses popping around, especially drowned-ones ). So, who could be the most perfect director to handle shocks and psychological horror and yet being capable of keeping the romance and dramatics intact of the splendid original story ?

And, naturally - WHO WOULD BE THE COMPOSER ? Franz Waxman did terrific job with the original 1940 score of REBECCA; if the remake would go much more deeper into the supernatural and psychological horror, then who could provide a most lush, romantic, yet haunting and shocking score for a remake which would certainly need a lot of music to create an uneasy and creepy atmosphere ? (My choice would be either ALAN SILVESTRI or PATRICK DOYLE... Even DON DAVIS could do the job).

I'm aware that somebody did a two-part television movie adaptation of REBECCA, but I can't remember the actors (- and I didn't even see the second part). A pity - because seeing the Hitchcock classic again made me once again to fall under the spell of REBECCA...

KEN

...little bits here and there...

Keanu Reeves - Roger O. Thornhill
Britney Spears - Eve Kendall
Arnold Schwarzenegger - Phillip Vandamm

And Marian, may I borrow the often-used phrase
- L O L !!!

1947: Michael Hordern
1962: James Mason
1978: Jeremy Brett
1997: Charles Dance

REBECCA is based on a novel. It existed before Hitchcock made his film. Therefore, it would be ideal that any new film version of REBECCA that was made would not be "remake" of Hitchcock's film because it would have gone back to the original novel.

We should be talking about another adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier, not another adaptation of Alfred Hitchcock.

There are exceptions to this, of course. Tim Burton's PLANET OF THE APES is most definitely a remake of the first film version, and not another adaptation of Pierre Boulle's novel. Van Sant's PSYCHO, as well.

There is nothing wrong with one director/writer giving his own interpretation of material that another director/writer already tried previously (remake or otherwise) as long as the new version is unique enough to separate itself from the previous adaptations. That's the one big reason Van Sant's PSYCHO was a failure, and one of the many little reasons for the lackluster performance of Burton's PLANET OF THE APES.

Richard S, thank you for the information - I didn't knew REBECCA has been filmed so many times..!!

I must admit that I can’t watch Joan Fontaine’s sniveling, groveling, hand-
twisting, extremely shy, consistently bullied portrayal of the second Mrs.
De Winter. Do it with Sigorney Weaver mimicking Ripley.

When Maxim asks for a spot of tea, have a heroine that tells him to,
“Get it yourself, you piggish pile of @#$%%&*! I ain’t groveling
no more, you sack of arrogant slime!!!” Then I hope she storms out and
slugs Mrs. Danvers several times and tells her to go swab the latrines!

Doyle would do a great job.

Thanks for a hearty morning laugh

I hope it's due out sometime soon. Good stuff!

The film's not perfect, despite its Best Picture Oscar, but it's still a thousand times better than anything that could be made today, particularly because it's a romance -- and a Gothic one, at that. Today's filmmakers haven't the slightest idea how to do a romance, chiefly because they have an unfettered opportunity to lace it with sex. The problem is, "romance" and "sex" are not interchangeable terms or concepts, and presence of the latter almost invariably cheapens, guts, and invalidates the former.

The history of Hollywood is littered with the wreckage of good stories and novels that wound up as bad or mediocre movies, and that are just crying to be re-made. I can think of dozens of examples.

A few years ago, Tom Cruise and director Mike Nichols ("The Graduate," "Carnal Knowledge," "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolff?") had the bright idea of remaking the play "Washington Square," filmed by master director William Wyler in 1949 as THE HEIRESS, which would have starred Cruise in the part originally played by Montgomery Clift. They arranged a screening of the Wyler version at Paramount Studios in order to study it.

When the lights came up afterward, Cruise and Nichols exchanged glances, with each man saying, in effect, "This is pointless. We not only can't top Wyler's version, we can't even equal it." Needless to say, they dropped the idea like a Plutonium brick. (A couple of years later, a new version of the film was made -- as WASHINGTON SQUARE --starring Jennifer Jason Leigh in the part that brought Olivia deHavilland a Best Actress Oscar. It's since been forgotten and proved once again that re-making that which doesn't need to be re-made is a waste of the studio's money and audiences' time.)

We seem to have a fascinatingly similar idea about romance, perfpitch, and also about Hitchcock's REBECCA's wonderful Gothic quality. But still the story of REBECCA suggests so much more - about deep, dark basics in human nature - that the idea about an even better screen version simply tickles me. As I am basically a person who always WANTS TO KNOW MORE, I would certainly love a film version which gives a more thorough analysis on Rebecca herself. (I have been writing a brick novel about quite similar character as Rebecca appeared to be, so I'm definitely fascinated with such "psycho" personalities... )

Philipp

First, I should say that I always forget this: I actually don't believe there's anything wrong with remakes. I always think there is, because most remakes suck. But just as "re-"recordings of classical (and film) music are a good thing, so should remakes be. Theoretically at least. Plus, as Kirk pointed out, Hitchcock's movie was a "remake" of a book, anyway.

I've never seen another version, or read the book, so all I know is the Hitchcock movie. Anyway, I think Conelly should be perfect for those flashback sequences - but I think the movie works so well because you never see the first Mrs. de Winter, so I don't think those sequences are a good idea.

Casting would be a tough job though. Maxim must be played by an actor that could suddenly become a terrible villain, but at the same time he must remain believable as the good guy. As for Joan Fontaine's character: I can't think of many young actresses that look shy and simple and yet beautiful at the same time - most of them get cast in ultra-cool roles usually.

As Mrs. Danvers, Anjelica Huston would be perfect, IMHO. And as Rebecca's lover (forgot his name), I'd pick John De Lancie.

Regarding the score: Not an easy choice, either. Waxman's score was very good, but in a couple of the lighter scenes, I found it superflous and annoying. The rest was excellent of course. Still, a modern remake should get a nearly Goldenthal-ish sound in the later scenes - but the beginning should be completely different.

Oh, and I thought Hitchcock made the finale (before the palace is burning) longer. It's highly dramatic, but way too brief.

***SPOILER WARNING***

The burning of Manderley is really way too brief. The major thing that bugged me in the movie was that such obvious dramatic moments as Mrs. Danvers starting the fire, trying to kill the second Lady De Winter, and the reappearance of Rebecca's boat - as well the confession scene - were not included as proper "scenes of action", but merely as theatrical discussions (= someone telling to someone else what happened). Ofcourse it takes a good actor to make such great "monologues" as Olivier did, and a great director as Hitchcock to shoot such a monologue as if the sequence would be filled with action - but still I say, that the result would be much more shocking and powerful if the film adaptation would actually show us almost everything, from Rebecca's toilings to her death. (Well, I have always had a desire to shock an audience when such a procedure is justified to tell a story in more dramatic ways).