Daphne du Maurier
Writers I love To Read
We’ve spent a few weeks talking about gothic suspense authors which brings me this week to Daphne du Maurier.
Where to begin? I guess Rebecca comes to mind first. Why? For it’s famous first line:
“Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.”
A hook if there ever was one, which catapults you into the next equally compelling paragraphs—three and a half pages of description. But what description.
“There was a padlock and chains upon the gate. I called in my dream to the lodge-keeper and got no answer.”
Or
“No smoke came from the chimney and the little windows gaped forlorn.”
Or
“Nature had come into her own again and little by little, in her stealthy insidious way, had encroached upon the drive with long tenacious fingers. The woods, always a menace in the past, had triumphed in the end.”
Nature as a malevolent interloper, you gotta love it. This is description that manages to set the scene, the tone, the mood, the character and hint at what the story will be. Brilliant, I think.
And that’s just the beginning. And it’s only one book. What about My Cousin Rachel, Frenchman’s Creek, Jamaica Inn, The House on the Strand to name a few.
Du Maurier also wrote plays, and nonfiction. I love to read books are about her life in Cornwall, one of my favorite places on earth. (Check out www.dumaurier.org for interesting reading about her life, her father, the actor and the cigarettes named after him, and her home in Cornwall.)
Many of her stories were adapted for film. And of the twentieth century gothic suspense authors, du Maurier, I think, was the luckiest with her adaptations. Due in large part to one man, Alfred Hitchcock.
Jamaican Inn, (1939)directed by Alfred Hitchcock and starred Maureen O’Hara and Charles Laughton.
Rebecca (1949) also directed by Hitchcock and starring Lawrence Olivier, Joan Fontaine, and Judith Anderson, later a PBS version (1997) starring Charles Dance and Dianna Rigg.
My Cousin Rachel (1952) directed by Henry Koster with Olivia di Havilland and Richard Burton
The Birds (1963) Hitchcock directing with Rod Taylor, Tippi Hedron and Suzanne Pleshette.
Don’t Look Now, (1973) directed by Nicholas Roeg and starring Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland.
There were others. These directors and cast were wonderful for the most part and it’s great to have books adapted, but as much is lost as is gained by the immediacy of film. You get the one first line in most productions of Rebecca, but after that the plot speeds along at the pace of . . . well filmmaking. I think sometimes a film overpowers the story as in the case of The Birds. The short story is gripping, but short and smaller, by its nature. But the novels, as wonderful as the films are, will always be first for me.
How do you feel about adaptations, and do you think they introduce viewers to authors or does their interest stop when they leave the theatre? Would you rather read, watch or do both?
Shelley, funny you should ask. It’s one of the questions I have for my special feature. Looks like you’ll be ready with an answer. I always prefer to read the book first. But there have been times when I watched a film and then went off to get the book. Out of Africa and The Name of the Rose to name two. I might never have known the rich detail and amazing descriptions of the African plains or the truly incredible story of the blind librarian, the symbolism of the library had I not gone that extra step.
About Gothic. What is not to love? When it is done masterfully, it pulls you into a world that is so intense and wonderful at the same time you can lose yourself in the moment. When young reviewers discuss the modern “thriller” they only touch a small tip of what is truly below some of the classic Gothic and Horror. I couldn’t sleep for two nights after reading The Turn of the Screw. Thanks for another wonderful Sunday and another great writer
After a long time of being disappointed in the film adaptations of books I’d read, I’ve mostly learned to see them as a separate entity, which they are. They invariably have to leave out the special little moments from the book that made them special to me because of the time constraint, the medium, visual and editing, and the fact that movies are a group effort, including the writing.
I went to see Dark Shadows which Burton has turned into a Comedy horror, but it didn’t really work for me. Lots of special effects and loud music (A trend I’ve been noticing lately, over orchestrated and LOUD. though the volume might be the theatre’s sound system. I got tired of the gags after awhile, though granted I laughed because they were clever, but I kept comparing it to Nightmare before Christmas. Hmm.I went back to check out an episode of the original tv show after I got home, and though it was dated, the tension was stronger. Because it drew me in not jumped out at me to bang me over the head.
That’s what good writing can do, draw you in and twist and twist until you’re so riveted you jump when the phone rings if you even hear it ring at all.
Shelley, the problem with the pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp is that all his characters are starting to meld. Even the make-up is similar. I much preferred the original TV version and like so many, it is a huge disappointment to see that Burton “hacked” it.
Definitely thought it was an odd choice. I wonder if Johnny Depp would like to play a straight dramatic role? There was the tourist, but wasn’t exactly successful. I pulled up Dark Shadows on Hulu and immediately was caught up int it, even with all the outré clothes and hair. It was odd but sincere. It didn’t really work for me as a spoof or whatever it was supposed to be in Burton’s version. Though I did love th explosion and the fish on the hood of the car.
With all the movie technology available to Hollywood now, I’m thinking it is better to see the movie first because if you read the book and the movie fails to live up to it, you’ve wasted money somewhere. Or, you sit in the dark theater thinking “that’s not right” or “why did they do this instead of that?” and the whole experience is ruined. No one can adapt a book into an accurate movie any more without adding a few car chases, monsters, crazed killers…. Best to leave the imagination with the book which gives the richer experience.
That probably does work best, but not always possible. Think of all the Jane Austen movies going around, and let’s just stay away from Shakespeare. I confess I like my Bard in period costume not in Miami or LA or war torn Germany, but that’s just me.
I haven’t seen all the adaptations, although I do love the movie, Rebecca. But Daphne du Maurier is an all time favorite of mine and I’d much, much rather read the books than watch anyone’s interpretation of her amazing, beautiful words. She was a huge influence on me as a writer. But I’m that way in general – when I fall completely in love with a book, I really don’t want to see the movie because I know it can never compare.
So true. I have deeply emotional relationships with certain books while I can only think of movies that I really enjoy. And they do take less time to rewatch than to reread. and now that I think about it, they seem to be mostly original screenplays or from a book I haven’t read.
du Maurier can create the kind of nail biting, spell binding attention just through her word choice and pacing without depending on thriller style action. All the suspense writers we’ve been talking about do that.
Funny, my daughter texted me this morning to say that she was mad about an author killing off one of her favorite characters. A book that also has a television series running now. Then goes on to say “The books and the show are going in two completely different directions so it’s cool that I get to follow my characters in two different stories.”
I think that’s an interesting take and maybe something that is becoming more prevalent, approaching them as two as separate entities, rather than an adaptation.
A brave new world.
I like to read the book first, but often find the movie doesn’t live up to it. The Harry Potter movies are probably the exception. I read REBECCA and enjoyed it, but never saw the original movie. I did see a movie made for TV many eyars ago–maybe that was the PBS version? Anyway, it was pretty good.
I like some of the PBS versions. They seem to stick more closely to the original especially when they do in in several parts.
I like the Harry Pottr Movies. another one that I saw ages ago (In my several films a week stage) was The Tin Drum, the Gunther Grass novel directed by Volker Schlondorff
If only I could write like that!!! Miss you Shelly!
Don’t we all.
To be able to invoke that kind of mood and sheer beautiful language would be the best.
Okay, I have never read this book. I am obviously something, Shelley, so I will go buy it now!!
You are going to be open to a whole nother-other. Let me know what you think.
“Rebecca” always has been one of my favorite novels. If you’re completely new to the story, it has one twist after another that you don’t see coming, starting with the idea that Rebecca is this paragon of upperclass womanhood and Max was devoted to her. She actually is one of the best-written female villains in literature, even though she never actually “appears” in the story. And Manderley itself is such a fully drawn charatcter! (I first read the book when I was home for the summer from college, and I immediately felt a compulsion to punch up the landscaping of my parents’ humble Cape Cod house.)
Many years ago, I saw a great BBC movie of “Rebecca.” I don’t even remember the actors, but it was the most faithful adaptation I’ve ever seen, and very atmospheric. I think it must have been destroyed–doesn’t seem to be available anywhere now. I just remember the theme music was Debussy’s “La Mer”–so appropriate!
Besides the Charles Dance, Diana Rigg, Emilia Fox version in 1997 (?), there seems to have been another miniseries made by the BBc in 1979, starring Jeremy Brett, one of my favorites especially as Sherlock Holmes, Joanne David as the wife and Anna Massey as Mrs. Danvers. I never saw it, but now that you’ve mentioned it , I’m curious. I’ll let you know if I find it.