MovieChat Forums > Jane Eyre (1944) Discussion > Why is 'Rebecca' a better film?

Why is 'Rebecca' a better film?


Jane Eyre and Rebecca have much in common. In both films, a shy, young girl goes to live in a Gothic like mansion. The plot is similar: In Rebecca, she is already married when she arrives. In Jane Eyre, she meets her future husband.

Rebecca seems to be the superior movie although not everyone would agree. If you agree that it's better, then why? Following are some of my reasons:

1. Rebecca was directed by Hitchcock. Although he was famous for his ingenious methods, Rebecca was his only Oscar for best picture.

2. Better cast. Orson Welles, although great, is not as good as Laurence Olivier. Judith Anderson was superb as Mrs. Danvers and outshine the Mrs. Fairfax role in Jane Eyre.

3. Better plot twists. Although Jane Eyre had its own plot twists, Rebecca, imo, is superior. I especially loved: "You thought I loved her, I hated her."

reply

marhefka,

Interesting reasons. I would add that while the novel is a classic, the adaptation made the transfer of the title character somewhat problematic in JE. It works for the most part, and within the part Joan Fontaine is excellent. But still I don't think the character gave her enough to work with as she had in Rebecca.

The dialogue and direction in Rebecca were spectacular. While I would not necessarily agree that Olivier was so superior to Orson Welles, if at all, the rest of the cast in Rebecca was fantastic. You mentioned Judith Anderson, but I would also add George Sanders, Nigel Bruce, Gladys Cooper and Florence Bates as excellent.

Another thing about Jane Eyre is that while on the thread here about Joan Fontaine being too beautiful for this part, I disagreed with that as an up or down proposition. But I do concede it seems to have reflected itself in her very demure manner, which may have made her more restrained than she otherwise might have been. Perhaps it was the way the director wanted the part played, though.

In Rebecca Joan Fontaine was playing a part of a character who was certainly less glamorous, with a less impressive image, than her named but dead predecessor. And the most problematic part of the film was that encounter with Frank Crawley when he implicitly compared Joan's character unfavorably to that predecessor. Meanwhile, though, Max deWinter clearly found his second wife very attractive. Which imo means that Joan Fontaine, who I consider to have been quite beautiful, was appropriate in this part.

In Jane Eyre I reject that she was too beautiful, but that is as she played it and with the makeup and lighting used. In fact she was just barely appropriate, and I do wonder if she played it with too demure a manner, as the part required. It's subtle, but I think there.

JE is an excellent film, but is not as great as Rebecca (in fact I think both Suspicion and Letter From an Unknown Woman are also superior).

reply

Maybe it is a better film, but I still prefer "Jane Eyre".

reply

Jane Eyre is my most favourite book, so I'm a little biased. But I also enjoy reading Rebecca.

Both films are technically great, although I thought Jane Eyre took a lot of liberties with the plot. But then Rebecca made a few changes as well, most notably not having Maxim shoot his first wife.

Joan Fontaine played the same part in both films! She was OK as the second Mrs de Winter, but much too "demure" (as Kenny acknowledges) as Jane Eyre. Jane had fire in her belly!







Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.

reply

Despite Charlotte Bronte having a bigger reputation than Daphne Du Maurier, I think that 'Rebecca' is a better story. Also I think that the character of Mrs Danvers beats any in 'Jane Eyre.'

reply