As Daphne du Maurier finished her novel, she said to herself, "So it was. A
finished novel. Title, Rebecca. I wondered if my publisher would think it
stupid, overdone. Luckily (for me) he did not. Nor did the readers when it was
published." Little did du Maurier know, her novel ended up becoming a great
success. Soon after, Alfred Hitchcock made a film version of Rebecca that soon
became an even greater success than the novel itself. There are many opinions as
to which version is more effective. I believe that the novel was far more
effective that the movie version for a number of reasons. One of the reasons
that I feel that the original novel Rebecca was more effective than the movie
version was that I think the novel held suspense in a better way. While reading
the novel, my suspense was able to build up more and more as I read further on.
The plot seemed to move slowly, without revealing too much information very
quickly. It gave me a chance to think for myself what I thought would happen
next, which got my imagination working. When watching the movie, I found that
each event happened too quickly, which didn't give me much of a chance to think
about what was going on. One example of this is when Rebecca's boat was
discovered. In the novel, each event that happened during that time was
explained slowly. Much detail was given and as I read on, my suspense was able
to build up while I was waiting to find out what had really happened. In the
movie, the events during that time went very quickly, and the information was
just thrown at you and then it was over. Also, during the movie, the events kept
on happening without any pause which didn't give you time to think, let alone
gather up the information given. In the novel, one important event would happen,
giving more information, and then the plot would slow down a bit, allowing me to
gather my thoughts and form and idea of what I thought would happen next.
Another reason why I thought the novel was more effective than the movie was
that the movie didn't go into as much detail as the novel did. In the novel,
every part of the plot was explained into such detail that I could imagine
everything almost to the point that I felt I was right there in the story. Each
and every character was explained so well that I could actually see them in my
mind. One example of this is when du Maurier explained what Mrs. Davners was
like. She was described with such an evil sense of passion that it actually sent
a chill up my spine and I was able to feel a dark presence about the story every
time her name was mentioned. In the movie, the plot moved very quickly and
nothing went into much detail. The characters didn't have much significance
because nothing was really told about them except from what you learned from the
initial plot of the story. The last reason why I believe the novel to be more
effective than the movie version of Rebecca is that the novel is able to get my
imagination working more effectively. During the novel, things move slowly
giving you time to form your own thoughts as to what is happening. The novel
also takes more time and hints at things before giving the actual information
about the truth to the whole story. This allowed me to use my imagination and
add on to what I already knew about the story and then come up with my own idea
of what I thought was going to happen. The best example of this is when Maxim
was throwing the costume ball. While the protagonist, Mrs. de Winter, was trying
to think of a costume, and then Mrs. Davners gave her the idea to use the white
gown from the picture of Caroline de Winter, there were little hints that made
me realize that there was something that wasn't being told. I thought it to be
very unlikely that Mrs. Davners would help Mrs. de Winter, so I came to the
conclusion that something bad was going to come of the whole situation. I was
able to use my imagination and form my own ending to the situation. While
watching the movie, I wasn't given the time or the pauses to allow me to imagine
anything that would happen. The events just went on occurring without allowing
any imagination to be able to be put into it. These were three of the reasons as
to why I think that the novel Rebecca was much more effective than Alfred
Hitchcock's movie version. I feel that suspense, details, and imagination play a
large role in entertainment, whether it be book or film. The lack of these in
the movie proved the novel to be more effective. If I were to recommend one, I
would definantly recommend for someone to read the book rather than watch the
movie. I enjoyed being able to do both, and to be given the chance to compare
the two, but I think the book is a much better choice.