That part has always been very disturbing for me. I'm a bit too much in los with animals you see...

Yes! Yes! Yes! Only the ones who haven't experienced toxic relationships have the audacity to romanticize it.

@@Sunshine-yk2eg True. It's clear that some people won't recognise an abusive relationship until they experience one themselves.

This comment should be on a monument 🙏🙏

Rebecca was a sociopath. This took place in a very different time and culture, she married Maxim FOR money and status and then on their honeymoon told him what she was really like and that she had married him under false pretenses. Fraud is a crime and she knew she had committed fraud for enrichment.

I read this as a child at maybe nine and was disgusted by everyone. But my childhood best friend had been forced into marriage with an old man earlier that year and had been saved but was never the same after that might have affected my ideas if that marriage and everyone in it was evil except the girl up until she helped cover up the murder (my culture is *vehemently* *against* murder so her siding with a murderer made her just as low in the end to me.)

Omg yes. I was worried about other comments. When he confessed to the murder it sounded like a child trying to manipulate an adult. It sounded so incredible ridiculous, that my jaw dropped when she was so happy about it. I thought she was going to side with Rebecca.

IM ALL FOR YOUR TAKE 3, couldnt have phrased it better myself!

Fully agree.

Yet according to the director of movie it is a love story and I agree... I think that they did live happily ever after. It's appropriate that she grew up. She's an adult not a child. He will learn to accept her new mature self. They have a very sensual and erotic bond as well as romantic love for each other... She is the antidote to his first bad marriage.

Literally no-one in Rebecca is a reliable narrator: love is, after all, supreme subjection and subjectivity, and grief is the biggest shock to those type of feelings. Everyone is mourning Rebecca except the central narrator, who as an immature young woman starts to project all her insecurities onto the overblown statements that grief makes people say. If anything, it is the narrator who is a villain of the piece; jealous of Rebecca without ever really knowing her, she allows herself to be manipulated by a murderer and becomes an accessory to murder. Her insecurities stem from the flawed relationship she has with her emotionally withdrawn, manipulative husband, not from Rebecca, but once she knows she is number one, the wife, the beloved, etc, she becomes a villain in a very Rebecca-like mould, it allows her to take power. The book is radical in that we can never actually know the full truth about a person like Rebecca anyway; the narrator decides which truth appeals to her most and feeds her feelings of self-worth, rather than objectively weighing the evidence. There are really strong shades of anti-Semitism in there as well, it is interesting the book was written in the 1930s as millions of people willfully shut their eyes to objective evidence and blamed all their flaws/ mistakes/ difficulties on the mystical, dangerous outsider who on the one hand has everything they want to be, but on the other hand is reassuringly evil and destroyable. The narrator doesn't have to love the beautiful and successful Rebecca, she can morally feel justified in despising her and taking everything she left behind, colluding with her murderer and maintaining the aristocratic status quo - no prison for them! - which of course is all wish fulfillment and fantasy. It is Danvers, a bit like in Wuthering Heights, who as the symbolic mother of Rebecca, doesn't allow this to happen unchallenged.

They have a video on their channel on Call Me By Your Name, which he's also in, highly recommend 😉

@@maltie123 you best believe I've watched that 3+ times. But thank you for the suggestion!!

SAME

The cousin and her Nanny also gave they point of view so lets not forget that, Rebecca wasn't a good person when she cheated

But no matter what, I can't stand cheaters and it was a fact that she cheated even if some claimed that it was for love and others that she was just having fun and women should have fun just like men it's still cheating and that's wrong. We complain when men cheat women should take accountability as well, at least in this matter, everything else is not a fact but cheating it's a personal decision some people wouldn't cheat no matter what and some other would even when they have everything. And lets not forget that

Mrs. Danvers boasted of how Rebecca beat an animal almost to death. Mrs. Danvers certainly wasn't trying to make Rebecca look bad, she was PROUD of her for doing that. So, no, Rebecca was not a good person trapped by society.

Honestly I would recommend the Hitchcock version or the book over this movie.

Ikr. I dont understand the hate on Lily and Armie..they did it justice especially Lily who carried this film. Shame this has a lot of bad reviews i was expecting it to be nominated maybe a golden globe.

This book was written in the early 20th century, and although freer than than before, a single woman still needed money and social status to be independent. For example, women were first employed in the British Civil Service in 1869 but were paid less for equivalent jobs, limited to posts deemed "respectable" for women, and had to retire from the Civil Service on the event of their marriage, unless granted a waiver. These restrictions were not lifted until 1973. www.civilservant.org.uk/women-history.html. So, the impression that living a free and independent life was a common option for women in the period the book was set is just wrong. Neither Rebecca nor Maxim's Second Wife had a lot of social or economic choices. Marriage was expected, and unmarried women treated as aberrations, and divorced women as deficient. Even now a woman's social status is still measured by her ability to find and keep a man, amongst her peers and amongst men too. So, let's not be fooled that both Rebecca and the second Mrs De Winter were delimited by their gender, class and wealth. And arguably, Maxim was shaped by his status, gender and class too. The idea that his beautiful trophy brood mare wife should seek solace away from looking after Manderlay and having his children by keeping her London flat would have been scandalous. Du Maurier fills her book with her ambivalence and frustration at her limited choices, which were much the same as Rebecca's and the second Mrs De Winter. So yes, the whole situation was toxic but also inevitable. Controlling women because of their biology has always been a thing. We still can't live as men do without interference or limitation.

@@BigHenFor i mean, i get what you mean, but if all Rebecca wanted was a life of her own, she should've gone the Jane Eyre route and faced everything that stopped her head on. Jane Eyre was in a similar situation, even gave us the iconic "Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel" and also the "i am no bird, and no net ensnares me" dialogues. Jane Eyre chose the difficult path, people tried to use her, condemned her, mocked her. Even Mr. Rochester. She chose to leave the only man she loved because she felt compelled to choose her self respect and dignity over him. I as a woman fully understand these circumstances and support women fighting for their rights and freedom. But not when they mess with the lives of and spite men or other people, just to prove a point, or just for fun, or maybe just for vanity and glory and money. If you want freedom, there are better ways to fight for it.

Lying and cheating don't make anyone innocent but she doesn't deserve to be murdered. Annulment of marriage would have been more suitable.

@@coconutmix Nobody said she deserved to die. However, Rebecca manipulated Maxim into killing her. Not excusing Maxim actually killing her tho.

@@ravenseye9179 , i never accused anyone of saying she deserve to die. That was my opinion. As I said, Maxim should have just ended their marriage from the start. He has money so he can buy the best lawyer to get him out of it without harming his reputation.

@@coconutmix My bad 😂

i can sympathize with Rebecca as a woman definitely! In this patriarchal society specifically when the story is set, women must have a suitor and be married by 29, by that standard she just took advantage of the system she was born into as a woman. got the man, the money, the house & the respect! One thing a lot of other comments mention how she tends to mirror sociopath tendancies... hm.

@@Sweethearts4969 Oppression doesn't give anyone an excuse to be a manipulator, though. Rebecca is a villain, but only because she chose to be that way. She chose to marry Maxim because she wanted Manderley, the opulence and glory. Yet, she victimized herself and blamed her suffering on everyone else. This doesn'r excuse Maxim's sin; Rebecca didn't deserve to get murdered just as no one in this world deserves to get killed in cold blood. But just because society was difficult back then, doesn't mean Rebecca should retaliate to the world in that manner. She has hurt and twisted many lives in her selfishness. All in all, de Maurier is writing a study on darkness and the things we do for what we want. Rebecca wanted freedom; she got it at the cost of her morals and later, her life. Maxim wanted freedom as well; he got it, but he lost his soul too in the process. The Second Mrs. De Winter got Maxim; she got Maxim, yes, but she lost herself as well. They are all villains in a way, because they never chose the right way.

@@emmaoliveros4581 theyre people, humans. they tend to be selfish and make the wrong choices.

Its such a bad movie..

Agree! I dont understand why other thinks lily and armie have no chemistry. I felt their chemistry they look so good together! This adaptation I find it so interesting..it made me go AHHH! Love the twists and it really goes so well. I watched it again after the first time seeing it.

I also gravitate toward take 2. However, the book and the movie are three things in three acts: 1. Romance 2. Gothic Thriller 3. Courtroom Drama. The book is better than any movie ever made of it. This discussion is the only one on the internet that brings up Daphne DuMaurier's gender dilemma. An excellent biography is "The Secret Life Of Daphne Du Maurier" by Margaret Foerster. As a child and an adolescent, Du Maurier referred to herself as "a boy." (Her parents were unaware of this.) She grew up and did the expected thing by getting married to Tommy Browning, Comptroller to the Royal Family, and having children. But, on some level, she felt herself to be a male trapped in a female body and that didn't ever seem to be resolved for her. It's fascinating that "Rebecca" was written by a transgendered person who was born before she could choose surgery to bring her physical identity in line with her mental/emotional identity. Or would she have ever chosen that route, if the opportunity had existed?

Agree with you so much

This! I agree with this so much! Female empowerment is NEVER true empowerment if it comes at the cost of others. Rebecca abused and played with those men. If she were a womanizing husband, few would be so eager to defend her!

That's the brilliance of du Maurier's writing! She managed to make readers feel all sorts of struggle. Love it when a book does that because it feels so human.

I agree, it's one of my favourite classic novels, though I still prefer the Hitchcock version by far! 🖤😎

@@trinaq Agreed the Hitchcock version was best.

Same.

Exactly! Gothic Terror and Love Story aren't mutually exclusive too. "Rebecca" definitely covers a lot of important and timeless themes. That's what makes it a classic!

Lmao

'Rebecca'.

It's a movie. The name is 'Rebecca'.