Wednesday, April 28, 2010


The Intruder

The chaise lounge that sits in my bedroom is covered in stars.  Woven into the red tapestry, this fanciful constellation calls out to me on a dreary afternoon, beckoning me to “Come, Sit Awhile, Have a Daydream”.  I cannot resist.  With the April sun hiding behind thunderclouds of grey, a brisk wind plays through the chimes that hang round my open window like spring icicles, their sound a bit muffled now that the rose bush is in bloom. I plump up the pillows behind my head and crack open my book.  No new best seller, no trendy tome.  No, this is the perfect day for climbing that winding drive up through the dark wood, past the wall of blood-red rhododendrons, on round the corner where the sea can be heard, crashing on the rocks far down below the garden.
  I am on my way to Manderley again.  
I am rereading Rebecca.

Perhaps he will not appear this time, choosing instead to remain in his place, deep in the shadows of the black and white world to which he so rightfully belongs.  But just as I read of his fated arrival in that dining room in the Monte Carlo hotel, there he is.  I can see him now clearly, sitting just across the room in my tufted leather porter’s chair, with his suede clad feet casually resting on my Indian ottoman, the smoke curling up from his pipe, and a faint furrow of worry etched across his handsome brow, just visible over the top of his newspaper.  Maxim de Winter, as played by Sir Laurence Olivier.  And once again, I am reminded.  Always, always read the book first.

Rebecca was one of my mother’s favourite movies and therefore I saw it with her on television long before I was fortunate enough to read Daphne du Maurier’s atmospheric prose for myself.  So naturally, when I finally got around to opening the book, there he was, Sir Laurence, on every page.  I could not get him out of my mind.  Not that that’s such a bad thing, exactly, for he did play the part extremely well.  But rarely does a film match the unique images one sees in one’s head when reading a book.  Everything about the character, from their pattern of speech, to that mysterious look in their eye, or the way their hair ruffles in the wind - on the very first reading each individuality appears for you and you alone, complete, and never to depart.  Pick up a beloved book years later, open it up, and there they’ll all be, those well-known characters, wandering around in the rooms you remember, where the autumn sunlight falls on the patterned carpet just so, and one lone rose petal drifts down from that vase on the piano, softly hitting a key like the whispered sound of a bell.

But be aware, see a film before a book, and so often, try as you might, you cannot stop the actors from striding onto the stage of your imagination with an arrogant sense of entitlement towards the characters they have portrayed.  Close your eyes, grit your teeth, they remain, and no doubt it is a testament to their prodigious acting skills that they do.

For those of us who saw the movies before we read the books, is it possible to pick up a copy of Gone With The Wind and not see the lovely face of Vivien Leigh?  Can Breakfast At Tiffany’s stand alone, without the irresistible presence of Audrey Hepburn traipsing along through its pages?  So intertwined are these actresses with their literary counterparts they are almost woven into the very fibers of the books from whence they sprung.  Conversely, whenever I reread Wuthering Heights, try as he might, Lord Olivier has no effect on me whatsoever.  Having been fortunate enough to have read the book before I ever saw the film, my Heathcliff remains true to my original vision, his wild face one only I can see.  It matters not how brilliant Olivier was in the film version.  My imagination is untouched.

I’m not saying books should never be turned into film.  Just that books are generally always superior.  Read them first, give your imagination a chance.  Then enjoy the movie.    Of course, I suppose there are worse things that spending an afternoon with Sir Laurence.  
But I swear, if Joan Fontaine shows up, I’m off to do the laundry.

48 comments:

  1. So glad I'm not a reader...love the films and am always disappointed if I dare to open a book after I've seen the film. However, I can totally visualize anything you write, Pamela...and never want to see a film about your vignettes that would disappoint me!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just saw the movie "lovely Bones' Thank heavens I read the beautiful book first. I find that movies hardly ever match the book and like you "my casting" is better than the movies one. I love your images Pamela, you are a wonderful writer...hope you and Edward are well...cynthia

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a beautiful post Pamela... I am absolutely with you on this. Always always read the book first. The images we create in our minds are just too precious to throw away before they have had a chance. I never forget watching captain corelli's mandolin, I had to turn it off - it just didn't sit well with what I had created in my mind :-( hope you are well!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. So true, and I'm in complete agreement with you, except for one film. Charlton Heston is Ben Hur.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, you are so right about books and movies. I will even go so far as to say that if I read a book before a movie comes out and even get a hint at a character being cast, it changes the reading experience for me.

    I was fortunate to have read Gone With the Wind before seeing it, though I am sure I ruined my eyes as a teenage girl reading it through in two days. Alas, now when I stay up most of the night reading it takes days to recover.

    This was a very beautiful post. Thank you for it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Pamela,
    I was told at a very young age to always read the book before seeing the film. There is no substitute for ones imagination. A film can never show everything that is in the book. It's not long enough to have all of the book's content in it. I usually have them as two separate elements and treat them differently.
    As you said though, there is certainly nothing wrong with a bit of Sir Laurence ! XXXX

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sometimes, a book is made into a film before it becomes popular. Then, I don't bother to read the book. I do agree with your analysis, though. A book is so much richer than a film.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have never seen a movie that is as good as the book ...and some are just downright disappointing. Reading the book first ruins the movie...if I haven't read it I don't have any expectations...

    The only movie that came close to complementing the book I had read is Like Water for Chocolate...I think this may be because the book was so dreamlike...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with you, Pamela. Rebecca is one of my most favorite books and I doubt I will ever see the movie version of it, for that reason alone.

    ReplyDelete
  10. well fortunately that is a beautiful movie- a fav of mine, the book divine.this one did not hurt a bit! I find the newer movies do bring a tear to my eye-Imagine that the only Elizabeth some have seen is waifish
    Kiera Knightley, oh no.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'll join the parade on this one! With the book it's all up to my imagination to fill in the images that seem right. With the movie, I'm stuck with some one else's images....and they usually are wrong!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. But what a wonderful film!!! On special occasions, I don't mind one bit when the film invades the pages of a book.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What an excellent point you make about actors inhabiting books' pages. It's nearly impossible to separate the two sometimes.

    This piece read beautifully, as usual!

    xo,
    enc

    ReplyDelete
  14. I so agree...the books are always better.

    I actually listened to "Rebecca" on tape several summers ago, a blazingly hot summer when there were dangerous and abnormally widespread wildfires in western Montana.

    I'd walk in the woods for half an hour, listening to my book, and have to stop hiking to cough--needing to get out of the house in spite of the smoke. So those are MY associations with Rebecca...but I was spellbound by the story.

    Once I lay on a picnic table looking up at the pine trees and listened for almost an hour.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I love to read the book before seeing a movie of such! I adore Rebecca!

    Karena
    Art by Karena

    ReplyDelete
  16. You are so right! I only wish I had realized the importance of this many years ago...

    ReplyDelete
  17. As an interior designer I wonder how you pictured the house and its contents? For me, I have images in my head from the television adaptation from many years ago.

    Have you read "Mrs de Winter" a novel by Susan Hill based on the character? I am sure you would like it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If the film makers were rather more inclined to transfer a character's literary persona onto the screen more faithfully, the celluloid version might not disappoint quite so much. Sadly, film makers can't leave us to use our imagination, they have to show us!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Is it a good thing or bad thing that I now always see Darcy as Colin Firth....

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh, this was a pleasure to read. Please say one day you will write a book? I'd read it for sure, guaranteed.

    I only recently discovered Daphne du Maurier (with The House on the Strand) and totally fell in love with her words. I have two more lined up to read, but not yet Rebecca! I too saw the film first, but long ago now, so I might be able to approach the book and the characters may show themselves just to me. :)

    I always prefer reading the book first, for the reasons you say. This is why I love reading, the same story can conjure so many fragments, capture so many facets, and be a unique stamp in our hearts. Films, as good as the casting can be, can only ever show us the casting agent's (or the production meeting's) choice. It can be a good interpretation, but not necessarily mine.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Love it...I will be right behind you with the laundry. Agree Pamela, a book comes first than the movie. I felt the same with 'The Sound of Bees' and 'The Kite Runner"...and the list goes on. If I had based the story on the movies, it would have left me flat.

    Enjoy your Heathcliff...he is your and your alone!

    Jeanne:)

    ReplyDelete
  22. PS..have you read 'Daphne' by Justine Picardie, if not, have a look on Amazon. I thought it was a great book.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So true! Fortunately I read Rebecca first and even though the film clouds my imagination I have managed to keep my version of this divine book in my head. Leigh

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mmm, my, I'd happily while away an hour on a chaise lounge with that dashing chap in the painting!

    Yes, I agree wholeheartedly about reading the books first wherever possible, but on occasion I am happy to have certain people traipsing around inside my head! It depends who they are of course.

    Would you believe I have never read Rebecca? Amazing. Don't know how that happened.

    Right, I'm off to see if we have a copy which is completely likely in this maze of books...

    Thanks for the sweet reminder!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Isn't it amazing how our imagination transports us as we read!

    Great post!
    Toma

    ReplyDelete
  26. You are so right..but sometimes when reading a book, I start to see an actor in my mind..hear his/her voice in my head as I read the words..too much TV & movies I suspect...
    I love to read the story and may then see the film..but am usually disapointed...

    ReplyDelete
  27. I agree.
    I always try to read the books before and often quickly borrow them from the library if I hear the film is coming out so that I can get their before the film influences my imagination. I am always glad I did. Athough Daniel Radcliffe will always be Harry Potter and Snape will always look like Alan Rickman but I like that :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. I do remember reading Rebecca as a teen. I’ve always meant to revisit it. The book sticks me with more than the movie. Although I do enjoy movies based on books. Some movies are better than the book like The Devil Wears Prada, but usually I like the book best. Interesting discussion here!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I do agree with you Pamela - the book is always superior because it enables one to use one's imagination. I love Rebecca too.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I've read and watched "Rebecca" a million times. Written a script inspired by it. That housekeeper will haunt me forever...

    ReplyDelete
  31. You are so very right!
    No one and I mean NO ONE will ever be Mr. Darcy to me except the marvelous Colin Firth.

    The Keira Knightley version Darcy? Boo! An impostor.

    Wonderful post!

    Anne

    ReplyDelete
  32. You are so right about this one! I don't mind reading a book after seeing the film -- but the actors do leave their imprint on one's imagination.

    Speaking of Max de Winter, have you seen the newer version (probably BBC) where Max is played by Charles Dance? Now I "see" him!

    It is wonderful to sit down with a cup of tea and indulge in your atmospheric writing, Pamela. Jet lag woke me up early this morning . . . but this has been a bonus. I have the window opened a crack, and cool, fresh air is wafting in. The birds are twittering away, and I can see a green willow tree through the window.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh Rebecca! My sister got me the next one by another auther- Mrs De Winter but it wasn't a patch on the original. The atmosphere!

    I was thinking as you worte that thank heavens I read Wuthering Heights before seeing a film. No one is yet "my" Heathcliffe or Kathy.

    I do think that Vivian Leigh did play Scarlett well but there I saw the film before the book.

    Like you I do try to read before seeing the film. I do get disappointed when the filmakers change things.

    ReplyDelete
  34. So true Pamela....but as you so cleverly pointed out...films do come with eye candy benefits! xv

    ReplyDelete
  35. Delicious, every word and pic of it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ahhh. Spot on. I remember having a class just about this back in high school...Good movie better book!

    ReplyDelete
  37. I agree, books are usually better and should be read before the film is seen. The best film adaptation of a novel I think is Il Gattopardo (The Leopard). It certainly is the most faithful adaptation and brings in a lot of extra value through the sumptuousness of the dance scenes.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I could not agree with you more! I've read 'Wuthering Heights' several times, and only recently saw the 1939 film. Film was good, but doesn't have the magic that the book has. Most movies are like that. Now, you've reminded me of Rebecca, I'll have to revisit that one ;)
    Have a great day.

    ReplyDelete
  39. My instincts always tell me to read the book first, and if it touches my heart, perhaps forgo the film. Books were meant to be a direct communication between the author and the reader. The film interpretation is much less personal of purpose.

    Forgive me the silliness but one of my 98-year-old dad's favorite "shaggy dog" story (and he never met Edward or Digby and Wilf) is about a man and a goat who go to the movies. The goat starts sobbing at the climax of the action -- and people around ask him if he's enjoying the movie. His companion responds, why yes, but he did enjoy the book much better.


    xx Joan

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yes! I absolutely agree! You must always read the book first, no doubt!
    The story must be allowed to unfold in the imagination unique to the reader, without the interference of a films alterations and set view! suzie xxx

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dear Pamela
    You are so right... a book takes you on such a journey that is rarely matched by the movie version...

    Although I am such a movie addict... love them.... just find as you do the occasional disappointment if I have read a book first... and the overlap of characters if I do the reverse....I did have one book though I could never really get into until I saw the movie.. then both became favourites I couldn't put down...

    Currently I am visualizing that sofa of yours and the beautiful constellations woven within... I think we need some photos of your place soon. .. to see if the movie matches our imaginations... hahaa take care xxx Julie

    ReplyDelete
  42. I loved Sir Laurence, & your right, not a shabby way to spend a few hours. You wrote so true that books are typically so much more exciting than their counterparts in film. You have me wanting to pick up a copy of Rebecca & read it again Pamela. It is your wonderful, enchanting way with words that work their spell!

    Lovely weekend to you all xx

    ReplyDelete
  43. You have put me in the mood to visit Manderley myself. I have a wonderful old copy from 1938. And when I am finished, I think I will visit Jamaica Inn. Charles Laughton is not welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I absolutely adore both the novel and the film. Unfortunately, I saw the movie first when I was just a kid, so the devastatingly handsom Laurence Olivier will always be Maxim in my mind.

    The weirdest thing for me is that I've seen that movie so many times that the film set is burned into my memory!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hello, I've just stumbled across your blog and felt I had to join in!
    I so agree with Alice .... Captain Corelli was a haunting romantic book and they destroyed the pictures in my mind!!!
    Yes, I think it always has to be the book first - but I'll make one exception for Dr. Zhivago! Without seeing the film I wouldn't have been able to persevere with the book.
    Love Kathy xxx

    ReplyDelete
  46. I also agree, read the book first. The film leaves out, adds to, and distorts what the author intended. Rebecca and Wuthering Heights are much better in my imagination than what I saw on film. My gothic house was better, my Heathcliff was sooo much better.

    ReplyDelete

I love to read your comments! Each and every one! Though I'm always reading your comments, I may not respond in the comment section. If you want to write me directly, you may do so at pamela@pamelaterry.net. Thank you for reading!