How Daphne du Maurier became Hitchcock’s… | Little White Lies

In Praise Of

How Daphne du Mau­ri­er became Hitchcock’s favourite author

29 Apr 2017

Words by Iris Veysey

Black-and-white image of three women, including a blonde woman in the centre wearing a long coat and hat, flanked by two younger women in casual attire.
Black-and-white image of three women, including a blonde woman in the centre wearing a long coat and hat, flanked by two younger women in casual attire.
Her nov­els The Birds’ and Rebec­ca’ pro­vid­ed the per­fect blend of moral com­plex­i­ty and Goth­ic drama.

It’s no sur­prise that film­mak­ers have flocked to Daphne du Maurier’s sto­ries. Her work offers swash­buck­ling romance, Goth­ic psy­chodra­ma, crime and sex­u­al intrigue. To date, her many nov­els, sto­ries and plays have spawned a least 12 film adap­ta­tions and more than 40 tele­vi­sion drama­ti­sa­tions. Anoth­er title will soon be added to that list when a new adap­ta­tion of My Cousin Rachel’, star­ring Rachel Weisz and direct­ed by Roger Michell, is released in June, 2017.

Smug­gling thriller Jamaica Inn’ was the first du Mau­ri­er nov­el to be brought to the big screen. Actor Charles Laughton pur­chased the film rights and appoint­ed Alfred Hitch­cock as direc­tor. Hitch­cock knew du Mau­ri­er well, hav­ing pre­vi­ous­ly worked with her actor-man­ag­er father, but had mis­giv­ings about the project. Intend­ed as a vehi­cle for Laughton, it left lit­tle room for the director’s own cre­ative input. Sure enough, Laughton dom­i­nat­ed the film, his overblown per­for­mance described by Time mag­a­zine as mag­nif­i­cent in the eye-rolling, head-cock­ing, lip-purs­ing, mas­sive­ly minc­ing Laughton style.” Du Mau­ri­er hat­ed the film and Hitch­cock all but dis­owned it.

Nonethe­less, Hitch­cock imme­di­ate­ly set to work adapt­ing anoth­er du Mau­ri­er book, Rebec­ca’. It was a far more fruit­ful col­lab­o­ra­tion. Hitch­cock empha­sised the Goth­ic qual­i­ty of the nov­el, draw­ing out its dis­turb­ing sex­u­al dynam­ics. Lau­rence Olivi­er plays Max­im de Win­ter, the wid­ow­er griev­ing the loss of his first wife, Rebec­ca. House­keep­er Mrs Dan­vers (Judith Ander­son) has become obsessed by Rebecca’s mem­o­ry, fetishis­ing the dead woman’s belong­ings. As for Maxim’s rela­tion­ship with his naïve bride (Joan Fontaine)? It is less like that of a hus­band and wife, and more like that of a father and daughter.

The pater­nal tone of the De Win­ters’ rela­tion­ship is typ­i­cal of du Maurier’s fic­tion, which often explores incest (though only once explic­it­ly, in A Bor­der­line Case’). Per­haps this inter­est­ed Hitch­cock, whose films fre­quent­ly hint at sex­u­al­ly fraught famil­ial rela­tion­ships – think of Nor­man and his moth­er in Psy­cho or manip­u­la­tive Uncle Char­lie in A Shad­ow of a Doubt. Indeed, Hitchcock’s third and final du Mau­ri­er adap­ta­tion, The Birds, fea­tures an intense moth­er-son rela­tion­ship between Mitch and Lydia.

By the time du Mau­ri­er pub­lished Hun­gry Hill’ in 1943, movies had become a huge part of her image. I was quite dis­tressed,” she wrote, when the crit­ic in The Observ­er implied that my sole inten­tion in writ­ing [‘Hun­gry Hill’] was to get the book drama­tised and screened.” The sug­ges­tion that du Mau­ri­er was cyn­i­cal­ly chas­ing a movie sale was hurt­ful. She want­ed to be tak­en seri­ous­ly as a writer.

The inevitable Hun­gry Hill’ adap­ta­tion arrived in 1947, with Mar­garet Lock­wood star­ring as the flir­ta­tious Fan­ny-Rosa. Then one of Britain’s most bank­able actress­es, Lock­wood had rock­et­ed to star­dom with roles in a num­ber of huge­ly pop­u­lar melo­dra­mas at Gains­bor­ough stu­dios, includ­ing The Man in Grey and The Wicked Lady. Hun­gry Hill was mar­ket­ed as a sophis­ti­cat­ed alter­na­tive to those Gains­bor­ough bodice-rip­pers, Here is Mar­garet Lock­wood,” the film’s pub­li­cists wrote, not as Wicked Lady but as girl, wife and moth­er.” Lockwood’s sex appeal was still played up – in one notable scene she admires her own cleav­age – but it had an added sheen of respectability.

Du Mau­ri­er may have wor­ried about the effect of films on her rep­u­ta­tion, but she still active­ly sup­port­ed adap­ta­tions. She co-wrote the screen­play for Hun­gry Hill and she was an exec­u­tive pro­duc­er of The Scape­goat. The lat­ter was a par­tic­u­lar pas­sion project; she lob­bied to have Alec Guin­ness cast in the main role and had high hopes for the final prod­uct. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, the pro­duc­tion was not a suc­cess, dis­ap­point­ing du Mau­ri­er and mak­ing a loss at the box office.

Of the many adap­ta­tions of her work, Nico­las Roeg’s Don’t Look Now was du Maurier’s favourite. Based on a short sto­ry, the film devi­ates sig­nif­i­cant­ly from its source mate­r­i­al. The sto­ry opens with John and Lau­ra already in Venice, their daugh­ter Chris­tine hav­ing died of menin­gi­tis, not drown­ing. The city is packed with tourists, not out of sea­son, and the famous sex scene is implied with just two sen­tences. Yet though the film’s shock­ing open­ing, ghoul­ish canals, and explic­it love scene are not by the let­ter, they are a suc­cess­ful visu­al expres­sion of the story’s psy­cho­log­i­cal turmoil.

Roger Michell’s upcom­ing My Cousin Rachel is only the sec­ond film adap­ta­tion of that nov­el. Hen­ry Koster direct­ed the first in 1952, with Olivia De Hav­il­land as seduc­tive wid­ow Rachel, who may or may not have mur­dered her hus­band. The film was well-received but du Mau­ri­er was under­whelmed. It’s true that Koster’s film, though hand­some­ly made, rather dilutes the novel’s more chal­leng­ing themes – male cul­pa­bil­i­ty, the eco­nom­ic depen­dence of women on men, fear of female auton­o­my – in favour of the basic nar­ra­tive arc. Here’s hop­ing that this new ver­sion is one du Mau­ri­er would have been hap­pi­er with.

You might like