mouthporn.net
#rebecca – @littlelattewanders on Tumblr
Avatar

Little Latte

@littlelattewanders / littlelattewanders.tumblr.com

Alyssa. Writer. Lover of literature (especially classics, historical fiction and fantasy), musicals, gothic heroines and period dramas.
Avatar

if anyone posts about any version of Rebecca (the novel, the Hitchcock film, the musical - even the 2020 adaptation), please like or reblog!

especially if you ship danvich or danbecca - i'm seeking my people

Avatar

Mrs. De Winter’s costume for the Manderley Party in various adaptations: an analysis

This is the costume the Narrator gets tricked into wearing by Mrs. Danvers, who wants to destroy the relationship between Max and the second Mrs. De Winter. It was previously worn by Rebecca, who modeled it after a painting hanging up in the Manderlay gallery. Mrs. Danvers suggests this painting as an inspiration to the Narrator, who naively believes she is just trying to be helpful. An already unstable Max believes the Narrator is mocking him by wearing the costume previously worn by his dead wife.

“I always loved the girl in white, with a hat in her hand. It was a Raeburn, and the portrait was of Caroline de Winter, a sister of Maxim’s great-great-grandfather. She married a great Whig politician, and was a famous London beauty for many years, but this portrait was painted before that, when she was still unmarried. The white dress should be easy to copy. Those puffed sleeves, the flounce, and the little bodice. The hat might be rather difficult, and I should have to wear a wig. My straight hair would never curl in that way.”

White is a color usually associated with innocence, and so white dress is often worn by heroines of Gothic literature (especially nightgowns or wedding dresses). The second Mrs. De Winter, unlike Rebecca, is innocent and oddly virginal (despite being married). Worn by Rebecca, the costume is ironic and meant to mock Max, but it’s perfect for the second Mrs. De Winter, who is innocent and wants to be closer to Max by being a part of his family.

Let’s start with Sir Henry Raeburn, who was a real artist despite the painting in the book being fictional. Raeburn was born in 1756 and died in 1823.

White dresses became popular in the 1790s and were in vogue throughout the 1810s. It’s almost impossible to tell the difference between a day, ball, evening, or wedding dress from the early 1800s - all were white with an empire waist, and sometimes even the same fabric - muslin. It could be worth mentioning that these dresses were controversial both in their time and especially later - the light fabric and prominent display of the bosom was scandalous and thought to essentially be underclothes worn as dresses (think slip dresses of the 90s). This leads to an interesting contradiction in the style itself - innocence and sexuality in one look. It’s really interesting, I think, as a symbol of both the Narrator’s innocence and the fact she wants to be seen as a woman (read: sexy) by Max.

So, we can conclude the painting was likely painted somewhere between the late 1780s and 1810s

The 1780s saw the rise of the chemise à la reine - so named because it resembled a chemise (a white shift that was meant to be worn beneath a dress) and was popularized by Marie Antoinette. The skirt was flouncy and the dress was tapered at the waist, or slightly above it. The waists on dresses steadily rose in the 1790s, until they became full on empire waists, which fell just below the bust. A large sash was worn around the waist.

Above is a portrait of a young girl wearing a chemise style dress by Sir Henry Raeburn, presumably painted in the late 1780s or 1790s. The girl depicted is very young, but older girls and women wore their hair curlier. Three adaptions go for a chemise style, the 90s miniseries, and the Japanese and Korean versions of Rebecca das Musical. Note the curly hair and hat as well. It’s also pretty flouncy! This is most likely what Du Maurier envisioned.

However - Du Maurier also mentioned the dress having ‘puffed sleeves’ and a ‘little bodice’, which could support the theory that the dress was not a 1790s chemise style dress, but an 1800s empire waist Regency dress.

Below is another Raeburn, this one painted later, in the early 1810s. The empire waist was still in vogue (though beginning to lose popularity). You can see her hair is curly, though in an updo this time.

To my knowledge, the 70s series is the only adaption that goes with an empire waist style dress. Note the puff sleeves and the ruffles at the bottom. Though the screenshot is a bad quality (sorry) and it’s hard to tell, but her hair is in a curly updo. I’d show more photos but I’m at my picture limit already.

Now, the 1940 film decided to go with an 1840s or 1850s ballgown, which was almost certainly not what Du Maurier was going with, considering Sir Henry Raeburn died in 1823. It is, however, very pretty.

One of the Austrian and the Hungarian version go the other direction time-wise. The gowns are 1770s or 1780s inspired judging by the silhouettes. The Hungarian costume (right) in particular is baffling - it’s a silvery blue Marie Antoinette-esque dress that doesn’t resemble the novel’s description except for the curly wig.

But the most confusing is the Vienna version, which is not historically accurate to any period and in no way matches the novel’s description except for the fact it’s white(ish). It seems like they were going with an 1880s bustle, but the fact it’s strapless ruins it. I’m not sure what’s going on with the “gloves” (arm warmers???) or top hat.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net