Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Rebecca (1940)


lanceroten
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know when they are going to play it. I, too, was disappointed that Rebecca is not included in February's "31 Days Of Oscar". Looks like I am going to have to order the DVD. I love that movie. Although her performance in Suspicion was great, I think she should have won the Oscar for Rebecca. She was terrific in that role - perfect for it! Hitchcock should have won the Oscar also.

 

Edited by: bagladymimi on Jan 9, 2012 6:54 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it played at least six times in 2009 and once in late 2010 and once in early 2011. This is typical of a movie which is reaching the end of its license period. I believe it will have to wait to be licensed again before it will be aired.

 

I have not plotted how frequently popular movies are licensed. I believe it may be some time before they acquire it again so as to forestall claims that they are showing only a few movies in endless repetition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If that's the case, do they have to do that with every film they air?

 

TCM has to rent/lease the films they broadcast. Some films come with long term contracts and some come with short-term contracts.

 

It all comes down to the negotiations between TCM and the studios/distributors that own the films.

 

Once a contract has expired, the film is available to other networks for rental/lease or TCM may have the opportunity to extend the contract.

 

It all depends on the negotiations.

 

Other channels that rent/lease classic films (though not to the degree that TCM does) include: the Encore channels, especially the Western channel, Retroplex and Multiplex (which seems to have some sort of corporate partnership with the Encore channels and possibly the Fox Movie Channel), Fox Movie Channel (only Fox films) Flix, HBO, Cinemax and Showtime. HD channels showing classic films also include UAHD, SonyHD and MGMHD.

 

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would think that TCM would show a movie more often if their licence was about to expire. e.g. if they had a 5 year licence I would think that the movie would be shown most often in the first and last year (year 5 in this case).

 

Your last point makes a lot of sense. Wait a good amount of time (say at least 18 months to 2 years) before renewing a licence. This does two things; Saves TCM some money, and creates a freshness once TCM does show the movie again.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=bagladymimi wrote:}{quote}

> I just never thought about it before. If that's the case, do they have to do that with every film they air?

 

It is as lzcutter said.

 

TCM once owned a large library of films which it could show when they wished. That library was put into a separate division when a megacorporglomerate bought them and so they must now rent them.

 

I can not plot showings by month and year as my esso's databases are not structured that way so I can not provide definitive statements or examples. It is my impression gained by searching for movies for the TCM Challenges that when important or popular movies are licensed they are aired at various times of day and during weekdays and weekends during the first year so as to make them available to the most people. It seems as if the last two or three showings are then held back to provide last-minute replacements for a movie which was scheduled and was then not available or the last airing is kept in reserve as long as possible to be used in a recently-created theme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the info. That is very interesting. I knew that for a long time TCM or Turner channels were the only ones that could air Gone With The Wind. Also NBC obviously, is the only channel that has the right to air It's A Wonderful Life - at least for the time being. I assumed that certain films (The High And The Mighty) were held by companies, families, trusts, etc. and only shown or released on their terms. With all the movies shown on TCM and without commercial advertising to sponser these movies, how does Turner do it? Does he earn so much from his other holdings that he can pay for this? I can't imagine that he is doing this for philanthropy. As much as I have read, watched, and studied about movies and movie stars, I really feel stupid right at this moment because I never thought about this before.

 

Edited by: bagladymimi on Jan 10, 2012 5:57 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> how does Turner do it? Does he earn so much from his other holdings that he can pay for this

 

Mimi,

 

Ted Turner started TCM back in 1994 and it was part of his media empire. However, by the mid to late 1990s, he merged his media empire with Time-Warner. As part of that merger, TCM (as well as the other Turner channels) came under the ownership of Time-Warner where they have remained ever since.

 

As to how the channel survives in this market, its brand is not only very strong but prestigious. The channel won the national Peabody award a few years ago for being the channel that has stayed true to its original mission. Which in this day and age of media conglomerates buying cable networks and then changing them drastically from what they once were (A&E, Bravo, History Channel to name a few), Time-Warner must feel that TCM is worth keeping as it is.

 

For that, we should all be very thankful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post implies that TCM loses money every year but that Times-Warner keeps in going because of the prestige. Now, I don't disagree with that because I have always wondered how TCM could be in the black.

 

You say the brand is very strong? What does that really mean? Since TCM doesn't participate in the rating process how does one 'measure' how strong their brand is? I have also always wondered what percent of US TV viewers watch TCM on a regular basis? 5%? 1%?

 

So is this a case of a corproration doing a public service?

 

Of course none of this matters as long as T-W's management feels it is worth it to keep TCM alive even if it is in the red.

 

Either way, like you I'm very grateful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Your post implies that TCM loses money every year but that Times-Warner keeps in going because of the prestige.

 

I didn't mean to imply that TCM loses money every year. I was trying to emphasis that Time-Warner believes in the channel enough to keep from changing it's format.

 

TCM has been part of the Time-Warner family for over a decade now and in all that time, Time-Warner seems happy to let TCM be TCM.

 

> You say the brand is very strong? What does that really mean? Since TCM doesn't participate in the rating process how does one 'measure' how strong their brand is?

 

They seem to have strong brand recognition. Even people who don't watch the channel regularly seem to know what TCM is about. According to their press releases, they are in over 85 million homes. People travel from around the world and around the country to attend their Film Festival in Hollywood. So, even though TCM overseas is a horse of a very different color than the one here in the States (and Canada), people every where associate it with classic films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that TCM and classic films go hand in hand but I don't think many people here in the USA are really interested in classic films. I admit I don't have any specific stats to back up my view but as I noted I have yet to see anyone with any data either.

 

The fact that TW hasn't messed with the TCM format is telling. To me this means that either TCM is in the black or at least NOT in the red enough for TW to be concerned. Either way I wish I could review their books. Classic movies are a very limited market and I just wonder how their business model works and is able to stay afloat. I assume the cost to licence a lot of movies is fairly inexpensive since cost is typically bases on demand, and demand is relatively low.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read that Mr. Turner envisioned it as a break-even proposition. Every cable company must pay a fee to carry a channel. That fee for TCM was set very low so most cable companies would carry it. He wanted the channel and its original library to be funded exclusively by those fees and any excess would be used to rent movies from other libraries. The operation cost is low because it shares facilities with other channels in the Turner family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thanks for this info. We all wish to see TCM remain commercial free but at the same time understand that providing the service cost money.

 

Also since TCM charge to cable companies and the like (directTV), is 'low' maybe companies like Comcast are taking advantage of that if they move TCM to a higher cost tier. (an issue being debated at another thread).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While Joan has been knocked here for playing the same type of role in multiple movies, to me, she is a perfect fit in Rebecca. Her shyness and overall manner work very well in this movie.

 

When I saw the movie for the first time I did wonder (just like Joan's mature women employer), why a guy like Max would fall for a gal like Joan, especially when his first wife was a gal like Rebecca. But this is all explained near the end of the movie. Max wanted an everyday type of gal. Someone as unlike Rebecca as he could get. Joan plays that type of women (and not much else) very well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Joan was perfect for the part. And as for who else could have played that part, I don't think there could have been a better fit. The part called for a shy, almost mousey girl. I really cannot think of another major or minor actress who could have pulled off the "plain Jane" look and at the same time appear to have the reticence yet clear concern for "Maxim." The naivety she displayed was done so well, when in his hotel room, he called for her luggage to be brought back into the hotel. - she asked him if he needed a "secretary or something." No one was more surprised than Joan when he told her he was going to marry her. To me that was true acting - because I don't think Joan Fontaine was shy at all. She knew what she wanted and went after it. And this part was truly Oscar worthy. I feel that the reason she got the Oscar for Suspicion was because voters felt she should have won it for Rebecca. She did a great job in Suspicion, but Rebecca was better (to me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Margaret Sullivan and Anita Louise were considered for the part, but Selznick went with Joan when she was seated next to him at a dinner party.

Laurence Olivier was the only one championing Vivien Leigh. I guess she would have been fine too, except I think she is/was a little too beautiful.....

 

Joan seems to have played the 'mouse' role quite well in several movies at the beginning of her career; but played the sophistocated ice-cold grande dame role nicely at the end.

From frump to Mrs. Van Hopper but not much in between. Still I like her a lot!!!

 

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...