Rebecca
By Emilsk Von Palmovor and Hannatt Borett
This
is an essay about Rebecca She was a woman, but then again so is half the
world’s population. She was married to a man who looked like a tortoise. She
pissed him off so he killed her. Then he married another woman. This was silly
because she didn’t have a name. She was also a woman. So was Daphne Du Maurier.
She did have a name however, but she liked to write books about nymphomaniacs, a
bit like this one really.
The
main difference between the two dramatisations is that one is ever so slightly
less boring than the other, mainly because it’s much shorter. But overall
you’d be better off spending your Sunday afternoons watching something normal
like “Ballykissangel” or “Wildlife on Two”. Also they have different
actors. This is because if Carlton had used the same ones they’d be either
dead or wrinkly, but no worse than Charles Dance we suppose.
Maxim
didn’t like Rebecca because she did it with an old codger and her cousin.
Rebecca’s cousin not the old codgers cousin; the old codger was a man you
fool! Nobody knows how Maxim killed Rebecca. Daphne reckons he shot her. We
think he force-fed her lumpy custard until she exploded. Serves her right-the
incestuous little cow.
It’s
a really silly story because nothing of even MILD interest happens. In fact, the
climactic point of both films is when a random dog with the uncanny name of
Jasper meets another old codger (not the one Rebecca did it with) in a wonky
shack by the sea. It is ironic that this particular old codger is barking mad.
This is symbolic of Jasper barking. Jasper barks because he is a dog and so they
get on rather well, until the silly woman without a name rudely interrupts. It
is possible that she thought that the old codger was going to eat Jasper (who
barks). However, this is not the case as the barking mad old codger does not eat
dogs (who bark) on Thursdays. This is entirely irrelevant; as we have no actual
idea whether or not it was a Thursday - but it is possible. In fact there is a
one in seven chance, which narrows it down considerably. It is a better chance
than one in eight and a worse chance than one in six.
There
is another climactic point in the Hitchcock version, when another silly woman
(not the one without a name - this one’s called Danvas) with incredibly greasy
hair and a face which vaguely resembles a baboons bottom, asks if the silly
woman without a name who married a silly old codger with a name, whether or not
she would like to try on Rebecca’s underwear. This is climactic because it is
a climax.
The
silly woman without a name is silly and has a lot of hats. She wears them on her
head, which is strange and symbolic of the idiocy of the film. She should burn
them all then she would be hatless (i.e. without hat). This would make her very
upset because she likes hats. We do not know why she likes hats, but she does
seem to really like them. Her liking hats so very much is symbolic of symbolism.
The
music in both films is a bit naff really. This is what it all sounds like:
“Eeeeeeeoww brrrr ding ding ding wowwwww bong! bong! BONG! Bish bash! Thump
wallop. Ouch that’s my big toe you stupid bugger”. There is then a loud
cricket effect, which is silly because the film is about hats, dogs, mad old
codgers and people screwing their cousins.
And
so we are forced to ask: “Why is there a cricket effect?” It could be that
crickets lived in a few of her many hats. And she does seem to really like hats.
We wonder if she has really cold ears. If this is the case she should go down to
Sainsbury’s and buy herself a pair of purple fluffy earmuffs exactly like the
pair we haven’t got. Some people are so stupid.