gizmomogwai Although not as strong and powerful as Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940), this Daphne du Maurier adaptation hits on many of the same notes. A Gothic costume drama incorporating elements of mystery and romance, My Cousin Rachel hits on all the needed ingredients, using the key words- "will", "murder", "death certificate", "accuse". It has the required coastal old house and a shot of gallows. It also fashions them to tell a compelling story. Rachel is a force to be reckoned with. A true lady on first impression, she handles a crisis- namely being found out as a "loose" woman- with grace, smoothly. She looks, from the sensibility of a 21st century viewer, a little funny in her Princess Leia hairdo, but when we see her in bed with her hair down, we see how her beauty can have a hold on a younger man.The performances are generally good. Richard Burton conveys a passionate young man; Olivia de Havilland is best as the articulate, calm lady, almost musical in the way she calmly and confidently socializes and wins people over. Perhaps in the upcoming 2017 remake, they will recapture that and build on her as a passionate lover. I definitely look forward to seeing it.

James Hitchcock "My Cousin Rachel", like Hitchcock's "Rebecca" from twelve years earlier, is based on a novel by Daphne du Maurier. Both films are Gothic melodramas set in Cornwall, and both have a wealthy landowner as the main male character. Another link is that the female lead is played in "Rebecca" by Joan Fontaine and here by her sister Olivia de Havilland. One difference between the two, however, is that "Rebecca" has a contemporary setting, whereas "My Cousin Rachel" is a period piece set in the early nineteenth century. This is not, however, the sort of "heritage cinema" costume drama with which we are familiar today. Ever since the sixties, it has been customary for films set in the 1800s to be made in colour, often sumptuous colour, with an emphasis on a detailed recreation of the costumes and furnishings of the era. In the fifties, however, it was quite common for such films to be treated as a sort of period version of film noir, in black and white with dramatic, expressionist photography. "Blanche Fury" is a British example of this phenomenon, and "Carrie" another American one. The film has a particularly dramatic opening scene. Ambrose Ashley, a Cornish gentleman, is out walking along the coast with his young cousin Philip, an orphan whom Ambrose has adopted as his son. As they walk they see a body swinging on a gibbet and Ambrose turns to Philip and says: "Always remember, Philip, death is the price for murder."Fast forward about twenty years. Ambrose, who has been advised to move to warmer climes for the sake of his health, goes to live in Florence where he marries the Countess Rachel Sangalletti, the English-born widow of an Italian aristocrat. Shortly afterwards, Ambrose dies in mysterious circumstances, leaving his estate to Philip rather than his new wife. Philip is convinced, on the basis of a few mysterious letters from his cousin, that Ambrose was in fact murdered by Rachel, but when she travels to England and he meets her, he falls desperately in love with the beautiful older woman. (Philip is 25, Rachel probably in her mid- thirties). As their relationship progresses, however, Philip's suspicions about Rachel return, and he begins to suspect that she might be planning to murder him to secure ownership of the estate.The film's main problem is that it is never made clear whether or not Rachel murdered Ambrose or whether she is plotting to kill Philip. We spend about half the film thinking that she is the victim of unjustified suspicion and the other half believing that she may well be guilty of the crimes of which she is suspected. I don't intend to examine all the conflicting evidence with which we are presented, as fedor8 has already done this in his helpful review which sets out both the case for Rachel's innocence and the case for her guilt. The truth is never really established, and the film's ambiguous ending does not assist in this regard. In some artistic contexts ambiguity can be beneficial, but I feel that a Gothic suspense drama like this one needs to draw a clearer line between virtue and villainy. The film does, however, also have its strong points. As mentioned above, its stark photography is very effective, and it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Cinematography. There are also two excellent acting performances from De Havilland as Rachel and a young Richard Burton as Philip. I would not agree with those who see Philip as a Heathcliff figure- Emily Bronte's hero was always something of a threatening outsider, whereas Philip the wealthy country gentleman is really an insider, part of the system. Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be with a younger version of Mr Rochester from "Jane Eyre"- proud, impulsive, wilful, capable of both great generosity and great folly. Burton, one of several possible contenders for "greatest actor never to win an Oscar", deservedly received the first of his seven nominations for this film. (His second nomination came the following year for "The Robe", a film directed by the same director, Henry Koster). Oddly, his nomination here was in the "Best Supporting Actor" category, even though his is very much a leading role. One might have thought that the ambiguity surrounding Rachel would have given De Havilland a problem as to how the character should be played. She is able, however, to give a very nuanced performance, suggesting both Rachel's lovability and her possibly sinister side. Another good contribution comes from the lovely young Audrey Dalton, in her debut film, as Louise, the young girl who loves Philip but fears losing him to Rachel. Audrey was a highly promising young actress who never really went on to become a major star, although she was to give another memorable performance in "Titanic" the following year. Some have speculated that the film might have been improved had it been directed by Hitchcock rather than Koster, but the Master was never really comfortable with period drama. His attempt to film Du Maurier's "Jamaica Inn" resulted in one of his least memorable movies. He might have brought a greater sense of suspense to certain scenes, but I suspect that even he would have had difficulty in overcoming the problem of the ambivalence surrounding Rachel's guilt or innocence. 6/10

Errington_92 "This is what one moment of passion can bring on a man". It is the foreboding we are given from the hindsight of Philip, forever ridden with the memory of his self proclaimed blessed torment Rachel. A woman who is focused upon with great suspicion and secrecy as she places Philip in a heap of trouble. The narrative builds up to its mysterious and suspicious nature after Rachel marries Philip's Uncle before he becomes ill. This sets the mystic nature of My Cousin Rachel as the letters he sends to Philip become more erratic leading Philip to believe he is the victim of murder. As the situation with his Uncle progresses we question ourselves as to who is Rachel. This situation creates a predicament which we as the audience are attracted to. Rachel is purposely introduced in an inexplicable fashion to make us further question her character. Shot from behind our first glimpse of Rachel gives nothing away. All in black wearing a veil she makes her way into Philip's home with her back to us creating a feeling of uncertainty. When Rachel is finally revealed to us it takes ourselves and Philip off guard. Rachel greets Philip in a warm and friendly manner telling him stories of his family history as a way of making him feel comfortable around her while she secretly begins her plot.Rachel continues to perform time and time again to entice Philip into her wicked charm and it is only after Philip gives her everything he owns her delightful masquerade ends and she reveals her frank demeanour. "That was last night Philip and you had given me the jewels", Rachel states in a calm manner unashamed of her deceit. She comes across as a woman confident of her abilities indicating a deadly dilemma will follow. Although My Cousin Rachel is well known for its ambiguity it is hard not to be weary of Rachel. The way she conducts herself to others, eagerly wanting to acquaint with her former husband's friends, acting upon Philip's emotions and secret meetings with a questionable friend. All this and more makes it seem that Rachel is guilty. Yet it is this sense of doubt which drives My Cousin Rachel. It keeps us as the audience guessing just as much as the rest of the characters to the psyche of Rachel. We share a similarity with Philip as our mind is transfixed on solving the mystery. Besides from the enigma that is Rachel acting as the catalyst of the drama in My Cousin Rachel to engage the audience, Joseph LaShelle's black and white cinematography along with Franz Waxman's score brings the audience into a bleak environment full of torment and tragedy. A captivating story which is well acted by the likes of Burton, De Hillvilland and Dalton drawing the attention of the audience in with their performances but it is De Hillvilland's woman in black who leaves us with the lasting memory of My Cousin Rachel's Gothic nature.

misctidsandbits This movie reminds me of "Rebecca" as well. Both are dark sided, with women that are formidable to the men in question. Interesting that in both cases, these are thoroughly English men. While both women are compelling personalities and complicated to the men involved, I think they are very different, both in type and motivation.I think Rebecca simply had a very skewed moral compass with underlying perversity. I think she knew when she did wrong and reveled in it – rather depraved actually.However, Rachel is another story. I don't think she is actually sinister, but of a culture with ethics quite foreign -and skewed- to the rather straight laced English mindset. Remember, she is a certain European with very different ways of looking at things. What seems not quite cricket to Philip and the older Ambrose, needs no justification in Rachel's mind.And I think she had the type of "tribal" loyalty that bound her to her own kinsmen in preference to these newly acquired English connections (husband, in Ambrose's case). That's why she could be so genuinely outraged by Philip's confrontations and so strong in her own representations of matters. She truly saw no reason not to take the mile when she was offered an inch. Any implication of an implied betrothal or personal commitment in the gift of very valuable family jewelry was dismissible with her. This ambivalence also included being somewhat free with her kisses. As for it seeming implausible that Philip could be so rearranged by her, well, that is an old story. Strong women have been turning men inside out for centuries. Recall that Philip is a relatively unsophisticated young man. Ambrose, while advanced from him, was about as inexperienced with persons so unlike his countrymen. What seems clear and forthright to a rather sheltered young man, can melt away when confronted with the formidable presence and charm of a more sophisticated and attractive woman.Again, I do not think Rachel set about with cunning and craftiness. I think she was of a mindset that saw no problem with acquiring as she did and with sharing with her fellow countryman with whom she had a much longer and deeper tie than this simple, probably seemingly rather cold Englishman – either in the case of Ambrose originally and later with Philip. Whether or not she actually did away with Ambrose is up for conjecture. But her total confounded disbelief when she fell into Philip's literal trap at the end was genuine. I think her sense of ethics and moral justification were so diverse from Philip's that he could not but think of her as deliberate in cunning. The combination of expressed affection and seeming duplicity were maddeningly incomprehensible to him. Rachel violated Philip's expectations and moral code on several counts. His obsession with her and perception of that drove him to violate it himself. (not revealing the end)