Monday 12 June 2017

Film: 'My Cousin Rachel'

Pleased to resume my cinema-going after a lengthy hiatus occasioned by 'circumstances' - which may well restrict the number of future similar outings for a while. Only to say for now that 'he' remains fragile, though superficially healthy apart from continuing very wobbly walk and alarming further loss of fur. When there's any more to report I'll do so.


Daphne du Maurier is one of my favourite writers. I've read more than a few of her works but not this one, an omission which now needs rectifying.

Set in rural England in what I take to be the late-18th century, the prologue shows a young boy being cared for by his guardian right until he returns from having attended school now grown up (Sam Claflin), his guardian whom he worships having been sent to Florence for recuperation from a brain tumour, and from whom he gets mail, first telling him of the lovely young woman he's become acquainted with there (the 'cousin Rachel' of the title) and then, continuing to sing her praises, the two of them marry - his correspondence suddenly becoming more disturbing until, fearing for his life at her hands, he begs his charge to come and help him. Is this for real or just a fancy of his fevered condition? Claflin rushes off to Italy to find that he has only recently just died while she is nowhere to be found. Returning to England, he is determined to seek her out and confront her - though finds out that she has already arrived at his home, which he will inherit on attaining the age of 25, she now the grieving widow seeking the solace of her cousin. He's resolved to have the matter out with her, being convinced that she was responsible for his guardian's demise. When they meet she (Rachel Weisz) turns out to be nothing like what he envisaged and his adversarial stance dissolves as he quickly becomes infatuated with her. He's also attracted to her independent spirit which can be quite forthright at times. So won over is he, in fact, that he refuses to entertain stories of her profligacy and rumours of her unfaithfulness when she was married with his guardian. He even bequeaths to her his greatest treasure, a pearl necklace which belonged to his mother. His blinkered. rose-tinted view of her continues and, against all advice, he formulates his own will, charging his entire state to her possession should he pre-decease her. He inevitably proposes marriage but is perplexed to find that her warm attitude to him changes. Too late and too bad for him! What we, the audience, can see he cannot. Therein lies the film's suspense, and most effective it is too for virtually the entire film, which held my attention without pause.

Two 'downers' for me was that the film's several intimate moments between the romantic couple were conveyed in hardly audible whispers, though I don't think that this was as important as the second - namely that I didn't quite understand a revelation given near the end, which was, presumably, intended to take one's breath away. I can understand what it was - the very final frames showed that up clearly - but it left me with a whole load of questions in my mind on the lines of "But if that was the case, why didn't....". It also left, though only in retrospect, some of the film of the interaction between the couple looking strangely ham-fisted and old-fashioned. Others may well have been carried along with it as a convincing development but for me it proved to be rather less than satisfactory.

All the acting, and the script as well, is of a very high order and the film looks terrific, not burdened by a background score which could easily have been melodramatic but was sensibly kept in check.

Director Roger Michell (also the screenplay writer) has some biggish films on his record, including 'Notting Hill', 'Venus' and 'Le Week-End' - and despite my minor reservations, this one also deserves to stand to his credit...................7.5
    





14 comments:

  1. I really appreciated this informative review. I, too, like Daphne du Maurier.
    I bought a copy of "My Cousin Rachel" when I was sixteen and you've inspired me to re-read it (I read it so very long ago that I hardly remember it).
    I would definitely enjoy seeing this film.

    Warm thoughts to you and the precious kitties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Jon. Although I do like her writings I don't usually take to Du Maurier's historical novels, which is maybe why I avoided (if I did) reading this. But it's unusual in being such with much more suspense in 'Gothic' style than one normally gets in this type of novel. I'd be interested to know to what extent Michell changed details for the film, if he did - particularly the ending.

      Thanks for your wishes for the cats. I'll pass them on, which is sure to get them purrrrrring!

      Delete
  2. I'm pleased that you have resumed your cinema going and that you chose this one for your return.

    I've been intrigued by the trailers I've seen, but couldn't make up my mind if I should see this. Based on your review, I will see Rachel as Rachel. Hope I'm not disappointed as I will be comparing it to the original.

    I've always wondered why they remake a movie when the original got it so right. Burton as the brooding Philip and deHavilland as the mysterious Rachel were perfection. Funny, the original is never mentioned. Maybe most critics are too young to be aware of this version? Speaking of remakes, I don't have too much hope for "Murder On The Orient -" How can they recreate the star power of the original? Such glamour! Such excitement!

    Huge hugs to the two kitties and a gentle hug to Blackso.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I blush to say so, Paul, but I've not only never seen the 1951 version but was not even aware of it. Now that I am I'd love to watch it. Burton became so 'wooden' on screen in his later films that I'd like to see him at his better self - and Olivia De H as the seductively duplicitous (or is she?) Rachel sounds terrific. I really must look out for it. (I see that 'Halliwells' gives it a one-star rating, which is pretty good - and certainly better than none at all.)

      I've just seen the cast of Branagh's new 'Orient' - though I did know of some of the names. They've got a lot to live up to. I just LOVED the Sidney Lumet version which was condemned by so many at the time of its release, based on the single issue of the ludicrousness of the solution, which was totally unfair when the film had so much else going for it - atmosphere, script, an absolutely ravishing Richard Rodney Bennett soundtrack score, and, above all, a truly magnificent array of star-studded vignettes that few films (or any at all) before or since can match. I'll see the new one with considerable trepidation but also some eager curiosity, though nothing will replace the earlier version in my affection. As you suggest, the question will always be "Why?"

      I'll give Noodles and Patchie what you wish and an extra-special one to Blackso, who's still well enough to start purring most times that I come into his presence - and not only for food - though I'm a bit nervous at leaving him for three or more hours today as I go to the dentist for further repair works. It's on sunny, warm days like this when he likes to go out and lie under parked cars, only now he's in such a condition that would make it not so easy to get away in time if he has to. I can't leave him locked insie as the others need the open window too. Fingers and everything else crossed.

      Delete
  3. Claflin is a delight......the best thing in that movie whose title escapes me...the one about the propaganda movie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're referring to 'Their Finest'. J.G. I know he's getting a big following these days but I've yet to see precisely why, though this film does make an approach at it.

      Delete
  4. I went to see it yesterday and gave it a 7. It so lacked suspense and by the end I couldn't really care less what happened. Well acted but something seemed missing to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I had a film with my name in its title I would feel a strong urge to see it, Rachel, though sorry that you were rather more disappointed in it than I was. I thought the suspense (which you thought absent) was quite well crafted, though it did for a long time seem to be from another era of film-making - perhaps the 1950s or 60s, which may well be more fairly attributed to the novel (1951) being put up on screen. I agree that it could have been a bit better, but not really by that much. Anyway, thanks for your POV - always treasured.

      Delete
    2. The film is highly watchable and I would not want to put anyone off seeing it. Weisz is brilliant although Claflin I found not particularly sexy at any point of the film. He annoyed me in fact sometimes. But that's the part it is I suppose. The film was just not particularly dark or tense how I expected it to be. I am a du Maurier fan and read the book many years ago.

      Delete
    3. I wouldn't suggest that people should avoid ANY film, Rachel, and you too clearly consider this one to be above average.
      I liked Weisz a lot though there was a 'knowing' side to her character here which I thought was close to being overplayed.
      I don't see (yet?) why Claflin is rapidly building up a substantial fan base as so far I don't see anything special about him on any level. Maybe it's just some of us who seem blind to his positive attributes - whatever they are.
      I'll have to look for the book myself which ought now to be available everywhere on the back of this film.

      Delete
    4. The best place for the shot of his bare back and his sloping shoulders should have been the cutting room floor.

      Delete
    5. P'raps, Rachel, p'raps. (I'd already forgotten about it.)

      Delete
  5. Someone is dropping hints he wants to see this one.
    It sounds like something I would find palatable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It ought to give you both some satisfaction, Dr Spo. It's been getting a fair bit of criticism here, some of which may be justified, but on balance it's far better than average entertainment.

      Delete