My Cousin Rachel

My Cousin Rachel_720p(480P)

source: My Cousin Rachel

Philip Ashley is orphaned at a young age, and his cousin Ambrose raises him at his English seaside estate. When Philip is in his early 20's, Ambrose goes to Italy, where he meets and marries a woman named Rachel. Shortly thereafter, Ambrose becomes seriously ill, and Philip receives letters from Italy in which Ambrose says he is in danger and his wife is his tormentor. The mysterious Rachel does not arrive on the scene until well into the film, when she comes to England to visit Philip; director Henry Koster shrouds her arrival in mystery and keeps her back to the audience for several minutes longer, until she is revealed to both Philip and the audience. "My Cousin Rachel," adapted by Nunnally Johnson from the Daphne de Maurier novel, is an excellent, engrossing Gothic mystery that will keep viewers guessing, perhaps even after the film is over. Olivia de Havilland is the perfect choice to play Rachel; de Havilland has excelled in roles such as Melanie in "Gone with the Wind" and as Bette Davis's cousin in "Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte," where her seemingly sweet and vulnerable demeanor masks inner strength and resources that can be utilized for either good or evil. In this film, her facial expressions are often ambiguous and deepen viewers' conflict as to her motives. Although Richard Burton is billed below the title and received a supporting actor Oscar nomination for this role, his is actually the lead. As the initially suspicious and bereaved cousin and subsequently the smitten suitor, Burton is outstanding in a breakout role. His mellifluous voice and delivery elevate the role of the tormented Philip above that of a callow youth in love with an older woman. Burton won a Golden Globe as the most promising newcomer of the year, a richly deserved award that his subsequent films more than validated. Both de Havilland and Burton display layer upon layer of character that enhance the mystery and shifting motivations of Philip and Rachel. Joseph LaShelle's masterful black-and-white cinematography was among the film's four Academy Award nominations and wraps the moody estate and the turbulent sea crashing against rocky cliffs in deep shadows and striking images that deepen the proceedings. Franz Waxman's score further enhances the engrossing story. Boasting two stars who imbue their roles with depth that few others could provide, outstanding photography and music, a capable supporting cast, and fine direction from an excellent screenplay, "My Cousin Rachel" is a classic that is immensely entertaining and as fresh and riveting as it likely was 60 years ago.

I've not read the book nor seen the 2017 remake of this movie. But as for this 1952 version, I can only say it's really too bad the story involves such an absurdly ridiculous plot premise, because otherwise the acting performances and production qualities are very good. Richard Burton's performance is especially impressive. Throughout the film's screenplay, British Lord Phillip Ashley (played by Burton) is depicted as an intelligent, well-educated and accomplished British heir. This only makes it more profoundly absurd for the audience to accept the film's ridiculous plot premise that Phillip would legally turn over his entire wealth and estate as a gift to impress a woman, and afterwards expect her to marry him and immediately return that ownership back to him. Especially since this woman has expressed no previous interest in marrying him. NO MAN on this Earth, I don't think even the most mentally challenged asylum resident, no matter how drunk or in love, would ever be so stupid as to do what Phillip did in this movie. This ruins the entire film. Maybe in the book or in the 2017 movie Phillip is depicted as going insane and dying of brain tumor as his brother Ambrose allegedly did, thus making the plot a tiny bit more plausible, albeit more boring. I don't know, as I said, I've not read the book nor seen the 2017 movie. But as for this film, that certainly wasn't the case, and the entire story was just plain silly to me.

Du Maurier has always been transferred to the screen:three times by Hitchcock (Rebecca,The birds and the flawed "Jamaïca Inn"),once by Roeg ("don't look back",saved by its actors Christie and Sutherland), and probably more which escape my mind. This is an academic Hitchcock-influenced adaptation,but an efficient one,thanks to Richard Burton (it was his sixth film) and mainly to the imperial Olivia De Havilland,who succeeds brilliantly in leaving ambiguousness in her portrayal of a beautiful mysterious woman who might be a femme fatale, her former husband's slayer.The director's work takes a back seat when you deal with such talented actors.But Koster does a good work and the suspense is sustained till the end. Old-fashioned but still entertaining.

I caught this on tv yesterday, after missing the first 10 minutes, when Burton is speaking with Dolenz. I was captivated by the acting, very precise and intense. Dolenz played the part of lawyer for Burton's dead cousin. All the actors did a fine job. I missed a few minutes of the movie when Burton got sick. This has tons of red herrings, and deceptions. The frustration comes from Burton being as dumb as a rock. Someone who at first suspects then basically accuses his cousin's wife Havilland of murdering his cousin, then he falls in love with her, and transfers his inheritance to her. She plays coy, but accepts Burton's gifts and never turns back. So we are left with a dumb Burton and a manipulative Havilland. The ultimate frustration is it is left up to the viewer to decide if Havilland killed Burton's cousin. I read most of the reviews here and some believe the author didn't even know if Havilland was the killer. What we are certain is Burton plays a spoiled dumb man, and Havilland plays a manipulative widow. The actors did a fine job. But who the hell wants to sit with these unlikable characters for 98 minutes.

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)

On the Cornish coast, the wealthy Ambrose Ashley (John Sutton) raises his cousin Philip like a son since he was a baby. They frequently have lunch or go to the church with Philip's godfather Nicholas Kendall (Ronald Squire) and his daughter Louise Kendall (Audrey Dalton). When Philip (Richard Burton) is twenty-four years old, Ambrose is advised by his doctor to spend winter in warmer places and he decides to go to Florence, Italy. Ambrose does not return in spring and tells that he met the widow Rachel Ashley (Olivia deHavilland) and they will get married. The next letter he receives from Ambrose accuses Rachel of mistreating him and the next one asks to Philip to go to Florence. When Philip arrives in Florence, he learns that Rachel has traveled and he visits Rachel's friend and lawyer Guido Rainaldi (George Dolenz). He tells to Philip that Ambrose died delusional because of a brain tumor, but Philip believes Rachel murdered his cousin. He returns to Cornwall and soon Rachel comes to the town and Philip invites her to stay in his property. When he meets her, Philip realizes that she is a beautiful woman and he falls in love with her. Then he believes that his suspicious are unfounded. He also decides to give all the wealth to her expecting to get married with Rachel. But she does not accept to get married and Philip soon gets sick. Is Rachel poisoning Philip or not? Is she guilty or not? "My Cousin Rachel" is an intriguing film where unfortunately there is no answer to the main question: is Rachel guilty or innocent? The direction, screenplay, cinematography and performances are top-notch. Inclusive Burt Lancaster was nominated to the Oscar in the category Best Actor in a Supporting Role and won the Golden Globes Most Promising Newcomer – Male. Olivia deHavilland is also amazing performing an ambiguous character. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Eu Te Matarei, Querida!" ("I Will Kill You, Darling!)

It was probably wise that Garbo elected not come out retirement at age 47 to play Rachel opposite 27-year old Burton. While it would have been an interesting film, the 20-year age difference might have stretched credibility a bit. As it happened, 36-year old De Havilland worked much better. After a three year hiatus following her triumphant Oscar winning turn in "The Heiress," Olivia looked fresh, radiant, and completely on top of her character. In fact, her peerless performance here signaled the end of her "great period," thereafter her interest in films seemed to have gradually declined. In only his sixth film, Burton burst onto the American screen with pent up fire and emotion. This supremely gifted Welsch actor seemed almost too gifted in too many areas, resulting in a personality which demanded constant challenge and involvement. Without such consistencies a self destructiveness could and apparently did occur. It was no surprise that strong spirits entered the scenario as lifelong companion. The film itself is beautifully photographed by Joseph LaShelle, richly scored by Franz Waxman, and romantically directed by Henry Koster from a Nunnally Johnson script-- which was in turn true to Daphne Du Maurier's Gothic novel. The "formless fears" mentioned at the outset paved the way for an intriguing ambiguity running throughout a strange tale of mystery and suspicion. The cast is uniformly fine, and the production is a jewel in Twentieth Century Fox's cinematic crown.

Philip Ashley (Richard Burton) is a brash young man in this Gothic tale. When Cousin Ambrose writes to him that his wife is slowly killing him, he accepts it without question...even though it's very possible Ambrose was not in his right mind. After all, his father died of a brain tumor...perhaps this is causing Ambrose to compose these weird letters. Regardless, Philip is pre-disposed to hate Ambrose's wife, Rachel (Olivia de Havilland). Philip rushes to Italy to see his cousin but the man was dead and buried by the time he arrived. His widow was not there and Philip immediately leaves to return to his estate. Out of the blue, Rachel arrives at Philip's estate soon after this. Inexplicably, he almost immediately likes her and just assumes the letters were the ramblings of a madman. While this could be true, Philip's change of heart betray him as a very immature sort of young man. And, when he falls for Rachel and wishes to marry her, you wonder....is this a marriage made in Heaven or a prelude to his soon descent into Hell? Regardless, it soon becomes apparent that Philip has some serious issues! When Ben Mankiewiecz introduced this film, he indicated that many thought Richard Burton was miscast as Philip because he was too old...though he was only 26. He just happened to look older and the part called for a young many about to turn 25. Burton's performance earned him an Oscar nomination--oddly, for Best Supporting Actor even though he was in every scene and clearly was the star. His performance is full of power and intensity...perhaps too much at times for my taste. This movie is in many ways very reminiscent of the earlier film "Suspicion" which, interestingly, starred de Havilland's sister (Joan Fontaine). It keeps you guessing as to Rachel and her innocence...as well as Philip's sanity. Well made and interesting.