Interpretations of My Cousin Rachel (warning: spoilers)

[iismum]

I watched this yesterday and have been quite surprised about the reviews, particularly from a feminist point of view. Essentially, it seems to be billed as a big mystery - is Rachel an evil manipulating murderer or not? - and the reviews seem to echo that this uncertainty is at the heart of the film.

To me at came across as the story of a spoilt naive man-child who falls in love with a woman, is violently possessive of her, assumes she will fall into his arms and is so astonished when she doesn't that that he assumes this can only be explained by the fact that she is evil, and he then essentially murders her. There is no evidence that any of the suspicions of her are true - in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction. But it doesn't seem to be being interpreted as a story about abuse based on male entitlement, but rather as a delicious mystery where we can never tell whether a mysterious woman is a deadly femme fatale or not (but innocent young men beware! Beautiful women are probably evil (especially if they are a bit older than you)!)

Maybe I'm reading too much into this. It makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. Has anyone else seen it and have thoughts on this?

Now that is not the story that is written in the book. You've really put me off seeing the film. The book is absolutely amazing and you just don't know what really happened.

The man isn't spoilt or entitled at all - quite the opposite.

Interesting. I've never read the book. I think he's hugely entitled and is definitely physically abusive in the film. Films often ditch a lot of the nuance of books.

Clearly they've ditched all nuances!

When you say Philip's entitled, what do you mean? He was happy living a very simple life with his cousin/guardian, Ambrose, before Ambrose went abroad and married Rachel. He was willing to give Rachel everything. How is that entitled?

Not criticising you, here! Just interested in how it played out in the film.

I mean entitled with respect to Rachel. He seems to feel that because he wants her and because he gives her nice things (which she hasn't asked for) he deserves her and to some extent she belongs to him. It's not even that he thinks she should be available to him - he just completely assumes that she is.

He was willing to give her everything on the assumption that she would actually marry him, and so the gesture is less generous than it seems because it reverts to being legally his as soon as she does. When he finds out she doesn't want to marry him he is astonished (even though he'd never asked her) and very quickly shifts from thinking she's perfect to thinking she is evil.

My guess is that it is this shift in attitude that is glossed over too quickly in the film - it is very abrupt in the film and seems to come from him thinking that the fact she doesn't want to marry him means that she has deviously set out to get his money. Except in the film she doesn't really do anything to encourage him to do this, he does it out of the blue (also abruptly!) and seems to feel he is essentially buying her and that she is in the wrong for not upholding her end of the bargain (even though he never spoke to her about any of it and she never agreed to it or asked for it).

It's his first love affair - the first real interest he's had in a woman. He's completely naive. When Rachel sleeps with him, he does make assumptions, yes, but I don't think that was unrealistic of him. He interprets her actions as flirting and love-making. It's the reader's/viewer's job to figure out how justified he was. And some people don't ask for things, but their lovers find themselves giving them things...

I get why he made assumptions - that seems plausible given his naivety- though I still think it's out of order to announce your engagement without ever having mentioned it to your partner! My problem is that when he realises he was mistaken, he is violent (trying to strangle her), assumes that everything bad he's heard about her (however implausible) must be true and then basically murders her.

Men making mistaken assumptions is reasonable. Men putting them blame for this on women and responding violently is not reasonable, even if they are young and naive.

But the first thing she did on waking up was to go and check out the will!

Now that is not the story that is written in the book. You've really put me off seeing the film. The book is absolutely amazing and you just don't know what really happened

The film is very faithful to the book except in relation to the accident which Rachel has. Having seen the film and just re-read the book I'm still no wiser as to what , if anything, Rachel was up to.

But the first thing she did on waking up was to go and check out the will!

Yeah, that's true. I still don't think that's grounds for murdering her. It's not totally unreasonable when you find an important legal document that impacts your life that you go and check it out. It's huge for her - it means she can live an independent life. It wasn't very kind of her to bugger off on his birthday, but I don't see that that's evidence that she's dodgy. She doesn't want to have horrible sex with him and she does want to find out where she stands legally.

Having seen the film and just re-read the book I'm still no wiser as to what , if anything, Rachel was up to.

Yeah, there didn't seem to be even any supposition of what she might be up to, just dark threats about sending money out of the country (which was unsubstantiated and could be perfectly legitimate - e.g., impoverished relatives/connections abroad) and excessive appetites (which just seems to be gossip without any actual evidence). Phillip is originally convinced, and later becomes convinced again, that she murdered Ambrose but there doesn't seem to be any possible motive for that, with the will in her favour unsigned. Without that she was completely dependent on Ambrose being alive.

It seemed to me to be clearly pointing to the fact that she was unfairly maligned by gossip and the suspicions that surround beautiful, independent, sexually active women, and that she was brought to her death by a man's desire to control her.

It is also to conclude that she was poisoning Ambrose.

I don't know if du Maurier researched inheritance law but the idea a spouse would have no claim seems implausible. Most jurisdictions have "legal rights" notwithstanding there is no provision in the will.

The second time they have sex isn't in the book.

I haven't read the book but saw the film last week.
I find it very difficult to believe that a young widow moving in with a single young man wouldn't have caused a huge scandal. Even a young vicar's daughter calling on an unmarried man alone would have been outrageous.

I love a bit of gothic melodrama as much as the next person but that film was just silly.

Most jurisdictions have "legal rights" notwithstanding there is no provision in the will.

That may have been the case in the real world but was definitely not the case in book world. In which case what could her motive for poisoning him have been?

I find it very difficult to believe that a young widow moving in with a single young man wouldn't have caused a huge scandal. Even a young vicar's daughter calling on an unmarried man alone would have been outrageous.

Yes, I thought that was implausible too. Widows had much more leeway given to them than unmarried women, but even so ...

I agree with the basic premise of the OP, the trailers were very misleading. I thought the film was quite clear that Ambrose had become paranoid due to his illness and that Rachel wanted to take Philip to Italy with her, IE was planning to be with him.

I suppose they just have to make it as appealing to the widest audience they can.

I thought the film was quite clear that Ambrose had become paranoid due to his illness

I didn't think it was at all clear. It's not clear in the book either.

and that Rachel wanted to take Philip to Italy with her, IE was planning to be with him nor that.

I thought the film was as ambiguous as the book as to whether Rachel was good or bad.

I didn't think it was at all clear. It's not clear in the book either.

I also think it was clear. There was an autopsy showing death from a cause that clearly explained his strange behaviour and letters. She had nothing to gain from his death and never showed the slightest hint of the extreme, bizarre, deranged behaviour that his letters claimed she was indulging in. The evidence seems to me to point very clearly to someone suffering from extreme paranoia and delusion, caused in this case by the brain tumour. She had no motive and there was no evidence at all out side of the letters.

I thought the film was as ambiguous as the book as to whether Rachel was good or bad.

But the film (I can't speak for the book) presented no evidence at all for her being bad except for the implausible letters from an unstable man on his deathbed and the fact that she didn't want to marry Phillip and showed an interest in her own legal standing when he made his property over to her, both of which I gave every sympathy with and don't see that they suggest she is 'bad'.

Ok, she also initially refused the allowance that he offered her. A woman with no means of support in that era would have been foolish to refuse it, unless she was playing the long game.

And for someone so proud as to refuse the allowance, she seemed pretty happy to accept the inheritance.

And let's not forget that her marriage was very short.

One of my favourite books, so I am keen to see the film.

The trailer is good, though I have never seen a teapot made to look so sinister before.