Grab the Lapels

My Cousin Rachel (2017), directed by Roger Michell

Although I haven’t reviewed a movie that is based on a book since Wild (directed by Jean-Marc Vallée) came out in 2014, I plan to explore book/film projects more often in 2020. After reading and enjoying My Cousin Rachel, I headed to the library to check out the 2017 film version, directed by Roger Michell (best known for directing Notting Hill in 1995).

For my thoughts on Daphne du Maurier’s novel My Cousin Rachel, click the book title.

Philip Ashley is played by Sam Claflin (The Hunger Games series, Me Before You). He looks the part, with a boyishly charming face, but loads of passion in his eyes. Rachel Weisz (The Favourite, Constantine, The Mummy series) plays Rachel, recently widowed upon the death of Philip’s cousin. She typically plays serious, thoughtful, rational women, so makes an excellent choice. Weisz looks older in a good way (Philip is 24 and Rachel is 35), which I don’t typically expect Hollywood to get right, what with their desire to portray women as young and sexually available. The casting seemed right, with people looking appropriate for their part (plain faces, no hiding wrinkles, everything appearing correct for the person’s station). And, both leads were English-born (from England!) in a movie set . . . in England! While many actors can pull off a convincing accent, if I know that’s not how they normally sound, I find them distracting (I’m looking at you, Daniel Craig, in Knives Out). Rainaldi was the only character whose accent fails.

The setting was also fitting. Sometimes I wonder if movies set pre-electricity still look a bit too sparkly for folks without vacuums, folks who are making every piece of furniture and clothing by hand. Household items in the Ashley house look appropriately hand-made, just the slightest bit worn after years of use by two bachelors who didn’t believe in cleaning but who had loads of money. Director Michell captures the countryside on a few outdoor shots of Philip riding along the cliffs, so the sense of place is established.

However, someone (okay, it was Roger Michell) screwed with the script. While he most key plot points in du Maurier’s carefully crafted novel, he cuts all the moments in between that hold the story together emotionally, causing me to feel like we were galloping through the book’s plot. I didn’t feel Philip’s slow building respect, admiration, and then love for Rachel like I did in the novel, which may be why Michell added in two sex scenes that likely were short cuts to imply love, but came off as icky. The physical distance between Philip and Rachel in the novel is obvious to the reader (until that one fateful night, that is), but Weisz’s character plants several not-very-maternal kisses on Philip’s lips throughout the film.

As the story rolled along, I felt deeply that Michell gave characters much clearer directions than du Maurier — to the story’s detriment. Louise, Philip’s lifelong friend and girl-next-door, no longer seems like a concerned chum, but someone stirring the pot to make Philip ditch Rachel so Louise’s future won’t be left in the dust. More moments are given to suggesting that Rainaldi is duplicitous, trying to steal Rachel away, only to have the script clear everything up neatly in the end. Basically, instead of letting viewers debate who to trust and what happened, Michell decides for us. His half-attempt at leaving some mystery at the conclusion, as Philip rides along in his carriage, fails to reignite the doubt du Maurier was able to instill in readers from beginning to end, doubt that extended to both Philip and Rachel.

There are other screen versions of My Cousin Rachel, including a 1983 mini-series and Henry Koster’s 1952 version starring Olivia de Havilland and Richard Burton. Perhaps Koster’s movie is more faithful to the source material?

Published by Grab the Lapels

I'm a graduate of the MFA fiction writing program at the University of Notre Dame, which inspired me to follow along with trends in teaching, publishing, and reviewing. I also have an MA and BS from Central Michigan University. I used to teach composition, creative writing, and literature in higher education, then did a brief stint at a civic theater, followed by two years at a references desk at a public library. I'm now working toward my ASL Interpreter license.

16 comments

  1. It’s always so hard to watch a move/show right after reading the book because it makes all the mistakes glaringly obvious. Thankfully (maybe), when I was watching The Witcher, I had read The Last Wish years prior. But, that means it also may have stuck to the story amazingly well and I can’t remember. 😛

    Like

    Reply

    • Yeah, there are just enough differences that the movie spoils the book just the TINIEST bit. Like, the movie is a bit overly-sentimental, so I start to wonder if the novel was as good as I thought. Ain’t nobody got time for that!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. I’m sorry not to have more of interest to say, but I completely agree with your assessment! Every single point! Like you I felt that most of the plot was there piece for piece and yet somehow we didn’t see any proper character development or emotion through it as we did in the novel- your description of galloping through the story is apt. I was also put off by the kisses Rachel gives Phillip in the movie; everything is so direct that the “mystery” feels rubbed in our faces instead of organic. And I hated the alterations to the ending- especially the clarification of Rainaldi’s character, and the tone things are left on with Louise. This was just such a blatant case of the book being better than the film.

    Like

    Reply

    • I love how you wrote “I’m sorry not to have more of interest to say. . .” and then you go on to write an interesting paragraph! 😀

      I think my #1 dislike of the film was actually the kissing. In the book I was so deeply aware of that physical distance. The sex scenes felt like a male director wanted some action in his movie. *sigh*

      Speaking of, Birds of Prey, the new Harley Quinn movie, was written and directed by women. You could really feel it, too, so even though I’m not a comic book superhero fan, I really enjoyed myself!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Lol, while reading your post I was so sure all I was going to have to say was “I agree, I agree, I agree…” luckily I managed not to sound so much like a broken record! 🙂

        But I do agree! Especially about the kissing. The physical relationship between Philip and Rachel seemed so subtle to me in the book, so tantalizingly off the page and yet present in his thoughts, even if unspoken; whereas both of the sex scenes in the movie felt incredibly uncomfortable. The implications were just… too obvious. In the book I loved finding out in other ways that Rachel wasn’t really into it, but in the film it was so clear on her face that she was placating him. Ugh.

        I haven’t seen Birds of Prey yet, but I really want to! I don’t keep up with ALL of the superheroes but I do love a good comic book film. I’m so excited about that one! I’m glad you liked it!

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  4. Oh Lord I HATED Daniel Craig’s accent in Knives out-what a joke. But I loved the rest of the movie, so well done!

    I think I’d like to read this book by DuMaurier some day, I may be on a classics kick haha

    Like

    Reply

  5. Well that’s a disappointment. I usually prefer newer movies to older ones because the quality is better. So maybe I’ll just read the book and skip the movie.

    Like

    Reply

Insert 2 Cents Here: