Mi prima Raquel

Thanks to Hitchcock, Daphne Du Maurier has rightfully gained recognition as a talented narrator. After having seen Birds and Rebecca I was immediately curious to find out what the actual books were like. The film Birds, of course, is based on a short story and yet this short piece of writing has had an immense influence on many other novelists and filmmakers. Rebecca is still a great read and a capitivating movie after more than 60 odd years. However, other works by Du Maurier that have been made into a movie or a mini-series have not done successfully at all, yet the material itself is just as mesmerizing as Birds and Rebecca. My cousin Rachel is one such example. True, the plot is not as nerve-wrecking as Birds nor Rebecca but the characters and the themes are just as interesting and memorable. The mini-series with an excellent perfromance by Geraldine Chaplin as the female protagonist, is a wonderful adaptation of the novel. Set and filmed in Cornwall, with its haunting atmosphere, the 3 hour viewing goes by quickly as we get a realistic taste of life of England's Riveria. If you enjoyed Birds and Rebecca you'll certainly enjoy My cousin Rachel!

This BBC version of My Cousin Rachel is part of numerous versions of the book by Daphne du Maurier. I recently watched the first adaptation(1952) starring Richard Burton and Olivia de Havilland as Rachel.

Its's not bad but it didn't catch the essence of the novel.

De Havilland didn't make a convincing Rachel. Her, Rachel, was too sweet and placid.

This version is not perfect, but it is good. However, the first episode drags. The first half of the second episode is rather droll. Once, Cousin Rachel (Geraldine Chaplin) appears the storyline gets moving. The third episode is the best. The fourth episode is okay, though, there is an illness induce delusion that was too long.

Christopher Guard who played Philip Ashley, talked in a loud voice for most of the time. His acting style was tiresome and annoying.

I do commend Chaplin's performance. She played Rachel as I remember her in the book. Rachel was an enigma. Was she really an innocent woman who is misunderstood and mistreated by men or a cold and calculating shrew?

Overall, there are dull moments, some scenes with Philip lasted longer than it should and a great performance by Chaplin.

I found this version on the Internet Archives.

GERALDINE CHAPLIN plays the ambiguous title role in this TV mini-series from the Daphne du Maurier novel about a young man's obsession for an older woman of mystery. Is she angel or sinner? The question is never really resolved--du Maurier herself claimed she didn't know the answer, so she left her story open-ended. However, that's not the fault of the TV version starring Chaplin. It's dull and lifeless, despite some authentic settings and a competent British cast.

As the young man torn by suspicion, CHRISTOPHER GUARD is no match for the actor who played the role in the big screen version--Richard Burton--who was immediately signed by Fox and began his American screen career with an Oscar nomination. Nor is the rest of the cast as tidy as the one in Fox's superior production. The pace is sluggish before the story gathers any real interest.

For a more concise telling of the tale, I suggest watching the 1953 movie starring Olivia de Havilland, who had the warmth, elegance and special kind of beauty for the part that the role of Rachel requires. Miss de Havilland was always good at suggesting the darker side beneath a portrait of a seemingly charming woman who may or may not be a murderess intent on becoming a wealthy widow. And the film itself, was played in the grand British manner required by the Gothic melodrama of the tale with the Burton/de Havilland relationship completely believable since they were perfectly cast.