My Cousin Rachel is ambiguity incarnate.

A masterfully constructed tale (by the dark authoress of Rebecca), that is now masterfully crafted into a movie by none other than director Roger (Changing Lanes) Michell. Are you willing to embrace ambiguity? I'm still guessing! *A*

Here's a great interview with director Roger Michell about My Cousin Rachel, though I strongly recommend you don't read it until you've seen the movie (or read the novel).

This plays very similarly to the Richard Burton/Olivia de Havilland version from 1952; there is a sex scene here which would have given '50s audiences seizures, but is decidedly chaste by today's standard. My response to this adaptation is similar to how I feel regarding the older one: it is well-acted (particularly by Rachel Weisz) and atmospheric; involving without ever being electrifying; a modest story of desire and suspicion in a well-appointed country estate.

I have not read the novel, but in both films I lean toward Rachel being at least partly sinister. Too many details strain credulity for me if she is innocent: Ambrose's fearful letters would need to be entirely attributed to brain-tumor-induced delusions, for example, and it would have to be a coincidence how the protagonist's health worsens just as he begins consuming more of Rachel's special tea. Though I admit the alternative is provocative, the idea of her "evil" being entirely dependent on the present mood of an inexperienced, naive man with a crush.

B

This was pretty enjoyable. Weisz and Claflin were really good.

7/10 (B)

That is certainly one interpretation, but as you say they may "be entirely attributed to brain-tumor-induced delusions" and as they worsen his concerned bride gives him more traditional Italian herbal medicine of the era.


You appear to be missing the conclusion to this last thought.