My Cousin Rachel Book vs Movie 🫖who is the real villain??

[@detectivedaffodil437]

It was creepy Louisa's smile at the end but a great twist if she was shady as well.

[@LucyLioness100]

I never watched the original version with Olivia DeHaviland, but it’s supposed to be an ok adaptation. I did watch the remake from 2017 & thought Rachel Weisz was perfect for the title character and also like Sam Claflin as Philip. The book is also a good read and I love the ambiguity DeMaurier uses for the narrative. And we never truly know if Rachel was a manipulative killer or just an innocent lady who happens to be secretive

[@WhytheBookWins]

Yeah I agree the casting was excellent! I want to watch the original adaptation but haven't gotten around to it.

[@Whitestripe71]

This is fabulous, Laura, I loved it! I'm so thrilled that you chose my suggestion, so thank you! I will leave a longer comment later sharing my own thoughts about the book and film and some of the points you make, but for now I just wanted to thank you for (wisely) picking my (excellent) suggestion!

[@aliliv9384]

I agree with you the movie atmosphere could be more gothic. I love the themes and how women generally are viewed and how assumptions can spiral into something dangerous. Personally I think Rachel just wanted to be left alone and these men just keep bothering her peace just for Rachel. I give Louise the side eye cause if you really look at it you can see how her advising really helped escalate the situation.

[@WhytheBookWins]

Yeah, the movie made me start to question Louise more, but I want to like her haha. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[@isabelnoyer5893]

Fantastic video as always. Your commentary is always on point! :)

[@WhytheBookWins]

Thank you!! 😁

[@krosewall]

The 1952 version of My Cousin Rachel with Richard Burton and Olivia de Havilland is worth a look, its on youtube.

[@WhytheBookWins]

Yeah I definitely want to watch that one!

[@filmlover123]

Great video! I love both the book and film. Regarding the bridge element in the book, I seem to remember it was set up very early on, with details about the construction and ongoing work. Also, I'm currently at work in a college and very few people are around, but someone down the hall just repeatedly shouted "RACHEL!!!"

[@WhytheBookWins]

Oh good to know, this book definitely deserves a re-read so I will look out for talk of the bridge on a second read! And that's quite the coincidence 😆

[@Whitestripe71]

Thanks again for picking my suggestion and I think you’ve done a great job with this video! I’ve watched it twice and I appreciate the work you’ve put into it. I like the way you’ve edited stills from the film into video - it helps bring alive what you’re talking about, very nicely done. I think I enjoyed those stills more in this video than I did in the actual film! To be honest, I could write an essay about the book, but that would bore you to death! So I am going to try and keep this as short as possible, but I am going to share a few thoughts I have about both the book and the film, and I apologise in advance if this comment turns out to be a little too much on the long side. (spoiler alert: it does turn out to be too much on the long side. I'm sorry!) You know I love this book. I love everything about it, but one thing I find remarkable is how well du Maurier crafts the ambiguity which permeates the entire novel - it’s so skillfully done, so layered and full of subtleties and nuances. Everyone who reads it can come away with their own interpretation of what happened - and each reading, each interpretation, is perfectly valid - it’s like there are multiple novels co-existing simultaneously within a single book! When I finished it I felt a feeling of awe for du Maurier and what she achieved with this book. I have far more sympathy for Rachel than you do! Numerous times you refer to her as being ‘manipulative’ and ‘untrustworthy’, but I didn’t think she was at all! I would argue that there’s no real objective evidence anywhere in the book of her being manipulative - certainly not in the mercenary way that Philip often suspects. I think she does toy with Philip’s affections in an irresponsible way at times, but that’s something different. And we only ever see her through Philip’s eyes - and Philip is, as you say, possessive, jealous, infatuated. An archetypal unreliable narrator. At times the novel could feel almost claustrophobic to me - because I felt trapped in Philip’s subjective point-of-view, and I wanted to break free of it - of him - and see Rachel, not through his eyes, but for who she really is. (This isn’t a criticism - I think it’s part of the novel’s brilliance.) My reading of the story is that Ambrose definitely, unequivocally suffered from a brain tumour - his physical and mental deterioration is entirely consistent with this. I also believe that he and Rachel genuinely loved each other. I don’t believe Rachel is a ‘poisoner’ - however I do believe it’s possible she was giving him some concoctions towards the end of his life that might expedite his death, to put him out of his misery; an act of mercy. I’ll come onto the end in a minute, but I want to say a little about the film first. I didn’t like it very much at all! You seemed to enjoy it far more than I did, although we do have some similar problems with it - namely with the pacing. You said it at times it felt ‘choppy’ and ‘rushed’ - this was exactly my problem with it. Throughout the whole film, the pacing felt off to me, moving too rapidly from scene to scene, not giving any moment the room to breathe it needed. I also didn’t think it was a particularly well written film, and the way the film was directed was at times a little baffling to me - more about style rather than substance. I did think the cinematography was good, though, and some scenes were undeniably beautifully shot. Thinking back on the film now, I feel a little bit more favourably towards it. I don’t think it’s a ‘good’ film, but it has its moments. I have a feeling that if I watched it again, I might like it more, but for me it’s at best a two-star film, and if I’m feeling extremely ungenerous, it’s a one-star film. Seeing the stills from it in your video has made me feel warmer towards it! You are making me feel more positively towards the film! - to be honest, the cinematography is the one thing I unequivocally enjoyed about the film - and some of the acting. It’s everything else about it that I didn’t much care for. So, the ending. The film changes the ending, and I can sort of understand why they made that choice, because it perhaps does suit the film more. But I absolutely prefer the ending in the book, and it’s the book I’m referring to from here on in. I have my own particular interpretation of the ending, and of the novel as a whole, that you might vehemently disagree with, but here’s what it is: You said it felt ‘unsubtle’ and ‘shoehorned in’ when Philip was told by the gardener that the bridge was unsafe. I think you said you expected better from du Maurier and would’ve preferred had it been introduced more subtly - something like that. I would argue that it’s written the way it is deliberately - it’s deliberately blunt and unsubtle. It’s completely at odds with the rest of the novel. The rest of the novel is shrouded and layered in ambiguity. But that moment is not ambiguous at all. When Philip directs Rachel towards that bridge he does so with the obvious intention of her dying. It’s where the novel’s ambiguity ends and we are faced with a stark ugly reality - a man bringing about a woman’s death. And Rachel’s last word, if I remember correctly, was ‘Ambrose’. To me, it’s a clear indication that she loved him. In a novel filled with ambiguity, the one incontrovertible fact is that Philip caused Rachel’s death - intentionally caused her death. Yet everyone comes away from this book talking about how ‘manipulative’ Rachel is - is she just after Philip’s money? Is she a poisoner? - yet no one comes away from it talking about how Philip, effectively, killed her. And I think this is deliberate from du Maurier - it’s why I’m so in awe of her. She wrote a novel in which a man killed a woman, yet readers come away from it questioning the motives and the actions of the woman who was killed, rather than condemning the man responsible for her death. I think she was making a point, and I think she made it in such a masterful and genius way, that I am, as I said, in awe of her. I see Rachel as pretty much an innocent throughout the whole book. I don’t think she ever had mercenary or malign motives towards Ambrose or Philip. I think maybe she toyed with Philip a little - she's not perfect. But for me the book is more about Philip than Rachel - his inadequacies, failings, insecurities, immaturity, as well as his jealousy and possessiveness, and his paranoia, his wounded male pride, and ultimately his violence. But this is just my interpretation of the book. Like I said at the beginning of this, everyone comes away from it with their own interpretation, and this is mine. I am so, so sorry about long this comment is! Thank you again for choosing my suggestion and making such a terrific video. It felt odd being called ‘whitestripe’! I think I’d forgotten that was my username! My real name is David! So allow me to say hello to you properly using my real name: Hi, Laura! Thanks for this video, and thank you for all your videos! And I think this book is a masterpiece - a definite 5-star book for me.

[@WhytheBookWins]

Oh wow! You make such great points! I love what you said about how finding out about the bridge is meant to be obvious to juxtapose the ambiguity with Rachel's intentions. And so true that Philip is clearly a murderer, and yet people leave the book thinking about Rachel being evil. I also think it's interesting how Ambrose says how money is the way to Rachel's heart because so often we hear that of women. Being golddiggers and all that, but back then the only way a woman could become rich was if she married rich! So people shouldn't blame the women but instead should blame society. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, I loved your insight and you have me changing some of my thoughts on this one! Thanks again for making such a great suggestion! Glad you enjoyed my video!

[@Whitestripe71]

@@WhytheBookWins Thanks, Laura. I was worried that my comment was far, far too long and I almost didn't post it, but I thought, what the heck! Given that this book vs movie was my suggestion, and you'd made such a terrific video, I thought it wouldn't be inappropriate to share some of my own thoughts about it - and it's such a fascinating book to discuss! Interesting that you read from the Sally Beauman foreword - do you know she wrote a sequel to Rebecca? - called Rebecca's Tale. I read it - about 15 yrs ago - and it is sitting on my bookshelf. I remember enjoying it at the time but I don't remember anything about it! If I reread Rebecca at some point - which I may well do - I might reread that too. And I've recently bought Jamaica Inn - so I expect to read that at some point in the coming months. I've only read Rebecca & My Cousin Rachel, so there's lots more of du Maurier for me to discover.

[@WhytheBookWins]

@Whitestripe71 oh that's interesting about the Rebecca sequel! I'll will have to read that one! And yeah I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts!

[@detectivedaffodil437]

Wow this is a brilliant review ! But we can't say she was innocent if she took all of Philip's money? But i agree , it's overlooked that Philip sort of wanted to kill Rachel.

[@marti9734]

I dont understand how a woman like Rachel would fall in love with someone like ambrose

[@triumphbobberbiker]

Rachel's ambiguity is set from the very start - and is based on stereotypes the author knew would work unfailingly - as we are told early on in the story that she's half-English (good) and half-Italian (evil)

[@marti9734]

THIS all that "ShEs a ReAl EngLish WoMan" talk to dismiss her italian heritage🤡

[@cwbrooks5329]

Super enjoyable -- Liked and Subscribed. I love the book and enjoy both movie versions for different reasons. The Burton/de Haviland version is definitely a classic gothic -- it feels very Wilkie Collins, and the '17 obviously has more of a feminist sensibility -- and I'm okay with that because it makes sense within the time/context of the story. I have to say I do LOVE the ending of the '17 movie -- it's obvious everything has worked out EXACTLY the way Louise and her father had always hoped/planned -- as Phillip himself tells us early on in the movie -- and I have to say that I so underestimated Louise and took her at "pretty but simple" face value that I never saw that twist coming. The other thing to think about -- always -- is Du Maurier's weird jealousy of Jeannette Ricardo. It's obvious from the physical description of Rachel that "Jan" is again the model here -- as she was for Rebecca. It's as if Du Maurier can't let go of her beautiful nemesis, and is maybe trying to figure out if she is truly evil or if it's just the insecurities of her own mind. Just sayin'.

[@WhytheBookWins]

Thanks for commenting! I had never heard of Jeannette Ricardo and now I need to go read up on her and Du Maurier! And thanks for subscribing :D

[@bruh_hahaha]

I don’t believe Rachel was guilty of anything, Philip is obviously sheltered, impulsive and prone to jump conclusions. The poisoning letters from Ambrose are a red herring. He was suffering from a brain tumor during his last months so his perception of reality was skewed. I felt bad for Louise the whole time, having to witness her love Philip fawning and obsessing over another woman.

[@WhytheBookWins]

Yeah, this book is so fantastic!

[@detectivedaffodil437]

It's so interesting that Du maurier choose to leave it ambihous whether or not Rachel was a bad person. As in she doesn't make it clear if she killed Ambrose and was trying to kill Philip or not.

[@WhytheBookWins]

Yeah, I love that!

[@user-yd7je9pl3d]

I like that Phillip’s birthday is April 1st, April Fool’s Day - implying that he is a fool. Whether this is either him being a fool for mistrusting Rachel or a being taken for a fool I’m not sure.

[@WhytheBookWins]

So true!

[@theealiennreview6912]

Idk I think Rachel was bad news tbh lol

[@WhytheBookWins]

That's what makes the book so good! People can have such a variety of opinions on Rachel! This would be a great book club book to read for that reason.

[@christinejoystaber8337]

Your review was not fair to the book. The book is so much different than the second movie with Rachel Weise, which basically is typical Hollywood rewrite of a beautiful novel. In my opinion, the first movie with Richard Burton and the beautiful Olivia de Havilland left much to your own imagination as to having sex or not I never was sure, and that was part of a mystery of the book and the movie. In the ending of the latest version of the book it is never anywhere implied in the book. I greatly disliked the second movie with Rachel Weise and regret spending $3.47 to watch it.

[@WhytheBookWins]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!