REVIEW: My Cousin Rachel
I finally got round to watching the new adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's 'My Cousin Rachel' and was pleasantly surprised with how faithful it managed to be to the novel's plot while sprinkling in a few welcomed changes that further challenge the perspective. It's a novel that has always fascinated me since I first read it, I admired du Maurier's bold exploration of female sexuality; her choice to place that sexuality in a position of power was a powerful choice in itself, particularly so during an age where it was too often portrayed from the male perspective.
I think a character like Rachel, is very much a perennial one. She is type of character that can be performed year after year on stage and on screen because the actors that take her on will bring their individuality and with that comes an ability to find an infinite supply of nuances that are yet to be explored. It is for those reasons that Rachel will always tip (but only ever so slightly) to being viewed as either guilty or not guilty through those individual choices that are made. I say "only ever slightly" because ultimately, if the novel is well adapted it still needs to maintain the did she/didn't she mystery. I've always thought that Eva Green would make a great Rachel, I'd imagine it would be a great chance to challenge the femme fatale typecast that she claims she is so tired of being offered in Hollywood....particularly on stage, which apparently happens to be her acting preference these days. It would be too easy and rather uninspiring to categorise and portray Rachel as a femme fatale which has been done before; forever blurring the lines between that archetype and being a victim is what I think makes her character so interesting.
Rachel Weisz was perfect casting, her ability to constantly swing the pendulum between charm and chastising until the very end was brilliantly portrayed. Through her quiet intensity and open vulnerability, she confused me as much as she did Philip Ashley (Sam Claflin) and therein lies the beauty of Roger Mitchell's version. Depending which film poster you have seen advertised before watching it, the villainous vixen set up is not all that it seems....or is it?
Hx
I think a character like Rachel, is very much a perennial one. She is type of character that can be performed year after year on stage and on screen because the actors that take her on will bring their individuality and with that comes an ability to find an infinite supply of nuances that are yet to be explored. It is for those reasons that Rachel will always tip (but only ever so slightly) to being viewed as either guilty or not guilty through those individual choices that are made. I say "only ever slightly" because ultimately, if the novel is well adapted it still needs to maintain the did she/didn't she mystery. I've always thought that Eva Green would make a great Rachel, I'd imagine it would be a great chance to challenge the femme fatale typecast that she claims she is so tired of being offered in Hollywood....particularly on stage, which apparently happens to be her acting preference these days. It would be too easy and rather uninspiring to categorise and portray Rachel as a femme fatale which has been done before; forever blurring the lines between that archetype and being a victim is what I think makes her character so interesting.
Rachel Weisz was perfect casting, her ability to constantly swing the pendulum between charm and chastising until the very end was brilliantly portrayed. Through her quiet intensity and open vulnerability, she confused me as much as she did Philip Ashley (Sam Claflin) and therein lies the beauty of Roger Mitchell's version. Depending which film poster you have seen advertised before watching it, the villainous vixen set up is not all that it seems....or is it?
Hx
RATING
Comments
Post a Comment