"My Cousin Rachel" - BBC 1983 - Part 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 май 2015
- The superb 1983 Masterpiece Mystery adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's "My Cousin Rachel." (To date, unavailable on DVD.)
Rachel - Geraldine Chaplin
Phillip - Christopher Guard
Rainaldi - Charles Kay
Nick Kendall - John Stratton
Louise Kendall - Amanda Kirby
Seecombe - Bert Parnaby
Ambrose Ashley - John Shrapnel
Giuseppe - Michael Mellinger
Directed by Brian Farnham, Teleplay by Hugh Whitemore.Description
Is anyone else watching this, it’s really good.
Español
I watched this as it went out on BBC2 in 1983. It had a very strong effect on me. Maybe as I was 23, similar in age to Philip in the story, but I just could not decide if the worldly wise Rachel was good or evil. I went straight out and bought the book, devoured it and subsequently read Jamaica Inn and Rebecca. Du Maurier is a fantastic storyteller, it’s a shame Hitchcock did not film this novel, it was perfect for him. I know that some modern or non-English viewers find this adaptation to be slow but that is what mid-19th century Cornish life was like. For all his breeding and education, Philip was young, naive and inexperienced, living rurally in Cornwall and so indebted to his much older cousin Ashley.
I agree that Geraldine Chaplin lacks the allure which the character Rachel has in the novel . Olivia De Havilland portrayed her for me in the black and white original film perfectly.
I loved de Havilland but there is a lot of charm in this version too…and Burton was all wrong for Philip, he brought the arrogance in spades but could not bring the naïveté…
I feel bad for all the comments bashing Chaplin just because of her looks, though I do admit De Havilland was a closer match to “book Rachel”…
@@TheYellowBusLifeReset well Rachel was supposed to be beautiful and alluring neither of which miss chaplin is...totally miscast in this role
yes Olivia de Havilland was the perfect Rachel
@@creepycrawlers6950 She is not perhaps a traditionally beautiful woman in an age where beauty stereotypes are rampant but I feel she does have an unusual kind of beauty, the kind that lies in her bones and smoulders in her look. She has cheekbones like knives and that Chaplin agony in the eyes. I agree with you that this was a gigantic miscast tho! Totally as far from the book as you could get.
Have to agree with the negative comments about Geraldine Chaplin as Rachel. I'm distracted by her bony physique...I can almost count her neck vertebrae 😮
She's a Black Widow and I'm still into this story. Can't wait to see the next vid! Thx. Hi from Oz! 👇💜🙃
Thank you for sharing the upload. This movie and the actors are superb. This classic period film is so realistic. I have watched this film so many times.
Brooding atmosphere ... I read this novel only last year and it was classic du Maurier, very sinister and mysterious and leaves the reader guessing ... this seems to be an excellent adaptation. I tend to think that Rachel and her sinister solicitor actually were baddies and murderers, though even the author herself apparently said that she herself wasn't sure whether Rachel was guilty or innocent ... leaves it up to the reader's or viewer's individual judgment ... nicely postmodern.
They could have chosen an actress that looked less like a cardarverous murder victim.
ADRIENNE ALLEN what would have been the point?
Geraldine Chaplin is Charlie Chaplin's daughter.
Whether you like her looks or not, Chaplin is a good actor (like her father). In fact, she looks very like her father--in his younger years he was also small & thin, delicate looking but with strong facial features similar to hers.
A cadaver and a murder victim.. lol
Good night but that's funny 😂 and TRUE.
@@janegarner9169 I disagree - she's the image of her mother.
She's got a somewhat haunted look about her.
Such an unsuitable rachel...
I never read the book but from what I have seen so far, I don't trust this lady. She is a smooth talker.
Like MM ?
charlie chaplin's daughter
@@DH007-w2d 😊
Love 'My cousin Rachel' very much. Watched all 3 versions and the book. I think Rachel's figure in this version is the closest to the description in the book. While her way of portraying Rachel is too tough. Philip in this version is very good and portrays the arrogance and naive part of Philip very well. 1952 version's Rachel is very beautiful, elegant, and feminine, whose temperament is exactly the Rachel in the book. 2017's Philip's acting is excellent and exquisite. Like Philip in this version very much, thus this version is my favorite.
Soon on screens : my cousin Meghan...
There are so many things about this version I don't like. I prefer the film version with the lovely Olivia De Havilland and enigmatic Richard Burton
Oh she’s very good!!! Playing him like a deuce in a poker game. This would have been better if the woman had been more beautiful.
With an american actress...
what does looks have to do with it, you mean it would have been more convincing had the actress been more attractive?? Perhaps you are right it is easier to accept ugly behavior from an unattractive person
We have to remember the times. Women had few skills and had to rely on their beauty and wiles to win a man so that they would have a home and resources.
Still happens. I've heard of an actress, recently...
Rachel as a homely shrew-just doesn’t work.
This should have been good as it's almost a word for word rendition of the book. He is not what I imagined - I had envisaged a more athletic man, but he plays it well and depicts the naive and slightly pompous Phillip perfectly. The skeleton, on the other hand is my TORMENT. Completely miscast - not only is she very unattractive, she has none of the playfulness and charm that makes Rachel so beguiling....I'm not sure I can watch any more!
Where do I get a lil Phillip puppy?
Why don't they ever finish their meals?
Philip was immature, naive, foolish and often quite stupid (as he was in the book and the Hollywood film version). Cousin Ambrose should have designated a conservator until at least age 50. I had a lot of trouble mustering up any sympathy for him. And whose idea was Geraldine Chaplin? Terrible casting.
Funny, 4 years later : my cousin Meg.
Omg her crying is so annoying
Yeah, I've just had to stop watching at that point. She really isn't the right actress for this role.
mscrunchy68 z
G Chaplin has the same horrid smile as her father........I don't think she represents the ideal rachel........
@mariehelenebour …. G Chaplin is the spitting image of her mother!
Who thought of Geraldine Chaplin as Rachel. She looks like an old maid.
She’d be perfect for a starving Irish woman during the famine or some malnourished factory worker. I read the book. Men of Philip’s class went to boarding school, traveled, usually stayed in cities and towns part of the year and ran their estates and had an extensive social life. But Philip didn’t just stayed at home like a small child till he was 25 years old with a guardian.
Rachel must have had a big dowry for her family to arrange a marriage with an Italian nobleman. And as an Italian, not English widow she had community property. So she wasn’t dependent on inheriting her English husband’s property. In the book and movies Phillip is more like a 10 year old than a grown man.
Rachel's character seems incredibly manipulative, everything she does and says seems pre-meditated. I wouldn't trust her, but then again, can't blame any woman in her position.
“You must come for me quickly. She has done for me at last Rachael my torment”. Not sure what to make of it 🧐🤔
SHE IS YOUNG HERE .....BUT HE LOOKS SO MUCH YOUNGER ....JUST MY OPINION..........AT 4:33 THERE WAS A PHALIC SYMBOL ..TO THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN ..?????..
Hard face
Chaplin was 39 years old when she made this film. She has been active since 1952 and as of 2018 she is spectacularly successful. Must have been in 200 films by now. Her daughters are amazingly beautiful. These nasty comments on Geraldine's looks are about what I'd expect from the anonymous haternet.
I only think that Chaplin looks too thin in “My Cousin Rachel”-emaciated. In Doctor Zhivago, she was so young and beautiful-fresh as a springtime flower.
Oh that's good - anonymous haternet. Very funny. Getting a big chuckle all by myself!!😋 💌
Olivia and Richard were so much better in those roles, this movie drags on way too slow.
Chaplin's head looks like a skull
just awful as Rachel
Jay DePalma LMAO
Can a woman not have charisma...as a man does? I find her captivating. Hollywood has conditioned us to have higher than normal expectations for the human race. It's pathetic what we've all come to think of as "normal." The Brits are different...they hire based on talent. No one need be a model. It is not necessary and draws too much attention away from the script.
+misumena True that in britian talent is what matters and actors/actresses look like normal ppl. BUT this Chaplain is too repulsive for even normal person.
I believe that all heads are skulls...
Surely Rachel is a Catholic, not Church of England, having been married to an Italian nobleman previously. And Ambrose, her late husband, was attended on his death bed by nuns. So I don't know why she should be going to church with Philip, unless it's High Anglican and almost Catholic anyway. Just a quibble.
+Highgate Angel Her father was English - wasn't he?
Nevertheless, back then Catholic Mass was conducted in Latin, while the Anglican service was always in English.
Por favor, subtitulen en español, se lo suplico.🙏🙏🙏🙏
A bit too slow for me.
I concur with the majority of the other comments. The lady looked old when she was a young lady. The male lead was un-
dimensional and yelled a lot. Sorry, this was a miss.
GERALDINE CHAPLIN Aa wonderful actress in many films a star in her own rights as the wife of Doctor Zhivago she is suited to this film and is very beautiful but her hair put up like it is makes her face appear thin her cheek bones raised as it is in other actresses when they wear this kind of hairstyle
Very nice
Naw Kieran it was the way it was back then. No paint, wallpaper, nope only stuff that lasts a very long tiime was used, like fire brick on most mansions.x
Why is there a phallic statue in the park.
Everyone has a sacred phallus in one's garden. Doesn't one ?
I think the actors are not at all convincing for the parts, something is not right although in the whole the film is interesting.
The movie with Olivia deHavilland and Richard Burton was perfection, so much better than this version. Remakes are always disappointing to me.
Abigail Spencer is an American actress looks similar to actress playing Rachel.
@30 + minutes in. She was crying like a 3 year old.
My cousin Meg...
I’ve seen several My cousin Racheland still can’t make up my mind if the wife/cousin is in earnest or not
Thinking of Meghan, this...
Wow
A lovely production of a timeless novel! However, like Elizabeth M, I too think, Geraldine Chaplin is terribly miscast- although a fine actress in other roles...
+WKLCreate I am curious...How is Geraldine Chaplin miscast? I have never read the novel.
Greetings! Read the novel and you'll understand... Although Olivia de Havilland played Rachel in the original film version she brought a softness to her beauty that Ms. Chaplin seems to miss, but which is a key point in the book. No criticism here just a preference, leaning towards the image presented in the book...Thank you for your inquiry.
+mother of two - The 1952 movie with Olivia de Havilland and Richard Burton should anser your question more than adequately.
+Hyramess Hiram's Just watched the 1952 version (twice) on Amazon. Hard to beat - a rather unnoticed film way back then, although I believe Richard Burton did get an Academy Award nomination (I think Olivia de Havilland was nominated as well). The older version comes off remarkably well, I think (had a topnotch review from NY Times film critic Bosley Crowther upon its US release), very intelligent screenplay (which follows the book closely), excellent direction, cinematography (though virtually no location filming as far as I know - the Cornish cliffs still look quite convincing), and a haunting, old-timey music score by Franz Waxman. I think the pacing of the '52 version was about right for a 98-minute movie. This television version I find slow, ponderous, and overly strung-out, and the leads have nothing like the acting abilities of Burton snd de Havilland. I very much agree with WKLCreate that Olivia de Havilland had a softness to her beauty in contrast to the hard, chiseled looks of Geraldine Chaplin. I think Ms. de Havilland's characterization of Rachel had a lot of subtlety and depth as well. Audrey Dalton also made a far better Louise than the actress here!
But her acting is perfect.
So many nasty comments about Gerladine Chaplin, I find her rather well suited for a du Maurier story of this kind!
Can’t watch evil black widows
Wayy the crying
Geraldine Chaplin is terribly miscast.
+Elizabeth M i agree and also looks bad
She wasn't pretty enough for the role, so the story doesn't make sense.
I agree
Was it the casting that was so bad, the directing, or both? Philip is completely one-dimensional and overacted. Rachel is a good actor, but so wrong for the part. Good story, but this is hard to watch. The characters do not ring true in the least.
He is being played like a clown, so very naive. If he would have checked himself, she not Once appeared the "Grieving Widow" in the least, that's just a no brainer, etc. I love Daphne Du Maurier's books, but this one was so twisted. I understand it's to keep readers interested, but, My Word, such ignorance crept into her victim characters! It makes one want to scream at the scenes playing out!
Correct me if I am wrong, that makes me think of My Cousin Meghan
Why did they say that she is beautiful?!... She's not at all!
Very nice movie
Why is his black and white horse not shod up?? And the horse's feet are not trimmed correctly! The toes should be trimmed so the horse does not rock back on its heels and go lame. Howcum??!
The problem with this film, in my opinion, is the lack of pacing. There is mis-alignment of dialogue with action, which causes this film to drag. We should only be seeing main characters and supporting players moving around rooms and through gardens and fields, if there is meaning in every movement. I believe the main actor did the best that could be done, with this script and this direction. He had a wonderful, transparent face, with emotions and expressions enhancing the dialogue. Poor direction is the deficiency. This is supposed to be a story with tensions building through layers of mis-trust and mis-understanding. This production is just sleepifying. I can see people getting in and out of beds and lounging in armchairs and eating bowls of soup right here where I live. From this film, I wanted a story.
va rog traduceti in româna
From the comments, classic Jungian projection. Rachel is whatever we are!
No.. because then I'd have to say she's an ugly man pretending to be a lady.. oh wait.. that's what it is..
Really? I do not poison people….
Sorry but that actress can't pass for a woman in her 30s. More like 50s. She has all features of a middle age woman.
'All the features of a middle-aged woman'? If she has wrinkles or sags typical of middle age, they're well hidden to the camera.
There is something odd about her face, as there is with her father Charlie's, especially in his younger years. Till he reached middle age, he was also bone-thin & his prominent facial features seemed stretched too tightly over his skull, his head slightly too large for his body. Charlie Chaplin apparently was quite poor when growing up in England & it seems likely that this contributed to his small size & delicate build, as poverty in youth resulted in Audrey Hepburn's emaciated appearance as well. In fact, there's often this kind of look among those who've had inadequate nutrition during childhood & youth.
30 was middle aged back then.
Chaplin looks more like Phillips mother than his wife. Rich widow from 2 husbands by 30,31. Hmm
Русский
Borinģgggg
Oh dear, this is terrible. The lead actor and actress are all wrong for their roles.
Miscast Anorexic with zero temptress allure.
I think she's a "he" in real life.
Don't be fucking stupid.
Funny you say that. I just thought Juda might be a woman...
Wow