Was she innocent or guilty? - My Cousin Rachel (1954) Discussion

I always thought she was guilty.

Nina

reply

I think innocent of murdering Ambrose -- but I think she may have deliberately strung Philip along, making him fall in love with her so he'd shower gifts and money on her.

reply

[–] ClassicAndForeignFilmLover 17 years ago

Not only gifts and money, the house and everything he owned, which he put on her name due to her manipulations. She first made him believe she´d marry him and once he signed the will on her name she no longer wanted to. And what did she intend to do with those poisonous seeds that Philip found sealed hiding under a frame in one of her chest drawers? He thought she wanted to kill him. Right after that, he allows her to walk to the garden where he´s instructed not to get close until they finish the construction work.
And are you sure that she is not responsible for Philip´s illness and that when she later helps him recover is not a mere pose to make it look that she has good intentions towards him? I have to see the movie again to figure it out.

reply

[–] ClassicAndForeignFilmLover 17 years ago

Rachel did not throw her tea away, she throws his. She throws it because he doesn´t want to drink it and she says she has her own tea to drink, which is made to her liking. We don´t know if she could have poisoned his tea, what we know is that he made an attempt (we see him maneuvering with his hand before she serves the tea) to pour one of the poisonous seeds --from the tree in his garden-- into the cup that he has asked her to drink, which she then rejects to drink.

By the way, what cable did you get to see this movie and when?

reply

[–] bgh48 17 years ago

I see it always on the Fox Movie Network. I'll have to see it again. She threw his cup away, not hers? Didn't Burton's financial advisor say something about how there are cerain women in the world who are basically good but seem to causse destruction around them, or something to that effect? Obviously he is talking about Rachel. So was she just a wordly wise woman trying to cope with the jealousies and idiosyncracies of men in that day and age, and not really evil? de Havilland is such a brilliant actress, the nuances she brings to this role, (as she does all her roles), is just fascinating.

reply

[–] ClassicAndForeignFilmLover 17 years ago

I am positive that it is his cup of tea she throws away (since he refuses to drink it and passes it on to her when she has her own to drink). I have taped the movie and carefully watched that scene again after my first viewing on Jan 16.
Yes, RB´s fin adviser says "some women through no fault of their own seem to invite tragedy wherever they go" (quoted from the book, I don´t know if the script uses the same exact words).
The truth about Rachel´s ambivalent character seems to be a mystery. The movie gives you mixed messages about whether she is guilty or innocent making it impossible to be completely sure one way or the other. I don´t think it´s intended for anyone to draw an assertive conclusion about it, which I personally find so frustrating. As a matter of fact, in the final scene of the movie RB´s character refers to this dilemma as a haunting issue that he will have to deal with the rest of his life (actually passing it on to our lives as well! :))
BTW, please let me know when the movie shows in Fox Movie Channel, which is not part of my cable package but I´ll have someone tape it for me when it shows again. The recording I have is from AMC´s airing, which trims the film for about five minutes. I´d love to see those missing minutes!

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bgh48 17 years ago

We can probably both look on the Fox Movie Channel website to see if and when it's coming up; unfortunately my Sunday t.v. newspaper section doesn't list FMC films.

They must have their own website; I'll take a look at it now.

I agree it's frustrating we don't know Rachel's true character but I think that's the real mystery. I will enjoy seeing it again.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dreamonforever1 17 years ago

part of what makes the story (including the resolution) good (and acceptable) is the ambivalence you may feel about rachel. even at the very end, she's a mystery. maybe whether she's "innocent or guilty" is the question we should be asking; but enjoy the fact du maurier (and the filmmakers) were able to create a character as multi-dimensional as rachel. note: i wouldn't want to have been philip - as far as his relationship with rachel goes (l.o.l.)

gregory 051607

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 14 years ago

I've seen it only once but I didn't hear Philip to well when he was reading the letter in the end. Can someone fill me in? Does she refer to him as a sick boy?

As for throwing the poisonous seeds into the cup, we see Philip take something off his sleeve, we assume it might be 1 of the seeds he found but I watched him & I didn't see him put anything into the cup. The cup was out of his reach, he couldn't have put anything on there, & even if he did, it would've been the seeds from her drawers.

OPEN YOUR EYES! dailymotion.com/video/xbi2hi_1993-chandler-molestation-extortion_news

reply

[–] AZINDN 16 years ago

Rachel throws away Philip's tea, not hers because he doesn't want to drink it, a somewhat insult to her and very rude. She's already made her cup when the tray is brought out to the garden. I don't think she tries to poison him because she also shows Louise how to brew the tissano for Philip. Leaving him a caddy with the ingredients for her special brew was a very elegant gift in those days. Any tea or beverage that had to be imported was very expensive at that time. In fact, most tea caddy's were locked to keep the servants from stealing the contents and each lady had her special mixtures which she would serve guests, mixing herself and then pouring. Such are the manners of the 19th century genteel class and the duties of a true elegant lady.

-- If Ewan McGregor were a lollipop I'd be a diabetic strumpet --

reply

[–] ClassicAndForeignFilmLover 16 years ago

AZINDN, your entire comment about the caddy being expensive and that it used to be locked to keep the servants from stealing the contents makes me think that what Philip finds hiding under a frame in one of Rachel´s chest drawers are not the garden´s poisonous seeds but simply the caddy that you are talking about. I couldn´t have arrived to that conclusion without knowing what you let us know about the importance of caddies in those times. Thank you. In spite of this, we do have to point out that Philip did think Rachel had poisoned the tea she offers him to drink and that´s why he allows her to walk into her own death. I should see the film again. I haven´t seen it since it played in AMC in Jan 2006. It´s a wonderful thriller with a superb cast by de Havilland and Burton.

¨I hate you so much that I would destroy myself to take you down with me.¨

reply

[–] Doylenf 14 years ago

She threw his tea away because, as she says, "Mine is already poured and flavored to my taste."

I don't think the riddle of whether she's innoent or guilty is ever really solved. Whatever, she was not exactly admirable by staying on at Philip's estate until she had the whole estate in her name. Or was she truly so fond of him that she wanted to stay on until he was completely well again. That would mean she never did try to poison him. That's something the screenplay doesn't address. Like Philip, we can never be sure of her motives. That's what makes the story so fascinating. De Havilland and Burton were perfect for their roles.

"Somewhere along the line, the world has lost all of its standards and all of its taste."

reply

[–] Regina_Giddens 14 years ago

I also always thought she was guilty.

If you want to make a song more hummy, add a few tiddely poms.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 14 years ago

I don't think it was admirable of her to acquire & accept it either, & her smug remark afterwards shows her bad character IMO.

OPEN YOUR EYES! dailymotion.com/video/xbi2hi_1993-chandler-molestation-extortion_news

reply

[–] heyteegs (1207) 3 years ago

She also has a smirk when he tells her the estate would be hers and they were on the rocks and she said something like 'hold me to keep me warm'.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 14 years ago

I think she's guilty definitely! The coincidences are too consistent for her not to be:

-both Ambrose & Philip suffer through a similar almost instantaneous sickness
-she served both of them a special drink
-the poisonous seeds were found both in Italy in her villa & in the estate in England
-she disappears right after Ambrose dies
-Ambrose was suspicious of her & didn't sign a will for her
-she goes to England to seduce young Philip (kissing him on the lips, wearing her nightgown in front of him, putting her hair down, being in each other's bedroom well past nighttime, let alone just being in the other's bedroom), once she gets everything from him, she rejects him
-her money disappearing out of the country for whatever reason
-she throws away the special drink of Philip when he asks her to drink it instead
-she continued to give him the special drink even when she's away to avoid suspicion
-her reaction to 'her house & her servant' almost as soon as Philip gives it to her, no modesty or shame whatsoever
-her relationship with Rinaldo is questionable
-the poisonous seed were kept in her drawer, no doubt he special ingredient used for both Ambrose & Philip
-Philip assumes she makes him a promise of marriage on the eve of his bday, he continues to assume they were married on his bday after his sickness because in his mind, they were joined in matrimony that night. They had 'sex', & sex equated to a union, a union to be bonded in marriage ONLY. & yet she rejects him a few hours later, hence his confusion.
-Philip is a healthy young man who never got sick in his life. As soon as she gets there he has headaches, is sick, a fever, etc. I don't think he ever had meningitis, it was the poison she gave him.

OPEN YOUR EYES! dailymotion.com/video/xbi2hi_1993-chandler-molestation-extortion_news

reply

[–] loredanaghidarcea 13 years ago

why are we so sure those were poisonous seeds? Philip believes it but he's certainly confused and misguided by so many things I'd hardly call him trustworthy. They might have been simple plants used for tea. We know she likes to make it and prides herself on her "special teas" so finding plants in her room wouldn't be all that strange, would it?

I agree that her behaviour towards Philip was manipulating and untruthfull. She wanted his money, not his heart but that doesn't make her guilty of murder.

But then again we can't really know for sure ... it's just my opinion.

ask the spokesperson, I don't have a brain

reply

[–] KayDrama 10 years ago

In addition to the list of suspicious behavior listed above, recall that Guido (Rachel's "friend") is the one who casually leaked to Philip that Ambrose prepared a will leaving everything to Rachel but became too sick to sign this will that Quido and Rachel burned. The revelation of this second will makes Phillip begin to think it was Ambrose's wish that Rachel have the estate.

reply

[–] petrelet 7 years ago

But if she poisoned Philip, why didn't she kill him off and why did she do a medical procedure on him? Or at any rate why did she stop poisoning him? She had the whole estate at that point, and nobody was suspicious of her. An answer like "it was to convince him of her good intentions" isn't enough, because she didn't need his good intentions any more. HALF murdering him makes no sense!

I think she was selfish and conniving, but murderous? I'm kind of skeptical.

reply

[–] bpollen 10 years ago

I think she was guilty. Too many little things indicating deception, and not enough things clearing her, when there was a chance to be cleared, like in the tea incident.

The fact is that she ended up with more property as time went on, through her own actions, without actually having to give anything up or away, and others came away feeling deceived but not being able to prove it. That adds up to guilt, IMO.

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

bgh48 says > Why did she throw her tea away??

I think Rachel threw away Philip's cup of tea because it was her 'special' mixture made especially for him. His was made with those mind-altering seeds that were found both in the garden on the estate and at her Italian villa.

She used that tea on both Ambrose and Philip to confuse and control them. Her goal was to achieve exactly what she was able to achieve with Philip; transfer of the estate and all assets into her name.

She leaves the tea behind and instructs him to continue having it on a daily basis. In this semi-conscious state, she could do what she wanted and needed to do without raising any suspicion. Ambrose was under the effects of the tea when he tried to contact Philip. Philip was under the effects of the tea when he succumbed to Rachel's charms. He thought a lot more was going on between them than actually was.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[–] MurphyGobeau 8 years ago

I watched "My Cousin Rachel" for the first time a few hours ago on Turner Classic Movies (7/22/2016) and now I can't stop thinking about it. What an intricate story! I tend to believe that Rachel was guilty for all of the reasons listed above. How I wish someone would ask Olivia de Havilland if SHE thought that Rachel was innocent or guilty!

reply

[–] LincolnMarkV 8 years ago

I know...Olivia's still alive and 100 years old so perhaps she can be asked. I first saw this movie a zillion years ago when I was a teenager and loved it. It's hardly ever shown, and when I caught it again last night on TCM it's still every bit as good as I thought. I also read the book. I think the fascination is entirely due to the fact that you DON'T know whether she was evil or good. I keep wavering back and forth. She was an older woman-of-the-world to Phillip's youthful rash smitten-ness (to coin a word)...still beautiful, slightly mysterious, and yet so wonderfully kind. She doesn't want to marry him, or take advantage of his youth. And don't forget, before she leaves for Italy, she has returned all the jewels to the estate. So she's innocent. But then again, is she?

reply

[–] jeannash8-1 8 years ago

I've read two biographies of Daphne du Maurier, who wrote the book, and she claimed in both of them that Rachel was guilty.

reply

[–] jrhpax 8 years ago

Of course Rachel was guilty. She had poisonous seeds locked in a drawer of her room. What more evidence does a viewer want?

reply