Monthly Archives: March 2013

My Cousin Rachel

To see Richard Burton in “My Cousin Rachel” (20th Century Fox, 1952) is to understand why, for so many years, he was one of the most famous men on the planet. After “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” Burton made a series of depressingly terrible pictures, and was often as bad as or worse than the bum material he appeared in. But his Hollywood career began auspiciously in 1952, when he starred as Philip Ashley opposite Olivia de Havilland (as Cousin Rachel) in this Cornish gothic mystery. He’s superb in “My Cousin Rachel” — it’s a real star-making performance. And he certainly never looked better.

Richard Burton as Philip Astley:  So that's what all the fuss was about.

Richard Burton as Philip Ashley: So that’s what all the fuss was about.

The picture is based on Daphne du Maurier’s best-selling novel and is in every way superior to “Rebecca,” with which it has much in common.  Both stories are full of ambiguity and miscommunications, and both are set on the blustery coast of Cornwall. But “My Cousin Rachel” is murkier, more mysterious and has a greater sense of mounting dread, doubt, suspense and episodes of delirium (what used, in Russian novels, to be translated as “brain fever”). Brain fever is what “My Cousin Rachel” is all about.

In “Rebecca,” suspense and mystery are created by withholding essential pieces of information from the audience until the end. Were that information known in advance, the story would lose most (though certainly not all) of its interest. “My Cousin Rachel” is different: when Cousin Rachel enters the life of the high-strung young Philip Ashley, he believes she is responsible for the death of his beloved guardian, Cousin Ambrose; for the rest of the story, we must try to determine whether she’s a cunning villainess or the near-saint that she appears to be . . .  Whether this question can be answered remains for the viewer to decide, but whatever the answer is, the mystery remains full of ambiguity and dark corners.

Burton, de Havilland:  Sweet Rachel

Burton, de Havilland: Sweet Rachel

de Havilland, Burton:  Evil Rachel

de Havilland, Burton: Evil Rachel

Here’s how the picture opens. These first few minutes should give you a clear sense of what the rest of the picture is like.

As a character, Rachel is full of surprises — alternately loving and peremptory, compliant and steely.  De Havilland navigates the contradictions with ease and skill. She’s not a particularly exciting actress, but there’s real pleasure in watching her handle difficult material so gracefully and intelligently.

Olivia De Havilland, Audrey Dalton, Richard Burton:  Rachel, my torment; what is she up to?

Olivia de Havilland, Audrey Dalton, Richard Burton: Rachel, my torment; what is she up to?

The screenplay is by Nunnally Johnson; it’s one of his best scripts and is notably faithful to the novel. Johnson was an extremely prolific writer and producer, so his work is very uneven. Much of what he did is not much better than hack work, but I’m a fan of his, partly because he was known to be a very witty fellow, which goes a long, long way with me. The novelist Frederic Wakeman (“The Hucksters”) was in Johnson’s office one day when Johnson’s secretary buzzed to say that legendary Broadway producer/son of a bitch Jed Harris was on the wire.  “Shall I say you’re in?” she asked.  Johnson considered the matter for a long time. “Well,” he said slowly, “if I take the call, he’ll invite himself to dinner. At dinner he’ll insult Alice, and I’ll order him out of the house. But he’ll go into the kitchen where Alice is crying and turn her against me. So the real problem is, Do I want to divorce Alice?” After another pause, he answered, “Tell him I’m out of town.”

Two Styles of Acting in ‘Old Acquaintance’

 

Old Acquaintance:  The sublime and the ridiculous.

Old Acquaintance: The sublime and the ridiculous.

“Old Acquaintance” (Warner Bros., 1943) is an uneven picture that stars Bette Davis and Miriam Hopkins. Half of it is civilized, well-bred comedy; half of it is a combination of kitsch, trash and camp. Davis is the civilized half; Hopkins is the other. At no point does Bette Davis lower herself for a cheap laugh; at no point does Hopkins rise to play an honest emotion.

The action of the play takes place in November and December of 1940; for the movie version of John Van Druten’s hit play, director Vincent Sherman ordered new scenes (Van Druten did the screenplay with Lenore Coffee) to show how the two starring characters’ friendship played out over the course of some twenty years. From the looks of it, the picture must have been shot more or less in chronological order: in the early scenes (i.e., those cooked up for the picture), the staging is imaginative and there’s a lot of action. But halfway through, when the original material takes over, Sherman seems to lose interest. He stages entire scenes as alternating close-ups.  Compare similar confrontations between Davis and de Havilland in John Huston’s “In This Our Life”: he contrives to have both stars in the same shot as often as possible, but Vincent Sherman alternates close-ups with the precision of a blackjack dealer shuffling a deck of cards. It’s a shame, because the antagonism of the two acting styles — the histrionic pantomime of Hopkins against the heightened realism of Davis — makes for really interesting chemistry when the two ladies are in the same room at the same time. In all those close-up shots, one can’t tell if Davis is responding to the lousy performance of her co-star, or simply making the best of the cues fed to her by an off-camera stand-in. Davis and Hopkins were not friends, and the rivalry between them in their professional lives closely resembled what we see in the picture. That adds to the camp element of the picture — it’s the sort of thing that Charles Busch sends up so knowingly — but there’s something really nice that gets lost in the camp: it’s Bette Davis’ performance, which is amazing in its virtuosity. She steals the picture by being the sensible one. It’s telling that the director, Vincent Sherman, went to his grave believing that Hopkins stole the picture.

Oh, for Christ's sake, shut up!  Miriam Hopkins as Millie Drake

Oh, for Christ’s sake, shut up! Miriam Hopkins keeps it false as Millie Drake.

Hopkins’ performance looks ludicrous today. What Davis does in the picture still looks great.

Davis as Kit Marlowe in the first scene. Confident and good natured, but not glamorous.

Davis as Kit Marlowe in the first scene. Confident and good natured, but not glamorous.

Take a look at the clip below, in which Davis tries to persuade Hopkins’ husband (John Loder) to give the marriage another shot.  But he’s in love with Davis and tries to persuade her to marry him after the divorce is final. He’s not bad, but she’s terrific.

She’s not entirely real — that’s not her purpose. She’s giving one of her Great Lady performances: refined, noble, dignified and heightened. It’s an idealized portrait of how a nice woman behaves. Davis does this throughout the picture, and she alters her behavior according to the age of the character. Earlier in the picture, she’s pragmatic and honest but without glamour or gravitas; as her character ages, she becomes more elegant and gains poise and authority. She really seems to age twenty years. Miriam Hopkins stays the same throughout.

Davis in a later scene. More glamour and authority, but the same woman.

Davis in a later scene. More glamour and authority, but the same woman.

The clip below offers a perfect example of the difference between Davis’ style of acting (and it is a style; that is, it is purposefully artificial in a theatrical way, while remaining credible: you believe her as a human being, albeit a stylized version of one) and the utterly phony histrionics that Miriam Hopkins goes through. She doesn’t mean a word she says and you can tell she doesn’t. She’s not playing a selfish, high-strung woman: she’s merely a grotesque, with no recognizably human qualities. It’s odd enough that Vincent Sherman let her behave so foolishly, but nearly fantastic that he believes she steals the picture by carrying on so idiotically. It’s true that she pulls focus, but that doesn’t mean she’s interesting.

Finally, here’s a scene where the two styles come into a head-on collision. It’s camp, all right, but only because Hopkins is such a drag queen cartoon. Franz Waxman’s musical punctuation adds to the vulgarity. Davis’ restraint and timing are remarkable.

In the context of the picture, the scene is more than camp: it offers catharsis. Miriam Hopkins’ frenetic antics are exasperating; her self-love is sickening. When Bette Davis gives her a good shaking, you realize it’s what you’ve wanted to do to Hopkins since the beginning of the picture.