I had to laugh at the conclusion of this mystery drama! I couldn't keep a straight face at the kind of cop-out conclusion du Maurier slapped on this novel's end. Throughout the ENTIRE story she throws bundles of evidence at us, both that de Havilland (Rachel) IS guilty and that she ISN'T guilty. The reader/viewer is manipulated and lead on like an obedient little dog to sniff out every little clue which du "Agatha Christie" Maurier points to, and like a good little doggy we, the viewers, follow the clues, thinking - as it turns out - very naively that the clues will lead us to a bone, i.e. to a reasonable, logical conclusion to the complex mystery of Rachel's past, her intentions, and whether she killed Burton's relative or not.
But what happens at the end? Burton, being convinced of her guilt, arranges an "accident" which kills her, but moments before she dies he suddenly gets (yet another) clue - one that seems to suggest her innocence. The last scene is Burton looking at the sea-shore, telling himself how he will never find out whether she was guilty or not. What a cop-out. Sure, one can argue that it's the kind of mysterious ending that is suitable to a story full of mystery and heavy contradictions, and I have nothing against endings that are ambiguous. However, the major problem with this is that du Maurier gives us very strong arguments to support Rachel's innocence, as well as bombarding us with enough evidence and clues that point to her guilt to make a black L.A. jury convict ten O.J. Simpsons. In other words, Rachel can be neither innocent nor guilty - as absurd as that sounds; whichever conclusion one prefers - there is too much info pointing in the other direction. And that is exactly why the ending is without an answer; my belief is that the writer herself didn't so much strive for a mysterious, romantic, ambiguous ending so much as strive for a way to conclude the book which enables her to escape the trappings of her own illogicalities and inconsistencies. She had realized what a mess she had written - as far as common sense and logic were concerned - and knew that a clear-cut ending wouldn't make any sense. She cons the viewer into attentively following the story, as the latter waits for a reasonable explanation. In that way she succeeds; after all, the story keeps your attention, and the interest actually grows.
The evidence pointing to de Havilland's innocence is not as abundant as that pointing towards her guilt, but it can be considered sufficient: 1) she does not sue for her late husband's assets (though this can be explained away as a refined tactic of hers - but I think it's too far-fetched to explain it away like that), 2) de Havilland shows genuine care for Burton's mental instability - during his illness - when she makes a rather worried and sad facial expression at a time when no one was watching her (so there was no point in faking it), 3) the letter which Burton finds at the end.
The case for her guilt is more voluminous, though: 1) she looks extremely worried about Burton having received her late husband's secret letters: worried in a rather guilty-looking way, 2) the highly suspicious poisonous(?) seed which grew both in the garden at Burton's villa, and Rachel's home in Italy, and which Burton even finds in a hidden(?) envelope (this last scene makes her look extremely suspicious - it isn't common to send seeds through mail), 3) the way she suddenly changes her tone toward Burton once she inherits everything - and this sudden change CANNOT be explained away by the fact that she was perhaps annoyed by his sudden and public marriage proposal (which may or may not have taken place the night before - even this du Maurier can't or won't tell us), 4) the way she offers Burton a cup of her own tea, but won't drink it herself - and throws it in the grass - after he asks her to drink it herself, 5) she then comes to him with another highly suspicious liquid concoction, and even tells him that he must drink it when she leaves (though this can perhaps be explained away by her worry about his condition - but that's a rather shaky argument), 6) her suspicious past - rumours or not, she seems to have at least some skeletons - which includes: a) the one about her having lost her first husband in a duel between him and her lover, b) having large debts, and living beyond her means, c) any two-time widow in her mid-30s is suspicious unless your name is Anna Nicole Smith, d) her immediate over-drawing of money from her bank-account, the moment she received Burton's first generous payment, e) her sending of big amounts of money to Italy.
A lot of the clues which point in one way or another depended less on the story than on de Havilland's acting; the facial expressions she makes in some key situations alternately show both guilt and innocence. The fact that she reacts in ways that both make her look extremely suspicious and innocent, alternately, is not her fault: de Havilland, like the author herself, didn't herself know whether she was playing a killer or not, so she had little choice in trying to act logically. Burton plays a rather naive guy in his 20s, who actually signs off all his possessions to Rachel - against the advice of his lawyer - and even tears apart Rachel's late husband's letters which are rather incriminating. He plays a guy so dumb that I figured that if she is ripping him off then he probably deserves it.
The film ends with a giant scam - the cop-out - but it is nevertheless very involving, increasingly interesting, and fairly atmospheric.
But what happens at the end? Burton, being convinced of her guilt, arranges an "accident" which kills her, but moments before she dies he suddenly gets (yet another) clue - one that seems to suggest her innocence. The last scene is Burton looking at the sea-shore, telling himself how he will never find out whether she was guilty or not. What a cop-out. Sure, one can argue that it's the kind of mysterious ending that is suitable to a story full of mystery and heavy contradictions, and I have nothing against endings that are ambiguous. However, the major problem with this is that du Maurier gives us very strong arguments to support Rachel's innocence, as well as bombarding us with enough evidence and clues that point to her guilt to make a black L.A. jury convict ten O.J. Simpsons. In other words, Rachel can be neither innocent nor guilty - as absurd as that sounds; whichever conclusion one prefers - there is too much info pointing in the other direction. And that is exactly why the ending is without an answer; my belief is that the writer herself didn't so much strive for a mysterious, romantic, ambiguous ending so much as strive for a way to conclude the book which enables her to escape the trappings of her own illogicalities and inconsistencies. She had realized what a mess she had written - as far as common sense and logic were concerned - and knew that a clear-cut ending wouldn't make any sense. She cons the viewer into attentively following the story, as the latter waits for a reasonable explanation. In that way she succeeds; after all, the story keeps your attention, and the interest actually grows.
The evidence pointing to de Havilland's innocence is not as abundant as that pointing towards her guilt, but it can be considered sufficient: 1) she does not sue for her late husband's assets (though this can be explained away as a refined tactic of hers - but I think it's too far-fetched to explain it away like that), 2) de Havilland shows genuine care for Burton's mental instability - during his illness - when she makes a rather worried and sad facial expression at a time when no one was watching her (so there was no point in faking it), 3) the letter which Burton finds at the end.
The case for her guilt is more voluminous, though: 1) she looks extremely worried about Burton having received her late husband's secret letters: worried in a rather guilty-looking way, 2) the highly suspicious poisonous(?) seed which grew both in the garden at Burton's villa, and Rachel's home in Italy, and which Burton even finds in a hidden(?) envelope (this last scene makes her look extremely suspicious - it isn't common to send seeds through mail), 3) the way she suddenly changes her tone toward Burton once she inherits everything - and this sudden change CANNOT be explained away by the fact that she was perhaps annoyed by his sudden and public marriage proposal (which may or may not have taken place the night before - even this du Maurier can't or won't tell us), 4) the way she offers Burton a cup of her own tea, but won't drink it herself - and throws it in the grass - after he asks her to drink it herself, 5) she then comes to him with another highly suspicious liquid concoction, and even tells him that he must drink it when she leaves (though this can perhaps be explained away by her worry about his condition - but that's a rather shaky argument), 6) her suspicious past - rumours or not, she seems to have at least some skeletons - which includes: a) the one about her having lost her first husband in a duel between him and her lover, b) having large debts, and living beyond her means, c) any two-time widow in her mid-30s is suspicious unless your name is Anna Nicole Smith, d) her immediate over-drawing of money from her bank-account, the moment she received Burton's first generous payment, e) her sending of big amounts of money to Italy.
A lot of the clues which point in one way or another depended less on the story than on de Havilland's acting; the facial expressions she makes in some key situations alternately show both guilt and innocence. The fact that she reacts in ways that both make her look extremely suspicious and innocent, alternately, is not her fault: de Havilland, like the author herself, didn't herself know whether she was playing a killer or not, so she had little choice in trying to act logically. Burton plays a rather naive guy in his 20s, who actually signs off all his possessions to Rachel - against the advice of his lawyer - and even tears apart Rachel's late husband's letters which are rather incriminating. He plays a guy so dumb that I figured that if she is ripping him off then he probably deserves it.
The film ends with a giant scam - the cop-out - but it is nevertheless very involving, increasingly interesting, and fairly atmospheric.