"Green Dolphin Street": Novel or Movie?

Hendrickson Publishers has re-issued a nice uniform set of several of Elizabeth Goudge's novels. One "uniform" aspect of these re-printings is that the publishers have seen fit to highlight some possibly controversial aspect of Goudge's works to warn sensitive readers. In The White Witch they warned me that I might not like how Goudge depicts Romany people; in Green Dolphin Street they warned me that I might not like how Goudge depicts the Maori people in New Zealand and that colonial attitudes may not be enlightened enough for 21st century readers! The publishers even suggest that they considered bowdlerizing Goudge's work but decided that readers can handle it after all.

I wonder what trigger warnings Hendrickson adds to their different editions of the Holy Bible!

Nevertheless, it's good to have these books in print. Green Dolphin Street or Green Dolphin Country, as it was published in the U.K., was the basis of the 1947 MGM movie with Lana Turner as Marianne, Donna Reed as Marguerite, and Richard Hart as the man in the middle of the two sisters, William Ozanne.

I've watched the movie several times--and wrote about it for The St. Austin Review (subscriber access required)--and now I've read the novel, so the most common question is: which is better, the novel or the movie?

The answer in this case is: both.

The movie is excellent as a film; it maintains the outline of the plot, condenses the action in time, and heightens some of the dramatic tension.

The novel is excellent as a work of fiction: Goudge signals early on the crucial issue of the plot (that William Ozanne gets names, including Marianne's and Marguerite's, mixed up all the time); she creates an interior life for each of her characters, and she spreads the action of these three lives, and the other people around them, over a longer period of time--about forty years. The three main characters are in their sixties when they reunite. The final resolution of the plot, for example, comes not just before Marguerite makes her final vows (as in the movie) but years after she has become the Mother Superior at the convent in their hometown (after several years in a French convent).

The movie leaves out one set of supporting characters, Samuel and Susanna, Christian missionaries to New Zealand who befriend William and Marianne Ozanne. Nat, Captain O'Hara's first mate, isn't featured in the movie either.

Although the novel's omniscient narration is divided almost equally among the three main characters, it is Marianne who faces the greatest crisis and must develop more as a person. William and Marguerite have genuinely loving and open personalities; Marianne is a controlling and manipulative person who needs to learn that she is not in control. Her attempted manipulation of people and events almost led to her daughter making a terrible marital mistake, for example. Goudge notes Marianne's progress in humility by noting that she finally accepts that she really can't make her parents' home totally her own. She accepts that some things should be left to reflect the influence of the past.

Highly recommended.

Did She or Didn't She?: "My Cousin Rachel"

Daphne du Maurier was one of my favorite authors when I was in high school and I read almost all her novels (not sure about Rule, Britannia), and I read them all more than once. My paperback copy of My Cousin Rachel started falling apart and I found a used hardcover! Earlier this week Turner Classic Movies aired the 1952 movie based on the novel starring Olivia de Havilland and Richard Burton. The movie is very faithful adaptation of the novel and Olivia de Havilland's performance as Rachel captures the mysterious fascination of the character very well.

The question at the heart of the story is whether or not Rachel poisoned two cousins who loved her, first Ambrose whom she married and then Philip who wanted to marry her. She may not have given them poison through her brewed tisanes, which is what Philip comes to suspect, but she certainly "poisoned" them with obsessive love which destroyed both men. Her affair with Ambrose is told at a remove through his letters and her reports of his illness and change in behavior. We witness how Philip becomes obsessed with her, wants to give her everything, expects everything in return from her--and then begins to doubt not only her but his own suspicions about her. His guardian warns him that there are some women who through no fault of their own bring trouble and disaster to those who love them. Philip should have married Louise like everyone thought he should!

De Havilland's calm, pleasant face, soothing voice, elegant figure, and quiet, sly demeanor are perfect for the role: can someone so lovely be a murderer? But she also shows resolve and steely determination. Richard Burton, in his first Hollywood film, is young, handsome, and impetuous, yet brooding enough.

Evidently, a new adaptation of the novel is in the works (the BBC produced a meandering adaptation in the 1980's), according to the Daphne du Maurier website:

19th February 2016. The likelihood of a film for cinema of Daphne du Maurier’s novel My Cousin Rachelseems to be increasing. Before Christmas it became clear that Rachel Weisz and Sam Claflin had been cast for starring roles in the new movie. This week it has been suggested that Holliday Grainger will also join the cast.

News filtering through so far indicates that the writer-director Roger Michell will be reworking the novel and setting it in more modern times. However young Philip will still be at the heart of the story, which sees his guardian Ambrose die in circumstances which may incriminate Rachel. However the beguiling Rachel side-tracks Philip’s concerns when he becomes emotionally involved with her.

In the original novel Daphne du Maurier left the ending to the reader’s imagination, later saying that even she did not know if Rachel was innocent. It will be interesting to see how the film-makers decide to conclude the story.

If they resolve the ambiguity, they will destroy the story.