Soon John finds himself enmeshed in a complicated web of lies and intrigues, with a grand house full of women and various strangers, most of whom seem angry at him. And then there is a great big beastly woman upstairs he is astounded to find looks like himself but in drag with a huge amount of flesh added on; Jean's mother, which he can't help but call 'maman' and feel real affection for. Nobody takes him seriously when he tells them outright he is not Jean, but an Englishman called John, and that the real Jean has made off with his clothes and his car; they all dismiss his story as yet another one of Jean's pranks, or a consequence of too much drink. Instead a man angrily demands how the trip to Paris went and whether he's gotten the papers signed. John slowly untangles the mystery, starting with figuring out who the various individuals are, what Jean was meant to do in Paris, why everyone is angry with him, and then, taking a liking to the man's various family members and employees despite their faults of character, trying to improve everyone's life and atone for Jean's shortcomings, bumbling along all the while. The novel hurtles to its conclusion, within its short compressed time-frame, as John desperately tries to right the wrongs as he sees them. Increasingly he is more committed, yet contrarily also more unsure, Paris was ampoules of morphine. 'But his mother was not ill or dying, neither was she in pain' (p.234). He reluctantly administers the drug and she loses consciousness. In their brief encounter, it was clear that Jean was a more ruthless, less pleasant man that John. As he stays there, it becomes increasingly obvious how this had affected things – and how Jean has set John up to be the scapegoat of the title. John is no saint himself – though motivated by much purer morals than his doppelgänger, he is weak and often foolish. And blindingly naive at times. For all that, he is very sympathetic, and du Maurier does a great job of making us feel his frustrations, fear, and dawning attempts to make the best of it.

Two men....one English, "John"...( the narrator), the other French, "Jean de Gue", meet by chance one evening. It's like looking into a mirror: they look almost identical- other than the color of their eyes.The ending comes swiftly, too swiftly, and leaves the reader feeling cheated, wishing to tarry a little longer. I for one, could have happily endured a full year with both Jean de Gué one and two to see what the future holds for them and the family. While contemporary writers were dealing critically with such subjects as the war, alienation, religion, poverty, Marxism, psychology and art, and experimenting with new techniques such as the stream of consciousness, du Maurier produced 'old-fashioned' novels with straightforward narratives that appealed to a popular audience's love of fantasy, adventure, sexuality and mystery. At an early age, she recognised that her readership was comprised principally of women, and she cultivated their loyal following through several decades by embodying their desires and dreams in her novels and short stories.

The feeling of power, of triumph that I was outwitting this little group of unsuspecting people had turned again to shame. It seemed to me now that I wanted Jean de Gué to have been a different sort of man. I did not want to discover at each step that he was worthless... I had exchanged my own negligible self for a worthless personality. He had the supreme advantage over me in that he had not cared. Or had he, after all? Was this why he had disappeared?" One of the triggers was that while out for a walk in a square in a French town, Daphne du Maurier saw a man who looked identical to someone she happened to know. According to one of her biographers, Judith Cook, she then watched a family scene through a window, and began to put the two incidents together in her feverish imagination. Typically, she began to wonder about the people; who they were, and what their secrets might be, It held my interest pretty much throughout, although maybe about two-thirds of the way through my interest flagged but then accelerated again — just a minor bump in the road. Otherwise I think I would have rated it as ‘5’ rather than ‘4’…but in my rating system a ‘4’ is “a memorable read and if there is anything else the author has written I would be quite interested in it”, thank you very much.Location filming for the film was carried out mainly at Knebworth House in Hertfordshire. [5] Home media release [ edit ] I wondered how much further I had to fall, and if the sense of shame that overwhelmed me was merely wallowing in darkness... I had played the coward long enough." filled with an intense desire to get away from that dingy, shabby hotel and never set eyes on it again, and as my anger rose and self-disgust took possession of me..." The Scapegoat is a 1959 British mystery film based on the 1957 novel of the same name by Daphne du Maurier, and starring Alec Guinness, Nicole Maurey and Bette Davis. [2] [3] Plot [ edit ]

The Scapegoat was made into a film in 1959 starring Alec Guinness and Bette Davis. Additionally there is a 2012 film with Matthew Rhys which is based on the novel. However this is not set in France but in the UK in 1952 just before the coronation. Teacher John Standing, who has just lost his job, meets his doppelgänger Johnny Spence, a failed businessman. Thus none of the French associations are there, and in fact the story is entirely different, with different characters, different major and critical episodes - and even a different ending! I knew that everything I had said or done had implicated me further, driven me deeper, bound me more closely still to that man whose body was not my body, whose mind was not my mind, whose thoughts and actions were a world apart, and yet whose inner substance was part of my nature, part of my secret self." Barratt delves into the family's neglected glass-making business. He decides to renew a contract with the local foundry, even on unfavourable terms, to avoid throwing the longtime employees out of work. The Countess is upset by his decision and mentions a marriage contract. When Barratt investigates, he learns that Françoise's considerable wealth, tied up by her businessman father, would come under his control if she were to die. Françoise finds him reading the contract and becomes very upset, accusing him of wanting to see her dead. Barratt consoles her by telling her that the contract can be changed. He begins to suspect the reason for De Gué's disappearance. Since reading Du Maurier’s most celebrated novel – Rebecca– I’ve bought every single one of her publications I’ve been able to get my hands on. So much so that I now own four copies of Rebecca, three of Frenchman’s Creek and two of both Jamaica Inn and My Cousin Rachel – an impressive, though equally pointless, collection of some of her most loved books. And it wants to exchange identities with us. And totally assimilate our innocence into its own cynical essence.from the chateau- 'none of these people under his roof would be behaving as they had behaved tonight but for something he had done to them' (p.76)-but he sees an opportunity for himself to put it right. While Standing is out at a shooting party lunch with the rest of the family, Spence manipulates Frances into taking an overdose of morphine so that he can claim the trust fund and save the glass business. She willingly submits, sacrificing herself to save her family. Her daughter, "Piglet," sees them together and confronts Standing, still mistaking him for her father. Standing rushes to the house to find Frances barely alive; he revives her with help from Charlotte, Spence's mother's carer.

The language is rich and hugely descriptive – all in a good way – and as the tale gallops along more and more problems seem to crawl out of the woodwork. Can John possibly add value here, can he right the wrongs and solve some of the problems? He is certainly going to have his hands full as there is much to do if he is to right this particular ship. But the question that really bugs me is why doesn’t anyone seem to notice that he’s not Jean – not his brother, his mother or even his wife and child?] It's hard to praise this movie without stating what a feel good wonderful ending this movie has. It's so neat and satisfying. Liked the country house where it was filmed - stately but not too ostentatious. Du Maurier’s skill creates as much suspense in The Scapegoat as it did in Rebecca. Her characters are linked by dependency, hostilely, old hatreds, and money. Carefully, John listens and digests remarks, cautious not to denounce the absent Jean and so reveal himself to this accepting family. I drove to the network of roads at the top of the town, turned left, and took the road to Bellême and Mortagne' (p.368). Jean de Gue's voice changed - its clear he had personal problems too - felt resentment. He said he had a sister who only thinks about religion and nothing else.Jean is a 'devil' but Béla replies: 'he's not a devil. He's a human, ordinary man, just like yourself' (p.364). She tells him that 'you've In a sort of dark twist on the "Prince and the Pauper" tale (a connection that is further emphasized by setting the story 1952 England ahead of Queen Elizabeth's coronation rather than France) "The Scapegoat" concerns two men, John Standing, a decent ex-teacher, and Johnny Spence, a dissolute businessman from a wealthy family (both played by Rhys), who, by a strange coincidence, are almost carbon-copies of each other. The happen to meet in London, and after a night of drinking, John finds that Johnny has swapped clothes and run off, leaving John to take his place among his dysfunctional family. Having enjoyed many Daphne du Maurier books, The Scapegoat comes as a big disappointment. The premise of a stolen identity and the deception that followed sounded fantastic and was too inviting to pass. But now, I wish I had. He thinks the only motive force in human nature is "GREED". People in Jean de Gue's life were never satisfied--[from his point of view]. Have you ever wanted to run away from your life? What would happen if you suddenly had the chance to; would you "grasp the nettle"? Or what if a new life was imposed on you, whether you liked it or not? Such is the premise of Daphne du Maurier's 1957 novel, The Scapegoat.