|
Post by Andrea Doria on Sept 4, 2023 0:10:23 GMT
I just watched the 1929 version. It was so interesting to see the differences. I do like the Bette Davis one better, but Jeanne Eagles was great in the part.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 4, 2023 2:38:32 GMT
I just watched the 1929 version. It was so interesting to see the differences. I do like the Bette Davis one better, but Jeanne Eagles was great in the part. I'm so glad you saw it.
That is the nicest copy I've ever seen of the '29 version, so of course, I just watched the entire thing.
To be sure, you can see the difference in movie-making style and technology. While the '40 version is advanced and much more polished, the '29 version is very impressive.
Several things jumped out at me having now just seen the two versions back to back. The '29 version feels much more genuinely colonial in mine en scene (how's that for a pretentiously fancy word, but it captures what I mean very well) versus the '40's scrubbed-up colonial zeitgeist with its mid-century American style sneaking in.
Plus the '29 version shows the racial antagonism in a much rawer form.
Also, Eagles' performance fits the character better than Davis' as Eagle is more than a bit unhinged, in theory, from having lived in isolation on a plantation. You have no trouble picturing her going crazy and killing her lover. Davis, however, is so cool in her portrayal that it's hard to see her coming unglued and killing Hammond.
Finally, I like the '29's ending much better than the forced-to-fit-the-Code '40s ending.
Just some immediate comparison thoughts.
Thank you for posting the copy, Andrea.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Sept 4, 2023 11:16:32 GMT
I liked the 1929 ending, too, although I appreciated seeing Gale Sondergaard have her final scene of revenge in the 1940's version. Her much more sophisticated and powerful character in the 40's version made me think that she might have planned to kill Lisa when she sold her the letter. That way she assured that before dying, Lisa would experience the shame of her husband finding out the truth and knowing she had ruined him financially.
But the 1929 version was so much more true to Somerset Maugham. Throughout 1929 version of "The Letter," Lisa reminded me of Mildred in "Of Human Bondage," tacky and vile in her self-centered, shameless behavior. As you say, Davis played her too cool and refined.
The 1929 ending immediately reminded me of the part in, "The Painted Veil" when the husband decides to punish the wife for her infidelity by making her go with him into the isolated cholera country.
In a period where women were often idealized as virtuous keepers of the home and hearth, Maugham was never afraid to write women as the despicable villains we love to hate. He usually added a few wonderful women characters we could contrast them with like the lovely other women in, "Of Human Bondage," and Hammond's wife in, "The Letter."
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 4, 2023 12:07:10 GMT
That's an interesting take on how Sondergaard's character was written for the '40 version and meshes with Topbilled's comment that it would make the Production Code people happy as it would be some serious revenge on and punishment for a wife who cheated. But of course, that's not how Maugham wrote it, which isn't a knock on the movie or your and Topbilled's comments, as movie's can do what they like with the material they buy.
The '29 version does, though, feel more real to me. Leslie bought her way out of murder with her husband's money - and her freedom will stand - but she will pay a big price having to live in a remote part of the world with a bitter-toward-her man. As you note, it's similar to the end of "The Painted Veil." Apparently, it was a "go to" punishment for misbehaving colonial wives.
I had noticed the parallels to "The Painted Veil" before, but had never thought of the one you pointed out to "Of Human Bondage." As you note, Maugham clearly didn't love all women.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 4, 2023 14:30:05 GMT
The Letter from 1940 with Bette Davis, Herbert Marshall, Victor Sen Yung and James Stephenson
Based on a W. Somerset Maugham play, directed by William Wyler and starring Bette Davis, The Letter more than lives up to all the talent behind it.
We know immediately, owing to the memorable opening scene of Bette Davis emptying her handgun into someone, who committed the murder at the heart of The Letter.
The movie, though, is still a mystery, as we, initially, don't know why she shot someone, nor who the victim is. We also won't know for a long time how the British legal system will adjudicate the shooting and whether the Singaporeans will accept the British ruling.
Ms. Davis plays the wife of a British manager, played by Herbert Marshall, of a rubber plantation in Singapore. She claims she shot the man, another Brit and friend of the family, in self defense because he was forcing himself on her on a night that Marshall was away.
Davis' immediate recounting of the facts to the police is almost too exacting and too perfect, as are her controlled emotions. But back then, personal control, especially in times of crisis, was the British ideal, so everyone seems inclined to believe her.
What then unfolds is an engaging story involving Davis' marriage, Marshall's all but unshakable faith in his wife, an affair ending badly, an interracial marriage (at a time when that meant something) and the strained relations between the ruling British and the Singaporeans.
A revealing note, the titular letter, is dropped right in the middle of the investigation, changing everything and brutally testing Davis' lawyer's, played by James Stephenson, legal ethics.
In a brilliant bit of storytelling and movie making, the conflict appears settled several times, only to surprisingly reappear again and again, right up to the last scene.
Through it all, this is Davis' movie. Her character, a master of poised deception, manipulates everyone around her with an impressively calm ruthlessness. It is one of Davis' career-best performances
Marshall is very good, too, as her unaware and loving husband. It is her lawyer Stephenson, however, who proves Davis' equal as their scenes are like tense chess matches with each maintaining his or her British reserve while relentlessly probing the other for weaknesses.
These are people whose lives are being ripped apart and whose moral values are being severely tested, but they still dress for dinner and calmly discuss the latest club gossip.
Amping everything up is Joyce's Singaporean legal assistant, played by Victor Sen Yung, who wields his smarmy deference to the British like a machete. He has ample opportunity to express his seething British antipathy as the negotiator for the owner of the all-important letter.
By today's standards, we could denounce the presentation of the Singaporeans, but the British are shown to be equally venal and deceptive, just in their own cultural way. A fair assessment is that Maugham put human nature on trial in The Letter and it didn't do so well.
While obviously shot on sets, this A picture from Warner Bros still has an evocative "British Colonial" look and feel (with a little too much polish) that helps to highlight the underlying tension between the two cultures.
The Letter is a version of the very old story of an illicit love affair gone wrong, but taken to an extreme motivated by William Congreve's searing axiom "heaven has no rage like love to hate turn, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
Today, The Letter doesn't get the attention that other classics from its era do. Still, its sharply written and taut story, crisp directing, engaging performances and timeless themes make it one of the era's outstanding movies and one that deserves more modern-day appreciation.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Sept 4, 2023 14:51:46 GMT
What's not to love about a film opening with Davis emptying a gun into someone?
I do like '29 version for the harsh racial portrayal which seems real not toned down, for the humiliation of Leslie retrieving the letter, and the ending. Hubby is going to fix his wife for her infidelity, but she scornfully hatefully laughs that she still loves her lover. Hubby better sleep with one eye open.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 4, 2023 15:15:06 GMT
Interesting to see that a few of you watched the 1929 version and offered up some comparisons.
I did post a comment during our screening of the 1940 remake yesterday which I edited, removing a paragraph where I thought Mrs. Hammond's plan was originally to kill Mrs. Crosbie, but not until after she'd humiliated her and squeezed some money out of her. I guess I removed that paragraph because I wasn't sure if it was only vaguely suggested. But it does make sense that she'd be very calculating in her revenge...and that this would be approved by the production code office, because Mrs. Crosbie had to suffer for her own misdeeds. Though, ironically, the movie ends before Mrs. Hammond can face justice, since she's also become a murderer.
As for Davis' portrayal, I have really made no secret in the past that I am not exactly a Bette Davis fan. However, I do think this is one of her better film performances and she does have a way of drawing us into what the character may be thinking.
But...I do agree that the writing for Mrs. Crosbie is a bit wrong in the remake (not Davis's fault, but the writers)...because she is just too calm and too self-assured after the murder. You get the idea she had carefully thought all this out for months in advance, because she had so many good excuses available to tell her husband, the lawyer and the police. I don't think that is the story Maugham was really telling. Maugham was telling a story about a woman who had unbridled passions and could quickly reach the end of her tether, a woman who was erratic and committed murder on the spot. As a crime of passion, there'd be no real pre-meditation involved.
Also, Maugham's story is more about how the woman perjures herself on the stand, gains sympathy from the jury, and is able to walk out of court scot free. Because the remake does not include the scene where she's on the witness stand, we lose some of that...the bastardization of the law, the miscarriage of justice that occurs because the woman is able to manipulate the system.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 4, 2023 15:30:11 GMT
I liked the 1929 ending, too, although I appreciated seeing Gale Sondergaard have her final scene of revenge in the 1940's version. Her much more sophisticated and powerful character in the 40's version made me think that she might have planned to kill Lisa when she sold her the letter. That way she assured that before dying, Lisa would experience the shame of her husband finding out the truth and knowing she had ruined him financially.
But the 1929 version was so much more true to Somerset Maugham. Throughout 1929 version of "The Letter," Lisa reminded me of Mildred in "Of Human Bondage," tacky and vile in her self-centered, shameless behavior. As you say, Davis played her too cool and refined.
The 1929 ending immediately reminded me of the part in, "The Painted Veil" when the husband decides to punish the wife for her infidelity by making her go with him into the isolated cholera country.
In a period where women were often idealized as virtuous keepers of the home and hearth, Maugham was never afraid to write women as the despicable villains we love to hate. He usually added a few wonderful women characters we could contrast them with like the lovely other women in, "Of Human Bondage," and Hammond's wife in, "The Letter." I've never seen THE PAINTED VEIL. Andrea, maybe you will be willing to guide a month of Somerset Maugham melodramas in 2024...?
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 4, 2023 15:44:29 GMT
I liked the 1929 ending, too, although I appreciated seeing Gale Sondergaard have her final scene of revenge in the 1940's version. Her much more sophisticated and powerful character in the 40's version made me think that she might have planned to kill Lisa when she sold her the letter. That way she assured that before dying, Lisa would experience the shame of her husband finding out the truth and knowing she had ruined him financially.
But the 1929 version was so much more true to Somerset Maugham. Throughout 1929 version of "The Letter," Lisa reminded me of Mildred in "Of Human Bondage," tacky and vile in her self-centered, shameless behavior. As you say, Davis played her too cool and refined.
The 1929 ending immediately reminded me of the part in, "The Painted Veil" when the husband decides to punish the wife for her infidelity by making her go with him into the isolated cholera country.
In a period where women were often idealized as virtuous keepers of the home and hearth, Maugham was never afraid to write women as the despicable villains we love to hate. He usually added a few wonderful women characters we could contrast them with like the lovely other women in, "Of Human Bondage," and Hammond's wife in, "The Letter." I've never seen THE PAINTED VEIL. Andrea, maybe you will be willing to guide a month of Somerset Maugham melodramas in 2024...? That's a great idea for a monthly theme.
The original '34 and the remake '06 versions of "The Painted Veil" are very good. I haven't seen the remake since it came out, but remember being impressed with it at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Sept 4, 2023 22:41:59 GMT
I liked the 1929 ending, too, although I appreciated seeing Gale Sondergaard have her final scene of revenge in the 1940's version. Her much more sophisticated and powerful character in the 40's version made me think that she might have planned to kill Lisa when she sold her the letter. That way she assured that before dying, Lisa would experience the shame of her husband finding out the truth and knowing she had ruined him financially.
But the 1929 version was so much more true to Somerset Maugham. Throughout 1929 version of "The Letter," Lisa reminded me of Mildred in "Of Human Bondage," tacky and vile in her self-centered, shameless behavior. As you say, Davis played her too cool and refined.
The 1929 ending immediately reminded me of the part in, "The Painted Veil" when the husband decides to punish the wife for her infidelity by making her go with him into the isolated cholera country.
In a period where women were often idealized as virtuous keepers of the home and hearth, Maugham was never afraid to write women as the despicable villains we love to hate. He usually added a few wonderful women characters we could contrast them with like the lovely other women in, "Of Human Bondage," and Hammond's wife in, "The Letter." I've never seen THE PAINTED VEIL. Andrea, maybe you will be willing to guide a month of Somerset Maugham melodramas in 2024...? A Somerset Maugham month sounds great to me, Topbilled, he's one of my very favorite writers.
The only version of "The Painted Veil," I've seen is the 2006 one with Naomi Watts, Edward Norton, and Liev Schreiber, who brought his two-toned shoes to play the cad who seduces Naomi -- I thought he must have learned his style from Zachary Scott.
Now thanks to Fading Fast I have the 1934 version to research!
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 5, 2023 2:10:04 GMT
I've never seen THE PAINTED VEIL. Andrea, maybe you will be willing to guide a month of Somerset Maugham melodramas in 2024...? ...Liev Schreiber, who brought his two-toned shoes to play the cad who seduces Naomi -- I thought he must have learned his style from Zachary Scott. ... LOL.
I saw the '06 version about when it came out, so amazingly, seventeen years ago. I don't remember the two-toned shoes - that's very funny though - but I think I remember it being beautifully filmed as, by then, they were doing period movies very thoughtfully.
The '34 Garbo version, from an old memory, was good but not great. It might be one where the remake is better, but I'd have to see them both again to really make that call.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 10, 2023 4:27:30 GMT
I've never seen THE PAINTED VEIL. Andrea, maybe you will be willing to guide a month of Somerset Maugham melodramas in 2024...? ... Now thanks to Fading Fast I have the 1934 version to research! Andrea, I just saw that the 1934 version of "The Painted Veil" is on TCM on 9/18 at 9:30am, but of course the time might be different based on your cable/zone/etc.
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Sept 10, 2023 15:14:40 GMT
... Now thanks to Fading Fast I have the 1934 version to research! Andrea, I just saw that the 1934 version of "The Painted Veil" is on TCM on 9/18 at 9:30am, but of course the time might be different based on your cable/zone/etc. FYI: Note that Howard Joyce is the name of the character as played by James Stephenson. In your above excellent review, you list Joyce as the actor. Note that in the book Film Noir (Ward \ Silver), The Letter is mentioned as a film with early noir themes, one being the lawyer as being another victim of the femme fatale. In this way the lawyer is a noir protagonist: a decent man that breaks his own code of conduct standards to help a woman that doesn't deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 10, 2023 15:58:20 GMT
Andrea, I just saw that the 1934 version of "The Painted Veil" is on TCM on 9/18 at 9:30am, but of course the time might be different based on your cable/zone/etc. FYI: Note that Howard Joyce is the name of the character as played by James Stephenson. In your above excellent review, you list Joyce as the actor. Note that in the book Film Noir (Ward \ Silver), The Letter is mentioned as a film with early noir themes, one being the lawyer as being another victim of the femme fatale. In this way the lawyer is a noir protagonist: a decent man that breaks his own code of conduct standards to help a woman that doesn't deserve it. JJG, Great catch and thank you. I'll update the review. Also, that's good color on the character's background. It bothers me that a man who seemed to be an honorable lawyer, violated the law and his own standards. It seemed, from the little we knew of him, out of character.
|
|