raventhom says > I thought that showing the entire murder scene in the beginning kind of was a let down. The ending, however, goes to the 29 version. Much more of a realistic finish, and a lifetime of remorse.
I agree with you. I enjoyed both movies. I saw the 1929 version first and liked it even though I did think the ending was abrupt as the OP and others have said. TCM played them back-to-back so I was able to see the 1940 version immediately after.
I think I would have preferred seeing them in reverse order but I can't blame TCM. I had them on DVR so I made that decision myself. I like the way the Bette Davis version unfolded. It was a more complex movie yet, I felt, we were left in the dark. In the 1929 version everything is laid out right from the beginning so I felt I was just going along for the ride.
In the 1940 version we see Mrs. Crosbie shooting someone but we know very little else. We never meet Hammond so we can't judge his treatment of her. Everything we learn about the motive and circumstances leading to the murder come from her.
What I did not like about the 1929 version is the way she blamed her husband for the affair and all that stemmed from it. In the 1940 version she takes doesn't seem to blame him as much as she blames not being able to deal with the circumstances.
Also, in the second Hammond's relationship with the Chinese woman is completely different. She's not his mistress, she's his wife. She's legitimized so it seems odd that she would let her husband's name and reputation be dragged through the mud. I couldn't understand her agreeing to sell the letter. Her husband's estate would have provided for her. When she passed up the money I thought the ending was inevitable. She wanted Leslie released so she could take vengeance on her personally. In the first she humiliates her but it was pretty much her only recourse. As a mistress she likely would have gotten nothing and would probably not have made a very good witness in court.
I could go on but I think I've said plenty. These are two versions of the 'same' story but they are different in very significant ways. As I've said, there are elements I prefer in one or the other but I don't think it's fair or necessary to compare the movies.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply
share