MovieChat Forums > The Letter (1929) Discussion > Better than the 1940 version

Better than the 1940 version

posted 15 years ago by mjr1114
21 replies | jump to latest

Being nothing's been started on this board, other than someone looking for a movie that isn't this one.
Shocked, because this version is an incredible version. It's pre-code, for one, it has a real asian woman playing the part of a white man's mistress, it has the humiliation of the white woman in the asian woman's brothel. It was classic.
It's only available as a work print, but the acting! The acting does it all. This is one movie that works, no need for a musical score. I love the way they ended it. Just ended it. On other movies, I'd be angry thinking how bad it sucked, but in this movie, it just works. You get the whole story and understand what is going to happen to Leslie. It's perfect. The Hayes code version ruined this.
There are people whom will say the remake is superior, but that's because they believe in the 'rules'. She had to pay. She couldn't get away with murder. What they fail to realize, is that Leslie doesn't really get away with it, she has to stay there with her memories of her slain-by-her-own-hand lover and live a life with a man whom she does not love nor will love her in return, being he now knows her for what she truly is. She is going to live a life of punishment. By rights, the remake lets her off easy, by killing her.
Also, I prefer the fact that we get to see what occurred before the shooting. I, also, prefer the shooting scene here. You see the emotion behind it. Then the courtroom scene. Remarkable.
Too bad they can't find a better copy of it, but I won't complain, because it is watchable in its present state and it's worth watching. Afterall, it is a short movie, so it won't take up to much of your time, but you won't be disappointed, other than thinking...'it's over, already?'. They say Jeanne Eagels was nominated posthumously, and on a write-in ballot. She was quite good in this. I think she would have done quite well, had she lived longer and hadn't had the problems she was experiencing.
If you've never seen it and want to, you can get a copy off of www.ioffer.com. I was lucky enough to get it from there, and it was well worth it. I will keep it in pristine shape as I would do any of my store bought DVD's. It's that good of a movie.

[–] apple_annie 13 years ago

I agree.

[–] Phillip-7 13 years ago

I liked the Bette Davis version much better. I think it was more atmospheric and the story fleshed out better. The overt racism in this one was rather shocking and it does have its moments. Still, I prefer the Davis version the best.

[–] jedbu 13 years ago

Uh-uh-this version is vastly superior to the 1940 version. It is truer to the Maugham story, for an early talkie it is fairly cinematic (the opening sequence is a really good use of miniatures and the moving camera in combination) and Eagels performance is a balls-out master work. How she lost the Oscar to Pickford can only attibuted to her passing and not being able to suck up to the Academy members like Pickford did. If you showed the films that got the noms for Best Actress that year in one package, I think Eagels would win unanimously. Thank goodness that this single 35mm nitrate print exists, otherwise we would be left with only written accounts of this astounding actress' talents, like we have for Laurette Taylor, who did not live to record her performance in THE GLASS MENAGERIE.

[–] gayspiritwarrior 12 years ago

It's a matter of taste. I've seen both and I agree Eagels was a force, quite amazing; but Davis was at the top of her game in this role too. Given the whole package I prefer the 1940 film.

"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

[–] carmenjones411 12 years ago

Exactly! Bette owned the role of Leslie Crosbie. She was a sexy, slinky, calculating, panther! You felt her passion, her desperation,her every gesture was like beautiful poetry.

Jeanne was good, but her drug problem was so apparent on her face and slender sickly frame. She looked haggard and It was hard to fathom how anyone would engage in an affair with her. Also her acting made me think of Tallulah Bankhead and lacked the layers of Bette's performance.

1940's version owns this one.

[–] xerses13 12 years ago

carmenjones411; Agreed that Ms. Eagles looks were not that attractive at that time. Looking flat-chested and skinny, not slim. How they thought Kim Novak was the actress to play her in that bio-pic is beyond me. Though lets be frank Bette Davis was no great beauty, She was what you would call 'attractive' on her best days, with limited sex appeal.

I did feel the 1929 version did have some striking if not superior moments. Particularly in the 'whore-house' and at the conclusion. Which I feel is superior, being 'pre-code', it gave the director additional latitude. At the end, both Husband and Wife are doomed too a eternity of mutual enmity. Rather then the conventual ending of having Ms. Davis being killed. Rate both films IMDB********Eight.

[–] classics_guy 11 years ago

The Letter has always been ONE of my top five favorite films.
But I had only seen the 1940 version and thought it was fantastic!
I still love it, the story, the acting and the score.
Bette was at the top of her form here in acting and looked attractive as Leslie.
subdued in manner and acting. 1940's The Letter is my favorite Bette Davis film.
I love most of her movies, but The Letter will always be my favorite.

Today I just watched the Jeanne Eagles version, not sure what to expect really,
I have to say I really liked it too. I had never seen Jeanne Eagles act before and knew little about her life or career.
It's clear she was going through hard times in her personal life during this
at times looking attractive and others looking "drugged out" and over-wrought.
But I feel this is what made this a realistic performance of the desperately
un-happy and Tormented Leslie Crosbie. at times Ms Eagles seems ready to explode from tormented and anxious inner emotions that are just beneath the surface. whatever she was feeling when this was filmed she put it to good use and left us with a I think, an incredible acting performance. as much as I loved the Davis version, I liked the ending in this one much more. being KILLED for killing is not the only punishment one can get.
Like others have said, it really seems an "easier" outing, really.
and having to live with killing the person you loved and still love who did not love you any longer (if he ever did)at the same time having to live in the same place with a man you don't love and who will never love you again is quite a punishment!! had she went to prison or been hang it would have been easier I think. sadly the husband will also pay, and pay big for something he did not do.

Both versions are so good it's now hard to choose.

[–] xerses13 11 years ago

classics guy; Agreed on most of your points. Particularly the one concerning the endings of both version. The 1929 was far stronger.

[–] carmenjones411 11 years ago

I just wanted to point out one thing xerses13, Sex appeal has nothing to do with beauty. There are a lot of unattractive people who ooze sex appeal and vice versa.

[–] xerses13 11 years ago

carmenjones411; Don't recall mentioning "sex appeal" at all, but now that you mentioned it, neither Eagles or Davis appealed to me in that way. Though do NOT believe a lot of "unattractive ooze sex appeal", that is delusional. Just because they propagate does not mean they have "sex appeal", just means a need to relieve themselves.

[–] carmenjones411 11 years ago

Again, that is your opinion. Halle Berry is extremely beautiful but she isn't sexy. Idris Elba isn't classically handsome but he's incredibly sexy.

[–] CharlotteXavier 11 years ago

I was all set to love this version more but I just don't. I didn't think Jeanne Eagels was very convincing. I was excited to see the murder scene played but there was no passion from Eagels until she was firing the gun. But before that point it looked like a scene from an acting class that would ripped to shreds.

I thought the purchase of the letter scene was outstanding though and Lady Tsen Mei as Li-Ti was remarkable. Why were those women in the cage in that scene???

I did think the acting was good in the final scene but it diverged very far from the play, which is my favorite version.

In all, I felt the 1940 version was much better even though Davis' acting was that of a polished and glamorous star and not great. She delivered though.

[–] mjr1114 11 years ago

There are moments in this film where you can see the sexuality and appeal to Ms Eagels' character. Just glimpses, of course, but being the way the character is written and how the world is about to possibly fall apart around the character, it would only make sense for it to show in glimpses. I think Ms. Eagels played this part perfectly and exuded exactly what was needed to be portrayed at the right times. Being Ms. Davis admired and was a fan of Ms. Eagels, she did tend to mimic her throughout her acting career, at times, and this part was a great way for her to pay tribute to her, and she did very well.
The reason why the 1940 version doesn't own, though, is because of the cop out ending. Also, the use of a non-asian actress in this version ruins it, too. Of course, I do understand this was because of the Hays code, but that's the reason it doesn't own the non-code enforced version.

[–] Earl-Janoth 11 years ago

I have to agree with you.

Eagles acted. Davis over-acted. And it really does benefit from being pre-code. A few things are dealt with a bit more guts and it's definitely truer to the original Maugham work.

[–] Alix1929 10 years ago

I liked both versions. I don't like the 1940 ending with the Asian wife stabbing Leslie, and I didn't like where the 1929 version ended. The brothel scene is really pre-Code!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jm31315 10 years ago

The Jeanne Eagels and Bette Davis films of "The Letter" are scheduled for the weekend of August 16-17, 2014 on Turner Classic Movies here in the U.S. Looking forward to seeing both films.

[–] junenj 8 years ago

Speaking (in general) of Bette Davis, Jeanne Eagels, and Somerset Maugham,
one thought I had was that Jeanne Eagels would have been perfect as Mildred
(the strumpet) in Of Human Bondage - also by Maugham.

And yes, Bette Davis played that role to absolute perfection.
But I can definitely imagine Eagels in the role, as well. 

[–] BelleCBelle 8 years ago

I don't "believe in the rules," yet in my personal opinion the 1940 Davis version is far superior. The atmosphere of that film and the moon itself become characters, which I find important. I don't like the "she-must-die" ending, although at that time in Hollywood there was no choice. At least Wyler gave the film a classy ending. The actors gave fine performances, and well - I could go on, but everything about the 1940 version is superior, including the script. I am not concerned with a film faithfully following a novel or story. Frequently that not possible or the director and/or producer use the story more as a springboard, a place to begin.

The 1929 version was filled with stiff actors, except Eagles, and I was unable to determine what she was up to. Also, her hair was quite distracting. The cutting was poor. There isn't much more I can say as the film hasn't been restored - or I saw the unrestored version.

Regarding precode films, I appreciate them for their honestly and the reality they represented. Of course, sometimes they were just fun. My favorite film period is from the 1920's silents through the film noir period..ignoring many late '30s and '40s films. Then there is the rise of New Wave overseas, but foreign films are another topic.

"Wow. Our town has only had a Whole Foods for three weeks and we already have our first gay kids."

[–] BelleCBelle 8 years ago

Oops, I forgot to add it was a travesty that Gale Sondergaard was given the part of Mrs. Hammond in the '40s version. Again, Hollywood dictated. However, I think Sondergaard played the part well.

"Wow. Our town has only had Whole Foods for three weeks and we already have our first gay kids."

[–] first-things-first 8 years ago

I like this version also. The Bette Davis film highlights Ms. Davis, focuses on her stellar performance. This film has the entire cast shining.

I have been bent and broken, but, I hope, into a better shape, Grimm