Both movies have somewhat the same story but which one do you prefer? I like the 1931 version of Waterloo Bridge.
-potstickergurl
I haven't seen "Woman of Experience" but I love the 1931 version of Waterloo Bridge.
It's far superior to the Leigh-Taylor version, which was "prettied" up. I like the scenes in the subway, and the gritty feel that the London flats have. And how can you beat James Whale's direction?
1931 version all the way! Mae was so good in this.
shareWord! There is no comparison.
Anybody notice how more natural the acting style is in this movie than in most films of a few years afterward? It might be chance, but it might be that the material itself was just easier to buy, and play, for the actors involved.
- - Spoiler - -
She certainly seemed to be an actress out of time, out of her time, anyway.
The ending was abrupt. And the effect could have been more convincing - then again, early 1930s film technology. But I mean - right on her? And plus, she ran into it, instead of away. But, otherwise, her performance kept one interested in the film as it went along.
It definitely gave either the sense of a complete command and a calculated and more 'modern' approach, or it was just how someone pretty much off the street and under contract would have naively played the role. But either way, she was good in it.
I don't think that it was chance.
I also do not think that it was the material.
I think that it was the fact neither the director nor either of the two leads had worked in silent movies.
The more heavily stylized, almost pantomimed, acting styles that were often seen in the first decade of "talkies" seemed to be holdover habits from working in silents where that exagerated style tended to be encouraged. Sometimes it was the actors' established habits. Sometimes it was director's established habit, and they demanded it of their actors. Sometimes it was both.
However, in this case *none* of the principals had ever gotten a chance to get into those habits.
I never cared for the Leigh-Taylor version and had a very poor opinion of the story until tomight when I saw the James Whale version. I wonderful film, and Mae Clarke's performance was a revelation. She shoulda been a contender! Whale did so many wonderful films between 1930 and his version of Shopboat, that it's hard to know what--other than personal problems--kept him from being in the top rank of US directors.
shareYes, I just saw this on TCM this evening, and Mae was indeed a revelation. Why did she not receive better roles after this? I must admit I preferred the Leigh/Taylor version only because it's more romantic; yes, "prettied up" in that M.G.M. way, but still effective thanks to the two major star performances. In the context of the story, I think a prostitute who must miss her chance to marry gorgeous, manly but gentlemanly Robert Taylor is more tragic than an older "fallen woman" not getting hitched to a 19 year old puppy like Douglass Montgomery!
shareMae was good. But that ending was not. She's literally running toward the bomb, which isn't very big. She should be running away. Then again - early 1930s fx.
share[deleted]
Maybe she was running toward the bomb.
I thought when they first went into that overhead shot that we would see her jump over the bridge.
She knew she could never marry him and she knew he would not stop pursuing her.
Well, your obviously a sucker for those glossy film remakes that eliminate anything unwholesome, objectionable, incriminating, etc. More romantic? Sure. However, the Mervyn LeRoy version is nothing more than a deceptively attractive appearance to the original. James Whale's Waterloo Bridge is a story that is possessed by something that is real with performances not counterfeit. Mae Clarke's performance was honestly felt and James Whale's direction was most certainly a delicate mixture of realism and impressionism.
share[deleted]
If you're a fan of either film stay away from the colour musical remake 'Gaby' starring Leslie Caron, it ruins the story.
shareBoth are fantastic but the test of time tells us that the 1940 version is the more-preferred version. IMO, it was the best performance of both Leigh and Taylor's careers. It may well be my favorite movie of all time. The 1931 version is actually a quite different plot that arrives at the same conclusion. It is excellent but not on par with Leigh & Taylor.
Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?
"The test of time tells us that the 1940 version is the more-preferred version"
The fact that the 1931 version (both the film itself and the stars) were completely out of the public's consciousness for decades (not because of the film itself) and yet somehow survived and resurrected in DVD and among film buffs today, I would say the 1931 version has more claim to standing the test of time than the remake.
I see two different versions of the same story. Both are excellently acted and filmed. I think the people that prefer the 1940 version are taken by the movie stars Leigh and Taylor of that filming.
shareI usually prefer original versions of most films (and songs) but I must say that I much prefer the 1940 version.
It is much more flushed out (story-wise) and less jump-cut edited than the 1931 version. Mae's acting is rather "off" in several scenes; that pulled me right out of the story...
I too prefer the 1931 movie. As stated above, I could "feel" for Mae and what she was experiencing. IMHO, it was an excellent performance. Didn't like the Leigh-Taylor movie nearly as much. Whether she was nudged toward it or subconsciously gravitated toward her most successful role to date, Leigh was channeling Scarlett (as she did in a few other films as well). I felt her work in the later version was adequate but nothing more.
I came to Casablanca for the waters.....
I see the two versions as totally different movies with strong similarities. I like both. I don't think I've seen Woman of Experience so I can't speak to that.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]