I don't know if anyone can answer this, but I wonder which version (1931 vs 1940) adhered more faithfully to the original Sherwood play? I am biased towards the Vivien Leigh version, since this is the version I was exposed to first, and I really love it. But I do find the 1931 version good as well. The character of Myra is so differently treated, despite being based on the same play.
I just wondered.
I do not love thee, Dr. Fell.
You neither, Sabidius.
Of course James Whale's adaption of Waterloo Bridge is more faithful. The 1940 remake is just a glossed up version and heavily sanitized. How anyone could prefer that version is just baffling to me
shareMaybe cos' people prefer Vivien, who was SO beautiful....I prefer the 1931 version myself, but can understand the other version being more suitable to other's tastes!
shareThe only reasoning for people prefering the second film version of Sherwood's play, after Waterloo Bridge (1931) with Mae Clarke, would be that it stars Viven Leigh and merely for the fact that it's a glossy MGM weeper. Mervyn LeRoy's version is nothing more than pure corn. It's one of those films that was later adapted to be more acceptable by removing anything unpleasant or most of the offensive features from the brillaint original version directed by James Whale. Leigh was fresh, needy, and poignant. However, Mae Clarke acutally gave a heart-stirring performance that was both modern and genuine. The original is without question a more faithful adaption, the remake is just laundered and softened to pass muster, with everything "bad" carefully weeded out. Maybe the people that gave this film "1's" don't care for Whale's tendency to view or at least represent things as they really are, which certainly can't be said about the version that's a purposefully misleading interpretation to the play.
shareA) Thank you for replying as I was genuinely curious about this point.
B) We are all entitled to our opinions. Yes, the Vivien Leigh version is better known - more recent, more marketable - and probably holds a nostalgic place.
C) I didn't give this movie one star. I really liked the Whale version as well, I thought it was well-done & well-acted and thoroughly captivating. But that doesn't mean that people who don't share your opinions are cretins. Consideration costs nothing.
I do not love thee, Dr. Fell.
You neither, Sabidius.
"But that doesn't mean that people who don't share your opinions are cretins."
That was the first time the word "cretins" appeared here. Being honest costs nothing.
Whatever version you like, stay away from the colour remake 'Gaby'! If you think they sanitised it in 1940 they scrubbed it with bleach in 1956 lol
shareHow anyone could see Vivien Leigh cat stalk Waterloo Station and NOT think it's one of the most overtly sexual things in film is beyond me.
It is-granted- a romance. The Leigh/Taylor chemistry is glorious and terming it "sanitized" is merely a superficial tactic to be dismissive.
The 1931 version is also terrific and much more of a drama. It is more a one-room play and the biggest difference is that Myra is a pro before she meets Roy. It's not bolder sexually at all--nor does it use the the terms "prostitution". Clarke simply says that she was at Waterloo Bridge and "picked up" Roy.
Mae Clarke is phenomenal. Vivien Leigh perfect.
But they are two very different films that stand very well next to each other.
I wonder if east_la_cholos and Thrift_Store_Junkie05 are the same guy...
Very good point. I recorded this thinking it was the Leigh version I'd seen a few years ago. Although the story was similar, there were differences. You explained it perfectly.
shareI haven't watched the play, the second movie (1940), or even more than a snippet of the first movie (1931). So, you may dismiss my response as uninformed and you have a strong point. However, you don't ask which is better, stronger, better acted, etc. You ask which adhered more faithfully to a play that a quick research look revealed was staged in 1930. Hmm, let me think. A play that is set during The Great War is staged before Hitler is known outside of Germany and is about an illicit love affair between a soldier and a woman of questionable morality. It is made into a movie a year later in pre-code Hollywood, then again nine years later after the code has taken full hold and after England has gone to war with the Nazis. Which of those might have "adhered more faithfully to the original?"
Please don't be offended by this; please think about the question you asked and what it means. Which of the two do you bloody well think adheres more faithfully to the original play?
1) You cannot distribute a movie in code controlled Hollywood with the original plot of the play. It must be extensively white-washed to get past the censors.
2) The writers, actors, and director whether American or British are going to be strongly motivated by Nazi behavior to make a different kind of movie. It won't be star-crossed lovers impacted by a war thirteen years over by the time the movie is made. It will be about Anglo-Saxon hero and heroine tragically torn apart by the brutal Nazis/Germans. In England by 1940, and probably even in America, a Nazi is a German and a German is a Nazi. War kind of does that to people.
I would bet $1000 with 5:1 odds, sight unseen of any of the material that by any marginally objective measurement, the earlier movie must be more faithful to the stage play.
Vivien Leigh is drop-dead gorgeous and a great actress. It is hard to imagine that a movie with her is not better than a movie without her. But, that is not the same as being "more faithful" to source material.
Mae Clark's performance in the 1931 version is spectacular. Myra's claim to being a chorus girl is proven wrong right off the bat in the music hall when she visibly yawns, just before the curtain. The brilliance of this movie is that the audience doesn't guess Myra's true "line of work" until well into the story.
James Whale did his usually brilliant direction, with the added characteristic quirky scenes that may confuse the audience.
Yes, Vivien Leigh was definitely more beautiful, but this play/movie is not at all about beauty, either physical or moral. It's pure tragedy.
E pluribus unum