This was remade in 1955 with Joan Crawford and Wendel Cory. The '55 treatment was really better, it was two hours instead of 73 minutes and had a completely different plot line that developed Harriet's character more deeply.
share"Harriet Craig" was actually made in 1950 - but why quibble? I agree that Harriet was more the focus of the Crawford version. And Joan certainly played her as more of a quiet sociopath than Roz did. I remarked in another post that Roz was probably directed more deftly by Dorothy Arzner than Crawford was by Vincent Sherman, who riddled his Harriet with more of the misogyny typical in 1950's Hollywood.
Russell's Harriet comes off more human that Crawford's. There is no sense at the end of "Harriet Craig" that the eponymous character will change, or has actually realized her own flaws. Don't get me wrong, I think that Crawford gave a stellar performance, but Russell's Harriet came off more sympathetic. In the last scene I sensed a change in her, as if it had hit home in her own mind how awful she had been.
Interesting to compare and contrast the two versions. Apparently there's also a 1920's version that would probably be almost impossible to find.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I saw Joan's version several years ago. I had heard the title, but didn't know anything about the plot or anyone else in it. I caught it on TCM and enjoyed it. I thought Harriet was a cold bi!ch and that Joan did a great job.
I never knew there was another one until a couple of weeks or so ago when the had R.R. on TCM all month. I got to see several of her movies that I had never seen before. I just happened to catch Craig's Wife.
I agree that R.R. was a much more sympathetic version. I got the impression that she wanted the security of having a rich husband. Joan just wanted to posess things.
Usually when the same part has been played by 2 people you can pick a favorite or say one did a better job, but in this case, I think they both did great but different jobs.
To anybody that hasn't seen one, or either, of them to see both.
It's called a llaaaannce--Hellooooo
I much prefer the original Craig's Wife with Roz Russell and John Boles. Harriet Craig with Crawford is a bad remake, IMO, and Joan is the Wife from Hell..
I've never read the play, but the plot is dramatically different in the Joan version than the Roz version. I think Roz was better.
At the end, tho, they both got what they wanted...the house, the possessions, but no husband and possibly no security, which is what they married for in the first place.
Joan looked like a man in this film, with a very unbecoming haircut.
"If you can make a girl laugh, you can make her do anything!"....
The Crawford version is far superior with a much much much more complex character than in Criag's Wife. There are so many layers to Crawford's neurose it is mind boggling. A very damaged character perfectly realized by a GREAT actress Joan Crawford.
share[deleted]
Fantastic post Ty Graham. I agree 100% with everything you said. Joan Crawford is my absolute favorite by I too admire Davis, Stanwyck, Hepburn and many others - but Joan is tops for me. I beautifully written rebuttal to all those people who post a lot of false information about Crawford. May I also add to her list of great directors: Nicholas Ray, Otto Preminger & Steven Speilberg.
shareGood post. I love the severe haircut she wears in 'Harriet Craig'; it is perfect for the role, and Joan looks good in it.
"What do you want me to do, draw a picture? Spell it out!"
i also much preferred the 1950 version, and it is actually my third favorite film of that year behind "all about eve" and "sunset boulevard" whilst crawford gives my third favorite performance of the year behind the leads of those two films.
"they should give nicole kidman an oscar for being able to show any emotion after THAT much botox".
both films are good in there own way. they each have there faults and merits
Thunderbirds Aren't Slow