the 1931 version


liked the 1931 version much better - Man in Possession. that one didn't have j harlow.

reply

Are you implying that its better simply because Jean Harlow isn't in it, is that's what's happening in your post?

reply

I agree. The person in the role of Robert Taylor did a much better job. Maybe it was the way it was written, but he was much more clever appearing, and certainly the puns and mistruths were delivered much better.

And as well, the ending was better in M-I-P, no coming down the stairs expecting a wedding.

reply

Forrester Harvey plays the baliff in both versions. I found this very interesting! I sometimes wonder why they didn't use Robert Montgomery again in Personal Property, since he was still a very popular star of MGM.

reply

And Reginald Owens is the brother in both films as well.

reply

No comparison, and Harlow is art of it - but just a part. Her interpretation is not as sympathetic as Irene Purcell's in Man In Possession. And as handsome as Robert Taylor is, he just can't capture the same rakish attitude that makes Robert Montgomery so racy. But the mis-en-scene, the acting and especially the dialog - both as written and delivered - are all much subtler and sexier in the original. Bear in mind that the 1931 version was made before the Hays Code, and Personal Property was made during a an era when the Code was enforced. For me a good clue comes from the difference in titles; Man in Possession seems much sexier to me.

John 3:16

reply