MovieChat Forums > The Canterville Ghost (1996) Discussion > 1944 version of The Canterville ghost

1944 version of The Canterville ghost

posted 17 years ago by CountVladDracula
5 replies | jump to latest

Ugh, I have to say the 1944 version of The Cantreville ghost is awful. It's nothing like the book it's based on. Why is it the version starring Neve Campbelle can be true to the book but not this? It's terrible. Sir Simon's own father has him sealed in a room to starve to death for not fighting in a duel that wasn't even his to fight and now someone has to figth a duel in his honour or some such nonsense. It's far from the actual book where a teenage girl pleads with the angel of death for Sir Simon because he had caused his wife's death. An the 1944 version is listed as a comedy! It's much darker than Oscar Wilde's original story and it's awful.

The version with Patrick Stewart is much better and true to the book even though it's set in the nineties.

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

I watched the rest of that version of The canterville ghost and it became Blatant World War 2 Propaganda. An american Soldier had to do a 'act of bravery' (against the Nazis) to free the ghost. And there was a little Shirley Temple-esque girl who 'owns' the castle that the ghost haunts.

In the original story an obnoxious American family moves into the house but the kindly teenage girl of the famlily (Virginia) pleads with the angel of death to allow the ghost to move on. And the girl ends up marrying a duke. And it had NOTHING to do with soldiers at all.

This 1944 version's even a little sexist that a man has to do it and near the end the ghost cries out (before he's finally released) for his father to forgive him. His father who walled him up to starve to death just for not fighting a duel that wasn't even his to begin with! It's just messed up.

[–] puirt-a-beul 8 years ago

I know I'm replying a long time after you posted, CountVlad, but I agree with you -- up to a point.

I know it's nothing like the original story. Once you accept that bit, I confess I have a soft spot for Charles Laughton's performance. But I think you have to bear in mind where and when it was made. It was made very specifically for a wartime, American audience, and adapted to include a wartime American idea of courage and self-sacrifice. (Notice the resolution of the story was an American getting a Brit out of trouble?)

I didn't even know Patrick Stewart had made his own version of the story until just a few minutes ago. I've always wanted to see a filmed version that stuck to the original plot, so thanks indeed for confirming that's what Stewart's version does. I'm off to track it down!

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] CountVladDracula 8 years ago

Yes, the Patrick Stewart version is set in present day but otherwise follows the novella very well. I hope you enjoy it.

[–] puirt-a-beul 8 years ago

Thanks mate. ;-) Oh and Happy New Year!

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] CountVladDracula 8 years ago

Happy New Year to you too.