The Heiress


See the original, it is much, much better. This is just yet another Hollywood remake of a classic. See the original, "The Heiress."

reply

It's not a direct remake of "The Heiress". They are both adaptations of the Henry James novel "Washington Square". (Actually "The Heiress" is itself a screen adaptation of Ruth & Augustus Goetz's stage adaptation).

"The Heiress" is superior, but I found a lot to like in this version as well. I saw the stage revival of "The Heiress" with Cherry Jones on Broadway in the 90's...that's my favorite version of all.

reply

~ I love both The Heiress and Washington Square alot.


*~~*

reply

I agree Sunflower007. Both the Heiress and Washington Square were entertaining. They are also both a product of their time. You can definitely see the evolution of acting by comparing the two movies.

Although the costuming of Washington Square seems more lush because it's in color.




No two persons ever watch the same movie.

reply

I must disagree wit the OP. This is one of the best adaptations of a book I have seen. I like it even better than the book!

reply



I must say I agree.
I am not one to bash remakes just because. But compared to James's text and, only secondarily, to the 1949 film, it is a huge disappointment.

I don't think Jennifer Jason Leigh did a very good - or even adequate - job here, but I suspect it's not entirely her fault. I don't know what the director was thinking, but the whole is totally off. To me, it looks choppy and certainly lacking the noble pathos of the original (I mean the text). I don't think that a viewer unfamiliar with the text would even guess that many (was it twenty?) years have elapsed before Morris and Catherine meet again.

Read the novel. It's worth it.


reply

I suspect you're right, having just re-watched it. Also, why hasn't anyone commented on the big plot differences between "The Heiress" (film and, I assume play) and this screenplay? I assume this one follows the plot of the novel more correctly (even if it doesn't do the novella justice)?

reply

[deleted]

I love the heiress. But I love this one as well. They are alike but yet they are different in a lot of aspects. I think JJL did a fantastic job in this. Her character in this was one you pitied. I didn't pity ODH character in the heiress for long. She handled her business which made it a different story altogether.

reply

I must say I just watched Washington Square for the first time, and I liked it .
But I must say that Olivia De Havilland did a much better job at portraying the loving and naive Catherine Sloper.

reply

I disagree. Olivia DeHavilland was far too mature and strong to play Catherine. I thought Jennifer Jason Leigh did a superb job at illustrating the character's fragility.

reply

I almost always DVR and watch The Heiress (1949) when TCM (Turner Classic Movies) features it, which is pretty frequent so I'm very familiar with it.

I think Washington Square (1997) should be appreciated for trying to stand on its own feet and not be a clone of the first movie.

I do find Leigh's Catherine almost unbearably tragic which made the movie too depressing for me to watch repeatedly unlike The Heiress. She's such a damaged individual compared to De Havilland's Catherine who impressed me as just "repressed" but given the right provocation, would burst out of her shell which she did. This Catherine lashed out at her father and had the on-the-spot cleverness and style to "show Morris's the door."

In addition, because The Heiress is based on a play rendering of the novel, the scenes are tighter and much more heightened and the dialogue is far superior.




Billy Wilder Page, Play the Movie Smiley Game
www.screenwritingdialogue.com

reply

I like JJL as an actress, but "The Heiress" was much better.

As bluestocking said, in "The Heiress" De Havilland's Catherine is repressed, but comes through as has the last laugh.

There was something lacking in this version.

reply

I like this later version better.

That is all.

reply