Showing posts with label 1940. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1940. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Made Then Remade: The Philadelphia Story, 1940 and High Society, 1956





Today, we have a proper Classically Obsessed post, featuring two actual classic films in a post about remakes! I think we prefer to believe that remakes are the result of a modern culture that has clearly run out of ideas. You know, the same culture that brought you Fast Five? I submit that this is not the case. Shakespeare took like half his stories at least from someone else. Speaking of which, how many times has Hamlet been performed? (Speaking of which, you should totally watch the one with David Tennant. I hope I didn't mention that already.) Remakes. And this film. In 1956, someone at MGM got the idea to remake The Philadelphia Story only this time with singing. What you get is this film.

So, let's start with the story. Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn/Grace Kelly) is a society heiress on the eve of her wedding to George Kittredge, a man of he people who has worked his way to the top. She is annoyed by the memory of her first marriage to C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant/Bing Crosby), a ne'er do well of the upper class. She struggles with her father's infidelities and also with her own inabiity to look past people's weaknesses. In the midst of this, to keep news of her father's dalliances from becoming public, she allows a reporter, Mike Conner (Jimmy Stewart/Frank Sinatra) and a photographer, Elizabeth Imbrie (Ruth Hussey/Celeste Holm), from Spy Magazine into her wedding. There's a crazy little sister, an uncle with wandering hands and she almost falls in love with Mike, waking up thinking she's slept with him, which somehow she didn't which is more perplexing in the remake because well, you know Frank Sinatra, right? The only real difference is the first is in Philadelphia (hence the name) and the second is set in Newport during the weekend of the Newport Jazz Festival which also gives the characters an excuse to sing. Did I mention High Society has Louis Armstrong and songs by Cole Porter? Also, no opening scene where Dexter shoves Tracy to thr ground, which is odd in a film with Bing Crosby. Come on, people, you were thinking it, too. Anyway, it's a great opening scene, no dialogue, says everything about these two characters. In High Society you get Satchmo.



Which is awesome, but clearly this is a different kind of film, which is interesting considering so much of High Society is lifted straight out of The Philadelphia Story. Whole reams of dialogue, sometimes it looks like the costumes. There isn't one thing in High Society that doesn't come from The Philadelphia Story, other than the singing. Anyway, I love the way the jazz band functions as the Greek Chorus in this film.

But honestly, who thought, "Sure, we'll put Bing Crosby in the Cary Grant part." By what stretch of the imagination should Bing Crosby be in the Cary Grant part? It's the only part of this remake that seems off, like couldn't Grace Kelly do better? Oh, well, I guess when Frank Sinatra is in the supporting role, you have to go higher up the food chain of 1956. Meanwhile, I showed the following clip during a presentation about Frank Sinatra one time and the girl who had just presented on Bing Crosby glared at me the whole time. It was very hard not to say, "Bitch, none of my guy's kids killed themselves while they watched his movie."



Anyway, Katharine Hepburn and Grace Kelly. Isn't that the most impossible comparison? They're both elegant, they both were in films with Cary Grant (Come to think of it, Grace Kelly was also in Rear Window with Jimmy Stewart.) and they both scream class. Yet, they're so different. Katharine Hepburn is the tenacious, fiery redhead and Grace Kelly is the cool, impossible blonde. By the way, I love the way Grace Kelly plays drunk.

Then Jimmy Stewart and Frank Sinatra. How weird is that? Jimmy clearly has an aw, shucks kind of part in his performance even as he professes his loathing of the rich, we know he's really insecure. You never get that with Frank. Somewhere after the Oscar, I think Frank became incapable of playing insecure. For example, watch him in this scene with Grace Kelly.



And also, let us fully appreciate the supporting women in these films. Ruth Hussey in the former and Celeste Holm in the latter as Elizabeth Imbrie, playing the part of the spunky girl photographer with a dry sense of humor, who will still cut a bitch if she has to. Don't make her have to. Celeste also gets this song with Frank, which is one of my favorites. Actually, almost every song in High Society is one of my favorites. It's that kind of movie.



So, this is a rare remake in which we took a good movie and made another good movie. It's bizarre. I don't even know what to say. Opinions, anyone? Let me know in the comments section. Also, Bing Crosby apologists, let me know in the comments section.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

My Own Prejudices: Pride and Prejudice, 1940



I think any girl from the ages of fourteen to twenty-five probably at some point traverses across the romantic literary terrain of Pride and Prejudice and quickly becomes infatuated. You read the book, you watch Colin Firth in that wet shirt and then you find out Jane Austen died alone and single and you get really depressed and have some ice cream. You also eventually develop your own prejudices about what constitutes a good Darcy just like there are debates about who makes the best Bond: some people like Sean Connery's suaveness, some people prefer Roger Moore's easy wit and then there's always some idiot that tries to persuade you Timothy Dalton was the best. So, for me Colin Firth is my Darcy. So, I was curious when I read that Colin Firth was first intimidated by the part because Laurence Olivier had done it. I don't know a lot about Laurence Olivier except that I couldn't make it through Othello because of the blackface. Okay, moving on.

The 1940 edition of Pride and Prejudice is directed by Robert Z. Leonard and seriously, Brave New World's Aldous Huxley is one of the writers. Seriously. Laurence Olivier stars as Mr. Darcy and Greer Garson is Elizabeth Bennet. Let's face it, we don't really care about any of the other characters. I'm sure Jane is nice and all but let's face it, we don't care. Darcy is somehow less of a jerk, which somehow makes him less appealing. I know everyone is going to end up in therapy because of that one. This Darcy kind of comes off like a wimp and I don't even want Elizabeth to end up with him. I just stopped caring. Also, I hate to sound like a bitch, but I think Greer Garson may just be too pretty to be Elizabeth Bennet. I know, awful, but to me Elizabeth Bennet is the romantic heroine of the bookworm girl. She's smart, she's not ugly, but Greer Garson is pretty enough to be a cinema star. (No offense, Jennifer Ehle. Any woman that gets to be the girlfriend of Colin Firth and James Purefoy is my hero. The latter is a reference to Bedrooms and Hallways, which has its own Jane Austen moment.) Meanwhile, there are some changes made that I hate. If you've seen the 2005 version, you know that they compressed some of the plot. Well, this movie is even shorter. So this version is even more compressed. No trip to Pemberley and the scandal with Lydia gets wrapped up in about the same five minutes that Jane and Bingley get together, then Elizabeth and Darcy get together. Also, the whole thing with Lady Catherine? Instead of her being an actual snob, Lady Catherine visits Elizabeth and treats her badly just to make sure she's not a gold digger. Really. I could have forgiven the random archery scene if we had not had that. I think we probably have some studio head of the Golden Age to blame for that one. "Yeah, but how do we know Elizabeth just doesn't like Darcy for his money?"

So, I didn't like this one. I'll go back to my miniseries on DVD. Meanwhile, a clip from Bedrooms and Hallways.