Dodsworth (1936)

Dodsworth, hands down, is the best movie I have seen Ruth Chatterton in to date. Ironically Dodsworth is her most highly regarded film yet, it is not from the pre-code era that defined most of Chatterton’s film career. Though she is not a particular favorite of mine (I have only seen her in the more mundane of the pre-code quick flicks she did) I have never discounted her as being one of those actresses that successfully defines the independent woman. Or perhaps Female and Frisco Jenny is much on my mind as I write this. Up until this point her acting has not particularly inspired me. If possible, she speaks faster than her peer James Cagney and has a range of emotions one can measure by her facial expressions, meaning few. However, she has a radiant smile and a lively arch charm that lures you in and makes you realize that at least she isn’t horrible to watch.
Dodsworth is no exception to her range, she is still Chatterton, but she is so charmingly loathsome as the social reaching Mrs. Dodsworth, that you can’t help making a distinction between this role and her others. Quite simply, it was a good part and she delivered it admirably. It should be noted that Walter Huston was nothing to sneeze at either.
Without delving too far into the movie and making this a spoiler entry, Dodsworth is, in the simplest terms about an older married couple dealing with life in the retirement age. With their only child now married, Dodsworth has given up his business to enjoy the money he spent his life to earn. Ms. Dodsworth, still young looking and energetic, is bored with the same routine of life in a small town has convinced her husband to take her abroad. The instant they are on the boat, Ms. Dodsworth is changed and throughout the film she progressively gets worse. Dodsworth’s reaction to her change is at times hilarious, certainly indulgent but ultimately life changing. With wonderful performances by Mary Astor and Spring Byington as well, I would definitely recommend Dodsworth to anyone. It is a classic essential.

Tonight on TCM!
Spotlight on Under the Sea! Let's get fishy!

When Ladies Meet (1941)

Last night I watched the 1941 version of When Ladies Meet and found that though it was filmed in the post- code era, the premise was pretty much the same, right down to the set. I wonder if they used the same set? As for the characters, here's my assessment:

Mary Howard- played by Myrna Loy and Joan Crawford. This is kind of hard since I think both are fantastic actresses. Joan is more believable in the end after she discovers she has been speaking to the Mrs. Woodruff. Her heartbreak is evident and you can see she is weakened by it whereas Myrna Loy comes off more angry and resilient. Also, in the 1933 version, Loy kept driving home the point that if two mature and intelligent women were to get together, there would be no problem putting aside their differences. For an intelligent writer who is supposed to know women, this statement is naive and annoying the more it's said. By the end of the movie, I had a hard time feeling sympathy for Loy's Mary.

Jimmie Lee- Robert Montgomery and Robert Taylor both play charming men wondrously but Robert Taylor was out of his league here. He is oddly matched with Joan Crawford and stands out amongst the rest of the characters, he comes off more down to earth and less artificial. Robert Montgomery, who was constantly type-casted into these roles was better matched with the diminutive but strong-willed Myrna Loy. He was quick-witted, fitted perfectly into the cast of people, and played a better drunk. Montgomery simply comes off more cultivated and refined.

Rogers Woodruff- Hands down Herbert Marshall plays the better Woodruff. Though Frank Morgan is a fine actor, I place him solely in roles where his comedic timing and unique display of frustration make him ill-suited for adulterer roles. Morgan comes off more callous and selfish whereas Marshall displays genuine distress over what he has done to both Mary and Clare. It's ironic, Morgan's interpretation of Woodruff proves Clare's point whereas Marshall's interpretation proves Mary's point. The point being that this type of love is a harder love- Clare believes that there has to be something in the man that will make or break the deal- and in most cases, the man doesn't have it. Whereas Mary believes it's the woman who must give over once it's been proven to her that this type of love is real. Marshall's was real. Morgan's was pure selfishness.

Clare Woodruff- Would it suffice to say that anything Greer Garson touched was golden? No? Okay. Well, I found her by far to be the better Clare. This could have something to do with my indifference to Ann Harding whom I find a dull actress. As Clare, they both deliver their points well but Harding seemed a willing victim compared to Garson who came off stronger and more tolerant because her husband was a weak man.

Bridget Drake- I liked Alice Brady's portrayal of Bridget much better. Though Spring Byington played Bridget competently she did not do so convincingly. Brady played the perfect feather-brained matron whereas Byington's performance seemed forced and a little over the top.

Overall, I found the 1941 version better. Namely because of the performances of Crawford, Greer, and Marshall. Though the beginning starts out slow, once the affair is revealed, the viewer is sucked into the story, the interactions between these three are genuine, their emotions are palpable. We can relate and empathize with all the characters because they perform it that convincingly. The 1933 version in comparison comes off as a parody. I could not empathize with any of the characters. Harding seemed the willing victim, Morgan came off selfish, and Loy, in my opinion, got what she deserved.

When Ladies Meet (1933)

Tonight on TCM!
Rear Window (1954)
A photographer with a broken leg uncovers a murder while spying on the neighbors in a nearby apartment building. Cast: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter Dir: Alfred Hitchcock