 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 28, 2016 - 9:58 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
I really like the original film version, so much that buying it on Blu-ray was a no-brainer. I also think John Garfield was one of the best film actors of his era.
But I don't care for the remake at all. I saw it theatrically in original release and didn't like it then, and when I caught up with it on satellite, and in HD, a few years ago, I couldn't watch much of it. I agree with what Maltin's Guide has to say about it, that it's "exceedingly unpleasant, dreary and forgettable." But I understand the second film version is more faithful to Cain's novel.
Of course, I've never read the novel, but I'd be interested in doing so. I think it was published in the mid-thirties. Is it dated at all, I mean in style? I think I really should get around to reading it.
By the way, the Maltin Guide gives the original film four stars, but the remake only one and a half.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 29, 2016 - 12:38 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
Given the censorship that existed in the 1930s and 1940s, there's no way that the 1946 version of the film could be like the 1981 version. Getting the 1946 version on the screen was an ordeal that lasted more than a decade.
In early February 1934, before James M. Cain's novel was published, a synopsis of his story was submitted to the Production Code Authority (PCA) by RKO executive Merian C. Cooper. After reviewing the synopsis, the PCA persuaded RKO to abandon its plans to film Cain's story, calling it "definitely unsuitable for motion picture production." Columbia and Warner Bros. also expressed interest in the property, but Warner Bros. quickly rejected the story, "fearful that any attempt to get a screen story out of it would end in disaster." An internal memorandum of the Hays Office dated 9 March 1934 indicates that MGM production executive Eddie Mannix purchased the rights to the story only "two hours" after the PCA convinced Columbia studio executives to kill their plans to acquire the rights. In the memo, Joseph I. Breen, the Director of the PCA, noted that Columbia and RKO were likely to "set up a squawk the minute they hear Metro has purchased this story, which we persuaded them not to purchase."
The Breen Office made several impassioned pleas to MGM to drop their planned film, warning of the dangers of filming a novel that it called "unwholesome and thoroughly objectionable" in its general theme. Breen later elaborated on his objections, stating that many of the story's elements, including "numerous sexual irregularities," the explicit treatment of criminal acts and the "emphasis upon the dishonesty of the lawyers and representatives of the insurance companies," would prevent the film from gaining the PCA's approval. By April 1934, MGM agreed to abandon the property, and it was shelved for six years.
In 1939, a short time after the release of a French version of Cain's story, entitled Le Dernier Tournant, Breen stated in a letter to MPAA treasurer Col. Frederick L. Herron that "you will be glad to know that the film is a fairly complete flop. Very few of the critics liked it and I understand that the public hisses it from time to time. Some of this material might be used in defense of our industry when people over there claim that we make mistakes in refusing to permit certain stories to be filmed."
In early 1940, MGM submitted to the PCA a proposed treatment of Cain's novel. As indicated in a letter from Breen to Louis B. Mayer, the new treatment did not contain the novel's "adultery or illicit sex," and it would "not be a story about murder." The treatment deviated from the novel in many respects, namely in that no attempt would be made to murder "Nick," that the bathtub scene would be treated as an accident, and that "Frank" and "Cora" would have no guilt in Nick's drunk driving accident. Despite MGM's willingness to alter much of Cain's story, Breen wrote Mayer that the material "still continues to be pretty sordid stuff, and questionable from the standpoint of popular entertainment."
Various treatments and scripts were submitted by MGM to the PCA between 1940 and 1945, and in May 1945, the PCA approved a revised temporary script. In an April 1946 New York Times article, Cain notes that while some "details about sex were omitted," nothing else was changed in the story's adaptation to the screen to win the approval of the PCA. Nevertheless, the film was banned in Indonesia, Switzerland and Spain, and deletions to the picture were made in other countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget Luchino Viscont's OSSESSIONE (OBSESSION 1943). The Fascists in Italy destroyed all the prints they could find- but lucky for us, Visconti kept a copy of the film for himself. All prints have since come from this copy of the film. My favorite version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
