Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Mildred Pierce remake


Recommended Posts

First THE WOMEN, now MILDRED PIERCE. Oy.

 

At first I was really insulted that great films like this are being remade...especially when you consider it's acceptable for women drink out of bottles these days. In other words, gentility, manners and lady like behaviour are as foreign to women these days as bustles.

 

After considering that Hollywood gears it's films to teen boys, I can understand young and aging actresses feeling left out, there's no really good material for them. I am kind of happy these classic stories appeal to them at all, and at least they're giving them a try.

Pity the story is lost on most of the audience, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the reviews Ive read seem positive, but some of them complain that it's too long, though they praise the acting and Stephen King has the audacity to complain that it's too dark and depressing.

 

It's supposed to follow the original book; apparently the book contained scenes deemed unfilmable in 1945 (but not of course in 2011...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote}

> First THE WOMEN, now MILDRED PIERCE. Oy.

>

 

The remake of The Women did not work for me. I liked the original a lot and had high hopes, but...no. The only character who held my attention was Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper. The whole thing was basically a group of ultra-rich women wallowing in angst for a while, then "finding" themsleves, which leads to happiness. And really nice clothes. Actually a lot like "Sex and the City", except without the sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not singling you out, but this is something I've probably said a dozen times here every time somebody complains about old movies being remade:

 

Ricardo Cortez is the ultimate Sam Spade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched "All This and Heaven Too" on cable before HBO's "Mildred Pierce" aired. And you are so right. Winslet did look like Davis in appearance in that old movie.And she sure looks like Bette in so many scenes in "Mildred Pierce,:"But she still beats out Davis (and all performers) in the Oscar race having received six nominations before age 33!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have HBO, but I'd like to see this. The book is more detailed, the story more extensive, than the Curtiz/Crawford film. A longer, more thorough adaptation might do it justice. It wouldn't have to be better. The old film is wonderful. But it could offer a different approach to the excellent material.

 

Winslet is a fine actress. I think she can pull it off. Did I hear the series is in five parts? That seems excessive. Are they two hour episodes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

*First THE WOMEN, now MILDRED PIERCE. Oy. . . .*

 

*. . . In other words, gentility, manners and lady like behaviour are as foreign to women these days as bustles.*

 

somehow , *gentility, manners and lady like behaviour* seemed quite foreign to the most of the women in the original MILDRED PIERCE and especially THE WOMEN.

 

I'm not big on remakes of Golden Era Classics (I despised the recent THE WOMEN), but I'm enjoying the miniseries other than having to wait a week for the next enstallment . . . kinda like an old time serial I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Crawford version changed the time era of the original book and included a murder mystery that wasn't part of Cain's book. Many of the characters in the book appear in the Crawford version.

 

This version isn't really a remake. It goes back to the Depression era setting (as opposed to post-war Los Angeles) and is much more faithful to the story of the book than the Crawford version.

 

None of this is meant to take away from the Crawford version. I love it and think Crawford, Jack Carson, Zach Scott and Anne Blythe all give terrific performances.

 

But this version is able to go back to the original material and deal with the material in a way that Michael Curtiz and crew could not due to the Production Code of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have say the HBO "Mildred Pierce" is not a remake. It's a totally new version (very faithful) to the James M. Cain novel. This new version is a cable network TELEVISION MINI-SERIES. The 1945 Joan Crawford version is a (limited in length) feature film. Therefore, any comparison wouldn't be technically decisive or significant. This is because the HBO series has an unlimited amount of time to span numerous events of the original novel, not seen nor even referred to in the 1945 motion picture version. Interestingly enough, several characters in the 1945 film version are actually composites from the original story that now are fully and understandably clear and different for the HBO version. For instance, the role of "Ida" that wonderful Eve Arden played in the 1945 film version was combined from two characters into just one. The 1945 film technically eliminated the interesting character of the next door neighbor, "Lucy" and gave many characteristics of the deleted role to that of "Ida!"

 

In this day and age, it's natural to feel that there are "no holds barred" in the new HBO version of "Mildred Pierce." Everything of a raw and gusty nature that was the original James M. Cain novel is now fully covered by the HBO version. There are a few disturbing issues that the 1945 film couldn't reveal, simply because of the old censorship situation of the era. Yet, the 1945 Michael Curtiz directed classic is in its own right rather strong in a suggestive format to make even the audiences of the 1940s feel the motion picture was daring. I wouldn't want to exactly compare any of the roles from both versions, but the most striking and certainly most emotionally hellish is that of "Veda." In the HBO version, all I'll say is that she is without any mistake, a child of the devil! It's a bit frustrating to imagine, lovely strong-hearted Mildred having to face a reality that no matter how hard she struggles to give her daughter as much as she can, the girl is subjectively corrupted in some form of having lost something of a humble, rational soul.

 

So far, the new HBO version that started off a bit slow and uneventful has begun to pick up the steamy mood of the original novel. Most everyone who is watching this cable series is probably waiting with a great amount of anticipation (as I am) for actress Evan Rachel Wood, as "Veda" to have her big show-down with Kate Winslet as "Mildred." This is what has to be considered one of the great conflicts of both fiction and classic motion pictures. I have to at this point, from what I've already seen, recommend the new HBO version. Certainly, the principal actors are exceptionally good or at least give the original concept of the novel a sense of reality that the 1945 film version lacked along the restrictions that had to be obeyed. Still, if you've read the original novel, then I doubt you'll find fault with the HBO version. There's nothing so wrong with the old 1945 film version, it's just different and moves in areas that express a simple melodramatic abstraction to what was the original novel. However you want to look at both these versions of "Mildred Pierce," they are both sharing this intense atmosphere of the human element striving to find contentment and a purpose of value. It's a shame to think that the story of "Mildred Pierce" has its roots in the American dream and all its hopes, falling prey to the insecurities of life that are so prevalent to what there is to being human.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:}{quote}

> *First THE WOMEN, now MILDRED PIERCE. Oy. . . .*

> *. . . In other words, gentility, manners and lady like behaviour are as foreign to women these days as bustles.*

>

> somehow , *gentility, manners and lady like behaviour* seemed quite foreign to the most of the women in the original MILDRED PIERCE and especially THE WOMEN.

 

Uh, I don't see it that way at all, especially in Shearer's Mrs Stephen Haine's charactor. How about the scene where she is first confronted with her rival Crystal in the fitting room? Shearer insults Crystal verbally and tries taking the high road of not making a scene. These days women would get into a physical fight, tearing at each other.

And women these days use language like a sailor. Crystal was pretty subtle at the end of the film insinuating b***h, but not ever really saying it.

 

And in MP, Mildred's shame at being a waitress stems from "real ladies don't work hard" syndrome. Antiquated and nothing to be ashamed of, but a woman handling money like that was hardly considered "ladylike" in the last century. Somehow selling yourself in marriage to be supported held more "honor".

 

So no, women WEREN'T more genteel, they just acted that way in front of others. And that's the definition of "manners", not making others uncomfortable around you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in the original verison of The Women there is that fight between the Russell character and the Goddard character. If that is gentility, manners and lady like behaviour I would like to see the two of them in a ring filled with mud! There is also the ladies lunch where Russell character is down right nasty to Shearer's older friend.

 

But yea, Shearer acts with class and to me that is key to the movie. As a man to me it showed what the husband was giving up and of course getting with Crawford in return. Not a good 'exchange' in my book especially since his child would be exposed to Crawford.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no murder in the book? I've read the book, and liked it. But I'd forgotten that. I was thinking that element was included. This book is quite different from the thrillers the author is best known for. More about relationships than visceral appeal, it has more depth and scope than the streetwise page turners. The ice cold murder tales may be more entertaining, but "Mildred" might well be considered Cain's best work. It's a classy, thoughtful novel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}

> Well in the original verison of The Women there is that fight between the Russell character and the Goddard character.

 

Ooooh I totally forgot that scene!

Although I hate violence, (especially involving women)...somehow I find Paulette Goddard in shorts wholloping snooty Roz Russell as deliciously exciting!

 

Maybe they're better dressed or spoken, but it doesn't strike me akin to Maury fare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I can't edit it to change it from remake to whatever

I just find Winslet's character is too dowdy and her lover is creepy with greasy hair

the actress playing her daughter is over-acting

and yes for some reason I keep watching.... ok sue me lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...