Holiday (1930) vs. Holiday (1938)

Isn't Romantic Comedy redundant?
Post Reply
User avatar
Ann Harding
Posts: 1246
Joined: January 11th, 2008, 11:03 am
Location: Paris
Contact:

Holiday (1930) vs. Holiday (1938)

Post by Ann Harding »

Image
Image
Holiday (1930) dir by E.H. Griffith with Ann Harding, Mary Astor, Robert Ames, Monroe Owsley, Edward Everett Horton
Holiday (1938) dir by George Cukor with Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant and E.E. Horton

Yesterday I got re-acquainted with Cukor's 1938 version of this Philip Barry play. The first version made during the early years of talkies is hardly visible. It's a shame because the actors make it extremely enjoyable.
Having now seen both again, I have to say that the 1930 version still holds its own thanks to Ann Harding's lovely performance as Linda Seton. She isn't as zany as Katharine Hepburn, but, her relationship with her sister Julia (wonderfully played by Mary Astor) is far more powerful than in the remake. Doris Nolan is rather bland in the Cukor version. The wonderful Edward Everett Horton plays in both versions the eccentric Nick Potter. The great asset of Cukor's version is obviously cary Grant who brings far more color to Johnny Case than Robert Ames.
Edward H. Griffith is not a great director, but, in Holiday, the pacing is quite remarkable compared with some of his later pictures.

Have you seen both versions? What do you think?
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

I've only seen the Cary Grant version and I do like to see him paired with KAtharine Hepburn although I can understand the point that she is too zany sometimes. Any viewer who doesn't like her in this is going to struggle with her in Bringing up Baby.

I would love to see the original though, especially as it has Ann Harding. Quite often I find both versions of the same film can be very entertaining.
feaito

Post by feaito »

I have seen both versions (thanks to you Christine :wink: ) and I think that Mary Astor is much better as Julia than Doris Nolan in the 1938 film. I also think that Monroe Owsley gave a better performance than Lew Ayres as Ned Seton, because he conveyed a certain degree of bitterness that was just right for the role, that Ayres lacked.

On the other hand Grant is superior than Robert Ames.

As for Ann Harding, she gives a different edge to Linda and is as good, in her own right and style as Kate in the 1938 version. I only wish that the 1930 was properly restored.
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Doris Nolan is miscast in the 38 version. I can't see for the life of me what attracted Cary's Johnny.

I read a quote from Katharine Hepburn about Cary Grant in the thirties, she said he was a little chubby in those days. Not to me, he was perfect :D
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

From CharlieChaplinFan:

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject:


Last night I watched the 1930 version of Holiday. We did have a thread comparing the films I have found it but can't resurrect it so I shall have to give my opinion here.

From memory they're almost word for word copies. The 1930 version boasts Ann Harding and Mary Astor as the sisters. Ann Harding plays Linda differently to Katharine Hepburn, more understated as Kate's interpretation is far more zany making the film fit firmly into the genre of screwball comedy. I like both interpretations. Mary Astor is far superior to Doris Nolan in the later film. The big difference in the movies is that between Robert Ames and Cary Grant. Ames is very good and acquits himself well, Holiday 1930 is more a film about the two sisters, whereas Holiday 1938 is a film about Linda and Johnny. Kate and Cary who always have terrific chemistry whatever they are in. The other difference are the screwball antics in the later and the acrobatics. I'm also comparing the later well restored film with the earlier version that hasn't had a good reconstruction.

I like both very much and will watch them both again

I've also seen Lorna Doone. Madge Bellamy as Lorna is gorgeous to look at and quite good as the feisty heroine. Tourneur recreates the atomosphere of Exmoor. I don't know where it was filmed but I could well believe it was Exmoor. Interestingly I've just been reading on imdb that the John Bowers whose character was seen going over a waterfall killed himself by drowning. The character of Norman Maine in A Star is Born is based on him.
_________________
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Thank you Movieman. It fits here much better :D
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
myrnaloyisdope
Posts: 349
Joined: May 15th, 2008, 3:53 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Contact:

Post by myrnaloyisdope »

I just watched the 1930 version last week, how apropos.

Well the 1938 version might be my favorite movie ever, so it would have taken a miracle for me to hold the 1930 version in the same esteem.

The 1930 version does follow the play more closely, with a lot of the dialogue being word for word, particularly the new year's eve scene. I found the direction to be very stage-y though, more or less like a filmed play. The dialogue doesn't have the rapidity of the 1938 version, and Edward Griffith can't hold a candle to George Cukor.

Ann Harding was good as Linda Seton, but somehow she always leaves me cold. I like Hepburn's version better simply because she feels more rebellious and emotionally troubled, more like a black sheep, whereas Harding's version seems more like she's just bored.

Mary Astor was also good as Julia. I remember watching the 1938 version the first time and thinking Doris Nolan was playing a Mary Astor part, without knowing anything of the 1930 version. Mary Astor's version gets more screen time, and is given more opportunity to develop a character, but I really have no problems with Nolan's portrayal.

Robert Ames as Johnny Case wasn't awful, but no where near as good as Cary Grant. There is a line early on where Linda says "Life just walked into this place" in reference to Johnny, in the 1938 version you absolutely believe it, but in the 1930 version it just rings hollow. Ames is just plain, and the only indication of his iconoclasm is the lines he says, whereas Grant just carries himself with such exuberance and joy that you can't help but notice him in contrast to the Setons.

Edward Everett Horton is good in pretty much everything, I simply like the way Nick is written for the 1938 version better. He's still good in both.

Monroe Owsley as Ned Seton just didn't do anything for me. He seemed very stage-y and wooden. I had read that his performance was better than Ayres, but I just don't see it. To be fair Ayres' Ned Seton is one of my favorite performances ever, but in any case Owsley just didn't work for me.

I did like how slimy the Crams where in the 1930 version, they just seemed more fully developed, but that's really only thing I think might have an edge over the 1938 version.
User avatar
Ann Harding
Posts: 1246
Joined: January 11th, 2008, 11:03 am
Location: Paris
Contact:

Post by Ann Harding »

Hi Justin! I am glad to see you were able to see the 1930 version. I agree with you, Edward H. Griffith is certainly no patch for Cukor. But, nevertheless, even if it's a bit stagey, it's among the best early talkie I have seen. It's in no small measure due to the actors' performances and to Philip Barry's wonderful dialogue. In her memoirs (A Life on Film), Mary Astor remembers it very fondly and points out how the film flowed much better than many early talkies. :wink:
Post Reply