See above. I have seen neither, and would like to know if anyone is a fan of the book, or one or both movies. If so, please let me know which version you favor, I got interested reading that the making of this movie was a stipulation of Bill Murray's before he would star in Ghostbusters.
Thanks in advance
[deleted]
I've seen both quiet a few times. The story line is virtually identical but thetwo movies are very, very different. The original starred Tyrone Power in the Bill Murray/Larry Darrow roll. Ann Baxter played a credible Sophie but Theresa Russell was better Power was a great actor but he didn't have any comedic flair and so the original is quite humorless. Another big difference was Herbert Marshall: He played W. Sommerset Maugham in the 1946 movie; this roll didn't exist in the Murray remake. The 1946 movie was filmed entirely on a set while Murrary's version benefited greatly from on location shooting. Both movies were great but the 1946 film has a very 1946 feel to it and many young peopel find that unappealing. Honestly, I would suggest reading Maugham's novel, which is rather different (and much better) than either movie.
shareI seen both movies multiple times too. I really like both movies and highly recommend seing both, you will not be dissapointed. I really could not pick one over the other.
share
You caught an important point regarding the adaptation. Maugham explicitly said:
"Please note that this is, on the whole, a comedy, and should be played lightly by everyone except in the definitely serious passages."
I have seen both. Murray, Russell and Elliot all do better than their 1946 counterparts. I have not read the book.
Ranb
I read the book this year; it is different. The book is told in the first person by the author with the other characters passing in and out of his life every few months or years. It is the author who finds Sophie dead in the morgue and confronts Isabel about her attempt to push Sophie back into the life that killed her.
[deleted]
I'm a fan of the book and I've seen both movies.
I think both adaptations (for their time) are pretty interesting, and true to the book. (And usually adaptations of books are not that good, although I might be suspicious, since I don't think 1970's adaptation of "The Great Gatsby" is as bad as people say, and I did enjoy the part of Errol Flyn in "The Sun Also Rises").
so what are the big diferences betwen the two? well one could start with the time they where made, but to me the biggest diference is the absence os Somerset Maughm in the Bill Murray movie.
If you have read the book, you know that SM is a very active narrator, with an active part in the story (he's in the parties, it is to him that some dialogues and resolutions are revealed). The Tyrone Power keeps that, and makes SM one of the charecters, while the 80's version cut's him completely from the story.
It's a very interesting exercise, and it actually works, and in a way makes the script more "fluid" or if you like, more "cinematic" (and I've always wondered why this isn't given as an example more often in writers workshops on adapting a book).
I would say that is the major change (also the part in India is smaller if I'm not mistaken, but I haven't seen those movies in almost 10 years...).
If your a fan of the book, I recomend both movies, if your not... the 40's version is no Casablanca, and the 80's Version is no GodFather, but I believe they both stood the tests of time
(And Bill Murray acting is actually enjoying, very much in the line of what he does with Anderson and Sophia Coppola, but probably more "pure")
Murray is no Tyrone Power, Denholm Elliot is no Clifton Webb, and
taking out the Maugham-narrator character dilutes the remake. This is not
a film suited to modern audiences. The soundtrack of the original resonates.
- - SoundTrak
Amen! I completely agree with you. Webb is brilliant in a role he was born to play, and Elliot (a great actor in his way) was just not up to the original. If you read the book the Maugham-narrator is, as you say SO central, and Herbert Marshall was wonderful, as always. Power was not the greatest actor, but he didn't come with the "baggage" Bill Murray brings to the role. It's like casting Steve Martin in PENNIES FROM HEAVEN. It wasn't that either of them were awful, it's just that people expect them to be funny or quirky, and that didn't really work. I loved the book and the earlier film, but I don't mind watching classic studio filmed movies; and many young people today want everything to be like the present (maybe so did I when I was younger).
shareIn my opinion Denholm Elliot had the strongest performance of any of the actors in either film. I liked Russell's Sophie better than Baxter's.
shareI wish the movies could be combined... lol... because I liked elements of both. I didn't read the book...so I'm not sure which one was closer to the book...but I'm thinking the newer version. Since the older version is narrated by the author of the book. Although I did kinda like the addition of him telling the story. He was much more tolerable than the Clifton Webb character as the Uncle...(I liked the actor's performance of the uncle in the newer version better).
But one of the biggest differences is... the remake plays up the romance of Larry and Sophie... and the older movie kinda skips right over that. (Which seems funny that the actress playing the older version Sophie - Anne Baxter... won an Oscar for such a small part).
So in the end...I kinda think I like the remake better. I did like that we saw Larry and Sophie fall in love. I think the newer version did a better job showing all the characters and their relationships... like how they were all very good friends when young. Plus the newer one showed the war...unlike the older version. I think the remake also better showed Sophie's love for her family. And in the newer film the cinematography was way better...with beautiful scenes in India...as opposed to a studio painted backdrop like in the older movie. And the Temple in the old movie...looked a lot like the uncle's Riviera home... lol. Plus I do think the newer film made the conclusion more intense. I just wish some of the actors in the remake could have been as good as some of the actors from the older version...(never was a fan of Catherine Hicks).
But one of the biggest differences is... the remake plays up the romance of Larry and Sophie... and the older movie kinda skips right over that. (Which seems funny that the actress playing the older version Sophie - Anne Baxter... won an Oscar for such a small part).
Any comparison of the two versions of THE RAZOR'S EDGE would be like the proverbial comparison of apples and oranges.
Bill Murray is woefully miscast in the remake. When I think of asceticism and mysticism, both essential qualities of the Larry Darrel character, I do not think of Bill Murray. Mr. Murray's acting in the movie did nothing to change that.
Granted, in the original, Tyrone Power came off as two-dimensional while the role called for a remote austerity. But this was more than compensated for by the stunning beauty of Gene Tierney.
The other posters are right, the remake suffers from the lack of the Somerset Maugham character and the narrative voice it provides.
The one saving grace of the remake was Denholm Elliott as Elliott Templeton. His role as the crypto-gay Elliott Templeton compares well with Clifton Webb in the same part. It could be argued, since both actors were gay in real life, they brought a certain verisimilitude to their role.
Tyrone Power's recitation of Keats' "The Day Is Gone, and All Its Sweets Are Gone" always brings a tear to my eye. It is one of the great poems on profound loss:
The day is gone, and all its sweets are gone!
Sweet voice, sweet lips, soft hand, and softer breast,
Warm breath, light whisper, tender semitone,
Bright eyes, accomplished shape, and lang'rous waist!
Faded the flower and all its budded charms,
Faded the sight of beauty from my eyes,
Faded the shape of beauty from my arms,
Faded the voice, warmth, whiteness, paradise—
If anyone cries over the remake, it's probably for a decidedly different reason.
I enjoyed the Black & White version more than this one. I have not read the novel, so I don't know how close either version is to the literary source.
If you love and support Michael Jackson 100%, copy & paste this into your signature. We love MJ!
I have not read the book, but have seen both versions of this movie, as well as "Of Human Bondage". There are parallels between the two books as it regards Maugham's near misogyny. This, of course, is only my opinion. However, both movies are outstanding, the original's cast delivered great performances. Ann Sheridan was outshone as Sophie by Theresa Russell. Bill Murray gave Larry a unique and understated interpretation, and I was impressed by his dramatic ability. Catherine Hicks only passable as Isabel. My favorite line was "I thought Sophie was my reward for trying to live a good life". I think about that often.
share