Holiday

Contrary to popular belief, Depression audiences enjoyed romantic comedies depicting the rich. It gave them a chance to imagine themselves in another world, escaping the desperation they were in for a few happy hours. Romantic comedies generally featured men or women who were spoiled, rich, and bored with their wealth. This was supposed to make the masses feel lucky they had a purpose in their lives......to find their next meals and keep looking for a job. Despite this fact, escapism still triumphed over reality for most audiences. After all, didn't you imagine you might be rich and/or wildly successful someday?

... given its subject matter. This is not a precode at all. Rather it is the filmed version of a 1928 play that made perfect sense in the roaring 20's. This film could not be made before 1930 because sound films hadn't evolved to the point where dialogue and movement could be shown as they are here. It could not be made after 1930 for several years (It was filmed again in 1938) because depression era audiences would simply be befuddled at a young woman (Ann Harding as Linda) who is so unhappy and bored with her rich lifestyle while many in the audience would just want to know when they are going to eat again.

The story revolves around a rich young woman, Julia Seton (Mary Astor), who is returning home with her fiancé (Robert Ames as Johnny Case), whom she has known for only ten days. The Setons are terribly rich - I mean how many homes have elevators in 1930? - and they are divided into two groups. The stodgy business centric part of the family that runs things headed by patriarch Edward Seton (William Holden - no not THAT William Holden), and the unhappy Setons who seemed trapped on a merry go round from which they cannot get off. These are Julia's two siblings, Ned (Monroe Owsley) who drinks heavily to deal with the fact that he has no say in his own life, and Linda (Ann Harding), free in spirit but not in deed.

Johnny has a strange idea of how to live his life. He has been buying some stocks and as soon as he gets enough money together, he wants to go on "holiday". He wants the retirement part of his life to be when he is young, not just to have fun but to make sure that what he does for the rest of his life is what he really wants to do. Linda thinks this idea is grand, but fiancée Julia just thinks this is a goofy notion from which she can eventually distract him.

You'll notice that from the moment they arrive, Johnny seems to spend all of his time conversing with Linda and that Julia spends most of her time conversing with her "bucks on the brain" Dad. Complications ensue.

Ann Harding does have some dialogue and over the top moments that only someone as regal as she could pull off. Lots of actresses would have looked silly going on and on about how the playroom was the only place in the family mansion in which she was ever happy. Plus, she is making a BIG leap of faith in her final decision in the film. It is easy to see why Katharine Hepburn was cast to play Linda in the 1938 remake - they have very similar acting styles.

Let me also compliment Mary Astor's acting here. As both Johnny's fiancée and her father's daughter you are never quite sure where she is coming from up to the very end.

Edward Everett Hornton and Hedda Hopper have a small but crucial role as a couple who are friends of Linda and have a sense of humor that most of the stodgy Setons do not appreciate, but are needed to show that Linda does at least have some allies in her life. Highly recommended.

Turner Classic Movies often shows the marvelous old film Holiday-- starring Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Doris Nolan. It's among the best films either of them made and it's certainly among my favorites. However, I recently learned that the movie is NOT the first version of the Philip Barry play. Back in 1930, the original movie was made which stars Ann Harding, Robert Ames and Mary Astor.

The plots of the two versions are pretty much the same. Julia brings her new fiancé, Johnny, home to meet her family. He's shocked to find out she's loaded...and I mean loaded! Her family has millions and is very prominent socially. This is a far cry from Johnny and his working class roots. However, they are in love and both plan on getting married quite soon regardless of their differences. Through the course of the film, it becomes obvious that Julia has plans to control and mold Johnny---plans which are very different from his plans. Johnny is a bit of a dreamer. He would like to make enough money so that he can then go on an extended break--to see the world, experience life and only then settle down into a routine. Julia, however, sees him working as a banker or financier--stable, dependable and dull. There is absolutely no way both can have their way. One, or both, must bend.

In this same wealthy family are Linda and Ned. Ned is a cynical sort who spends an inordinate amount of time drinking. He knows full well the sort of dreary life he has set before him and spends much of his time intoxicated in order to deal with it. As for Linda, she's much more of a dreamer--a free spirit living within a gilded cage. In so many ways, she seems more compatible with Johnny--though she's too decent a sort to try to come between him and her sister. So what's to happen? Will Johnny allow himself to be emasculated and lose all his dreams or will he and Julia end up living in some bohemian apartment while he 'finds himself'...or is there some other alternative?

As I mentioned above, the plots are virtually the same. What is NOT the same is the entire feel for the two films. The 1930 version is rather stagy and lacks the energy of the 1938 film. Much of it is because back in 1930, they were just learning how to make sound films and often they looked more like plays being recorded on film than a movie as we know of it today. Holiday (1930) definitely is much more stagy. The worst of it is probably with Linda. In the earlier film, Ann Harding (a very popular actress in her day but a mostly forgotten actress today) played EXACTLY like she was standing on a stage addressing the crowd. Her diction and delivery were anything but realistic. In contrast, Katharine Hepburn's Linda was vivacious and exciting. As for the rest, in the 1930 film the performances were generally better than Harding's but still lacked the freshness and quality of the later film. Overall, I'd clearly give the nod to the 1938 production. But, this is not to say the 1930 film is bad....it isn't at all. And, for film nuts like me (and I know there must be more of you out there), a chance to see both films is a real treat. If you are also a lover of old films, I have an exciting suggestion. See BOTH movies.

How can you see the original Holiday? There is a wonderful website called the Internet Archive (archive.org) where you can view or download public domain movies 100% legally and for free. When you go to the site, in the search bar, type HOLIDAY. It will then provide a link to the 1930 film and its download. It's available in a variety of formats and your computer probably will play at least one of them. As for me, I've long used Media Player Classic (not the program that comes with Windows--the free program from mpc- hc.org). I strongly recommend you download it if your video player on your computer doesn't allow you to play the films. Media Player Classic will play a wider variety of formats than the players that come with PCs and MACs. Then, you'll be able to watch just about anything from the Internet Archive--and there are many thousands of films as well as audio recordings and even old video games! All are free and some are amazingly good--too good to have just been abandoned to the public domain.

A one location film (The Seaton's Grand Estate), "Holiday" (1930) and "Holiday" (1938) are based on the 1928 play of the same name by Philip Barry. It is difficult to compare the two, because although they both follow the original play very closely and therefore can be loosely matched line for line for much of the runtime, their storytelling approaches are quite different.

Edward Griffith's 1930 version is a slower paced, more austere telling, with subtle nuances and more subdued performances. One could almost call it a more peaceful ride, as the leading characters love to call their adventures in life. George Cukor's version 8 years later with much higher ticket stars does add much humor and vigor. This is not to say that Griffith's version is not funny or playful, because it is. Cukor's 1938 adaptation is simply more ostentatious and maybe pretentious. This is due mainly to Katherine Hepburn's performance. Like all the characters she plays, her acting always seems too unnaturally forceful and often overdone. Cary Grant fans will not be disappointed, however, and the Potters- with Edward Horton reprising his role from the 1930 version- are better this time around. Likely because, in one of the few differences, the couple is working class rather than wealthy socialites- making the characters far more lovable and their scenes that much more entertaining without the slight prudishness of the haughty rich.

Therefore, forced to recommend one over the other, the updated 1938 version starring the popular Hollywood pairing with Grant & Hepburn is given the slight edge. With its more humorous and faster paced interpretation. Not only a slight one. It is highly recommended that audiences watch both versions to decide for themselves- on account of the fact that sometimes we actually need to turn it down a notch and appreciate more subtle and subdued performances.

Ironic how this entire "Holiday" takes place in one place. A stately mansion, no less. The ultimate staycation, maybe? In all seriousness, whichever version (preferably both) audiences choose, the general message and story are the same, and Philip Barry's narrative, with both insightful and witty dialogue, is an entertaining way to tell it. Well, what is that oh so important and very true message? Be true to ourselves, for compromising can only go so far in personal relationships before it becomes inadvisedly harmful, and money isn't everything in life- you can't take it with you!

First off, as other reviewers have observed, I totally disagree that Ann Harding sounds like Katharine Hepburn, who played Linda Seton in the remake, and who also understudied the actress in the original stage play.

Harding has a more refined smooth voice whereas Hepburn has her usual clipped, brash New England accent. Were these reviewers really listening?

Additionally, the pert and poised Mary Astor also outshines the actress who played the subsequent Julia. Astor and Harding truly seem like sisters whereas Hepburn and the other actress have no chemistry as the Seton sisters.

Finally, one of my favorite character actors, the adorable Edward Everett Horton, originated and later reprised Nick Potter in the remake. He also narrated the Fractured Fairy Tales segments in the popular Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon series in the late 50's and early 60's.

I will say that I prefer Cary Grant (in the remake) as Robert Ames lacked Grant's charm and was a little too milquetoast. Plus he looked shorter than Mary Astor in most of the original!

One more thing that I noticed in this and other movies of that era, what is with the pronunciation of "at all" as "at tall?" I recall Walter Pigeon pronouncing it like that and others that I cannot recall at this time. I find it annoying.

See both movies and compare for yourselves.