Holiday

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.

The 1938 remake benefits from a more assured production and, of course, Cukor's direction. And the two are surprisingly close: Whole swatches of dialog from 1930 are lifted more or less bodily (the 1930 version, most likely, did the same with the stage dialog). And it's a rather stagy early talkie, trying, but not very hard, to move the action around and make it more cinematic. What the early version does have is Ann Harding. She's so lovely, and her playing has, I don't know, a stillness, a contemplation to it; she seems to think very hard about what to say before she says it. It lends a certain gravitas to what is already a fairly serious comedy dealing with rather large issues--how to live one's life, and how one's choices affect those around one. Mary Astor is also miles beyond Doris Nolan, creating a multifaceted, complicated character out of what could come across as just a selfish sister. Robert Ames hasn't Cary Grant's polished comedy playing or looks, but he's credible, and Edward Everett Horton is delightful in the same part he played in 1938. It's a mellow, thoughtful movie, marred but hardly ruined by the primitive movie-making. And we're very lucky to have Ann Harding's Oscar-nominated Linda Seton preserved.

This first version of Holiday works much better than the 1938 version, because Harding plays Linda Seton, the lead character, as it was written by Phillip Barry.

Hepburn's performance in the remake fails to portray the insecurity, selflessness, and guilt of Linda.

Hepburn's natural brash self-confidence and surface smoothness are at odds with the personality and actions of Linda.

Hepburn also fails to portray the intense feeling of passionate love that Linda is supposed to be feeling for her sister's fiance.

Ann Harding, however, beautifully captures and portrays all of that, and as a result, this 1930 movie makes sense, because we understand Linda and her struggle.

In the 1938 remake, the plot and Linda's actions all have a disjointed illogical flow, because Hepburn hasn't captured the personality of Linda, and hasn't portrayed the motivations passion and guilt Linda is going through.

The Oscar nomination that Ann received, and the box office hit status that the first version achieved, confirm the superiority of Harding and the first version.

The 1938 remake flopped and received no Oscar nominations.

Some other reviews here claim that Harding imitated Hepburn, which is amusing since Harding version was filmed 8 years earlier, and also bc Hepburn is infamous for stealing from other actors, including Harding and ofc. Cary Grant.

Mary Astor also gives a fine performance playing Linda's sister.

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.