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?

A young man finds that his free-spirited nature is at odds with the more serious attitudes of his fiancé and most of her wealthy family. An early version of the more famous 1938 adaptation of Philip Barry's stage play which featured box office heavyweights Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in the roles taken here by lesser lights Ann Harding and Robert Ames. Harding is very good, but Ames is too bland for a role that calls for a big personality. It's all very dated, but quite engaging nevertheless. Rather bizarrely, three of the four lead males in this movie would be dead before the '38 version hit screens just eight years later

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!

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.

If you get the chance to see this version of "Holiday," take it! Ann Harding is fabulous in the part of Linda, a role later played by Katharine Hepburn in the better known 1938 version. But another pleasure of this version is Mary Astor's excellent portrayal of Julia. She takes a rather blah and unrewarding role and really makes something of it. Highly recommended!