Avis des utilisateurs

George Kelly's Pulitzer Prize winning 1925 play receives its second screen treatment under the direction of Dorothy Arzner, with Rosalind Russell as the materialistic and calculating Harriet Craig and John Boles as her romantically naive husband. The story is very simple, Harriet cares more about House than Home and marries, quite openly, for financial security and social status. She regards other aspects of family and marriage such as sex, children, and simple comforts of home and family with indifference. Her living room is the outward expression of her soul, and she guards it tenaciously, forbidding anyone to muss a cushion, foul it with cigarette smoke, shift the position of a vase, drop a speck of dirt. As the drama unfolds, the significance of this setting is laid on with a trowel. Harriet's selfishness finally does her in as the blindly loving husband comes to his senses. It's a fascinating story because Harriet is an extreme example of a certain human type - the materialistic, status-obsessed neat freak. Two famous examples: Joan Crawford, known for her obsessive cleanliness (and of course her own interpretation of Harriet in the 1950 film version of this play); Martha Stewart, known for her devotion to the well-kept house and exacting attention to domestic appearances and presentations. The flaw of the film is carried over from the flaw in the original play - the husband's character is too arbitrary. It is not enough for us to be told by sundry characters that sweet Mr. Craig never should have fallen in love with a shrew like Harriet and that love is blind. His transformation from devotion to sudden doubt to violent hostility happens too quickly and neatly, but the reasons for his progression are understandable.

This treatment is more or less a photographed stage play which is not so bad here because the play in question made its points by various combinations of talking heads. The key to winning over a film audience under these circumstances lies not so much in cinematic derring do than in good casting and this film serves it up deliciously. Russell is flawless, playing what could have been caricature as a three-dimensional human being. She is no better or worse than Joan Crawford would be 14 years later, just different. As the house maid, Jane Darwell fits the role like a foot in a custom built shoe. Her best moments come when her character switches personality depending on whether she is talking to Mr. or Mrs. Craig; the shifting attitude helps establish the nature of the relationships in the story. Especially good is John Boles who has never registered to me as an actor. He usually comes across as a barely animated cardboard cutout, but here he is set loose on an emotionally charged arc and makes it all the way without a stumble. Billie Burke again proves what a versatile actress she could be as the friendly widow next door.

Rosalind Russell gives an excellent, haunting portrayal of "Craig's Wife" in this 1936 version of a play by George Kelly. Later on, it was remade as "Harriet Craig" and starred Joan Crawford and Wendell Corey.

Harriet Craig is a manipulative, cold woman married to a man (John Boles) who adores her and therefore can't see her for what she is - a controlling woman obsessed with possessions and status.

This is a difficult role because in order to pull it off, Harriet would have to be a lot more subtle than she is in this movie. Even with an accomplished actress like Russell, that's hard to do because Harriet's actions are so obvious.

In the film, Walter is clueless while she drives everyone else away. I happen to know a Harriet Craig in real life, and in that case, her husband knows but doesn't do anything about it to keep peace. That would have been a more believable choice here.

The film "Harriet Craig" is more drawn out and it takes people a little longer to catch on to what Harriet is really about. This version, probably truer to the play, is directed by Dorothy Arzner and moves quickly. The ending is very striking, and there Russell is most effective.

This was a breakout role for the attractive Russell, and it also proved an excellent part for Joan Crawford. Russell is able to show the tiniest bit of vulnerability in Harriet's nature. I think the Russell version is the stronger film, though both are well worth seeing.

I am an old movie buff and had never seen this movie. The movie itself was great but it was like I had just lived this movie. I worked for a man that had a wife like this and quit my job (I used to work out of their house) because I couldn't take her anymore. Almost every part in the movie had a real-life counter part in my life. I was the aunt. I'm tempted to buy a copy of the movie and send it to my old boss so he could get a glimpse of what we all had to put up with. These women do exist, thank God I'm not one of them!!!

By the way, men are not that dumb. The truth is they'd rather ignore that kind of wife so they don't have to deal with the headache. I would like to have seen the part written more true-to-life rather than as a husband that was completely oblivious to a wife that was a manipulater until the very end.

I enjoyed the movie and have told several of my friends to watch it if they get the chance. Not just because of the way I identified with it personally, but overall the movie was very good. Rosalind Russell was a real pro in her role.

Harriet Craig (Rosalind Russell) is a thoroughly hateful character. This is one of those films that gains power from the strength of the villainous antagonist rather than from a relatively weak protagonist.

Harriet is married to the gentle henpecked Walter Craig. Walter never catches on, even though the Craigs have no friends and Walter has become something of a laughing stock in town. Harriet never cared much for Walter, but she sure liked his money which enabled her to have a beautiful home, servants, and a respectable place in the community. Harriet is, therefore, one of those respectable, upwardly mobile prostitutes who uses marriage to barter her good looks for money and position. It's not a pretty picture.

However, Harriet's strategy for maintaining her marriage is deeply flawed. She acts like a manipulative, controlling cold-hearted bitch at all times and ultimately her life implodes.

This film is quite well done and the viewer just can't escape a warm feeling of satisfaction as the malevolent Harriet gets what's coming to her--and more. Although the Harriet character lacks nuance (she's just SO witchy), the story still worked, at least for me. This emotional resonance indicates that the writers, actors, and director Dorothy Arzner did a good job in projecting a wholly believable villain.

Rosiland Russell wasn't a star for so long for nothing. The lady had talent, and her lengthy career in a variety of roles from screwball comedy to heart wrenching drama proves it.

Hard working, completely dedicated and always dependable, Russell hit the bull's eye in the role of Harriet Craig in 1936's "Craig's Wife." What a roll it was! The kind most actresses would die to play, even though the character's less than completely savory.

It's Roz's performance that holds our rapt attention throughout this George Kelly play adaptation, and it's Roz's subtlety that provides the fascination of a fastidious personality. The rest of the cast, headed by John Boles, is excellent, as is Dorothy Arzner's directing. The set design is perfect for the production, and the entire enactment becomes hypnotic.

Kelly's play has an interesting history: it was filmed eight years earlier by William deMille (with Irene Rich as Harriet) though there's scant info on this. The fourteen years later Vincent Sherman directed a remake with Joan Crawford in the part. Crawford was indomitable in the role, aided by Wendell Corey as her husband; still it's Russell's performance that--to my mind--reigns supreme.

The 1936 murder subplot was eliminated in the '50 version. Even so, "Craig's Wife" retains its integrity, and represents a milestone from one of the most notable female actors and the most prolific female director of the "Hollywood Golden Era."

Although it brought Columbia Pictures no awards or even nominations, Harry Cohn nevertheless produced a winner with Craig's Wife that gave Rosalind Russell her first starring role when she was loaned to Columbia from MGM. The property was already a winner having brought home a Pulitzer Prize for drama to its author George Kelly, uncle of Princess Grace.

The play was a big hit in the materialistic Twenties running 360 performances in 1925-26. Author Kelly was making one stinging indictment of living for material things, ironic when you consider he was from uppermost crust in his native Philadelphia.

Rosalind Russell stars as the hard-bitten Harriet Craig who grew up in a home that got lost because dad started straying and began mortgaging the house and the family security to pay for his pleasures. That was not about to happen to her, but the capacity to love and connect with other human beings was driven from her though she masks it very well. The whole course of the play is the unmasking of all her pretenses.

She marries John Boles strictly for her security, she needs his income to pay for the house and the furnishings inside which is her whole world. It's like she's putting it on exhibit as opposed to people living there. She's impossible to work for as servants Jane Darwell and Nydia Westman will attest.

Boles gives one of his best screen performances as well as the beleaguered Walter Craig who comes to the horrific realization that his wife not only doesn't love him, but is completely incapable of the emotion. Another two good performances come from Alma Kruger and Billie Burke. Kruger is a maiden aunt of Boles who lives with them and is the first to finally tell off Russell.

The second is a slight departure in casting for Billie Burke who usually played good, but flighty characters on screen. Here Burke plays a neighbor who prides herself in her garden and her roses the way that Russell does her house. But living things require love which Burke gives her plants. The point author Kelly was trying to make between the objects of attention that both Russell and Burke have is a stark one.

There are three versions of Craig's Wife, a silent screen version from Pathe Films that starred Irene Rich and Warner Baxter and a later one with Joan Crawford and Wendell Corey also for Columbia. I've not seen the other two in total, but I'm sure they have their merits.

Craig's Wife is smartly directed by Dorothy Arzner and it gives a fine cast a chance to show case some considerable talents.

ROSALIND RUSSELL got one of her first really strong dramatic roles in this abbreviated film version of George Kelly's novel, CRAIG'S WIFE. By reducing the running time to an hour and fifteen minutes, there's a rush to present as much exposition as possible before the final scene which finds the heroine alienating everyone in the household.

Missing is a scene where she goes to her husband's employer to beg that her husband not be sent abroad, as appears in the more complete version of this story which starred Joan Crawford years later, and called HARRIET CRAIG. Mrs. Craig's devious nature was better explored in Crawford's version than it is here.

BILLIE BURKE seems a strange choice to play a friendly neighbor whom Russell suspects of casting eyes at her husband, played by JOHN BOLES in another one of his weak man roles. Boles' transition from loving husband to suspicious man happens so suddenly that there's the feeling something has been cut--there's no real preparation for his change of character. Still, he gives one of his better performances during his showdown with the domineering wife.

The only other members of the cast who make any impression are JANE DARWELL as Russell's maid and ALMA KRUEGER as her mother-in-law. THOMAS MITCHELL has little to do and disappears from the story after a brief scene near the opening.

Summing up: Mainly interesting for Rosalind Russell's performance.

Craig's Wife (1936)

A complicated melodrama, filled with spite, jealousy, infidelity, and murder. And with sharp acting, especially from Rosalind Russell. Director Dorothy Azner seems to be at her best here, from a career of almost excellent dramas with interesting side issues. This is clearly a battle of the strengths, of servants wanting to maintain personal integrity, of husbands figuring out what is happening with their wives, and of wives most of all, and Russell's charater, the title character, with a conniving, disdainful maneuvering that is what makes (here) a society woman's wife. There is sympathy most of all for the jilted men here, but there is an implication that the women are bored and due some kind of control over their destiny, rightfully. This isn't easy stuff, easy to digest or easy to film in an early Code movie. But it's worth trying and credit to everyone. Very much worth watching. It's a woman's movie, whatever that has come to mean in the 21st Century, and it is seen from the point of view of women, which makes it of increasing interest. There is no mention of the Depression here. These are people clearly little affected by it. I wonder what kind of audience it was aimed at. Maybe just anyone looking for a good movie, a good story. Of minor note is the cinematographer, Lucian Ballard, who is in charge of one of his first films. And it's a competant but unremarkable job. (Compare to the screwball drama of the same year, also mostly interior shots, "My Man Godfrey" filmed by Ted Tezlaff.) This in part points to one of Arzner's weaknesses, in my small view-that she was a literary director, interested in content and story over the visual drama possible in movies.(Ballard became admired for his widescreen work two decades later.) Ballard films this in what I think of as a "Dinner at Eight" mode that delivers the series of acts intelligently and intelligibly, in that mid-30s mode between the drama of early Warner Brothers and the polished richness of 1940s films of all kinds. Arzner seems to set up each short scene as a moment to create interplay between characters almost independ of the space around them. Eventually this emphasizes a choppy progression of facts, which gradually builds into a progression of emotional reactions. And that isn't really the best way to build intensity, and the plot really suggests and demands intensity. So, if you watch this, you will likely study it and absorb the information rather than get swept away. Which still makes for a really full experience. And, to go back to where I started, a complicated melodrama. And with sharp writing throughout.

Somewhat interesting film about a controlling wife (Rosalind Russell) who uses her well-to-do but laid back husband (John Boles) to have a luxurious lifestyle even though she doesn't really love him or care much about anything else. This film was made before as a silent, and later on with Joan Crawford. Boles is pretty much by the numbers here, playing a foolishly blind doting spouse, but Russell is pretty good and ultimately goes over the brink as she alienates everyone around her with her dictatorial ways. Interesting "warning" for those selfish types who care only about themselves.

**1/2 of ****

Rosalind Russell, John Boles and Billie Burke star in this film version of Craig's Wife, which was filmed before and made again with Joan Crawford and Wendell Corey, as the couple in Harriet Craig. I prefer this version, despite the fact Crawford and Corey are good actors. Here Rosalind is Mrs. Craig, a lady who planned her life and her time down to the last detail and her house is perfect, spotless and running efficiently. Even her husband can't smoke in his own house. Everything and everyone is under her supervision. When her mother is sick, she goes to visit, but she doesn't grasp the severity of the situation, because she has a timetable for everything and commitments to all the wrong things. She keeps everything in check, including her emotions, leaving her cold and indifferent to others' suffering and their feelings. This is how I feel Rosalind's performance is superior to Joan's. She never flinches, never loses it. It's almost scary to watch her move about, with her will and every whim ruling over everyone. But when it becomes evident to her husband that none of his friends ever comes to the house anymore and little things more him more aware of her iron thumb, he starts to rebel and heads roll! While her performance is practically the whole show, I prefer John Boles' take on his character, more than I do Wendell Corey's, too. Everyone, including Billie Burke is great in their roles. Watch Rosalind Russell as Craig's Wife and learn! You've been warned! For here on in...

Craig's Wife (1936) : Brief Review -

"Those who live for themselves, are left to themselves." Craig's hateful wife is a lovable affair and redefines underrated cinema. 1936 has to be a year of hateful wives, I guess (jokes apart). William Wyler's classic "Dodsworth" (1936) revolved around a wife who is left alone at the end. Craig's Wife is also left alone similarly, but the circumstances are different here. I liked Dodsworth because it gave a perfect punishment to a disloyal wife, and at that time Hollywood was making many disgraceful films about a love triangle or quartet. Craig's Wife is quite similar, but it doesn't involve any extramarital affairs or infidel stuff. It's a simple story of a greedy woman. A woman who wants reputation and money rather than love. Harriet is a domineering woman who wants nobody in her life or home, not even her husband, whom she is supposed to love. The film transits into 24 hour life, where you witness a few events that clear many secret agendas. Walter loves his wife despite a warning from his aunt, but he soon comes to know the truth behind the gorgeous face of his wife. The quote I mentioned in the headline will stay with you, and it's so true. Rosalind Russell plays a hateful wife, but you can't resist loving her as an actor. She has done a fantastic job in the film, and it won't be an exaggeration to say that the film stands on her shoulders. The ever-so-perfect husband is played by John Boles and what a great performance he has given. He looks like that goddam naive fella, man. "I can't stay here anymore," he says, and I was hooting as male pride and dignity were saved from falling there. The screenplay is pacy, the camera work is nice, and Dorothy Arzner's direction is skilful. Notice how he uses mirrors to testify to the cruelty behind a beautiful face. Overall, a film to look out for as a study case on how to view an underrated cinema and love it more than expected. The message is clear, clean, and subtle too.

RATING - 7.5/10*

By - #samthebestest.

Before I watched this film, I had never seen Rosalind Russell in a leading role. For me, she had always been the supporting comic foil or the other woman to Jean Harlow (in China Seas and Reckless). So when I read about a film where she played an obsessive-compulsive house-obsessed control freak housewife, I knew I had to watch it.

The film did not disappoint me in the least. It was less than 75 minutes long, but I watched it in two parts. Rosalind Russell proved to me that she could do more than just be funny, and I warmed up to her. Her performance is definitely one that sticks in your head after viewing.

Now comes the comparison to the remake, Harriet Craig, with Joan Crawford. Some people say they prefer that one, some people prefer this one, I thought of them as two different movies that just happened to have the same characters and a similar story. I would be lying if I said I preferred one to the other. Rosalind's Harriet Craig is a control freak, yes, but she plays the character with a mild sympathetic edge. At the end, when she realizes what she's done to herself and her peers, you really feel almost bad for her. Joan's Harriet, on the other hand, is a nail-spitting (I can't put that word here) who tears into everyone without even a shred of regret, not even at the end. This one is based off Geroge Kelly's stage play, and the Joan one is a remake of this one. There is also a silent one, but I'm not sure if it's lost or extant. If I can find a copy, I'd like to watch it.

Now that I'm done describing Roz Russell's character, I can describe John Boles. I can't think of any other movies with him, but every time I see his name I think of Walter Craig. He works better in that role than the guy in the remake (I've forgotten his name). Billie Burke as the neighbor basically plays her character from Dinner At Eight again, and the other actors are good as well... but I forget their names.

I would recommend watching both films- this one and Harriet Craig- and deciding which one you like best. I personally am indifferent, but I know that not everyone is me.

George Kelly's Pulitzer prize-winning play, previously filmed with Irene Rich in 1928, becomes stale dramatic vehicle for Rosalind Russell, portraying an upper-crust housewife who takes silent delight in running her house-servants ragged, mercilessly checking up on her husband, and scolding her spouse's live-in aunt for trying to have a social life. Meanwhile, in a highly obtuse subplot, the police are in the neighborhood investigating a double murder (this story thread appears to have been intended to unmask Harriet Craig's most malicious intentions, but it fails to come off). Remade--and improved--in 1950, with Joan Crawford more in-tune with the conniving melodramatics than Russell, who is passable if unconvincing. ** from ****

A very interesting film! I saw it at a university's film archive; to my knowledge, it is not often screened on cable or broadcast TV.

For Rosalind Russell fans, the film is quite a change of pace from those who may know her best from the screwball comedy "His Girl Friday." She's very good in "Craig's Wife," (as is the supporting cast) and her performance gives you an appreciation for her range as an actress.

I say the film addresses a timeless American theme, which is the tension between American culture's focus on materialism (an issue even way back in the 1930's, clearly) versus a person's more human needs, such as emotional intimacy. The character of Harriet Craig clearly resists any show of vulnerability and, as the film progresses, increasingly reveals a depth of coldness that's also chilling for the audience to witness, and is mirrored in the uneasiness the supporting characters display as they interact with her.

What gives the film its lasting impression is that there are almost certainly many of us today who have met someone like the character. Furthermore, in the present day, we often see similar themes (love vs. money) played out in American films.

The theme was a common one, I think, in the 1930's, partly because the Depression and its aftermath made it hard for anyone (particularly women, for whom few career opportunities were available, let alone accepted) to ignore the economic expediency and comfort that finding a wealthy husband could afford. In that era, the hardships that may have accompanied being a romantic and marrying for love (without regard for money) were not trivial.

For a comic take on this same thematic vein, catch "Midnight" with Claudette Colbert, which is a delightful movie that I think screens fairly often on the AMC (American Movie Classics) cable channel. Less from a money-based viewpoint, but very much from an emotional standpoint, the character Mary Tyler Moore plays in 1980's "Ordinary People," a drama, has some of the same elements as Rosalind Russell's Harriet Craig here.

Another variant, which centers on the ambiguous intentions of a man toward a wealthy young woman, can be found in "The Heiress" with Olivia de Havilland, remade (with the title of the Henry James novel both films were based on) as "Washington Square" in the 1990s, with Jennifer Jason Leigh.

So, I view "Craig's Wife" as a surprisingly unflinching view of how one woman walled herself up within a prison -- both material and emotional -- of her own making. Highly recommended.