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...

Rosalind Russell (Harriet) plays the titular role. She has no empathy for others nor is she sympathetic in any way. She is fully focused on keeping herself in a strong position socially and emotionally. However, this so-called emotional strength involves looking after number one at the expense of everyone else, including her dying sister Elisabeth Risdon (Mrs Landreth) and her loving husband John Boles (Walter).

We are given an explanation at the beginning of the film as to the psychology of why Russell is how she is as she gives some background to her upbringing and shares her philosophy of life and love to her niece Dorothy Wilson (Ethel). I'm not sure whether we are meant to remember that scene for the duration of the film so that we "understand" her. For me, it was a scene to highlight her meanness but perhaps it was meant to install sympathy for her.

We are taken through various incidents that lead to Boles and Russell in a final confrontation. Boles only gets to stand up for himself once his aunt, Alma Kruger (Ellen), points out some home truths. She is a strong character and plays her part well. Russell is good as the 'bitch' and it is very entertaining when Boles re-discovers his masculine rights - sometimes a woman needs to be told! Dorothy Wilson is mainly insipid and a wet blanket whist the servant/cook Jane Darwell (Mrs Harold) is occasionally unintelligible and she blatantly over-emotes on one occasion to make a point as to who is good and who is bad. Not needed.

Russell gets an epiphany at the end as she and the set lights up - it is up to you whether you sympathize or not - and the film closes with a motto. It's an ambiguous ending.

I was watching this movie late at night and noticed that the child who played Rosalind Russell's little boy looked suspiciously like Spanky McFarland (Our Gang). He doesn't seem to be listed in the credits here, but I am certain that was him. Does anyone know how I could look this information up if it isn't listed on IMDb? Rosalind Russell is great as usual, but this movie is too preachy. Movies that are heavy handed regarding messages the creators want to get across are often unwatchable. Other movies try to psychoanalyze the characters in an amateurish way, and even the great Alfred Hitchcock was prone to attempt this in a couple of films (such as Marnie). Craig's Wife is better than most but it is still annoying. The remake, starring Joan Crawford, is more cringe inducing than this one, because of Miss Crawford's tendency to chew up the scenery in her later flicks. Nevertheless, I am happy to see so many of Ms. Russell's films are being restored and shown to a new generation on broadcast TV.

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.