mcannady1

First, just a few words about the original version of the film. The beautiful, sensitive music by Max Steiner, the all-star cast, and fantastic photography of London locales combined make the film well-worth watching. To all this we have the romance of the story which is quite enlivened by underlying evil of some of the key characters.

However, some of the important events are quite different in the novel. If we view the superb adaptation of the 1982 version with Alan Badel and Diana Quick, we will ultimately see the true story in pretty much its entirety. The ending that puzzles us in the 40s version is resolved once we see the newer version or read the novel.

We still have a happy ending per see, but it is the one intended by the author and reasonably derived from the story in the film.

I think the reason they changed the punch-line and Walter married the wrong girl, is because Laura's half=sister Marian has worked tirelessly to help her sister. Yes, we would love her to get together with Walter. However, it is best to re-unite Walter with Laura, as they had realized their love for each other early in the story. She only marries Sir Percival because her father had wanted her to do so. Soon she discovers that he is cruel and conniving. At the time their house guests, Count and Countess Fosco appear to be friends.

Complicating matters further, we see The Count making overtures to Marian Halcomb, and even writing in her diary about his feelings when she is sick with fever.

Coincidentally, I have been re-reading the novel by Wilkie Collins and find it very unique. Not only is the book rather lengthy, the story is told by different character's perceptions. It is like a recipe for a cake or a favorite dinner dish. WHen we put together all of the characters and their story of what had taken place, we zoom in on the real events. Ultimately we see revealed the conspiracy that dupes innocent pawn, Ann Catherick, and the innocent heiress, Laura Fairlie. Both girls are treated badly for the purpose of financial gain.

Ann had hoped to meet Laura and speak to her of Sir Percival's evil secret. Laura had left home, thinking her half-sister Merian, would be at the Count's home. So both girls believe they will meet with each other.

The most evil character, Count Fosco, appears to be kind and chivalrous, while assisting his friend, Sir Percival Glyde, in receiving his wife's 30 thousand pounds at her death. Under his mask of kindness, The Count tricks Ann CAtherick into thinking she will meet with Laura Fairlie on an important matter. She had recently escaped from a mental asylum, having been unfairly committed by Sir Percival Glyde, who fears she knows his secret. At the time his plans begin to fail, as he does not know Ann has a serious heart condition. Concurrently, he switches her identity with Laura Fairlie; returning Laura to the asylum under Ann's name.

Having switched both girls, The Count is ready to help his friend, Sir Percival Glyde, to receive the money prematurely. Sir Percival, rude and unkind to his wife Laura, is ready to receive his friend's help, no matter how it works out. The diabolical nobleman dies in a fire in the church which might have revealed in its registers that he should not have the title or the money he presently has.

After "Lady Glyde" has died, Walter Hartwright the drawing master who loves her, returns and begins to work out details of the conspiracy. He finds Laura at the cemetery and realized that Ann has been buried mistakenly as Lady Glyde, He and Marian, Laura's half-sister, assist in discovering the true scheme, unaided by Laura's uncle who believes Count Fosco and his wife who assert that she is dead. He is selfish and indolent, staying calm at all costs. Walter realizes that Laura needs to be recognized in her true identity, as Mr. Fairlie will not let her in the house with Marian. Thus, she will not have her status or her money. Walter and Marian work tirelessly to discover the scheme, interview witnesses, and seek legal aid. At the same time, they discover that Laura has memory blocks about her time in the asylum So, with all that said, both versions are well-worth watching, and so is the novel to be read.

For anyone who has not seen Alan Badel's fabulous 1982 performance as The Count, it is quite a treat. Also, as was stated in other reviews, the wonderful Sydney Greenstreet as Count Fosco, and Agnes Morehead is also superb as Countess Fosco. A last few words is giving merit to the wonderful Eleanor Parker in the dual role in the film. She is great as the lovely Laura Fairlie and as The Woman in White.

My score for the 1982 version is a 10. For the 1947 version, I score a 7, as two very important aspects of the story are changed toward the ending.

About two years ago I had written a review of this fine film and wanted to add a footnote. It seems easier to begin again with a few pertinent comments, so I wanted to mention that this is my favorite version of the film. Although I like the David Lean version from '46, this is the one I prefer. I love the lovely casting of the characters, the beautiful sets and charming music depicting new events in the life of the orphan boy, Pip.

About 30 years ago my husband and I enjoyed this film from a Family Festival, like it mentions here. It was on one weekend and was shown in its entirety. Shortly afterwards, I needed a blank tape at a moment's notice, and taped over it. A real mistake, because all subsequent screenings have cut out Valerie Hobson's part entirely as Biddy, governess to Pip. She was also the nurse to Mrs. Jo, Pip's sister.

Also missing is a scene of the vengeful man who worked in the forge for Pip's brother-in-law. In this scene we learn that he had struck Pip's sister with a block of iron, and this is why they needed a nurse for Mrs Jo and a governess to Pip. Enter Biddy, who performed both functions ably.

Although the film still works without those scenes, the more cohesive pattern is of course with them. They are essentially key to the story, like vital links in a chain.

I am a collector of period pieces and try to understand why they would cut a film which was depicted so well. A real mystery to me is that they would do this fifty years after the fact! My husband and I think there were 2 films sent to the movie studio that day, and the one we saw was complete. Upon subsequent screenings, I taped the movie 2 or 3 more times to no avail. In future it was impossible to obtain the film complete.

The American Film Institute book states that Valerie Hobson's part was deleted from the scenes in Great Expectations, 1934, This is incomprehensible to me. We have all heard of movies being cut before screening, but this film was clearly shown with the scenes up at least until somewhere in the 1980's. This was not to make way for commercials, as the eventual commercial release on Video, and later DVD, etc. is the 1 hour and 43 minutes (which lacks the scenes).

Although Valerie Hobson was fairly new to the movie world, she would shortly co-star in The Werewolf of London and The Mystery of Edwin Drood. Her fine screen presence and sincere acting enhanced many a 1930s film.

Thank you all for reading this. I have been on the trail for about 30 years now, searching for the complete film. If anyone knows where I can find it, please e-mail me (Janet) at MCannady1@Verizon.net. In retrospect, I should have called the TV station the next day to see if I could obtain the complete VHS, but never thought of doing so.

This said, I hope to find someone who knows where I can get a copy of the film on DVD or VHS. I just picked up a clue when Roy Leonard's name was mentioned as host of the TV Station. I had read this in a general description of the film, along with the comment about it being shown incomplete most of the time.