Lady Windermere's Fan

I agree with the other reviewers that Lubitsch did a great job reworking parts of Wilde's play to make it suitable for silent film, and adding some of his signature touches. But I don't think the movie stands up to some of his later pieces, such as "Trouble in Paradise" and "Design for Living" (also reworked from a famous play, to good advantage). "Lady Windermere's Fan" is much more slow-paced, which can make it hard for a modern viewer, and not all of the characters are as interesting. However, the performances are good, especially the marvelous Irene Rich (whose high-fashion costumes are endlessly entertaining), the production values are high, and if you have the patience, you will be rewarded with some nice little bits of Lubitsch's social observation. It's interesting to consider how drastically attitudes toward male-female relations have changed over the decades: the film's plot depends on beliefs that have mostly, and rightfully, vanished. In contrast to convention, Lubitsch obviously enjoyed helping Rich create an older woman who was fascinating and sexually powerful.

'Lady Windermere's Fan' is one of the great plays of Oscar Wilde, so it is curious to see it here as a big budget silent film from Warners Brothers. Starring May McAvoy and Bert Lytell as the Windermeres, with Irene Rich as Mrs Erlynne and a young Ronald Colman as Lord Darlington, this film is directed by Ernst Lubitsch, known mainly now for his stylish musicals and dramas from the sound era.

Despite the obvious drawback of not using any of Wilde's text, either spoken or as title cards, this adaptation does succeed in putting across most of the play's plot, just making a little tweak here and there to move the plot along or to bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion. Sets and costumes are of the jazz age and are beautiful, and McAvoy is a winsome Lady Windermere, all indignant eyes and little rosebud mouth.

The film however belongs to Irene Rich who portrays Mrs Erlynne as desperate, calculating, and everything in-between. She was a superb technician without overacting, and it's a pleasure to watch her. Ronald Colman as well shows signs of the star quality to come.

This 'Lady Windermere' is well worth watching.

At first it might not seem as if the combination of Ernst Lubitsch and Oscar Wilde would work very well, but this silent-screen adaptation of Wilde's "Lady Windermere's Fan" is both enjoyable and well-crafted. Instead of clashing, Lubitsch's stylish, mischievous approach and Wilde's perceptive cynicism complement each other. The characters and the story are Wilde's, the acting and the style are Lubitsch's.

Although the material is heavily re-worked from the original play, Lubitsch's decisions all seem to work pretty well. Wilde's witty and resourceful dialogue is gone, but his insightful portrayals of human nature remain. Lubitsch also makes good use of the camera to bring off some shots that could not have worked on the stage. In particular, at times he makes the fateful fan seem almost a full-fledged part of the cast.

This movie version features solid performances by May McAvoy and Bert Lytell as the Windermeres, with a youngish-looking Ronald Colman suitably ingratiating as Lord Darlington. But Irene Rich has the most interesting character, and as Mrs. Erlynne she also gives a fine performance that particularly stands out in her scenes with the other characters. She and Lubitsch both capture the nature of her unpopular but admirable character, while carefully setting up the contrasts and conflicts between her and the other characters, who are in general more socially acceptable but far less worthy.

This also works well simply as an entertaining, often very amusing, and sometimes dramatically compelling story. For most silent film fans, it would definitely be worth tracking down and watching.

In "Lady Windermere's Fan" the great Ernst Lubitsch may have bitten off a bit more than he can chew. First and foremost, how can you reproduce Oscar Wilde's witty dialogue in a SILENT FILM?? True, the famous 'Lubitsch touch' is apparent, but minus Wilde it becomes a romantic drama.

The players are excellent and above reproach, in particular Irene Rich as Mrs. Erlynne - in fact, it is basically her picture. A youthful Ronald Colman as Lord Darlington underplays his role but is urbane and charming (in truth, I have not read or seen the play before but that is my perception). I have always liked Colman in everything I have seen him in, but, of course, you can't hear his marvelous voice and diction here.

Despite these drawbacks I enjoyed the film and felt the photography was exceptionally good. I just felt it would have been even better with a soundtrack, as it lacks the requisite bite and panache.

Sadly, a drawing room comedy of manners such as "Lady Windermere's Fan" wouldn't work today, as modern day audiences would be baffled by the subtlety and lack of action. That may be why it hasn't been remade successfully in the sound era. I give it a rating of 7.

Perhaps only Ernst Lubitsch could have created this masterpiece, a play by one of the world's greatest users of words turned into a silent motion picture.

I remember seeing this at the late and very lamented Silent Movie Theatre on Fairfax in Los Angeles, in the 1970s. And I remember marveling then how Lubitsch was able to create such a magnificent work.

Yes, he had the help of superlative actors -- May McAvoy's performance was truly a revelation -- and of course had the basic Wilde play as well as Julien Josephson's adaption, but it's his camera placement and where the actors performed that make this such a wonder.

I cannot recommend too strongly this "Lady Windermere's Fan," but when you go to YouTube, be careful to check out the various editions before you settle down to watch. One is terrible, but the one I saw is great. Worthy of a great movie.