Holiday

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!

This first version of Holiday works much better than the 1938 version, because Harding plays Linda Seton, the lead character, as it was written by Phillip Barry.

Hepburn's performance in the remake fails to portray the insecurity, selflessness, and guilt of Linda.

Hepburn's natural brash self-confidence and surface smoothness are at odds with the personality and actions of Linda.

Hepburn also fails to portray the intense feeling of passionate love that Linda is supposed to be feeling for her sister's fiance.

Ann Harding, however, beautifully captures and portrays all of that, and as a result, this 1930 movie makes sense, because we understand Linda and her struggle.

In the 1938 remake, the plot and Linda's actions all have a disjointed illogical flow, because Hepburn hasn't captured the personality of Linda, and hasn't portrayed the motivations passion and guilt Linda is going through.

The Oscar nomination that Ann received, and the box office hit status that the first version achieved, confirm the superiority of Harding and the first version.

The 1938 remake flopped and received no Oscar nominations.

Some other reviews here claim that Harding imitated Hepburn, which is amusing since Harding version was filmed 8 years earlier, and also bc Hepburn is infamous for stealing from other actors, including Harding and ofc. Cary Grant.

Mary Astor also gives a fine performance playing Linda's sister.

First off, as other reviewers have observed, I totally disagree that Ann Harding sounds like Katharine Hepburn, who played Linda Seton in the remake, and who also understudied the actress in the original stage play.

Harding has a more refined smooth voice whereas Hepburn has her usual clipped, brash New England accent. Were these reviewers really listening?

Additionally, the pert and poised Mary Astor also outshines the actress who played the subsequent Julia. Astor and Harding truly seem like sisters whereas Hepburn and the other actress have no chemistry as the Seton sisters.

Finally, one of my favorite character actors, the adorable Edward Everett Horton, originated and later reprised Nick Potter in the remake. He also narrated the Fractured Fairy Tales segments in the popular Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon series in the late 50's and early 60's.

I will say that I prefer Cary Grant (in the remake) as Robert Ames lacked Grant's charm and was a little too milquetoast. Plus he looked shorter than Mary Astor in most of the original!

One more thing that I noticed in this and other movies of that era, what is with the pronunciation of "at all" as "at tall?" I recall Walter Pigeon pronouncing it like that and others that I cannot recall at this time. I find it annoying.

See both movies and compare for yourselves.

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.

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!