Le secret magnifique

I'm SOOOOOO Glad that the 1935 version of Magnificent Obsession is being released along with the 1954 version..The newer version is getting all the hype,etc. but it truly is the 1935 version with Irene Dunne/Robert Taylor which is the understated and much better rendering. I have a poor video quality version,but better than nothing..hope the released version has been improved in restoration.John Stahl's solid directing makes the principal characters more realistic.Robert Taylor shows a palpable presence in his first main screen venture..and of course amongst Irene Dunne's early 1930 films,this simply is one of her very best!1935..classy...1954...somewhat sappy

I saw this movie only one time on AMC during a film renovation special in 1991 or 1992. Its a wonderful movie. It made enough of an impression on me that 12 years later, after only one viewing, I still consider it a favorite.

I know that the later version with Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman is considered to be a good remake by film critics and fans, however, when I tried to watch it, I revolted at the glitzy technicolor melodrama. The magic, the old Hollywood glamour, the passion and the agony I found in watching the original seemed completely lost in the remake. I hope they do restore this movie before it is lost forever. I hope I get to see this movie again some day.

I saw this movie only once while in high school, many years ago. I have many times seen the Rock Hudson/Jane Wyman version and re-watch it, just because the story is so good in its purest form. The RH and JW version is truly sappy, and must have been one of the top ten to help coin the phrase "Chick Flick". The story is so much better told through it's literature, but like so many, I love to see literature come to life, and see if the Director and Producers have any likenesses to my own imagination. Lloyd C Douglas was a dear man, I'm sure, as an author I found him a bit sophomoric, but nonetheless, enjoyable. His others books, are in the same vein, and worth reading, especially "White Banners", which is also made into a film, with the same overtones as "Magnificent Obsession". Another one of his books worth noting, is "Dr. Hudson's Secret Journal", which isn't a true sequel, but sheds light on the theory that lights M.O.'s fire.

I have seen both this original version and the Douglas Sirk remake from the 1950s. The two are extremely similar...so similar you might want to only see one of them. While the remake is naturally lacking in originality, it is a bit glossier and prettier due to the Technicolor as well as Sirk's style...he had a real deft hand with romances.

The story begins with the death of a famous and beloved doctor. It seems when the doctor needed life-saving equipment, it was being used on a drunk playboy who has pretty much led a selfish and worthless life. He feels bad about this, at least as much as he can at this point. But later when his actions ALSO cause the widow to become blinded, he suffers a huge crisis and dedicates his life to helping her and others.

Robert Taylor and Irene Dunne are very good here. But I didn't rate fhe film higher simply because while enjoyable, the film certainly seemed far-fetched and a bit schmaltzy. Still, it is worth seeing.

The Sirk excellent remake has overshadowed Stahl's version nowadays.That's certainly unfair,because the latter was a pioneer of the melodrama who would peak with "leave her to heaven" ,ten years later.Stahl 's version,in stark black and white is certainly not as palatable as the 1953 movie and its gaudy technicolor.

Randolph's character seems more important in Stahl's version.His theory is certainly moving:You've only got what you give and you should not expect any award.Merrick tries to apply this theory,first because he wants to seduce the wife of the philanthropist/doctor who indirectly died because of him,because he was an alcoholic playboy.He has not really understood what Randolph tried to explain to him.The scene with the hobo comes as a comic relief,which is terribly needed in such a dark yarn.When ,as leaving the poor man,Merrick thinks he's got some divine reward,he's completely mistaken.A Christian movie,"magnificent obsession" sure is,as Randolph,in his second scene ,mentions the Christ. After all,his theory is not that much far from that of James Stewart's guardian angel in "it's a wonderful life".

Unlikelihoods are here there and everywhere,but it's the rules of melodrama.The story ,which includes death,blindness,moral and physical redemption,is not more far-fetched than westerns and thrillers plots.And life is so strange that it can turn sometimes into the most implausible melodrama;and like it or not,not necessarily with a happy end.