L'obsession de Madame Craig

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.

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.

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.

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.