It's as if Charles Walters took "The Philadelphia Story", broke it up into little tiny bits, lost a third of them, then hastily tried put the remainder back together again when he saw George Cukor walking up the driveway. The result is not just worse than the original, but improbably worse. For instance, not one actor - not even among the bit players - is as good as his or her predecessor. How likely is this to happen by chance? Off the top of my head I can count twelve roles; the likelihood of them all being performed worse the second time round is about 1 in 4096. -Yes, I'm aware of sampling bias; I know that the only reason I'm making the comparison in the first place is that the original performances were better than average, but adjust the figure to allow for this and it would still be impressive - besides, I'm sure that a scene by scene or plot point by plot point comparison would yield similar results.
ESPECIALLY the latter. If you've only seen "The Philadelphia Story" you simply won't be able to believe how idiotic the story has become as a result of the hundred or so nicks and scratches it has received after passing through the MGM mimeograph machine. Take, for example, Charles Dexter Haven. His marriage with Tracy hit the rocks because - and this is the central moral of BOTH films, not just the first - she was intolerant of human failings. What was Charles's failing? In the original, he was an alcoholic. This is a genuine failing, and it makes both him and Tracy more sympathetic than they would otherwise be. It means that Tracy had some reason to treat him badly, that he's bargaining from a position of weakness, that he has things to prove to himself as well as to other people, that in conquering his addiction he has achieved something, and that (this is a minor point) throughout the champagne-laced festivities he has an overwhelming reason to remain sober - he doesn't do so just because the plot requires it. Well and good. Now: what failing does Charles Dexter Haven have in the remake? None! (I mean, did you really think the studio would let Bing Crosby play an alcoholic?) Tracy left him because he wrote popular songs. Need I tell you what nonsense this makes of the story?
Lazily edited and flatly shot in uninspired Technicolor, "High Society" has nothing going for it but some Cole Porter songs. They're wonderful, but they're not enough. ...Are you thinking, perhaps, that I should just forget the original and think of the remake as a stand-alone work? If I could I would. I'm sure this goes for everyone here who has seen "The Philadelphia Story". If "High Society" had any energy or life of its own we could easily forgive it its failings and judge it as an independent creation - but it doesn't, and we can't.
ESPECIALLY the latter. If you've only seen "The Philadelphia Story" you simply won't be able to believe how idiotic the story has become as a result of the hundred or so nicks and scratches it has received after passing through the MGM mimeograph machine. Take, for example, Charles Dexter Haven. His marriage with Tracy hit the rocks because - and this is the central moral of BOTH films, not just the first - she was intolerant of human failings. What was Charles's failing? In the original, he was an alcoholic. This is a genuine failing, and it makes both him and Tracy more sympathetic than they would otherwise be. It means that Tracy had some reason to treat him badly, that he's bargaining from a position of weakness, that he has things to prove to himself as well as to other people, that in conquering his addiction he has achieved something, and that (this is a minor point) throughout the champagne-laced festivities he has an overwhelming reason to remain sober - he doesn't do so just because the plot requires it. Well and good. Now: what failing does Charles Dexter Haven have in the remake? None! (I mean, did you really think the studio would let Bing Crosby play an alcoholic?) Tracy left him because he wrote popular songs. Need I tell you what nonsense this makes of the story?
Lazily edited and flatly shot in uninspired Technicolor, "High Society" has nothing going for it but some Cole Porter songs. They're wonderful, but they're not enough. ...Are you thinking, perhaps, that I should just forget the original and think of the remake as a stand-alone work? If I could I would. I'm sure this goes for everyone here who has seen "The Philadelphia Story". If "High Society" had any energy or life of its own we could easily forgive it its failings and judge it as an independent creation - but it doesn't, and we can't.