I would love to know which version of "The Letter" is closest to the H. Sommerset Maugham story. I assume it's this 1929 version with Jeanne Eagels since later Post-Code films demanded that evil be punished. Regardless, the later and more famous Bette Davis version is almost like an entirely different story—it's that different. And, it's a bit better.
While the Davis version begins with that wonderful shooting scene and you THINK the wife shot the man in self-defense initially, this is not the case with the 1929 film. The wife is an adulteress and a cold one at that. Additionally, the ending of the film is completely different because the 1929 version leaves the woman with little punishment for her evil deeds and in the Post-Code Warner Brothers version she clearly gets what's coming to her. One version is a bit dissatisfying, the other perhaps a bit too neatly wrapped up! So which film is better? Well, clearly I think it's the Davis version. Part of it is Davis' wonderful acting (it's one of her best) and part of it is because the Warner version just looked a lot better and had better production values. This isn't surprising, as in 1929, incidental music was practically nonexistent and the films were just shifting over to sound in Hollywood. Also, while the earlier version is certainly a lot grittier, most folks (including me) might feel a bit let down by its inconclusive ending. Still, Jeanne Eagels did have an excellent performance as well and the film has a certain steamy charm. It's still worth seeing but dramatically different from the remake.
While the Davis version begins with that wonderful shooting scene and you THINK the wife shot the man in self-defense initially, this is not the case with the 1929 film. The wife is an adulteress and a cold one at that. Additionally, the ending of the film is completely different because the 1929 version leaves the woman with little punishment for her evil deeds and in the Post-Code Warner Brothers version she clearly gets what's coming to her. One version is a bit dissatisfying, the other perhaps a bit too neatly wrapped up! So which film is better? Well, clearly I think it's the Davis version. Part of it is Davis' wonderful acting (it's one of her best) and part of it is because the Warner version just looked a lot better and had better production values. This isn't surprising, as in 1929, incidental music was practically nonexistent and the films were just shifting over to sound in Hollywood. Also, while the earlier version is certainly a lot grittier, most folks (including me) might feel a bit let down by its inconclusive ending. Still, Jeanne Eagels did have an excellent performance as well and the film has a certain steamy charm. It's still worth seeing but dramatically different from the remake.