The Women (1939) and (2008)

A group of socialite women is shocked when one of their own, Mary (Norma Shearer) (Meg Ryan), is being stepped out on by her husband. Mary is unsure if she should confront her husband about the affair with the shop girl, Crystal (Joan Crawford) (Eva Mendes) or keep quiet about it till the storm blows over.

Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford and Rosalind Russell in the 1939 version

I had misaligned expectations when I watched the original. I knew it was an all female cast, but that was about all I knew. I mistakenly was super excited about seeing a film that is all about girl power since this is a film made by women, obviously, for women. Instead, it was a bunch of hens who were delighted by each other's misery and even more delighted to gossip about said misery. I realize that is how women are stereotyped, but I really hated seeing that portrayal. It was a bit disheartening and made me have a hard time "enjoying" the movie.

Of course, having said that, the performances were really amazing. Norma Shearer was a wonder as the hurt wife. Rosalind Russell as the biggest hen of them all, without any loyalty whatsoever. Joan Crawford was delightful as the uber-bitch mistress, totally unapologetic about her role in the whole mess. I don't mind some women being shown as catty, because there really are some of them out there, but this film would have you believe the whole lot of us are like that and can't be trusted to be a true friend. That really made me uneasy about the whole film. I really should have enjoyed it for what it was probably, but somehow, I think I misplaced my funny bone.

Annette Bening, Meg Ryan and Eva Mendes (along the bottom) for the 2008 version

Fast-forward to the 2008 version, and my biggest disappointment is corrected. Instead of spending the entire movie tearing each other apart, they are supportive of each other. Instead of Sylvie (Rosalind Russell) (Annette Bening) sending Mary into Saks on purpose to find out the truth about her husband like in the original, she tries to prevent that from happening. It really is nice to see that change about how the women were portrayed.

The problem in changing that is that you really did lose something. The actresses didn't stand out as much in this version. The break-neck speed that I love in older movies, is slowed way down for the new version. The acerbic wit is mostly toned down because they aren't as bitchy now, and I really did love the wit of the original. Also, Eva Mendes, though seriously smoking hot in this, will never be the uber-bitch that Joan played so deliciously in the original. Joan's wicked performance in the bath tub scene was perfect in the original. Plus, at the end when Debra Messing is talking and she says, "and I am sorry I can't stay here long" I was already screaming at the TV, "PLEASE don't let it be a rush to the hospital labor scene with all the labor room antics. I am so sick to death of those scenes in romantic comedies!" Well, you can guess what happened there. So you can guess I really didn't enjoy the last 10 - 15 minutes of the remake.

So I realize I am totally talking out of both sides of my mouth on this. Why can't the updated one have the fast pace and the razor-sharp wit of the first, while retaining the theme of women friends actually WANTING the best for each other and supporting one another? You may wonder which one I liked better? If I had to rate the two, I would definitely have to say the original was a better movie, hands down. However, if you ask which I enjoyed more? Probably the remake, and that is pretty sad for me to say. I think you definitely need to see both and draw your own opinions.

For another take on it, please read Jenny's brilliant take on the original, as compared with another modern day chick flick, the Jane Austen Club. Check it out here.

Purple Violets (2007)

Ed Burns wrote, directed, produced and co-starred in this movie. It has his fingerprints all over it and is typical Ed Burns fare. The focus of all of the movies he writes is on relationships - whether they be familial or romantic. He likes to explore how relationships tear apart due to external forces or how they become mended and every scenario in between. He also, almost always, makes his movie a love story to New York City. He films all his movies there and intersperses them with wonderful shots that make me wonder how I miss all that beauty when I visit there.

Patrick Wilson and Selma Blair as cooooool New Yorkers

The movie is about four people who, twelve years ago during college, were all best friends and dating. They happen to run into each other while dining at a restaurant and the history of the past relationships unfold a bit. Pretty quickly you discover that Michael Murphy (Ed Burns) and Kate Scott (Debra Messing) are no longer together and haven't spoken in 12 years because she believes he cheated on her in college and it destroyed her. You also discover that Patti Petalson (Selma Blair) and Brian Callahan (Patrick Wilson) broke up back then due to Brian going off to college in another state and Patti not wanting to have a long distance relationship.

The two women and the two men, separately, have remained best friends throughout the span of time but have not spoken to the others. Each character is pretty well developed by Burns and have their own story to unfold throughout the movie. Patti is in a loveless marriage and even though she used to be a great writer, has lost the confidence to write anymore. Brian became an author of a series of novels that amassed him and his lawyer, Michael, a great deal of money, but he is unhappy with doing that kind of fluff writing. He is also in a relationship with a young girl and soon after seeing Patti, no longer finds the young girl amusing. Kate appears to have never recovered from her heart break over Michael and is so consumed with anger towards him spends much of the movie refusing to even speak to him. Michael became a lawyer and also realized he was an alcoholic in college and for most of his 20s and went to AA to sober up. He spends much of the movie chasing Kate trying to make amends.

I see this movie as having two great strengths. The first one is the actors who deliver solid performances. Everyone in this works well as an individual and as a cohesive team. The second strength of this movie is Ed Burns. He has really seasoned as a movie maker. I don't always love his movies (I recall really hating "Sidewalks of New York"), but I can see where he has learned from his mistakes and corrected them. In this one, he really allows the characters to breathe. What I mean is, instead of trying to cover every second of the movie in dialogue, he allows the characters to have scenes where the actor conveys where they are and their emotion without overtly verbalizing it. Only the camera is there to capture their dialogue and it is all internal. I think it is scary for a director to allow that, but I love it when they give the character time to breathe. Also, I think Burns has made a consistent effort to improve the interest of his chosen shots, which I personally am a stickler for in a director. Burns usually focused on just the actors, but in this effort, he focused on a few clever or beautiful shot setups. I particularly loved one in Patti's apartment where she is arguing with her husband and the camera is at the other end of the hall, showing a wall divider between them. Shots like that speak so much to the story, saying this couple can't tear down the wall, they are completely divided, and probably will never be together as a whole again.

I have to say one negative about Ed Burns, since I just spent a paragraph talking about how he has seasoned and how he did really well in this. I always hate that all of his work has some snide air of superiority. Maybe it is just me, but I always get the feeling that he is trying to say something like "Look at me! I am esoteric! I am an intellectual!" I also get the feeling that if you say you don't like his stuff, then you are branded a Philistine. Again, it could be just me though. :-)

So to wrap this up, this was a good, sweet movie. Not a great movie, but certainly an enjoyable one to sit down and watch for an hour and a half. The main issue with it was the predictability, within 15 minutes of the movie, I was pretty darn sure I knew how this was going to play out. So there weren't really any twists or clever turns, just an exploration of the characters and their relationships. But if you sit down to a Burns film, that is pretty much what you should expect, and this is his most solid one yet.