It's very rare, but this film is the odd case where a remake ("Harriet Craig") is actually a better film. However, "Craig's Wife" is still an excellent film--one you will enjoy for its excellent acting and very unusual story.
John Boles is a happy man, though he doesn't realize that he should not be. His wife (Rosalind Russell) is a cold and controlling woman but he's oblivious to who she really is. However, those around this rich couple see her clearly--and this explains why they have no friends. To Harriet (Russell), this sequestered life is perfect--no people means no one disturbing her house or making emotional demands upon her. After all, she is so emotionally constricted that any real intimacy scares her.
This sick and antiseptic world has been this way for two years when the film begins. Now, several events all take place one after the other that shake her world. More importantly, they finally get Boles to realize what sort of awful woman he has married. There's much more to it than this, but I don't want to ruin the film.
"Harriet Craig" was a successful play and then this film. In 1950, the film was remade with Joan Crawford and it managed to improve upon this 1936 film. Part of it was because Crawford was more suited for the part--as in real life, she was very much like Harriet. It also was better for two other reasons. First, Harriet's machinations were much more vicious and conniving in the remake. Second, the ending was better. While Russell must be commended for her final crying scene, as it took a lot of fine acting to do this, it also seemed inappropriate for the character, as Harriet seemed like a person incapable of tears or feelings of any type. The colder and more vicious version is clearly better, but both films are terrific. My advice is to see both--they're that good.
John Boles is a happy man, though he doesn't realize that he should not be. His wife (Rosalind Russell) is a cold and controlling woman but he's oblivious to who she really is. However, those around this rich couple see her clearly--and this explains why they have no friends. To Harriet (Russell), this sequestered life is perfect--no people means no one disturbing her house or making emotional demands upon her. After all, she is so emotionally constricted that any real intimacy scares her.
This sick and antiseptic world has been this way for two years when the film begins. Now, several events all take place one after the other that shake her world. More importantly, they finally get Boles to realize what sort of awful woman he has married. There's much more to it than this, but I don't want to ruin the film.
"Harriet Craig" was a successful play and then this film. In 1950, the film was remade with Joan Crawford and it managed to improve upon this 1936 film. Part of it was because Crawford was more suited for the part--as in real life, she was very much like Harriet. It also was better for two other reasons. First, Harriet's machinations were much more vicious and conniving in the remake. Second, the ending was better. While Russell must be commended for her final crying scene, as it took a lot of fine acting to do this, it also seemed inappropriate for the character, as Harriet seemed like a person incapable of tears or feelings of any type. The colder and more vicious version is clearly better, but both films are terrific. My advice is to see both--they're that good.