I have to admit, embarrassingly so, that I have never seen Mildred Pierce. I went through a phase when I was younger where I chose an actor or actress and tried to watch as many of their movies as I could. I never got around to Joan Crawford, and now I wish I had.
On March 27, HBO will premiere the first of it's four hour miniseries, Mildred Pierce, starring Kate Winslet as Mildred and Evan Rachel Wood as her daughter, Veda. It appears to be a classic feminist movie examining the emotional and psychological affects of divorce in a time when it was unseemly to do so, as well as the relationship between a mother and her daughter.
I'm not offering up an advance review, or any opinions on the piece whatsoever (outside the fact that Kate Winslet can really do no wrong in my eyes). What I am wondering is what you all think. I do plan on watching the HBO miniseries (complete with 30s style full frontal nudity from one lovely Evan Rachel Wood) and expect I will enjoy it.
For those of you who have seen the original, would you think it wise to watch the original with the incomparable Joan Crawford to, well, compare the two? Personally, I really enjoy critiquing differences between directors, actors, and a good homage seems like it would be right up my alley. On the other hand, I could watch with no background whatsoever and then use the original as my comparable. Give me your expert movie-watching viewer opinions. I'd love to hear them. In the meantime, below are trailers for the original and HBO's miniseries, premiering March 27th.
Thanks for your opinions!!
Word on the street is that the HBO adaptation stays close to the James M. Cain, while the Joan Crawford version was adapted more loosely to create melodrama. The Crawford one is gloriously campy, but I'm very excited to see the more nuanced film with Winslet. I'm sure the folks at the Academy for Television Arts and Sciences are already putting her name on a bunch of Emmys for next year.
I happen to see the original last weekend on TCM. It may be available on free online sites. Well worth seeing. It is considered a 'classic' of the 'film noir' genre; and won Crawford an Oscar.
The real pivotal role in the story is of the daughter, 'Veda'. Her transformation from 'innocent schoolgirl' to 'femme fatale' is what makes the film work. Crawford plays a one dimensional 'feminist-saint' role. 'Veda' gets all the best scenes and lines.
Since the novel was condescended to a feature film, shown in 'flashbacks', and made in conservative 1945, i got the feeling that much of the 'steamier' plot points were just hinted at or left out. Like just why did the younger daughter have an accident and die? At what point did the new playboy husband become infatuated with under-aged 'Veda'? Was she pulling his strings all along? I got the feeling a lot of her scenes were cut out or shortened so as not to overshadow Joan.
Evan Rachel Wood is one of our finest young actresses. She was a child actress and scene stealer since the TV show "Once and Again". She should be perfect as 'Veda', and will likely be the Emmy winner here. This should prove to be a 'break-out' role for her.
I look forward to seeing the more 'fleshed out' HBO version. It looks to be nothing like the original, so may be hard to compare. It is said to be shot in a more 'baroque' style, similar to "The Godfather". With the extended length, it should tell a more complete version of the book. Come to see Kate Winslet, stay to watch Evan Rachel Wood chew the scenery and steal the show.