Mildred Pierce was a book written in 1941. A book that was also made in to two separate movies. One in 1945 starring Joan Crawford and the other in 2011 starring Kate Winslet.
Just recently I have watched both films, mostly because I was tired of hearing how amazing Joan Crawford was and how Kate Winslet's version would never come close. After having watched both, I realize what I knew before, these people are really stupid. People who say this without proper knowledge of having seen Kate Winslet are just saying this because you must assume the older version is always better. They are making the assumption Kate Winslet can never compare to Joan Crawford because, well, because it is Joan Crawford and she won an Oscar for this role. I haven't seen any of the other movies that were performances of that category in 1945, but she does seem to have deserved it.
I love both performances and I loved both film versions. I still like Kate Winslet's version as a whole. These are the reasons:
- The 2011 version was more true to the book. Apparently, it was almost word for word.
- 1945 version wouldn't allow sex and the newer version would never allow sex. They added murder because of this little problem though.
- Kate Winslet had more dimension. I hated her for being so submissive to men and just giving up so much sex (because she seems to be giving it up for them rather than enjoying it). Her character wasn't as perfect, which is why I liked her so much.
- I do like Joan's shown strength though, so it's difficult
- I love the idea that she almost killed the kid by strangling her to death in the 2011 version. That bitch should have been killed.
- Acting has changed since the 40s, most of the people surrounding the stars were much better in the newer version because acting seems to be much better. Characters had more dimension.
- The most important reason, there was more time because it's a mini-series. The characters had more dimension because there was more time to build them up. This includes her daughters ambition and all the shit she does to make it to the top.
The two versions were similar only in the fact that Joan Crawford's version is a summary with a murder added in. They see the character differently therefore, they are playing different characters. Mildred Pierce 2011 is more real, but that is another issue of length and also decade. The 40s were a time of Hollywood going big and going glamourous. God love them for that because I love movies from the 40s.
As stand alone films, I like both versions. Both actresses were amazing. While Joan Crawford is already a legend, Kate Winslet is on her way. She's an amazing actress and I love her.
This review isn't really a review because I was trying not give away any spoilers. It's tough to explain these things without spoilers. On an added note: I saw someone in a comment complain about Kate Winslet not saying anything about Joan Crawford...why should she thank Joan Crawford??? She was obviously not inspired by the movie since she played her role completely differently.
Many of the exteriors in the 2011 version were filmed in Peekskill, NY. I live not far from there and was able to watch some of the filming from a distance. In fact, my niece and one of my friends were extras in the production. The NY filming was done in early spring and the weather was quite cool. In spite of this the actors did well pretending to be sweltering in the California heat.
ReplyDeleteI too like both films. I wanted to shake both Mildreds to tell them to wise up, smack Veda in the mouth and toss her spoiled, sorry ass out into the street.