Home
| Search
| Now Playing
| News
| My Movies
| Games
| Boards
| Help
| US Movie Showtimes
| Top 250
| Register
| Recommendations
| Widgets
Box Office
| Index
| Trailers
| Jobs
|
IMDbPro.com - Free Trial
| IMDb Resume
Copyright © 1990-2008
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditstv scheduleAwards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guiderecommendationsmessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summaryplot synopsisplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotesFun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglinestrailers and videospostersphoto galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
Lady Windermere's Fan (1925)
20 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
A beautifully well-realized adaptation of Oscar Wilde's play, 29 December 2001
Author: wmorrow59 from Tarrytown, NY
When a stage play is turned into a movie the results can be dire, especially when the play is a dialog-driven comedy of manners, full of quips and epigrams. Unless it's handled carefully even a great play might feel 'canned' and lifeless on screen, amounting to little more than what Alfred Hitchcock dismissed as "photographs of people talking." A few exceptions come to mind: the two versions of HOLIDAY made in the '30s, THE PHILADELPHIA STORY, the Rex Harrison/Margaret Rutherford BLITHE SPIRIT, and a handful of other faithful stage-to-screen adaptations that managed to be lively and entertaining despite heavy reliance on dialog. But these films are surpassed in achievement by an adaptation from 1925 which perfectly captured the spirit of the play it presented without even quoting it!
Before seeing LADY WINDERMERE'S FAN at the Museum of Modern Art this summer I re-read Oscar Wilde's play, which I enjoyed, but I didn't have high hopes for the movie, despite the fact that it was directed by the great Ernst Lubitsch. I imagined the movie would consist of actors standing around in tuxes and evening gowns pretending to mouth witty sayings, which would then be presented to us in numerous title cards; but because I admire Lubitsch's sound films a great deal I thought I'd give it a try. Plus, I thought it'd be interesting to see how Ronald Colman comes off in a silent film, deprived of that famous voice. What a pleasant surprise to find that this is one of the best sophisticated comedies of the silent screen. The flavor of Wilde's play is distilled to its essence, and clearly conveyed without relying on a single one of his famous epigrams. (Interestingly, a recent biography of Lubitsch says that the film quotes only two or three lines from the play, but if so I didn't catch them.) How is this possible?
Lubitsch conveys Wilde's notions about high society swells and their prejudices cinematically, not verbally. When the notorious Mrs. Erlynne (Irene Rich) appears at the Ascot race track, the reaction of "society" is quickly made clear to us by the scandalized facial expressions of the ladies present; who, nonetheless, can't stop looking at her or talking about her. The tone of their remarks is obvious from their sour expressions. The men appear to be interested in Mrs. Erlynne, too. She is shown, montage fashion, from many different angles, through lorgnettes and binoculars, long-shot, extreme long-shot and close-up, and while the horse race is reduced to mere background. It's a funny and informative sequence, yet it isn't in Wilde's play. In another scene that more closely follows the text, Lord Darlington (Colman) calls on Lord and Lady Windermere at their home. He is formally announced, and pretends briefly that he actually came to see Lord Windermere on some minor matter. But when Windermere conveniently leaves on other business, Darlington, shown in a stately long-shot, strides away from Lady Windermere (May McAvoy), sits, shoots her a sly look, and announces that he is in love with her. Shocked, she crosses and drops into a chair next to him. He rises, crosses away from her, and drops into a different chair. They both look miserable. Fade-out. It's a beautifully staged scene, and no additional dialog is necessary!
Another sequence that occurs late in the film perfectly epitomizes the famous Lubitsch Touch while deftly conveying the spirit of Wilde's play: a title card announces that "The relations between a man and a woman can be told by the way he presses her doorbell." Various ways in which this is so are then demonstrated. You wouldn't think that a close-up shot of a doorbell and a gentleman's gloved hand could be so suggestive, but Lubitsch manages to suggest a great deal.
The black & white cinematography of LADY WINDERMERE'S FAN positively shimmers; happily, this is one silent film that has been well preserved. The acting is quite restrained by the standards of the day, and even without his voice Ronald Colman has the presence of a star, while Irene Rich gives the performance of her career. It's a wonderful adaptation of a great play that can stand on its own as cinema; and it may come as a surprise to those who believe silent film comedy begins and ends with Ben Turpin and the Keystone Kops.
11 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
A Fine Combination of Wilde & Lubitsch, 5 May 2005
Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio
At first it might not seem as if the combination of Ernst Lubitsch and Oscar Wilde would work very well, but this silent-screen adaptation of Wilde's "Lady Windermere's Fan" is both enjoyable and well-crafted. Instead of clashing, Lubitsch's stylish, mischievous approach and Wilde's perceptive cynicism complement each other. The characters and the story are Wilde's, the acting and the style are Lubitsch's.
Although the material is heavily re-worked from the original play, Lubitsch's decisions all seem to work pretty well. Wilde's witty and resourceful dialogue is gone, but his insightful portrayals of human nature remain. Lubitsch also makes good use of the camera to bring off some shots that could not have worked on the stage. In particular, at times he makes the fateful fan seem almost a full-fledged part of the cast.
This movie version features solid performances by May McAvoy and Bert Lytell as the Windermeres, with a youngish-looking Ronald Colman suitably ingratiating as Lord Darlington. But Irene Rich has the most interesting character, and as Mrs. Erlynne she also gives a fine performance that particularly stands out in her scenes with the other characters. She and Lubitsch both capture the nature of her unpopular but admirable character, while carefully setting up the contrasts and conflicts between her and the other characters, who are in general more socially acceptable but far less worthy.
This also works well simply as an entertaining, often very amusing, and sometimes dramatically compelling story. For most silent film fans, it would definitely be worth tracking down and watching.
4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Subtle acting & characterizations make this special, 10 December 2006
Author: sissoed from Washington, D.C. USA
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
If you haven't seen the 1985 TV version, which is very accurate to the original play, I recommend you do, as otherwise some of the character histories and motivations won't come through in this 1925 film. This 1925 version delves more deeply into the complexities of the characters than does Wilde's original:
1. From the first scene of the 1925 film, it is clear that Lady Windermere feels a powerful sexual attraction for Darlington, which she is trying to resist, to be faithful to her husband. Thus she is much more vulnerable, and likable, from the very beginning in this film than she is in the original play, and the viewer cares more about her as a result.
2. Mrs. Erlynne, Lady Windermere's mother, is more complex and conflicted in this 1925 film -- she is, after all, a woman who threatens her daughter's husband that she will ruin her own daughter's life unless he pays her a large sum. To make such a woman sympathetic is very tough, but the director here and the actress pull it off, by showing how snowed-under she is with bills and debts. The original play omits all this and leaves open the possibility that Mrs. Erlynne is coldly threatening her daughter's future for nothing more than greed and pride.
3. Lady Windermere has been raised to believe her mother was honorable, but died young. In fact, her mother (now going under the name Mrs. Erlynne) left husband and baby girl for a lover, dishonoring herself; then that lover dumped her. A key question, regarding Lord Windermere's character, is whether he knew before he met Mrs. Erlynne that the story about his wife's mother was a cover-story -- whether he knew, at the time he met and married his wife the future Lady Windermere, that her mother had this dishonorable past. In the original play, this is not answered, but in this 1925 film, a title card makes clear that Lord Windermere knew long before he met Mrs. Erlynne that his wife's mother, whoever she was, was dishonorable. The only thing Mrs. Erlynne must prove to Lord Windermere is that she is, in fact, that mother. This factor makes Lord Windermere a more admirable character than the character in the original play, because it is clear that he did not let his wife's mother's disreputable reputation stop him from loving, respecting and marrying his future wife. In this 1925 film Lord Windermere is also shown as very understanding of human frailty, in that he shakes hands with Mrs. Erlynne on several occasions even after she puts the bite on him.
4. This 1925 version deals with two major plot problems in the original that involve servants. The key to Lady Windermere preserving her husband's love for her, and her reputation, is that her husband never learns that she (a) left her house and (b) went to Lord Darlington's rooms. Mrs. Erlynne seeks to preserve Lord Windermere's belief that Lady Windermere was always in her home by getting Lady Windermere out of those rooms and back home before Darlington and the other men find her in his rooms. But in that era, Darlington would have had a valet or butler to answer his door, and when Lady Windermere arrived, that man would know, of course, since she could not enter unless he let her in. Thus merely getting her out wouldn't preserve secrecy; the servant must also be convinced to keep silent, or at least, to be discrete, not to blurt out in anyone's hearing that Lady Windermere had been there. Similarly, in the Windermere house, servants would know that she left the house and did not return until hours later. Indeed, in the original play a servant says that she left the house, and later, another servant says she knew when Lord Windermere returned (5 AM) which means the servants would also know when Lady Windermere returned (after 2 AM). Thus Lady Windermere's secret would be exposed to her husband, because Darlington's servant might blurt out her presence, and Lord Windermere's own servants would certainly tell him that his wife had left and later returned. The 1925 film solves the Windermere "servant problem" by having Lady Windermere sneak out without any servant knowing, and having Mrs. Erlynne see this, so no servant need know that the mistress of the house had left. Presumably Lady Windermere could also find a way to sneak back in unseen by any servant, when she returned. As to the Darlington "servant problem", the original play opens the relevant scene with Lady Windermere already in Darlington's rooms, in an attempt to finesse the issue; but to any audience member who realizes that there must have been a servant to open Darlington's door, this fails, and leaves a hole in the story. The 1925 film at least signals it knows of the problem, and assumes that some members of the audience will realize that there must have been a servant, because it shows that Darlington's door is opened by a servant. But the servant is never shown. In effect, the 1925 film acknowledges that there must have been a servant, but tries to get the audience to overlook it, and to overlook the problem. It would have been better if the film inserted a brief scene in which Mrs. Erlynne, having arrived at Darlington's rooms, called in the servant and told him not to tell his master, Lord Darlington, that either of them had visited, except in total privacy where none of the other men who might be with Darlington would overhear. Of course, eventually Lord Darlington would have to learn from his servant of Lady Windermere's visit, but since Lord Darlington has already announced that he's leaving England forever, and since it would be unthinkable of him to expose Lady Windermere, the audience will understand that her secret is safe with him.
4 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
good, but not Lubitsch's best, 3 July 2006
Author: Claude Cat from United States
I agree with the other reviewers that Lubitsch did a great job reworking parts of Wilde's play to make it suitable for silent film, and adding some of his signature touches. But I don't think the movie stands up to some of his later pieces, such as "Trouble in Paradise" and "Design for Living" (also reworked from a famous play, to good advantage). "Lady Windermere's Fan" is much more slow-paced, which can make it hard for a modern viewer, and not all of the characters are as interesting. However, the performances are good, especially the marvelous Irene Rich (whose high-fashion costumes are endlessly entertaining), the production values are high, and if you have the patience, you will be rewarded with some nice little bits of Lubitsch's social observation. It's interesting to consider how drastically attitudes toward male-female relations have changed over the decades: the film's plot depends on beliefs that have mostly, and rightfully, vanished. In contrast to convention, Lubitsch obviously enjoyed helping Rich create an older woman who was fascinating and sexually powerful.
Add another comment
Related Links