Craig's Wife (1936) Poster

(1936)

User Reviews

Review this title
38 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
John Boles is the surprise here
mukava9913 August 2008
George Kelly's Pulitzer Prize winning 1925 play receives its second screen treatment under the direction of Dorothy Arzner, with Rosalind Russell as the materialistic and calculating Harriet Craig and John Boles as her romantically naive husband. The story is very simple, Harriet cares more about House than Home and marries, quite openly, for financial security and social status. She regards other aspects of family and marriage such as sex, children, and simple comforts of home and family with indifference. Her living room is the outward expression of her soul, and she guards it tenaciously, forbidding anyone to muss a cushion, foul it with cigarette smoke, shift the position of a vase, drop a speck of dirt. As the drama unfolds, the significance of this setting is laid on with a trowel. Harriet's selfishness finally does her in as the blindly loving husband comes to his senses. It's a fascinating story because Harriet is an extreme example of a certain human type - the materialistic, status-obsessed neat freak. Two famous examples: Joan Crawford, known for her obsessive cleanliness (and of course her own interpretation of Harriet in the 1950 film version of this play); Martha Stewart, known for her devotion to the well-kept house and exacting attention to domestic appearances and presentations. The flaw of the film is carried over from the flaw in the original play - the husband's character is too arbitrary. It is not enough for us to be told by sundry characters that sweet Mr. Craig never should have fallen in love with a shrew like Harriet and that love is blind. His transformation from devotion to sudden doubt to violent hostility happens too quickly and neatly, but the reasons for his progression are understandable.

This treatment is more or less a photographed stage play which is not so bad here because the play in question made its points by various combinations of talking heads. The key to winning over a film audience under these circumstances lies not so much in cinematic derring do than in good casting and this film serves it up deliciously. Russell is flawless, playing what could have been caricature as a three-dimensional human being. She is no better or worse than Joan Crawford would be 14 years later, just different. As the house maid, Jane Darwell fits the role like a foot in a custom built shoe. Her best moments come when her character switches personality depending on whether she is talking to Mr. or Mrs. Craig; the shifting attitude helps establish the nature of the relationships in the story. Especially good is John Boles who has never registered to me as an actor. He usually comes across as a barely animated cardboard cutout, but here he is set loose on an emotionally charged arc and makes it all the way without a stumble. Billie Burke again proves what a versatile actress she could be as the friendly widow next door.
30 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The definition of a control freak
blanche-22 March 2009
Rosalind Russell gives an excellent, haunting portrayal of "Craig's Wife" in this 1936 version of a play by George Kelly. Later on, it was remade as "Harriet Craig" and starred Joan Crawford and Wendell Corey.

Harriet Craig is a manipulative, cold woman married to a man (John Boles) who adores her and therefore can't see her for what she is - a controlling woman obsessed with possessions and status.

This is a difficult role because in order to pull it off, Harriet would have to be a lot more subtle than she is in this movie. Even with an accomplished actress like Russell, that's hard to do because Harriet's actions are so obvious. In the film, Walter is clueless while she drives everyone else away. I happen to know a Harriet Craig in real life, and in that case, her husband knows but doesn't do anything about it to keep peace. That would have been a more believable choice here.

The film "Harriet Craig" is more drawn out and it takes people a little longer to catch on to what Harriet is really about. This version, probably truer to the play, is directed by Dorothy Arzner and moves quickly. The ending is very striking, and there Russell is most effective.

This was a breakout role for the attractive Russell, and it also proved an excellent part for Joan Crawford. Russell is able to show the tiniest bit of vulnerability in Harriet's nature. I think the Russell version is the stronger film, though both are well worth seeing.
14 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The institution of marriage takes a big hit
Michael-1103 January 2000
Harriet Craig (Rosalind Russell) is a thoroughly hateful character. This is one of those films that gains power from the strength of the villainous antagonist rather than from a relatively weak protagonist.

Harriet is married to the gentle henpecked Walter Craig. Walter never catches on, even though the Craigs have no friends and Walter has become something of a laughing stock in town. Harriet never cared much for Walter, but she sure liked his money which enabled her to have a beautiful home, servants, and a respectable place in the community. Harriet is, therefore, one of those respectable, upwardly mobile prostitutes who uses marriage to barter her good looks for money and position. It's not a pretty picture.

However, Harriet's strategy for maintaining her marriage is deeply flawed. She acts like a manipulative, controlling cold-hearted bitch at all times and ultimately her life implodes.

This film is quite well done and the viewer just can't escape a warm feeling of satisfaction as the malevolent Harriet gets what's coming to her--and more. Although the Harriet character lacks nuance (she's just SO witchy), the story still worked, at least for me. This emotional resonance indicates that the writers, actors, and director Dorothy Arzner did a good job in projecting a wholly believable villain.
27 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Reality TV for me!
wallwoman19 July 2008
I am an old movie buff and had never seen this movie. The movie itself was great but it was like I had just lived this movie. I worked for a man that had a wife like this and quit my job (I used to work out of their house) because I couldn't take her anymore. Almost every part in the movie had a real-life counter part in my life. I was the aunt. I'm tempted to buy a copy of the movie and send it to my old boss so he could get a glimpse of what we all had to put up with. These women do exist, thank God I'm not one of them!!!

By the way, men are not that dumb. The truth is they'd rather ignore that kind of wife so they don't have to deal with the headache. I would like to have seen the part written more true-to-life rather than as a husband that was completely oblivious to a wife that was a manipulater until the very end.

I enjoyed the movie and have told several of my friends to watch it if they get the chance. Not just because of the way I identified with it personally, but overall the movie was very good. Rosalind Russell was a real pro in her role.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Lady of the House
lugonian8 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
CRAIG'S WIFE (Columbia, 1936), directed by Dorothy Arzner, from the Pulitzer Prize play by George Kelly, marked the turning point for Rosalind Russell career, taking a loan-out assignment from MGM where she had been under contract since 1934, in her first starring role. Previously filmed by Pathe in the silent era (1928) featuring Irene Rich and Warner Baxter, and given a third carnation by Columbia as HARRIET CRAIG (1950) with Joan Crawford and Wendall Corey, this second installment ranks one of the finer domestic dramas produced in the 1930s, though the Crawford version comes close to being an improvement somewhat through its fine acting in the Crawford tradition and its frankness (such as a slight hint of the wife having an abortion). And who is Craig's wife? Let's learn more about her through this brief synopsis.

Walter (John Boles) and Harriet (Rosalind Russell), married two years, live in a luxurious home in Rye, New York, with Mrs. Harold (Jane Darwell) and Maisie (Nydia Westman) as their housekeepers, and Walter's Aunt Ethel, Mrs. Austin (Alma Kruger). Next door to them is Mrs. Frazier (Billie Burke), a humble woman who enjoys both her garden and and the company of her little grandson, Timothy. As the plot develops, Harriet is revealed to be an obsessed woman who thinks more of her home than her husband. Walter is a kind and loving man who cares deeply for his wife, yet he unwittingly takes second place in the domestic scheme of things. After visiting with her sister, Lillian (Elisabeth Risdon) in a hospital in Albany, Harriet decides to offer her quiet and rest by taking her young niece, Ethel (Dorothy Wilson) to stay with her until her mother recovers. Unaware to Ethel, she's being separated from Eugene Fredericks (Robert Allen), her fiancé she had met in college who's unable to connect with Ethel through countless phone calls to the Craig home. During the course of time, Ethel witnesses Harriet's neurotic behavior, while Walter's Aunt Ellen tries to warn him of being in great danger to his wife's jealousy and domineering actions that's keeping him isolated and away from his friends. In time, Walter  wakes up to reality when his aunt moves out, followed by the the dismissal of Maisie (Nydia Westman) and walk out of long time employee, Mrs. Harold. The final showdown occurs when Walter sees Harriet for the very first time after discovering that it was through her lies that have kept his name from being linked to a double murder involving his best friend, Fergus (Thomas Mitchell) and wife, Adelaide (Kathleen Burke) after a detective (John Hamilton) arrives to investigate the matter.

A reproduction of the stage play, this second edition to CRAIG'S WIFE is a powerful story with a timely message posted on the screen before the fadeout. Although MGM's own Joan Crawford might have excelled in the part had she been loaned out to Columbia (which she did years later), it's Rosalind Russell whose performance carries the film throughout. While she is quite unsympathetic, she wins our sympathy, especially after revealing to her husband why she is the way she is. It may not offer any excuses for her actions, but does explain why she, and others like her character, marry for something other than love and compassion. Acting, production values and musical score are excellent, right down to the climatic showdown. CRAIG'S WIFE may not have earned Russell an Academy Award nomination as best actress, but it's certainly a step into the right direction in regards to recognition, major stardom and further challenging movie roles. As for John Boles, he's always been a likable screen personality though he gets little recognition for his work, with the exception of possibly CURLY TOP Fox, 1935) opposite Shirley Temple for which he probably best recognized for thanks to frequent revivals.  CRAIG'S WIFE deserves to be better known because it's a interesting story and short enough (75 minutes) to hold interest.

Slowly fazed out of commercial television by the late 1970s, its only availability since 1985 was through home video. Thanks to cable television's Turner Classic Movies for offering CRAIG'S WIFE a chance for recognition that took place on the evening of July 8, 2008, where CRAIG'S WIFE played part as its tribute to Rosalind Russell, "Star of the Month" (***)
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wonderful Roz
adamshl7 January 2009
Rosiland Russell wasn't a star for so long for nothing. The lady had talent, and her lengthy career in a variety of roles from screwball comedy to heart wrenching drama proves it.

Hard working, completely dedicated and always dependable, Russell hit the bull's eye in the role of Harriet Craig in 1936's "Craig's Wife." What a roll it was! The kind most actresses would die to play, even though the character's less than completely savory.

It's Roz's performance that holds our rapt attention throughout this George Kelly play adaptation, and it's Roz's subtlety that provides the fascination of a fastidious personality. The rest of the cast, headed by John Boles, is excellent, as is Dorothy Arzner's directing. The set design is perfect for the production, and the entire enactment becomes hypnotic.

Kelly's play has an interesting history: it was filmed eight years earlier by William deMille (with Irene Rich as Harriet) though there's scant info on this. The fourteen years later Vincent Sherman directed a remake with Joan Crawford in the part. Crawford was indomitable in the role, aided by Wendell Corey as her husband; still it's Russell's performance that--to my mind--reigns supreme.

The 1936 murder subplot was eliminated in the '50 version. Even so, "Craig's Wife" retains its integrity, and represents a milestone from one of the most notable female actors and the most prolific female director of the "Hollywood Golden Era."
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The small details say it all
tsmith4177 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Harriet Craig's life revolves around objects, not people. She admits that she doesn't love her husband, she abandons her dying sister because she longs to return to her precious house, and she considers visitors to be intruders who disrupt the order of her life.

There is one scene that reveals exactly the type of person Harriet Craig is. She has returned from Albany, where she has spent a couple of days with her sister, who is very ill. Harriet walks into her house and immediately goes to the edge of the living room -- the "holy of holies" -- and looks lovingly at it, taking in every detail of the furniture, lamps, and paintings, as though she'd been gone for years.

She speaks to the servants, but never looks at them. "Get the bags, Maisie, and make sure you close the door behind you" she says, all the while with her back to the girl. She asks the other maid about some things and never looks at her either. The servants are invisible to her. She's more concerned with a vase of roses that don't belong in the room than with anything else; she doesn't even ask about her husband.

In the end, she is left alone in that same room. A vase, which symbolized her strictly ordered life, has been smashed to pieces. The people have all left her and all she has is this room, but it has been defiled so she doesn't even have that to comfort her.

"Craig's Wife" might be a bit melodramatic by today's standards, but the lesson still rings true: "Those who live to themselves are left to themselves."
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent....but an unusual case where the remake is better
planktonrules4 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An oddly sweet movie
mountainkath7 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The theme of this movie is a common one, but I thought this version of the story was oddly sweet and heartbreaking. Unlike the Joan Crawford remake, Harriet Craig, (which TCM showed immediately after Craig's Wife...thank you, TCM!!) I don't think the Harriet in Craig's Wife is evil. Instead, I saw her as a flawed, but sympathetic character.

Her need for perfection was rooted in insecurity and the overwhelming need for control. She had a husband who adored her, yet she was obsessed with a vase and roses that might drop their petals.

Rosalind Russell portrayed this complex character wonderfully. It's easy to see why her career took off with this movie. Russell drew me into Harriet's world and made me feel a bit sorry for Harriet. The little nuances of Russell's portrayal are what made this such a great performance: the gentle way her fingers touched the objects in her home and the way her eyes showed every emotion and spotted every detail of her home. Brilliant.

The costumes worn by Russell just enhanced the character of Harriet. The dresses were simply stunning and the details on them emphasized Harriet's need for complete control.

John Boles did an excellent job playing Walter, but his character wasn't nearly as well developed. I didn't really believe how quickly his character changed from adoring his wife to walking out on her. This transformation was much more believable in the remake. This is not the fault of Boles, but of the script. I thoroughly enjoyed his performance.

The supporting cast who played the neighbor, the servants and the niece were also top notch. Although I thought the message of the movie was a bit heavy handed during the final scene, I absolutely loved this movie and look forward to seeing it again.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Nobody Louses Up Her House
bkoganbing19 October 2010
Although it brought Columbia Pictures no awards or even nominations, Harry Cohn nevertheless produced a winner with Craig's Wife that gave Rosalind Russell her first starring role when she was loaned to Columbia from MGM. The property was already a winner having brought home a Pulitzer Prize for drama to its author George Kelly, uncle of Princess Grace.

The play was a big hit in the materialistic Twenties running 360 performances in 1925-26. Author Kelly was making one stinging indictment of living for material things, ironic when you consider he was from uppermost crust in his native Philadelphia.

Rosalind Russell stars as the hard-bitten Harriet Craig who grew up in a home that got lost because dad started straying and began mortgaging the house and the family security to pay for his pleasures. That was not about to happen to her, but the capacity to love and connect with other human beings was driven from her though she masks it very well. The whole course of the play is the unmasking of all her pretenses.

She marries John Boles strictly for her security, she needs his income to pay for the house and the furnishings inside which is her whole world. It's like she's putting it on exhibit as opposed to people living there. She's impossible to work for as servants Jane Darwell and Nydia Westman will attest.

Boles gives one of his best screen performances as well as the beleaguered Walter Craig who comes to the horrific realization that his wife not only doesn't love him, but is completely incapable of the emotion. Another two good performances come from Alma Kruger and Billie Burke. Kruger is a maiden aunt of Boles who lives with them and is the first to finally tell off Russell.

The second is a slight departure in casting for Billie Burke who usually played good, but flighty characters on screen. Here Burke plays a neighbor who prides herself in her garden and her roses the way that Russell does her house. But living things require love which Burke gives her plants. The point author Kelly was trying to make between the objects of attention that both Russell and Burke have is a stark one.

There are three versions of Craig's Wife, a silent screen version from Pathe Films that starred Irene Rich and Warner Baxter and a later one with Joan Crawford and Wendell Corey also for Columbia. I've not seen the other two in total, but I'm sure they have their merits.

Craig's Wife is smartly directed by Dorothy Arzner and it gives a fine cast a chance to show case some considerable talents.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Roz Russell is good but story seems compressed and incomplete...
Doylenf8 July 2008
ROSALIND RUSSELL got one of her first really strong dramatic roles in this abbreviated film version of George Kelly's novel, CRAIG'S WIFE. By reducing the running time to an hour and fifteen minutes, there's a rush to present as much exposition as possible before the final scene which finds the heroine alienating everyone in the household.

Missing is a scene where she goes to her husband's employer to beg that her husband not be sent abroad, as appears in the more complete version of this story which starred Joan Crawford years later, and called HARRIET CRAIG. Mrs. Craig's devious nature was better explored in Crawford's version than it is here.

BILLIE BURKE seems a strange choice to play a friendly neighbor whom Russell suspects of casting eyes at her husband, played by JOHN BOLES in another one of his weak man roles. Boles' transition from loving husband to suspicious man happens so suddenly that there's the feeling something has been cut--there's no real preparation for his change of character. Still, he gives one of his better performances during his showdown with the domineering wife.

The only other members of the cast who make any impression are JANE DARWELL as Russell's maid and ALMA KRUEGER as her mother-in-law. THOMAS MITCHELL has little to do and disappears from the story after a brief scene near the opening.

Summing up: Mainly interesting for Rosalind Russell's performance.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"People Who Live to Themselves are Generally Left to Themselves"!!!
kidboots10 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
On Broadway "Craig's Wife" ran for 360 performances and won playwright George Kelly a Pulitzer Prize. It had already reached the cinema as a vehicle for Irene Rich and Warner Baxter in 1928. Columbia's boss Harry Cohn entrusted the direction of the remake to Dorothy Arzner and with women in charge of both script (Mary C. McCall Jnr.) and editing (Viola Lawrence) - the film had a feminine point of view. Arzner's reason for choosing Russell was that she "did not want an actress the audience loved" - I don't think audiences knew much about her in 1936. Rosalind Russell, at the time, was an MGM contract player, who had come to notice playing some intelligent "other woman" roles in films such as "China Seas" (1935) and "Reckless" (1935). Even though she was a bit young for the part, her regal bearing and natural sophistication made her very convincing as a woman of maturity and she dominated the part.

Even though Harriet is not at home, she makes her presence felt, whether it is housemaids in a flurry about replacing ornaments in just the right place after dusting, to Walter's (John Boles) feeling of guilt at sneaking off to a poker game. He spends the night consoling Fergus (Thomas Mitchell) - people are now avoiding his poker nights, his sober moods brings people down and he is worried his wife is gallivanting around. On the train ride home from visiting her sick aunt, Harriet is giving her impressionable niece a few lessons on love. Ethel (Dorothy Wilson) is shocked to hear that Harriet has married for security, power and independence - not for love. Arriving home she is determined to find out everything Walter has been doing while she was away - even phoning the exchange to find out what numbers were dialed etc. Her home is a temple and she will not allow any person who she does not approve, to cross her threshold - especially her lovable, dizzy neighbour, Mrs. Frazier (Billie Burke). Aunt Ellen (Alma Kruegar) has had enough and finally decides to leave, but not without telling Walter a few home truths about his "precious" wife.

When Fergus and his wife are found dead, police become interested in the Craig residence (after Harriet's interference with the phone numbers, which she, of course, denies). At the end Harriet is left in her sterile home - everyone has left her and she has just received word that her aunt has died. Mrs. Frazier is the only one who reaches out to her. Rosalind Russell is just magnificent in this scene, without speaking a word her face shows all the emotions, from coldness and pride to realizing she is now quite alone. The ambiguity in the last shot as her face lightens through tears -is she pleased that no one will ever disturb her "perfect" home or is she going to change - "tomorrow is another day".

Dorothy Wilson didn't have much to do as Ethel, in fact she seemed to disappear from the movie after she arrived at the Craigs. This was one of Wilson's last movies. Kathleen Burke played faithless wife, Adelaide Passmore (the name is bigger than her part!!) - a part she could have played in her sleep. John Boles (boring Boles) definitely seemed less wooden than usual but the film belonged to Rosalind Russell, who showed that she was an actress who could handle parts with much depth. Her next role would be in "Night Must Fall".

Highly Recommended.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Ultimately disappointing
samhill521512 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I would agree with many regarding the performances of the principals. They are excellent, and frankly, Rosalind Russell shines in her portrayal of the title character. The film captivated me and kept my interest throughout, even though it ultimately became apparent where it was heading.

So what was disappointing? I felt the script took the easy way out, the politically correct one, the safe one. Even though Harriet Craig clearly explained her motives at the beginning, on the train with her niece, they were minimized and finally overlooked in the interest of respectability. And why was she so obsessed with her house? Because that was the only thing she could truly call her own in the society she lived in. She could hope for no equality with her husband, no career, and ultimately no safety. So she took the only path available to her, married for money and a home where she was the unchallenged queen. Remember, women got the right to vote only 16 years earlier.

Granted, she was very obsessive, and not entirely justified in her approach. But in an egalitarian, enlightened society, she would not have needed that approach. But she must have had lovable qualities. After all her husband clearly adored her until her aunt exposed her and caused him to abandon her. Basically, for the unpardonable right of wanting some security, not only did her husband turn his back on her, but her own blood and others of her own sex.

Well, you might say I'm judging the film with the sensibilities of 2008. But clearly such issues were known in 1936, and probably keenly felt by women of all walks of life. Otherwise Harriet Craig would not have expressed her fears and motives to her niece. So instead of honestly dealing with those fears, those around her who supposedly cared for her, ostracized her, criticized her, talked down to her, acted superior, and turned their backs on her.

And that's why the film is ultimately disappointing. It's like a breath of fresh air when Harriet expresses her fears and counsels her niece. And then piece by piece, her world falls apart because nobody is willing to comprehend the validity of those fears. And the whole story ends predictably, to avoid offending the Hayes code and society at large. What a cop-out!
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Does anyone really pay attention?
blake-363985 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, this is a poor version of the story.

I am a big fan of Rosalind Russell, but the whole film is so disjointed and she cannot hold it together.

Sorry, but the Joan Crawford film is so much better.

And there were two glaring errors in the reviews. It was John Boles aunt that was living with them, not Russell's mother-in-law.

Then the little boy was not Russell's, but the neighbor's grandson.

I could go on and on, but I won't bother, it just is not a good film to me.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Very interesting if a bit awkward in its actual cinematic drama
secondtake18 June 2019
Craig's Wife (1936)

A complicated melodrama, filled with spite, jealousy, infidelity, and murder. And with sharp acting, especially from Rosalind Russell. Director Dorothy Azner seems to be at her best here, from a career of almost excellent dramas with interesting side issues. This is clearly a battle of the strengths, of servants wanting to maintain personal integrity, of husbands figuring out what is happening with their wives, and of wives most of all, and Russell's charater, the title character, with a conniving, disdainful maneuvering that is what makes (here) a society woman's wife. There is sympathy most of all for the jilted men here, but there is an implication that the women are bored and due some kind of control over their destiny, rightfully. This isn't easy stuff, easy to digest or easy to film in an early Code movie. But it's worth trying and credit to everyone. Very much worth watching. It's a woman's movie, whatever that has come to mean in the 21st Century, and it is seen from the point of view of women, which makes it of increasing interest. There is no mention of the Depression here. These are people clearly little affected by it. I wonder what kind of audience it was aimed at. Maybe just anyone looking for a good movie, a good story. Of minor note is the cinematographer, Lucian Ballard, who is in charge of one of his first films. And it's a competant but unremarkable job. (Compare to the screwball drama of the same year, also mostly interior shots, "My Man Godfrey" filmed by Ted Tezlaff.) This in part points to one of Arzner's weaknesses, in my small view-that she was a literary director, interested in content and story over the visual drama possible in movies.(Ballard became admired for his widescreen work two decades later.) Ballard films this in what I think of as a "Dinner at Eight" mode that delivers the series of acts intelligently and intelligibly, in that mid-30s mode between the drama of early Warner Brothers and the polished richness of 1940s films of all kinds. Arzner seems to set up each short scene as a moment to create interplay between characters almost independ of the space around them. Eventually this emphasizes a choppy progression of facts, which gradually builds into a progression of emotional reactions. And that isn't really the best way to build intensity, and the plot really suggests and demands intensity. So, if you watch this, you will likely study it and absorb the information rather than get swept away. Which still makes for a really full experience. And, to go back to where I started, a complicated melodrama. And with sharp writing throughout.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A great study on selfishness AND its causes...
AlsExGal9 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
... and a great showplace for Rosalind Russell's talents. Roz plays Harriet Craig, married to a well to do man, who apparently cares for nobody and nothing but the maintenance of her position in society and the orderliness of her large house.

Now maybe people were just supposed to see this as the just downfall of a greedy cold woman. But there is much more to the story than that. Harriet Craig is, maybe unconsciously, crying out for help. Why else would she just blurt out her battle plan to her niece whom she barely knows? Why would she talk about her mother being two timed by her father who mortgaged their house for his kept woman, then jettisoned her altogether and left her to die broke and of a broken heart? Her compulsive control of her husband and her household is a product of her NOT wanting to end up like mom at any price. And yet in the end she is all alone.

It is a bit too much to think that all of this just came crashing down on Harriet's head within basically a 24 hour period. Some people complain about the Passmore murder mystery basically diverting from the plot, but it is ironic that this obscure event, and Harriet's compulsive need to know what her husband is up to while not yet knowing about the murder, would precipitate her comeuppance.

John Boles is believable in an unbelievable role - that of a husband who cannot see that his wife sees him of little to no emotional value in two years of marriage yet who comes to an epiphany overnight after one conversation with his aunt and one issue over a phone call. Jane Darwell is great as the maid and cook who sees Harriett for what she is, but stays as long as she does because "you won't find better pay or better food in town". During the Depression that counted for something. With interior design of "the house" by William Haines who was a legend in the field after leaving an acting career, this is a short one but a good one.

I wonder why the camera made an issue out the younger maid, who was fired by Harriet for standing up or her beau, removing a photo of Gary Cooper from her wall before she left? Gary Cooper never even worked at Columbia! Highly recommended.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"I Haven't A Wife To Leave"
davidcarniglia5 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Wow. This is so tightly drawn and on-point that it's difficult to watch. John Boles is the utterly hen-pecked husband of Rosalind Russell's Harriet. She so convincing as a shrew that the only question is whether Walter (Boles) will survive, and in what condition. He's let himself exist in the posh gulag that their home has become. The acting is uniformly strong--the niece (Dorothy Wilson), servants, neighbor (Billie Burke), and friends make an agreeable supporting cast.

Walter pretty much can't do anything without his wife's permission; and even so he's still subject to ridicule. The irony for Harriet is that her status is effectively meaningless, since no one wants to visit or invite her to visit. She reveals to her niece Ethel how deliciously narcissistic she is. That's the problem though--there's absolutely no subtlety to her personality. No nuance, no balance. We do get background that her mom was dominated by her husband; so, her reaction is to dominate everyone around her. With scene after scene of Walter's emotional abuse he finally finds the courage to defy her.

It takes her indifference to Walter's possible implication in a couple's murder to trigger his reaction. But even that's not enough to satisfy her mischief-making. She manipulates Ethel for good measure. This movie could almost work as a training device for psychologists learning about deviant personality types. Not only do we have Harriet's haughty righteousness in the early scene with Ethel, we get the extremely drawn-out counterpoint--when Walter's aunt Ellen (Alma Kruger) later lectures Harriet. As many others have remarked, Walter's epiphany is abrupt. He's just not an interesting character.

Craig's Wife is a TV melodrama a generation before TV. In that genre it succeeds admirably; the complete lack of character development keeps it in that box. Harriet's bad, Walter's good: she gets her comeuppance, that's good too. With some shading here and there this could've been a lot better. I need to see the other versions of this story; the premise is certainly interesting, it's just rendered so cut-and-dried here to really become memorable. Worth watching for the even performances, just not very satisfying overall. 7/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A woman obsessed...
style-231 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Rosalind Russell acting. *Imagine*. The very woman for whom the word "madcap" was coined, the woman whose giddy portrayals of fast-talking, double-dealing dames with machine-gun delivery -- *acting*! Well, she *could* act, she just didn't get the chance very much, once she'd been typecast as the motor-mouthed madonna. And in this movie, she acts her little heart out in playwright George Kelly's (mysteriously) Pulitzer prizewinning story of an overbearing, scheming matron who is a little *too* involved with her possessions. Mr. Kelly, uncle of Princess Grace, and by all accounts a big queen, has written one of the all-time great female roles, one that any actress would give her eyeteeth to play. Along with a host of meaty supporting roles, Kelly's sculpting of the role of Harriet Craig is masterful, though at times, it *does* seem a bit dated, now (IMDb.com lists a silent 1928 version, presumed lost, that would be a treat to see). The sensitive and well thought out, yet cold and detached qualities in the movie are a gift from pioneering director and avowed lesbian Dorothy Arzner, who was also the first woman to direct a talkie. Harriet, to whom appearances are *everything*, rules her adoring husband and their house with a velvet fist. When a well-meaning neighbor bring over fresh flowers as a gift, Harriet immediately disposes of them, saying "I can't go around picking up rose petals all day." But her wealth, through marriage, has brought her (*bought* her?) all the things most important in life – a beautiful home and social respect, and she's determined to remain in control of that as long as possible. But all good things must come to an end. After Harriet has isolated her husband, alienated their friends, and lost all her servants, she gets caught up in some ridiculous plot contrivance (that Joan Crawford *completely* does away with in *her* version *Harriet Craig), that serves to bring all her manipulations and machinations to light. Predictably, her husband leaves her, and we see her crack, and realize she's lost everything and that the thing that ostensibly means the most to her – the house – is cold consolation. But the last scene, where her sanity dissolves before our eyes is a glorious and delirious spectrum of emotions in which we see all her defenses and fantasies crumbling before her, as she just as quickly, installs new ones. An overlooked tour-de-force, and jewels in the crowns of Rosiland Russell *and* Dorothy Arzner.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Craig's Wife (1936) **1/2
JoeKarlosi14 July 2008
Somewhat interesting film about a controlling wife (Rosalind Russell) who uses her well-to-do but laid back husband (John Boles) to have a luxurious lifestyle even though she doesn't really love him or care much about anything else. This film was made before as a silent, and later on with Joan Crawford. Boles is pretty much by the numbers here, playing a foolishly blind doting spouse, but Russell is pretty good and ultimately goes over the brink as she alienates everyone around her with her dictatorial ways. Interesting "warning" for those selfish types who care only about themselves.

**1/2 of ****
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Enter at Your Own Risk...
JLRMovieReviews15 October 2012
Rosalind Russell, John Boles and Billie Burke star in this film version of Craig's Wife, which was filmed before and made again with Joan Crawford and Wendell Corey, as the couple in Harriet Craig. I prefer this version, despite the fact Crawford and Corey are good actors. Here Rosalind is Mrs. Craig, a lady who planned her life and her time down to the last detail and her house is perfect, spotless and running efficiently. Even her husband can't smoke in his own house. Everything and everyone is under her supervision. When her mother is sick, she goes to visit, but she doesn't grasp the severity of the situation, because she has a timetable for everything and commitments to all the wrong things. She keeps everything in check, including her emotions, leaving her cold and indifferent to others' suffering and their feelings. This is how I feel Rosalind's performance is superior to Joan's. She never flinches, never loses it. It's almost scary to watch her move about, with her will and every whim ruling over everyone. But when it becomes evident to her husband that none of his friends ever comes to the house anymore and little things more him more aware of her iron thumb, he starts to rebel and heads roll! While her performance is practically the whole show, I prefer John Boles' take on his character, more than I do Wendell Corey's, too. Everyone, including Billie Burke is great in their roles. Watch Rosalind Russell as Craig's Wife and learn! You've been warned! For here on in...
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
If you live for yourself then you'll end up alone
AAdaSC2 June 2022
Rosalind Russell (Harriet) plays the titular role. She has no empathy for others nor is she sympathetic in any way. She is fully focused on keeping herself in a strong position socially and emotionally. However, this so-called emotional strength involves looking after number one at the expense of everyone else, including her dying sister Elisabeth Risdon (Mrs Landreth) and her loving husband John Boles (Walter).

We are given an explanation at the beginning of the film as to the psychology of why Russell is how she is as she gives some background to her upbringing and shares her philosophy of life and love to her niece Dorothy Wilson (Ethel). I'm not sure whether we are meant to remember that scene for the duration of the film so that we "understand" her. For me, it was a scene to highlight her meanness but perhaps it was meant to install sympathy for her.

We are taken through various incidents that lead to Boles and Russell in a final confrontation. Boles only gets to stand up for himself once his aunt, Alma Kruger (Ellen), points out some home truths. She is a strong character and plays her part well. Russell is good as the 'bitch' and it is very entertaining when Boles re-discovers his masculine rights - sometimes a woman needs to be told! Dorothy Wilson is mainly insipid and a wet blanket whist the servant/cook Jane Darwell (Mrs Harold) is occasionally unintelligible and she blatantly over-emotes on one occasion to make a point as to who is good and who is bad. Not needed.

Russell gets an epiphany at the end as she and the set lights up - it is up to you whether you sympathize or not - and the film closes with a motto. It's an ambiguous ending.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
chilling psychological drama
lrldoit11 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
George Kelly's brilliant 1924 play, Craig's Wife, has been well served by the movies. While the silent film has been lost, we have the Joan Crawford vehicle,Harriet Craig, (produced after the play's revival in the 1940s) and the even finer and far more faithful 1936 Craig's Wife. The cast is perfect, from Rosalind Russell to John Hamilton (in a small uncredited role).

Our protagonist, happy husband Walter Craig finds out that his wife never entered into marriage honestly (as he did), but played it safe. Indeed, Harriet explains her view of marriage "without romantic illusions". Harriet tried to avoid what destroyed her mother's life. She believed that she could secure her home and safety by dominating her husband (without letting him know that he is being manipulated). Harriet never realized that if one marries the wrong man, there is no protection. She never realized that she had no need to protect herself from Walter Craig, a man who adored her.

Walter's aunt warns him, in an attempt to remake him into a man who will not be dominated. Walter dismisses this as hyperbole, but remembers it. The plot device that shows Harriet's hand is a double murder of a friend of Walter's (along with the friend's wife). Walter learns the truth. Harriet's manipulation of the members of her household causes them to leave. Walter's life fell apart, but because he can only play a romantic part and isn't the type to be lord and master, he leaves along with the others. Then something magic happens.

Harriet is now alone. All along we hated her. Now Harriet is shattered and we cry our eyes out for her. Her flaws were not out of malice, but ignorance. We want to tell her that she should go to her husband and tell him that she realizes she had everything wrong. Mrs. Frazier, the widowed neighbor, whom Harriet spurned, offers sympathy and leaves. Harriet in desperation, races after her and realizes that she is all alone. She is shattered. So are we. One has nothing left to do but applaud with all one's might.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Craig's Wife - who was that child?
I was watching this movie late at night and noticed that the child who played Rosalind Russell's little boy looked suspiciously like Spanky McFarland (Our Gang). He doesn't seem to be listed in the credits here, but I am certain that was him. Does anyone know how I could look this information up if it isn't listed on IMDb? Rosalind Russell is great as usual, but this movie is too preachy. Movies that are heavy handed regarding messages the creators want to get across are often unwatchable. Other movies try to psychoanalyze the characters in an amateurish way, and even the great Alfred Hitchcock was prone to attempt this in a couple of films (such as Marnie). Craig's Wife is better than most but it is still annoying. The remake, starring Joan Crawford, is more cringe inducing than this one, because of Miss Crawford's tendency to chew up the scenery in her later flicks. Nevertheless, I am happy to see so many of Ms. Russell's films are being restored and shown to a new generation on broadcast TV.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not the best version!
JohnHowardReid8 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The Pulitzer Prize winning play, Craig's Wife, received its second and least interesting screen outing in 1936 when Rosalind Russell played the part of the plotting, devious wife at half-steam in a disappointingly diluted script for Columbia Pictures.

Admittedly, Russell creams the rest of the cast, particularly the miscast Billie Burke (who seems to have strayed into this movie from a different sound stage altogether) and tailor's dummy, John Boles, who makes an extremely poor fist of a mind-numbing, inconsistent and badly written role.

And to my mind, although she seemed the ideal director for the job, Dorothy Arzner's disappointingly flat direction can only be described as likewise a liability.

(The DVD from VintageFilmBuff rates 9/10, but it is now unavailable. Columbia did offer a VHS tape which I would rate 10/10).
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed