Magnificent Obsession

I have seen both this original version and the Douglas Sirk remake from the 1950s. The two are extremely similar...so similar you might want to only see one of them. While the remake is naturally lacking in originality, it is a bit glossier and prettier due to the Technicolor as well as Sirk's style...he had a real deft hand with romances.

The story begins with the death of a famous and beloved doctor. It seems when the doctor needed life-saving equipment, it was being used on a drunk playboy who has pretty much led a selfish and worthless life. He feels bad about this, at least as much as he can at this point. But later when his actions ALSO cause the widow to become blinded, he suffers a huge crisis and dedicates his life to helping her and others.

Robert Taylor and Irene Dunne are very good here. But I didn't rate fhe film higher simply because while enjoyable, the film certainly seemed far-fetched and a bit schmaltzy. Still, it is worth seeing.

I'm SOOOOOO Glad that the 1935 version of Magnificent Obsession is being released along with the 1954 version..The newer version is getting all the hype,etc. but it truly is the 1935 version with Irene Dunne/Robert Taylor which is the understated and much better rendering. I have a poor video quality version,but better than nothing..hope the released version has been improved in restoration.John Stahl's solid directing makes the principal characters more realistic.Robert Taylor shows a palpable presence in his first main screen venture..and of course amongst Irene Dunne's early 1930 films,this simply is one of her very best!1935..classy...1954...somewhat sappy

Magnificent Obsession - 1935 I've probably watched Universal's 1954 version of Magnificent Obsession 25 times while researching the movies made in the San Bernardino mountains. This is one of those films where there can be no doubt about its location, Lake Arrowhead. But I have always had my doubt about the original 1935 version as ever having been made in the mountains, even though one of the Captain's of the Arrowhead Queen unequivocally stated that he had heard it had been filmed at Lake Arrowhead. In my research over the years, I had never been able to ascertain one way or the other until August, 2000 at the U.C.L.A. Film Archives. The most pleasant surprise is that there is at least one identifiable scene with Lake Arrowhead in the background - including a speedboat cruising across the lake. It is a very brief scene and by far and away, the majority of the film is shot in a studio. Another equally pleasant surprise is a very young (23) Robert Taylor playing a sophisticated playboy (#1) and then an older doctor (#2) and pulling it off believably. His maturity and acting ability are evident from the first frame. Irene Dunne, who was 7 years older, is an accomplished and polished actress with only a few groans to show for her effort. (Her groping blind scenes leave you exasperated.) Comic relief is supplied by an aged Charles Butterworth, as an unlikely suitor to a very young Betty Furness, the step-daughter of Ms. Dunne. This is not the soapy Universal version done later by Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman, but a thoughtful, intelligent script that is closer to the original Lloyd C. Douglas novel, who just happened to be the screenwriter on this version. The print of the 1935 version is very dark and will probably never be shown again in public unless a restoration effort is made. Unfortunately, there are too many films to restore and only so much money available.

I saw this movie only once while in high school, many years ago. I have many times seen the Rock Hudson/Jane Wyman version and re-watch it, just because the story is so good in its purest form. The RH and JW version is truly sappy, and must have been one of the top ten to help coin the phrase "Chick Flick". The story is so much better told through it's literature, but like so many, I love to see literature come to life, and see if the Director and Producers have any likenesses to my own imagination. Lloyd C Douglas was a dear man, I'm sure, as an author I found him a bit sophomoric, but nonetheless, enjoyable. His others books, are in the same vein, and worth reading, especially "White Banners", which is also made into a film, with the same overtones as "Magnificent Obsession". Another one of his books worth noting, is "Dr. Hudson's Secret Journal", which isn't a true sequel, but sheds light on the theory that lights M.O.'s fire.

The Sirk excellent remake has overshadowed Stahl's version nowadays.That's certainly unfair,because the latter was a pioneer of the melodrama who would peak with "leave her to heaven" ,ten years later.Stahl 's version,in stark black and white is certainly not as palatable as the 1953 movie and its gaudy technicolor.

Randolph's character seems more important in Stahl's version.His theory is certainly moving:You've only got what you give and you should not expect any award.Merrick tries to apply this theory,first because he wants to seduce the wife of the philanthropist/doctor who indirectly died because of him,because he was an alcoholic playboy.He has not really understood what Randolph tried to explain to him.The scene with the hobo comes as a comic relief,which is terribly needed in such a dark yarn.When ,as leaving the poor man,Merrick thinks he's got some divine reward,he's completely mistaken.A Christian movie,"magnificent obsession" sure is,as Randolph,in his second scene ,mentions the Christ. After all,his theory is not that much far from that of James Stewart's guardian angel in "it's a wonderful life".

Unlikelihoods are here there and everywhere,but it's the rules of melodrama.The story ,which includes death,blindness,moral and physical redemption,is not more far-fetched than westerns and thrillers plots.And life is so strange that it can turn sometimes into the most implausible melodrama;and like it or not,not necessarily with a happy end.