Magnificent Obsession

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.

Rich playboy Robert Taylor is indirectly and innocently responsible for the death of Irene Dunne's philanthropic doctor husband, then falls in love with her. He anonymously replaces her vanished fortune. Then she falls blind and he does everything he can and more to help her recover her sight.

It took fourteen writers, director John Stahl, and the usual vast array of actors and technicians to make this piffle hang together, confirm Miss Dunne as an A-list star, and show MGM, Taylor's home studio, that he could stand up to the strain. It was another hit for Stahl in his annual weepie fest for Universal in the 1930s You can see the snipped-off plots from Lloyd Douglas's novel. How did Charles Butterworth wind up married to Betty Furness (gives a decent performance, by the way). What is Sara Haden doing there? Did they try to get Otto Kruger for the Ralph Morgan role?

These and other questions linger in the background of my mind, even as I consider the question of euthanasia. I can admire the practical results as a matter of commercial film making, even though this sort of movie annoys the heck out of me.

I saw this movie only one time on AMC during a film renovation special in 1991 or 1992. Its a wonderful movie. It made enough of an impression on me that 12 years later, after only one viewing, I still consider it a favorite.

I know that the later version with Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman is considered to be a good remake by film critics and fans, however, when I tried to watch it, I revolted at the glitzy technicolor melodrama. The magic, the old Hollywood glamour, the passion and the agony I found in watching the original seemed completely lost in the remake. I hope they do restore this movie before it is lost forever. I hope I get to see this movie again some day.

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.