In my third Hays code effort I referred to the two different times(1946, 1984)when Hollywood tacked Maugham’s “The Razor’s Edge.” I got so enthusiastic about it that I found myself with more than two pages of MS which should have been about two paragraphs in that article. With some somewhat heavy handed editing I got it down to that length, but I commented that I might have more to say on the subject later. Well, it is now later. What follows is mostly exactly what I wrote before but then edited out. There are a few changes, maybe a couple of them significant ones.

The first “Razor’s Edge” starred a romantic’s dream list of players–Tyrone Power, Gene Tierney, Clifton Webb, Anne Baxter and John Payne. What a collection of glamour–but also of genuine talent. Maugham himself is a character in the film, portrayed by Herbert Marshall. He asserts (in the novel)that this was a true story. As a concept and in the way it is done, it is obviously a novel, a story-but apparently one that is actually, in large part true, though no one knows who the real people were–at least I don’t. Having the story teller also as a character works well enough in the original, but was dropped, I’d say wisely , in the remake where I think it would have seemed corny and artificial. Much as it will sound like a soap opera, I am going to give you a brief outline of the plot because the two movies are very alike but also very different.

The story begins in Chicago shortly after WWI where we meet Larry Darrell(Power), his fiancee, Isabelle(Tierney), their friend, Sophie(Baxter), Isabelle’s uncle(Webb) and another friend, Gray(Payne). Larry is troubled by his experiences in the war and not enthusiastic about a career in the Chicago financial world. He would like to have Isabelle with him as he wanders, looking for meaning, but he does need to wander. Isabelle is beautiful, rich, cultured and just about perfect in every respect–but she lacks some kind of inner subtlety that would help her to understand Larry. Sophie is sweet and rather unsophisticated compared to Isabel, but happy with her husband and looking forward to a fulfilling family life. Uncle Elliott is a snob and to many irritating in an effete way. But he is also smart and sophisticated and behind his cynicism there lurks some good sense and some longing, the latter expressed mostly in silly, prideful attitudes. Gray is a young man about the same age as Larry who looks forward to a career selling bonds on State Street(well, metaphorically, anyway).

Larry and Isabelle seem truly in love but are unable to agree on life styles. They separate, at least temporarily, and Larry goes to Europe to find himself, or something. A visit from Isabelle and her mother is joyful at first but a long run failure as it becomes clear that the separation is not going to end, not immediately, and maybe never. There is simply too much disagreement between them in values. Larry, inspired by a friend at one of his menial jobs, goes off to India. There he studies eastern faiths, apparently mostly Buddhism, and after spending some time with a master and more time alone in the mountains he apparently reaches some kind of enlightenment, after which he returns to Paris.

He eventually learns that, tragically, Sophie’s husband and her baby were killed in an accident. His one time love, Isabelle married Gray and they started a family. Elliott is there too and serves as a friend/counsellor, but not one Larry necessarily agrees with. After the 1929 debacle Gray loses much of his money and a lot of small investors who trusted him do the same or worse. Gray falls into a slough of guilt and depression.

Larry does seem to have a kind of inner peace, but is saddened by his friends troubles. Gray is suffering from severe head pain and severe depression. Larry uses his training from his study to help Gray who seems to recover. But then there’s Sophie. Gray, Isabelle and Larry cross paths with her in a nightclub. She is now an alcoholic and drug addict, and , apparently, at least a time-to-time prostitute. She obviously needs help and it’s going to be more difficult than helping Gray was.

Larry, out of kindness, and in following his philosophy, tries to help her and predictably they fall in love. But Isabelle, still unable to overcome her feelings for Larry, tempts her with liquor and she is unable to resist. As a result, she returns to her low-life friends and winds up as a murder victim.

I watched the remake version again before finishing this article. I changed my mind a bit–as follows.

There is very little difference in the story line of the two versions, in fact almost none. The remake, however, at times has a different feel to it. There has always been some critical controversy over this film, but the tendency was, for a long time, for most of the critics to like the original more than the remake. This seems to have changed, and perhaps rightly.

The remake is remarkable in being so much like the original and yet in feeling so much different. Bill Murray played Larry and he was the only “star” in the cast which made it very different from the original which was more or less literally star-studded. Denholm Elliott( Uncle Elliott, a near perfect successor to Webb) was the only one of the other leads who was even close to being well-known at the time. Theresa Russell(Sophie), Catherine Hicks(Isabelle)and James Keach(Gray) were all good actors who had fairly long careers, but none ever was established in the popular mind or eye as star quality, whatever that meant in the ’80’s and 90’s. There is interesting information about all of them on the internet.

The remake is, in my opinion, a frustrating mixture of good and bad, though I must admit I have fondness for it. Where the original began with a big party in 1919 Chicago, the remake began before the war and, in about a quarter hour, covered Larry’s wartime experiences. This includes the death of his friend Piedmont, who died saving Larry. The critics have tended to condemn about everything about the pre-1919 part, but it is actually a mixture of good and bad–some poor direction, some less than good dialogue and some much better, and a grim depiction of being at the front in WWI. When Piedmont is killed, Larry makes a speech that begins, “He was a slob.” It goes on to leave hardly a dry eye in the theatre, I’d wager.

After the wartime scenes, Larry returns to the US and the plot is very much the same as the original. There are a few big differences. In the original Larry is at first, at least, a fairly conventional guy who develops a thing about guilt and meaning and has to pursue it for his own peace. He needs to explore a nagging in his mind about why he survived and about his place in the world. Bill Murray played him as largely a “holy fool.”(This term, mostly from Eastern Orthodox Christianity, means one who acts foolish or even demented but who is in possession of extraordinary spiritual gifts and understanding) Now both of these are reasonable interpretations of the character, though I imagine the first one is closer to what Maugham had in mind. And likely the audience, if not the Hays Office, would have objected to the remake’s rather loosey-goosey approach to religion and philosophy, even though it seems the two films are more or less equally deep, though in somewhat differing ways.

The visit of Isabelle and her Mom to Paris is much the same in each version, but with important differences or at least indicators. In the original the poverty-stricken nastiness of Larry’s neighborhood is shown in passing. In the remake it is shown more straightforwardly. In the original the possibility that Isabel and Larry had sexual relations is hardly even hinted at. In the remake she spends a night in his apartment and is aghast at the lower class characters with whom she has to share the, uh, facilities.

I find it difficult to decide which is better in the spiritual quest part, Larry’s trip to India and his learning there. The master is more formal in the first. He, perhaps is more realistic in the remake. Both are very good portrayals. The former does more “instructing” and I think this was maybe the better way to go since I imagine the audience needed(needs) more. Both portrayals seem reasonably possible. Larry’s “enlightenment”(or whatever) is rather indefinably different in the two versions, but ends with pretty much the same effect. This is fairly important, because it is the fulcrum of the later plot and of Larry’s character, but I’m not sure which does a better job.

Towards the end of the remake one feels a hopelessness for Sophie that was still partly hope in the original. In the remake it is more clear that she will not reform again. She has slipped beyond Larry’s love and care and is simply lost.

Both films end with Larry’s decision to return to the US, after some kind of spiritual confrontation with Isabel about her role in Sophie’s fate. Is is handled discreetly and with restraint in both cases–the remake version may be a little better. It includes a line from Larry about “rewards” for “doing good” which sends him back home and the viewer out the door with mixed and profound feelings and an empty place in the heart.

I guess I hold with my original idea the the first is slightly better. But the second is much better than I suggested earlier and I am glad that I watched it again. It is way better than most of the critics thought. And Murray’s portrayal of Larry is a heartbreaking, laugh-inducing coup d’etat, one of the best he has ever done. If you want a final word on them in the class room sense–well, A- to the first and B+ to Murray’s version. I suggest you see them both–they’re worth it.