Wonderful character development!

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Here's Joan Crawford in full steam in the sort of overblown role that only she and Bette Davis (and maybe Susan Hayward – although she would play the character more sympathetically) could make halfway entertaining. Admittedly, Joan's not too flatteringly photographed here and her hair style is too severely swept back to be wholly attractive, but it certainly suits the non-compromising, selfish image of the altogether spoiled housewife that Crawford so enthusiastically – and with such dramatic relish – depicts. What I like about her performance too, is that Harriet is so perfectly consistent throughout: None of those last-minutes changes of heart that torpedo the TV soaps! Instead, we get honest-to-goodness self- centered reactions through and through. Also excellent in his role is Wendell Corey as the put-upon Craig. The rest of the players likewise excel. Everything seems suitably overblown. The direction is capable and all the crew are likewise efficient. Of course, it's just a soap after all and no more memorable than a well-polished endorsement of soap or cereal, but at least this movie is not compromised by a false ending and Crawford fans will definitely not be disappointed.

Many successful 1940's black and white melodramas revolved around a subjectively bad central character who negatively impacts everyone's lives until punished with just desserts. Joan Crawford superbly plays this central character and does get her just desserts at the final credits. The difference by 1950 is the perceived flaw of subjectively bad character seems ludicrous in a modern light. There are more recent television sitcoms which bust up a seemingly perfect, fruitful relationship merely because one partner rushes over with a dustbuster every time the other eats a muffin. The popular STEPFORD WIVES novel was later made into two successful movies whose premise seems to be sloppy people lazy toward responsibilities are the wronged folks while neat freaks are the psychopaths deserving to be punished. Should you accept this premise HARRIET CRAIG is a terrific movie as well as an historical reference of early fifties' movie styles and Joan Crawford's professional development by that time. If you don't, this is a well made movie whose premise may not seem sufficiently logical to build grand melodrama.

That is how maid Ellen Corby describes her boss, Mrs. Craig, in this third version of George Kelly's Pulitzer Prize Winning Play. Rosalind Russell's Harriett was a young woman with definite mental problems in the 1936 version. But she at least had youth on her side so with psychological treatment, it is obvious she could have made necessary alterations to change her into a better person. But Joan Crawford's middle-aged Harriet is really beyond help. She's deliberately cruel, treating servants with the condensation of Leona Helmsley and rubbing her power over them and everybody else in the house she worships with glee. Only housekeeper Viola Roache and maid Ellen Corby see her for who she truly is, although a few of husband Walter's friends see right through her and are blatantly uncomfortable when in her presence.In probably his best performance, bland Wendell Corey adds life to Walter who slowly wakes up to his wife's evil manipulations, which include lies not in Russell's version. Where Crawford succeeds in this performance is making Harriett's sexuality more blatant, verbalized as her "part of the bargain". K.T. Stevens seems a bit too worldly to be presented as a naive young woman. Watch her in the previous year's "The Port of New York" to see her as a film noir femme fatal role. She would later enter daytime soap immortality as the initially veiled mother from hell Vanessa Prentiss on "The Young and the Restless", passive/aggressively using her own death to try and destroy her hated daughter-in-law's life. Amusing performances by Allyn Joslyn as a playboy friend of Corey's and Lucille Watson as Corey's boss's life-loving wife add humor. I wanted to see a scene with Watson getting the truth from her husband Raymond Greenleaf, playing Walter's boss. Her presence is ironic considering that she played the wise mother of Crawford's rival, Norma Shearer, in the classic movie version of "The Women". The business aspect of Harriet's manipulations add a new dimension to her character, which leads to the revelation of one of the most malicious lies a wife can tell a husband. Fans of "Mommie Dearest" will take great pleasure in making comparisons to this and Crawford's 1955 melodrama "Queen Bee". When I first saw this as a teenager, I did not pick up on the psychological aspects of Crawford's character, truly a master at manipulation and using sexuality to get what she wanted, yet declining it when it didn't suit her purpose. Her mannish hairstyle makes her Harriett much more intimidating than Russell's kinder/gentler (and thus more dangerous) version. Crawford chews the scenery (including that oh so precious vase) yet you feel the pain inside her when she breaks down and reveals all the truths and feel sorry for her when it all comes crashing down on her. She's a model, not only for the man-hating realm of certain kind of feminists, but for anybody who puts social propriety and their own needs above those they claim to love. I wouldn't want a relative or friend like Harriet Craig, but she's somebody who is fascinating to watch rise, then crash and burn. You really can envision Harriet telling maid Corby, "When you clean the floor, you have to move the tree!"

In this remake of "Craig's Wife" Joan Crawford assumes the role of Harriet Craig, the woman to whom objects are more important than people.The biggest difference to me is that in this version Harriet is more concerned with running other people's lives, whereas in the 1936 version she is only concerned with keeping people from interfering with the smooth running of her own life.Joan Crawford's character is more devious, more suspicious, while Rosalind Russell played it as detached and aloof. Crawford undermines everyone around her; Russell ignores them. Crawford is obvious, like a raging river carving out a canyon; Russell is insidious, like a tiny trickle of water eating away at a foundation.Crawford's severe hairdo makes her look like a prison guard, to represent her rigid personality. Although Russell had a softer look about her, her perfectly straight posture was the giveaway to her feelings about the world around her.Of the two I prefer the Rosalind Russell version.