In 1981, we had a screening at the L.A. County Museum of Art of the newly discovered restored version. I took my girlfriend, who was not as savvy on film history as I was, and warned her not to expect much: that the movie was dated, the acting often awkward and broad, and some of the sound effects just plain weird, and so on. When the screening finished, she leaned over to me and said, "This movie hasn't dated at all." I could only agree, because the effect on both of us--and everyone in that theatre--was overpowering.
It's curious to compare it with the very fine tv version with Richard Thomas. The latter version has more scenes from the book and better acting, yet it's still inferior. It suffers from the lack of detail that so many tv productions had then along with comparatively flat lighting. The first version, on the other hand, has a look that resembles a documentary on World War I. They filmed it only eleven years after the war ended, and it contains a power only possible by those who've lived through an era being dramatized. Also, like CITIZEN KANE and DODSWORTH, it baffles one as to how Hollywood of this time produced such a non-escapist piece of entertainment.
It's curious to compare it with the very fine tv version with Richard Thomas. The latter version has more scenes from the book and better acting, yet it's still inferior. It suffers from the lack of detail that so many tv productions had then along with comparatively flat lighting. The first version, on the other hand, has a look that resembles a documentary on World War I. They filmed it only eleven years after the war ended, and it contains a power only possible by those who've lived through an era being dramatized. Also, like CITIZEN KANE and DODSWORTH, it baffles one as to how Hollywood of this time produced such a non-escapist piece of entertainment.