This is a great movie, but it's a remake of "Lady for a Day" that Capra made in 1933 with Warren William as Dave the Dude and Fay Robson as Apple Annie. Robson was nominated for an Academy Award for her portrayal.
shareToday I discovered that this film is a remake, because I just saw the 1933 version on TV. However, I think Pocketful of Miracles is more touching than Lady For a Day.
shareI like the original better. The script was leaner and there weren't those annoying side plots. Mary Robson was ethereal as Apple Annie.
shareYes! Lady for a Day was faster, more joyful and with a superior cast. It's filled with energy compared to Frank Capra's last film. The first film was also more loyal to the original Damon Runyon story.
shareHere is a perhaps interesting aesthetic question. One night I stumbled on to the 1933 film knowing neither it nor the re-make. I was entranced by the film which was then followed by the re-make with Glen Ford, Bette Davis et al. I was able to watch only a portion of the re-make, but could not engage with it, it's "modern" improvements notwithstanding. In thinking about why I had this strong reaction-- was it a case of "first love", the first version one sees sets the standard? Or was it because I knew none of the actors and so saw only characters at a level of reality which was not available when seeing Glen Ford and Bette Davis.
If so, what are the implications of this-- All good actors have to be new? Hardly, but it may mean that only the most talented actor can do a remake, making him/herself as transparent as possible to let the character become real? And is there a real character behind both actors (original and remake?) Perhaps the Damon Runyon novel is the place for the real character,which raises an interesting question as to leaving novels alone!!?
One might have the same reaction to the two versions of the Man Who Knew too Much, where Doris Day herself seems to get in the way of the character, who in the early version is the hero of the piece.
This all seems to raise a question as to whether there is ever a re-make that is superior to the original? Titanic? The Four Feathers etc....
This all seems to raise a question as to whether there is ever a re-make that is superior to the original?
A sadly bloated remake, actually, that Frank Capra himself "trashed" in his autobiography, complaining that (Executive Producer) Glenn Ford insisted on padding Hope Lange's role because they were romantically involved. For example, the fight scene between the two, which has nothing to do with anything.
shareI agree with a lot of this and other posts, but ...
1) In 1962, no Hollywood studio could release a stand-alone major picture as lean and short as Lady For A Day.
2) Ford was actually quite good in his part (as was Warren William in the original).
3) Hope Lange is no Glanda Farell.
4) Davis is good, but May Robson was exquisite. Davis was well into her ultra- mannered, late-career acting style that began with Margo Channing, where it was quite effective, but devolved into a lazy "give 'em what they expect" series of efforts. Her Baby Jane performance was terrific, not because she was thoughtful about the part but because Robert Altman was adroit in exploiting her predictable histrionics--not to mention Crawford's. (Of course, all of the cast of LFAD was also mannered, but in a coherent fashion, consistent with the acting style of the day.)
5) Peter Falk is the best thing in the film.
6) The "anachronisms" reported on other pages were so extensive that I always assumed that the time frame of the movie had been advanced to the early sixties and that any references to the 1930's were either "in jokes" or themselves counter-anachronistic.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Perhaps the OP just wants to reach out for some sense of community.