DebtotheC I absolutely loved the 2006 version w/Naomi Watts, Edward Norton, & Liv Schreiber. I so loved the 2006 version that maybe I was a bit prejudicial in my judgement at first. However, since reading the the book, I have come to redetermine the outcome of both. I have always said "I can make a better movie in my head, than any film producer, Director, Etc ever could" because I would always choose to go with the story that compelled the public (by the author) in the first place. In most cases I have read the book first. Thus, I would want the film to end with what W. Somerset Maugham chose as an ending in the 1st place. The 2006 version made me weep---the 1st didn't even come close---it was a pale imitation--even though it wasn't imitation.

judy t In Maugham's wonderful novel with its enigmatic title, the heroine is English and her name is Kitty. But Kitty is a flighty name - perfect for Maugham's shallow butterfly without a heart - but totally wrong for the mysterious Garbo. And so she has been renamed Katrin, and she's from Austria, thereby accounting for her heavy accent. The 3 main characters - Katrin, her husband Dr. Fane, and her lover Townsend - are very little like the in-depth people Maugham created. And his basic story of a silly young woman who grows up and learns what love really is, has been tossed overboard to create a star vehicle to showcase Garbo's beauty and magnetism. But I don't care. For when Garbo is on the screen, her face illuminated by Daniel's camera, it doesn't matter to me that the scriptwriters have debauched Maugham's novel. The only reason anyone would watch this film is because Garbo is in it. And Garbo in 1934 was exquisitely beautiful, just as she was in 1926, 1927, 1928, and so on right up till she retired in 1942. I wonder what Maugham thought about MGMs transformation of his best-seller. My guess is that while he was perplexed by the casting, he was thrilled that Garbo consented to play Kitty/Katrin. And Maugham must have been especially thrilled that the film's title remained unaltered, appearing on the screen exactly as it did on the cover of the thousands of copies of his novel then for sale in every bookshop in America and abroad.

bkoganbing There have been three versions of The Painted Veil out and I've now seen the first and third versions. That second one with Eleanor Parker and Bill Travers came out in 1957 during the Cold War and I'm betting the plot was fitted for those times.But the latest one with Edward Norton and Naomi Watts has the enormous advantage of shooting in China itself. It really helps the story to see exactly where and and what those doctors were dealing with. And the Chinese are the Chinese idea of the Chinese, not studio extras from Los Angeles's Chinatown. The emphasis was on the epidemic and the Chinese and their problems.But this film has the incomparable Greta Garbo, billed here simply as Garbo. She dominates the film over her to workman like leads husband Herbert Marshall and lover George Brent. These guys were never going to steal any scenes from her.Garbo more on a whim to see faraway places marries earnest, but exceedingly dull Herbert Marshall who is a doctor scheduled to go to China. But she bores quickly of him and gets an affair with British colonial official George Brent. Brent turns out to be a cad and then Marshall will have nothing to do with her. But a cholera epidemic comes and things work out.The Painted Veil should have had Garbo come back and do this story again in 2006 on location in China. Even Naomi Watts wouldn't dispute Garbo being a better actress, who can compete with a legend?

Irie212 The best adaptation of Maugham may be "The Letter," but this version of "The Painted Veil," which substantially changes his ending, is very nearly as good-- as subtle, as elegant, and as satisfying as a work of art. Both examine the profound differences and similarities that exist between passion and love, but this film goes deeper, looking at the glory that ensues when, at length, love and passion bloom together.Much credit goes to William Daniels, who was D.P. for directors from Stroheim to Ichikawa to Bud Yorkin. His framing and silvery lighting give even greater weight to the superb performances by Garbo and the masterful Herbert Marshall. Together Daniels and director Boleslawski allow the two actors to deliver the very affecting and very adult dialog with rare dignity and feeling.The two kitchen scenes in particular, one in the first sequence, and one near the end, are flawless, and all the better because of being parallels, and because the dialog employs the sheer force of elemental simplicity. In the second scene,when cholera-fighting Marshall finally speaks of his wife's infidelity, he humbly takes some of the blame, saying, "I went blind… a little mad. But if all the men who were hurt simply quit — bad business." Garbo at last begins to understand and replies, "Being in love, and letting it smash things as I have, I thought it had the right of way, I really did." She finally realizes that passion, such as hers for her lover, can be both deeply felt and utterly shallow.One more note about the visual genius on display. A standard cliché, fireworks,is used to suggest orgasm, but it is done as brilliantly and thrillingly as I've ever seen: three or four bursts of sparks shoot into the frame, like nothing so much as ejaculation.