I'd have to look up the stats to make sure, but I believe that Joan Crawford may be one of the only actors, certainly the only major star I can recall off the top of my head, who starred in two completely different films with the same title. This must have occurred to Crawford at the time, but it's also interesting to see just how different the films are while at the same time there *is* one aspect that is similar, though unintentional, and separated by not only a decade and a half but the technology of cinema itself. Also, both are good films, if not quite great landmarks (and this one featuring a couple of memorable scenes I'll get to shortly) Unlike the 1947 Possessed, where Crawford was a woman who is found wandering the streets totally nutter and while half in shell-shock tells the story about her dashed hopes of love with Van Heflin, the 1931 Possessed, directed by Clarence Brown and featuring Crawford's oft-MGM co-star (and occasional lover) Clark Gable, is a simple little movie with a strong dramatic core about a young woman who leaves her dispiriting midwest small-town working-class life to make something of herself in New York City, finds well-to-do political aspiration-filled Gable, three years go by, and they may get married... until the man from before in that small town she was with reenters the picture. The 47 film was a little more sophisticated in some of its filmmaking craft by the sheer fact that it was so many years into the (classic Golden-age) Hollywood sound era, not to mention some film-noir aesthetic, while Brown is still seeing what can be done with this darn sound technology, and the script reflects this simplicity as well.This doesn't make it bad at all, on the contrary the interest in watching this film is to see how these two stars play off one another - it's a drama but there's real chemistry between them, and Gable especially shows his acting chops in the last twenty minutes or so of the film - and that once this love triangle starts to unfold, Brown puts in a few touches to make it visually striking. There's one moment where Marian and Wallace Ford as Al Manning where he proposes to her while they're on a merry-go-round (who knew adults did that back then, guess I'm the fool to think otherwise), and while the background keeps moving, we're focused on these two actors as Crawford's face changes to concern (and her words try to mask this) and Ford is just a happy-go-lucky kind of guy. And the way Brown uses close-ups is strong too, like when Marian is uncertain about things involving Mark Whitney.The two memorable set pieces are contrasts in how we see a character react to the world around them; Crawford's Marian very early in the film (this is after expressing her uncertainty to Al that she wants to stick around in town and live *this* life he wants for her) sees a train going by slowly, and she sees into the cars. Inside the train cars is exuberance, people dancing, champagne flowing, and the way the train cars are going by it seems like she's getting a vision into another place in time, or even her desires and dreams manifested (are they real? who cares? they're there). This scene, by the way, was later used as a good example of what desiring things in visual terms means in The Pervert's Guide to Cinema.The other memorable portion is the climax and ending, where Mark Whitney is giving a political speech - he's running for governor and a number of things have happened up to this point for him to run, which I won't get in to as it reveals a spoiler I'd rather leave free for you to see in regards of the love triangle - and Marian is there in the crowd (though Mark doesn't know it). How Brown cuts around to some of these faces, how we see this giant space, how a certain stack of papers are thrown out asking who the "Mrs. Whitney" is, and then when Crawford stands up, this shows some excellent editing and pacing on Brown's part and makes for a dynamic conclusion - a sad one, as well, though I won't say why that is either.There are a few creaky parts to the film, and the script may be *so* simple as that one might wish it were a little longer - it runs a very slim 76 minutes, and there's a time jump of around three years from 1928 to 1931, and, surprisingly (and I'd think audiences at the time, who did make this a hit, would've wanted to see something of this), there's not a single mention of the depression, or if it affected Whitney and his political/business affairs. But the draw of the film is Crawford and Gable (and Ford isn't too bad either, though his character makes him fairly one note until his last scene), and they're excellent either together or apart. Just that scene alone where they meet for the first time, where Marian is first trying to ask the man she met in her town (the only one she knows) about any work or opportunities and he tells her to shove off, she sticks around in the hallway and then comes back in and asks Gable's Mark out... wow does that have a good charge.So, no, they're not quite the same movies - we never see Marian go totally cuckoo like her character in the 47 film - but they are both women who want some kind of status in society, and it involves then men that, at the time, made it so they had little recourse else (in one film she's a nurse and that's about it, in the other she's... well, what would she do without the men in her life there?)

Possessed (1931) ** 1/2 (out of 4)A poor factory worker (Joan Crawford) turns her back on the man (Wallace Ford) who loves her and heads off to NYC where she becomes the mistress to a powerful attorney (Clark Gable). The first thirty-minutes of this film contain some very good drama and a couple great sequences but as the film moves on the screenplay becomes rather lazy and the movie falls apart. There are a number of great sequences early in the movie and that includes a terrific scene with Joan watching a train pass her by. Looking inside the train, this scene is meant to show her that there might be a better life outside her small town. Another great scene is when Crawford tells Ford that she plans to move to New York City. Ford never really gets credit for being a good actor but he handles the drama here very well. The second half of the film falls into pure melodrama, which leads to an incredibly stupid ending that ruins everything that came before. Ford's character pops back towards the end of the film and this throws a conflict in Crawford and Gable's relationship but this drama never works. Crawford is very good in her role but I think she was better at playing the poor girl in the start of the film. Gable turns in another very good performance and I'm really having fun watching these pre-fame Gable movies because it's easy to see why he became a legend.

*Contains spoilers* This is a great example of a pre-code "Woman's Picture." Although Joan Crawford's character starts out baldly and brazenly out for a rich man (Clark Gable), she ends up with one she loves dearly and begins to chafe at the tramp label. She sacrifices that love, and the money, for Gable's sake. And throughout, she's never cheap or vulgar but has an honesty and kindness about her.I think it's beside the point to call this picture "dated" -- it is almost 75 years old after all. Rather, it's a movie that came out of a very specific period in cinema. Crawford is fantastic -- as others have noted, you understand why she was such a big star when you see pictures like this. This is well before she descended into melodrama and camp...instead, she is remarkably naturalistic. Gable is virile and charismatic as always. And the ending is romantic, too.

This is a very solid bit of movie-making. Well directed and edited. Little fluff. A script that is generally crisp and moves the plot forward.Crawford is strong and likable as she moves from factory girl to "kept woman," apparently without missing a beat.It's in these early Crawford films that you really see what the shouting was all about. She is beautiful, vulnerable, strong, sweet and, most importantly, a powerful screen presence. And she can show you all those sides of herself in the same scene.Gable too, while playing a somewhat subservient role, gets to strut his stuff. He is at once, a "man's man" and "ladies man." Neat trick. Try it sometime.One aspect of this film that you'll appreciate is its lack of moralizing. The story is out there for all to see, but we don't get it rubbed in our faces. Also, along the lines of Philip Barry ("The Philadelphia Story") we are allowed to see that money and power does not necessarily make a man bad, while struggle and poverty doesn't make him good, either.As with all movies of this era, you have to allow for the changing morals and attitudes that have interceded in the following 70 years, but it's a testament to the writer and director that this still holds up.