Betty Compson plays Lola, a French cabaret singer during WWI. She and a British officer, David, are in love and plan on marrying. However, before the wedding can occur, David is called to the front and is injured--losing his memory of this lady. Time passes. David is back in England and has a successful life in many ways, though his new wife (NOT the singer!) is cold and not particularly likable. Later, Lola sees David and realizes he's alive. What's next? See the film.
I really like the 1942 film "Random Harvest". In fact, I liked it so much I read James Hilton's novel (1941). However, today when I watched "Woman to Woman" I was surprised--so much of this 1929 film (a remake of a 1923 silent) seems like "Random Harvest". However, they are different enough that you might just want to see both.
As far as "Woman to Woman" goes, it's a film you best watch understanding the limitations of the early talking pictured. For example, Betty Compson's French accent isn't great--and it comes and goes throughout the movie. This isn't unusual for the time--nor are the rather crappy dance numbers. And, some of the acting and dialog is stilted. For 1929 it's not unusual--compared to films made just a year or two later, it looks very old fashioned and cheap. Try not to judge it too harshly. Because of this, I'd give it an 8 compared to other films of the day but only a 6 overall (and this might be a bit generous). Worth seeing but for folks willing to cut it some slack.
I really like the 1942 film "Random Harvest". In fact, I liked it so much I read James Hilton's novel (1941). However, today when I watched "Woman to Woman" I was surprised--so much of this 1929 film (a remake of a 1923 silent) seems like "Random Harvest". However, they are different enough that you might just want to see both.
As far as "Woman to Woman" goes, it's a film you best watch understanding the limitations of the early talking pictured. For example, Betty Compson's French accent isn't great--and it comes and goes throughout the movie. This isn't unusual for the time--nor are the rather crappy dance numbers. And, some of the acting and dialog is stilted. For 1929 it's not unusual--compared to films made just a year or two later, it looks very old fashioned and cheap. Try not to judge it too harshly. Because of this, I'd give it an 8 compared to other films of the day but only a 6 overall (and this might be a bit generous). Worth seeing but for folks willing to cut it some slack.