<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[1940s woman&#x27;s picture]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Madame X</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>bluezorrs</strong> — <em>18 years ago(March 05, 2008 12:05 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">in 1966 this movie must have seemed twenty years out of date. i loved it. i wish hollywood would make movies sixty years out of date today.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/181657/1940s-woman-s-picture</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 02:17:53 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/181657.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:17:34 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to 1940s woman&#x27;s picture on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:17:36 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>greenbudgie</strong> — <em>9 years ago(May 08, 2016 03:08 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">The story was told in the old-fashioned way. What makes this worth remaking was the lovely color photography this has. I haven't seen any other versions of the tale, so I'm not sure if it improves on earlier versions in other departments.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1525384</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1525384</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:17:36 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to 1940s woman&#x27;s picture on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:17:36 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>WarpedRecord</strong> — <em>13 years ago(April 11, 2012 06:32 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">It certainly feels a bit out of time for the '60s, but that's part of its charm. It seems like the only time Hollywood makes "out of date" movies these days is for novelty ("The Artist") or irony ("Far From Heaven").</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1525383</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1525383</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:17:36 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to 1940s woman&#x27;s picture on Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:17:35 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>HarlowMGM</strong> — <em>14 years ago(February 28, 2012 05:38 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">It was a remake of a 1929 film<br />
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/board/10020126/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.imdb.com/board/10020126/</a><br />
which was a great hit for Ruth Chatterton and was first made in 1937<br />
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/board/10029179/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.imdb.com/board/10029179/</a><br />
which wasn't as big a hit probably because the lead, Gladys George, was never a box office draw.  Producer Ross Hunter had great success remaking a bunch of old 1930's melodramas in glossy color and oversized emotions and today most of these movies - MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION, BACK STREET, IMITATION OF LIFE - are better known than the originals.  It's too bad he didn't make MADAME X about five years earlier - I think he and Lana would have had another blockbuster in 1961 but in 1966 the era of this type of film had definitely passed and the movie proved to be  Lana's last major film.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1525382</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1525382</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 11:17:35 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>