Razor's Edge

1. It is UNIQUE. No other A-list Hollywood film of the era, to my knowledge, (and few since) specifically portrayed a man's quest for spiritual truth as the central plot. A handful, such as Capra's "Lost Horizon" and "Wonderful Life," have heroes who stumble upon spiritual truth, but they don't spend the entire film rejecting conventional values solely in order to undergo a philosophical quest. Later period films such as "A Man Called Peter" and "A Nun's Story" frame their spiritual quests within strictly Christian contexts; many others offer Christianity within war stories or adventure tales ("Joan of Arc" -- "Ben-Hur" -- etc). Since "Razor's Edge" conspicuously lacks these typical story values, it is astonishing that this film got made at all...just slightly less unlikely than if MGM had decided to turn "Thus Spake Zarathustra" into a movie.

2. It's a glossy, prestige production of a novel of artistic merit. Reviewers here offer mixed opinions on how faithful to the book it is; I say it's a superb adaptation. Larry, the central character, is off-stage for much of the book; the screenplay puts him front and center and dramatizes his quest. That necessitates invention, but to my mind the film's additions were faithful to the book's spirit. For fans of the Campbell-Vogler "Hero of a Thousand Faces" paradigm, it's intriguing to see how "Razor" fits that dramatic structure perfectly.

3. The portrayal of Larry's spiritual quest, his questions and the nature of the answers he finds, are indeed left a bit vague but that's a strength, not a weakness. First, it meant Fox avoided provoking the Bible Belt of that day. More importantly, Speilberg and Kubrick kept the godlike aliens of "Close Encounters" and "2001" vague for the same reasons -- it's hard to portray the transcendent convincingly on screen.

4. Some viewers complain that since Larry achieves enlightenment halfway thru the film, there's no real drama once he comes down from the mountaintop and rejoins society. Au contraire; although Larry is not tempted by Isabel's maneuvering, he does try to save a few souls (or at least heal a few wounded hearts) and he sees two good people die. Antagonist Isabel commits murder, or its moral equivalent, to win Larry and fails. Pretty dramatic stuff.

5. Although dated by contemporary sensibilities, the acting -- photography -- sets -- costumes -- and music are just plain terrific for fans of old school Hollywood at its finest.


Of the Two Versions Made, IMHO, This is the Best...   June 25, 2003
yygsgsdrassil (Crossroads America)
11 out of 13 found this review helpful

I saw both versions of the movies of Somerset Maugham's "The Razor`s Edge" recently on cable one weekend and while I enjoy Bill Murray and he generally entertains me, his smirking attitude did not lend the melodrama any benefit, to me. I simply could not put myself into believing that someone that "unserious" would ever wish to take a sabattical to find the meaning of life, let alone go to the mountains of Tibet to find himself near to God. Plus, what pleased me about the earlier Tyrone Power version was that Gene Tierney as Isabel was much more beautiful, much more sensuous and much more dark than whoever played the part in the Murray vehicle. To me it made the '46 version a more serious, entertaining piece of classic cinema. The Murray version seemed a bit too 'play by the numbers.' Also, in the '46 version they threw in an actor who played Somerset Maugham-they did not bother to redo him in the Murray piece. The `Maugham' in the original was not always as honorable as one would imagine as he had a lot to do with setting up the dinner in which the `breeze in the night' down fall of Sophie would develop. Both Sophies I thought did well..the film goer wanted to root for Sophie played by either woman..not to succuumb to her terrible ways. I would say that the Tyrone Power "The Razor's Edge" is definitely the more powerful of the two.