If you haven't seen the 1985 TV version, which is very accurate to the original play, I recommend you do, as otherwise some of the character histories and motivations won't come through in this 1925 film. This 1925 version delves more deeply into the complexities of the characters than does Wilde's original:
1. From the first scene of the 1925 film, it is clear Lady Windermere feels a powerful sexual attraction for Darlington, which she is trying to resist, to be faithful to her husband. Thus she is much more vulnerable, and likable, from the very beginning in this film than she is in the play, and thus viewers care more about her.
2. Mrs. Erlynne, Lady Windermere's mother, is more complex and conflicted in this 1925 film -- she is, after all, a woman who threatens her daughter's husband that she will ruin her own daughter's life unless he pays her a large sum. To make such a woman sympathetic is very tough, but the director here and the actress pull it off, by showing how snowed-under she is with bills and debts. The original play omits all this and leaves open the possibility that Mrs. Erlynne is coldly threatening her daughter's future for nothing more than greed and pride.
3. Lady Windermere was raised believing her mother honorable, but died young. In fact, her mother (now going under the name Mrs. Erlynne) left husband and baby girl for a lover, dishonoring herself; then that lover dumped her. A key question, regarding Lord Windermere's character, is whether he knew before he met Mrs. Erlynne that the story about his wife's mother was a cover-story -- whether he knew, at the time he met and married his wife the future Lady Windermere, that her mother had this dishonorable past. In the original play, this is not answered, but in this 1925 film, a title card makes clear that Lord Windermere knew long before he met Mrs. Erlynne that his wife's mother, whoever she was, was dishonorable. The only thing Mrs. Erlynne must prove to Lord Windermere is that she is, in fact, that mother. This factor makes Lord Windermere a more admirable character than the character in the original play, because it is clear that he did not let his wife's mother's disreputable reputation stop him from loving, respecting and marrying his future wife. In this 1925 film Lord Windermere is also shown as very understanding of human frailty, in that he shakes hands with Mrs. Erlynne on several occasions even after she puts the bite on him.
4. This 1925 version deals with two major plot problems in the original that involve servants. The key to Lady Windermere preserving her husband's love for her, and her reputation, is that her husband never learns that she (a) left her house and (b) went to Lord Darlington's rooms. Mrs. Erlynne seeks to preserve Lord Windermere's belief that Lady Windermere was always in her home by getting Lady Windermere out of those rooms and back home before Darlington and the other men find her in his rooms. But in that era, Darlington would have had a valet or butler to answer his door, and when Lady Windermere arrived, that man would know, of course, since she could not enter unless he let her in. Thus merely getting her out wouldn't preserve secrecy; the servant must also be convinced to keep silent, or at least, to be discrete, not to blurt out in anyone's hearing that Lady Windermere had been there. Similarly, in the Windermere house, servants would know that she left the house and did not return until hours later. Indeed, in the play a servant says she left the house, and later, another servant says she knew when Lord Windermere returned (5 AM) which means the servants would also know when Lady Windermere returned (after 2 AM). Thus Lady Windermere's secret would be exposed to her husband, because Darlington's servant might blurt out her presence, and Lord Windermere's own servants would tell him his wife had left and later returned. The 1925 film solves the Windermere "servant problem" by having Lady Windermere sneak out without any servant knowing, and having Mrs. Erlynne see this, so no servant need know that the mistress of the house had left. Presumably Lady Windermere could also find a way to sneak back in unseen by any servant, when she returned. As to the Darlington "servant problem", the original play opens the relevant scene with Lady Windermere already in Darlington's rooms, in an attempt to finesse the issue; but to any audience member who realizes there must have been a servant to open Darlington's door, this fails, and leaves a hole in the story. The 1925 film at least signals it knows of the problem, and assumes that some members of the audience will realize that there must have been a servant, because it shows that Darlington's door is opened by a servant. But the servant is never shown. In effect, the 1925 film acknowledges that there must have been a servant, but tries to get the audience to overlook it, and to overlook the problem. It would have been better if the film inserted a brief scene in which Mrs. Erlynne, having arrived at Darlington's rooms, called in the servant and told him not to tell his master, Lord Darlington, that either of them had visited, except in total privacy where none of the other men who might be with Darlington would overhear. Of course, eventually Darlington would have to learn from his servant of Lady Windermere's visit, but since Darlington has already announced that he's leaving England forever, and since it would be unthinkable of him to expose Lady Windermere, the audience will understand that her secret is safe with him.
Postscript June 2009: my DVD version runs 2 hours 13 minutes, much longer than the 89 minute version now on DVD by the Am. Film Inst.
1. From the first scene of the 1925 film, it is clear Lady Windermere feels a powerful sexual attraction for Darlington, which she is trying to resist, to be faithful to her husband. Thus she is much more vulnerable, and likable, from the very beginning in this film than she is in the play, and thus viewers care more about her.
2. Mrs. Erlynne, Lady Windermere's mother, is more complex and conflicted in this 1925 film -- she is, after all, a woman who threatens her daughter's husband that she will ruin her own daughter's life unless he pays her a large sum. To make such a woman sympathetic is very tough, but the director here and the actress pull it off, by showing how snowed-under she is with bills and debts. The original play omits all this and leaves open the possibility that Mrs. Erlynne is coldly threatening her daughter's future for nothing more than greed and pride.
3. Lady Windermere was raised believing her mother honorable, but died young. In fact, her mother (now going under the name Mrs. Erlynne) left husband and baby girl for a lover, dishonoring herself; then that lover dumped her. A key question, regarding Lord Windermere's character, is whether he knew before he met Mrs. Erlynne that the story about his wife's mother was a cover-story -- whether he knew, at the time he met and married his wife the future Lady Windermere, that her mother had this dishonorable past. In the original play, this is not answered, but in this 1925 film, a title card makes clear that Lord Windermere knew long before he met Mrs. Erlynne that his wife's mother, whoever she was, was dishonorable. The only thing Mrs. Erlynne must prove to Lord Windermere is that she is, in fact, that mother. This factor makes Lord Windermere a more admirable character than the character in the original play, because it is clear that he did not let his wife's mother's disreputable reputation stop him from loving, respecting and marrying his future wife. In this 1925 film Lord Windermere is also shown as very understanding of human frailty, in that he shakes hands with Mrs. Erlynne on several occasions even after she puts the bite on him.
4. This 1925 version deals with two major plot problems in the original that involve servants. The key to Lady Windermere preserving her husband's love for her, and her reputation, is that her husband never learns that she (a) left her house and (b) went to Lord Darlington's rooms. Mrs. Erlynne seeks to preserve Lord Windermere's belief that Lady Windermere was always in her home by getting Lady Windermere out of those rooms and back home before Darlington and the other men find her in his rooms. But in that era, Darlington would have had a valet or butler to answer his door, and when Lady Windermere arrived, that man would know, of course, since she could not enter unless he let her in. Thus merely getting her out wouldn't preserve secrecy; the servant must also be convinced to keep silent, or at least, to be discrete, not to blurt out in anyone's hearing that Lady Windermere had been there. Similarly, in the Windermere house, servants would know that she left the house and did not return until hours later. Indeed, in the play a servant says she left the house, and later, another servant says she knew when Lord Windermere returned (5 AM) which means the servants would also know when Lady Windermere returned (after 2 AM). Thus Lady Windermere's secret would be exposed to her husband, because Darlington's servant might blurt out her presence, and Lord Windermere's own servants would tell him his wife had left and later returned. The 1925 film solves the Windermere "servant problem" by having Lady Windermere sneak out without any servant knowing, and having Mrs. Erlynne see this, so no servant need know that the mistress of the house had left. Presumably Lady Windermere could also find a way to sneak back in unseen by any servant, when she returned. As to the Darlington "servant problem", the original play opens the relevant scene with Lady Windermere already in Darlington's rooms, in an attempt to finesse the issue; but to any audience member who realizes there must have been a servant to open Darlington's door, this fails, and leaves a hole in the story. The 1925 film at least signals it knows of the problem, and assumes that some members of the audience will realize that there must have been a servant, because it shows that Darlington's door is opened by a servant. But the servant is never shown. In effect, the 1925 film acknowledges that there must have been a servant, but tries to get the audience to overlook it, and to overlook the problem. It would have been better if the film inserted a brief scene in which Mrs. Erlynne, having arrived at Darlington's rooms, called in the servant and told him not to tell his master, Lord Darlington, that either of them had visited, except in total privacy where none of the other men who might be with Darlington would overhear. Of course, eventually Darlington would have to learn from his servant of Lady Windermere's visit, but since Darlington has already announced that he's leaving England forever, and since it would be unthinkable of him to expose Lady Windermere, the audience will understand that her secret is safe with him.
Postscript June 2009: my DVD version runs 2 hours 13 minutes, much longer than the 89 minute version now on DVD by the Am. Film Inst.