Un étudiant en médecine au tombe en amour d'une belle mais ambitieuse serveuse. Elle le quitte bientôt, mais tombe enceinte et revient vers lui pour obtenir de l'aide.Un étudiant en médecine au tombe en amour d'une belle mais ambitieuse serveuse. Elle le quitte bientôt, mais tombe enceinte et revient vers lui pour obtenir de l'aide.Un étudiant en médecine au tombe en amour d'une belle mais ambitieuse serveuse. Elle le quitte bientôt, mais tombe enceinte et revient vers lui pour obtenir de l'aide.
Richard Aherne
- Emil Miller
- (as Richard Nugent)
Phyllis Adair
- Older Sister
- (uncredited)
John Alban
- Waiter
- (uncredited)
Charles Andre
- Artist
- (uncredited)
Sylvia Andrew
- Wife
- (uncredited)
Bobby Barber
- Waiter
- (uncredited)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn an exchange which had Warner Bros. loaning to RKO the services of Joan Leslie for L'Aventure inoubliable (1943) and John Garfield for The Fallen Sparrow (1943), Warners acquired the production rights to W. Somerset Maugham's classic novel, which RKO already had adapted to the screen in 1934, featuring memorable performances by Bette Davis and Leslie Howard.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Okay for Sound (1946)
Commentaire en vedette
I do not think this is a movie about love. It is a movie that compares and contrasts MANY human emotions that hold us in bondage - most notably, love and obsession. I pity people who think that what Philip (Henreid) feels for Mildred (Parker) is LOVE! Of the 3 versions of this Somerset Maugham tale, this one is the strongest.
Bette Davis' performance in the original may have been groundbreaking, but neither the film nor her performance is great. Davis' performance leaves indelible impressions; it earns my respect and admiration. However, it is not very nuanced; she is nothing but a shrew. Also, she is simply not pretty enough to inspire Philip Carey's obsession with Mildred. The original film and the portrayal by Davis are classic not because they are great, but because they are groundbreaking.
For my money, both of the remakes are better movies. Eleanor Parker and Kim Novak both portray a Mildred who is prettier and less shrewish - and consequently more believable. Mildred becomes both more understandable and more pathetic. Also, because they are both prettier than Davis, obsession with either one of them is a great deal more conceivable.
Also, I like Paul Henried in this version much better than Leslie Howard (or Laurence Harvey). He may not be as sensitive or intellectual, but neither is he nearly as weak. I think a woman is more likely to feel sympathy or pity for Howard, NOT love. Henried seems much more "lovable." After all, 2 women actually do love Philip!
I am a big fan of many character actors of the 30's and 40's, including Edmund Gwenn. This is a great Edmund Gwenn role, and his presence is a real plus for this version.
Although her appearance is brief, I also love the beautiful, sympathetic Alexis Smith.
The neat surprise for me in this version is Janis Paige. I didn't really notice her until this, my 2nd or 3rd viewing, but it is fun seeing her as such a young actress in this very wholesome role. One of her more memorable roles is the blonde vamp who is first insulted by David Niven and then tries to seduce him in Please Don't Eat the Daisies.
But for me Eleanor Parker steals the show. I barely recognized her as a brunette. Neither had I ever seen her play such a loathsome character. Seeing her display such range was fun. Plus her performance is far superior to Bette Davis' in the original.
Bette Davis' performance in the original may have been groundbreaking, but neither the film nor her performance is great. Davis' performance leaves indelible impressions; it earns my respect and admiration. However, it is not very nuanced; she is nothing but a shrew. Also, she is simply not pretty enough to inspire Philip Carey's obsession with Mildred. The original film and the portrayal by Davis are classic not because they are great, but because they are groundbreaking.
For my money, both of the remakes are better movies. Eleanor Parker and Kim Novak both portray a Mildred who is prettier and less shrewish - and consequently more believable. Mildred becomes both more understandable and more pathetic. Also, because they are both prettier than Davis, obsession with either one of them is a great deal more conceivable.
Also, I like Paul Henried in this version much better than Leslie Howard (or Laurence Harvey). He may not be as sensitive or intellectual, but neither is he nearly as weak. I think a woman is more likely to feel sympathy or pity for Howard, NOT love. Henried seems much more "lovable." After all, 2 women actually do love Philip!
I am a big fan of many character actors of the 30's and 40's, including Edmund Gwenn. This is a great Edmund Gwenn role, and his presence is a real plus for this version.
Although her appearance is brief, I also love the beautiful, sympathetic Alexis Smith.
The neat surprise for me in this version is Janis Paige. I didn't really notice her until this, my 2nd or 3rd viewing, but it is fun seeing her as such a young actress in this very wholesome role. One of her more memorable roles is the blonde vamp who is first insulted by David Niven and then tries to seduce him in Please Don't Eat the Daisies.
But for me Eleanor Parker steals the show. I barely recognized her as a brunette. Neither had I ever seen her play such a loathsome character. Seeing her display such range was fun. Plus her performance is far superior to Bette Davis' in the original.
- krdement
- 9 janv. 2008
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Ljudski okovi
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure 45 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Of Human Bondage (1946) officially released in India in English?
Répondre