Of Human Bondage

Of the three film versions of "Of Human Bondage" this is probably the least known. Critics at the time found it dull and compared it unfavourably with the 1934 version starring Bette Davis and Leslie Howard. On the contrary, I think that this version is more complex, more interesting and ultimately more satisfying than that earlier film.

All versions chart the course of the destructive, one-sided relationship between medical student Philip Carey, played here by Paul Henreid, and working class waitress Mildred Rogers played by Eleanor Parker. But after his self-esteem reaches its lowest ebb, two far more caring women enter his life, one he rejects almost as cruelly as he himself was rejected, while the other provides him with the happiness he has searched for.

For anyone who has read Somerset Maugham's novel, the film versions all share the same drawback; they only concentrate on one aspect of the novel - the unrequited and obsessive love of Philip Carey for Mildred Rogers. This is the most fascinating part of the novel to be sure, but it doesn't take place until about half way through the book. By the time it happens, we know a lot about Philip Carey - we have followed him from childhood, understand the sensitivity about his clubfoot, and identify with him totally. When he encounters Mildred Rogers and is rejected by her, we are as shocked as he is at the effect it has on his sense of self-worth and his life from that point on. No one has ever described the anguish that such a one-sided affair can unleash better than Maugham in this extraordinary novel - Sigmund Freud couldn't have done a more insightful job.

And therein lies the challenge for the filmmakers because they all want to leap straight into the Philip and Mildred affair; there is no real build up, we are only vaguely aware of the vulnerabilities, and even the vanities that have been nurtured in Philip that could lead him into so destructive a relationship.

With that said, after a slow start, this version of the story does become quite compelling. However it could have done without the narration, which doesn't even start until after Philip meets Mildred. The filmmakers should have worked a little harder to explain things without resorting to narration, which both the 1934 and 1964 versions managed to do.

Paul Henreid was too old for the part - it's almost as though he was going through mid-life crisis - and his accent needed explaining. Fortunately, he had a strong enough screen presence to carry it off.

Critics considered Eleanor Parker's performance weak when compared to Bette Davis's showier one in the 1934 version, but she handles it pretty well on the whole. She is possibly a little too strident, and like Davis struggled to deliver a decent Cockney accent. For anyone who has seen the 1964 version, it's interesting to compare her with Kim Novak who gave a very subdued performance, which didn't seem right at all. Possibly the forced, slightly neurotic quality in Parker's performance actually caught the spirit of Mildred Rogers all too well, and, at the end, when Philip looks down at her barely visible in the hospital bed, it is the saddest scene in any of the versions.

Although not without fault, this version of Maugham's great novel is better than the critics would allow. It certainly rewards at least one viewing.

The only negative I can find was casting Paul Henreid as Philip Carey. A very fine actor without doubt, but it just didn't seem to me that he was Philip Carey. But as for Mildred Rogers, I honestly don't think ANYONE could have handled the part better than Eleanor Parker - including Ms. Davis!

In fairness to the original classic (1934), one has to realize that there had been no precedent to build it on, nor the enhanced movie technology, equipment, and expertise that 12 subsequent years could bring to fruition. To not keep this is mind is simply unfair.

In very brief summary, I honestly would vote both the original of 1934 and Eleanor Parker's remake of 1946 equally remarkable and unforgettable.

We all love Nora, Thorpe Athelny and Sally for their kindness, benevolence and inherent virtues, yet - after it's all over and the curtain has dropped, "Mildred Lives."

The acting by Eleanor Parker and Paul Henreid is superb in this classic story of love and sexual obsession. In some ways, it is truly a universal story of all of us. Who has not had, at least for a small period of time, such feelings for someone else. Most of us usually move on more quickly than our hero in this film, nonetheless it rings true. I was also genuinely pleased by the authentic period setting of this film and very impressed by the performances of all of the supporting cast, especially Edmund Gwenn.

I really do not understand why this version is so rarely shown anywhere. This was shown recently on Turner Movie Classics, otherwise it is never seen. I think it is important for movie buffs to have access to different versions of such a classic story as this.

This retelling of Somerset Maugham's classic is very handsomely "got up", and features a wonderful performance by the gifted Eleanor Parker as the heartless heartbreaker Mildred Rogers. But Eleanor's go at the role didn't produce quite the same results as it did for Bette Davis twelve years before. However, if it weren't for Davis' triumphant performance, the 1934 version would be just as forgettable as the others that followed. The 1964 take with Kim Novak/Laurence Harvey is certainly the weakest.

Second round on the screen for W. Somerset Maugham's tragic story has a medical student in late-1800s London used and abused by a coarse, common waitress--one who has a habit of flirting with the wrong kind of men (she gets used, too). These two characters take turns debasing themselves and insulting each other, but a persistent question is never really answered: just what does the future doctor see in this woman? As played by Eleanor Parker, mercurial Mildred is childishly trampy and silly instead of dangerous. Parker switches her snarling anger on and off at whim, and when she pouts she sticks her chin out like a punished adolescent; as her would-be paramour, Paul Henreid (probably too old for the part, but not bad) has two expressions: a beaming, boyish smile and a thin-lipped, painful sort of incredulity. When he's chatting up a patient at the hospital or getting to know womanly authoress Alexis Smith, Henreid seems right at home, but his scenes with Parker don't quite come off. The story, most successfully filmed in 1934 with Bette Davis, was remade again in 1964 with Kim Novak. This is the weakest version, filmed with very little visual style and a skittering narrative. *1/2 from ****