Schiavo d'amore

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."

OF HUMAN BONDAGE attempts to be an accurate re-telling of the Somerset Maugham novel set in the Victorian period (instead of modern times as in the Bette Davis-Leslie Howard '34 version). But there are some drastic gaps in the script that tend to omit scenes that are only talked about or used as exposition. For example, Philip's sighting of Mildred as a street-walker is only mentioned; her illness is never shown graphically (as it was in the Bette Davis version) and we see only the back of her head as she lies in a hospital ward. Other key scenes are dismissed in a few lines of dialogue instead of being portrayed.

And the weaknesses don't end there. Edmund Gwenn is much too cheery as Philip's friend, playing him as though he is the father again in 'Pride and Prejudice' pushing his young daughter (Janis Paige) toward him in scene after scene. And Paige herself is notably miscast as a virginal English lass. Alexis Smith is totally wasted in a few brief scenes. Patric Knowles doesn't bring much credibility to the role of Philip's doctor friend.

And then there are the two central performances: Eleanor Parker and Paul Henried. Miss Parker puts too much effort into her role and is uglified so that she looks the role of a low-class hussy but it seems more like a self-conscious acting job than anything else. Her Mildred is contemptuous in her willful actions (like demolishing Philip's apartment when in a tantrum) and to her credit she never tries to create sympathy for the character she portrays--but never really seems to be the cheap tart she portrays. Ida Lupino would have made a much more convincing Mildred with much less effort. Paul Henried plays his role with sensitivity but is clearly too old to play the young medical student.

The entire film has a dark, claustrophobic look that isn't helped by the low-key lighting of rainswept streets and dark alleys nor the interior set decorations of humble lodgings. For a really better understanding of the story, read the original novel. It's quite fascinating.

A quality note of distinction is the underlying mood music of Erich Wolfgang Korngold that should have accompanied a much better film.

W. Somerset Maughan wrote a great novel about the complexity of human relations. It's amazing how a person can lose his soul when possessed by a passion that will consume everything. Which is why one feels such compassion for Philip Carey, the man whose love for the tragic Mildred Rogers will almost destroy him.

In comparison with the John Cromwell's 1934 version starring Bette Davis and Leslie Howard, this 1946 take on the novel, as adapted by Catherine Turney and directed by Edmund Goulding, pales somewhat. Not that this is a terrible film, on the contrary, it has some good points, but the essence of the novel is not as poignant as the other film made clear. In fact, Hollywood in the early version was freer from the censure that the second film, shot under the Hays Code, had. It sort of makes the action lose reality.

The other thing that is notable in the movie is the different interpretations of Englis accents spoken by most of the actors. Another failure of the film was to have Paul Henried cast to play Philip. He was a man much older to play the character, as Neil Doyle has pointed out in his comment. Eleanor Parker, who plays Mildred, was not in the same league as Bette Davis, although she struggles to make a go with the role.

The film makers "cleaned up" the basic problem with Mildred's character. Nothing is ever mentioned about her prostitution. Her outburst in thrashing Philip's apartment should have been more effective as a confrontation where all her venom should have bee directed at the man she deeply hated, in spite of all the kindness she received from him.

While the film holds the viewer interested, we always found ourselves thinking how much better it could have been.

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.

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.