23 reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now that I've seen all three filmed versions for Of Human Bondage, no doubt about, Bette Davis leaves both Eleanor Parker and Kim Novak in the dust.
Still Parker gives a good performance as the amoral and tart tongued protagonist in W. Somerset Maugham's novel who for some reason turns on medical student Philip Carey like no one else can. Not a lot different from the way Sadie Thompson gets the Reverend Davidson's libido in overdrive in Rain, another of Maugham's female literary creations.
Amazing how three American actresses, Davis, Novak, and Parker all got to play a cockney tart. No one ever thought to hire an English actress like Vivien Leigh who in her personal life was far more Mildred Rogers than any of the three who played her.
Paul Henreid is out of place as a continental type Philip Carey. His is much inferior to the justice done this part by both Leslie Howard and Laurence Harvey. Carey is the man with the club foot and the inferiority complex because of that. Odd that both Howard and Harvey who never had trouble getting dates played a man who couldn't get one and gravitates to Mildred because she's looking real easy and sexy. Henreid's accent is way out of place here.
Good performances by Parker, Janis Paige, and Alexis Smith as the three women who enter Philip Carey's life at different times. But you have to see Bette Davis as the real Mildred deal.
Still Parker gives a good performance as the amoral and tart tongued protagonist in W. Somerset Maugham's novel who for some reason turns on medical student Philip Carey like no one else can. Not a lot different from the way Sadie Thompson gets the Reverend Davidson's libido in overdrive in Rain, another of Maugham's female literary creations.
Amazing how three American actresses, Davis, Novak, and Parker all got to play a cockney tart. No one ever thought to hire an English actress like Vivien Leigh who in her personal life was far more Mildred Rogers than any of the three who played her.
Paul Henreid is out of place as a continental type Philip Carey. His is much inferior to the justice done this part by both Leslie Howard and Laurence Harvey. Carey is the man with the club foot and the inferiority complex because of that. Odd that both Howard and Harvey who never had trouble getting dates played a man who couldn't get one and gravitates to Mildred because she's looking real easy and sexy. Henreid's accent is way out of place here.
Good performances by Parker, Janis Paige, and Alexis Smith as the three women who enter Philip Carey's life at different times. But you have to see Bette Davis as the real Mildred deal.
- bkoganbing
- Jan 5, 2014
- Permalink
- Davalon-Davalon
- Oct 20, 2019
- Permalink
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.
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.
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.
- spotted-owl
- Jul 19, 2013
- Permalink
What I find fascinating is that two of my 12 favorite (most alluring) actresses starred in different versions of the same film: Eleanor Parker and Kim Novak.
In an era where lousy remakes of good films are made once a month, 'Of Human Bondage' improves with time. Kim Carnes might have idolized 'Bette Davis' Eyes' but I think Bette was homely. Eleanor Parker was (and still is, at 90) a scintillating, wholesome looking beauty, as I also rate Cathy O'Donnell ('Best Years of Our Lives') and Margaret Sullivan ('Shop on the Corner,' amongst others). Problem is, they all were divorced several times, so they may not have been as wholesome and charming as they appeared on-screen. Then, again, they may have been 'unlucky' in love; perhaps they had cheating husbands. I can't imagine Cathy O'Donnell being anything but the eternal virgin.
Kim Novak was (is?) sexy and flaunted it. That's why she was best cast in 'Of Human Bondage.' I have always been a fan of Laurence Harvey (my middle name is 'Harvey').
I would recommend watching all three versions of 'Of Human Bondage' and judge for yourself.
In an era where lousy remakes of good films are made once a month, 'Of Human Bondage' improves with time. Kim Carnes might have idolized 'Bette Davis' Eyes' but I think Bette was homely. Eleanor Parker was (and still is, at 90) a scintillating, wholesome looking beauty, as I also rate Cathy O'Donnell ('Best Years of Our Lives') and Margaret Sullivan ('Shop on the Corner,' amongst others). Problem is, they all were divorced several times, so they may not have been as wholesome and charming as they appeared on-screen. Then, again, they may have been 'unlucky' in love; perhaps they had cheating husbands. I can't imagine Cathy O'Donnell being anything but the eternal virgin.
Kim Novak was (is?) sexy and flaunted it. That's why she was best cast in 'Of Human Bondage.' I have always been a fan of Laurence Harvey (my middle name is 'Harvey').
I would recommend watching all three versions of 'Of Human Bondage' and judge for yourself.
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 ****
- moonspinner55
- Oct 3, 2008
- Permalink
It's 1897. Philip Carey (Paul Henreid) abandons his artistic pursuit in Paris to be a medical student in London. He falls for mean-spirited waitress Mildred Rogers (Eleanor Parker).
I made an early mistake and assumed this to be the 1934 version. I kept thinking that it's not Bette Davis. I probably need to see that version. I can't imagine remaking it after only 12 years. On the other hand, I can imagine that everybody saying that Eleanor is no Bette Davis. She's a fine low class trashy person but the flip side needs to be why he is so obsessed with her. Bette Davis would have the appeal despite her meanness. I don't see it and Philip is rather bland. I'll finalize the comparison after seeing the older version.
I made an early mistake and assumed this to be the 1934 version. I kept thinking that it's not Bette Davis. I probably need to see that version. I can't imagine remaking it after only 12 years. On the other hand, I can imagine that everybody saying that Eleanor is no Bette Davis. She's a fine low class trashy person but the flip side needs to be why he is so obsessed with her. Bette Davis would have the appeal despite her meanness. I don't see it and Philip is rather bland. I'll finalize the comparison after seeing the older version.
- SnoopyStyle
- Aug 28, 2020
- Permalink
In a London tea shop, young medical student Paul Henreid (as Philip Carey) meets ill-tempered waitress Eleanor Parker (as Mildred Rogers). Lacking in love due to his club-foot (defined online as, "a deformed foot that is twisted so that the sole cannot be placed flat on the ground"), Mr. Henreid is smitten with Ms. Parker. He wins a date, but is stood up on the second. Parker dumps Henreid for a more handsome man. The situation repeats and we wonder if and when Henreid will learn his lesson and hook up with beautiful writer Alexis Smith (as Nora Nesbitt) or pretty 16-year-old Janis Paige (as Sally Athelny)...
The black-and-white photography, by Peverell Marley, is the film's main strength...
This re-make of the more famous "Of Human Bondage" (1934) gets off to a bumpy start with a scene involving Henreid and Ms. Smith. Someone should have noticed Smith copying the phrasing of Bette Davis - for example, accenting the last word of sentences. After about 30 minutes, Smith does a Joan Crawford impression. This makes is more difficult for Parker. She's too perfect and proper-looking for the role, anyway. The story (or, this part of Somerset Maugham's larger novel) would work well (better) with Henreid's character aged - unfortunately, this alteration was not made; instead, his youth is firmly noted.
***** Of Human Bondage (7/5/46) Edmund Goulding ~ Paul Henreid, Eleanor Parker, Alexis Smith, Edmund Gwenn
The black-and-white photography, by Peverell Marley, is the film's main strength...
This re-make of the more famous "Of Human Bondage" (1934) gets off to a bumpy start with a scene involving Henreid and Ms. Smith. Someone should have noticed Smith copying the phrasing of Bette Davis - for example, accenting the last word of sentences. After about 30 minutes, Smith does a Joan Crawford impression. This makes is more difficult for Parker. She's too perfect and proper-looking for the role, anyway. The story (or, this part of Somerset Maugham's larger novel) would work well (better) with Henreid's character aged - unfortunately, this alteration was not made; instead, his youth is firmly noted.
***** Of Human Bondage (7/5/46) Edmund Goulding ~ Paul Henreid, Eleanor Parker, Alexis Smith, Edmund Gwenn
- wes-connors
- Jun 11, 2013
- Permalink
- jacobs-greenwood
- Dec 5, 2016
- Permalink
First of all to state the obvious, it must be said that the criminally underrated Eleanor Parker is not the great Bette Davis, who shot to fame with her stunning interpretation in the 1934 original. But then again WHO IS ? Parker should have received the same accolades for her own stunning performance, but the powers that be decided instead to withdraw this version from circulation for many, many years, and she would have to wait another couple of years to enjoy even a modicum of the same recognition. A box office flop on release, this film was one that I had always wanted to see just to make up my own mind. As Davis is my favourite actress, I was ready to agree with all the misguided so-called critics over the years. That is not to say that I wasn't aware of how good Parker could be: witness her outstanding performances in DETECTIVE STORY (1951); INTERRUPTED MELODY (1955) (as polio stricken opera star Marjorie Lawrence) and best of all, her mesmerising tour de force in CAGED (1950). All of these were Oscar nominated as well, so she wasn't without her admirers. With it's appalling reputation preceding it however, to my absolute astonishment, this version of W. Somerset Maugham's story is excellent in it's own right, and Parker's immersion into the role is the reason. Why has this woman never received her due credit. Why has she disappeared from the screen ? While Davis, Hepburn, Stanwyck, and mid period Crawford thoroughly deserve their legendary status, the likes of Parker and another forgotten great Susan Hayward, wait to be rediscovered. WATCH THIS AND SEE WHY.
I knew of the book and the fame of writer, so expected a meaningful experience. The film is meant to show the tragedy of existence, especially among the lower classes of London in the 19th century. I knew it was not an upbeat comedy.
There is a word, "verisimilitude" that I don't often use, but this film seemed to have been from a first draft of a screenplay with a single run through of the scenes. And then there's the background music, only it wasn't background but the volume and coarseness of it drowned out any subtlety of words or expressions of the characters.
Another aspect of a cinema is continuity, that not only the main drama, but the supporting characters individual parts fit sequentially and logically. You only notice this when it doesn't, like the very young woman that the lead character finally marries, had been said to be engaged to another, who just disappeared out of thin air.
We caught the film on TMC, and so no major financial investment, and if it appears again, and if you are not already feeling down and can handle this, give it a try. It will make you appreciate other films for the effort to make them what this film was the antithesis of.
There is a word, "verisimilitude" that I don't often use, but this film seemed to have been from a first draft of a screenplay with a single run through of the scenes. And then there's the background music, only it wasn't background but the volume and coarseness of it drowned out any subtlety of words or expressions of the characters.
Another aspect of a cinema is continuity, that not only the main drama, but the supporting characters individual parts fit sequentially and logically. You only notice this when it doesn't, like the very young woman that the lead character finally marries, had been said to be engaged to another, who just disappeared out of thin air.
We caught the film on TMC, and so no major financial investment, and if it appears again, and if you are not already feeling down and can handle this, give it a try. It will make you appreciate other films for the effort to make them what this film was the antithesis of.
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.
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.
The 1946 version of Of Human Bondage is extremely sanitized, so if you're a fan of the book or the seedy story you've learned about from the other versions, you won't like this one. I stuck with it to appreciate Eleanor Parker's acting. It took guts to try and fill Bette Davis's shoes, and while Eleanor was far too beautiful, sweet, and classy for the role, she did her best. This was early on in her career, and she tried all sorts of roles and accents to show Hollywood what she could do.
Paul Henreid took on Leslie Howard's role, again taking a risk since Leslie's death was probably still fresh in audiences's minds. While he didn't really do anything wrong, the script didn't give him enough to do. When you watch this version, you're very aware that everyone is walking on eggshells, trying not to upset the Production Code. His character is just a regular guy who has a few romances, rather than a tormented artist who enjoys being tortured by a cruel prostitute. Alexis Smith and Janis Paige are the other women in his life, and once again, everything feels very sanitized. There's no depth to the screenplay - but in 1946 it's understandable. At that time, no one had any idea when the Production Code would be dismantled (if ever) and so it wasn't practical to shelve the remake for another time. However, instead of doing a remake, why didn't Hollywood just make a movie about a mild-mannered fellow with three women in his life? You can check this version out if you want to, and you'll see Edmund Gwenn, Patric Knowles, Henry Stephenson, and Una O'Connor, but it's really nothing like the book.
Paul Henreid took on Leslie Howard's role, again taking a risk since Leslie's death was probably still fresh in audiences's minds. While he didn't really do anything wrong, the script didn't give him enough to do. When you watch this version, you're very aware that everyone is walking on eggshells, trying not to upset the Production Code. His character is just a regular guy who has a few romances, rather than a tormented artist who enjoys being tortured by a cruel prostitute. Alexis Smith and Janis Paige are the other women in his life, and once again, everything feels very sanitized. There's no depth to the screenplay - but in 1946 it's understandable. At that time, no one had any idea when the Production Code would be dismantled (if ever) and so it wasn't practical to shelve the remake for another time. However, instead of doing a remake, why didn't Hollywood just make a movie about a mild-mannered fellow with three women in his life? You can check this version out if you want to, and you'll see Edmund Gwenn, Patric Knowles, Henry Stephenson, and Una O'Connor, but it's really nothing like the book.
- HotToastyRag
- Nov 17, 2023
- Permalink
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."
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."
If you love old great classic films in B&W and great actors, this is a must see film. This 1946 Film Classic had all time greats, like Paul Henreid,(Philip Carey),"Casablanca",'42 who was very handsome and had a handicap, and fell in love with the wrong lady, Eleanor Parker(Mildred Rogers),"A Hole In The Head",'59. Mildred took advantage of Philip's great love for her and wound up in many other men's beds. Edmund Gwenn,(Athelmy),"The Keys of the Kingdom",'44 came to the aid of Philip and gave a great supporting actor's role through out the entire picture. Athelmy even introduced his daughter, Janis Paige(Sally Athelmy),"Two Guys From Milwaukee",'46 to Philip, who seemed to warm to her beautiful good looks and warm and kind ways! A great actress Alexis Smith,(Nora Nesbitt),"Rhapsody in Blue",'45, also appeared in this film and gave a great supporting role. Edmund Gwenn and Eleanor Parker made this film into an all time film Classic for many generations to view and enjoy!