Servitude humaine

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.

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.

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.

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 ****

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.