Servitude humaine

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.

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.

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 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."

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.