Of Human Bondage.

Review #1341: Of Human Bondage.

Cast: 
Leslie Howard (Philip Carey), Bette Davis (Mildred Rogers), Frances Dee (Sally Athelny), Kay Johnson (Norah), Reginald Denny (Harry Griffiths), Alan Hale (Emil Miller), Reginald Sheffield (Cyril Dunsford), Reginald Owen (Thorpe Athelny), and Tempe Pigott (Agnes Hollet, Philip's landlady) Directed by John Cromwell (#1008 - The Racket)

Review: 
What is there to say about Bette Davis that hasn't already been said before? Davis is one of the most famous actresses of film to ever grace the screen, but one only needs to point to her six decade career of various sardonic roles that ranged from various dramas that garnered multiple Academy Award wins (two) and nominations (only three other people have more nominations than her ten). One nomination that is not technically recorded is for her role in this film (for which she received write-in votes for in one of only two ceremonies to allow said votes), which is generally considered her breakthrough role. She had started her career on the stage in 1929 before moving to Hollywood the following year to screen test for Universal Studios. She made her film debut with a supporting role in Bad Sister (1931), but her time with the studio was characterized by a dearth of roles before her release from her contract the following year. On the verge of leaving Hollywood, it was the decision of George Arliss to have her cast as the fiancee to his character in The Man Who Played God (1932) with Warner Bros. that gave her the foot in the door she needed, as she soon signed a contract with the studio after they liked the rushes. She would subsequently stay with the studio until 1949, although there were not always easy times. She notably attempted to breach her contract in 1936 when presented an offer to make two films in Britain, owing to be faced to perform in parts she felt were mediocre (incidentally, it was her appearance in a film named The Cabin in the Cotton (1932) that led director Cromwell to want her for this film). In any case, Davis had wanted the un-glamorous role despite the reluctance of studio head Jack L. Warner to let her star in what was to be a production by RKO Radio Pictures. A chance to trade actresses for a part led to RKO being allowed to borrow Davis for this film while Warner Bros borrowed one of their contract players for a film of their own. Davis proved to be dedicated to making this role the first of many noted performances of her career, from hiring a housekeeper with a Cockney English accent to prepare for the role to even designing her own makeup for her final scenes when downtrodden with tuberculosis.

For a film released just as a strengthened Motion Picture Production Code was coming into effect in July of that year, this is sure a daring film to inspire such shock and passion. This was an adaptation of the 1915 novel of the same name by W. Somerset Maugham, which has a mix of autobiographical and fictional elements, as admitted by the author (with both him and the main character having a physical calamity, being an orphan at an early age, and studying medicine). It was the first of three adaptations, with ones to follow in 1946 and 1964. Obviously the work is going to be changed a bit for a film adaptation, especially a 600-page book going down to an 83 minute film. A curious synopsis glance notes that the film only mentions the main character's uncle at the end when he dies, as opposed to showing his experiences growing up with his uncle. The film has a stagey if somewhat dated feel to it at times (this proves true with some of Cromwell's decisions like the perspective shots), but it is the dominant performance of Davis that keeps the film rolling with curiosity. She has a fearlessness and tenacity to making this role worth viewing to see her run the gamut in cruelty, most notably when she chews the main character out near the end. We all have had at least one experience or knew at least one person in our lives with that kind of emotional recklessness, the kind of person we think we need in our lives no matter how they might treat us. It doesn't mean that Howard's character is completely in the right either, but it is a film that uses most of its time (save for its obligatory moralistic line for the ending) to show two people who really just don't belong together who keep lining up that way. Sure, the main character still finds someone to be with after his obsession is lifted, but the film still hits on those basic points without too much trouble. Howard (a man of theatre and film who was an idol in his own right for the decade) comes off as stiffly sensitive, quiet yet fairly easy to follow along with despite some of the offbeat decisions his character can make. With lesser actors, this could've been easily turned into a vamp piece and nothing else. But these two make for a worthy duet to view, which go with a decent supporting cast to make for a decent piece to study. Interestingly enough, this is a film readily available for viewing, since the copyright for this film was not renewed in the 28th year of publication, meaning that this is in the public domain for easy viewing. I recommend this one without any doubt, a fairly entertaining film on the strength of Bette Davis in the role that made her a star worth viewing with interest.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.