Just opinion, but: I don't think Davis was that fantastic. - Of Human Bondage (1934) Discussion

[–] dlsatl2005 18 years ago

Betty was way befor her time.... If she was a young actress now she would roll a steamroller over actress' now.Betty Davis is not a star she is an icon she carried this film.Hepburn is a Tour-De-Force as well but she could not have carried this off. Betty said in an interview once "I took the roles that no one else wanted" she was a visonary and saw the potential in the writing and that is why the Oscar nods were fast and furious in the 30's / 40's she was the queen of cinema at that time. She was literally unstoppable Hepburn is also however Betty Davis played risque charaters before many of the A-list actresses did .

reply

[–] The_Lady_Amalthea 18 years ago

I see where you’re coming from, but to me, there was just something off about her character. Like nails on a black bored it made my skin crawl. Especially with her accent, it was obvious that she was trying really hard. To me, it felt like she was being TOO over the top, flaunting almost. I wasn't very impressed with her in this movie.

"There are no happy endings, because nothing ends." - Schmendrick the Magician

reply

[–] sarahelizabethii 18 years ago

I understand what you mean. I *appreciate* Mildred in Of Human Bondage because the role represented a departure from the standard female lead, but I can't really say that I *enjoy* the film. I think the role of Mildred, although groundbreaking at the time, has ultimately become something of a charicature to modern audiences. I much prefer Davis as Joyce Heath in Dangerous. See my comments on this thread: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025586/board/flat/47822846. I have to admit, though, that without Mildred, there probably never would have been a Joyce Heath!

reply

[–] pauline-k 17 years ago

Re English accents: have you seen (and heard) Marlene Dietrich in "Witness for the Prosecution"? That too was labored - I mean when she was attempting a London cockney accent. Apparently Noel Coward coached her. It must have been doubly difficult for Dietrich as she was not a native English speaker. When one thinks of the perfect English accents of the likes of Meryl Streep, Miss Davis's accent was not so good. But in the 30s, method acting was still some twenty years away. Realism didn't matter so much.

reply

[–] dbrockskk1 10 years ago

blackboard GN

suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply

[–] USAFmedicVET 10 years ago

I've never heard that Katherine Hepburn turned down this role, only that Bette Davis begged for it. As great as Hepburn is in most of her rolls, she could NEVER have pulled off the character of 'Mildred'. Especially the "dirty swine" speech and the ending shot of her; emaciated, near death, cigarette in her hand, oblivious to the world. This part was made for Bette Davis at a time when Kate was playing traditional rolls in "Little Women". It wasn't until much later in her career that Hepburn took on more ethereal and cognitive parts like 'Violet Venable' in "Suddenly, Last Summer". Owing to Kate's upper crust New England family, the part of 'Mildred' would never have been acceptable.

reply

[–] sharedg 17 years ago

I think Bette Davis was fantastic. I HATED the character, and to evoke such strong emotion, the actress playing that character would have to be very good. And she was. I also thought it took a lot of guts for her to play that kind of woman at the time. And she allowed herself to look quite ugly on screen (in the last scene where she's in the hospital).

reply

[–] summerfields 12 years ago

Thank-you. I agree.

Even larks and katydids are, supposed by some, to dream

reply

[–] jopeabody 17 years ago

I've never heard of Hepburn being offered this role.

It's hard to imagine anyone other than Davis in it.

reply

[–] TEDPLUS 17 years ago

From what I've read in countless books and articles, no one wanted to play such a role...not Hepburn, not anyone!! Davis begged Jack Warner to loan her out, and he finally relented with the parting phrase.."Go hang yourself". When the reviews came out and they were all very positve (LIFE magazine called it the best performance ever given by a U.S. actress), Hepburn went to see it and realized that she could never play such a role and that Davis was going to be an actress to be reckoned with. RKO, in deference to Hepburn, never pushed Davis for the award...and the write-in campaign began.

reply

[–] goeswithness 17 years ago

My take on it is, yes, her accent is horrible, and yes, she did flounce around a lot, but despite that - I am completely in awe of this performance. She's just got charisma to burn!

reply

[–] summerfields 12 years ago

is her accent really that bad? In what way?

Even larks and katydids are, supposed by some, to dream

reply

[–] Django6924 17 years ago

I agree. It's not that she doesn't do well by her big moments ("I used to wipe my mouth--wipe my mouth!" and her final examination scene), but in general, she is mannered to the point of caricature, and definitely out of sync with Howard's sensitive, subtle performance. One has a hard time accepting that this obvious slattern could have appealed to Carey to the point of dragging him to total ruin--especially with Francis Dee standing winsomely in the wings.

Of course there is a taste for full-blooded hamminess, especially in actresses, that will always garner more appreciation than the subtleties of an Eva Marie Saint.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JacquesDemy 17 years ago

I think she did well in her big moments showing the crazy, vicious, masculine side of women, but on the other hand, she was not really an attractive or seductive woman, which made it hard to believe that Howard could be enchanted by her. Besides, I don't think she really knew how to act as a "slut", Jean Harlow's acting in Red Headed Woman and Barbara Stanwyck's in Babyface were much more natural.

Frances Dee was beautiful in this film, IMO, she kind of stole Betty's thunder, though her role was not that challenging.

reply

[–] SusanJL 13 years ago

JacquesDemy - Totally agree with your post! I couldn't believe how Howard was so stuck on her, either. I've always thought Bette Davis looked like Peter Lorre in drag. And Francis Dee is a such a beauty!!! IMO, they should have had a gorgeous woman to play Mildred.

reply

[–] Sugarminx 9 years ago

I couldn't believe how Howard was so stuck on her, either. I've always thought Bette Davis looked like Peter Lorre in drag. And Francis Dee is a such a beauty!!! IMO, they should have had a gorgeous woman to play Mildred.

Because men ONLY fall in love with classically beautiful women.

What Bette had in spades as Mildred, that neither Sally or Norah had, was sex appeal. Mildred was a sexy woman and Davis played that perfectly.

Besides, Carey was 'in love' with an idea, a phantom, not the real woman. She teased him, and Carey, like many men, was infatuated with what was just out of reach.

So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb

reply

[–] WVfilmfem 17 years ago

I'm no film expert, but I sense that this film is still affected by silent films in the manner in which characters are revealed, thus, Bette may have seemed a bit over the top, but I still liked her very much in this role, and think it was remarkable, groundbreaking, and one of her most memorable character portrayals! Loved Leslie Howard too!

reply

[–] Mike Richards 17 years ago

I agree with previous comments. I'm just watching the film right now on Turner Classic Movies. Bette Davis' British accent is horrible. Not very convincing at all. Leslie Howard's performance is great.

reply

[–] mercycroft 17 years ago

Is everyone on this board British??? I've heard cockney accents my whole life and her's sounds fine--as far as accuracy. If you mean her voice is totally grating, YES, but she's supposed to be disgusting!

I loved her in this and was very impressed--sometimes I have questioned her talent in some of the melodramas, and loved her even still, like in Now Voyager. But this has to be one of her best performances ever. All About Eve and the Little Foxes being my other two Davis faves.

Robert Osbourne said (the other night when I watched this for the first time) that to really get the feeling for it, you have to put yourself in the mindset of a 1934 audience--no women ever acted or looked like this. So true, so true.

The only problem I had with the film was that Howard's club foot became so completely NORMAL after surgery--give me a break. I also howled when he saw Mildred in the hanging skeleton and in the medical textbook. A RIOT!

reply

[–] hallett85 17 years ago

That's the way Maugham wrote it though...she wasn't supposed to be some ideal woman. She was without doubt a slatternly, vulgar, calculating woman and Philip spent half the novel wondering why he was driven to wear the hair shirt that was Mildred Rogers...he knows what she is and yet he can't help himself...he sees her as the green-tinged, emaciated woman lacking entirely in subtlety that she is and he's still completely bound by the passionate love he feels for her that he ends up homeless...I didn't understand it, but I believed it.

reply

[–] pjmlloyd 17 years ago

I love Bette, always have, I can't say that she was a great actress, but she did have balls, I howl at this movie, think it's really funny, can you imagine any actress these days pulling off the same routine and even getting away without a grilling from the critics, lol
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me! I disgust you? YOU!, YOU!, Your too fine, you wont have none of me, but you'll sit here all night looking at your naked females.

You cad, you dirty swine! I never cared for you, not once! I was always makin' a fool of ya! Ya bored me stiff; I hated ya! It made me SICK when I had to let ya kiss me. I only did it because ya begged me, ya hounded me and drove me crazy! And after ya kissed me, I always used to wipe my mouth! WIPE MY MOUTH!

But I made up for it, for every kiss I had a laugh,(hahahahahaha!) we laughed at ya, Miller and me and Griffith's and me. We laughed at ya, because you were such a mug, a mug, a mug.

do you know what you are, You Gimpy legged monster, Your a cripple, a cripple, a cripple!................

reply

[–] theworldastage 16 years ago

I agree with every word of your statement - 100%! :)

reply

[–] summerfields 14 years ago

I think that the contrast between Howard and Davis were meant to be that way largely on purpose: however, Davis made sure the audience had their eyes on her - and obviously they did - the performance is NOT one of my favorites of hers.

She was a heartlessly selfish, ill-bred guttersnipe.

But striking she is and the story is unfortunately quite unbelievable: that's my qualm: the book may have been more subtle.

Even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream

reply

[–] krdement 16 years ago

Neither Davis nor Hepburn was really pretty enough to be convincing as Mildred. I respect and admire Davis for this performance. She is simply not pretty enough to inspire Howard's obsession with her. Her accent seems labored, but still pretty good. However, her performance is not very nuanced; she is nothing but a shrew. This film and this 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, Leslie Howard's character, while sensitive and intellectual, is a real weakling. I like Paul Henried in the 1946 version much better. Maybe not as sensitive or intellectual, but not nearly as weak. I think a woman is more likely to feel sympathy or pity for Howard, NOT love. Henried seems more "lovable."

John 3:16

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sugarminx 9 years ago

She is simply not pretty enough to inspire Howard's obsession with her

OMG. Again with this idea that men only fall for good looking women.

Now I know men are very visual beings, but let's give them a little credit. They're not all shallow. They may be initially drawn to pretty girls, but in the end personality and character will come into play.

And in any case, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so what you call plain, someone else will call gorgeous.

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.

I agree that it would have been better to show us more of Mildred being charming and nice to Philip, we really only saw how unpleasant she was.

I like Paul Henried in the 1946 version much better. Maybe not as sensitive or intellectual, but not nearly as weak.I think a woman is more likely to feel sympathy or pity for Howard, NOT love. Henried seems more "lovable."

If Philip was more 'loveable' then Mildred would have fallen in love with him, and where's the drama in that? It's about wanting what you can't have and not wanting what comes too easily to you.

I think this version works because Philip comes across as such a pushover and eager to please, it's easy to understand why Mildred dismisses him. She takes advantage of him because he's virtually begging to taken advantage of - it shows how unscrupulous she is.

So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb

reply

[–] messedupgirl77 16 years ago

I haven't read the book yet, but now that I've seen all three versions of the film, it's next on my list.

I never understand when people talk about Davis/Mildred not being pretty enough for Howard/Carey to obsess over her. I don't think it was about beauty. She obviously wasn't a amicable person either. I think it was more about desiring something you can't have. The more you can't have something, the more you want it. Her erratic interests in him - flirting one minute and blowing him off the next - probably drove him crazy. I also think it was a bit of the doctor in him that wanted to "fix" her.

Or maybe I'm just over analyzing...

I also think that Katherine Hepburn could never have pulled Mildred off. She was much too intellectual and refined in her appearance and speech. Even in films when she's being silly or nasty - she's still very refined while doing it. Bette Davis was a spitfire - all piss and vinegar.

:o)

reply

[–] mister_tmg 15 years ago

I think Bette's performance was a little too 'raw' - to me it seems she was still learning.

Leslie was excellent.

reply

[–] schappe1 15 years ago

Hitchcock, comparing his 1935 British version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" to his later 1956 Hollywood version, said that the former version was "the work of a talented amateur". I feel the same way about Bette Davis' performance in the 1934 "Of Human Bondage". It is "over the top" and her cockney accent, (I don't recall her doing much accent work in her career), was an American's concept of a cockney accent. She would have been much better in a version of this done a decade later, when she'd learned much more about her craft.

But her performance created quite a sensation at the time. While star actors had been playing gangsters since Little Caesar, star actresses played nice, or at least redeemable characters. Even Barbara Stanwyck in Baby Face the previous year didn't turn out to be as bad as she was trying to be. Mildred is totally irredeemable and audiences weren't used to that. They also weren't used to an actress throwing herself totally onto the flames like that. It was a courageous thing to do and actors showing courage was not a Hollywood thing at the time.

As to Hepburn, she was a "great lady" and kind of an eccentric actress. Her selectivity in roles, particularly as she aged, assurred her reputation as a "great actress". But she had little real range, avoided unsympathic characters, (unless they were in classic drama) and never showed the courage to play a character like Mildred.

Bette could act rings around Kate.

reply

[–] netshopper-2 14 years ago

^I agree with your assessment. This film is really old now and it has to be taken in the context of the day. The fact that there was a write in campaign for her when she was not nominated says a alot about the public's reaction. Any character who would refer to her own babies the way she did had to be shocking. I viewed her posing as a limitation of film making at the time. I am sure she was directed to so so and the editing was rough in spots.

There is no way Hepburn could have pulled this off.

reply

[–] Regina_Giddens 14 years ago

Also, Hollywood in those days was generally over the top. I don't think there was much of a concept of 'subtle' acting, because they were just emerging for the silent era where everything had to be exaggerated.

But you are, Blanche. You are in that chair!

reply

[–] mark_shleck-1 12 years ago

I see that you're a fan of The Little Foxes (one of my favourite films) and Baby Jane Hudson. "I wrote a letter to daddy..."

You stupid, clumsy labouring boy.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] filmmekker 12 years ago

She's not beautiful in the book. She's cheap and shallow and obvious. Philip becomes obsessed with her anyway.

Open the door for Mr. Muckle!!

reply

[–] FranLovesBetteD 11 years ago

"Philip was an artist, I think he could see the uniqueness in her beauty. People in this thread act like big eyes grow on trees or something".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beautifully expressed. Bette was brilliant and sexy in it.

Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop

reply

[–] buckshot69 12 years ago

I can understand what your saying but I think Bette Davis did this role so great because she didn't try to be likeable. She didn't even really try to be pretty.

To him mercy is passion With me it is good manners.You may judge which motive is more reliable

reply

[–] morganseer 12 years ago

Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying that. It's the only movie in which I ever saw her overact. Heck, at first I thought I was seeing Angela Lansbury, and wondered how come she looked pretier than usual...

reply