MovieChat Forums > Of Human Bondage (1946) Discussion > Eleanor Parker is superb

Eleanor Parker is superb

posted 18 years ago by mtmv
22 replies | jump to latest

I just saw OF HUMAN BONDAGE on TCM last week and being a long-time fan of Ms. Parker I wanted to see what she could do with the role. WOW - she struck just the right balance of allure and malice - without the histrionics of Bette Davis' performance. Parker's Mildred is a real and recognizable person - the type of woman who has so much male attention that she is careless of human emotion - her own as well as her suitors'. Well done Ms. Parker.

I have heard that Eleanor Parker resisted offers from the studios to do a screen test when she was a teenager because she wanted to study acting and not just be a "pretty young thing" that walked across the screen with nothing to offer. If this is true then it really shows in this performance, as well as many others. Ah, if only today's crop of young actresses had the same dedication to craft instead of celebrity.

[–] billellis 18 years ago

May I suggest that few actresses of any era, dedicated to craft or not, have the talent of Eleanor Parker? I wish I understood why she never got the recognition that she deserved.

I did read that at the time of this film, a lot of people in Hollywood felt that re-making it (at Bette Davis' home studio no less) was an infringement on Davis' ownership of the role of Mildred, and its lukewarm reception hurt Parker's acceptance as a top-drawer actress.

[–] mtmv 18 years ago

"May I suggest that few actresses of any era, dedicated to craft or not, have the talent of Eleanor Parker? I wish I understood why she never got the recognition that she deserved."

Just a theory on my part but I think it had something to do with the fact that during the most productive years of her career - her twenties and thirties - she was also personally "productive" in that she was married and had four kids. As a result she probably didn't play the "Hollywood Game" - going to premieres, having affairs with co-stars (although when you look at a list of the latter - Errol Flynn twice, William Holden, Clark Gable - she must have had the resolve of a saint). If an actress didn't demand attention and publicity the studio just left them alone. They were busy dealing with the primadonna's on the lot.

"I did read that at the time of this film, a lot of people in Hollywood felt that re-making it (at Bette Davis' home studio no less) was an infringement on Davis' ownership of the role of Mildred, and its lukewarm reception hurt Parker's acceptance as a top-drawer actress."

I've read that too - and it sounds about right. It was, and is a great showcase part for an actress, but her portrayal, coming so soon after Davis' was a no-win situation - especially since, in hindsight, her performance was in many ways superior and truer to the intent of the author. Davis just didn't have the ravishing looks needed to make the obsessive behavior of Phillip Carey understandable.

[–] sbelter2003 16 years ago

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, Parker is SUPERB! If you want to see her again in this fabulous performance, tune in to Turner Classic Movies on Jan. 10, 2008 at 6 PM/ET. (check your local schedule for time in your area)

[–] f111151 16 years ago

I have also heard sadly, that Ms. Parker had a drinking problem and that this may have contributed to her lack of major recognition in the film industry.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mtmv 16 years ago

"I have also heard sadly, that Ms. Parker had a drinking problem and that this may have contributed to her lack of major recognition in the film industry."

I find that hard to believe because women who drink to excess lose their looks and Ms. Parker certainly didn't suffer from that. Also she worked steadily throughout her career with no gaps except when she had her four children.

I think instead that she was simply a serious actress who had no need, nor desire, for the foolish trappings of Hollywood - and if you didn't play the Hollywood game you weren't written about, hence the low profile.
Her son Paul Clemens had this to say about his mother back in 1984:
"To Mother family and home always came first. She's a very private person who rarely gives interviews, has never appeared on a TV talk show and was never big on Hollywood parties."

[–] Montmartre1 16 years ago

I couldn't agree more!
she was superb.
I'm a huge fan of Bette Davis, but I preferred Miss Parker's acting in this, too.
it was magnificent.

Hello everybody!

[–] mtmv 15 years ago

I found this quote from Miss Parker herself in a book called FORTIES FILM TALK by Doug McClelland - the guy who eventually wrote her autobiography WOMAN OF A THOUSAND FACES. Here are her thoughts on OF HUMAN BONDAGE:

"My favorite role was part constructive, part destructive and all enjoyable. I worked hard to build up a convincing cockney accent for the part of MIldred Rogers in the picture OF HUMAN BONDAGE. Yet the scene I liked best was the one in which I wrecked a room.
"Smash everything,"director Edmund Goulding said, handing me a poker. "We can only shoot this once, so let yourself go."
Following instructions, I mowed down furniture and assorted bric-a-brac in a way that would have made a blockbuster envious. That was fun, giving vent to some hidden destructive instinct, I guess. Anyway, it was important to the story because it showed how Mildred reacted to the knowledge that Phillip Carey had completely lost his strange infatuation with her.
Building up a cockney accent was much slower and quieter work. I got a book dealing with this dialect as soon as I was assigned the part, and I pretty well wore it out. I studied it so much that I dreamed of the part, and doubtless talked with a cockney accent in my sleep. While the picture was being filmed, an English extra came up to me.
"I made a bet that you were brought up in England," he said. "Do I win?"
He lost; I hadn't even visited England then. But I was so flattered that I'd gladly have paid his bet.
Somerset Maugham made Mildred a wonderfully exasperating person, and the movie tried to keep that tone. Thus the role was essentially a character part, which I enjoyed. Mildred's showy dresses came from what the studio calls the rag bag, and I wore no makeup. I didn't want to look glamorous; I just tried to look Mildredish - a big enough job for anyone."

Forties Film Talk
Doug McClelland

[–] Montmartre1 15 years ago

Hi mtmv!
thanks so very much for that!
didn't know that. what an interesting insight into Parker and her acting.
superb reply!
now, I can't wait to see it again. it was on here, in the U.K. on Sky hope it's on again soon.
i'LL have to read her autobiography, i'm ashamed to say I never heard about it!
again, many thanks.

[–] mtmv 15 years ago

Hi Montmartre1-
Glad you liked it - I was excited when I came across that passage in his book since I can't locate a copy of the bio he did on her. I posted another quote by her son Paul Clemens in the message board on her IMDb page:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0662223/board/nest/127999543

[–] marbleann 16 years ago

Even though I love Parker I feel her good looks gets in the way of the Mildred part. If people read the book they would recognize Bette Davis. His description of Mildred in the book is Davis to a tee. See people need to understand that his obsession has nothing to do with good looks. He was attracted to her sickly pale look in the book. Philip had a bad self esteem problem because of the that club foot and he was attracted to Mildred because she looked wounded too. he had beautiful women in love with in in the novel, one even committed suicide over him, but he is obsessed with one who looked like she had TB.

[–] Montmartre1 15 years ago

marbleann--
just want to respond.
It's been many years since I read the novel, but I'll read it again.
you make valid points--it's just that as much as I love Bette Davis (and I do enjoy all of her films)--I never thought this part was right for her.
I just thought she was a bit over the top for the role. too exciteable all the time or most of the time.
I promise though to both read the book and see the film again, Davis's version--and then I'll try to see if I agree with you.

[–] marbleann 15 years ago

Thanks. I think the acting in general back in the 30's were over the top for two reasons many of the best actors came from the stage or a lot came from the silent era. Even though Davis came from either or, that was the style. So I agree with you. But if I recall the novel even explained the way she looked and she was very crass, and a nut case. Remember she did burn all of scholarship money among other crazy stuff in the book too. Also she was really a Prostitute but the Hays laws would never allow that point to be shown in the movie. Perhaps she also compensated that big omission by acting larger then life. So IMO Davis was very good. If I can suggest something take a look at The Letter and read the short story. I again believe Davis's Leslie was one of the only characters in the short story that translated ideally to the screen along with the lawyer character.

[–] Montmartre1 15 years ago

extremely good points.
Yes, I do remember now that she was a prostitute.
I think Davis gave her best performance in The Letter.
You know it's based on an actual murder case in 1940 in Kenya--Happy Valley, the British ex pat's playground I believe Maugham was caught up with the case.
I am def going to read the novel again.

[–] marbleann 15 years ago

TY for the heads up. I did not know the Letter was about a actual case. I'm going to check that out. The writer in general had a lot of disdain for the upper class and how they interfered in the places that Great Britain had colonized or places that they traveled to. You can see that in a lot of his writings like Rain and The Razors Edge. That is why he imo Philip Carey was not the sympathetic character in the book that he is in the movie. Carey was always thriving to be accepted by the upper classes so much so that he had contempt for the vicar and his wife that raised him. I believe the movie should of at least touched on where Carey came from and focused more on that club foot and his prior relationships. I think there would be less confusion about his obsession with Mildred, who really is not a big part of the book. One would think just looking at the movie the title refers to his obsession with Mildred but IMO reading the book it refers to that club foot and how it was a form of bondage and how it propelled him to be accepted by the upper classes.

Back to Davis. In the scene when we see her in the hospital I have never seen a sicker looking person on screen or off. No one could of pulled that off imo except her.

Maugham must of had field day if he was caught up in that case in Kenya. lol

[–] Montmartre1 15 years ago

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3632548/Revealed-the-White-Mischief-murderer.html

above link is about the case.
you might find it interesting.
There was a film and book about it called White Mischief.
Yes, the class thing in the U.K. is quite a thing to get your head around, especialy as it was so much more pronounced years ago.
I'm an American by birth who is married over here in England (been here over twenty years). and it's not as marked as it used to be, but there is still very much a class system.
I notice that the murder occured in 1941, so I'm wondering if the story could really be about that case. but it's just so much likeit in many respects
anyway, thanks for your reply.
I am going to re-read Bondage.
Hollywood notoriously did change things around--even with the film, About Schmidt--they completey re wrote the story. it's good film btw, I've just started the book.
and you're right about Davis, she was a unique actress. tops really.

[–] jouler500-art 10 years ago

Maugham wrote the play, The Letter, in 1925. There is also a previous film called, The Letter, with Jeanne Eagels in 1929.

[–] Montmartre1 10 years ago

thank you for that. didn't know what.

[–] jymn-365-224576 11 years ago

I had to turn the sound off every time Parker hit the screen. Her accent, her shrill voice may be fine acting but they turned me off. So phony. So irritating.

On the other hand - Janis Paige. Wow. Her hair and face could fit in today's movies. Earthy and sexy, Paige plays her character the opposite of Parker - low-keyed and nuanced.

[–] kerrydragon 11 years ago

She wasn't half as good as bette davis in the 1934 version.That movie totally captivated me,while this one I found bland and without the same punch.She was too attractive for the role,and davis fit the character to a tee.....

[–] jymn-365-224576 11 years ago

Must disagree. Davis overreached. Parker is more like the every woman caught in a nightmare. I felt her pain. Davis, I just felt great acting.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

First of all I am a big Bette Davis fan. She is in my top ten favorite actresses all time, really tied for fifth (I do think about my lists). But every film is an adaptation, and putting aside that Bette Davis was in fact attractive when she was younger (she did not age relatively well, imho), the people who put together the 46 version of the film were making a different adaptation of the novel. And in that adaptation they cast Mildred as a physically attractive but otherwise obnoxious character.

The basis for Phillip's attraction to Mildred in the book is frankly of very limited utility in understanding what ends up occurring in the film. Yes, we can learn much in comparing a film adaptation to its source about the choices made by the director and those others associated with the film. But we I think should, and I am tempted to say must, take the final product that is the film on its own in understanding, or not, what it is and is about.

I also think despite my own appreciation for Bette Davis as a great actress that such appreciation is hardly a basis for denigrating Parker's performance here, which I found to be great in an otherwise problematic film. (I also thought highly of Alexis Smith's performance, ftr.) Great work by Eleanor Parker, and a performance that alone makes watching this version a recommendation of mine.