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 (Howard) feels for Mildred (Davis) is LOVE! Of the 3 versions of this Somerset Maugham tale, this one is the weakest.
Davis' Mildred is physically unattractive, mentally deranged, intellectually stunted, spiritually empty, and emotionally disturbed and inaccessible. To compensate for her shortcomings, she treats Philip with contempt! Hey, what's not to love? Philip's obsession with such a creature is unimaginable! Even as allegory, this is too much of a stretch!
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.
This film and Bette Davis' performance may have been groundbreaking, but neither one is great. Davis' performance leaves indelible impressions; however, it is not very nuanced. She is nothing but a shrew. Moreover, she is simply not pretty enough to inspire Howard's obsession with her. Davis' one-note performance and lack of beauty render the character of Philip incomprehensible. This film and this portrayal by Davis are classic not because they are great, but because they are groundbreaking.
Also, Leslie Howard's Philip, 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." After all, 2 women actually do love Philip!
This is a must-see for people interested in films for their historic significance. But for somebody interested in entertainment, I recommend both of the other versions of this film.
Davis' Mildred is physically unattractive, mentally deranged, intellectually stunted, spiritually empty, and emotionally disturbed and inaccessible. To compensate for her shortcomings, she treats Philip with contempt! Hey, what's not to love? Philip's obsession with such a creature is unimaginable! Even as allegory, this is too much of a stretch!
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.
This film and Bette Davis' performance may have been groundbreaking, but neither one is great. Davis' performance leaves indelible impressions; however, it is not very nuanced. She is nothing but a shrew. Moreover, she is simply not pretty enough to inspire Howard's obsession with her. Davis' one-note performance and lack of beauty render the character of Philip incomprehensible. This film and this portrayal by Davis are classic not because they are great, but because they are groundbreaking.
Also, Leslie Howard's Philip, 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." After all, 2 women actually do love Philip!
This is a must-see for people interested in films for their historic significance. But for somebody interested in entertainment, I recommend both of the other versions of this film.