Of Human Bondage

Luke Thorne3.0

Ken Hughes’s British drama about a medical student who becomes fascinated with his dishonest lover. Starring Kim Novak, Laurence Harvey, Robert Morley and Siobhán McKenna. This is the third adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham’s novel, which was first adapted thirty years earlier with Leslie Howard and Bette Davis, with Bette going on to get her first Academy Award nomination (a write-in nomination). That version is very good, and while this version of the novel isn’t as excellent, it’s certainly not a bad one nonetheless. This story of unrequited love concentrates on club-footed English art student Philip Carey (Laurence Harvey) in his adventure to win the love of slatternly waitress Mildred Rogers (Kim Novak), a common beauty who keeps Philip's irregularity in contempt. Giving up art for medicine and declaring to shake his unnatural obsession with Mildred, Philip loves a supportive writer – but when expectant and deserted Mildred returns, Philip’s self-destructive feelings come back. Laurence Harvey gives a good performance in his role as the man whose obsessive love for the good-looking woman will never go away, while Kim Novak is decent as the good-looking waitress who Philip absolutely adores. Elsewhere, Robert Morley as Dr. Jacobs, Siobhan McKenna as Nora Nesbitt, Roger Livesey as Thorpe Athelny, Jack Hedley as Griffiths, Nanette Newman as Sally Athelny, and Ronald Lacey as Matty Mathews are all fine in their respective parts. The direction from Hughes is good because he allows a mixed atmosphere throughout, while also keeping a mixed tone happening as well and the script is written to a decent standard by Bryan Forbes as he makes the movie good to follow. The camera stands out best in terms of the technical aspects, because it makes good use of the locations and also captures the tense moments well, which get the edge-of-the-seat status. Overall, it is not outstanding, but this version of the novel is a fine one, due to the good performances, direction, script, mixed atmosphere, mixed tone and tense moments.

Michael Shawn2.5

Kim Novak may better represent the kind of physical beauty that would inspire the sort of unrequited obsession that the character of Phillip exhibits towards Mildred, but in the acting department, Novak can't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Bette Davis. It's been some time since I've seen the original filmed adaptation of this story, but I remember it being more powerful than this one. Something about this one doesn't quite click and I think it's that there is just no chemistry between Laurence Harvey and Kim Novak. And that's not a good thing in a story about obsessive love. The scenes between them just never seem to build to anything. They simply repeat ad nauseam. It's a shame because it's a nicely-produced film and the 1960s allowed for more frankness in the storytelling that wasn't allowed in the original or the first remake. But there's just no understandable reason why Phillip would endure the kind of treatment he is given by Mildred here for even an instant, let alone repeatedly over a long span of time. I still need to view the 1946 version starring Eleanor Parker before I can determine the best interpretation, but this one isn't it.

Linds2.5

It seems like everyone hates Kim Novak in this, but she was the only reason I stuck around. Laurence Harvey is so aggravatingly dull, his presence is like mainlining benedryl, ugh.