Bette Davis was the Meryl Streep of her time. The question is whether she's alike with her in just Oscar nominations or alike with her in having a remarkable amount of "mediocre" movies. (Necessary caveat: I haven't seen most of her films. It just seems that way from a distance.) Davis is at something of an advantage: inherently, I go into most 1930s movies with a certain amount of skepticism. So she receives the same treatment as "It Happened One Night" whereas with modern movies, I pretty much try to watch movies I feel pretty confident in being good. (I'll answer your question: Yes, I am not at all confident Meryl Streep movies are good before watching them.)
Anyway, the first Davis film is pretty much her star-making film. She sought out the role after a few "stars" rejected it because... well the character isn't exactly likable. That's one of the cool things about Bette Davis: she didn't really give a shit if the movie made her look bad. Which was even more of a risk back then than it is now.
Anyway, Of Human Bondage is about a man who falls in love with a "cold and unfeeling" waitress who basically manipulates him whenever she needs him. Well, this is certainly an interesting look into 1930s attitudes. One of the characters has a "women not only belong at home, but they shouldn't eat at the same table as men, because it may give them ideas." Thankfully, Philip, the main character, doesn't seem to share those views so it looks like more of a critique of that view than an actual belief by the filmmakers.
This may be the wrong film to watch if you want a good Bette Davis performance. She's theatrical, over-the-top, and attention-seeking by design in order to enhance her profile. It worked marvelously, but it makes this movie suffer. If anything, she's almost too successful at creating her character, because it becomes almost ridiculous why Philip keeps taking her back. I realize that's the point, but there's a way to make that point and also make us understand why Philip keeps doing it and I don't think the movie manages that.
Basically, if you were selling me to watch this movie, you'd say it's a 1930s movie about a woman who constantly manipulates a man because he loves her. That sounds like a potential disaster, and the fact that it isn't is somewhat of an accomplishment. And I don't want to make the point that Davis is bad in this movie - she's best when she throws a fit when Philip finally has enough where the theatrics actually fit the scene. When you take into account that her performance was purposefully like that, she succeeds. I just didn't like it for the type of movie this is. Leslie Howard plays his character much more natural, which actually kind of surprises me because most movies this old didn't have anybody acting with realism. Nonetheless, he works.
Oh yeah and I was more impressed with the directing in this film by John Cromwell than I was by Hitchcock's The Secret Agent. The quality of this film was also way better, but that surprised me. Watch this for Bette Davis and Leslie Howard, but otherwise if you aren't planning to make the rounds on certain actors and actresses like Davis, I'd probably skip this.
2.5/4
No comments:
Post a Comment