I've been very intrigued to see exactly who has heard about this blog, from my friends online to my family members here at home, to some of my coworkers who happen to be on Facebook, as well, and it's generated several different and fascinating discussions. My dad seems slightly confused, my mom seems slightly amused, my brother Matt is quietly supportive (we're going to see movie number five/six tomorrow night), while Mike and Dave seem really excited about it, and interested in watching some of these movies with me (this is made slightly more difficult due to their moving back to school in a week, but I'll get to see them in the summer!).
It is worth noting that in two weeks' time, the Australian Open begins. For those of you who don't know, or don't know me well enough at all to know of my obsessions, this is the first major tennis tournament of the year. Thus, I will be spending a large portion of the two weeks on http://www.talkabouttennis.com in addition to my blogging here, and my working and watching movies. I predict it will be a seemingly long two weeks. All the more reason to get ahead, right? And so, I continue with my fourth movie: Of Human Bondage.
I've read about this movie several times, and in almost every publication, the write-up focused on Bette Davis's fantastic introduction to the movie world, playing a Cockney waitress. It was her first Oscar nomination of a total of 10-- she would win the following year, then again three years after that.
The movie right off the bat is not an exercise in subtlety. First off, the main character has a noticeable physical distinction: he limps when he walks because of a club foot. Seconds later, a very blatant distinction is made between his club foot and someone else's club foot, because the latter's doesn't bother who it belongs to nearly as much as the main character's did to him. (Did we all follow that? If not, don't worry; it's no big deal.) We are immediately meant to believe that this is important. Maybe it was... in the novel by Somerset Maugham.
Also, the movie is jumpy, as though it cannot itself stand to linger too long on itself, a problem in itself that is manifested directly in Davis's character who does a lot of eye-rolling, and eye-raising, especially early in the film. Yes, you're a coquette, we get it. The movie also requires her to rush quickly out of scenes incredibly too often, as though she spent just seconds too long on camera. I guess this is why the movie only runs 86 minutes long.
The characters are flat; even Leslie Howard's Philip, the main character, seems the exact same throughout the entire film, though the movie tries to make a direct connection between getting his foot fixed and his lot in life improving (he receives an unexpected windfall from a dying relative). Peripeteia at its finest. Only Davis's Maureen is the least bit interesting to follow, though it's hard to root for her, especially as she eventually lashes out against Philip after all he's done for her-- a symbol of him being bound to her. Hilariously enough, this last point, a reference to the film's title, is spelled out in about 20 words halfway through the movie as Philip talks to his current "squeeze", what's-her-face. This 18-second (an estimate, not an exact time) exchange between the two spells out exactly what we're supposed to take away from the plot. Again, we're not going for subtle here.
Score: 6.5/10
No comments:
Post a Comment