MovieChat Forums > Of Human Bondage (1934) Discussion > Just opinion, but: I don't think Davis w...

Just opinion, but: I don't think Davis was that fantastic.


I didn’t find Bette Davis’ performance in this film all that enthralling. Her attempt at a cockney accent was grating and the way she flounced around each scene, trying to steal it with a pose, grew very old, very quickly. I am aware of the fact that Katherine Hepburn turned down the role, but I picture her playing it with a greater depth and truth. I think Hepburn would have been able to balance Mildred’s crudeness with her beauty more comfortably.

Leslie Howard’s performance was beautiful and I believe he was ideally cast. He played the role with an acute intelligence and sensitivity that seems to be present in many of his roles. I’m biased here though; Howard being one of those classic actors I love to pieces.

reply

agree she wasnt that good leslie howard was very good. the movie is not much in general. the book is great.

reply

The fact that it was 1934 has to be considered

I saw this just last night on YouTube, but I was not impressed, either

-----------------------------------------
she threw a pot at Precious and knocked up her head

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I agree with your assessment of Davis. Davis could be either totally brilliant, or a cheap, tacky ham. Here she's in ham mode. Her performance is almost ridiculous.

However, I totally disagree about Hepburn. I think Hepburn would have been atrocious in this.

reply

Earl-Janoth says > I agree with your assessment of Davis. Davis could be either totally brilliant, or a cheap, tacky ham. Here she's in ham mode. Her performance is almost ridiculous.
I thought Davis did an excellent job in this movie and in most of the movies in which I've seen her. Her acting style, while it could be overly dramatic, never seemed to take away from the character or the film.

In regards to her performance in this movie, I think we have to remember a couple of things and judge it in context to the time in which the movie was made.

1. When she made this movie, Davis had not yet made a name for herself. She was still a fairly unknown, up-and-coming actress; not a star. For all people knew that could have been her natural way of speaking.

2. Perhaps in New York or other major cities people had heard different accents and could distinguish one from another but in the heartland and in most other places audiences wouldn't have known the difference between a good imitation of a cockney accent or a bad one.

3. A true cockney accent is difficult for non-cockney speakers to understand; especially since they also have a lot of unique words and phrases. It would serve no purpose for Davis' accent to be too authentic; no one would have a clue what she was saying.

4. What some may consider the ridiculousness of her performance probably was, in a large part, intentional. Davis is playing Mildred but Mildred is also acting and playing a role herself. She also has a lot of issues that make her an unstable, un-traditional, or ridiculous character.

I think Hepburn would have been atrocious in this.
I have to agree with you on this one. I can't picture Hepburn in this role. She would have been a very bad fit; especially as the movie progressed.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

In that period, and for many years before and since this film was made, hardly any actors - even English ones - could do a decent cockney or other working class English accent. Few working class actors (M or F) could break in to theatre or movie acting - unlike the earlier heydays of music hall/ vaudeville. A few did, but mostly by carefully cultivating posher accents and manners. Indeed, a social climbing cockney "Mildred" might very well have sounded as "fake" as Bette Davis, as she struggled to feign a more "refined" accent and attract "a better class of gentleman". If called upon to create a lowlier character, even the voice coaches were generally too posh to get it quite right - and probably nobody cared that much, because the critics and arbiters of taste saw and heard things through upper class filters too. Even in US the class divide could be hard to bridge: Bogart's first acting roles were in theatres playing parts he dubbed " White pants Willies" with lines like "Anyone for tennis?" - much more in line with his own social background, than the tough guy parts he later became identified with. In UK nothing much changed until after WW2 when social mobility became more of a possibility, as reflected in the cultural shifts towards "social realism* and "kitchen sink drama" which demanded believable working class protagonists. TV soap operas and the popular low-brow Carry On movie series (which in a way revived the traditions of music-hall, pantomime and radio comedy shows) also created opportunities for decently paid work in "working class" parts.

Lately it seems the posh boys and girls are again in the ascendant for all the high-profile, highly paid acting opportunities. You don't have to be black to struggle - just being poor is often enough.

reply