Over time, the deeper you venture into classical cinema, the more you realize how many surprisingly great gems are hidden beneath layers of obscurity, which shows the rich and fascinating history of Hollywood. There is nothing quite like discovering an obscure masterpiece since it shows that some of the best films are hidden in plain sight. Unfortunately, the nature of art is that for every hidden gem, there is a popular film that turns out to be decidely not nearly as good as its reputation would suggest, which can be an immense disappointment since you would normally come to expect these classics would be worthy of living up to their status within the history of cinema. Of Human Bondage is not seen as an unimpeachable masterpiece, but it has a good reputation, especially based on a few components that many devotees still advocate for all these years later – however, it is still well-regarded enough to warrant some degree of hype, which makes the realization that this adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham’s classic novel is quite close to a misfire, a heavy-handed film that doesn’t quite know what it wants to be, and which isn’t helped at all by the presence of John Cromwell, a good director who unfortunately does not manage to take advantage of his journeyman talents in creating a decent version of this story. Instead, we find that we are given an overwrought bundle of interactions between characters that ultimately don’t lead anywhere of value, despite the clear potential for this film to be something quite intriguing, especially since there are some aspects of the source material that aren’t directly brought to this adaptation. In its best moments, Of Human Bondage is serviceable and does what is required, but absolutely nothing more – it often feels as if this film was employing the approach of doing the bare minimum just to get the story told, which is never a smart method of making any film, let alone one that had the opportunity to do something valuable.

What is most disappointing about Of Human Bondage is that this is not a bad film in the sense that it deserves an endless stream of vitriol spewed in its direction, but rather that it is simply a hopelessly boring production that does very little to capture our attention or keep us engaged. Maugham has unfortunately earned the reputation for not writing the most dynamic stories – they’re undeniably well-composed and have terrific ideas, but his prose is heavy and dated, and there isn’t much space for filmmakers to work around his dense style when it comes to adapting his work for the screen. It isn’t to say his novels and stories haven’t had terrific adaptations, but they are the result of dynamic and interesting artists taking the helm, something that Cromwell (who is undoubtedly very good at what he does, but not the most exciting director) seems to struggle to achieve. This ultimately results in this film being a truly dour affair, 80 minutes of unlikable characters enduring a string of misfortunes, and which ends on a downbeat note that is masquerading as a happy ending. This is not the fault of those tasked with adapting the story, since much of this is brought from the novel, and it was clear that the intentions behind this film were to adapt the text faithfully, rather than adding its interpretation. This is where it is important to have a strong authorial voice behind this film – there is nothing inherently bad about a film that looks at more challenging concepts, granted it is convincing, which is never the case for Of Human Bondage, which adheres so closely to the conventions of the time in which it was made, it loses the opportunity to do something valuable with the material, which is understandable but unfortunate, and makes us wonder whether a more concise directorial hand may have been able to elevate this paltry material into something more compelling.

It is quite obvious that the aim of Of Human Bondage is to look at the tragic lives of its characters, presenting us with a more complex view of the human condition, and the fact that not all romances are necessarily happy or free from challenges. However, these provocations are neither meaningful nor interesting, and outside of a few key moments, such as when the protagonist delivers the three most striking words in the film, boldly stating “you disgust me” to his romantic interest, which is as hard-hitting and shocking today as it was in 1934, this is a relatively flaccid affair that mistakes meandering dullness for complex character development. The bleak style doesn’t help, since a bare-boned approach to a story can only have meaning when there is some sense of complexity lingering behind it, which is not the case with this adaptation. The film never quite knows how to strike the right tone, and it is caught between genres, never being entirely sure whether it intends to be a deeply emotional melodrama or a caustic, bleak tragedy – unfortunately, it was far too much to ever expect this film to balance them both in tandem and its efforts to achieve elements of both results in neither being all that effective, leaving us somewhere in the middle, oscillating between two half-baked excursions in genres that the film simply did not understand or care to explore further than the most surface-level analysis possible. Sadly, this appears to be a result of the Hays Code coming to fruition around this time – implemented merely months before this film was released, the stringent guidelines designed to promote morality through a series of draconian standards forced many films to cut out provocative or potentially controversial material, and considering the underlying narrative of this film (which has broad implications to subjects like sexually-transmitted diseases and prostitution), we have to wonder whether a version of this story made as little as a year before may have changed the production for the better.

Arguably, the only aspect of Of Human Bondage that has kept it in the conversation is the performances, namely those given by Leslie Howard and Bette Davis, both of whom had very interesting relationships with this film. In terms of the former, the novel was optioned to be a starring vehicle for someone who was actively positioned as the next major Hollywood star, which was definitely on track until his tragic demise only a few years later, and while this may not be the best exemplification of his talents, it is unquestionably a great role for any actor, and Howard does exceptionally well given the constraints inflicted on him as an actor. It’s not the strongest performance on an objective level, but when we see how much effort he puts into the film, it’s difficult to not feel at least partially in admiration of the work he is doing. Davis is also very good, but most of the cultural cache that attaches itself to this performance comes not in the merits of the work she is doing, but rather the failure to get recognized for what many consider to be her breakout role – and while accolades aren’t the objective marker of quality many seem to think they are, they do play a part in the trajectory of an actor’s career. On its own, Davis’ performance is quite strong, perhaps more than the film deserved – there are many moments where she is trying to break out and do something more complex with this character, but she is restricted, depending on subtle cues to deliver this spellbinding performance as we watch her transition from bright-eyed, impressionable young waitress to a woman on the verge of collapse as a result of poor choices she has made. If anything, Of Human Bondage would have been better had the actors been allowed to be more brutal – neither of the two leads is written as being particularly likeable, yet the film keeps trying to play on our sympathies when we see their plight when a more effective approach would have allowed the actors to lean into these more despicable qualities since it would have made for a far richer and more compelling film, even if it went against many conventions that were viewed as sacrosanct at the time.

Unfortunately, there is very little to salvage when it comes to this adaptation of Of Human Bondage, which proves to be a rather passionless affair, a passable but dull effort that doesn’t do anything unique nor does it offer a perspective outside of the glaringly obvious, which is a major flaw for something with such a simple premise. This is not a film that seems to have any real interest in developing the underlying ideas, being more than content to focus on the surface-level premise and allow the viewer to fill in the gaps should they be so inclined, which is usually effective when done right, but comes across as lazy and almost cowardly here since it is clear that this film wanted to have more serious conversations, but whether as a result of self-restraint or censorship from external forces, it had to keep all of its most compelling ideas in the realm of pure implication, which is not all that enthralling for viewers who want to be challenged. Of Human Bondage is a fascinating character study that was inexplicably produced as a half-hearted melodrama in which the emotions are overwrought, the tone is jagged and unsettling (albeit not in the way that would be effective), and the character development is almost non-existent, which is bizarre for a film that promotes itself as a revealing and complex character study of two individuals as they make their way through a hostile world. Outside of Davis’ performance, it can be argued that this film is relatively forgettable and that the only reason it is still discussed is because it was one of the first major moments in the career of one of Hollywood’s greatest stars. The fact that it has been condensed to this is perfectly indicative of how middling of an effort it is, and it remains relatively unremarkable and not well-liked outside of a few components that are usually brought up as highlights when in reality they are the only aspects that make the film serviceable at most.