Disraeli

In it's history, this is a good film, encapsulating Disraeli's nature and his steadfastness in pursuing the purchase of the Suez Canal. It was quite well acted by all. Nonetheless, I found it quite dull at times, focusing too much on relationships that didn't capture my imagination at all. A greater focus on the rivalry between Gladstone and Disraeli would have made this film more interesting.

George Arliss is bewitching as "Disraeli". Mr. Arliss' character secures control of the Suez Canal for Great Britain, outmaneuvering Russian spy Doris Lloyd. He also plays "matchmaker" for Joan Bennett and Anthony Bushell. Arliss' performance is captivating, despite the datedness of this early "talking" movie.

Nobody can equal Arliss, but I did like Ms. Lloyd as his sparring partner. Ms. Bennett was good, also - a cut above her average "stand around and look beautiful" films from this period. The players were elevated, possibly, in Arliss' presence. There are some noticeable ways they could have made a better film, by waiting even a year or two. I would like to see the film restored; moreover, I would accept some tinkering/editing for a new version (while preserving the original, of course).

If you like classic "one-man-show" acting performances, it's hard to beat Arliss in this movie. He performs like a spider spinning its web - capturing everything in sight, including the audience. Be careful!

********* Disraeli (10/2/29) Alfred E. Green ~ George Arliss, Joan Bennett, Anthony Bushell, Doris Lloyd

Don't be put off by the age of this film....it is magnificent. And the reason is George Arliss! This is his show and his alone. Granted, the film is talky and basically uses 2 sets BUT listen to the dialogue and watch Mr. Arliss spin his magic as he immerses himself in the Benjamin Disraeli character. Bringing his stage interpretation to the screen, it translates surprisingly well......that is not always the case in screen adaptations. What a fantastic face he had....certainly not pretty but very expressive. He won a well deserved Oscar for this role. He had a string of movies in late silent and early talking films and now, unfortunately, he seems to be forgotten except by us film buffs who treasure him. So if you wish to be entranced by the acting skills of a master, see this film. You won't regret it!

One of George Arliss's best known stage roles was portraying the title role in the Louis N. Parker play Disraeli. This is not a biographical film per se, it fictionalizes Disraeli's acquiring the Suez Canal. It was quite the diplomatic coup d'etat in its day, but this version brings in a lovely lady spy in Doris Lloyd in the service Czarist Russia.

Throughout the 19th century it was a paradigm of British foreign policy that the Russians were constantly looking to undermine British interests in India. The same theme was found in Rudyard Kipling's Kim.

In this film Disraeli has an opportunity to acquire the canal from the Egyptians and the French company that built it which has financially gone belly up. Hidebound banker David Torrance of the Bank of England won't give him the money, he considers Disraeli a disreputable foreigner because of his Jewish ancestry. He goes to a private banker Harry Meyers (Rothschild)played by Ivan Simpson for the money.

A lot of games, financial and political, get played out before foxy old Benjamin Disraeli gains the canal for the United Kingdom. Dizzy proves quite up to the challenge at the same time worried about the health of his beloved wife Maryanne, played her by George Arliss's wife Florence.

There's also a small romantic subplot involving Disraeli's aide Anthony Bushell and young Joan Bennett. The couple are an attractive pair.

This was the second version of this story, Arliss had made a silent version in the early Twenties that was well received.

George Arliss won the third Academy Award for Best Actor given out with this performance. Though by today's standards some might consider it hammy, Arliss was of the Victorian classical school of acting and I for one appreciate the care he took in presenting one of his most acclaimed roles of the day.

Disraeli is dated and it's hardly history, but it is a fascinating performance nonetheless.

Actually really like biographical films, although they do play fast and loose with the truth many are extremely well made, written and acted ('Amadeus' for example is one of my all time favourites). Benjamin Disraeli was a very fascinating if controversial historical figure. George Arliss was a fine actor, one of my favourite performances of his being 'The Man Who Played God'. Have always loved classic film and there are some great films from the 20s, with some good early talkies ('Applause).

'Disraeli' is definitely an interesting film, for the subject matter, to see whether Arliss' Oscar win and the screenplay and Best Picture nominations were deserved, to see what early talkies were like and to see a film portrayal of Disraeli. So historical interest. While it is easy to see why there are some that got a lot of value out of 'Disraeli', it does pain me to say that it didn't quite gel with me and can see why others don't care for it. As it is an easy film to criticise, even when judging it for the time where film-making was very different but a lot more interesting back then than what is seen here. A case of a lead performance that deserved a much better film.

The best thing about 'Disraeli' is Arliss, who is truly marvellous and that is an understatement. He is so charismatic with a magnetic presence that has a mix of understated and larger than life, succeeding in making Disraeli a complex and interesting person. Florence Arliss, his real life wife, is dignified and charming and their chemistry is lovely to watch. A beautiful looking Joan Bennett in an early role is also charming.

Some nice political intrigue is present, the script is at its best with Arliss' wryness the costumes are handsome and Arliss is made up very believably.

Having said that, the rest of the acting for my tastes was too wooden and histrionic. Particularly Anthony Bushell in the former category, who has a romantic subplot that is very flimsily written and dull. Visually, 'Disraeli' is too static and not a very good job at all is done opening up the action in a very claustrophobically shot film that gives the film a filmed stage play look, even by early talkie standards.

Will agree with those that find 'Disraeli' too talk heavy and that too much of it is not very engrossing, the flow is also pretty stilted. The pace can veer on dull, the political angle could have done with more tension. Of the Oscar nominations, only Arliss' (who won) for Best Actor was deserved. The other two were puzzling and not in the same league as the films that won in the categories.

Overall, watchable and interesting, and Arliss is so good, but didn't quite gel for me. 5/10