Raffles

The early Goldwyn Colman films had a lovely atmosphere all of their own. Just learning to cope with sound they exhibit an echoey creaky staginess which in turns is charming and irritating when watching a romantic adventure/mystery. Every action was pointed and often laboured with the handed down techniques from silent days, meaning once seen you seldom forget it. It's the same with Raffles, a ridiculous script if there was one (heavily mucked about with from the book) but if you don't see it for 20 years you'd probably remember every act and scene.

Raffles has been a reformed ex-Cracksman for a few hours but finds he suddenly has to help his limp friend Bunny repay £1000 within 2 days and he only knows one way to get it. An invite to Lady Melrose's country house for cricket and a garden party of hundreds provides him with the chance – and also a gang of six ineffectual Cockney burglars who skulk around in the dark loudly laying their plans. The scene where the burglar is caught and venomously points out Raffles on the stairs is pivotal to the film but it never recovers from the clumsy handling of it – did Colman know what to say at that point? Colman was great in the role, his clipped accent and perfect diction usually used to good effect. Good support was from Kay Francis who played his understanding girlfriend although she didn't get to say Divine, and David Torrence the chunky and heavily cloaked Scotland Yard Inspector. Favourite bit: the torchlit confrontation between Raffles and Crawshay in the bedroom at midnight.

Simple old fashioned entertainment - I stick it on every few years without fail because with all its faults I like this one.

Thus went the conversation between Ronald Colman's Raffles and the rich but vast and ageing Lady Melrose after he had courteously escorted her to her bedroom and the two hovered either side of the open door. The lady's expression, which went from bright expectation to annoyed disappointment, left no doubt what was happening. This was pre-Hayes Code and both here and elsewhere it was very obvious. Also the question of Raffle's morality. In the book, Raffles does give some kind of justification for his thieving - "the richly immoral robbing the immorally rich". He also never befriends soon to become victims. Here Colman blithely disregards all of this. The 1939 almost scene for scene word for word remake with David Niven was entirely cleaned up - but weaker and more colourless for it.

I'm a great fan of the Raffles books. E W Hornung the author was not so well known as his brother in law, Arthur Conan-Doyle but was though alround a better writer. This film is engaging and quite exciting, brings together parts from different stories and the result is entertaining but in terms of story, thin and slap-dash. The adaptation is dominated by the requirement to continue/assist Ronald Colman's highly bankable screen persona as an elegant, humorous, charming pleaser of ladies.(Raffles in the book is too dedicated to be humorous or charming unless necessary in pursuit of crime). Here Raffles love interest, Kay Francis, is very passionate, unlimited in her devotion to him. Of the two other central characters, companion in crime "Bunny" Manders is reduced to an irrelevance. Curiously the third character in the trio - McKenzie, the "Scotch" detective - alone is the all-time definitive rendering of the character in the book - Raffles' feared Nemesis: dogged, doughty and determined. Indeed the adaptation gives him equal billing with his quarry. It's a joy to watch a character from the books so vividly and truthfully brought to life. Clearly whoever did the adaptation was more interested in and relished McKenzie more than the other two.

All in all, a good entertainment.

This first sound version of Raffles was one of those roles that Ronald Colman with his impeccable diction and British charm took a patent out on that only Robert Donat ever infringed on during their careers. Both of those guys did heavier acting roles than Raffles, Colman most certainly in A Tale of Two Cities, Random Harvest, and A Double Life. But Raffles was the kind of part that audiences really liked Ronald Colman in.

Raffles is a celebrated cricket player and as such has entrée into all the proper British upper class homes of the between the two World Wars period. He also has an interesting sidelight as a thief, in his own way, admired even by the police for his skill at his craft as Cary Grant in To Catch A Thief.

Colman has made up his mind to steal a valuable necklace from Alison Skipworth, but a rather nasty complication sets in in the person of Bramwell Fletcher a friend who seems to have written a check for far more funds than he has. Fletcher attempts suicide at Colman's apartment and Colman says he'll help.

In this very short, barely over 70 minute feature film, Colman has the unusual task of, accomplishing his objective in stealing the necklace, avoid detection by the police in the person of amiable Scotland Yard Inspector David Torrence, help poor Fletcher out with his problem, and last, but certainly not least win the love of long time girl friend, Kay Francis.

In a very cleverly written script Colman does accomplish nearly all, but the strength of Raffles is the telling of the tale of how he managed it all. Let's say that Colman is one clever guy who thinks very fast on his feet.

Despite the well chosen supporting cast by Sam Goldwyn, Raffles is a film held together by the charm and personality of Ronald Colman. Much the same way as the 1939 version of Raffles that Goldwyn did is held together by David Niven.

And if you're a Ronald Colman fan who like I could listen to him recite the Erie County Phone Directory, than Raffles is an absolute must for you.

The idea of an upper class 'Amateur Cracksman' who steals jewelry for a living has a romantic aura about it and should make for a better movie than "Raffles" turns out to be. The punch line of many scenes is telegraphed, the plot is simplistic, unadorned and full of holes and the ending is absurd.

Ah, but it stars 'The Voice', Ronald Colman, and that makes all the difference. Colman and his mellifluous voice glide through every scene and anesthetizes an unbelievable story just by talking. Here he was at the height of his popularity as the dashing cricketer/thief and has as his leading lady Kay Francis, one of the loveliest stars of that era. She is unfortunately given little to do in a meager role as his fiancé. But there are some other Hollywood stalwarts in the cast, among them Alison Skipworth in one of her ditzy socialite roles and silent film bad guy David Torrence, a Scotsman with a thick Scottish accent, as the investigating detective. Also Bramwell Fletcher and Frederick Kerr, a very elderly gentleman I found delightful in "Waterloo Bridge (1930)" in the same blustery, old duffer-type role.

"Raffles" is uncomplicated and good fun, and about as deep as a dish of water, but worth your time to see and hear Colman say things - doesn't matter what, just listen to him talk. Thank TCM for dusting this one off.

A. J. Raffles, "the amateur cracksman," was a fictional English gentleman safecracker invented by E. W. Hornung in a series of stories beginning in 1898 as a sort of mirror image of Sherlock Holmes. Like Holmes, Raffles is a suave, upper-class intellectual involved with the underworld, but Raffles's involvement is on the wrong side of the law: he supports his upper-class lifestyle by his career as a jewellry thief.

The Raffles stories were extremely popular and have been the subject of many film, theater, and television treatments. One of the best of these is this 1930, very early talkie starring cinema's quintessential English gentleman, Ronald Coleman. It's really quite a good film for its time, with an intelligent script, generally good acting (especially by Coleman and character actor Frederick Kerr, better known as Baron Frankenstein in James Whale's famous 1931 treatment of the monster story, who steals every scene he is in as a grouchy English lord.) Co-cinematographer Gregg Toland, who later worked on many Hollywood classics, is presumably responsible for the film's noirish, atmospheric lighting effects.

All in all, I'd say this entertaining film will still be enjoyed by today's audiences, and is a must see for fans of Coleman.