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.

London, 1874. The old man sits in the great office, endlessly plotting & planning, benevolently scheming for the good of Queen & Empire. Although not too busy to further the romance of two young persons he loves, he puts all his talents & force of will into keeping Russia from dominating Asia & British India. This can only be achieved by thwarting a wily female spy & secretly purchasing control over the Suez Canal from the corrupt Egyptian khedive. Will he fail & suffer political disaster, or triumph & forever make famous the name of Prime Minister Benjamin DISRAELI?

Reveling in his most famous film role, George Arliss gives an Oscar-winning acting lesson. Endlessly fascinating to watch, his every twitch of eyebrow or turn of hand is capable of great humor or emotion. He becomes Disraeli, inhabits the fellow, and presents him before our eyes. It's a shame that Mr. Arliss has become obscure & almost forgotten to modern movie fans. It is their loss.

Although George Arliss is the main reason to watch any George Arliss film, he is given good support here from Florence Arliss, his real-life wife, playing Disraeli's wife Mary. Also appearing are Doris Lloyd as Mrs. Travers, the convivial spy; Joan Bennett & Anthony Bushell as the two young lovers; and Ivan F. Simpson as a Jewish financier.

If the production appears rather stiff & stagy, it must be remembered that this is a very early talkie, and that directors & performers were still adapting to the demands & restrictions imposed upon them by that new tyrant, the microphone. Just keep your attention on Arliss - his acting skills transcend the limitations.

It must be mentioned that the film distorts historical reality in two very significant areas. Opening in 1874, it portrays Disraeli as a very happily married man with a loving, elderly wife. The marriage had indeed been an outstanding one, but Mary had died of cancer in 1872. Also, financier Hugh Myers, who bankrolls the Suez scheme, is fictional. It was the Rothschild family who came to Disraeli's aid.

I was surprised to see this film at my local chain video shop. I couldn't believe that anyone would ever have made a film about such a character, who barely moves from his office. Fortunately, he's got a nice yard to roam around in. Not an action hero.

What you've got here is a play with snappy dialog brought to film with great stage actors. And that's not bad at all. The camera movement and sound are primitive (this is a 1929 film, after all) but you never lose interest. The filmmakers have wisely chosen to focus on one particularly pivotal incident in the history of the world: a transfer in ownership of the right to construct and maintain the Suez Canal. They focus on the key character in the drama: Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. In the course of a few weeks when this drama takes place, we get to see what was appealing about this man, how he handled the prejudices against a Jew leading a country of Anglicans, and how his personal life was intertwined with his carrying out his mission.

I have no idea how much of this is true. I assume that the bare facts of the Suez Canal affair are accurate. And this film brings to life the intrigue and romance of the life of a man at the central of English political life at a time when British power reached its zenith.

A fine movie.

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!

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