Le Cheik

There are silents which still make many today's viewers overwhelmed, including productions on grand scale: the ones of stunning visuals and top notch performances. There are "lost" silents which have been a longstanding dream to see by many but the likelihood for finding them is constantly declining. There are also silents which were meant to entertain and they did serve their purpose in the distant past but do not do that any longer. They have simply failed to stand a test of time. Unfortunately, THE SHEIK, from my point of view, appears to direct towards the latest group but surely does not turn out to be "totally dated" or "unwatchable" Let me analyze the movie in more details.

The content is hardly convincing for today's cinema buffs, for the general audience. An English woman Diana Fayo (Agnes Ayres) badly desires freedom since she perceives male-female relation bounds as humiliating and marriage as captivity. She goes for a trip to the Arab city of Biskra hoping for freeing herself from the old bounds of dated tradition and humiliating dependence. Moreover, having met the powerful Sheik Ahmed Ben Hassan (Rudolph Valentino) whose slightest wish is law among his people, she takes a trip into the sun garden of the sand, the desert. However, what she is exposed to appears to be absolutely on the contrary to her expectations. She gets into a "more tragic captivity" where no one is likely to find her whereabouts. Sheik Ahmed, who was to be a liberator, is not accustomed to having his orders disobeyed and Diana is not accustomed to obeying orders. What can happen in such unwelcome circumstances?

Although the action is pretty unpredictable, today's viewers will not watch the movie for the sake of wondering what will happen. It does not absorb us as much as it absorbed the viewers in the 1920s. The visuals are also far from masterwork and some scenes are pretty boring and tedious. Therefore, we could easily say that THE SHEIK is too seriously dated. But many people would not agree with that opinion. What constitutes the movie's great success still today are the two CAST: one is a symbol, the other one is a beauty.

Rudolph Valentino just after his masterpiece, THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE which had premiered in March 1921 and which had introduced him to stardom, was cast in this movie of exotic title and exotic content. He is not a tango dancer nor a soldier for "foreign" France but a sheik. But this is far from his best performance and it is mostly based on pantomime and, from today's perspective, exaggerated mimics. Yet, the presence alone of the silent era symbol made this movie in 1921 and makes it even now in 2007 worth seeing. There must have been interest in this movie since a few years later a sequel THE SON OF THE SHEIK (1926) was made, being at the same time Rudolph's last film. The other person on whose shoulders lies the success of the film is beautiful Agnes Ayres. In fact, she does a much better job as Diana Fayo. She IS a desire incarnate for Valentino and occurs to be very subtle, beautiful, tender - a sort of woman every man would fight for.

"Pale hands I love,

Beside the Shalimar,

Where are you now,

Who lies beneath your spell"

Yes, the sheik is totally "bewitched" by Diana and Valentino appears to be in love with Ayres. However, there is no such powerful chemistry between the couple like in some other movies of the time. They do good jobs apart from each other.

To give you a deeply genuine opinion, I quite enjoyed THE SHEIK but if it had been my first silent, I would not be a silent buff now. What is more, if it had been my first Valentino movie, I would wonder how he could become such a great star. An average movie mostly for silent buffs when you are deeply in the silent era reality. 6/10

Surprisingly, the best acting in this exotic melodrama comes from Agnes Ayres and Adolphe Menjou as the sheik's victim/lover and old friend, respectively. Valentino, although he had proved his abilities in Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and other films, indulges in too much eye popping and grimacing to convey lust for Ayres. Fortunately, these displays are toned down as the film unspools. As a story it's unoriginal, somewhat tedious and entirely predictable: devil-may-care British girl adventuring in the Sahara catches the eye of a local chieftain who kidnaps her, kisses her a couple of times, holds her prisoner until she yields to his desire – all in the most chaste fashion. The overheated and verbose novel on which the film is based is far racier than what is on screen. Yet still this film caused quite a stir back in the early twenties. It is sumptuously mounted with a large cast, well shot scenes of horsemanship and astoundingly realistic looking "desert" locations which were actually filmed on the beaches of Long Island! The photography and intertitle design are beautiful. But whether Valentino overacts or hits the mark, he is always worth watching.

This movie is definitely a curio from the past. It was Rudolph Valentino's most famous movie and helped to make him, for a time, the most desired man across the globe. He was, in fact, the first true "male sex symbol" as a result of his performance in this movie. So, historically, it's a very important film. However, many seeing the film today will marvel at how poorly the film translates to modern audiences and sensibilities. First, the acting is overly dramatic--even for most silent films. Second, the sexy star might be seen by many today as a rapist--considering he kidnaps the lady and ultimately forces himself on her. But, despite this, it's still an entertaining if slight piece. I doubt, considering the sex symbols of the 21st century, Valentino will turn any of you on, but it still is interesting to see who grandma and great-grandma were panting over almost a century ago!

NOTE: Since I first posted this review, I have seen quite a few more films starring Valentino. And, overall, I think THE SHEIK is among his poorest films--though his most notable. Tastes do indeed change, as today it isn't all that great. Try seeing some of his other work--it definitely is an improvement in most cases.

A significant milestone in movie history and therefore should be watched as such. Viewed only by today's standards it's pretty corny and contrived, chock full of insinuated or probably insulting stereotypes, and also suffered that most terrible of happenings: the sequel was much better!

I last saw it as a teenager in 1975; all I could remember of it was chuckling at the implied strength of Ahmed's tent withstanding the sandstorm. Or of course, Diana's iron will in withstanding Ahmed's potential sexual advances. But that was the discipline that came with being white - if he had been a true Arab, well ... As usual back then, Blood is thicker than education.

Seen again, it's a reasonably well produced romantic action film, which carries you along (if you let it) to the corny and contrived ending. I may sound a bit too sarcastic, but I assure all that I thoroughly enjoyed The Sheik and thus recommend it, only don't take it too seriously.

Was Menjou on a diet in '21? I don't remember him skinnier than in this!

Sheik, The (1921)

*** (out of 4)

Sheik Ahmed Ben Hassan (Rudolph Valentino) is accustom to having his wishes fulfilled by whoever he asks but he gets a challenge from an English woman (Agnes Ayres) who is more freewheeling and doesn't believe that a man owns a woman. The Sheik eventually kidnaps the woman, forcing her to his retreat in the desert where he slowly tries to force his will on her. This film has certainly become one of the landmarks of cinema as it created a brand new type of sex symbol and it forever made a legend out of star Valentino. It's strange because I really enjoyed this movie yet I really can't say why I did because there's so many negative things in the movie. For starters, you could easily call this movie both sexist and racist yet I guess no one in 1921 cared. I guess the woman who made this movie a hit didn't mind the fact that the Sheik was not only a kidnapper but also a rapist and an all around bad guy. I guess a little dark side didn't turn anyone off. I'm rather amazed at watching this film that it was such a hit and that women would drop head over hills for a man like the character here. I really don't know what it was but I guess Valentino managed to put a spell on the women in the crowd just like his character in the film. I will add that I've seen several Valentino pictures before and after them and the majority of them feature a better performance but I guess that really doesn't matter too much. I found Valentino here to be way over-the-top during certain scenes but this might be due to the rather poor direction. We have way too many silly shots of Valentino giving silly looks at the camera and it's easy to see why some critics attacked this film in 1921 because shots like these do make it come off campy. Valentino certainly knows how to play up the sex appeal but again, I'm still somewhat shocked this went over so well with women. Ayres isn't all that impressive as the female lead but we do get strong supporting performances by Adolphe Menjoy, Walter Long and Lucien Littlefield. I've read different reports of where the exteriors shots were actually filmed but wherever they were they do look terrific and add a lot to the film. The tints on the print I viewed also helped things quite a bit. I'm not sure what movie people in 2010 will make of this movie but I'm sure many would either laugh it off or be offended by it. I'm really not sure why it kept me entertained so but I had a pleasant time with the picture no matter how many flaws it did have.