Cardinal Richelieu

Armand Du Plessis, the Duke Of Richelieu and also a Cardinal of the Church of Rome remains to this day a fascinating historical figure. He was in addition to being a Prince of the Church was the first minister to King Louis XIII of France. He was legendary for his cunning and his power grabbing. Richelieu has come down to us as a villain as a result of Alexandre Dumas's classic novel The Three Musketeers. In point of fact anyone who was looking to rise in France at the time buddied up with Richelieu. He said himself he had no enemies, but the enemies of France.

Cardinal Richelieu the film is adapted from an old 19th century play by British author Edward Bulwer-Lytton and in America the great actor and first real American stage matinée idol Edwin Forrest originated the role. A man like George Arliss whose style of acting stemmed from two centuries ago was the perfect choice to play Richelieu as realized by Bulwer- Lytton.

The play covers the period before and during an incident known as the Day Of Dupes when Richelieu managed to bag all his court rivals in a treasonous plot against him and his master Louis XIII played here by Edward Arnold. It may not have happened that way on film, but history records he was unchallenged at court until almost his death.

Leading the plot is Douglass Dumbrille and it involved the Dowager Queen Violet Kemble-Cooper, the current Queen Katharine Alexander and the idiot second son Gaston who is unforgettably played by Francis Lister. Gaston was every bit the idiot that Lister plays him as.

Handling the romantic interest is Richelieu's ward Maureen O'Sullivan and young noble Cesar Romero in one of his earliest roles. Romero is dashing and brave, but a bit of a fat head who gets in turn manipulated by Dumbrille and then Arliss.

The Three Musketeers has done dirt to Cardinal Richelieu's reputation. Though this film comes from a play out of the romantic era that also produced The Three Musketeers it shows Richelieu in a better and more true light. Arliss might be old fashioned for today's taste, but I think his performance is grand.

Year 1935 was definitely the year for Rowland V Lee to speak of history of France, and more precisely Cardinal Richelieu character; because this very year, the director gave us THE THREE MUSKETEERS, also speaking of Richelieu, but in a supporting role, whilst in this movie - CARDINAL RICHELIEU - the latest is the lead character. I have always been astonished by the interest that the Hollywood film industry took for history of France. More than England.... This movie is maybe accurate and faithful is not bad at all but very talkative and destined to history goers. I don't crave for it but don't mind my opinion, that's just an opinion. Good acting and directing.

A superb political screenplay, as boasts all those films surrounding Arliss' creations of great men from the past. One of his greatest performances. Here he acts mainly with his eyes – one can almost see the wheels turning, see him thinking, plotting his next move. The great voice is there of course, but the crafty eyes carry his interpretation of the character.

The time is 1630. Arliss first appears from a distance, it could be a double, at 7 minutes into the film, but his entrance as an actor occurs at 14 minutes into the plot. Good production values. Edward Arnold believable as King Louis XIII. The plotting for power is clear and understandable as it twists and turns. Interesting that Gaston, the King's brother and lusting for power, echoes England's Henry II's proclamation re Becket, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest? Or words to that effect.

Interesting in that Arliss worked for both studios, Fox and 20th Century, before the merger that same year. One of the few Arliss films available commercially and recently released.

1935's "Cardinal Richelieu" turned out to be the Hollywood finale for acclaimed British star George Arliss, so adept at portraying larger than life historical figures. Here, it's the notorious Cardinal, often depicted as a villain yet acting on behalf of King Louis XIII (Edward Arnold) to ward off treachery within his inner circle, chiefly from top aide Baradas (Douglass Dumbrille), who takes every opportunity to convince the King that Richelieu is the real enemy. While Arliss chose to film stories or plays that were old fashioned, one cannot condemn his acting as barnstorming; he remains calm and rational, coolly weighing his options before deciding on a plan of action, letting others act up a storm, unable to wrest the screen away from his commanding stillness (indeed a larger than life performer, sadly underrated nowadays). The unobtrusive love interest is supplied by Maureen O'Sullivan and Cesar Romero, while among the agitators attempting to get Parisians to revolt against Richelieu is a 29 year old John Carradine, appearing at the 41 minute mark, billed 31st out of a cast numbering 36: "Down with Richelieu! He's not in favor with the King, why should we listen to him? Down with him!"

Cardinal Richelieu has been a character in many old movies...as well as in a bizarre appearance on "Monty Python's Flying Circus". However, who is the REAL Richelieu, as some of these portrayals completely contradict each other. For instance in "The Three Musketeers", Richelieu is clearly the villain...a manipulator, liar and overall scum-bag. But here in "Cardinal Richelieu" he is a true patriot...a man who cares less about loyalty to the King and more to France itself!

The plot of "Cardinal Richelieu" consists of a group of French aristocrats who are bent on destroying King Louis XIII and replacing him with his greedy brother. But, to do this, the group must get rid of the cunning Richelieu, as he knows of their goals and is intent on stopping them. As for Louis, he's pretty much a fool who is easily manipulated by the very folks bent on replacing him! Ultimately, it all comes to a climactic showdown with the King, the conspirators and the Cardinal at the end of the picture.

The fact that George Arliss would play this part isn't surprising in the least. After all, he was already famous for playing Benjamin Disraeli in two prior movies as well as a short...and for which Arliss received an Oscar for Best Actor in 1930. And, essentially, Disraelis IS Richelieu in the films....a cunning, amoral man whose only goals are the glorification and strengthening of his beloved country. And, like "Disraeli", it's a film that ends with a climactic showdown.

So is this any good? Yes, but in a somewhat slow 1930s way that MIGHT not appeal to some viewers. I enjoyed it...Arliss was just fine...but the film was much more talky and stagey than most biopics...most likely because this film is based on a play about the great statesman. Worth seeing but a tiny bit stilted at times.

By the way, if you do watch this or any of Arliss' other biopics (such as "Disraeli", "House of Rothschild" or "Voltaire" understand that you are NOT seeing the actor at his best. These stagey biopics, though good, are not even close to being as timeless and wonderful as many of his fictional portrayals, such as in classics like "The Working Man", "The King's Vacation" and "Mister Hobo". These are films you really should see.