Raffles, gentleman cambrioleur

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.

"Raffles" was produced by Sam Goldwyn and photographed by Greg Toland, the genius who was to help create "Citizen Kane" eleven years after this.

Raffles the English gentleman has a discreet sideline as a burglar and jewel thief. The press has dubbed him 'The Amateur Cracksman', and as such he has become a household name. Now that he has fallen in love with the sophisticated Gwen (Kay Francis) and proposed marriage to her, Raffles has decided to retire from crime. However, his old pal Bunny is in a spot of bother. Bunny has been playing cards again, and has run up a gambling debt of £1,000. If Bunny is to be rescued from his predicament, Raffles will have to take on the Melrose 'job' ...

Ronald Coleman gives us his trademark suave Englishman in the title role. We see him burgling a jeweller's shop wearing a top hat (note the excellent Toland touch of the policeman silhouetted against the window drape). Our first real glimpse of the hero comes on the dance floor as he sweeps Gwen around in a romantic waltz. On the cricket field at Lord Melrose's place, Raffles is of course dashing, and wins the game (even though he was not supposed to be playing - he invited himself along for the weekend at the last minute). Even when Inspector Mackenzie has him on the ropes, Raffles remains the epitome of poise and wit.

"All bubbles and froth - no taste," says Lord Melrose, giving his verdict on champagne. It is a reasonable comment on the film itself, which for all its pretensions to style is basically an inelaborate crime flick. We have the 'two Englands' crudely juxtaposed - one urban and ugly (the cloth-capped burglars from the pub, the 'pea soup' fog in London) and the other bucolic and 'refayned' (Lady Melrose's soiree). The film takes it for granted that the lower classes are unpleasant.

However, there are good things in this movie. The cricket match is fun, and tolerably well done, though Raffles' bowling action is highly dubious and the umpire's position would make lbw decisions interesting to say the least. The skylight scene on Raffles' apartment roof is an arresting image.

There is also a large portion of baloney. Does Scotland Yard protect country houses against burglary? Is this best done by surrounding them with a dozen detectives throughout the night? Why don't these detectives catch the various burglars who enter the premises? If closing the sash window is enough to stop the burglar alarm from ringing, then it isn't much of a burglar alarm. The 'common' burglars crouch in the shrubbery and talk aloud, spelling out their plans in pedantic detail, conveniently allowing Raffles to overhear. Is it not slightly more probable that they would have worked out what to do before entering the property?

The film ends in a flurry of increasingly silly activity. Blatant undercranking of the camera makes Raffles' escape dash look ridiculous, and his place of concealment is laughable.

Verdict - An enjoyable crime caper with absurd elements.

Considering that this film came out in 1930, you need to cut its sound a bit of slack. While it's pretty easy to understand the actors talking (better than many 1930 films), because the sound technology was so new it was still far from perfect. The film has a strong and very definite hissing sound to much of it. And, like other films of the early sound era, it's rather quiet because there isn't the usual incidental music in much of the film. This is not a complaint--just an observation. They used such music very sparingly because back in 1927-1930 to get incidental music you literally had to have an orchestra just off camera performing live while the scene was shot--they hadn't yet learned how to add the music later. So, cut the film a bit of slack in this department--it IS pretty good for 1930 and the sound in many films of this and the previous years was a lot worse (such as 1929's "Coquette" which is almost unwatchable due to its WILDLY fluctuating sound).

"Raffles" is about a gentleman who is also an amateur thief--and a very talented one. While his society friends adore Raffles (played by Ronald Colman at his charming best) because of his wit, sporting skills and fine manners, they don't realize HE is this thief. Much of the film concerns his attending a particular weekend party in order to steal a necklace so he can use the money to help a friend in dire straits. However, along the way he meets up with a swanky lady (Kay Francis) and he's torn between his life of crime or becoming 100% legitimate for her sake. What will Raffles do? And what will Raffles do when ANOTHER crook shows up as well?! All in all, "Raffles" is a pleasant and a bit too talky film. Personally, I think it would have been better with more outdoor scenes and action. But again, 1930 was still a transitional year for sound and the stagy production was pretty typical. I also thought Raffles' 'brilliant' escape at the end was anything but. However,the acting was good and it was nice to see a detective who was NOT stupid (a common and rather dumb cliché of the 1930s and 40s). Well worth seeing but not among Colman's best work.

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.

Hollywood took a few cracks at adapting E.W. Hornung's prose series about gentleman thief A.J. Raffles: in 1917, 1925, this early 1930 talkie and, again, in 1939, with the casting including such suave leading men as John Barrymore, David Niven and, here, Ronald Colman. This "Raffles" suffers being a creaky early talkie (reportedly, a silent version was also, simultaneously filmed), although its sole Academy Award nomination was for sound recording, and, indeed, it makes some good use of sound, from the start with the bobbies sipping coffee from bowls, to a clock motif and the punctuation of the usual talkfest in the early years of synchronized-sound production with sequences of silence during the nighttime burglaries. The writers even managed to get a bit of clever wordplay over the noise from the primitive recording technology of the day.

Moreover, as another character chimes, one, indeed, can't help liking Colman's Raffles. The supporting cast is decent, too, including Kay Francis as the romantic interest, David Torrence as the Scottish Scotland Yard inspector, and Alison Shipworth and Frederick Kerr are amusing as the bickering hosts to their home of guests spending the weekend, apparently, smoking, drinking and playing cricket and tennis--the sort of upper-class soirées one might expect from an episode of "Downton Abbey," where dandies in tuxedos sip brandy and retort that Americans are too savage to understand cricket.

I think what raises "Raffles" above many other early talkies, however, is the talent Samuel Goldwyn assembled behind the scenes, namely cinematographers George Barnes (5-time Oscar nominee) and Gregg Toland (who also photographed the 1939 version and is most famous for "Citizen Kane" (1941)) and art directors Park French and William Cameron Menzies (the latter of whom would invent the job of production designer during the making of "Gone with the Wind" (1939)). There's nothing amateurish in their design of the amateur cracksman's first heist scene, with the policeman's shadow lurking in the background behind store-front glass as a safe is cracked with the aid of a diegetic light source. Some camera movement is managed, too, including a nice shot of Colman on the staircase upon seeing Francis's entry. Being England, there's also a fog-filled sequence. There's nothing amazing about any of this, but it's worth noting how much difference to a slight scenario burdened by primitive new technology can benefit from skilled artists behind the camera while placing charming actors in front of it, as well as giving some thought to how to use and not use the newfangled sound.