Disraeli

"The less a politician does the fewer mistakes he makes." The actual line is "prime minister" in place of "politician" but the same amused skepticism holds true. The speaker is British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, played by George Arliss. Disraeli was a clever and ambitious politician, heartily disliked by a great section of the English ruling class because his background was Jewish, "not one of us, you know," cleverer than anyone, and with a vision of British imperial destiny that encouraged many and made many more nervous. George Arliss was as much a film phenomenon as Dizzy was a political marvel. Arliss gained a great stage reputation in England, came to America and repeated the trick on Broadway, made a handful of silent films to acclaim and, with his first talking movie, this one, won an Academy Award for best actor. He was a slight man without an ounce of fat on his bones. He looked his age. He had a narrow skull, prominent cheekbones, thin lips and a regal nose. With a commanding acting style and diction as precise as an accountant's penmanship, Arliss is definitely old school by today's standards. I'll tell you something. When he's on screen you don't notice anyone else. When he's off screen, you realize you're waiting for him to reappear. From Disraeli in 1929 to his last movie, Dr. Syn, in 1937 when he was 69, he became the most successful older actor Hollywood has ever seen, before or since. He made 19 movies in those eight years, many of them historical dramas. He played everything from the Duke of Wellington to Cardinal Richelieu to Voltaire to Alexander Hamilton. His wife had played opposite him in a number of his stage and film vehicles. Her sight had been failing and when at last she became blind in 1937, he immediately left acting. They returned to London and spent the rest of their days in honored retirement. He died in 1946; she followed him four years later.

Why all this about a long gone and long forgotten actor? Partly it's because what makes his movies so watchable (I've seen three) is him. He knew exactly what he was doing and he is memorable at it. Mainly it's because he had a remarkable life as an actor and should be remembered by at least a few. As Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to miss out on a lot of good stuff," or something like that.

Disraeli was a proved success for Arliss. He played the drama many times on stage and again in a silent version. It's the story of Disraeli's determination to secure ownership of the Suez Canal for Britain. Among other advantages, the canal will provide a short and secure route to India and beyond. The Bank of England opposes him. Imperial Russia is out to thwart him using spies and skullduggery. And he has a window of opportunity of only three weeks to seal the deal. Disraeli uses every trick and every bluff he can think of to impose his will. And he still has time to encourage the love match between two young people he is quite fond of. We have the lovely, 19-year-old Lady Clarissa Pevensey (played by the lovely, 19-year-old Joan Bennett) and the well-intentioned but stuffy 25-year-old Lord Charles Deeford (Anthony Bushell). All turns out well, and Queen Victoria is pleased.

The movie is dated, declarative and stagy. Still, Arliss gives his man so much charm and wit, so much cleverness and power that the movie becomes something more than an artifact. So, if nothing else, consider watching it to observe a great actor. Or at least to see a teen-aged Joan Bennett.

George Arliss is bewitching as "Disraeli". Mr. Arliss' character secures control of the Suez Canal for Great Britain, outmaneuvering Russian spy Doris Lloyd. He also plays "matchmaker" for Joan Bennett and Anthony Bushell. Arliss' performance is captivating, despite the datedness of this early "talking" movie.

Nobody can equal Arliss, but I did like Ms. Lloyd as his sparring partner. Ms. Bennett was good, also - a cut above her average "stand around and look beautiful" films from this period. The players were elevated, possibly, in Arliss' presence. There are some noticeable ways they could have made a better film, by waiting even a year or two. I would like to see the film restored; moreover, I would accept some tinkering/editing for a new version (while preserving the original, of course).

If you like classic "one-man-show" acting performances, it's hard to beat Arliss in this movie. He performs like a spider spinning its web - capturing everything in sight, including the audience. Be careful!

********* Disraeli (10/2/29) Alfred E. Green ~ George Arliss, Joan Bennett, Anthony Bushell, Doris Lloyd

Disraeli (1929)

** (out of 4)

Creaky, early talkie won George Arliss the Best Actor Oscar but outside of his performance there's very little to recommend here. In the film he plays British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli who not only tries playing match maker (to Anthony Bushell and Joan Bennett) but also trying to cool the political climate in the country. Disraeli's main challenge comes when he tries to buy the Suez Canal as he's not prepared for the battle that will come. This film comes as a major disappointment to me especially after reading so many positive reviews. It seems the majority of people who viewed this film did enjoy it but I'm certainly not one of them. I did love the performance of Arliss who is the main reason to watch this. Apparently Arliss played this role several times on stage and even did a 1921 movie version, which is sadly now lost except for one reel. He certainly knows this role and feels very comfortable playing it and this comes across on the screen as he appears to just float from one scene to the next. Arliss is clearly very comfortable here and that easy-going nature really comes across well and he manages to make the character very well-rounded. Both Bushell and Bennett are charming in their roles and they look great together but I must admit that I found their relationship to be rather lacking and not at all interesting. Even worse, for me, was all the political stuff because of all talky everything was. I was growing real tired of the constant dialogue as it wasn't written very well and the only all blandness of the non-stop words. Even worse is that the film has a very stagy look that just brings the film to a complete stop.

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.

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