Enchantment

First of all, kudos to the restorer for providing an exceptionally clear print. Unfortunately that can't be said of the direction or rather the story idea. The brief story, as mentioned in the various reviews is- there is a shrew (flapper in hollywood terms), Ethel Hoyt (Marion), with tons of dollars in her or her father's bank, just as Katharina of the original had. The only difference was that she was a social butterfly in addition. The father gets a brilliant idea, while watching the bard's play, that only a Petruchio can tame his daughter. Luckily, the actor playing the part of Petruchio was his close friend (despite huge age difference) and he agrees to tame her, make her fall in love with him, and once tamed, release her. Nothing much unpredictable in where it all lead to.

Had it gone along those lines, it would have been palatable, only to a certain extent. The basic idea of having your daughter, that too a head-strong one, fall in love with someone, you don't intend her to hitch with, is quite strange.

However even if one tends to forget that, ther rest of the movie had been a complete drag.

The Lioness-tamer had been well coached by the father, and had even been introduced as misogynist. He might not have been one, but he was asked to be one, a la Petruchio, to tame her. But was there any hint of that? Even once in the movie? The girl had been associated with the door-mat admirers, on whom she would stomp at her wish. At that moment she already had six of them, the Harvard Seniors, and this added a number to that and became the seventh door-mat, and remained so till the end. It just inexplicable on how she fell in love, if one goes on the logic that was being advocated.

Naturally I won't have liked it, if the women was shown to be doormat or even violated, as in the Bard's play. But the girl, romantic, and having her own way with all the men around, including her father, needed some one who at least sometime be tough, take stand against and not follow the wish of her little finger. The hero's character was definitely not having a single of those qualities. In the end she says she is tamed, but was she? I doubt. Once the 'Honeymoon' was over, she would have been back to her colours, since till the end, every one did, and acquiesced to what SHE wanted.. When she shooed him off, he he went, with proverbial tail between his legs, till she whistled him back.

Only plus factor was Marion's looks, but that can't really make an incoherent movie watchable.

Marion Davies stars as Ethel Hoyt, a beautiful, rich girl who is totally self-absorbed. She boasts in her diary that she can enchant men better than Cleopatra did in her day. She brags about toying with six Harvard seniors and how they jump at her every beck and call. She is condescending to her parents and treats them as clueless old things.

But daddy hatches a plan to "tame" his willful daughter. He hires an actor friend (Forrest Stanley) after seeing him in "The Taming of the Shrew." He persuades the actor to launch an amateur play in which Davies will star and publicly browbeat her.

The play is "Sleeping Beauty" with Marion as the princess and Stanley as the director and leading man. After belittling her in front of a pack of society matrons, she decides she despises him but goes on the with play. After all, who else could play the lead role? But lo and behold, Stanley falls in love with Davies (no surprise) and wins her over. Has she won again? The highlight of this film is the staged production of "Sleeping Beauty" in a series of scenes (supposedly at a socialite's house) that are gorgeously designed and quite elaborate. Along with dazzling costumes and sets, we are treated to flying fairies and witches, and multi-level sets that are beautifully lit.

The ending of the film, of course, is never in doubt although the final clinch is held off til the last second.

Marion Davies is excellent as Ethel, easily portraying the self-absorbed young woman who also has flashes of gaiety. Forrest Stanley is solid as the actor. Edith Shayne and Tom Lewis are the parents. Corinne Barker and Maude Turner Gordon are society ladies. Arthur Rankin plays Tommy the hapless college boy.

The film is stylishly directed by Robert Vignola, and the fabulous sets are by James Urban. The Long Island house and the Pierre (a tea room) sets boast the first use of European Modern (later art deco) decor in an American film.

My copy also boasts an excellent score by Donald Sosin.

Ethel Hoyt is a spoiled rich girl, who wraps men around her fingers. Fed up with this behavior, her father gets an idea when he takes the family to see "The Taming of the Shrew." He engages the lead actor, Eddie Eddison, to "tame" Ethel. Eddie will make Ethel fall for him, and then he will throw her over, which will teach her a lesson. Of course, things do not go according to plan.

This is a hum-drum romantic comedy, with no surprises, predictable developments, slight humor, decent acting, and interesting interior sets. The film plods along at a barely acceptable pace, but then comes to a complete stop when the two leads appear in a production of "Sleeping Beauty." Instead of cutting to the climax of the production, which brings the desired results between Davies and Stanley, we are subjected to the entire story of Sleeping Beauty - which will indeed put you to sleep. In fact, the only chuckle I had was when Davies and Stanley get passionate when Sleeping Beauty awakens, and the camera pans to the audience. Most of them seem aghast at the display of spontaneous affection, except for Mr. Hoyt (well-played by Tom Lewis), who is sound asleep.

Davies is cute, but her character is annoying, and her outfits are atrocious. Harvey is adequate as the romantic lead, but looks ridiculous in his Prince Charming outfit.

Edith Shayne, as Mrs. Hoyt, is very attractive at the outset of the film, and could easily have played a romantic lead herself:

Main interest is the production design (which is said to be advanced for films of its period) including that for the two plays within the film, a short section of The Taming of the Shrew and a staging of fairy tale The Sleeping Beauty. Also, the women's costumes are interesting.

Marion Davies does not show much of what later made her famous.

Marion Davies is full of herself. She compares herself to Cleopatra -- to her own advantage -- writes paeans to herself in her diary and treats her father contemptuously. While he watches a friend of his in THE TAMING OF THE SHREW, he decides his daughter needs her own Petrucchio and asks his friend to do it. It is, of course, not that simple....

If the modern film fan is aware of Marion Davies at all, he thinks of her as the no-talent mistress of William Randolph Hearst, whose money and power sustained a career for her. In actuality, Miss Davies was an able actress, whose abilities were often thwarted by Mr. Hearst's insistence on important movies. Her talents lay as a light comedian. In this movie, she gets to do some light comedy and is excellent. This film was rated as one of the best of the year -- by competitors of the Hearst papers.

For one thing, this is a technically advanced picture for 1921; this would not be so clear to most modern viewers, but visually and in terms of story-telling, it would have been a good picture four years later, during a period of rapid evolution. Ira Morgan's camera-work is solid and the editing is brisk. The cast is surprisingly good under the direction of Robert Vignola, who rarely rose about adequate. The story is amusing and Miss Davies alternates between realistic screen acting and Delsartian posing when she wishes to fool other people.

Most interesting is the provenance of the copy I saw: Ed Lorusso ran it as a Kickstarter project and had the Library of Congress make a copy of their print. Although there is some major decomposition halfway through, most of the print is sharp and beautiful, making this more than usually watchable; also, Donald Sosin has provided a light, impromptu-sounding score that matches the movie perfectly.

Copies were distributed to the Kickstarter backers, but Ed may still has some for sale at $25 each. It's a bit high for 93-year-old movie, but if you have an interest in these things, it's definitely worth your time and money. Send Ed an email at drednm@yahoo.com.

October 9, 2015: Ed informs me that this fine movie is now available from Amazon, on DVD and via Amazon Streaming.