Il cardinale Richelieu

It is always interesting,nay funny,to see how Hollywood broaches FRench history.To make Louis XIII a bon vivant fond of young maidens whereas he was misogynous and is known for only having had two (platonic)affairs with women is the contrary of what we learn in history books.On the other hand,the king's homosexuality was never proved :he had favorites but they could possibly have been only good friends.

On the other hand,George Arliss is Richelieu as a French person can imagine it.He is a shrewd adamant man,with a great fondness for cats .He was hated by the queen and the queen mother Marie De Medicis whose regency was a disaster .The movie shows how disinterested he was:he used to work for the king's throne,preparing the absolute monarchy which would come into bloom with the Sun King in 1661.He fought against the nobles -who ,after his death would rebel in the days of "La Fronde" - and against the protestants (the siege of La Rochelle is depicted in "Les Trois Mousquetaires").

The story is a bit far-fetched -the Cardinal goes as far as to pretend he is dead;the nobles who see his "dead body" take naiveté to new limits-but rather entertaining.

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.

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.

Enjoyable historical drama about efforts of Cardinal Richelieu (George Arliss) to unite France against its enemies, as well as protect his ward (Maureen O'Sullivan) from lustful King Louis XIII (Edward Arnold). Cardinal Richelieu is a complex historical figure, usually portrayed in movies as a villain. Here, he's the hero. George Arliss may be largely forgotten today but he was one of the finest actors of the '20s & '30s. Arliss gives an effortless performance in this film. Even some of the quality actors backing him up here pale by comparison. Edward Arnold is great as Louis XIII, although from what I've read of the real monarch, this performance is more Arnold than Louis. It is entertaining though. Maureen O'Sullivan and Caesar Romero supply the romantic subplot. Both do well in unchallenging roles. Douglas Dumbrille, Halliwell Hobbes, and Frances Lister are among the other nice actors in the cast. It's a fine old costumer with drama, romance, and intrigue. A little slow-going at times but always interesting.

There is no denying that George Arliss's position as a leading star of movies has declined precipitously in the last half century. That he appeared in historical films where he was involved with great events, and bringing fictional lovers together, is used as a joke to dismiss him. Only when studying his actual performances does one realize that his restrained acting was a tremendous advance over the thumping scenary tearing of the silent period. If you doubt this, look at his performance in THE IRON DUKE. Although too short to play Wellington, he does the best with the role. In the film he has to confront the French royal court after the judicial murder of Marshal Ney (1815). The actor playing Louis XVIII is overacting incredibly, and Arliss knows it. Look at the fierce disapproval in his face in that scene.

Here, he is playing Armand Du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu, the real ruler of France from 1626 to 1642 (the titular ruler was King Louis XIII - here Edward Arnold, splendid but wasted in a small role). Richelieu took a France, long weakened by religious wars (although it had begun a good recovery under King Henri IV and his minister Sully), and made it the supreme power in Western Europe, at the expense of Charles I of England, the Germans in the Thirty Years War (he paid off the King of Sweden to prolong the war), and Spain. Richelieu is usually considered a villain in movies (like THE THREE MUSKETEERS) but he was the creator of modern France. Arliss does very well in the role, bringing the patriotism and brilliance of the cardinal out - and he also happens (for a change) to look like Richelieu. But what makes this performance most interesting is that the film captures a 19th Century theatrical workhorse - Edward Bulwer-Lytton's play RICHELIEU. It was one of the most popular "modern" plays in English and American theatre in the 19th Century, and had been performed by Edwin Booth among others. The key scene for whoever played the Cardinal was "the Curse of Rome" Scene, where Richelieu warns of the wrath of the Papacy if anything happens to him. Arliss delivers this in the film - the sole example of this 19th Century acting moment in film.