Jim le harponneur

Hmmm. This is what we would call a "re-imagining" nowadays. Herman Melville's classic "Moby Dick" underpins this far more romantic story as John Barrymore "Ahab" has to battle his brother "Derek" (George O'Hara) for the affections of "Esther" (Delores Costello) on land whilst joining in the battle against the great white whale from the novel at sea. I found the romance just a bit too drawn out and tedious, but when the film takes us to sea it comes alive with some cracking cinematography that depicts the dangers the sailors faced doing their jobs (including plenty of rats milling aboard amongst the injured and/or sleeping men). I can't say the print I saw was great, and the accompanying score was so soporific as to remind me of the music played at the dentist to calm me when I'm having root canal treatment! Barrymore is good, though. His maniacally obsessive expressions when tracking the whale (which, by now, has relieved him of his lower leg) are genuinely menacing - though clearly not so much for the whale. The ending is far removed from the book, too - and that removes much of the potency from the the whole thing, leaving us with a rather slushy maritime drama that just doesn't have enough of action and adventure for me.

Herman Melville's 'Moby Dick' is famous for nothing if not being overly long and self-indulgently verbose. In adapting the tale to film, 'The sea beast' nonetheless dares to go a step further by altering and adding narrative elements. The core of the feature remains a sea-faring adventure, for sure, though while the additions do make for a more well-rounded experience as movie-goers are accustomed to, I'm just not sure the trimmings were necessary. This is one issue with this 1926 picture; another is that surviving prints would seem to have been so degraded before they were preserved digitally that the very image to greet us is too often substantially washed out, obliterating detail. This is true for footage of the characters or environment, but it's even more noticeable when the camera focuses on text - a passage from a book, a handwritten note, or even intertitles - and the visuals are so diminished that it's almost if not entirely impossible to read that text. Even though much can be inferred from the surrounding footage that is suitably intact, that reduced integrity means that we simply lose some plot.

That's the bad news. The good news is that 'The sea beast' is otherwise an outstanding, somewhat grand production. This is in no small part to the credit of star John Barrymore, whose stardom and pull with the studio clearly influenced filming. True, he accordingly had some help, given a little bit of alcoholism, a little bit of unmanaged personal appearance, and a relationship with co-star Dolores Costello. Yet in the lead role of Ahab Barrymore most definitely illustrates marvelous range, nuance, and physicality, giving a great performance that allows the viewer to feel his every emotion and twinge of pain very keenly. He's hardly alone, of course, and other cast members give able displays of acting to complement and complete the experience, including certainly Costello and George O'Hara - but there's no mistaking who is chiefly in the spotlight.

This is to say nothing of superb production design; every small facet that helps to build a feature looks swell. Costume design, hair and makeup, and set design and decoration all rather impress; as if Barrymore's practiced skills weren't enough, or his personal habits, the work put into accentuating Ahab's transformation paid off handsomely. Director Millard Webb demonstrates a sharp eye in arranging some shots and scenes, making the saga all the more vivid and engaging. Rupert Hughes' contribution as editor is quite fine. The adapted screenplay concocted between Hughes, Bess Meredyth, and Jack Wagner is a bit more thorny. The effort to give the tale a more familiar narrative structure does serve its purpose well, with the trade-off that the movie may feel a tad overstuffed. The augmented human drama does pair well with the more robust moments of adventure - though in a picture of a hair over 2 hours, sometimes it seems like the latter is deemphasized. All the pieces do come together reasonably well; I'm just unsure if it was the best possible cinematic interpretation of Melville's classic in the 1920s. This is most specifically true not least of all nearer the end when the two components are intermittently and unconvincingly woven together until the screenplay gives the tale a questionable ending that Melville did not.

If all these are too many words, however - if it sounds like I'm nitpicking - then let me be more succinct. I think 'The sea beast' is very enjoyable, communicating a compelling story with considerable detailed labor from the crew and a terrific lead performance. I also think the adaptation's grasp exceeded its reach, as the two main threads of its narrative do not entirely gel, and the inclusion of each limits what both could otherwise be. Its strengths are welcome and gratifying; its weaknesses are unfortunate. The film's value only just outweighs its detractions such that I'd give this a firm recommendation for any who come across it; would that it were deserving of higher enthusiasm.

Not a feature for those who already have difficulties with silent films - but for anyone else, this still holds up fairly well even all this time later.

There is a whale named Moby Dick, and part of him is white. There is guy named Ahab, but he is basically a buffoon, and later a maniac. Now the off kilter part is a part of the original But instead we have silly romance and a villain, who is the half brother of Ahab (really?). He does lose his leg because of his brother but doesn't know about it for a long time. Anyway, it's a way of getting John Barrymore's acrobatics and his handsome face on the screen. The final scene is ridiculous. There are some decent whaling scenes and some pretty good music. If it weren't called Moby Dick, it would still be a rather weak film.

When it came to silent movie plots, even the most manly stories filled with rugged characters needed a romantic element to appeal to women viewers. Warner Brothers Studios was interested in producing a film based on one of America's greatest novels, Herman Melville's 'Moby Dick.' Unfortunately, its seafaring plot didn't contain one female in the cast of characters. Because of that, there was not one hint of a romantic angle to the book. That didn't stop the studio from going forward with the project of producing the first movie centered around the Melville classic, released In January 1926 as "The Sea Beast."

Actor John Barrymore lobbied aggressively to get the part of Captain Ahab. As an avid reader of 'Moby Dick,' Barrymore gave suggestions to scriptwriter Bess Meredyth on how to carve the script. She reportedly didn't incorporate any of his pointers, noting this wasn't going to be a romance. "What we are going to do for a love interest, I don't quite know," said Barrymore. "He might fall in love with the whale. Hollywood, I am sure, will find a way." Meredyth finally found a way to squeeze a romantic subplot into the movie. Character Ester Wiscasset (Dolores Costello) becomes a lightning rod between Ahab (Barrymore) and his half brother Derek (George O'Hara). Both are gaga over the minister's daughter, which causes a rift between them when they're in pursuit of the large white whale. Derek takes advantage of the Ahab leaning over the bow of the small whale skiff and abruptly pushes him over. Moby immediately spots Ahab's meaty human leg to chomp on, hence explains his peg leg. Harboring a hatred towards the hungry whale, Ahab's personality turns from a happy-go-lucky captain to a mean, crusty, revenge-seeking brute. He becomes even more onerous when he discovers how he ended up in the ocean.

Barrymore, whose romantic eyes went from young actress Mary Astor to new girlfriend Dolores Costello, persuaded Warner to cut its original choice, actress Priscilla Bonner, for his lover. Bonner, upon getting the termination notice, abruptly sued the studio and won a hefty sum in an out-of-court settlement. Barrymore, who loved his drink, was pounding the bottle pretty hard during "The Sea Beast" production and appears on camera to be worn out with his bloodshot eyes and unshaven look. Studio producer Jack Warner told the director Millard Webb to praise the makeup artist for doing a great job on the actor. "That's not makeup," Webb said. "It's a hangover."

Barrymore's characterization of Ahab drew praise from a number of critics. It has been noted the actor excelled at playing deviates such as Mr. Hyde, and in Ahab he finds a perfect foil to display a physically and mentally tormented man. The public ate it up, filling theater seats so much "The Sea Beast" became the tenth greatest money maker in 1926. It would be another 30 years, however, for Hollywood to make a movie that would follow the Melville plot without the romantic element in John Huston's 1956 "Moby Dick."

I streamed an online version of this that was copyrighted Televista, Inc, 2007. I don't know how close to the original print it really was, but I assume it was pretty much the same as what audiences saw in 1926. If it is an accurate transfer, then, man oh man, this is the worst edited movie in history. The philosophy that guided the editing of this film must have been, if you can have an eight-second close-up of someone's face, why not make it eighteen-seconds instead? More than twice as good! Why settle for two reaction shots from a character if you can have five? Why have a character tell someone she love him just once when you can have the same scene repeated three times?

The pacing is atrocious, with a simplistic, conventional love story that reduces Ahab to a forlorn lover, completely scraps Ishmael, and doesn't even give names to most of the Pequod crew. This is most certainly not Melville's book, and the events that at all resemble the novel don't begin until over an hour and fifteen minutes into the film.

There are some decent flourishes at the end, including an innovative use of Ahab's peg leg that's original to this film and also some decent expressive acting from John Barrymore and Dolores Costello in the final scene. The version I saw also had some pretty sweet percussive music during some of the action scenes, though most of the score was fairly conventional stuff.

This is an interesting curio considering Melville's novel was a massive flop whereas this was a blockbuster success. There truly is no accounting for taste. This might satisfy the curiosity of Melville enthusiasts, but for a general viewer this movie is an absolute bore.