Cardinal Richelieu

1935's "Cardinal Richelieu" turned out to be the Hollywood finale for acclaimed British star George Arliss, so adept at portraying larger than life historical figures. Here, it's the notorious Cardinal, often depicted as a villain yet acting on behalf of King Louis XIII (Edward Arnold) to ward off treachery within his inner circle, chiefly from top aide Baradas (Douglass Dumbrille), who takes every opportunity to convince the King that Richelieu is the real enemy. While Arliss chose to film stories or plays that were old fashioned, one cannot condemn his acting as barnstorming; he remains calm and rational, coolly weighing his options before deciding on a plan of action, letting others act up a storm, unable to wrest the screen away from his commanding stillness (indeed a larger than life performer, sadly underrated nowadays). The unobtrusive love interest is supplied by Maureen O'Sullivan and Cesar Romero, while among the agitators attempting to get Parisians to revolt against Richelieu is a 29 year old John Carradine, appearing at the 41 minute mark, billed 31st out of a cast numbering 36: "Down with Richelieu! He's not in favor with the King, why should we listen to him? Down with him!"

This is really a terrific movie, surprisingly underrated. To begin with, George Arliss is flawless and dazzling in the role of l'Eminence Rouge. I wish someone would someday make a serious Fu Manchu movie, faithfully bringing Sax Rohmer's creation to the screen, and I can only imagine George Arliss in the role of Fu Manchu. Cardinal Richelieu and Fu Manchu have a lot in common.

Even though Alexandre Dumas isn't credited for the story, all of the action comes straight out of Dumas.

Year 1935 was definitely the year for Rowland V Lee to speak of history of France, and more precisely Cardinal Richelieu character; because this very year, the director gave us THE THREE MUSKETEERS, also speaking of Richelieu, but in a supporting role, whilst in this movie - CARDINAL RICHELIEU - the latest is the lead character. I have always been astonished by the interest that the Hollywood film industry took for history of France. More than England.... This movie is maybe accurate and faithful is not bad at all but very talkative and destined to history goers. I don't crave for it but don't mind my opinion, that's just an opinion. Good acting and directing.

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.

When most of us hear the name Cardinal Richelieu, we think of the evil bad guy from The Three Musketeers. Vincent Price, Tim Curry, and Christoph Waltz have portrayed him - and they always play bad guys! However, in this 1935 biopic, he's supposed to be a good guy. George Arliss plays the cardinal, and he spends the whole movie making master plans for the greater good: protecting King Louis XIII from assassination and betrayal. George Arliss was very famous in the early silver screen, but if you don't like his style, you probably won't like this movie.

I watched it for Cesar Romero, who plays the young, handsome romantic lead. In full "musketeer gear", armed with a wig and a sword, he falls madly in love with the equally beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan in one evening. It's a whirlwind courtship, and they vow to marry - but they haven't even learned each others' names! When George Arliss orders Cesar to marry a woman of his choice, even threatening him with an execution order if he refuses, Cesar does refuse. He loves Maureen and won't marry anyone else. It turns out Maureen is George's daughter, and he was playing a little joke on the couple. It's a very cute scene, but the rest of the movie is a little boring by comparison. And Edward Arnold's thick New York accent feels out of place as the French king, especially when everyone else is trying to hard to be in a period piece.