Alexander Hamilton

George Arliss played several "great men of history" during the early sound era, Alexander Hamilton being among them. While he is in no way credible when portraying the sexually-charged element of the man (to start, he's neither young nor handsome), he channels the appropriate charisma and intelligence. The film is a pretty standard biopic, but Arliss is good.

Alexander Hamilton is a 1931 film written by and starring George Arliss and produced by Warner Bros in an attempt to match MGM's prestige films.

George Arliss (1868-1946) plays Hamilton. Arliss was a major star on the stage and in the silent and the early talkie period, with films like "Disraeli" (1921 and 1929) and "Voltaire" (1933). He won the Academy Award for "Disraeli" (1929) and was nominated again for "The Green Goddess" (1930). He seems strangely cast as young Hamilton given that Arliss was in his 60s playing a man in his 30s.

Note that Arliss was so well regarded by Warner Bros. his name is even larger than the title of the film.

Alan Mowbray (1896-1969) plays George Washington. He appeared in more than 140 films from 1931 to 1962. He had a recurring role in the "Topper" series and made memorable contributions to films such as "The King and I" (1956), "The Man who Knew Too Much" (1956), "My Darling Clementine" (1946) and "Wagon Master" (1950).

Montagu Love (1877-1943) plays Thomas Jefferson. Love was a major star in the silent and early talkie period, playing in more than 100 films. He's best known for supporting roles as the Bishop in "Robin Hood" (1938), Henry VIII in "Prince and the Pauper": (1937), and Zorro in "The Mask of Zorro" (1940).

The film is directed by John Adolfi (1888-1933) a silent film director who made several films with Arliss. The film shows its stage origins.

The film centers on where to locate the capital and how to finance the new government, as well as Hamilton's indiscretion. But much of the dynamism of Hamilton's life (his active libido, his relationship with Washington, his feud with Aaron Burr) are missing.

1931 was a great year for film. The top grossing films were "Frankenstein", "Cimarron", "Mata Hari", "City Lights", and "Dracula". The Oscars went to "Cimarron" (Picture), "The Champ" (Actor), and "Min and Bill" (Actress). Other notable films released that year include "M", "Public Enemy", "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde", and "Monkey Business". Any of these films hold up much better than this one.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, the first Treasury Secretary of the new American Republic, strives mightily against tremendous odds, political & personal, to achieve his great goal: financial solidity & respect for the emerging nation. Just as his triumph seems assured, he is humiliated by a sex scandal engineered by his most powerful enemy in the Senate...

Let it be stated immediately that George Arliss should have been the worst possible actor to portray the title figure in this film. First, he was much too old (Hamilton was in his 30's at the time of the scandal; Arliss turned 63 in 1931). Also, the handsome Hamilton in no way resembled Arliss, who, quite frankly, looks like a death's-head.

But this is not supposed to be a physical reconstruction of the historical Hamilton, but rather a look into the heart & character of the fellow. In this, Arliss succeeds admirably, using his tremendous acting talents to both inform & entertain us. Truly, he was one of the great cinematic artists of his generation and it is a shame that he is all but forgotten today.

Although all centers around Arliss, the rest of the cast does well: Doris Kenyon & June Collyer as the very different women in Hamilton's life; Dudley Digges & Ralf Harolde as his enemies; Montague Love as Thomas Jefferson; and old Lionel Belmore, stealing a few scenes as Hamilton's corpulent father-in-law. Special mention should be made of Alan Mowbray, very effective as George Washington.

Non-political potential viewers who avoid this film risk missing a superb performance by one of the past masters.

As Alexander Hamilton, Mr. George Arliss struggles to keep the Treasury of the new-founded United States clean and honest. He also outwits the greatest minds of the era to have his Assumption Bill passed, which will establish the credit of the nation. In these efforts he is opposed by Dudley Digges, who will stick at naught in his efforts to stop it for happening because.... ah, because..... well, because he is the villain of the piece. Boo! Hiss!

This is the weakest of Arliss's movies, and I found it rather dull. Students of our history and fans of Lin-Manuel Miranda may understand what the fuss is about. Anyone coming fresh to this movie will find it as much a mystery as the reasons for those who oppose it -- "It is against our principles" says one character. What those principles are is never mentioned. Perhaps it's a deep-seated belief that anyone fool enough to lend you money should never get paid. Likewise, those who enjoy Arliss' historical turns because of his sly wit and good humor will be disappointed. Instead,we are subjected to speeches, from Alan Mowbray bidding the troops farewell, to Arliss' curtain speech on finding they've passed the bill. It is then we recall that Arliss was a 19th-century actor, a period when declaiming your love of mother at the top of your lungs was much admired. Arliss doesn't rattle the rafters, but the thinking man or woman will be left befuddled at the lack of linkages. The 'oi polloi will cheer at the playing of "Yankee Doodle." With Doris Kenyon, June Collyer, Montagu Love, and Lionel Belmore.

For otherwise inexplicable reasons lost to history, George Arliss had much success playing UK Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli afore, on stage and screen, including winning a Best Actor Oscar for the second time he played the role for cameras in 1929. His "Alexander Hamilton" is one of a few such apparently derivative biopics of great European or American white men based on that play's formula. As with Arliss's Disraeli, his Hamilton outwits his opponents to achieve one significant political goal while also balancing his sex life. Maybe some thought the purchase of the Suez Canal or the federal government assuming the debts of states romantic or sexy back in the late 20s and early 30s, but it certainly isn't cogent anymore. In addition to precluding any emotional appeal, this simplification of history reduces the picture to listless hagiography, and even its biographical broad strokes may be fictitious, if not downright insulting.

Of a more minor error, like the musical "Hamilton" (2020), which I watched the night before, it conflates the roles of James Madison and James Monroe, with this one favoring Monroe and the other Madison, into one character for both the Compromise of 1790 and the Reynolds scandal. Worse, this film largely portrays Monroe and Thomas Jefferson as nefarious political neophytes who, ultimately, remain honorable by promising secrecy to Hamilton's affair with Reynolds. Never mind that, really, they were the ones who spread rumors of the scandal to undermine Hamilton's political chances--all of which had nothing actually to do with the past assumption bill and more to do with the emerging party dynamics post the Washington administration. Moreover, the play invents a fictional character, a Senator Timothy Roberts, to be baddie in exposing the tabloid fodder.

Meanwhile, the married Maria Reynolds is depicted as a vamp complicit from the start in tricking and blackmailing Hamilton, which I suppose could be historically true to some extent, but it's also a dubious and convenient narrative trope. The picture doesn't dare explicitly admit Hamilton even had sex with her, while it also under-reports the sums of money extorted from the treasury secretary. I appreciate the ambiguity and economy, as to whether they copulate, of the fade to black when Hamilton walks up Reynolds's steps to retrieve his cloak, which may've seemed necessary even for a pre-code production. But, in fact, Hamilton admitted the affair, and it wasn't a one-night stand; it lasted months.

Historical inaccuracy is the least of the picture's problems, though. There's also a stereotypical black servant with all the aggravating "yessuhs" and the rest written by white men for how they think black people acted or spoke. A creaky early talkie, it's also a dully filmed play--albeit synchronized-sound technology and practices had improved somewhat in the intervening couple years between "Disraeli" and "Alexander Hamilton." There's even a non-diegetic score during one sequence, which is maudlin, but nonetheless unusual for early talkies. Of course, there's also a scene involving diegetic music, which involves Mrs. Hamilton singing and playing the piano--a common tactic of early sound films to incorporate bits of recorded music.

Anyways, having now seen three Arliss vehicles, I'm suspecting that he had a hand in selecting his co-stars based on them being so lousy as to not upstage him. Besides the performances for the aforementioned side characters, Doris Kenyon is particularly atrocious as a withering-flower sort of depiction of a wife. It's nauseating. Too bad, too, because I still have fond memories of her from the days before Hollywood, in Fort Lee, New Jersey, when she played ingénue in the meta-film "A Girl's Folly" (1917). Consequently, Arliss has an admittedly commanding screen presence, I suppose, but caricaturizations of these historical fuddy-duddys tends to be a bore and far less interesting than the historical figures appear to have been in better-composed historical records.