"Disraeli" is an odd sort of film that was quite popular during the 1920s-1940s. Hollywood had an inexplicable love affair with British Colonialism and film after film portray the British as the true masters of the world! Nowadays, folks are much more likely to look at the films and wonder why the heroes are the folks enslaving much of the globe...all cloaked in the guise of benevolence. One of the earliest of these films is "Disraeli" (1921 and 1929) but there also are many other examples, such as "Gunga Din", "Wee Willie Winkle" and "Lives of a Bengal Lancer"...all very popular films promoting the notion of British uniqueness and supremacy.
This story is about a portion of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli's career--around the time that the British essentially bought the Suez Canal out from under the French. In his career, Disraeli was the epitome of the British White Supremacist--always advancing the notion that Britain had a destiny to rule much of the world. In sharp contrast, William Gladstone also served as Prime Minister (both alternating in this role many times) and Gladstone thought the colonial policy was a most unbecoming and unchristian notion...yet, sadly, this great politician did NOT get an expensive biopic! Niceness isn't all that interesting, apparently!
This 1929 version is the second starring George Arliss. He made a silent version earlier in the decade and because this film is an early sound picture it has many of the usual features--it's much more set bound and actors tend to stand close together at times because microphones were not especially good. So, while Warner Brothers was the best company in the world in 1929 when it came to sound pictures, it still had a few shortcomings which a viewer might notice in this film.
So is it any good? By 1929 standards, it's exceptional and you can see why Arliss took the Best Actor award. However, just a few years later, Arliss' acting became even more natural (with less speechifying) in front of the camera and he was glorious in films like "The Working Man", "The King's Vacation" and "Mister Hobo". And, compared to most 1929 films, it holds up reasonably well today...though it clearly is a bit stagy. My biggest complaints are not about the acting or sound but simply the notion of making a film to celebrate British global rule...something which seemed so natural and acceptable back in the day but which seems very anachronistic given today's sensibilities.
This story is about a portion of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli's career--around the time that the British essentially bought the Suez Canal out from under the French. In his career, Disraeli was the epitome of the British White Supremacist--always advancing the notion that Britain had a destiny to rule much of the world. In sharp contrast, William Gladstone also served as Prime Minister (both alternating in this role many times) and Gladstone thought the colonial policy was a most unbecoming and unchristian notion...yet, sadly, this great politician did NOT get an expensive biopic! Niceness isn't all that interesting, apparently!
This 1929 version is the second starring George Arliss. He made a silent version earlier in the decade and because this film is an early sound picture it has many of the usual features--it's much more set bound and actors tend to stand close together at times because microphones were not especially good. So, while Warner Brothers was the best company in the world in 1929 when it came to sound pictures, it still had a few shortcomings which a viewer might notice in this film.
So is it any good? By 1929 standards, it's exceptional and you can see why Arliss took the Best Actor award. However, just a few years later, Arliss' acting became even more natural (with less speechifying) in front of the camera and he was glorious in films like "The Working Man", "The King's Vacation" and "Mister Hobo". And, compared to most 1929 films, it holds up reasonably well today...though it clearly is a bit stagy. My biggest complaints are not about the acting or sound but simply the notion of making a film to celebrate British global rule...something which seemed so natural and acceptable back in the day but which seems very anachronistic given today's sensibilities.