Cardinal Richelieu

Movie Information

In Brief: George Arliss — in his final Hollywood movie — takes on Cardinal Richelieu, and the results are more or less what you expect. In his version of Cardinal Richelieu (1935), the old boy is just as wily as the real one, but he's now become the wily hero of the story. In other words, this has only the slightest connection to history. Oh, it's kind of in there — like Richelieu's desire to create a united France and his chicanery in doing so — but the spin is a little skewed. It is what might best be called an historical romp of the sort Arliss was famous for. Actually, Arliss had envisioned a different film, but when everyone became enthused over him dusting off Bulwer-Lytton's hoary old melodrama, the enthusiasm won out. The results — with Richelieu dividing his time between bringing young lovers together and saving the country — are pretty specious as history, but they're certainly entertaining fun.  
Genre: Historical Romp
Director: Rowland V. Lee (Son of Frankenstein)
Starring: George Arliss, Maureen O'Sullivan, Edward Arnold, Cesar Romero, Douglass Dumbrille
Rated: NR




Few major stars are as forgotten today as George Arliss. In 1985 when I wrote an article on him for Films in Review, he had been relegated to a mere footnote in film history. The practice was generally to make fun of his movies and his “outdated” acting style. It is true that his style was from another generation even when his movies were new. Arliss was 32 when the 20th century rolled around. He’d learned his craft in the 19th century. He didn’t make his first movie till he was 53. He made his true mark on the movies with the advent of sound — winning a Best Actor Oscar for the talkie version of Disraeli (1929) when he was 61. (He’d toured in the play for years and made a silent version — only one reel of which is known to survive — in 1921.) It more or less set the pattern for his next six years as a major movie star.




He alternated between historical dramas (romps really) and comedies as Warner Bros. prestige star, enjoying a degree of creative freedom otherwise unknown to dramatic actors. He chose the scripts, had a hand in them, chose the costumes, sets, furnishings, actors, locations (he was a pioneer in sound location filming), etc. He rehearsed his films like plays in front of whatever actors and technicians could be used for an audience. His is the unique case of the actor as auteur. The reason for this was that he had the complete confidence of Warner production head Darryl F. Zanuck. That relationship was so harmonious that when Zanuck left WB to found 20th Century Pictures (later merged with Fox) for whom he made his final three Hollywood films before homesickness and wife (and sometimes co-star) Florence’s failing health caused him to return to England. (In 1938, he retired from movies to take care of the then completely blind Florence.)




Cardinal Richelieu — his Hollywood swan song — may not be his best work, but neither is it far from it, and there is no stinting on the budget. Zanuck sent him off in fine style in an elaborate vehicle. Arliss is clearly having a grand time as the scheming Cardinal Richelieu — getting every ounce of juice out of the grand theater of Bulwer-Lytton’s old warhorse, Richelieu, that had been reconfigured somewhat to accomoate the things Arliss’ audience expected of him. As previously noted, the film plays fast and loose with the reality of Cardinal — not only turning him into the hero of the piece, but nearly making him a man of action. That merely means that he dons some armour and briefly leads an army out of Paris. Most of the sword action is given over to romantic lead Cesar Romero, but Arliss undeniably gives us a lively and improbably active and likable Richelieu. (In his final years, Richelieu had to be carried or wheeled around.)




No, it ain’t history. It’s history presented as a George Arliss historical romp — with Arliss brandishing his dry wit throughout. But that’s just fine. It was never intended to be anything else. Is it theatrical? Yes, though by this time Arliss was a much subtler performer that he had been in his first talkies. The larger question ought to be whether or not it’s entertaining. And that it very much is. In fact, I have never seen an Arliss film that wasn’t entertaining. I’m not at all sure we can ask for more than that.


About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress from December 2000 until his death in June 2016. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

2 thoughts on “Cardinal Richelieu

  1. Speaking as a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, as First Minister of Louis XIII, and as one of the architects of the modern world already – would you say that Harold Larch was a man of good character?

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.