Cardinal Richelieu

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.

It is always interesting,nay funny,to see how Hollywood broaches FRench history.To make Louis XIII a bon vivant fond of young maidens whereas he was misogynous and is known for only having had two (platonic)affairs with women is the contrary of what we learn in history books.On the other hand,the king's homosexuality was never proved :he had favorites but they could possibly have been only good friends.

On the other hand,George Arliss is Richelieu as a French person can imagine it.He is a shrewd adamant man,with a great fondness for cats .He was hated by the queen and the queen mother Marie De Medicis whose regency was a disaster .The movie shows how disinterested he was:he used to work for the king's throne,preparing the absolute monarchy which would come into bloom with the Sun King in 1661.He fought against the nobles -who ,after his death would rebel in the days of "La Fronde" - and against the protestants (the siege of La Rochelle is depicted in "Les Trois Mousquetaires").

The story is a bit far-fetched -the Cardinal goes as far as to pretend he is dead;the nobles who see his "dead body" take naiveté to new limits-but rather entertaining.

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.

Cardinal Richelieu has been a character in many old movies...as well as in a bizarre appearance on "Monty Python's Flying Circus". However, who is the REAL Richelieu, as some of these portrayals completely contradict each other. For instance in "The Three Musketeers", Richelieu is clearly the villain...a manipulator, liar and overall scum-bag. But here in "Cardinal Richelieu" he is a true patriot...a man who cares less about loyalty to the King and more to France itself!

The plot of "Cardinal Richelieu" consists of a group of French aristocrats who are bent on destroying King Louis XIII and replacing him with his greedy brother. But, to do this, the group must get rid of the cunning Richelieu, as he knows of their goals and is intent on stopping them. As for Louis, he's pretty much a fool who is easily manipulated by the very folks bent on replacing him! Ultimately, it all comes to a climactic showdown with the King, the conspirators and the Cardinal at the end of the picture.

The fact that George Arliss would play this part isn't surprising in the least. After all, he was already famous for playing Benjamin Disraeli in two prior movies as well as a short...and for which Arliss received an Oscar for Best Actor in 1930. And, essentially, Disraelis IS Richelieu in the films....a cunning, amoral man whose only goals are the glorification and strengthening of his beloved country. And, like "Disraeli", it's a film that ends with a climactic showdown.

So is this any good? Yes, but in a somewhat slow 1930s way that MIGHT not appeal to some viewers. I enjoyed it...Arliss was just fine...but the film was much more talky and stagey than most biopics...most likely because this film is based on a play about the great statesman. Worth seeing but a tiny bit stilted at times.

By the way, if you do watch this or any of Arliss' other biopics (such as "Disraeli", "House of Rothschild" or "Voltaire" understand that you are NOT seeing the actor at his best. These stagey biopics, though good, are not even close to being as timeless and wonderful as many of his fictional portrayals, such as in classics like "The Working Man", "The King's Vacation" and "Mister Hobo". These are films you really should see.