When Knighthood Was in Flower

I haven't looked at this in twenty years or so, and my memory was dim, but at the time I thought it was good but not great. Looking at the dvd of the Ben Model-Library of Congress-Jack Theakson-Steven Stanchfield restoration, I am agog at the clarity of the images, the beauty of the tints, and the care taken in the hand-coloring of the torches in the big chase at the end, the stupendous sets by Joseph Urban (who, Lara Gabrielle Fowler notes in the well-written booklet that accompanies the set, actually designed palaces in Europe) and the sumptuous clothing. Ben has added a handsome organ score based on the original offering at the Criterion in Manhattan. Like the original movie, nothing has been omitted to make this less than a landmark restoration.

The story is one of those melodramas of romantic piffle in costume that have long been popular. Marion Davies is Mary Tudor, young sister of Henry VIII, played by a suit seen in a Holbein picture, into which Lyn Harding has been stuffed. He is interested in marrying Marion to whichever ruler will serve his dynastic purposes, but she wants love, and settles on Forrest Stanley. When her engagement to the decrepit Louis XII is announced, she and Stanley try to flee to America; they are caught and Stanley is saved from a cheap and chippy chopper only by Marion's promise to marry Louis and not make a fuss. Unfortunately, the marriage takes its toll on the king, and the new king, played by William Powell, would have his way with her. As Tod Slaughter used to ask, will Heaven protect the working girl?

This sort of suffering-in-ermine story does not appeal to me, as I have made apparent in many another review. Even worse, for my taste, is the fact that the actors and their performances get lost in the immense sets and sumptuous costumes, so that it sometimes seemed that I was viewing a series of Flemish paintings -- not in the least aided by Robert Vignola's well-this-composition-worked-in-the-last-thirty-setups staging. It was almost an hour into the film, when Marion and Forrest are hiding out at an inn, that some of the clothing comes off and we get to see some acting. Otherwise, the only human moments seem to be the rare close-ups of the actors -- usually Marion in some immense pearl-studded miter -- lending more of an air of a tableau vivante, or even a good waxworks than a fillum.

I know that there is a large contingent of fans who will enjoy this movie just for those things which seem to me a distraction from good story-telling. These are the matters of likes and dislikes that we shrug our shoulders at. It doesn't lessen the amount of work and, indeed, the achievement of the restoration. The amount of labor and cooperation make it clear that, yes, we fans of these old movies can achieve something worthwhile. I can only hope that those of us who like this sort of thing will like it very much, and we can do more of these. Anyone for Dorothy Gish?

Knights in Flowery Dresses is a masterfully costumed and filmed romp through the Court of the Crimson King. But it proves that as far back as 1922 William Randolph Hearst was spending lavish amounts of money trying to prove to the world Marion Davies could act.

Don't get me wrong. Davies was a gifted physical comic actress and mimic. When she's allowed to display those talents in movies, the movies are hugely entertaining. When Daddy Warbucks puts her in costume dramas, her complete lack of talent as a dramatic actor shines through.

I mean, if this is a drama, Davies doesn't act like she's in one. And if it's a comedy it's very unfunny. I know for sure it's not an epic because it barely leaves the castle.

Although the set design is elaborate and expensive, the film failed to hold my interest. Except for King Henry VIII's eyes, which appear to be made of chunks of coal. Very creepy.

What can be said about at the time the most expensive movie ever made with cost an estimated at $1.8 million. The pet project of the famous media magnate William Hearst, it is the tale of a woman, sister who defies all royal conventions, especially one; she falls in love with a commoner - Knight Charles Brandon - while bethrothed not of her choice, of course, to King louis XII of France. Action ensues as the forces of tradition conspire to keep them apart. The sets are very good and Marion davies is extremely good. When I watch a silent movie and I wish to hear what the actor is saying, then the performance is classic. Everyone else is adequate and passable. The director who isn't very good throws in a lot of gothic subtext and an unusual editing style of what I'll term "flash cutting" is used. Cinematography is especially wonderful. Deeper meanings or detailing beyond the obvious social strata innuities and foresight castigations of a by-gone era, is pitifully missing. Entertaining yes, action-packed - agreed but a bit quaint, unlike Robin Hood released around the same time but which holds up much better. (It alsao looks as if it cost more; it did not). But Garbo, Shearer and Dietrich did this too and theirs are better. Worth watching but watch out for sappiness in many moments. Just as a note, this movie was the biggest hit of the 1922-23 movie season, ahead of Robin Hood and Safety last.

This 1922 production (now restored) was at the time the most expensive picture ever made. It was also a major box-office hit. Marion Davies plays Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII and intended bride of old Louis of France. But she's in love with the dashing Charles Brandon (Forrest Stanley). After Brandon is framed for murder, Mary agrees to bargain with Henry: he'll spare Brandon's life if she willingly marries old Louis. She counters that she will agree if she can choose her second husband. Henry agrees.

Mary goes off to France to marry old Louis (William Norris) but his nephew and heir (William Powell) has designs on beautiful Mary. After old Louis dies, the nephew pounces on Mary, but she escapes with Brandon's help in a race across France with an army in pursuit.

The breathtaking restoration on this film, with the original tinting scheme and digital hand-coloring restored, is a great achievement, one that lets us view this film as it was seen in 1922. The fabulous sets by Joseph Urban and costumes by Gretl Urban Thurlow make for a sumptuous film experience that enhances the exciting story of medieval court intrigue.

Marion Davies is nothing short of superb as Mary Tudor. She is willful, impetuous, determined, and throws herself into the role of the princess who, at one point, masquerades as a boy in an attempt to escape the English court of Henry. Forrest Stanley is a suitable Brandon, Lyn Harding is impressive as Henry. William Norris is terrific as old Louis. William Powell is appropriately oily as the king's nephew. Johnny Dooley plays the court jester who has an important scene.

Others include Ruth Shepley as Jane, Theresa Maxwell Conover as Queen Catherine, Flora Finch as a lady of the French court, Ernest Glendinning as Caskoden, Pedro de Cordoba as Buckingham, Arthur Forrest as Wolsey, Gustv von Seyffertitz as the soothsayer, Paul Panzer as captain of the guards, and William Kent as the court tailor. Nicely directed by Robert Vignola.

This is first and foremost a Marion Davies film, and she is spectacular. This new restoration (July 2107) is a must-see film for all fans of Davies in particular and silent films in general.

Mary Tudor (Marion Davies), younger sister of King Henry VIII, as was the custom of the day for noblewomen, is to have an arranged marriage with a king in a foreign land to help cement alliances with England. But Mary falls in love with the captain of the king's guard, Charles Brandon. Ultimately she is pledged to old King Louis of France. She and Brandon escape with Mary disguised as a boy with the king and his men in hot pursuit - William Randolph Hearst liked Marion dressed as a boy and that is likely why this part is even in the film. Will they ever be together or will statecraft win the day? Watch and find out.

It sags dreadfully in the middle, and then near the end picks up the pace with a rousing and even humorous conclusion. It is reported to be the most expensive film made to date the time, and they get the period costumes just right. And although the story is close to historically correct, King Henry VIII is portrayed as he looked in a portrait by Hans Holbein that was painted in 1536 when Henry was 45 and obese. He was in fact only five years older than his sister Mary, but then audiences would likely not recognize or accept a slender and athletic young Henry VIII as he looked at the time this story takes place.

This was William Powell's second film appearance, and he turned out to be a very effective and menacing villain. And that's with me knowing what a warm and charming voice that he had, so I can just imagine how he impacted audiences of the day. Strangely enough this was both William Powell's and Gustav von Seyffertitz's next film after 1922's Sherlock Holmes.