When Knighthood Was in Flower

Marion Davies brings a sense of fun and adventure to the role of Mary Tudor, the younger sister of Henry VIII, who was forced into marrying the ageing French King Louis XII. The entertaining plot revolves around her attempts to avoid the marriage and elope with dashing officer Charles Brandon (Forrest Stanley).. A big hit when it was released - and also the most expensive movie ever made for a while - it is undeservedly overlooked today.

Although he is not remembered to-day for anything else but this production, Robert G. Vignola directed no less than 99 movies, starting way back in 1911 and continuing through to 1937. A look at "The Scarlet Letter" (1934) confirms the impression that he learnt his craft back in 1911 and stuck with it. Throughout the entire length of "When Knighthood", Mr Vignola does not move his camera so much as a single half-inch. Were it not for his fondness of editing constantly from a group shot to a tight two-shot, the whole movie is otherwise presented as if it were a stage play. Nonetheless, he does maintain the pace of his tale with admirable dexterity. I was amazed to find that I'd been glued to the screen for well over two and half hours. I thought I'd been watching the action for no more than 90 minutes.

Of course the overwhelming richness of the production, tight plotting that most effectively builds up to two separate climaxes, plus spellbinding acting (particularly from Miss Davies herself, Lyn Harding, William Norris and William Powell) all contributed to the movie's appeal. On the other hand, I thought Forrest Stanley made a rather dull hero; and the fact that he and Ernest Glendinning who played his friend, Caskoden, were virtually interchangeable look-a-likes did not help.

All told, however, this is a thrilling, engrossing and visually appealing production, and I can't wait until it's released on DVD with an appropriate music score.

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.

Mary Tudor (Marion Davies) falls in love with Charles Brandon but is forced for political reasons by elder brother Henry VIII to marry the old and decrepit King Louis XII of France.

Nice, big budget sets and costumes, but Marion Davies seems the wrong actor for her role. As swashbucklers go, rather tame.

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?