Raffles

Thus went the conversation between Ronald Colman's Raffles and the rich but vast and ageing Lady Melrose after he had courteously escorted her to her bedroom and the two hovered either side of the open door. The lady's expression, which went from bright expectation to annoyed disappointment, left no doubt what was happening. This was pre-Hayes Code and both here and elsewhere it was very obvious. Also the question of Raffle's morality. In the book, Raffles does give some kind of justification for his thieving - "the richly immoral robbing the immorally rich". He also never befriends soon to become victims. Here Colman blithely disregards all of this. The 1939 almost scene for scene word for word remake with David Niven was entirely cleaned up - but weaker and more colourless for it.

I'm a great fan of the Raffles books. E W Hornung the author was not so well known as his brother in law, Arthur Conan-Doyle but was though alround a better writer. This film is engaging and quite exciting, brings together parts from different stories and the result is entertaining but in terms of story, thin and slap-dash. The adaptation is dominated by the requirement to continue/assist Ronald Colman's highly bankable screen persona as an elegant, humorous, charming pleaser of ladies.(Raffles in the book is too dedicated to be humorous or charming unless necessary in pursuit of crime). Here Raffles love interest, Kay Francis, is very passionate, unlimited in her devotion to him. Of the two other central characters, companion in crime "Bunny" Manders is reduced to an irrelevance. Curiously the third character in the trio - McKenzie, the "Scotch" detective - alone is the all-time definitive rendering of the character in the book - Raffles' feared Nemesis: dogged, doughty and determined. Indeed the adaptation gives him equal billing with his quarry. It's a joy to watch a character from the books so vividly and truthfully brought to life. Clearly whoever did the adaptation was more interested in and relished McKenzie more than the other two.

All in all, a good entertainment.

"Raffles" was produced by Sam Goldwyn and photographed by Greg Toland, the genius who was to help create "Citizen Kane" eleven years after this.

Raffles the English gentleman has a discreet sideline as a burglar and jewel thief. The press has dubbed him 'The Amateur Cracksman', and as such he has become a household name. Now that he has fallen in love with the sophisticated Gwen (Kay Francis) and proposed marriage to her, Raffles has decided to retire from crime. However, his old pal Bunny is in a spot of bother. Bunny has been playing cards again, and has run up a gambling debt of £1,000. If Bunny is to be rescued from his predicament, Raffles will have to take on the Melrose 'job' ...

Ronald Coleman gives us his trademark suave Englishman in the title role. We see him burgling a jeweller's shop wearing a top hat (note the excellent Toland touch of the policeman silhouetted against the window drape). Our first real glimpse of the hero comes on the dance floor as he sweeps Gwen around in a romantic waltz. On the cricket field at Lord Melrose's place, Raffles is of course dashing, and wins the game (even though he was not supposed to be playing - he invited himself along for the weekend at the last minute). Even when Inspector Mackenzie has him on the ropes, Raffles remains the epitome of poise and wit.

"All bubbles and froth - no taste," says Lord Melrose, giving his verdict on champagne. It is a reasonable comment on the film itself, which for all its pretensions to style is basically an inelaborate crime flick. We have the 'two Englands' crudely juxtaposed - one urban and ugly (the cloth-capped burglars from the pub, the 'pea soup' fog in London) and the other bucolic and 'refayned' (Lady Melrose's soiree). The film takes it for granted that the lower classes are unpleasant.

However, there are good things in this movie. The cricket match is fun, and tolerably well done, though Raffles' bowling action is highly dubious and the umpire's position would make lbw decisions interesting to say the least. The skylight scene on Raffles' apartment roof is an arresting image.

There is also a large portion of baloney. Does Scotland Yard protect country houses against burglary? Is this best done by surrounding them with a dozen detectives throughout the night? Why don't these detectives catch the various burglars who enter the premises? If closing the sash window is enough to stop the burglar alarm from ringing, then it isn't much of a burglar alarm. The 'common' burglars crouch in the shrubbery and talk aloud, spelling out their plans in pedantic detail, conveniently allowing Raffles to overhear. Is it not slightly more probable that they would have worked out what to do before entering the property?

The film ends in a flurry of increasingly silly activity. Blatant undercranking of the camera makes Raffles' escape dash look ridiculous, and his place of concealment is laughable.

Verdict - An enjoyable crime caper with absurd elements.

The early Goldwyn Colman films had a lovely atmosphere all of their own. Just learning to cope with sound they exhibit an echoey creaky staginess which in turns is charming and irritating when watching a romantic adventure/mystery. Every action was pointed and often laboured with the handed down techniques from silent days, meaning once seen you seldom forget it. It's the same with Raffles, a ridiculous script if there was one (heavily mucked about with from the book) but if you don't see it for 20 years you'd probably remember every act and scene.

Raffles has been a reformed ex-Cracksman for a few hours but finds he suddenly has to help his limp friend Bunny repay £1000 within 2 days and he only knows one way to get it. An invite to Lady Melrose's country house for cricket and a garden party of hundreds provides him with the chance – and also a gang of six ineffectual Cockney burglars who skulk around in the dark loudly laying their plans. The scene where the burglar is caught and venomously points out Raffles on the stairs is pivotal to the film but it never recovers from the clumsy handling of it – did Colman know what to say at that point? Colman was great in the role, his clipped accent and perfect diction usually used to good effect. Good support was from Kay Francis who played his understanding girlfriend although she didn't get to say Divine, and David Torrence the chunky and heavily cloaked Scotland Yard Inspector. Favourite bit: the torchlit confrontation between Raffles and Crawshay in the bedroom at midnight.

Simple old fashioned entertainment - I stick it on every few years without fail because with all its faults I like this one.

Ronald Colman is "Raffles," a gentleman burglar who wants to retire but can only manage to do it for a couple of hours. Colman's costar is Kay Francis as Raffles' lady friend Gwen, and Bramwell Fletcher plays Bunny, a young man Raffles wants to help.

In the 1939 version, maybe because of the code, Raffles is a Robin Hood type who robs for the excitement and fun of it but then helps someone in need with the money or returns the merchandise. In this version, he steals, period, and in fact presents Gwen with a bracelet from one of his crimes. This film skips the whole beginning of the '39 film showing Raffles' acts of kindness, but the rest of the story is the same. Raffles decides to retire and start life anew with Gwen, but his friend Bunny shows up with a gambling problem and needs to cover a 1000 pound check by Monday. Raffles, alas, needs to do one more job.

Ronald Colman is delightful as Raffles, dashing, charming, and handsome as he cleverly attempts to escape the clutches of Scotland Yard. It's a wonderful role for him, as it was for David Niven in 1939. Kay Francis is wasted but is a good match for Coleman.

Fun film with a fine performance by Colman.

A. J. Raffles, "the amateur cracksman," was a fictional English gentleman safecracker invented by E. W. Hornung in a series of stories beginning in 1898 as a sort of mirror image of Sherlock Holmes. Like Holmes, Raffles is a suave, upper-class intellectual involved with the underworld, but Raffles's involvement is on the wrong side of the law: he supports his upper-class lifestyle by his career as a jewellry thief.

The Raffles stories were extremely popular and have been the subject of many film, theater, and television treatments. One of the best of these is this 1930, very early talkie starring cinema's quintessential English gentleman, Ronald Coleman. It's really quite a good film for its time, with an intelligent script, generally good acting (especially by Coleman and character actor Frederick Kerr, better known as Baron Frankenstein in James Whale's famous 1931 treatment of the monster story, who steals every scene he is in as a grouchy English lord.) Co-cinematographer Gregg Toland, who later worked on many Hollywood classics, is presumably responsible for the film's noirish, atmospheric lighting effects.

All in all, I'd say this entertaining film will still be enjoyed by today's audiences, and is a must see for fans of Coleman.