The Affairs of Cellini

Stumbling across a neat little 80-minute gem like 1934's The Affairs of Cellini is reason enough to lease satellite TV (or a really good cable service, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one). Viewing it almost nearly 70 years after its premiere allows even the neophyte cineaste a neat precis of the progress (or lack of same) that film has made since then, plus primers in ace character acting and deft characterization by the writers.

The film centers on 16th-century Florence, a hotbed of wealth and intrigue run by a family you might of heard of (the Medicis), and one of its leading artisans, the goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini. Cellini (about whom Hector Berlioz wrote an opera and numerous poems and stories have been penned) is sort of a hybrid of Robin Hood and the Scarlet Pimpernel, with a dash of Don Juan thrown in for fun. Played by the very young, unabashedly gorgeous and surprisingly athletic Fredric March (seen many years later in such classics as Inherit the Wind, The Bridges at Toko-Ri and The Best Years of Our Lives), Cellini's a stiffnecked anti-aristocrat that the Duke of Florence (played hilariously by The Wizard of Oz himself, Frank Morgan) and his lethal-seductress wife (Fox's big star of the mid-'30s, Constance Bennett) can't seem to do without, so skilled at goldsmithing and seduction is he.

Toss in Fay Wray (the year after making Kong go ape), Fox stalwart Louis Calhern in the Basil Rathbone role and the VERY young Lucille Ball in a supporting role, oodles of classic B&W cinematography, snappy directorial pace (by Fox veteran Gregory La Cava) and quasi-operatic sets and decoration, and you've got the kind of lunchtime matinee that 24-hour classic movie channels like Turner Classic and Fox Movies (where this can be seen at least twice a month) were meant to provide.

Gregory La Cava is one of Hollywood's great directors, but this isn't up to his standard, despite a good cast. Though supposedly a comedy of manners, it's really a swashbuckler with hardly any swash. Morgan, a milquetoast king though he tries to act ferocious, overdoes his "well I don't...ahem...do you really...oh well, I..." routine. Fay Wray is best as an artist's model. She's sexy, yet so dumb she hasn't the imagination for romance. At one point, when the other characters are trying to get her to take part in an elaborate charade to make someone think that someone is not someone's lover, she says, "Oh, this is so silly." One of the few really funny lines, and, sadly, all too true.

I had intended checking this out in conjunction with Riccardo Freda's THE MAGNIFICENT ADVENTURER (1963), involving the same historical figure, as part of a previous Easter marathon (it being the very first entry for the current year); actually, I now watched it on the birthday of director LaCava, but also as a supplement to my Oscar season viewing (the film was up for four Academy Awards)!

I had been wary of getting to it during a period when I tend to watch large-scale movies due to its being labeled a bedroom romp, albeit in costume; as such, this factor was more than proved right – but, at least, a full-on sword-wielding brawl (apart from other swashbuckling feats that are mentioned but left to the viewer's imagination) does come into play in the first act! Anyway, the picture is stylish, witty and starrily cast: Fredric March (in one of his few efforts in this vein, but to which his intrinsically stagy acting is well suited) incarnates the philandering goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini, Constance Bennett (who has her eyes on the hero!) and Frank Morgan are the Duchess and (henpecked) Duke of Florence, Fay Wray the protagonist's latest conquest (whom Morgan also romantically pursues!) and Louis Calhern appears as the court's inevitably scheming adviser. Morgan, typically the befuddled supplier of comedy relief but giving an undeniably splendid performance, was one of the Oscar nominees here: however, since the Supporting Actor category had not yet been incorporated into the ceremony, his was considered a leading role…which ties in somewhat with the fact that, despite the title, it is Bennett who receives top billing here! The other nods were for Charles Rosher's cinematography, Richard Day's art direction and the sound recording.

It was certainly interesting to watch a period rendition of a Lubitsch- type sophisticated comedy; yet, in this way, the end result falls rather between two stools: the pace is decidedly slow (despite its trim 79- minute duration) for what ordinarily would be played as breakneck farce, whereas it gives little insight into what ultimately made Cellini's name (choosing instead to depict him as a wily roguish sort in the Don Juan mould – pardon the pun)! The finale, though, is pure "Pre-Code" – with the Florentine rulers installing their respective lovers in different palaces they officially use for a particular time of year!

Because this movie starred Fredric March, I was sure to see it. However, after seeing it, I can't exactly say it's a must-see film...or that I even liked it. It's not that it's a bad movie, but it's not all that great, either.

March plays the title character--a man who was a goldsmith for the Medicis in Renaissance Italy. Through much of the film, Cellini spends his time chasing women and killing people in sword fights (wow...Freud would have had a field day if he'd ever met a guy like this). It's all very well acted yet stilted because it's essentially a costume drama--the sort of films I don't particularly like--though I am a huge fan of classic Hollywood. My problem with this film and others like it is that so much energy and time and money is spend on sets and costumes that the rest of the film usually suffers. The only real plus for the film is the nice and jovial performance by Frank Morgan--he was a lot of fun and quite in his element. Otherwise, it's just another costumer combined with a light comedic/romantic touch--the sort of film Errol Flynn or John Barrymore (during the silent era) would have excelled at if they'd been given such a role.

As for me, I never got into the film very much as it seemed like a silly sort of trifle of a film, but also could see it was a quality production. Perhaps there were just too many knowing glances between Constance Bennett and March to make this a particularly rewarding film to watch.

Constance Bennett was born to play a Medici. Her combination of hauteur and ooh-la-la makes this role a perfect fit. Frank Morgan, as her dithering husband, is amusing but less plausible.

Fredric March, as the title character, is good. He was always good. Possibly not the heartthrob he needs to be, he is nevertheless both cocky and handsome. Fay Wray is excellent as a commoner whose tastes are too prosaic for the dastardly lover Cellini. She looks beautiful (as does Bennett.) This is certainly atypical Gregory La Cava. It is probably not very accurate historically. But as costume pieces go, it's very compelling. A few years later, another studio made one that is more famous. That was "Marie Antoinette." It was better researched and is still somewhat well known. But it is really dull.

The costumes here are gorgeous. Now and then the music is appropriate to the time. A theme that seems distinctly 19th Century Romantic runs through, though.

The supporting cast is up to the task. It's hard to imagine what people sitting down in a theater in 1934 made of this. Bennett was still a big star so maybe they were happy to see her. It's an oddity, no doubt about it. But it's very good.