I have recently viewed this classic fantasy on DVD in a near-immaculate print. It stands the test of time quite well.
The screenplay (by Miles Malleson) is pleasingly literate. It captures the heightened romantic tone of myth surprisingly well, but does have its drawbacks.
The structure is very awkward. The whole first half of the narrative is a flashback, but the remaining 55 minutes is told in real time. I am not sure why it was written this way. Usually, flashbacks are used to avoid long expository dialogue scenes, or else to tell the whole story retrospectively within a framing device. This is neither one thing nor the other and feels a bit clunky.
I also feel it is short on physical action at times. For example, the movie cuts from the revelation that Abu has stolen the key to the prison cell to a scene of him and Ahmed in a boat, so that the actual escape is not shown. Similarly, Ahmed's fight with Jafar's guards and the final overthrow of his tyranny are both a bit perfunctory. The picture as a whole is inclined to be too talky: there is a tendency for people to gather in groups in wide angle shots and make speeches at each other.
The production design is generally good, with a fairy tale ambiance that seems about right for the story. My only reservation is that many of the interiors look like large stage sets and don't cut that well into the back lot exteriors and the location shots. While this is very noticeable, it is only a quibble and I doubt if it would interfere with anybody's overall enjoyment of the picture.
The special effects were not particularly special, even for 1940. They won an Oscar, but I suspect this was for their sheer number rather than their quality. The genie emerging from the bottle is effective, but the model of the flying genie needed some articulation to give it even a veneer of credibility. The full scale prop of his foot is never convincing, but is good fun anyway. There are highly visible matt lines throughout. The wires supporting the flying carpet are also very conspicuous.
The performances are variable. They range from excellent (Conrad Veidt) to merely serviceable (John Justin and June Duprez). Sabu was clearly no actor, but his performance is energetic and winning. His limitations only really show when he is required to laugh: which he does a lot. Like many non-actors, he has trouble fabricating a convincing laugh and this aspect of his performance does tend to grate on the ear somewhat. Miles Malleson is just Miles Malleson. He gave pretty much the same performance in every film he ever made, but it is usually enjoyable and that is the case here.
Despite all these reservations, in the final analysis, it doesn't matter how you choose to analyse the parts. All that really matters is whether the movie as a whole manages to engage and delight. It does.
Viewed nearly 70 years after it was made, Thief of Bagdad is not just an interesting museum piece. It is a fun way to spend 100 minutes of your time and is well worth the trouble of checking out.
The screenplay (by Miles Malleson) is pleasingly literate. It captures the heightened romantic tone of myth surprisingly well, but does have its drawbacks.
The structure is very awkward. The whole first half of the narrative is a flashback, but the remaining 55 minutes is told in real time. I am not sure why it was written this way. Usually, flashbacks are used to avoid long expository dialogue scenes, or else to tell the whole story retrospectively within a framing device. This is neither one thing nor the other and feels a bit clunky.
I also feel it is short on physical action at times. For example, the movie cuts from the revelation that Abu has stolen the key to the prison cell to a scene of him and Ahmed in a boat, so that the actual escape is not shown. Similarly, Ahmed's fight with Jafar's guards and the final overthrow of his tyranny are both a bit perfunctory. The picture as a whole is inclined to be too talky: there is a tendency for people to gather in groups in wide angle shots and make speeches at each other.
The production design is generally good, with a fairy tale ambiance that seems about right for the story. My only reservation is that many of the interiors look like large stage sets and don't cut that well into the back lot exteriors and the location shots. While this is very noticeable, it is only a quibble and I doubt if it would interfere with anybody's overall enjoyment of the picture.
The special effects were not particularly special, even for 1940. They won an Oscar, but I suspect this was for their sheer number rather than their quality. The genie emerging from the bottle is effective, but the model of the flying genie needed some articulation to give it even a veneer of credibility. The full scale prop of his foot is never convincing, but is good fun anyway. There are highly visible matt lines throughout. The wires supporting the flying carpet are also very conspicuous.
The performances are variable. They range from excellent (Conrad Veidt) to merely serviceable (John Justin and June Duprez). Sabu was clearly no actor, but his performance is energetic and winning. His limitations only really show when he is required to laugh: which he does a lot. Like many non-actors, he has trouble fabricating a convincing laugh and this aspect of his performance does tend to grate on the ear somewhat. Miles Malleson is just Miles Malleson. He gave pretty much the same performance in every film he ever made, but it is usually enjoyable and that is the case here.
Despite all these reservations, in the final analysis, it doesn't matter how you choose to analyse the parts. All that really matters is whether the movie as a whole manages to engage and delight. It does.
Viewed nearly 70 years after it was made, Thief of Bagdad is not just an interesting museum piece. It is a fun way to spend 100 minutes of your time and is well worth the trouble of checking out.