This movie is like certain kinds of early nineteenth-century Italian opera: it's all about providing a showcase for the artistry of the leads, rather than the depth of the plot, and about the last-act finale.
After a long and distinguished career on the stage, Arliss was in his 60s by the time he made this movie, almost twice Hamilton's age at this point in his career. In that sense, he was completely "wrong" for the part. But who cared? The function of the movie was, in part, to give him a chance to display to a movie audience the acting talent that had made him so famous in the theater for so long. And that he does. Everything revolves around him. You may not like his acting - it seems very old-fashioned today - but you can't deny that he is acting.
And then there is the finale, when Hamilton sacrifices his own domestic happiness for the good of the fledgling nation, revealing his dalliance with another woman to the public rather than let false accusations destroy his attempt to establish the credit of the United States on the world market. Filmed in 1931, when the U.S. was at the bottom of the Depression, the moral was very clear: politicians had to sacrifice themselves and their parties to the nation so that the nation could survive. Arliss' last speech promises that if you do so, there will be prosperity ahead. Though it's a year early, he could be mistaken for FDR.
No, this movie is not historically accurate. It was not trying to be a PBS documentary. It was designed to showcase Arliss' acting talent, and to teach the nation a political lesson. It certainly did the former. To what extent it succeeded in doing the latter depends on how you read Congressional history for the next ten years.
After a long and distinguished career on the stage, Arliss was in his 60s by the time he made this movie, almost twice Hamilton's age at this point in his career. In that sense, he was completely "wrong" for the part. But who cared? The function of the movie was, in part, to give him a chance to display to a movie audience the acting talent that had made him so famous in the theater for so long. And that he does. Everything revolves around him. You may not like his acting - it seems very old-fashioned today - but you can't deny that he is acting.
And then there is the finale, when Hamilton sacrifices his own domestic happiness for the good of the fledgling nation, revealing his dalliance with another woman to the public rather than let false accusations destroy his attempt to establish the credit of the United States on the world market. Filmed in 1931, when the U.S. was at the bottom of the Depression, the moral was very clear: politicians had to sacrifice themselves and their parties to the nation so that the nation could survive. Arliss' last speech promises that if you do so, there will be prosperity ahead. Though it's a year early, he could be mistaken for FDR.
No, this movie is not historically accurate. It was not trying to be a PBS documentary. It was designed to showcase Arliss' acting talent, and to teach the nation a political lesson. It certainly did the former. To what extent it succeeded in doing the latter depends on how you read Congressional history for the next ten years.