George Arliss played several "great men of history" during the early sound era, Alexander Hamilton being among them. While he is in no way credible when portraying the sexually-charged element of the man (to start, he's neither young nor handsome), he channels the appropriate charisma and intelligence. The film is a pretty standard biopic, but Arliss is good.
10 Reviews
Operatically theatrical
richard-178712 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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.
Intriguing political drama with Arliss as Hamilton
tabacblond27 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1931) (Warner Bros.) (70 minutes)
This was the fifth sound film that Arliss made for Warner Bros. At the height of his prestige, having won the third bestowed Best Actor Oscar two years prior.
It is an adaptation of a stage play he had co-written and starred in. It did not have a long run, about ten weeks, but his characterization was highly praised. Despite the fact he was twenty years too old to play Hamilton at this stage of his life, the make-up did render his facial skin flawless and the dark wig helped to create the illusion.
It is a romantic work, based on a peccadillo of his when his wife was abroad. Hamilton was known for his active libido. The point of the play is that he was duped and coerced into the liaison and that the blackmailed threat of exposure was a political maneuver to block the passing of his Assumption Bill (creating a federal bank, paying the soldiers of the Revolutionary War, and establishing credit for international commerce).
It is rather a one note plot, but as a political exercise in compromise, it is rather interesting. Most amusing is the scene where he maneuvers Madison and Jefferson into voting for his bill by reluctantly agreeing to vote for the country's capital to be on the Potomac, halfway between the North and the South - a plan of his own devising, but at that point, unknown to either of the future presidents pleading its cause.
Arliss is of course, flawless in his rendering of the character. Alan Mowbray with a false nose, appears as George Washington at the beginning and end of the film. His farewell to his troops in 1783, which opens the film, is very moving indeed.
After this brief prologue, the scene is set 8 years later, in 1791. Much turmoil exists around the treasury and the establishment of international credit. All the ex-soldiers want is to get paid, and they are of the peasant mind-set that they can't possibly see the big picture. Feeding themselves and their families is their only concern, and quite understandable it is.
Morgan Wallace as James Monroe and Montagu Love as Thomas Jefferson look nothing like their historical counterparts, but play their roles as both politicians and gentlemen adequately. Gwendolyn Logan has a brief scene as Martha Washington, a character I don't recall ever having seen impersonated in a Hollywood film.
This is not a great film by any means, but it is an interesting one, and its significance in being filmed during the Great Depression, with hope for economic stability, is pointed. Anyone interested in our revolutionary days and the beginnings of our nation will be intrigued.
This was the fifth sound film that Arliss made for Warner Bros. At the height of his prestige, having won the third bestowed Best Actor Oscar two years prior.
It is an adaptation of a stage play he had co-written and starred in. It did not have a long run, about ten weeks, but his characterization was highly praised. Despite the fact he was twenty years too old to play Hamilton at this stage of his life, the make-up did render his facial skin flawless and the dark wig helped to create the illusion.
It is a romantic work, based on a peccadillo of his when his wife was abroad. Hamilton was known for his active libido. The point of the play is that he was duped and coerced into the liaison and that the blackmailed threat of exposure was a political maneuver to block the passing of his Assumption Bill (creating a federal bank, paying the soldiers of the Revolutionary War, and establishing credit for international commerce).
It is rather a one note plot, but as a political exercise in compromise, it is rather interesting. Most amusing is the scene where he maneuvers Madison and Jefferson into voting for his bill by reluctantly agreeing to vote for the country's capital to be on the Potomac, halfway between the North and the South - a plan of his own devising, but at that point, unknown to either of the future presidents pleading its cause.
Arliss is of course, flawless in his rendering of the character. Alan Mowbray with a false nose, appears as George Washington at the beginning and end of the film. His farewell to his troops in 1783, which opens the film, is very moving indeed.
After this brief prologue, the scene is set 8 years later, in 1791. Much turmoil exists around the treasury and the establishment of international credit. All the ex-soldiers want is to get paid, and they are of the peasant mind-set that they can't possibly see the big picture. Feeding themselves and their families is their only concern, and quite understandable it is.
Morgan Wallace as James Monroe and Montagu Love as Thomas Jefferson look nothing like their historical counterparts, but play their roles as both politicians and gentlemen adequately. Gwendolyn Logan has a brief scene as Martha Washington, a character I don't recall ever having seen impersonated in a Hollywood film.
This is not a great film by any means, but it is an interesting one, and its significance in being filmed during the Great Depression, with hope for economic stability, is pointed. Anyone interested in our revolutionary days and the beginnings of our nation will be intrigued.
Just A Lonely Guy, Set Up Cuz He Was Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places
bkoganbing2 October 2007
During the first years of sound, George Arliss was Warner Brothers featured answer to what Jack Warner saw as class films for the studio, biographical films. Later on Paul Muni fulfilled the same function.
One of the worst, maybe the worst of the ones he did was Alexander Hamilton. In this film we have the 63 year old Arliss playing the 30 something Hamilton in a play where his financial assumption plan and the eventual selection of a southern capital got interposed with America's first sex scandal, Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds.
Historians will be aghast at this screenplay, but even more aghast at the casting of Arliss as Hamilton, next to younger actors like Montagu Love as Thomas Jefferson and an even younger Alan Mowbray as George Washington.
After a brief prologue with Washington and Hamilton at the end of the Revolutionary War, where Hamilton expounds on his nationalist views, the action fast forwards to the early 1790s and the first Washington term as president. Arliss is trying to push his financial plan for the federal government to assume all state debts to put the new United States of America on a sound financial basis. Love and his supporters which include a completely fictional character, a Senator Timothy Roberts played by Duddley Digges, see the idea as a power grab. They want the capital relocated to somewhere in the southern states.
Digges wants more than that. He offers to swing votes Hamilton's way in order to get a plum ambassadorship to gay Paree, in the midst of its own revolutionary problems. Arliss is mortified by the offer and flat turns him down. Digges vows revenge.
The revenge comes in petticoats in the person of June Collyer as Maria Reynolds. Her husband, encourages the affair with Hamilton and then seeks to blackmail him. Of course Hamilton is vulnerable in this way because his dear wife Elizabeth has had to visit her sister Angelica in Paris. Elizabeth is played by Daisy Kenyon.
The only thing this travesty got right was Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton's total devotion to her man. Hamilton however never missed an opportunity for a long affair or quick roll in the hay in his life. Including that unseen sister Angelica who also at a different time was involved with Thomas Jefferson.
The worst thing about Alexander Hamilton however was the casting. Arliss was a co-author of the play this movie is based on and I'll bet it was a role he did on stage many times. The key here is that Hamilton had an active libido, but it was a young man's libido and that Washington was a father figure for him. Hamilton was of illegitimate birth and rose from poverty, a fact he never forgot. The last thing he was would have been a lonely guy pining for his wife who was away over the seas.
Hamilton was at times, brilliant, loyal, arrogant all in the same person. Not the wizened old fox we see. In real life Hamilton was 49 when he died years later in that duel with Aaron Burr. His assumption plan and the deal for the capital was struck much before the Reynolds affair.
A great deal is made of Hamilton's honesty and in financial matters he was scrupulously honest. In real life his choice of subordinates was not always the best. His first Under Secretary of the Treasury had to resign because he was caught speculating in those bond obligations Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume. It was the first insider trading scandal in American history. Hamilton took quite a few hits from that one also from Jefferson, etc.
A cast of classically trained players do a decent job in bringing this historical travesty to the screen. Make no mistake, you are NOT seeing anything resembling the real Alexander Hamilton though.
One of the worst, maybe the worst of the ones he did was Alexander Hamilton. In this film we have the 63 year old Arliss playing the 30 something Hamilton in a play where his financial assumption plan and the eventual selection of a southern capital got interposed with America's first sex scandal, Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds.
Historians will be aghast at this screenplay, but even more aghast at the casting of Arliss as Hamilton, next to younger actors like Montagu Love as Thomas Jefferson and an even younger Alan Mowbray as George Washington.
After a brief prologue with Washington and Hamilton at the end of the Revolutionary War, where Hamilton expounds on his nationalist views, the action fast forwards to the early 1790s and the first Washington term as president. Arliss is trying to push his financial plan for the federal government to assume all state debts to put the new United States of America on a sound financial basis. Love and his supporters which include a completely fictional character, a Senator Timothy Roberts played by Duddley Digges, see the idea as a power grab. They want the capital relocated to somewhere in the southern states.
Digges wants more than that. He offers to swing votes Hamilton's way in order to get a plum ambassadorship to gay Paree, in the midst of its own revolutionary problems. Arliss is mortified by the offer and flat turns him down. Digges vows revenge.
The revenge comes in petticoats in the person of June Collyer as Maria Reynolds. Her husband, encourages the affair with Hamilton and then seeks to blackmail him. Of course Hamilton is vulnerable in this way because his dear wife Elizabeth has had to visit her sister Angelica in Paris. Elizabeth is played by Daisy Kenyon.
The only thing this travesty got right was Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton's total devotion to her man. Hamilton however never missed an opportunity for a long affair or quick roll in the hay in his life. Including that unseen sister Angelica who also at a different time was involved with Thomas Jefferson.
The worst thing about Alexander Hamilton however was the casting. Arliss was a co-author of the play this movie is based on and I'll bet it was a role he did on stage many times. The key here is that Hamilton had an active libido, but it was a young man's libido and that Washington was a father figure for him. Hamilton was of illegitimate birth and rose from poverty, a fact he never forgot. The last thing he was would have been a lonely guy pining for his wife who was away over the seas.
Hamilton was at times, brilliant, loyal, arrogant all in the same person. Not the wizened old fox we see. In real life Hamilton was 49 when he died years later in that duel with Aaron Burr. His assumption plan and the deal for the capital was struck much before the Reynolds affair.
A great deal is made of Hamilton's honesty and in financial matters he was scrupulously honest. In real life his choice of subordinates was not always the best. His first Under Secretary of the Treasury had to resign because he was caught speculating in those bond obligations Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume. It was the first insider trading scandal in American history. Hamilton took quite a few hits from that one also from Jefferson, etc.
A cast of classically trained players do a decent job in bringing this historical travesty to the screen. Make no mistake, you are NOT seeing anything resembling the real Alexander Hamilton though.
Another vehicle for Arliss
drjgardner12 June 2016
Alexander Hamilton is a 1931 film written by and starring George Arliss and produced by Warner Bros in an attempt to match MGM's prestige films.
George Arliss (1868-1946) plays Hamilton. Arliss was a major star on the stage and in the silent and the early talkie period, with films like "Disraeli" (1921 and 1929) and "Voltaire" (1933). He won the Academy Award for "Disraeli" (1929) and was nominated again for "The Green Goddess" (1930). He seems strangely cast as young Hamilton given that Arliss was in his 60s playing a man in his 30s.
Note that Arliss was so well regarded by Warner Bros. his name is even larger than the title of the film.
Alan Mowbray (1896-1969) plays George Washington. He appeared in more than 140 films from 1931 to 1962. He had a recurring role in the "Topper" series and made memorable contributions to films such as "The King and I" (1956), "The Man who Knew Too Much" (1956), "My Darling Clementine" (1946) and "Wagon Master" (1950).
Montagu Love (1877-1943) plays Thomas Jefferson. Love was a major star in the silent and early talkie period, playing in more than 100 films. He's best known for supporting roles as the Bishop in "Robin Hood" (1938), Henry VIII in "Prince and the Pauper": (1937), and Zorro in "The Mask of Zorro" (1940).
The film is directed by John Adolfi (1888-1933) a silent film director who made several films with Arliss. The film shows its stage origins.
The film centers on where to locate the capital and how to finance the new government, as well as Hamilton's indiscretion. But much of the dynamism of Hamilton's life (his active libido, his relationship with Washington, his feud with Aaron Burr) are missing.
1931 was a great year for film. The top grossing films were "Frankenstein", "Cimarron", "Mata Hari", "City Lights", and "Dracula". The Oscars went to "Cimarron" (Picture), "The Champ" (Actor), and "Min and Bill" (Actress). Other notable films released that year include "M", "Public Enemy", "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde", and "Monkey Business". Any of these films hold up much better than this one.
George Arliss (1868-1946) plays Hamilton. Arliss was a major star on the stage and in the silent and the early talkie period, with films like "Disraeli" (1921 and 1929) and "Voltaire" (1933). He won the Academy Award for "Disraeli" (1929) and was nominated again for "The Green Goddess" (1930). He seems strangely cast as young Hamilton given that Arliss was in his 60s playing a man in his 30s.
Note that Arliss was so well regarded by Warner Bros. his name is even larger than the title of the film.
Alan Mowbray (1896-1969) plays George Washington. He appeared in more than 140 films from 1931 to 1962. He had a recurring role in the "Topper" series and made memorable contributions to films such as "The King and I" (1956), "The Man who Knew Too Much" (1956), "My Darling Clementine" (1946) and "Wagon Master" (1950).
Montagu Love (1877-1943) plays Thomas Jefferson. Love was a major star in the silent and early talkie period, playing in more than 100 films. He's best known for supporting roles as the Bishop in "Robin Hood" (1938), Henry VIII in "Prince and the Pauper": (1937), and Zorro in "The Mask of Zorro" (1940).
The film is directed by John Adolfi (1888-1933) a silent film director who made several films with Arliss. The film shows its stage origins.
The film centers on where to locate the capital and how to finance the new government, as well as Hamilton's indiscretion. But much of the dynamism of Hamilton's life (his active libido, his relationship with Washington, his feud with Aaron Burr) are missing.
1931 was a great year for film. The top grossing films were "Frankenstein", "Cimarron", "Mata Hari", "City Lights", and "Dracula". The Oscars went to "Cimarron" (Picture), "The Champ" (Actor), and "Min and Bill" (Actress). Other notable films released that year include "M", "Public Enemy", "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde", and "Monkey Business". Any of these films hold up much better than this one.
Creaky Hagiography
Cineanalyst4 July 2020
For otherwise inexplicable reasons lost to history, George Arliss had much success playing UK Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli afore, on stage and screen, including winning a Best Actor Oscar for the second time he played the role for cameras in 1929. His "Alexander Hamilton" is one of a few such apparently derivative biopics of great European or American white men based on that play's formula. As with Arliss's Disraeli, his Hamilton outwits his opponents to achieve one significant political goal while also balancing his sex life. Maybe some thought the purchase of the Suez Canal or the federal government assuming the debts of states romantic or sexy back in the late 20s and early 30s, but it certainly isn't cogent anymore. In addition to precluding any emotional appeal, this simplification of history reduces the picture to listless hagiography, and even its biographical broad strokes may be fictitious, if not downright insulting.
Of a more minor error, like the musical "Hamilton" (2020), which I watched the night before, it conflates the roles of James Madison and James Monroe, with this one favoring Monroe and the other Madison, into one character for both the Compromise of 1790 and the Reynolds scandal. Worse, this film largely portrays Monroe and Thomas Jefferson as nefarious political neophytes who, ultimately, remain honorable by promising secrecy to Hamilton's affair with Reynolds. Never mind that, really, they were the ones who spread rumors of the scandal to undermine Hamilton's political chances--all of which had nothing actually to do with the past assumption bill and more to do with the emerging party dynamics post the Washington administration. Moreover, the play invents a fictional character, a Senator Timothy Roberts, to be baddie in exposing the tabloid fodder.
Meanwhile, the married Maria Reynolds is depicted as a vamp complicit from the start in tricking and blackmailing Hamilton, which I suppose could be historically true to some extent, but it's also a dubious and convenient narrative trope. The picture doesn't dare explicitly admit Hamilton even had sex with her, while it also under-reports the sums of money extorted from the treasury secretary. I appreciate the ambiguity and economy, as to whether they copulate, of the fade to black when Hamilton walks up Reynolds's steps to retrieve his cloak, which may've seemed necessary even for a pre-code production. But, in fact, Hamilton admitted the affair, and it wasn't a one-night stand; it lasted months.
Historical inaccuracy is the least of the picture's problems, though. There's also a stereotypical black servant with all the aggravating "yessuhs" and the rest written by white men for how they think black people acted or spoke. A creaky early talkie, it's also a dully filmed play--albeit synchronized-sound technology and practices had improved somewhat in the intervening couple years between "Disraeli" and "Alexander Hamilton." There's even a non-diegetic score during one sequence, which is maudlin, but nonetheless unusual for early talkies. Of course, there's also a scene involving diegetic music, which involves Mrs. Hamilton singing and playing the piano--a common tactic of early sound films to incorporate bits of recorded music.
Anyways, having now seen three Arliss vehicles, I'm suspecting that he had a hand in selecting his co-stars based on them being so lousy as to not upstage him. Besides the performances for the aforementioned side characters, Doris Kenyon is particularly atrocious as a withering-flower sort of depiction of a wife. It's nauseating. Too bad, too, because I still have fond memories of her from the days before Hollywood, in Fort Lee, New Jersey, when she played ingénue in the meta-film "A Girl's Folly" (1917). Consequently, Arliss has an admittedly commanding screen presence, I suppose, but caricaturizations of these historical fuddy-duddys tends to be a bore and far less interesting than the historical figures appear to have been in better-composed historical records.
Of a more minor error, like the musical "Hamilton" (2020), which I watched the night before, it conflates the roles of James Madison and James Monroe, with this one favoring Monroe and the other Madison, into one character for both the Compromise of 1790 and the Reynolds scandal. Worse, this film largely portrays Monroe and Thomas Jefferson as nefarious political neophytes who, ultimately, remain honorable by promising secrecy to Hamilton's affair with Reynolds. Never mind that, really, they were the ones who spread rumors of the scandal to undermine Hamilton's political chances--all of which had nothing actually to do with the past assumption bill and more to do with the emerging party dynamics post the Washington administration. Moreover, the play invents a fictional character, a Senator Timothy Roberts, to be baddie in exposing the tabloid fodder.
Meanwhile, the married Maria Reynolds is depicted as a vamp complicit from the start in tricking and blackmailing Hamilton, which I suppose could be historically true to some extent, but it's also a dubious and convenient narrative trope. The picture doesn't dare explicitly admit Hamilton even had sex with her, while it also under-reports the sums of money extorted from the treasury secretary. I appreciate the ambiguity and economy, as to whether they copulate, of the fade to black when Hamilton walks up Reynolds's steps to retrieve his cloak, which may've seemed necessary even for a pre-code production. But, in fact, Hamilton admitted the affair, and it wasn't a one-night stand; it lasted months.
Historical inaccuracy is the least of the picture's problems, though. There's also a stereotypical black servant with all the aggravating "yessuhs" and the rest written by white men for how they think black people acted or spoke. A creaky early talkie, it's also a dully filmed play--albeit synchronized-sound technology and practices had improved somewhat in the intervening couple years between "Disraeli" and "Alexander Hamilton." There's even a non-diegetic score during one sequence, which is maudlin, but nonetheless unusual for early talkies. Of course, there's also a scene involving diegetic music, which involves Mrs. Hamilton singing and playing the piano--a common tactic of early sound films to incorporate bits of recorded music.
Anyways, having now seen three Arliss vehicles, I'm suspecting that he had a hand in selecting his co-stars based on them being so lousy as to not upstage him. Besides the performances for the aforementioned side characters, Doris Kenyon is particularly atrocious as a withering-flower sort of depiction of a wife. It's nauseating. Too bad, too, because I still have fond memories of her from the days before Hollywood, in Fort Lee, New Jersey, when she played ingénue in the meta-film "A Girl's Folly" (1917). Consequently, Arliss has an admittedly commanding screen presence, I suppose, but caricaturizations of these historical fuddy-duddys tends to be a bore and far less interesting than the historical figures appear to have been in better-composed historical records.
Another Excellent Historical Portrayal By Mr. George Arliss
Ron Oliver4 July 2000
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, the first Treasury Secretary of the new American Republic, strives mightily against tremendous odds, political & personal, to achieve his great goal: financial solidity & respect for the emerging nation. Just as his triumph seems assured, he is humiliated by a sex scandal engineered by his most powerful enemy in the Senate...
Let it be stated immediately that George Arliss should have been the worst possible actor to portray the title figure in this film. First, he was much too old (Hamilton was in his 30's at the time of the scandal; Arliss turned 63 in 1931). Also, the handsome Hamilton in no way resembled Arliss, who, quite frankly, looks like a death's-head.
But this is not supposed to be a physical reconstruction of the historical Hamilton, but rather a look into the heart & character of the fellow. In this, Arliss succeeds admirably, using his tremendous acting talents to both inform & entertain us. Truly, he was one of the great cinematic artists of his generation and it is a shame that he is all but forgotten today.
Although all centers around Arliss, the rest of the cast does well: Doris Kenyon & June Collyer as the very different women in Hamilton's life; Dudley Digges & Ralf Harolde as his enemies; Montague Love as Thomas Jefferson; and old Lionel Belmore, stealing a few scenes as Hamilton's corpulent father-in-law. Special mention should be made of Alan Mowbray, very effective as George Washington.
Non-political potential viewers who avoid this film risk missing a superb performance by one of the past masters.
Let it be stated immediately that George Arliss should have been the worst possible actor to portray the title figure in this film. First, he was much too old (Hamilton was in his 30's at the time of the scandal; Arliss turned 63 in 1931). Also, the handsome Hamilton in no way resembled Arliss, who, quite frankly, looks like a death's-head.
But this is not supposed to be a physical reconstruction of the historical Hamilton, but rather a look into the heart & character of the fellow. In this, Arliss succeeds admirably, using his tremendous acting talents to both inform & entertain us. Truly, he was one of the great cinematic artists of his generation and it is a shame that he is all but forgotten today.
Although all centers around Arliss, the rest of the cast does well: Doris Kenyon & June Collyer as the very different women in Hamilton's life; Dudley Digges & Ralf Harolde as his enemies; Montague Love as Thomas Jefferson; and old Lionel Belmore, stealing a few scenes as Hamilton's corpulent father-in-law. Special mention should be made of Alan Mowbray, very effective as George Washington.
Non-political potential viewers who avoid this film risk missing a superb performance by one of the past masters.
Those who stand for nothing fall for humbug., to paraphrase Hamilton.
mark.waltz17 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
With Arliss playing historical characters, you always feel that he thinks he's the smartest person in the room. I felt that recently while watching him as Cardinal Richileu, and that's very apparent playing the much younger Hamilton. When he makes a comment to his father-in-law, you can see the subtle wink he's giving to the audience that he knows his casting of the philandering father of the treasury is complete balderdash, yet there he is playing the same role as Lin Manuel Miranda, another joke in that otherwise, these two men would never be mentioned in the same sentence.
An Alexander Hamilton biography without Aaron Burr present is like an Abraham Lincoln bio without John Wilkes Booth. Dudley Digges comes close as his biggest political rival, a fictional character. Other historical characters of the time are present with Alan Mowbray a very noble George Washington, Montagu Love as Thomas Jefferson and Morgan Wallace as James Monroe. The age difference between Arliss and Doris Kenyon (wife Betsy Hamilton) is outrageously noticeable.
As Hamilton's well dressed valet Zekial, John Larkin is dignified but perhaps a bit too stereotypical as a shuffling servant, devoted but basically absent of his own identity. This isn't something I'd recommend for a historical perspective, but it's not without its purpose giving proper attention to the struggles of a new nation and the realization that even in a common cause, there would be in-fighting without the possibility of resolving those differences. June Collyer, as the "other woman", provides the drama, but it's pretty inconsequential to the political intrigue that this should have focused on.
An Alexander Hamilton biography without Aaron Burr present is like an Abraham Lincoln bio without John Wilkes Booth. Dudley Digges comes close as his biggest political rival, a fictional character. Other historical characters of the time are present with Alan Mowbray a very noble George Washington, Montagu Love as Thomas Jefferson and Morgan Wallace as James Monroe. The age difference between Arliss and Doris Kenyon (wife Betsy Hamilton) is outrageously noticeable.
As Hamilton's well dressed valet Zekial, John Larkin is dignified but perhaps a bit too stereotypical as a shuffling servant, devoted but basically absent of his own identity. This isn't something I'd recommend for a historical perspective, but it's not without its purpose giving proper attention to the struggles of a new nation and the realization that even in a common cause, there would be in-fighting without the possibility of resolving those differences. June Collyer, as the "other woman", provides the drama, but it's pretty inconsequential to the political intrigue that this should have focused on.
There Was Captain Washington Upon A Slapping Stallion
boblipton8 April 2023
As Alexander Hamilton, Mr. George Arliss struggles to keep the Treasury of the new-founded United States clean and honest. He also outwits the greatest minds of the era to have his Assumption Bill passed, which will establish the credit of the nation. In these efforts he is opposed by Dudley Digges, who will stick at naught in his efforts to stop it for happening because.... ah, because..... well, because he is the villain of the piece. Boo! Hiss!
This is the weakest of Arliss's movies, and I found it rather dull. Students of our history and fans of Lin-Manuel Miranda may understand what the fuss is about. Anyone coming fresh to this movie will find it as much a mystery as the reasons for those who oppose it -- "It is against our principles" says one character. What those principles are is never mentioned. Perhaps it's a deep-seated belief that anyone fool enough to lend you money should never get paid. Likewise, those who enjoy Arliss' historical turns because of his sly wit and good humor will be disappointed. Instead,we are subjected to speeches, from Alan Mowbray bidding the troops farewell, to Arliss' curtain speech on finding they've passed the bill. It is then we recall that Arliss was a 19th-century actor, a period when declaiming your love of mother at the top of your lungs was much admired. Arliss doesn't rattle the rafters, but the thinking man or woman will be left befuddled at the lack of linkages. The 'oi polloi will cheer at the playing of "Yankee Doodle." With Doris Kenyon, June Collyer, Montagu Love, and Lionel Belmore.
This is the weakest of Arliss's movies, and I found it rather dull. Students of our history and fans of Lin-Manuel Miranda may understand what the fuss is about. Anyone coming fresh to this movie will find it as much a mystery as the reasons for those who oppose it -- "It is against our principles" says one character. What those principles are is never mentioned. Perhaps it's a deep-seated belief that anyone fool enough to lend you money should never get paid. Likewise, those who enjoy Arliss' historical turns because of his sly wit and good humor will be disappointed. Instead,we are subjected to speeches, from Alan Mowbray bidding the troops farewell, to Arliss' curtain speech on finding they've passed the bill. It is then we recall that Arliss was a 19th-century actor, a period when declaiming your love of mother at the top of your lungs was much admired. Arliss doesn't rattle the rafters, but the thinking man or woman will be left befuddled at the lack of linkages. The 'oi polloi will cheer at the playing of "Yankee Doodle." With Doris Kenyon, June Collyer, Montagu Love, and Lionel Belmore.
weird and wonderful--a must for history buffs
alanjj3 November 2004
This movie features an Alexander Hamilton who looks like (and is as lovable as) game show host Gene Rayburn, of the Match Game. Even though we now know that Hamilton was a knowing and frequent philanderer, this movie sets him up as a victim, who would never have strayed had he not been the victim of a plot by his enemies. The conceit of making up a "Senator Roberts" who sets up the plot to bring Hamilton and the Assumption Bill down, is such an outlandish whitewash.
But there is a good bit of real history in the movie that you simply don't expect. Making the Assumption Bill into something dramatic (this bill would have the federal government assume the debts of the states, especially those owed to vets of the Revolution) is a masterstroke. Who would believe that you could make drama out of the deal to trade Hamilton's desire to create a national bank, with southerners' desire to have a capital on the Potomac.
It's an intellectual drama, with a focus on Hamilton as an honorable man, and a great treasury secretary. Probably the only treasury secretary to have a movie made about him. It's so stilted, but very dramatic, and somewhat true. For comic relief, they threw in a shufflin' and jivin' black servant, so it's also funny and somewhat offensive. But it moves along, and you won't get bored. A must for history buffs.
But there is a good bit of real history in the movie that you simply don't expect. Making the Assumption Bill into something dramatic (this bill would have the federal government assume the debts of the states, especially those owed to vets of the Revolution) is a masterstroke. Who would believe that you could make drama out of the deal to trade Hamilton's desire to create a national bank, with southerners' desire to have a capital on the Potomac.
It's an intellectual drama, with a focus on Hamilton as an honorable man, and a great treasury secretary. Probably the only treasury secretary to have a movie made about him. It's so stilted, but very dramatic, and somewhat true. For comic relief, they threw in a shufflin' and jivin' black servant, so it's also funny and somewhat offensive. But it moves along, and you won't get bored. A must for history buffs.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
