I adore the films of George Arliss and recently discovered a couple of his films I'd never seen before on YouTube...and "Impressions of Disraeli" is one of them. It's also a short film...one that really doesn't hold up quite so well today.
The film begins with an introduction by Stanley Baldwin, a man who was, off and on (like Disraeli), Prime Minister of Britain. However, Baldwin's intro was very stuffy and stiff and Baldwin had the charisma of a tomato. Now I am NOT attacking him personally....he might have been a great politician and human being. But on film, he simply seems unimpressive...especially when he's followed by George Arliss playing a much more interesting sort of Prime Minister in Disraeli.
As for the short film, it consists of snippets of speeches by Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881). They were delivered nicely enough BUT they also suffer for two reasons. First, unless you are British, you'll likely not care much about Disraeli...at least in a positive way. As an American and former history teacher, I know Disraeli was an ardent colonialist...something which sure isn't politically correct any more! Second, back in 1931 this might have seemed very rousing...but nearly a century later, it all just seems stilted and unimportant.
Now understand...I am not knocking Arliss. I think he was possibly the finest actor of his age. I adored him in films such as "The Working Man", "The King's Vacation" and "Mister Hobo". But here, it just isn't very interesting stuff despite his lovely acting.
The film begins with an introduction by Stanley Baldwin, a man who was, off and on (like Disraeli), Prime Minister of Britain. However, Baldwin's intro was very stuffy and stiff and Baldwin had the charisma of a tomato. Now I am NOT attacking him personally....he might have been a great politician and human being. But on film, he simply seems unimpressive...especially when he's followed by George Arliss playing a much more interesting sort of Prime Minister in Disraeli.
As for the short film, it consists of snippets of speeches by Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881). They were delivered nicely enough BUT they also suffer for two reasons. First, unless you are British, you'll likely not care much about Disraeli...at least in a positive way. As an American and former history teacher, I know Disraeli was an ardent colonialist...something which sure isn't politically correct any more! Second, back in 1931 this might have seemed very rousing...but nearly a century later, it all just seems stilted and unimportant.
Now understand...I am not knocking Arliss. I think he was possibly the finest actor of his age. I adored him in films such as "The Working Man", "The King's Vacation" and "Mister Hobo". But here, it just isn't very interesting stuff despite his lovely acting.
