by Allan Fish
(USA 1924 155m) DVD1/2
Happiness must be earned
p Douglas Fairbanks d Raoul Walsh (and Douglas Fairbanks) w Douglas Fairbanks, Lotta Woods book “The 1001 Nights” ph Arthur Edeson ed William Nolan md Carl Davis m Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov art William Cameron Menzies, Anton Grot cos Mitchell Leisen spc Ned Mann restoration tinting Ron Sayer
Douglas Fairbanks (Ahmed the thief), Julianne Johnston (Princess of Bagdad), Snitz Edwards (thief friend), Anna May Wong (Monol slave), Brandon Hurst (Caliph of Bagdad), So-Jin (Prince of the Mongols), Noble Johnson (Indian Prince), Mathilde Comont (Persian Prince), Charles Belcher, Etta Lee,
Right, here’s the scenario. You are in a cell on Death Row with a DVD player or a VCR and you are being allowed one film to watch the night before you die, but only have a library of silent films to choose from. Well forgive me Messieurs Chaplin, Keaton, Gance, Eisenstein, Murnau, et al when I say that there is only one choice; Doug Fairbanks’ fantasy The Thief of Bagdad. Not only is it my favourite silent of them all, it’s one of the best. Without it (and Lang’s Die Nibelungen) fantasy in the cinema may not have come as far as it has today as this one set the rules. It also stands as a testament to that most joyous of silent stars, Douglas Fairbanks, who David Thomson perfectly described as a “transforming movie actor whose presence so embodied the spirit of naïve adventure.”
It differs quite a bit from the later Korda version of the tale; for starters, it basically combines the role of the thief with the heroic prince. The eponymous Ahmed is a thief who obtains a magic rope to help him into the palace for acts of larceny, only to fall in love with the princess. When the princess later challenges her several suitors (including a megalomaniacal Mongol) to bring back the rarest treasure to win her hand, Fairbanks enters into the fray, going through adventures in such wonderfully corny places as the Valley of Fire, the Valley of the Monsters, the Cavern of Enchanted Trees and the Abode of the Winged Horse on his way to the Old Man of the Midnight Sea.
This adaptation of the immortal anonymous tales has it all; flying carpets and horses, magic baskets, apples and ropes, cloaks of invisibility (more than seventy years before J.K.Rowling made them cool) and huge Oriental sets from master designer William Cameron Menzies. Public floggings are heralded by a gong to put Rank to shame, the gates of Bagdad open like huge sets of teeth and princesses swoon on cue. Influenced by both German expressionism and the Diaghilev ballet, Fairbanks’ film seems to float on air, the effects though dated somehow date better than those on the Korda version, with its invisibility cloak like a mini cyclone and an effective flying carpet (which Fairbanks’ brother, Robert, designed and suspended from a ninety foot platform). Made at the cost of two million dollars, it wasn’t quite the success Fairbanks hoped for. Audiences wanted him as swashbuckling heroes and he returned to that vein for the rest of his career. But it’s a great shame as this is certainly his masterpiece.
It’s a huge credit to director Walsh and Fairbanks that it hangs together so beautifully, and his performance, balletic and dressed only in gossamer pants, a moustache and earrings, is a pleasure to behold. “What I want I take. My reward is here. Paradise is a fool’s dream and Allah is a myth” Ahmed exclaims, and when the villainous So-Jin says virtually the same thing later on, we see their similarities. The difference is love and what that can do to the human soul. One has earned happiness written in the stars, the other hasn’t. As Ahmed relieves the city with troops summoned up from the earth in a way to influence Jackson’s The Return of the King at Minas Tirith, it’s the relief from slavery of not just Bagdad, but fantasy cinema. For once, the DVD version isn’t up to the video version released by Thames Silents in the eighties, with Carl Davis’ lovely reworking of Rimsky-Korsakov’s ‘Scheherezade’ suite setting the tone for the entire film. As Doug Fairbanks Jr says on its intro – “though it really should be seen on a big screen with a live orchestra, this version comes pretty close to conveying the magic of this lovely film.” Magic indeed.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Aha… EXACTLY AS I EXPECTED. On my list as well but not as high. The visuals and special effects for the era arev as sumptuous as they get. It inspired Max and Dave Fleisher to their POPEYE MEETS SINBAD, it is a literal blue-print (althiugh different on tone) to the KORDA remake, and has left its finger-prints on the Disney artists up to and including 1992’s ALADDIN. Too bad adventure and fantasy films today can’t be as joyous, fun and memorable as this (and with a lead as charismatic as Fairbanks-I agree Allan, its Dougie’s masterpiece). Its the pacing, that break-neck speed in which one adventure ends and the next begins that makes it most remarkable. Spielberg utilized the same timing with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and the effect worked all over again. This film reverberates more in today’s film-making scene than most know.
But Dennis, have you seen the Thames Silent version with Carl Davis’ Rimsky Korsakov score and intro from Doug Jnr? It raises a great film to the levels of immortal. Unless you have seen that version, you haven’t seen it at its best.
Do you have this version of the movie in your possession or at least know where to find it?
Hedy – email me at acf171072@sky.com with your address and like magic it will appear through your letterbox.
Check your email, I hope this is for real.
Question– if this is your favorite silent, why not put it at the top?
Because favourite doesn’t mean BEST, Bob.
Considering this is all based on subjective observation and personal opinion, I’d say there isn’t any meaningful difference.
And that’s why, in your eyes, Star Wars is a masterpiece. Favourite is most definitely not the same as best.
I’m with Allan on this one (though I think he gives more emphasis to “favorite” in the list-making than he may intend; I’d call his lists a combination of favoritism and “best-of” judgements). Even putting aside the subjective/objective argument I’ve gotten in so many times in the past few months, the words “favorite” and “best”, in common parlance, refer to different subjective experiences as well as the aforementioned objective/subjective divide. Obviously the fact that Allan makes the distinction means that somehow this difference is meaningful to him, though it would be interesting to explore how so, and what the implications of this distinction are.
The funny thing is, “Star Wars” isn’t actually my favorite film. Sure, I might say it’s my favorite film series, but that’s a horse of a different color. Any one of them would be high up on my personal canon, but they still run behind quite a few others. Off the top of my head, a list of my favorites would run as such, with the particular order depending upon my mood:
(1) Heaven’s Gate (2) THX 1138 (3) American Psycho (4) Alphaville (5) M (6) Heat (7) Apocalypse Now (Redux) (8) Slacker (9) Woman in the Dunes (10) A Clockwork Orange
At any rate, I’m just saying that if a particular film is your “favorite”, there’s no need to place it beneath anything else. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with “Thief of Bagdad” as the greatest silent film, but I wouldn’t argue it, either.
Interesting. I liked it a lot but it may not make my top ten. I must note that I saw the Kino DVD, the score for which is a pastiche based on existing cue sheets from the original general release, if I recall right. It may come closer to Fairbanks’s sonic intentions than the Thames version (which I’ve only heard hints of in clips from the Davis-scored Hollywood series), which raises an intriguing question about the importance of music (especially interventions after the fact by everyone from Chaplin to Giorgio Moroder) in any ranking of silent films. In this case, is the Thames version simply a recommendation for optimum viewing, or would Alan rank the Kino version of Baghdad lower in his survey?
I watched the Eureka DVD on R2 and have seen the Kino one, and both move about in a rather perfunctory way. Davis and Rimsy Korsakov bring it alive as Wagner would Die Nibelungen, if someone would only have the wit to release Lang’s film with Wagner.
Didn’t Hitler and Goebells do just that, at one point? I’ll stick with Gottfried Huppertz.
The decision to rank differently based on musical score especially one composed (unless I’m mistaken) much after the fact, is an interesting one. As for myself, I’ve seen the Kino version and quite enjoyed it – while it would not make my top 10, I liked it a lot and would perhaps like the Thames one even more. Either way, nice to see this here. I’d forgotten about it – this was the “surprise” pick I was awaiting; I think I know what else is in store but due to both placement questions and anticipation of your right-ups I eagerly await the rest of your countdown!
Perhaps this is why Fish neglects to rate it higher– it’s not just the film itself, but the film along with that very specific accompaniment that constitutes his “favorite” silent movie experience. Perhaps if the original score had been something like the Thames version, it might find itself at the top, after all.
I’ll also say that I understand the feeling, and have experienced it in my own way, occasionally. In the US there are two DVD versions of “Dr. Mabuse, The Gambler” out there, and while the Kino version is undoubtedly superior due to giving us the full, unabridged cut of the film, I must admit that I enjoy the earlier Image release, based purely on Robert Israel’s magnificent score. I recognize, though, that isn’t a fair estimation of the film itself. Perhaps one day we’ll find an original score for the film by Huppertz or someone like him, or perhaps one day Kino will get Israel to rescore a future release of their full-cut.
I have to agree with ALLAN here. BESt and FAVORITE can be a big difference. My favorite film last year was UP. However, the last third of the film is problematic for me in terms of narrative flow and over-the-top action sequences that were, at best, fun but hardly necessary. On the other hand, the film I deemed BEST of the year, THE HURT LOCKER, had, in my opinion, perfected editing, fine performances, tight direction, strong narrative structure etc, but is DID NOT move me as emotionally as the afformentioned animated film (BRIGHT STAR is in masterpiece territoryn beyond these othe two). I think FAVORITE is about what grabs you personally. BEST is when all cylinders are kicking. The rare film is the one that is both FAVORITE and BEST at the same time. If ALLAN picks the film I think he’s picking at number 1 then I know that I can relate to his argument and definition.
Personally, I only call a film a “favorite” if all cylinders are kicking, as you say. There’s another term for films that are enjoyed, personally, without impressing on any other level– guilty pleasures.
To me, the films that I call “great” or “best” are films I can admire, can look at with a sense of awe, impressed with the fine work that went into them, or the effect they achieve. But sometimes I’m a little distanced from that effect – I can sense it without being fully immersed in it. Favorites on the other hands, are measured by a simple barometer – pleasure. Depth and shade of the pleasure don’t really matter in this regard; the question is, what do I want to watch right now, not why do I want to watch this? I would fold Bob’s category of “guilty pleasures” under the general heading of “favorites” though of course not all, most, or even 99% of favorites are guilty pleasures (actually, I probably have less than a lot of other people do).
The films I’m ultimately most interested in cross the two categories: they move me, but I can also recognize qualities in the film itself that do this; admiration mixes with passion. But I’m not only interested in films which can fit into both worlds – I can learn a lot from a movie which reveals its charms slowly, and I can immensely enjoy a movie whose pleasures are dubious in origin – guilty so to speak. I make the distinction because, among many other reasons, mindlessness can be fun but it’s important to explore WHAT is moving or affecting oneself (or affecting others), how the various elements of the movie work together to create or attempt an experience. To do this some sort of standard of craftsmanship, some sort of recognition of other opinions, needs to be applied. And I find the less one resorts to mystification, the more one pursues the thread of the filmmaking and not just the film-viewing, the more a distinction between “best” and “favorite” tends to emerge.
That’s my take on it anyway.