User Reviews (31)

Add a Review

  • "The less a politician does the fewer mistakes he makes." The actual line is "prime minister" in place of "politician" but the same amused skepticism holds true. The speaker is British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, played by George Arliss. Disraeli was a clever and ambitious politician, heartily disliked by a great section of the English ruling class because his background was Jewish, "not one of us, you know," cleverer than anyone, and with a vision of British imperial destiny that encouraged many and made many more nervous. George Arliss was as much a film phenomenon as Dizzy was a political marvel. Arliss gained a great stage reputation in England, came to America and repeated the trick on Broadway, made a handful of silent films to acclaim and, with his first talking movie, this one, won an Academy Award for best actor. He was a slight man without an ounce of fat on his bones. He looked his age. He had a narrow skull, prominent cheekbones, thin lips and a regal nose. With a commanding acting style and diction as precise as an accountant's penmanship, Arliss is definitely old school by today's standards. I'll tell you something. When he's on screen you don't notice anyone else. When he's off screen, you realize you're waiting for him to reappear. From Disraeli in 1929 to his last movie, Dr. Syn, in 1937 when he was 69, he became the most successful older actor Hollywood has ever seen, before or since. He made 19 movies in those eight years, many of them historical dramas. He played everything from the Duke of Wellington to Cardinal Richelieu to Voltaire to Alexander Hamilton. His wife had played opposite him in a number of his stage and film vehicles. Her sight had been failing and when at last she became blind in 1937, he immediately left acting. They returned to London and spent the rest of their days in honored retirement. He died in 1946; she followed him four years later.

    Why all this about a long gone and long forgotten actor? Partly it's because what makes his movies so watchable (I've seen three) is him. He knew exactly what he was doing and he is memorable at it. Mainly it's because he had a remarkable life as an actor and should be remembered by at least a few. As Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to miss out on a lot of good stuff," or something like that.

    Disraeli was a proved success for Arliss. He played the drama many times on stage and again in a silent version. It's the story of Disraeli's determination to secure ownership of the Suez Canal for Britain. Among other advantages, the canal will provide a short and secure route to India and beyond. The Bank of England opposes him. Imperial Russia is out to thwart him using spies and skullduggery. And he has a window of opportunity of only three weeks to seal the deal. Disraeli uses every trick and every bluff he can think of to impose his will. And he still has time to encourage the love match between two young people he is quite fond of. We have the lovely, 19-year-old Lady Clarissa Pevensey (played by the lovely, 19-year-old Joan Bennett) and the well-intentioned but stuffy 25-year-old Lord Charles Deeford (Anthony Bushell). All turns out well, and Queen Victoria is pleased.

    The movie is dated, declarative and stagy. Still, Arliss gives his man so much charm and wit, so much cleverness and power that the movie becomes something more than an artifact. So, if nothing else, consider watching it to observe a great actor. Or at least to see a teen-aged Joan Bennett.
  • bkoganbing18 October 2007
    One of George Arliss's best known stage roles was portraying the title role in the Louis N. Parker play Disraeli. This is not a biographical film per se, it fictionalizes Disraeli's acquiring the Suez Canal. It was quite the diplomatic coup d'etat in its day, but this version brings in a lovely lady spy in Doris Lloyd in the service Czarist Russia.

    Throughout the 19th century it was a paradigm of British foreign policy that the Russians were constantly looking to undermine British interests in India. The same theme was found in Rudyard Kipling's Kim.

    In this film Disraeli has an opportunity to acquire the canal from the Egyptians and the French company that built it which has financially gone belly up. Hidebound banker David Torrance of the Bank of England won't give him the money, he considers Disraeli a disreputable foreigner because of his Jewish ancestry. He goes to a private banker Harry Meyers (Rothschild)played by Ivan Simpson for the money.

    A lot of games, financial and political, get played out before foxy old Benjamin Disraeli gains the canal for the United Kingdom. Dizzy proves quite up to the challenge at the same time worried about the health of his beloved wife Maryanne, played her by George Arliss's wife Florence.

    There's also a small romantic subplot involving Disraeli's aide Anthony Bushell and young Joan Bennett. The couple are an attractive pair.

    This was the second version of this story, Arliss had made a silent version in the early Twenties that was well received.

    George Arliss won the third Academy Award for Best Actor given out with this performance. Though by today's standards some might consider it hammy, Arliss was of the Victorian classical school of acting and I for one appreciate the care he took in presenting one of his most acclaimed roles of the day.

    Disraeli is dated and it's hardly history, but it is a fascinating performance nonetheless.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm reading a biography of Disraeli, so I thought I'd dig out the film to watch again. While the screen play uses the basics of the Suez Canal episode as a starting point, like so many film biographies, it plays fast and loose with the truth.

    Disraeli's wife had died several years before. There was no intrigue with Russia. The race to buy the company shares was to beat out two French consortiums. As it turned out, the French couldn't raise the money, so the race was unnecessary. The purchase of the Khedive's shares gave the English only 44% of the shares, but did prevent a French monopoly. By international agreement, ships of all nations could use the canal, despite who owned the shares, but the purchase did insure that the French couldn't meddle unchecked. And Queen Victoria wasn't named Empress of India until two years later.

    That said, George Arliss is marvelous in an old fashioned play, that is made more old fashioned by the limitations of early sound. It positively creaks. Joan Benet is ravishing in a second lead part. Too bad they didn't give her more closeups, but that is remedied by watching Moby Dick (1930). I like Disraeli more as a cultural artifact than as a film. In another ten years , I may watch it again.
  • Don't be put off by the age of this film....it is magnificent. And the reason is George Arliss! This is his show and his alone. Granted, the film is talky and basically uses 2 sets BUT listen to the dialogue and watch Mr. Arliss spin his magic as he immerses himself in the Benjamin Disraeli character. Bringing his stage interpretation to the screen, it translates surprisingly well......that is not always the case in screen adaptations. What a fantastic face he had....certainly not pretty but very expressive. He won a well deserved Oscar for this role. He had a string of movies in late silent and early talking films and now, unfortunately, he seems to be forgotten except by us film buffs who treasure him. So if you wish to be entranced by the acting skills of a master, see this film. You won't regret it!
  • "Mr. George Arliss" was perhaps the most distinguished thespian of his generation; when he won the Best Actor Oscar for his Talkie portrayal of England's Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (whom he had already incarnated in a 1921 Silent), he was the first British performer to be such honoured and, at 61, the oldest to receive this accolade! Arliss was another legend whom I had only ever read about in movie reference books; since the introduction of the internet, I have managed to acquire 10 of his films – but only got to one of them now as part of my Academy Awards marathon! For the record, the other movies I own featuring him are the following: THE GREEN GODDESS (1930; he competed against himself at the Oscars in this remake of a 1923 picture!), Alexander HAMILTON (1931), THE MAN WHO PLAYED GOD (1932), VOLTAIRE (1933), THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD (his rosette in the "Halliwell Film-goer's Companion"), THE IRON DUKE (both 1934), CARDINAL RICHELIEU, THE TUNNEL (both 1935) and his swan-song, DOCTOR SYN (1937). Incidentally, in the past I had already watched John Gielgud in Thorold Dickinson's later Disraeli biopic THE PRIME MINISTER (1941) and Alec Guinness portrayed him in THE MUDLARK (1950)…

    Anyway, I must admit that I expected this to be a chore to sit through – but was pleasantly surprised with the end result (which was also nominated for Best Picture, yet inevitably lost out to Lewis Milestone's ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT {1930}). Though undeniably stilted in presentation and necessarily talky in approach, it nevertheless proved an interesting history lesson (detailing the tortuous purchase by the British Empire – against stiff Russian competition – of the Suez Canal) as well as, obviously, a valuable record of a famous characterization (Arliss coming across as alternately wily, fiery, devoted and sentimental).

    The aged British PM is seen as unpopular: the film opens with a Hyde Park diatribe against him, followed by one in the Houses Of Parliament by political rival William Gladstone (himself a Downing Street occupant during numerous legislatures) – nor is he trusted by the country's economic leaders! However, Disraeli is himself a ruthless official, not above endangering his own position (knowingly employing Russian agents among his underlings only to feed them fake information!) and blackmailing the Governor of the Bank Of England (the latter considers the Egyptian deal "a harebrained scheme" and refuses to back it!). When the spies are finally routed and the transaction completed, he is received with full honours by the reclusive Queen Victoria (herself now dubbed "Empress Of India") – accompanied by his ailing wife (played by the star's real-life spouse Florence Arliss), financial allies (who are bestowed with a peerage!) and the film's obligatory romantic interest (supplied by Anthony Bushell and Joan Bennett).
  • "Disraeli," like many early sound films, is enjoyable more as an artifact of movie history than it is as an actual movie. It's antiquated and suffers from that stilted pacing and strange framing that defines early talkies, where actors will move to the side of the frame but the camera doesn't move with them, so what we're left with is a static shot of an empty room. But creakiness aside, it's not hard to see how George Arliss won the Best Actor Academy Award for this film. His acting is certainly old fashioned, but compared to other actors at the time, he gives what amounts to a master class. And he manages to imbue this movie about the political intrigues of Britain's historical prime minister with a sense of cheeky good humor. The film kicked off the trend that is still alive and well today of Oscars favoring actors who recreate famous historical figures.

    I also really had fun with Florence Arliss, George Arliss's actual wife, who plays Disraeli's wife in the movie. She and Arliss are cute together, and she giggles at everything he says. A side story having to do with his concern over his wife's health is rather sweet and provides a memorable ending.

    In order to enjoy "Disraeli," though, you'll have to be willing to overlook its abhorrent political stance, which essentially asks us to think of this historical character as a hero because he paved the way for British colonization of India. It's a film that celebrates imperialism, and I think history has shown us all how well that's worked out for everyone.

    "Disraeli" was also nominated for Best Picture and Writing in the 1929/30 award year. It lost the big prize to "All Quiet on the Western Front," a total no-brainer.

    Grade: B
  • Prime Minister Disraeli (George Arliss) schemes to advance Britain's (and his own) colonial aspirations by purchasing the Suez Canal from the Khedive of Egypt before Russia can snap it up. Based on a play of the same name, the film was lauded when released, earning a nomination for a Best Picture Academy Award and a win for Arliss as best actor. Although there is some historical content, the central 'plot' involving romance and Russian agents is fictional (and a bit silly), as is the 'twist' in which Myers (Ivan F. Simpson), Disraeli's financial backer, announces that he is bankrupt (the actual moneyman was Lionel de Rothschild, who was definitely not bankrupt). The film's look, pacing and acting are very dated and, although Arliss turns in an interesting performance, his makeup and 'hairdo' make the famous politician look a bit ridiculous. I recently watched the film on TCM - image quality was OK but the sound was poor. Of interest as a part of Hollywood (but not British) history.
  • Actually really like biographical films, although they do play fast and loose with the truth many are extremely well made, written and acted ('Amadeus' for example is one of my all time favourites). Benjamin Disraeli was a very fascinating if controversial historical figure. George Arliss was a fine actor, one of my favourite performances of his being 'The Man Who Played God'. Have always loved classic film and there are some great films from the 20s, with some good early talkies ('Applause).

    'Disraeli' is definitely an interesting film, for the subject matter, to see whether Arliss' Oscar win and the screenplay and Best Picture nominations were deserved, to see what early talkies were like and to see a film portrayal of Disraeli. So historical interest. While it is easy to see why there are some that got a lot of value out of 'Disraeli', it does pain me to say that it didn't quite gel with me and can see why others don't care for it. As it is an easy film to criticise, even when judging it for the time where film-making was very different but a lot more interesting back then than what is seen here. A case of a lead performance that deserved a much better film.

    The best thing about 'Disraeli' is Arliss, who is truly marvellous and that is an understatement. He is so charismatic with a magnetic presence that has a mix of understated and larger than life, succeeding in making Disraeli a complex and interesting person. Florence Arliss, his real life wife, is dignified and charming and their chemistry is lovely to watch. A beautiful looking Joan Bennett in an early role is also charming.

    Some nice political intrigue is present, the script is at its best with Arliss' wryness the costumes are handsome and Arliss is made up very believably.

    Having said that, the rest of the acting for my tastes was too wooden and histrionic. Particularly Anthony Bushell in the former category, who has a romantic subplot that is very flimsily written and dull. Visually, 'Disraeli' is too static and not a very good job at all is done opening up the action in a very claustrophobically shot film that gives the film a filmed stage play look, even by early talkie standards.

    Will agree with those that find 'Disraeli' too talk heavy and that too much of it is not very engrossing, the flow is also pretty stilted. The pace can veer on dull, the political angle could have done with more tension. Of the Oscar nominations, only Arliss' (who won) for Best Actor was deserved. The other two were puzzling and not in the same league as the films that won in the categories.

    Overall, watchable and interesting, and Arliss is so good, but didn't quite gel for me. 5/10
  • London, 1874. The old man sits in the great office, endlessly plotting & planning, benevolently scheming for the good of Queen & Empire. Although not too busy to further the romance of two young persons he loves, he puts all his talents & force of will into keeping Russia from dominating Asia & British India. This can only be achieved by thwarting a wily female spy & secretly purchasing control over the Suez Canal from the corrupt Egyptian khedive. Will he fail & suffer political disaster, or triumph & forever make famous the name of Prime Minister Benjamin DISRAELI?

    Reveling in his most famous film role, George Arliss gives an Oscar-winning acting lesson. Endlessly fascinating to watch, his every twitch of eyebrow or turn of hand is capable of great humor or emotion. He becomes Disraeli, inhabits the fellow, and presents him before our eyes. It's a shame that Mr. Arliss has become obscure & almost forgotten to modern movie fans. It is their loss.

    Although George Arliss is the main reason to watch any George Arliss film, he is given good support here from Florence Arliss, his real-life wife, playing Disraeli's wife Mary. Also appearing are Doris Lloyd as Mrs. Travers, the convivial spy; Joan Bennett & Anthony Bushell as the two young lovers; and Ivan F. Simpson as a Jewish financier.

    If the production appears rather stiff & stagy, it must be remembered that this is a very early talkie, and that directors & performers were still adapting to the demands & restrictions imposed upon them by that new tyrant, the microphone. Just keep your attention on Arliss - his acting skills transcend the limitations.

    It must be mentioned that the film distorts historical reality in two very significant areas. Opening in 1874, it portrays Disraeli as a very happily married man with a loving, elderly wife. The marriage had indeed been an outstanding one, but Mary had died of cancer in 1872. Also, financier Hugh Myers, who bankrolls the Suez scheme, is fictional. It was the Rothschild family who came to Disraeli's aid.
  • We first see Mr. George Arliss as Disraeli looking like a Punch cartoon of the Great Man. His spit curl is no more convincing than Groucho's mustache. Yet, as he wanders through the movie, spouting famous aphorisms, charming the ladies, browbeating and educating the men, and snatching the Suez Canal from under the nose of the French, he grows and shrinks, assuming the proportions of a man. He is witty, smart, fearful for the future, patriotic, visionary, daring, and kind. He helps a shy Anthony Bushell court a dazzling, delicate Joan Bennett. His warmth is on display for his friends, particularly Ivan F. Simpson, who helps him put the purchase of the Canal through and bankrupts himself in the process. With his foes, Doris Lloyd and David Torrence, he is sly and fierce is combat, and generous in victory. With his wife, played by Arliss' wife Florence, he is romantic and ultimately loving.

    It seems an odd sort of movie to win Arliss his Best Actor Oscar, but then the silent version of such a talky-talk stage play must have seemed even odder. Alfred Green directs it as a series of scenes, very much like something on the boards, if the number of sets were no issue. Yet this was 1929, the year when talkies had clearly triumphed, and Arliss' stage presence, his practiced and fluid performance, his ability to say the words clearly, and his self-deprecatory charm on screen must have dazzled the Academy when contrasted with the other nominees, all veterans of the flickers.

    In the end, the movie is a an odd one by cinematic standards, clearly made in a year when Hollywood was learning how to speak. It survives because of Mr. George Arliss' performance, full of all the good things that might make a great man worth following.
  • In it's history, this is a good film, encapsulating Disraeli's nature and his steadfastness in pursuing the purchase of the Suez Canal. It was quite well acted by all. Nonetheless, I found it quite dull at times, focusing too much on relationships that didn't capture my imagination at all. A greater focus on the rivalry between Gladstone and Disraeli would have made this film more interesting.
  • wes-connors16 August 2007
    George Arliss is bewitching as "Disraeli". Mr. Arliss' character secures control of the Suez Canal for Great Britain, outmaneuvering Russian spy Doris Lloyd. He also plays "matchmaker" for Joan Bennett and Anthony Bushell. Arliss' performance is captivating, despite the datedness of this early "talking" movie.

    Nobody can equal Arliss, but I did like Ms. Lloyd as his sparring partner. Ms. Bennett was good, also - a cut above her average "stand around and look beautiful" films from this period. The players were elevated, possibly, in Arliss' presence. There are some noticeable ways they could have made a better film, by waiting even a year or two. I would like to see the film restored; moreover, I would accept some tinkering/editing for a new version (while preserving the original, of course).

    If you like classic "one-man-show" acting performances, it's hard to beat Arliss in this movie. He performs like a spider spinning its web - capturing everything in sight, including the audience. Be careful!

    ********* Disraeli (10/2/29) Alfred E. Green ~ George Arliss, Joan Bennett, Anthony Bushell, Doris Lloyd
  • In this filmed stage play, Arliss enacts the celebrated British statesman as he outsmarts a glamorous spy (Doris Lloyd) working for Russia who is trying to disrupt Disraeli's attempts to arrange for Britain to purchase the Suez Canal. One must commit to listening very carefully to the dialogue and squinting earnestly at the images to work up any involvement in this time- tarnished strip of celluloid, so weak is the soundtrack and so murky are the visuals. If these efforts are made, some entertainment can be derived.

    Arliss commands attention with his hawklike features, extreme coiffure (a sort of pageboy style with a big curl plastered down the middle of his forehead) and theatrically trained diction. He performs this role which he had played on stage and in the silent era with energy and relish. His real-life wife, Florence, plays his wife here and seems to spend half of her screen time chuckling at her husband's utterances. Joan Bennett in the full bloom of late teenage loveliness does "British lady" very well as a noblewoman whom Disraeli takes under wing, as does the strapping Anthony Bushell as her love interest who also works as Disraeli's secretary and agent.
  • Disraeli (1929)

    ** (out of 4)

    Creaky, early talkie won George Arliss the Best Actor Oscar but outside of his performance there's very little to recommend here. In the film he plays British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli who not only tries playing match maker (to Anthony Bushell and Joan Bennett) but also trying to cool the political climate in the country. Disraeli's main challenge comes when he tries to buy the Suez Canal as he's not prepared for the battle that will come. This film comes as a major disappointment to me especially after reading so many positive reviews. It seems the majority of people who viewed this film did enjoy it but I'm certainly not one of them. I did love the performance of Arliss who is the main reason to watch this. Apparently Arliss played this role several times on stage and even did a 1921 movie version, which is sadly now lost except for one reel. He certainly knows this role and feels very comfortable playing it and this comes across on the screen as he appears to just float from one scene to the next. Arliss is clearly very comfortable here and that easy-going nature really comes across well and he manages to make the character very well-rounded. Both Bushell and Bennett are charming in their roles and they look great together but I must admit that I found their relationship to be rather lacking and not at all interesting. Even worse, for me, was all the political stuff because of all talky everything was. I was growing real tired of the constant dialogue as it wasn't written very well and the only all blandness of the non-stop words. Even worse is that the film has a very stagy look that just brings the film to a complete stop.
  • "Disraeli" only remains noteworthy for being an early-talkie biopic that nabbed George Arliss a Best Actor Oscar and two other nominations for Best Picture and Screenplay--the first film to mark the trend of Academy voters' inexplicable Anglophilia and love affair with drab biographical pictures. To be fair, it must be a challenge to make an exciting movie out of the UK Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli buying the Suez Canal. Pretending colonialism is invigorating, however, as Disraeli employs foreign policy to play matchmaker for a young courtly couple, is not a successful way to go about it. The Russian spy business here is inane, too. The surviving reissue print of the film looks flat and dull. Amazingly, this was a very popular film in its day and was also a remake of a 1921 silent version with Arliss and the Broadway versions also starring him.

    The acting is horrendous, with them being forced by the primitive synchronized-sound technology to shout their lousy lines. Sure, Arliss is better than the others, but he, too, resorts to some throwing of clenched fists in the air to theatrically project emotions, and his character is a pompous fuddy-duddy who is rightfully criticized by his contemporaries for his imperialist designs (although, obviously not for the anti-Semitic attacks). I actually prefer Arliss in his other performance nominated for Best Actor in the same season, for "The Green Goddess" (1930). That film, too, is Anglophilic and colonialist rubbish, but Arliss plays on the other side, as a monarch of a fictional Eastern kingdom, and his wry humor serves to almost seemingly mock the movie itself, which, as with "Disraeli," is deserving of it.
  • I must second the comments about Mr. Arliss. He is magnificent. I eat up everything of his I can find. I highly recommend The Iron Duke, about the Duke of Wellington. It's really fun to compare it with Disraeli. Actually, George Arliss plays George Arliss in both, but then Barrymore and Bette Davis (whom, by the way, Arliss discovered) were always playing themselves, too. The point is, that we love watching them play themselves. Arliss shops for roles that fit him. He doesn't try to shoehorn himself into a role.

    I think I get as much of a kick out of Arliss's banter, his small talk, as his great declamations. He really is great with one-liners, which come off in a completely natural way, creating the illusion that we really are a fly on the wall, witnessing great historical figures on an intimate level. For example, the way he formally introduces to others his office assistant, whom he knows to be a spy: "This is Mr. Foljambe — such a hard worker."

    Another wonderful thing about Disraeli is something others have also touched on here. This was one of the first talkies, and acting was still informed by the flamboyant physical gestures that were the language of silent cinema and necessities of the stage, where actors had to project themselves without benefit of a big screen's projecting them with closeups. We can see this especially in the male ingénue part played by Anthony Bushell, whose arm across the chest was meant to convey ardor but which now comes across as corny. But I enjoy seeing this as an artifact, like listening to music of the period.

    In the case of Mr. Arliss, the staginess is indeed transcended. In Mr. Arliss we are lucky in having preserved one of the great stage actors of the era, a window into the a world when the theatre was THE great medium and when stage actors were THE great actors. So Disraeli is not only a great entertainment but a great document, of both its subject and of its own era.
  • Entertaining and well made for the time if we consider that this was actually one of the first "talkie" movies with so much dialogue in it. But the film is also one of the dirtiest imperialist propaganda that honestly thinks that white men are born to rule the world and the white men who think otherwise are inferior to them. The way they added humour and some character elements do make it a competent film in a way that most blatant right-wing movies of our time could learn from.
  • I was surprised to see this film at my local chain video shop. I couldn't believe that anyone would ever have made a film about such a character, who barely moves from his office. Fortunately, he's got a nice yard to roam around in. Not an action hero.

    What you've got here is a play with snappy dialog brought to film with great stage actors. And that's not bad at all. The camera movement and sound are primitive (this is a 1929 film, after all) but you never lose interest. The filmmakers have wisely chosen to focus on one particularly pivotal incident in the history of the world: a transfer in ownership of the right to construct and maintain the Suez Canal. They focus on the key character in the drama: Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. In the course of a few weeks when this drama takes place, we get to see what was appealing about this man, how he handled the prejudices against a Jew leading a country of Anglicans, and how his personal life was intertwined with his carrying out his mission.

    I have no idea how much of this is true. I assume that the bare facts of the Suez Canal affair are accurate. And this film brings to life the intrigue and romance of the life of a man at the central of English political life at a time when British power reached its zenith.

    A fine movie.
  • gmzewski16 August 2007
    I just watched DISRAELI on TCM last night, as I was once interested in the work of George Arliss, but no more. I DO enjoy films with historical significance, and political intrigue. However, the closest comparison I can make to this one, is once having tried to read the Biography of Dean Atcheson "Present At The Creation". This may have been Arliss' finest piece, but it was painful to sit through, the story of a man who rarely ever leaves his office, and the endless politico-babble/machinations about the Suez Canal. If you enjoy reading transcripts of the Congressional Record, then by all means, watch this film. Otherwise, the wooden acting, and the inactivity of 90 minutes of watching a man talk, simply put me to sleep. Had it been presented as a more accurate political documentary, I may have found it a bit more interesting. This was not the case. Forget it! (or use it a a sleep aid!) BORING!!!
  • What inspired writing AND acting!!!! This Blum guy was super, despite the naughty little curl in the middle of his forehead. How close to reality the description of the woman traitor is to real life in the purchasing of the Suez Canal, I don't know, but it makes for an intriguing movie......replete with signaling taps on the table.

    AS we await tomorrow's presidential election with little hope for any improvement in representation of we the people, I can only get a little comfort from the knowledge that ethics have never bothered politicians in the past. But what DOES bother me is there has been a natural selection of the most brilliant folks leading the leading nations. With someone whose IQ is less than his shoe size, we have no hope..........unless, like the queen, he turns over the government to the Cheneys, and the Republican establishment. Amoral though they are, they aren't dumb. Just so was Disraeli.

    Whoever wrote the screen play was inspired and the editors didn't try to dumb him down, as opposed to today's movie producers/establishment. It's so very sad to see smart writing relegated to when we the people were considered to have half a brain. The picture of the devotion Disraeli had to his wife is also inspiring.

    The wooden performances and highly stylized acting were true of the time, and is a hoot in and of itself. See this one!!!!
  • Why on Earth did George Arliss receive an Academy Award for Disraeli? It would have been a bad performance (and a bad movie, frankly) if it had been produced by community theater. There were seven other nominees, and yet he took home the coveted statuette. I'm very anxious to see the other films, so I can place an informed vote for another man.

    A biopic on Benjamin Disraeli, the film shows his diplomacy and negotiation tactics as he represents England despite anti-Semitism amongst his critics. He also plays matchmaker to a young couple, Anthony Bushell and Joan Bennett, and is completely devoted to his wife (played by his real-life wife, Florence Arliss). Everything about the movie is melodramatic, as if George is trying to reach the back row. The screenplay is far too "play-ish", which is understandable because it was based on a twice-produced Broadway show; but, it should have been made more accessible. And Joan, though cute as a button in 1930s romantic comedies, was completely out of place in an English drama. Her distinct Jean-Harlow-esque dialect was unchanged! I don't really recommend this movie unless you're doing an Oscar-movie-pub-crawl and want to watch all the winners for sake of comparison.
  • This is one of the few very early talkies that is neither a musical nor an overly dull stage production. It is a fascinating look into a very brief episode in the professional life of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli - specifically his effort in obtaining the Suez Canal for Great Britain. Arliss gives a well-deserved Academy Award winning performance as the prime minister, and he is so adept at dialogue and with conveying his mood with glances and small gestures and the pace of the film is so brisk that you hardly notice the 1929 movie camera that cannot budge an inch. In this short 90 minute film Disraeli plays matchmaker, mentor, breaker of a spy ring, and master dealmaker with a sophistication of dialogue and acting that is rarely seen in films for another ten years. Particularly moving is the portrayal of Disraeli's relationship with his wife, played by Arliss' actual wife to whom he was wed in 1899 until his death. The mutual respect and tenderness the couple show for one another is quite touching.

    The audio and video of the VHS version of this film is really in bad shape. There is very bad background hissing in the audio which can make the dialogue - so important to the development of the plot - sometimes difficult to understand. The video doesn't have much scratchiness to it, but there are periods of time when blurry areas will appear on the screen that can be quite distracting, and the contrast is quite poor. However, this film is quite enjoyable 80 years after it was made. Seeing that it is much more than a rickety curio, it would be nice to see Warner Home Video clean up the film technically as much as is possible and put it on DVD.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Story of how British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, outwitted the Russians and was able to purchase the Suez Canal.

    Arliss won the Oscar for best actor. He was the first Jewish person to win the Academy Award. (I know the Oscars had been business for a mere 2 years.)

    Arliss showed comedic gifts in his Oscar-winning performance. His stalwart behavior in defense of England will always be an endearing quality. He was ably supported by his wife, Florence, and especially by Russian spy, Doris Lloyd. Joan Bennett did fine in her part of the girlfriend of an aide to Disraeli.

    Unfortunately, Vitograph's sound has not withstood the passing years. The film needs to be preserved with sound improvement.

    There are overtones of anti-Semitism in the film. It is never explained how Disraeli was able to outmaneuver Gladstone for the Prime Minister's position.

    The ending is really a miracle at its nicest.
  • dkncd21 August 2007
    "Disraeli" is a fictional story about Benjamin Disraeli's efforts to have the Suez Canal (called "a ditch covered in sand" by a skeptic) purchased for Britain. The story has a number of interesting turns as Disraeli's aspirations are antagonized by people around him, including Russian spies. There are great moments of tension when it seems Disraeli's aspirations have become impossible or other times such as when he receives a telegram near the end of the film regarding his wife's health. Whether or not you agree with Disraeli's imperialist aspirations, you will find yourself engrossed in Disraeli's struggle and hoping for his success.

    The film features a solid cast, but the focal point of the film is George Arliss' portrayal of Disraeli. Arliss gives an excellent performance in all aspects: the speech, mannerisms and even the look of Disraeli. Today Disraeli is well known for is witty repartee, and this film includes that with a number of humorous lines from Disraeli. It also shows Disraeli as a forceful man of conviction that relentlessly pursues his design to purchase the Suez Canal despite skepticism and even prejudice against him for being Jewish. "Disraeli" is worth seeing for George Arliss' strong performance as Benjamin Disraeli and its engaging story.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Disraeli" is an odd sort of film that was quite popular during the 1920s-1940s. Hollywood had an inexplicable love affair with British Colonialism and film after film portray the British as the true masters of the world! Nowadays, folks are much more likely to look at the films and wonder why the heroes are the folks enslaving much of the globe...all cloaked in the guise of benevolence. One of the earliest of these films is "Disraeli" (1921 and 1929) but there also are many other examples, such as "Gunga Din", "Wee Willie Winkle" and "Lives of a Bengal Lancer"...all very popular films promoting the notion of British uniqueness and supremacy.

    This story is about a portion of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli's career--around the time that the British essentially bought the Suez Canal out from under the French. In his career, Disraeli was the epitome of the British White Supremacist--always advancing the notion that Britain had a destiny to rule much of the world. In sharp contrast, William Gladstone also served as Prime Minister (both alternating in this role many times) and Gladstone thought the colonial policy was a most unbecoming and unchristian notion...yet, sadly, this great politician did NOT get an expensive biopic! Niceness isn't all that interesting, apparently!

    This 1929 version is the second starring George Arliss. He made a silent version earlier in the decade and because this film is an early sound picture it has many of the usual features--it's much more set bound and actors tend to stand close together at times because microphones were not especially good. So, while Warner Brothers was the best company in the world in 1929 when it came to sound pictures, it still had a few shortcomings which a viewer might notice in this film.

    So is it any good? By 1929 standards, it's exceptional and you can see why Arliss took the Best Actor award. However, just a few years later, Arliss' acting became even more natural (with less speechifying) in front of the camera and he was glorious in films like "The Working Man", "The King's Vacation" and "Mister Hobo". And, compared to most 1929 films, it holds up reasonably well today...though it clearly is a bit stagy. My biggest complaints are not about the acting or sound but simply the notion of making a film to celebrate British global rule...something which seemed so natural and acceptable back in the day but which seems very anachronistic given today's sensibilities.
An error has occured. Please try again.