JohnHowardReid Olcott is obviously a director of the old chain-the-camera-to-the-floor-and-use-an-iris-mask-on-the-lens school. His fondness for the mask not only robs us of the first sword-fight, but often seems both distracting and out of place. As if these problems were not enough for the picture to shoulder, they have been compounded 300% by the extremely eccentric way the film has been re-edited from 10 reels to 7. For the first two-thirds of its present length, Monsieur Beaucaire is not a movie at all, but a parade - a seemingly endless parade of characters who are elaborately introduced via verbose inter-titles, take their self-important bows, and then disappear forever. When we finally reach the Bath episodes and the story actually develops a smidgin of a plot and all six or seven hundred of the people not directly involved have departed the stage, the action actually becomes quite exciting. Maclaren and Shannon make a fine pair of villains, Doris Kenyon is great as the beauty with a heart of ice, and Rudy himself proves to be no mean swordsman.Of course, by this time, most people have given up on the movie and are watching something else. Me, too! But being a thrifty Scot, I decided to take another look. I almost gave up again, but I was fascinated. I thought, when is this parade of overly verbose and utterly useless inter-titles ever going to stop? Answer: Bath, about 80 minutes in, leaving 34 minutes of exciting action. And would you believe, at this happy point the quality of the print improves enormously as well? It actually comes into nice sharp focus and you can actually see Rudy holding his own against a whole army of ruffians. Wonderful!

wmorrow59 From the looks of it you'd think that this film was based on a story by a European playwright of the 18th century, the place and time of its setting, but in fact 'Monsieur Beaucaire' started life as a popular American novel of 1900, written by the Indianapolis-born author Booth Tarkington. The plot was entirely a product of the author's imagination (though some of the characters were based on real-life counterparts), while the milieu of the French royals and their aristocratic courtiers was the product of authorial research. Costume pictures were in vogue in the Hollywood of the mid-1920s, and the ultra-lavish court of King Louis XV offered splendid opportunities for studio costume and scenic designers. Paramount obviously didn't stint on the budget of this sumptuous film version, but the movie was costly in another sense of the word: leading man Rudolph Valentino took a lot of flak, even ridicule, over this project, and it's said that it caused his reputation lasting damage. Why? Largely because the publicity photos and posters that display him dressed as the Duke of Chartres, the "Prince of the Blood" he portrays—complete with knee breeches, lace ruffles, satin jacket, and powdered wig—make him look like a fop, and those critics and columnists who disliked him in the first place took this opportunity to cast aspersions on his masculinity. It was an ugly and unfair charge, but the most effective refutation can be found in the star's performance in the movie itself: the finery worn by the French nobility of this period was ornate and theatrical, but Rudy wears his outfits with a natural, casual elegance, with dignity and a touch of humor. In short, he does NOT come off as a fop! (No one gave John Barrymore a hard time when he dolled himself up to play Beau Brummel the same year, but then, Barrymore's sexuality was never in doubt, while there was always a hint of mystery concerning Valentino's private life that drew hostility from some quarters.) The problem with this movie isn't Valentino's performance and it certainly isn't his wardrobe, it's the antiquated directorial technique on display; that is, technique that was already antiquated when the film was made.Director Sidney Olcott was a film pioneer whose directing career dated back to 1907. His best remembered work is From the Manger to the Cross, a film on the life of Christ which was produced in Palestine in 1912 near the original locations. That early feature survives and holds up remarkably well today, but it appears that by the mid-1920s Olcott's cinematic skill was falling behind that of more innovative directors. Unfortunately, Monsieur Beaucaire looks stodgy and old-fashioned compared to concurrent works by rising talents such as Ernst Lubitsch. (Lubitsch had already demonstrated by this time that costume pictures can be stylish, sexy and fun.) Olcott makes a rather half-hearted attempt to be 'modern' in his staging of the first sword-fight sequence, when he limits the camera's viewpoint to a bystander's facial reaction while showing only the tips of the fighter's swords in the foreground, but the effect is gimmicky and unsatisfying: we don't want tricky camera angles, we want to see what's happening! The second fight sequence is a considerable improvement, and also reveals that, fancy duds notwithstanding, Valentino could handle swordplay. During this second sequence Olcott breaks down the fourth wall for a moment as Rudy lunges directly at the camera. Otherwise, however, the directorial approach is uninspired.Perhaps the biggest problem here is clutter: there are too many title cards, the cards themselves are too wordy, and too many supporting characters are introduced who have little or nothing to do with the central plot. For all the unnecessary embellishments the story is a fairly straightforward one: Valentino is the Duke of Chartres, a member of the King's court and a royal favorite. He's interested in Princess Henriette (Bebe Daniels), but she's put off by his reputation and his closeness to the King's mistress. After defying a direct order from the King to marry Henriette, the Duke finds it expedient to flee the court for England. In Bath he assumes the identity of a humble barber. He becomes intrigued with Lady Mary, the Belle of Bath (Doris Kenyon), but she's put off by his lowly status. (It's always something!) Eventually, he returns to the French court and to Henriette, newly appreciative that she loves him for himself. That's the gist of it, but the screenwriters who adapted Tarkington's novel failed to streamline the story for the requirements of silent cinema, and Olcott lacked Lubitsch's facility for conveying plot points with witty visual ideas. The first section in the French court is especially draggy, but the tempo improves once Rudy reaches England and assumes his barber disguise. Eventually the story becomes more engaging, but over all the film falls short of the cinematic treat it could have been.Valentino carries the proceedings with his undeniable charisma, but the numerous supporting players have little to do except pose in their fancy costumes; even such estimable talents as Bebe Daniels and Lowell Sherman are reduced to brief moments, while other characters register only as dress extras. It's a particular shame that Bebe's character is so relentlessly serious, since she had such a gift for comedy, and more humor would have given this production a boost. Monsieur Beaucaire has never had a very high reputation among silent film buffs, in part perhaps because it compares poorly to the two costume dramas Rudy made in the last year of his life, The Eagle and The Son of the Shiek, both of which were crafted with so much more flair and playful humor. Interestingly, when Monsieur Beaucaire itself was remade in the 1940s it was reworked as an outright comedy, and Valentino's role was assigned to the most unlikely successor imaginable: Bob Hope!

zpzjones This survives in a crisp, sharp, a very beautiful print in the Library of Congress. The overriding problem with this film is it's director: SIDNEY OLCOTT. Olcott's direction is of the old DW Griffith school of film making. A method of directing by Olcott as can be evidenced in his Marion Davies picture of the previous year, LITTLE OLD NEW YORK. In both 'Beaucaire & 'New York Olcott frustratingly plants his camera for the habitual mid-shots & long-shots and occasional closeup as Griffith had done since before WW1 and was currently still doing. This is fine when doing historical or costume pictures like these to showcase the sets, costumes, hairstyles etc where big money had been spent. But to get us through the story the camera should be a little more fluid, move with the actors through the scenes, involve the audience in the subjective instead of constantly relying on a plethora of title cards. Moving camera literally had been around since motion pictures were invented. And comedies, many by ie Buster Keaton, made ample use of the moving camera. But dramas & specifically those by directors like Griffith & Olcott continued to be filmed with a static stationary camera. Both men had started their film careers about the same time c.1907 and were used to filming one way. That is to frame in complete scenes(long,mid,short)then join all the footage into a story linked by an over abundance of long running title cards. LONY & MB could've both been better if directed by younger up-n-coming more visionary directors like King Vidor or Alan Crosland. The adaptation of the moving roving camera would gain popularity beginning in 1925, after being influenced by European & specifically German films, but came a year too late to help Monsieur Beacaire.On the brighter side, cinematographer Harry Fischbeck does a nice job of imbuing the sets with the right amount of light & shadow. Not knowing if the scenes were originally tinted & toned, the b/w LOC print was superb with constant projection speed indicating the film was probably photographed at 24 fps. It's fortunate that a marvelous print survives to showcase Fischbeck's efforts. Valentino, powder puff or not, is amusing & subdued in a costume picture that really isn't way over his head. He displays a nice bit of tongue & cheek wonderfully pantomimed by the actor. A really good scene, and one repeated on television, has Valentino leaping over a balcony with sword at his side into the darkness. One can see why documentists would use that scene because it is well done. Other scenes are photographed so crisp and in closeup that lip readers can have a field day 'hearing' what the actors are saying. Indeed Olcott improved in close-ups more here than he had in LONY but Beaucaire is still pedestrian and wont come alive. Legend has it that Natacha Rambova, Valentino's wife, interferred with direction on this film and caused trouble all during the shooting but Olcott's vane directing style is in evidence throughout. Booth Tarkington's novel is a historical-costume-comedy-drama that delves away from the usual slice of Americana he usually put out such as THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. Valentino fans will have no problem seeing their hero in royal powdered attire. His pleasant appeal still comes through despite Olcott. Valentino will give a similar devil may care performance a year later in THE EAGLE directed by Clarence Brown. Brown, like Vidor & Crosland, was one of a new crop of directors who were soon to adapt the moving camera and almost make it an unassuming character within the story it was filming. Lastly Monsieur Beaucaire has all the right productions(A-List), excellent photography, and probably a decent musical score when it debuted but Sidney Olcott's static is ingrained in the picture. With another newer younger director this picture could've moved and consequently could've ended up being better remembered if not a late silent classic.

Rtslois This period story is realistic in its courtly manners, affectations, and bizarre make up. Like it or not, that's the way it was. All the men look like fops, but hopefully we do not believe all men in those days were ladylike!! Let us give Rudolph Valentino the praise he deserves in making a difficult role believable. He did an admirable job, and it had to have been uncomfortable and a worry-some role to play given the constant attacks on his masculinity. It took guts. He seemed to be playing some scenes "tougue in cheek" and he smiled throughout. The settings are wonderful, but the story seems bogged down.Certainly the director could have led the story/play by Booth Tarkington through better contrived scenes where the actors portrayed more interesting situations. Often, they stood in position as if asking "What comes next" They may have well just butted their heads together. It was out of whack in a way hard to describe.Might another director pulled it off? Maybe. Nazamova knew how to weave a story before your eyes. (I am thinking of Camille) I feel the male actors held up their end of the action. The women were insipid. Valentino was very good. Three cheers, he brought it off. I liked the movie despite my criticism.